nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jan 1, 2012 16:41:58 GMT
This is the part which seems ambiguous to me. The manual makes a clear distinction between the BET and a full cat test. We carry out alot less full cat tests than BETs and why do we carry out full cat tests? - because of a BET failure, so logic dictates that to qualify for a full cat test the vehicle must have failed the BET. Does this mean that a BET pass and a missing cat is a pass? Thats what I take it to mean. A basic emissions test vs a full cat test: A vehicle that passes the BET doesn't meet the qualifications for a FULL test. If it was ALL cat equipped cars, the the manual might have told us to fail all cars listed in the emissions data book that had their cat missing. The answer to the question is no. If a vehicle is of an age where it requires a CAT test and the vehicle would of been fitted with one as standard then it is required to be there for the purpose of the MOT . If the CAT has been removed from a vehicle where one was fitted as standard then it would cause the vehicle to fail the MOT,even if it passes the BET test or the full CAT test. It will not matter what the out come of the metered test result is if the cat is missing then its a fail in its own right
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jan 1, 2012 20:28:21 GMT
That is not the answer i was looking for However on that note i will move out your way and take the hint :)lol Note this rfr is live from the 1st jan 2012 not april Where does that information arrive from? SN 9-2011 does say bedding in period and no exact date given? Please advise before Tuesday LOL ;D
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jan 1, 2012 20:48:27 GMT
Reading SN, heading on page 3 Annex A CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL RFR FROM 01 JANUARY 2012 These i understand are the new rfr on what is testable now, Annex b = bedding in period of new testable components page 6 is from April
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jan 1, 2012 21:35:26 GMT
Reading SN, heading on page 3 Annex A CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL RFR FROM 01 JANUARY 2012 These i understand are the new rfr on what is testable now, Annex b = bedding in period of new testable components page 6 is from April Maybe I should read the titles proper lol ;D This is interesting SN 9-2011 says; New Rfr where a catalyst converters are not fitted to vehicles subject to a full cat test. The 2012 manual says; On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the cataylst converter. RfR says; A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted at standard. So; All vehicles must go through the BET Test first, except exceptions, then if the BET passes and the CAT is not fitted, should the vehicle fail for no cat fitted? Dave
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jan 1, 2012 22:32:20 GMT
Reading SN, heading on page 3 Annex A CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL RFR FROM 01 JANUARY 2012 These i understand are the new rfr on what is testable now, Annex b = bedding in period of new testable components page 6 is from April Maybe I should read the titles proper lol ;D This is interesting SN 9-2011 says; New Rfr where a catalyst converters are not fitted to vehicles subject to a full cat test. The 2012 manual says; On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the cataylst converter. RfR says; A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted at standard. So; All vehicles must go through the BET Test first, except exceptions, then if the BET passes and the CAT is not fitted, should the vehicle fail for no cat fitted? Dave Just found this Page 6 Attachments:
|
|
hayden
Nominated Tester
VTS AEDM, SM & QC
Posts: 828
|
Post by hayden on Jan 3, 2012 17:25:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spotty on Feb 12, 2012 7:58:27 GMT
My understanding from the DVD and a recent seminar is if the vehicle passes the BET, there is no need to check for the presence of a cat. If it fails the BET, then you need to confirm from the flowcharts as to what type of extended emissions test the vehicle qualifies for and if it is a full cat test, check for the presence of a cat.
