| Author | Post |
|---|
FrankyB
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
Spongebob wrote: I think I'd go right through the whole damn book and rewrite it. Drag it screaming and kicking into the modern day. As they so often tell you (usually when something crops up that isn't covered by their RFR's that comon sense says should be) most of what's in there harks back to the early days and just gets added to from time to time.
The example in this months matters of testing querying why a missing anti roll bar linkage isn't a fail yet an insecure one is (you can't fail them for being broken either!!!). As stated in the reply back in days of old you'd just write on the VT 30 that it was missing/broken incorrectly as it happens and leave it at that and all because the anti roll bar is covered under a list of components that would if they were missing/broken render the vehicle untestable.
I'd also add fuel cap missing to class 4 (in addition to its recent appearance as a class 1/2 fail) as it's another one that makes me bang my head against the wall at the stupidity of its absence.
Following that I'd make whoever did the computerisation RFR list by cutting and pasting bits from the testing guide go right back through the entire lot and make sure they were presented in proper English sentences that read right, starting with bulbs that have not in good working order (not working) and tyres is incorrect because tyres of different sizes are fitted to the same axle. It really pees me off that we're made to look even more like a bunch of illiterate morons than we already do just because someone cocked up the basics.
Hello brand new here today, just like to say yeah i agree manual/computer needs a rethink throughout.
FrankyB
|
Spongebob
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Leeds |
| Posts: | 34 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26th, 2008 07:46 pm |
|
I think I'd go right through the whole damn book and rewrite it. Drag it screaming and kicking into the modern day. As they so often tell you (usually when something crops up that isn't covered by their RFR's that comon sense says should be) most of what's in there harks back to the early days and just gets added to from time to time.
The example in this months matters of testing querying why a missing anti roll bar linkage isn't a fail yet an insecure one is (you can't fail them for being broken either!!!). As stated in the reply back in days of old you'd just write on the VT 30 that it was missing/broken incorrectly as it happens and leave it at that and all because the anti roll bar is covered under a list of components that would if they were missing/broken render the vehicle untestable.
I'd also add fuel cap missing to class 4 (in addition to its recent appearance as a class 1/2 fail) as it's another one that makes me bang my head against the wall at the stupidity of its absence.
Following that I'd make whoever did the computerisation RFR list by cutting and pasting bits from the testing guide go right back through the entire lot and make sure they were presented in proper English sentences that read right, starting with bulbs that have not in good working order (not working) and tyres is incorrect because tyres of different sizes are fitted to the same axle. It really pees me off that we're made to look even more like a bunch of illiterate morons than we already do just because someone cocked up the basics.
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 10:13 pm |
|
i remember being out in a ford orion with a mate , we came over a humped back brige on a dark night & the lights went out , they came on again when we got over the bridge .
pulled in to check & found a lovely burn mark on the bonnet where the live lead had shorted , not good .
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
I agree too....If a vehicle does not meet the "minimum requirement" in the rollers or has an obvious leak/major brake defect we should not allow the vehicle back on the road..
If a vehicle which I failed caused a fatal accident.(due to the failed items)...I PERSONALLY would feel totally gutted that VOSA had ALLOWED ME to let a presenter drive a vehicle which should NOT be on the road,IN MY OPINION.....
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
kev1975 wrote: i would make insecure battery a fail , give every testing station a light testing meter & start failing all these cars with the blacked out front side windows .
on cars & vans the minimum tread depth would be 3mm , high beam warning light & instrument cluster illumination would be in there as rfr's.
all driveshaft boots , front or rear , inner or outer & prop shafts would be in the rfr's.
the list goes on 
The battery makes a lot of sense, can't understand why the Department of Transport removed it as a testable item, or was that VI?
Had a car in a few weeks ago with an insecure battery, the cables corroded and terminals loose, electricals failed during the mot test, I thought assistant was playing a joke or something, turned out corroded earth cable departed bodywork and then ALL ELECTRICS failed?
Just image driving along motorway and that happens?
I am sure that type of problems is considered dangerous to road safety?
