Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[Ray White]

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?

[MikeEdwards]

[peter scott]

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

[ukdave2002]

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!!

[Ray White]

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.

[TriumphDriver]

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...

[Ray White]

[alastairq]

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.

[Ray White]

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.?

[alastairq]

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.

[Ray White]

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.!

[alastairq]

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.

[Ray White]

[alastairq]

[Ray White]

I wonder what the Police make of this?