| Author | Post |
|---|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 11:00 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: Do you not think that today’s vehicles are far better engineered?
Items do not tend to fail and fall apart as they used to, instead they wear at a reasonable rate and present themselves with knocks, rattles and squeaks etc
Doesn`t detract from the missing wheel nuts though, eh? Last edited on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 11:05 pm by Wesley
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: Do you not think that today’s vehicles are far better engineered?
Items do not tend to fail and fall apart as they used to, instead they wear at a reasonable rate and present themselves with knocks, rattles and squeaks etc
Try and think back to the days when you decoked cylinder heads every week, and relined brake shoes, plus all the other problems that kept vehicles off the road, these days vehicles are very reliable in comparison.
David
|
jonnyjohnson
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
Do you not think that today’s vehicles are far better engineered?
Items do not tend to fail and fall apart as they used to, instead they wear at a reasonable rate and present themselves with knocks, rattles and squeaks etc
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 10:15 pm |
|
That sounds Plausible.
Similar figures in aviation.
kev
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 09:51 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: Isn’t the biggest cause of accidents due to driver error and not mechanical defects?
How about we do away with the MOT and divert the monies to driver education
Not checked recently, but national statistics in 2007 advised that only 07 percent of road traffic accidents were caused by mechanical failures.
David
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
I'd say that in some cases the biggest defect is ........................................................
the nut behind the wheel 
Last edited on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 07:02 pm by Stealth
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: Isn’t the biggest cause of accidents due to driver error and not mechanical defects?
How about we do away with the MOT and divert the monies to driver education
Why Do you think the mechanical failure statistic is so low?
Could it be because we have one of the best MOT systems in the World?
As for Driver Education I Agree, For Example, As A driver would you drive a car with Two wheel nuts on a wheel instead of Four?
Kev
|
jonnyjohnson
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 06:25 pm |
|
Isn’t the biggest cause of accidents due to driver error and not mechanical defects?
How about we do away with the MOT and divert the monies to driver education
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
don`t get too stressy,
if wheel trim is easily removable, and is slightly incorrectly fitted fouling the tyre valve then we can obviously remove and re position it?
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
Any cover can be damaged when removed if the plastic limit is exceeded, Ie its not elastic enough and cracks, I think may be VOSA would probably leave it down to the discretion of the individual tester to decide if a component cover can be removed or not, so long as no tools are used to remove it.
I think one should use common sense in any decision to be made, which a book cannot give, so if a tester is going to be politically correct and argumentative over a issue of common sense, then that tester may be in the wrong job, most of us know which wheel trims can break and which would not?
Most testers should know by now in their experience that people just want the pass certificate, and will try anything on to get it, even garage mechanics cannot always be trusted to do the job right, if a wheel did depart a wheel hub just after testing, I am pretty sure VOSA would think that it had not been jacked up and tested, its your job at the end of the day.
David
|
martins
Administrator
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:18 am |
|
However,if they were to be removed "before" the TEST and refitted "after" by the presenter then ok..
As they do in the Republic of Ireland. It seems to work well for them, and when you consider what potential trouble the wheel trims could be covering it's a surprising omission from the UK Test.
However, perhaps the accident figures suggest it's not a big factor in accidents, and therefore not worth the extra minutes it would add to the Test.
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 11:56 pm |
|
| Yeh, and if David does'nt know the difference between an Engine cover and a Wheel trim,how would the uneducated amongst us fare....?........lol......
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
big..E. wrote: I would'nt like to be responsible for "the removal" of items..actually its the refitting part I don't want(there's a wheel-trim missing/damaged etc)
However,if they were to be removed "before" the TEST and refitted "after" by the presenter then ok..
yeah that was what i meant as well , otherwise we would all be getting claimed against for missing wheel trims.
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 10:31 pm |
|
I would'nt like to be responsible for "the removal" of items..actually its the refitting part I don't want(there's a wheel-trim missing/damaged etc)
However,if they were to be removed "before" the TEST and refitted "after" by the presenter then ok..
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
On one of the previous DVD's issued by VOSA, they did advise where a cover could be removed without the use of tools, then this was permissible, so what then would be the difference between say an engine cover and a wheel trim?
David
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
kev1975 wrote: wheel trims should be removed , like they do on hgv's .
Yeah! How many wheel nuts fitted?
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
wheel trims should be removed , like they do on hgv's .
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
Any more Sugestions?
Kev
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 11:04 pm |
|
KevG wrote: If you were in charge what items would you add to the MOT Test?
Or what would you remove from the test?
I Think it would be an X Ray device to scan vehicle before entering Test Bay! LOL
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
volksjim wrote: car//vans would need to be clean inside..fed up getting flea bites from some cars and vans that double up as a kennel the smell too...boak
Too Dirty to test???....BTW I'm sure we can call on our friendly "H&S" man to back us up if it's really bad.......
|
Current time is 02:47 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
