classic car forum header
Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Register     Posting Photographs     Privacy     F/book OCC Facebook     OCC on Patreon

Irresponsible advertising.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration. Forum Index -> Classic & Vintage Cars, Lorries, Vans, Motorcycles etc - General Chat
Author Message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:55 am    Post subject: Irresponsible advertising. Reply with quote

BRAKE PIPE JOINERS:

I have noticed recently how some vendors have been advertising compression fittings as being suitable for brake pipe joiners.


I have always understood that compression fittings should never be used as brake pipe fittings on a car - (although for some non road use they may be acceptable).

There are two or three ways of connecting brake pipes eg. these fittings:

.

I mention the potentially dangerous practice of using compression fittings with olives to gauge opinion.

Does anyone know if it is an M.O.T. failure?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MikeEdwards



Joined: 25 May 2011
Posts: 2707
Location: South Cheshire

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:01 am    Post subject: Re: Irresponsible advertising. Reply with quote

Ray White wrote:
Does anyone know if it is an M.O.T. failure?


No, they're not. ETA - Sorry, that makes no sense given the quote below. The answer should read "Yes, it is."

MOT Testers Manual wrote:
Compression joints of a type using separate ferrules are not suitable.


from here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/1-brakes

But I wonder how the tester would know, without taking the joint apart.

I don't like anything with compression olives on it - I usually find that one end has to be fixed into a casting and I'm always a bit concerned that I'm going to strip the thread in the casting before the olive compresses / expands.
_________________
1976 Vauxhall HP Firenza, 1976 Vauxhall Sportshatch (x2), 1986 Audi coupe quattro, 2000 Audi TT


Last edited by MikeEdwards on Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
peter scott



Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 7215
Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I suppose with a slack compression fitting the pipe could come completely out of the fitting whereas this is unlikely with a slack flared joint.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ukdave2002



Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 4236
Location: South Cheshire

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought that compression joints that use separate ferrules are not suitable for brake lines , and as such any joint with an olive would (should) fail an MOT.

The challenge that an mot inspector would have is that the joint need to be dismantled to confirm that it has olives.
Whilst compression joints are capable of retaining the sort of pressures in a brake line, ok in a static environment, but a vehicle is going to vibrate the joint, I wouldn't be happy with them fitted.

Dave

Edit..just noticed that I have repeated Mike's post !, that will teach me to start responding and get distracted before completing the post!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My concern is that while oldies like me have generally been brought up with a grounding in what is and is not safe, the same might not be said for some younger people who decide to buy and restore a classic car. There is a responsibility, therefore, on advertisers to put safety before profit.

Unfortunately, it would seem, we now live in different times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TriumphDriver



Joined: 22 Jan 2021
Posts: 11
Location: Northern Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

These days the phrase "MOT-exempt" covers a multitude of sins.
Having just bought a car that has been used regularly at local runs and events I was amazed to find that it was served with a Prohibition Order in 2019 due to dangerous faults. The owner continued to use it regularly, regardless.
Online auction site and small-ads are full of cars claiming to be everyday drivers and MOT-exempt and you can tell from the huge holes in bodywork etc that they're not safe.
_________________
Still learning after all these years...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TriumphDriver wrote:
These days the phrase "MOT-exempt" covers a multitude of sins.
Having just bought a car that has been used regularly at local runs and events I was amazed to find that it was served with a Prohibition Order in 2019 due to dangerous faults. The owner continued to use it regularly, regardless.
Online auction site and small-ads are full of cars claiming to be everyday drivers and MOT-exempt and you can tell from the huge holes in bodywork etc that they're not safe.


One of the objections I voiced when the 'MOT exempt' legislation was introduced was that the consequences of having a car stopped by the Police for being in an "un roadworthy" condition had not been thought through by all those old car people who thought it was a good idea (probably because it would save them a few quid).

If a Policeman decides that your car is not in a road worthy condition you will be issued with a PG9 form which means you are prohibited from using the car and will need to fix it and take it to an M.O.T. station for a test REGARDLESS OF IT's AGE.

If the tester is unfamiliar with your "historic vehicle" and be unaware of it's various age related exemptions (as might the aforementioned Police Officer) you may get a 'fail'.