David
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
David wrote: Had a Toyota in today where the steel brake pipes leaked under load leaving no service brake, although recorded it as dangerous to drive, driver drove it home after it being explained to him, then he said on the phone "My brakes don't feel to good what have you done to them"?
These type of defects should permit the tester to issue an order to prevent the vehicle being driven away from the station in the interest of road safety and other users.
David
totally agree with you there , i had a fiesta in a while back & both rear brake pipes burst on test , bloke drove it away with no brakes , insane.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
Had a Toyota in today where the steel brake pipes leaked under load leaving no service brake, although recorded it as dangerous to drive, driver drove it home after it being explained to him, then he said on the phone "My brakes don't feel to good what have you done to them"?
These type of defects should permit the tester to issue an order to prevent the vehicle being driven away from the station in the interest of road safety and other users.
David
|
gluther
Trade Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15th, 2008 11:11 am |
|
Totally agree also, in fact, mentioned this a previous post a while back!!
Graham
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
| totally agree with that
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 11:17 pm |
|
One thing that is really annoying when testing vehicles is normally only found out when it is to late, after completing the test, the drivers side window is normally opened so I can reach for the brake tester controls, sometimes the door window falls out, it should be a test item to ensure it works ok, then its not our fault for opening the dam thing to do the test?
Edited to correct couple of spelling mistakes
David
Last edited on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 11:19 pm by David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 11th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
I have noticed today in the manual that looking in the section on wheels and tyres, the manual says that it is not necessary to remove wheel trims, so then, if a tester cannot see in between the trim and the wheel, and wheel nuts are missing, so long as the wheel is secure at the time of inspection, if the wheel vibrates loose after the inspection when out on the road, its the drivers fault for not ensuring that the vehicle was maintained correctly, the tester cannot be held accountable as it cannot be forseen.
David
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 11:19 pm |
|
| You never kept your "comforter"?
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 11:11 pm |
|
martins wrote: Does this shed any light?
http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2013%20-%20Oct%202001%20.pdf
OK so with the owners manual its easy..But where in the scheme of things do we have to refer to any "manual" other than our own??
AND WHERE DOES THE BLANKET COME FROM...????????? I ain't got one!!
|
martins
Administrator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
Does this shed any light?
http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2013%20-%20Oct%202001%20.pdf
|
jonnyjohnson
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 07:29 pm |
|
So are you allowed to open this bonnet?
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
that is correct , the bonnet release handle opens the front grille , there is an oil filler , dipstick & screenwash filler behind the grille .
there are 2 plastic screws behind there as well , unscrew them by hand & the bonnet lifts off .
Last edited on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 06:15 pm by kev1975
|
jonnyjohnson
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 04:30 pm |
|
Am I correct in thinking that the Audi A2 doesn’t have a bonnet to open?
|
martins
Administrator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 11:44 am |
|
Hence, as in Republic of Ireland, wheel trims removed by presenter prior to Test. Of course there's nothing to stop vehicle presenters doing it in GB, if they want their wheels looked at properly, but why would they, if it means their car might fail on something revealed by removing the wheel trims?
In Italy they also check tyre pressures.
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 9th, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: A wheel trim could hide a number of serious defects, especially when it is secured with cable tie!
"Cable Tie"...Hmmm!..Now lets think on........."Lightyears ahead".........VOSA allow the "Removal of Covers to conduct a full examination of testable items,so long as unavoidable damage to retaining devices allow access"..Or words to that effect..To CYA....
Lets face it in a few years we will have to "remove" covers to conduct a PROPER EXAMINATION of components..Otherwise in most cases there will be no need to open the Bonnet,because "No components are visible" and the same when inspecting from below.. ..
Mr Cable tie will be even more popular with "Joe and Dodgy Trader"...
|
jonnyjohnson
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 9th, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
A wheel trim could hide a number of serious defects, especially when it is secured with cable tie!
So could a brake master cylinder reservoir filled with the wrong oil!
Last edited on Tue Sep 9th, 2008 05:59 pm by jonnyjohnson
|
Current time is 03:28 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
