|
Post by Dave Hill on Sept 24, 2005 17:42:57 GMT
where do you guys stand on this one?
When I had my induction a few years back, it was made clear that a hole due to corrosion in an area around the top shock absorber mount is not a reason for failure. Obviously providing that it does not fall within any other prescribed areas.
MK II Cavalier saloon rear shocker tops & MK 5 Escort vans suffer badly in these areas. As there is no seat belt or suspension components within 30cm. I asked my area VOSA man about it & he was vague to say the least. I have had allot of conflicting advice from testers.
Any guidance appreciated
Dave
|
|
wingnut
Nominated Tester
Posts: 186
|
Post by wingnut on Sept 24, 2005 19:59:48 GMT
Shockabsorbers are testable items,any testable item within 30cm is a fail, should not have holed corrosion unless it is a designed machined hole from manufacture. Brake pipes cliped on the other side of say the shock mount panel would also be classed as a testable item. Macpherson suspension top mounts are a testable item for corrosion etc as well.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Sept 24, 2005 21:28:43 GMT
Hi Wingnut.
I think a testable item is being confused with a prescribed area. I know that a shock absorber is a testable item, as is a number plate light. I dont think I can fail a motor with a corroded hole 6cm away from a number plate light. If you take my point.
Macpherson Strut type suspension is a different case to the one that I am putting because, the Macpherson Strut actually is supporting the vehicle & is loading the surrounding area.
The point about the shockers that I am on about, is that they are not load carrying & if they were to separate completely, then the motor would not lose its attitude (or ride height). This fact is why I was told that it should only fail if, the corrosion is so advanced that imminent separation of the shock absorber is apparent.
Dave
|
|
wingnut
Nominated Tester
Posts: 186
|
Post by wingnut on Sept 24, 2005 22:18:52 GMT
Dave, any shockabsorber working correctly is under load on the bump and also under load on the rebound. Surely a certain fail if corrosion under the testing laid down standards are applied.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Sept 24, 2005 22:32:46 GMT
Wingnut I take your point. I am just telling it as it was told to me. I think the point this Vehicle Inspectorate bloke was making is that because the shocker doesn't support the car, then if it was to detach itself then the outcome isn't as serious as a McPherson type. He did say that if it was corroded to the extent that it was weak enough to fail imminently (a good pot hole for example) then it should fail. I have tested to that standard ever since & have had many testers & mechanics question my decision. Thats why I am asking every one on here for an opinion. Thanks for your input Dave
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 24, 2005 23:07:36 GMT
The Inspection Manual used to include a line on excessive corrosion, thus: 'excessive corrosion in a prescribed area ...except if mounting is solely for a shock absorber..' I think this line was taken out of the manual about 2 years ago. I shall re-check my copy of the inspection manual on Monday to give you my interpretation. In the meantime, take a look at PAGE 8 in the issue of Matters of Testing link below: www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/publications/mot%20-%20issue%2017%20-%20oct%202002.pdfThere is a statement there to say that shock absorber mountings are a prescribed area. Therefore excessive corrosion = fail. Are you computerised yet ? What criteria does the computer give for shock absorber mounting prescribed areas ?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Sept 24, 2005 23:31:08 GMT
Hi Admin. I just replied to you on the BBA-Reman forum Link: www.bba-reman.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?ForumID=2&MessageID=21815The message I posted there was:Thanks for that link. I have just read it & well it seems to have cleared it up. I will have to have a recall of all my incorrectly pass & advises. Are you gonna tell wingnut or am I? Doh!!! The computer has been in for a month or so. Just in the way really. They keep trying to arange a training day but we cant proceed because on of my testers has not received his smart card (thank the lord) Cheers Dave PS Wingnut, Thanks for the chat, ;D
|
|
yanno
Nominated Tester
Posts: 76
|
Post by yanno on Sept 25, 2005 18:54:48 GMT
i can see what dave means, it used to be the case that a damper (or shock absorber as vosa call it) mounting wasn't a prescribed area (how silly) it is now, so as i understand it-treat it like any steering/suspension mounting jmho yanno
|
|
motdave
Nominated Tester
Posts: 242
|
Post by motdave on Sept 26, 2005 21:51:08 GMT
The only mention of condition of shock absorber mountings in section 2.7 Shock Absorbers is:
2. Examine each shock absorber for damage, corrosion and security of attachment.
rfr 2b an insecure or detached shock absorber.