The car may also not be able to withstand the more rigorous treatment that is coming into MOT stations these days. It would also be very easy to snap a half shaft by putting an Austin Seven for example on brake testing rollers (which is why a Tapley meter should be used) and the track is probably too narrow to go on an inspection ramp.

Although I am not one to say "I told you so" to anyone who thought MOT exemption was such a good idea, I do feel I was justified in pointing out the pit falls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 2120
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I note the MOT question has arisen once more?

Really, a vehicle's condition has nothing whatsoever to do with any MoT test, valid or not.

In the end, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure their vehicle is roadworthy in every respect.

It doesn't take a MoT inspector to identify whether a car is roadworthy or not.

If a Prohibition Order has been placed on a vehicle then the driver has to comply with the order's requirements. Otherwise they risk further sanctions, or a Court appearance. This means, showing that they have complied with the Order! If they have done so, then where is the problem??
Whether someone continues to drive that vehicle in the meantime is something which is beyond the realms of MoT testing or legality. If they are not caught or stopped subsequently, then that is a matter for the enforcement authorities.

Personally, if I were buying a vehicle which was unknown to me, but which claimed to have a valid MoT, I would be equally suspicions of its condition!

As I have said before, the presence of even a fresh MoT is no guarantee the vehicle is roadworthy at that point. Never mind the vehicle being exempted!

The Exemption also came about because of the realisation that Testers may not be familiar with [or the Test procedure may not allow for?] older vehicles. The whole computerised MoT system ws in danger of becoming unwieldy.

No mention has yet been made as to what the prohibition referred to?
Or, what type of prohibition it was?

As for stating ''MoT-Exempt'' in an advert?
There is no other implication in this other than stating a fact.
Unless one presumes the statement means, the vehicle, even though over 40 years old, actually complies with the rules regarding exemption [ Re-modifications, etc??}

Perhaps the campaign should really be aimed at owners of old vehicles, instead of the condition of said vehicles? {Already covered by Law]

Perhaps there should be an expectation that the owner, if a driving licence holder, should have a reasonable knowledge of the workings of the vehicle? {A basic requirement of the Driving Test, as it happens]

Thus far, I haven't seen or heard of any vehicles over 40 years old round these parts being checked for roadworthiness, and failing to comply.

If one is so beset with the concept of not requiring a one day a year official test, then why not make it mandatory that all vehicles presented for showing, should be subject to basic roadworthiness checks before entry??

Much like scrutineering before a motor sporting event?
[To include trailer queens as well?]

Then perhaps owners would worry a little less about the shine of their expensive two-pack re-spray, and concentrate more on the condition of their tyres, for once?

MAybe owners/driver s would realise that the responsibility is no longer down to the size of their bank balance??
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alastair. I agree with most of what you have said but beg to differ with regard to one or two points that you have raised.

As I explained, a prohibition order compels the owner to have the vehicle repaired and M.O.T. tested regardless of age ...therefore any lack of experience on the part of testers is surely going to be a problem in many cases. How many will these days be aware of the numerous date related exemptions.? If there was a problem when the exemption legislation was introduced how much worse is it today?

Yes, in reality, the M.O.T. is little more than a guide to the condition of a vehicle but it seems to be the only safeguard against owners who are either incapable through infirmity or laziness to check their cars before venturing onto the highway. Then there are those who have no practical training or experience of maintenance. An annual compulsory inspection must be better than none at all - or the M.O.T. might as well be abolished all together.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 2120
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real problem isn't the over-40 year old vehicles. its the sub-40 year old vehicles....the 5 or 10 or 15 year olds.

Also for the reason of the sheer numbers involved, there is the issue of limited enforcement.


Quote:
but it seems to be the only safeguard against owners who are either incapable through infirmity or laziness to check their cars before venturing onto the highway.


This reasoning will apply regardless of the age of the vehicle being driven!

Applying even more so, to the modern vehicles the above drivers are more likely to be driving?
Age, infirmity etc are no excuses when it comes to vehicle roadworthiness.



Quote:
Then there are those who have no practical training or experience of maintenance.


Basic roadworthiness checks are part of the Driving Test. They are the driver's duty to perform.
Lack of knowledge or skill in ascertaining roadworthiness, isn't a valid excuse in Law.
If your assertions are a worry then you need to 'spread the gospel' to anybody you know who does this?