It would make for an interesting conversation if the cat emissions test was passed and the cat was not there as it would fail.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Feb 13, 2012 23:12:08 GMT
The fail criteria for a CAT MISSING is a fail in its own right no matter what the outcome is from the emissions test. There is nothing in the manual to instruct that the emissions test result should be taken into account were a cat was missing if it was fitted as standard. I too; have viewed the DVD and attended seminars,on both occasions no instruction is given with regards to taking into account the emissions result.either way the IM will overrule any DVD or what is said at seminars,at the moment apart from a few i don't think any of them know whats happening ;D Remember the key word here is QUALIFY If you are presented with a vehicle running LPG or cng or hybrid for example then these vehicles can have the cats missing as they don't qualify for a full cat test. What may of been said at the seminar was ;and this is just an idea of mine with regards to emissions tests and the flow charts ,when an exact match can not be found and the vehicle has a cat fitted as standard ;what they may of been on about is this; I tested a Ford Escort 1st used 30th July 1995 1800 cc;; it failed the bet test and due to not being able to find the information needed due to fading and corrosion ;i was not able to find an exact match;the flow chart directed me to carry out a non cat test which it still failed anyway. On inspecting the exhaust it revealed that the cat had been cut out and replaced with a straight piece of pipe. Because the emissions test ended up a non cat test i could not fail the vehicle on a cat missing because it did not qualify for a cat test in the end.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Feb 13, 2012 23:50:21 GMT
Just need to refer you back to that special notice that you initially educated me on LOL ;D, I'll now return the education LOL ;D Special Notice 9/2011, page 5 of 7. Section 7 - Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions. See line 2 2 / Reads - New RfR where a catalytic converters are not fitted to vehicles subjected to a full cat test. So if the vehicle passes the BET, there is no full cat test performed by automatic pass, therefore not subject to a full cat test, and therefore if no cat fitted, then not required to be fitted ;D Dave
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Feb 16, 2012 22:56:25 GMT
Reading back through these posts it appears that there is still some degree on uncertainty when it comes to understanding the new rfr and moi,weather that's down to issues being raised at seminars is confusing things with conflicting answers and opinions. The confusion seems to stem from the word QUALIFY and A FULL CAT TEST and it seems that if the situation were to arise when a vehicle passes the BET TEST that this will exempt the vehicle from from the rfr=CAT MISSING where one was fitted as standard. Now the way i see it is that petrol fueled vehicles 1st used on or after 1st Aug 1992 will require a BET TEST which is in fact a FULL CAT TEST but a fast track version as you might say. In order to reduce testing times,improve convenience and make it easier for testers, VOSA introduced this a few years back and its basic philosophy is to check the emissions against generic levels which are the ones we see every day on the ega.These levels are the basic euro standard. So if the vehicle has passed these limits during the BET TEST; then the vehicle has passed the emissions test and no further testing is required.(no warming up needed). The only difference here were BET TEST vs FULL CAT TEST is when you start the emissions test,weather the cat converter has achieved or nearly achieved its operating conditions,if the engine is warmed up and the cat converter is lit;this means that the PROCESS of having to light the cat has already been done and its up to operating temperature and ready to be tested. The BET TEST is completed but the CAT has had a FULL CAT TEST,after all the FULL CAT TEST is just an extension of the BET TEST;this extension is just to ensure that the engine and cat converter are at there normal operating temperature to test but it is not unusual for cat converters to achieve pass levels outside the normal operating conditions during a BET TEST for instance. On other occasions a FULL CAT TEST from start to finish may have to be carried due to the vehicle not meeting the generic limits and being tested to the manufactures declared limits listed in the computer soft were or in the" in service emissions booklet" Where the IM states in the information column=Section 7.1.3 EXHAUST SYSTEMS ;On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test,check the presence of a cat converter.What has to be taken into account here is that this section covers other vehicles such as diesels,hybrids,Q plated vehicles,LPG,CNG which are exempt and some vehicles were an exact match cant be found and the flow charts lead to a non cat test but the vehicle being tested has a cat converter fitted as standard. In my opinion the way this statement is written is to emphasize that it only applies to petrol driven vehicles and the use of the words FULL CAT TEST refers to a metered test; in other words excludes vehicles that only require a visual test. Not saying this post is correct and these are my thoughts and opinions,but i have failed one vehicle for a cat missing on this understanding and was correct in doing so but if anyone knows different i would be interested to know. If the cat is missing it does not matter what the outcome of the emissions test was this can be backed up on page 6 of the attachment below. Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Feb 16, 2012 23:24:50 GMT
Having just watched the DVD210/48/EU Test Odyssey with the trainer Mr Grey and Mr Diggings, Mr Grey advised that a Cat Convertor is only required where a FULL CAT TEST is required. The BET, basic emissions test I thought was the fast track emissions test and if the limits were met then the vehicle passed at that point, but if not then the FULL CAT TEST followed this? Dave
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Feb 16, 2012 23:41:02 GMT
Reading back through these posts it appears that there is still some degree on uncertainty when it comes to understanding the new rfr and moi, In my opinion the way this statement is written is to emphasize that it only applies to petrol driven vehicles and the use of the words FULL CAT TEST refers to a metered test; in other words excludes vehicles that only require a visual test. This is not the only thread where a degree of uncertainty arises I am inclined to think Nitros44 is right with this particular point in that a full cat test means a cat emmisions test irrespective of whether it was a bet test or an extended cat test. Wally
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Feb 17, 2012 11:06:39 GMT
If it's petrol and if it requires any cat test (BET or not) it needs a cat - end of.