However, 2.4 Suspension - General contains the following:
2. Examine the vehicle structure around any subframe, spring or suspension component mounting for - excessive corrosion (ie within a prescribed area) - distortion - fractures
rfr 2 Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength, excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an inadequate repair of a load bearing member or its supporing structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of any sub-frame, spring or a suspension component mounting, that is, within a 'prescribed area'.
Is a shock absorber a suspension component ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 26, 2005 22:11:40 GMT
MotDave, many thanks for posting the above extract. I was just about to do the same when I read your post.
|
|
wingnut
Nominated Tester
Posts: 186
|
Post by wingnut on Sept 26, 2005 22:45:22 GMT
Is a shock absorber a suspension component ? « Last Edit: Today at 10:54pm by motdave »
CRIPES, of course it is i will give you details of operational workings to help you. But now to bed.
|
|
motdave
Nominated Tester
Posts: 242
|
Post by motdave on Sept 26, 2005 23:13:57 GMT
The question was a rhetorical one A shock absorber is a suspension component, therefore it's mounting points are a prescribed area.
|
|
wingnut
Nominated Tester
Posts: 186
|
Post by wingnut on Sept 27, 2005 5:47:38 GMT
Motdave,so when is a shockabsorber not a suspension component when it is falling within the pass &l RFR testing criteria?and it does!
This is not rhetorical, as to me that means fine but rather empty talk.
|
|
wingnut
Nominated Tester
Posts: 186
|
Post by wingnut on Sept 28, 2005 18:24:35 GMT
Tremmelos, no it is not-------is not golden. Know i could be wrong on this but here goes. A shockabsorber we all know dampens the bump rebound and in most cases is a suspension component. Most but not all how can this be,first we have the hydrolastic that can have shocks as we all know on the MGF but go back a few years with hydrolastic Leyland Princess,minis, Allegros etc and they had displacers with restrictors working as shocks. Then we come on to the Hydraulic suspension,yes they have shocks but working within the Spheres and the accumulators, dampening the bump and rebounds to programed perfection unless nitrogen depletion but that is another story. This in my mind is not a suspension component?however it is still a testable item,under shockabsorbers 2.7 5. At each corner of the vehicle,push down [or pull down from beneath] and note the rebound of body to determine if each shockabsorber is producing a damping effect on the suspension. 5 A shockabsorber which has negligible damping effect. RFR. Air may be the same on some systems, please correct me if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2005 22:25:49 GMT
Is a shock absorber a suspension component ? If so, are its mountings prescribed areas ? Bob McKay, a former VOSA VE, has an answer on his website pages: www.bobmckay.co.uk/shocks.html
|
|
wingnut
Nominated Tester
Posts: 186
|
Post by wingnut on Sept 30, 2005 7:37:50 GMT
So i think it is covered in all area's "steering suspension component on type" Pass Fail on corrosion etc prescribed erea . Functional workings of other types Pass fail as 2.7 -5--5. AM I WRONG? not now!
|
|
Steven
Nominated Tester
Posts: 131
|
Post by Steven on Oct 5, 2005 6:55:46 GMT
I have just viewed the video 'MOT Matters - By The Book'.
Tom states quite clearly that shock absorber mountings are a prescribed area.
The video highlights the changes made to the inspection manual in 2002.
I notice that past copies of the MOT Matters video publications are available for purchase on the VTS device.
|
|
AndyG
Nominated Tester
Posts: 2
|
Post by AndyG on Oct 11, 2005 20:54:15 GMT
Hi all, Ime new to this forum so go easy on me. Went to watford today for my second days training to become a NT (last day tomorrow) We were shown a vidio in which a vehicle(engine out) was used to demonstrate prescribed areas and reasons to fail for rust etc, The long and short of it was that on most modern cars there is nowhere under the bonnet that isnt within one prescribed area or another,They used a 30cm dia ball to demonstrate this.
|
|
NT
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by NT on Oct 13, 2005 8:15:56 GMT
AndyG Hope you got your ticket for NT I was shown he same video on my refresher course, and its not just under the bonnet, but the floor pan as well. Especially when the seat belt anchor is on the seat base.
|
|