At least we have avoided the Italian solution to this problem? {Whereby no-one s allowed to 'touch' the mechanics of their vehicle unless done so by a ''qualified'' vehicle mechanic. Hence, older Italian car enthusiasts suddenly attending night school classes to qualify as vehicle mechanics??

As for the 'once a year' check?
The DVSA already are happy to admit, the test , as a check or roadworthiness, is but valid for the time of day it is undertaken.

What you are seeking, is a vehicle check which can patently be valid for the next 12 months, on the assumption a predicted mileage is driven?.
Which would mean, a test failure for each and every advisory the tester observes.
Since an advisory implies attention is needed, within the next 12 months!
What would that mean for tyre tread depths, for example?
Or, brake pad wear [linings are not very checkable]..?

Since ''opinion'' is open to challenge, how do you propose the DVSA overcome this issue?
[Currently achieved by reducing the need for an 'opinion'' on the part of a tester.. using the online check lists]

''Opinion'' is a well worn cliche....How can 'opinion' be applied when identifying corrosion that will become a fail, within the next 12 months??? As an example?
Then there is the question of evidence?
For example,, what evidence is there, of unroadworthy vehicles actually being the cause of insurance claims, due to their non roadworthiness? Never mind, with vehicles over 40 years old?

In the run-up to the exemption thing, there was a consultation conducted.

Then there were various assessment published.
On the topic off unroadworthy wrecks, the problem was recognised, but not deemed to be a great problem.
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alastair, I think you are complicating things.

I am not expecting a change in the situation with regard to M.O.T. exemption. I just want people be aware that if a Policeman thinks a car should not be on the road because it fails to exhibit the functions found on a modern vehicle they could end up with a prohibition notice.

I remember having to explain to a Chief Inspector friend of mine that some old cars were M.O.T exempt. The law had changed but the Police had not been informed.!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 2120
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mot test isn't quite as fearsome as may be made out!

Also, if an item is misunderstood [mis-tested] there is room for appeal to the DVSA over the matter. Details on their website.

Also what is not fully understood by punters, and often 'overlooked' by testers themselves, deliberately..is that a 'dangerous' fault [ which would acquire a Prohibition if roadside tested by DVSA]... means the vehicle does not leave the test station until rectified. Which for many could mean, a long walk home.....and much searching down sofa backs?
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alastairq wrote:
The Mot test isn't quite as fearsome as may be made out!

Also, if an item is misunderstood [mis-tested] there is room for appeal to the DVSA over the matter. Details on their website.

Also what is not fully understood by punters, and often 'overlooked' by testers themselves, deliberately..is that a 'dangerous' fault [ which would acquire a Prohibition if roadside tested by DVSA]... means the vehicle does not leave the test station until rectified. Which for many could mean, a long walk home.....and much searching down sofa backs?



It is my understanding that should a prohibition notice be issued by the Police, the vehicle has to be repaired before it can be driven on the road - and that means before taking it to an M.O.T. station.

One example is having an excessive amount of play at the steering wheel. Who decides what is acceptable?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 2120
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
One example is having an excessive amount of play at the steering wheel. Who decides what is acceptable?


Without checking, I believe the amount of 'free' play at the rim [or a preset distance from centre?] of the steering wheel is laid down by VOSA/DVSA in the Testers guidance?
However, I do recall seeing mention of certain types of vehicle where some latitude is suggested? [Land Rover,for example?}

I note also that only certain members of a Constabulary can make assessments of a vehicle's roadworthiness, above & beyond the obvious visual examinations. [Trafpol, usually, they undergo a course in such matters].

In the end, it is entirely up to vehicle drivers to ensure their vehicles meet the required standards of roadworthiness...at the time!

Anybody who decides to ''chance it'' with a defect really deserves the grief that may come their way!

Even paying someone else to do all the necessary checks still doesn't wash when out on the road.....The buck stops with the driver!
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7114
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder what the Police make of this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration. Forum Index -> Classic & Vintage Cars, Lorries, Vans, Motorcycles etc - General Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
OCC Merch link
Forum T&C


php BB powered © php BB Grp.