| Author | Post |
|---|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
Hi David,
Sorry but looking too deep on this one, as quoted early, the manual states: suspension component mounting. so A Shock Absorber is a suspension component so Job Done. If you have the corrosion dvd at your vts, it points this out clearly. They showed it on my refresher moons ago.
RFR
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
| Upper shock mountings were added to the manual ages ago.
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
Next week I will ask VOSA for a definitive ruling on this subject. At the moment to my mind, excessive corrosion around a shock absorber mounting from my memory of a trainer from VOSA some time back did say that excessive corrosion around a shock absorber mounting, which did not incorporate a spring was not a reason for rejection unless the shock absorber had detached completely, which then makes it negligible damping.
With reference to Regulation (2.4A.2) mention is given to a load bearing member, so if I explain it this way, a wheel resting on the road is forced onto the road via gravity, the road itself is a reaction force which opposes the motion of the wheel into the road, therefore putting the wheel into a state of equilibrium, a load now exists on the wheel which also exists through the suspension mounting points (load bearing), but the shock absorber mountings are not under any load, therefore not load bearing, but react to vibrations from the road wheel and suspension when in use dynamically. This is why I think the shock absorber does not fail under this criteria, but will as said previously clarify next week.
I appreciate somebody previously did make mention with regards the corrosion being within a prescribed area of the suspension mounting point, therefore the VT30 would then be in relation to (2.4A.2) for suspension mounting point, but not shock absorber, in my view.
David
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 07:43 pm |
|
David wrote: If the shock absorber mounting being excessively corroded should be issued with a VT30, then Regulation (2.7.2) would make mention to the prescribed area for excessive corrosion, which it does not.
David
So it's my turn
It's easy really I think, following the changes:
sec. 2.7 refers only to the shock absorber's themselves and has nothing to do with the structure they are mounted too.
As stated 2.4A.2 SAYS
" Examine the vehicle structure around ANY subframe, spring or suspension component mounting for: corrosion, distorsion, fractures etc. RFR(not me) makes reference to appendix C, which for corrosion states:
Any structure or paneling which is supportive to either the component mounting or its load bearing member within 30cm of the mounting location.
Fail criteria: By finger and thumb it does not feel rigid, or it crumbles to leave a hole, the CAT penetrates, or causes the metal to crumble or disintegrate.
No issues VT30 , OR long walk off a short pier
RFR
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 132 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 07:20 pm |
|
David
You may wish to ring the National Enquiry line for clarification, I know what the answer will be.
Stealth
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 06:59 pm |
|
I new when I posted a reply to this topic that it would cause some debate, but this is good because it gets people thinking about decision making. I think I once said on this forum before that when an MOT tester makes a decision with respect to the MOT Test, the Tester makes that decision on behalf of VOSA, how can a Tester do this?
There are only two methods, you can read the Regulations, or ring the National Enquiry unit for advise, whichever you do it would be recommended you have understood the manual first, saves any embarrassement on the phone?
When you have made your decision based on the manual, VOSA made that decision and not the Tester, if the Tester makes his.her own interpretation and ruling and it seriously backfires, then your in the creak without a paddle. If a RTA occured and a court case arose, the tester would go and argue his/her points based on road safety with respect to the issue in question, the court would take a dim view because the tester should have contacted VOSA and gained a ruling on what decision to make, you can't make your own rules up as you go along.
If the shock absorber mounting being excessively corroded should be issued with a VT30, then Regulation (2.7.2) would make mention to the prescribed area for excessivel corrosion, which it does not.
David
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
| Yeah I checked today and soley for is not there anymore. Need to be reading the manual every night in bed which is what I thought David did but I've a good woman laying next to me I concentrate on going over her chassis
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 132 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
David
I'm surprised you of all people are not up to speed on this one, the manual was changed a couple of years ago, and the wording
"if the area is solely for a shock absorber that it wasn't considered to be a rfr"
as quoted by keithd - was dropped, shock absorber mountings are to be considered as part of the suspension, and the appropriate RFR regards corrosion applies.
I 'dissected' the chassis with thumb pressure, (nearside rear in the photo's) along with the chassis rail adjacent the nearside rear spring mounting point, and also the floor adjacent the offside rear shock absorber mounting point. 
Stealth
Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 04:22 pm by Stealth
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 07:21 am |
|
I'm sitting on the fence on this one for I would need to see the vehicle in the flesh. I seem to remember something in the old manual years ago that siad something about "if the area was soley for a shock absorber that it wasn't considered to be a rfr"
If the main load bearing areas/supporting panel are sound and the top shock mount is more than 30cm away from both and still attached the shocker will still be working. Only when it's broken away would there be negligible damping.
