|
|
| Author |
Message |
ukdave2002
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 4333
Location: South Cheshire
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:59 pm Post subject: MOT New Regs |
 |
|
Just to let you know; ball joint dust covers have just become an MOT item, previously splits would not have been a fail, now they are or to quote the official language "must prevent the ingress of dirt".
Whilst most of us would want to replace them anyway its annoying when its the only item that your car fails on....like my Stag did yesterday 
That said our local garage is very good, and had already bough in a load of assorted dust covers for this very reason, rather than change the whole joint, so only charged me £20 for changing 2 track rod end covers 
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Penman
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 4880
Location: Swindon, Wilts.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi
For anyone who hasn't previously seen it, this site has the new regs.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual/contents.htm
_________________
Bristols should always come in pairs.
Any 2 from:-
Straight 6
V8 V10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim.Walker
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 1229
Location: Chesterfield
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think one thing that might really be very significant for owners of older cars is that all live electrical terminals must be shielded and not bare. Which I assume means virtually every dynamo will fail to start with!
Jim.
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penman
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 4880
Location: Swindon, Wilts.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jim
Can't find that in the manual, where did you get it from?
_________________
Bristols should always come in pairs.
Any 2 from:-
Straight 6
V8 V10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julian
Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 278
Location: Warrington
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was going to say.... live electric terminals on 12 Volts DC.  I think the smallest voltage capable of causing some form of reaction in the human body is about 40 volts - standing in a bath of salty water with two wet hands grasping a live copper bus bar!
Julian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim.Walker
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 1229
Location: Chesterfield
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Penman wrote: | Hi Jim
Can't find that in the manual, where did you get it from? |
I am afraid I accepted on trust what I had read in the Gentry Register Members Forum, I must admit I did not check it out,
Julian, if it is right, I assumed it was to prevent fire, not because of danger of electrocution.
Jim.
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lowdrag
Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Posts: 1600
Location: Le Mans
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm - after 120,000 miles I guess I'd better ensure she doesn't catch fire then. Are we allowed to shield with asbestos?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julian
Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 278
Location: Warrington
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of the 'new' regs are only really applicable to modern cars and are of no concern to us here with our old bangers! Talk of 'ecu's' modifications, central locking, ESP, ESN, ESPN warning lights in the dash etc etc don't apply, and non of it appears to be in any way implementable retrospectively.
If the old banger is working in roughly the same way as it was when it left the factory then all's well
Julian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikeC
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 1823
Location: Market Warsop, Nottinghamshire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: MOT New Regs |
|
|
| ukdave2002 wrote: | Just to let you know; ball joint dust covers have just become an MOT item, previously splits would not have been a fail, now they are or to quote the official language "must prevent the ingress of dirt".
Whilst most of us would want to replace them anyway its annoying when its the only item that your car fails on....like my Stag did yesterday
That said our local garage is very good, and had already bough in a load of assorted dust covers for this very reason, rather than change the whole joint, so only charged me £20 for changing 2 track rod end covers
Dave |
Interesting! I had a Triumph Herald fail on just this over twenty years ago - it was a new ball joint that I had fitted and failed to seat the rubber dust cover properly. I was told that it could wear out before the next MOT, so he was failing it now! I didn't use that garage again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RUSTON
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 144
Location: Matlock.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: MOT New Regs |
|
|
Dave[/quote]
Interesting! I had a Triumph Herald fail on just this over twenty years ago - it was a new ball joint that I had fitted and failed to seat the rubber dust cover properly. I was told that it could wear out before the next MOT, so he was failing it now! I didn't use that garage again...[/quote]
I always failed split ball joint rubbers, you are supposed to take into account (or where when I pre MOT tested 30+ years ago) what can occour between the current test and next years and grit can do a lot of damage in that time.
Pete.
_________________
Measure twice...cut once! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michael1703
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 349
Location: suffolk
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The tow socket test only applies to the new 13pin plugs and is "unlikely" to be applied to 9 pins, but.... if the wiring to an existing 9 pin is dodgy, that can still fail as it comes in line with the electrical connection part of the test
One way around the unsheathed terminals is "liquid tape" made by plasti coat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim.Walker
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 1229
Location: Chesterfield
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like RUSTON, I was an MOT Tester - probably one of the earliest. Obviously I cannot now recall in detail the regulations as they existed then. But I always failed split boots/gaitors on track-rod ends, and steering racks (and CV joints as cars with CV joints became of testable age).
I am sure that I would not have been stepping outside my authority, nor accepted that I was being unfair.
I have ALWAYS replaced defective ones on my own vehicles prior to test expecting they would be an automatic fail.
Jim.
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julian
Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 278
Location: Warrington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:33 am Post subject: Re: MOT New Regs |
|
|
| RUSTON wrote: |
I always failed split ball joint rubbers, you are supposed to take into account (or where when I pre MOT tested 30+ years ago) what can occour between the current test and next years and grit can do a lot of damage in that time.
Pete. |
That's correct, ie a split rubber is cause for rejection and always has been:
From the tester's manual:
c.
a ball joint dust cover missing, insecure or excessively damaged or deteriorated to the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc.
However, taking into account what can happen in a year is NOT cause for rejection. The requirement is only for the vehicle to be assessed as presented and on the day. If you think about it you would have to fail almost every car due to tyre tread depth if you took into account the 15,000-20,000 miles that a car may well do in the following year. Clearly that situation would be absurd, and the correct way forward is by way of an advisory notice.
When I was a tester the P*keys always had a good set of tyres for their Tranny vans, when they left the garage and got back to their site they just swapped the worn ones back on - you can't stop that!
Julian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim.Walker
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 1229
Location: Chesterfield
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: MOT New Regs |
|
|
| Julian wrote: |
When I was a tester the P*keys always had a good set of tyres for their Tranny vans, when they left the garage and got back to their site they just swapped the worn ones back on - you can't stop that!
Julian. |
This made me remember that we kept a pair of wheels with new tyres for each model of taxi we ran. Hence all the Cortinas or BMC 1800s or whatever were presented for MOT/Hackney Test with new tyres on the driving axle. One tester became suspicious and secretly marked a pair to see if they turned up on a different car. We were rumbled!
In fact the car's taximeters were checked during the test against a measured mile and had to be accurate within +/- 4 yards in a mile before they were sealed and licenced. The difference between new and worn tyres is more than +/- 10 yards in a mile and re-calibrating the old mechanical meters to match used tyres entailed testing on the measured mile on a fast and rather dangerous dual-carriageway. Stopping and partly dismantling the meter to change a drive gear (about 50 possibilities). Then driving back to the start of the mile, about five miles useing both carriageways and the two intersections to do another test. Rather costly.
We had great trouble convincing the testing station of the reasoning. Until we sent a car with two sets of wheels for them to try. I don't think they ever realised though, how much revenue we must have gained with fares increasing as the tyre wore. Only one fares increment at most on typical runs, but over the years.........?
I never did let on to competitors why we had so many less meter failures than any one else. 
Jim.
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