If it passes a BET test or full cat test and no cat is fitted where one is required it fails - end of.
The only time it wont will be if after carring out a BET test that fails you cannot find an exact match in the emissions data base. So for example, if you would have gone through the flow chart and finally got to the stage where you only needed a basic idle test (3.5 CO, 1200 HC's) no cat is required.
It ain't rocket science guys and no need to read into it any way that suits you.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Feb 17, 2012 19:06:07 GMT
With reference to the rule book Baz I gree with you, but the trainers are saying different, so at the moment LOL , NASA doesn't agree with you Maybe you should ask John or Ian and get back to us with a definitive answer. Dave
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2012 22:51:10 GMT
Quote from VOSA's Trainers Notes:
Note that unlike previous years where a vehicle may still pass the mot, where the cat is removed, provided the emissions still pass now it is a straight fail regardless of metered test results.
|
|
|
Post by offroad on Feb 17, 2012 23:03:53 GMT
i asked this to be clarified on the refresher course i reasently attended. my findings were.
method of inspection section 7.1 On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter.
and rfr section 7.1 A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard
so firstly it has to be clarified that we are all aware of exactly what a "full cat emmission test" is.
the flow charts goes somewhere to showing us the differences between the "cat test" and the "BET"
so if you deem the bet test to NOT be a full cat test and the vehicle PASSES a BET test then checking for the presence of a cat would NOT be required as laid out in section 7.1 listed above.
this i think is how most people interperate it.
if however you deem the BET to be a full cat test then even if the vehicle passes the BET checking for the presence of the cat as in section 7.1 would be a requirement and it respective rfr would apply.
so the question that really need answering to this topic is in my eyes clear.
is the BET a full cat emmision test.
vosa`s opinion by the way was on the presumption that the BET was a full cat test!
lee.
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Feb 18, 2012 9:58:22 GMT
A BET test is still a full cat test. It was introduced to save us time - searching and entering full engine details, having to use the oil temp probe, etc. No need for clarification, Anybody that reads the manual and comes to the conclusion that a BET test is not a full cat test is (again ) wrong.
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Feb 18, 2012 15:02:40 GMT
Have to agree with baz on this one.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Feb 18, 2012 15:23:26 GMT
Until VOSA advise otherwise I am in disagreement with the above , the reasons at the moment to me are; 1/ The DVD presenter Mr Grey from VOSA training services advises that if the BET test is met then a full cat test and cat fitment is not required. 2/ With reference to the manual, there is no reason for rejection for a BET test, where the NT is then advised to go to page 9 on the manual. (Note) The BET emissions limit of CO at 0.20% is lower than the standard full cat emissions test of 0.30%, hence the BET limit is a European limit and not UK. 3/ Page 9 of the manual advises; Is it a passenger car, if not go to page 10. If registered between 01 August 1992 and 31st July 1995 look for an exact match, if you find an exact match carryout a cat test using specific limits. If you can't find an exact match, then for vehicles first used between 01 August 1995 and 31st August 2002, you are asked to find an exact match in the database or service book, then either using vehicle specific limits carry out a cat test, or carryout a cat test using default limits if no exact match can be found. Now my understanding is this; To get anywhere near this far the BET Test must have not been met, and therefore I must have been referred to carryout a cat test to the correct above limits. If the BET test passed, the flow chart would not be a distant memory, why would I need to refer to it? The VOSA DVD advises if the BET test has passed there is not requirement to fail the cat, what would be the point of unnecessary expense to the customer? The mot is a minimum standard remember not a maximum, on a scale of 1 to 10 being number 8, so if the BET passed it passed. Now if VOSA advise different then fair enough, but at the present I think it should not fail. Dave
|
|
|
Post by offroad on Feb 18, 2012 15:28:18 GMT
i would agree there dave. i`ve also sent e-mail to vosa to hopefully clarify some of the area`s i`m not happy with. will post up reply once i hear from them.
lee.
|
|