I know what 99% of testers would do in this case but does it make us right. I have a gut feeling we may be surprised by the outcome of vosa for they don't do common sense like the rest of us sadly 
Also vehicles been at 3 garages now so if first 2 say it deffo wasn't like that at time of the test, checked finger and thumb tapped lightly as per manual it could go either way.
Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 12:10 pm by keithd
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 12:32 am |
|
David wrote: Looking at the picture of the structure around the shock absorber mounting point, first picture, one can see that it has cracked and corroded, but is still attached, now most of you reading your views would probably believe that it should be issued with a VT30, but what does the regulations say?
(2.7.2b) an insecure or detached shock absorber. The one in your picture appears to me to be attached and therefore is still able to perform its function.
(2.4.A.2) this regulation would come into effect if the suspension was within the prescribed area, if not and you cannot prove that the corrosion seriously affects the steering and braking of the vehicle when driven on the road, then a VT32 should be issued.
Well looking on the two other photographs after somebody disected the chassis around it, is it still attached?
If it is and that chassis corrosion is outside of a prescribed area, can you prove it affects the steering and braking of the vehicle?
David
So, What in your opinion, Determines Excessive? Is the Visually Excessive Corrosion, "In Your Opinion," and, "Within" 30cms of the shock mount, "Excessive"?
Is the rear shock absorber upper mounting point now included in the Inspection Manual Process?
If Allowable within "The Manual Stipulations", "Disection by", "Plastic Hammer" or "Thumb Pressure", With or Without a "Protective Glove", Acceptable? WOW!
"During Inspection of Your Vehicle", While, Wearing said "Protective Glove", "Not Mandatory"! I happen to "Lacerate my glove" on "Your" "Excessively Corroded Vehicle", and also Lacerate "Myself"!
Where Do "We" go from here?
Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 01:22 am by Wesley
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 11:55 pm |
|
Corrosion in an prescribed area does not have to affect steering or braking of a vehicle..If it's within 30cm of a suspension mounting point its a fail..How bad do you want it to get before you "know" if its going to affect steering/braking????? .. .Would you have the same view if this were a picture of a rear trailing arm mount?? ( Both suspension mounting points)..Last edited on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 11:59 pm by big..E.
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 11:22 pm |
|
Looking at the picture of the structure around the shock absorber mounting point, first picture, one can see that it has cracked and corroded, but is still attached, now most of you reading your views would probably believe that it should be issued with a VT30, but what does the regulations say?
(2.7.2b) an insecure or detached shock absorber. The one in your picture appears to me to be attached and therefore is still able to perform its function.
(2.4.A.2) this regulation would come into effect if the suspension was within the prescribed area, if not and you cannot prove that the corrosion seriously affects the steering and braking of the vehicle when driven on the road, then a VT32 should be issued.
Well looking on the two other photographs after somebody disected the chassis around it, is it still attached?
If it is and that chassis corrosion is outside of a prescribed area, can you prove it affects the steering and braking of the vehicle?
David
Last edited on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 11:29 pm by David
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 11:19 pm |
|
Stealth wrote:
It's going through 'official channels'
Nice One! As it should be!
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 11:11 pm |
|
Kev,
I agree, but at time, just an employee reporting on service issues, some 22/23, years ago?
My thoughts exactly! If I had my way, then it would have been official! sparing the grief from "The Trader" at the Xmas pub crawl.
Last edited on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 11:13 pm by Wesley
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 132 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 11:11 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: But with "Hindsight", should it have gone thro Official channels?
Wes.
It's going through 'official channels'
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 309 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
others may not agree with me here , but i would say that vosa should be informed if a tester has missed something as bad as that .
what else might they have missed ?
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 10:54 pm |
|
Good For You,
And there we are going on about reporting or dobbing in, or advising presenters to return and Challenge initial Test Station?
The last time I Personally experienced this type of Issue was back in 1985/6. At the time I was working elsewhere and pointed it out to my boss, me not an NT at the time but still.
Fortunately for all involved Issue was Resolved, Without intervention, But with "Hindsight", should it have gone thro Official channels?
Wes.
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 132 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: Stealth wrote: Neither Wes - I saw this a couple of weeks after it had been tested second time & passed.
Christ, that means two VTS.
Yup - one failed it for unrelated defects & missed that and two other ares of corrosion.
Was tested at another VTS a couple of weeks later after repair - they missed the holes too
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 7th, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
Stealth wrote: Neither Wes - I saw this a couple of weeks after it had been tested second time & passed.
Christ, that means two VTS.Last edited on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 10:17 pm by Wesley
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 132 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 7th, 2008 08:57 am |
|
| Neither Wes - I saw this a couple of weeks after it had been tested second time & passed.
|
Current time is 05:22 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
