Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 14, 2012 20:34:21 GMT
How about this one, the top suspension ball joint dust cover , is it damaged enough to justify failing Dave Attachments:
|
|
alex
Nominated Tester
Posts: 305
|
Post by alex on Jul 14, 2012 20:41:43 GMT
Is it still preventing the Ingres of dirt etc some bodies thumb is in the way slightly ;D I would fail That to me the rear of the seal looks in pretty bad shape to me
|
|
phaetonott
Nominated Tester
I may not be right but at least I am trying!
Posts: 376
|
Post by phaetonott on Jul 14, 2012 20:44:51 GMT
Fail
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 14, 2012 21:31:46 GMT
Looking closely at the photograph there is no doubt that the rubber is split, but we can't fail it for being split, it has to be damaged to such an extent that it is likely to ingress dirt etc? In the above picture if I took my thumb off the rubber, the rubber would fold back over the ball joint and cover the inside, where dirt and water etc cannot get in if the rubber cover is over the area of the ball joint, so you guys are a bit keen I think, maybe a pass and advise is in order on that one Dave
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Jul 14, 2012 22:07:34 GMT
The joint covers are an interesting one, I had one in this week and it was initially going to be a pass and advise. It was only a small split, but I gave it a press with my finger, and the thing literally squirted rusty water at me.
I changed my mind to a fail pretty sharp.
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 15, 2012 7:24:45 GMT
That's not people being over eager to fail it, there is just no way to know from that picture that its only wide open because of your thumb
|
|
alex
Nominated Tester
Posts: 305
|
Post by alex on Jul 15, 2012 9:14:49 GMT
That seal is deteriorated to the extent that it would not prevent the ingress of dirt etc,I take it etc includes rain water which would wash away the grease inside the joint over time :)from your picture I don't think I would be being harsh In failing that,if the seal is preventing dirt rain water and whatever else entering into it then I would pass and advise no problem
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 15, 2012 12:55:39 GMT
I think a misinterpretation is happening here , when I inspected the dust cover it was split around the ring area that seals it to the joint, when I lifted the cover there was no contamination inside at all, nor was there any water inside, and as you all know we get constant rain now most of the time. When I let go of the dust cover it did of its own free will fall back into its normal position, where I could not see into the joint, so as a minimum standard what really is VOSA saying when they say; Damaged or deteriorated to the extent that it is likely to ingres dirt etc? I didn't find any evidence of contamination or water inside, so my understanding is that the evidence said it was not lilkely to ingress dirt etc because dirt etc was not present when I inspected it, and the question must be asked, how long has it been split? I don't think that this ball joint dust cover issue is a clear cut well it is split so it fails and job done? and we must not forget that there is a clear difference between damaged and deteriorated Dave
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 15, 2012 13:30:54 GMT
Not sure why you point out there is a clear difference between damage and deterioration. If the cover can no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc, it is a fail for either one. You are correct though that it is not as clear cut as it's split so fail it, but you do not have to inspect the condition of the joint within. The only reason you are going to fail (or pass and advise) that is if you can detect wear in it. If I could inspect the joint visually then for me that is a fail for the damaged or deteriorated cover.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 15, 2012 14:17:35 GMT
In the english lauguage there are two words, damaged and deteriorated, which leads to deterioraton, so for me I ask what is the difference between the words in meaning and understanding? Then I ask, what does VOSA imply as a minimum criteria by saying; A ball joint dust cover missing or excessively damaged, deteriorated or insecure to the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc. So for me, I think, is it missing well no it is there, so how bad does excessively damaged need to be, or how excessively deteriorated or insecure does it actually need to be before ones say that it now is to the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc? If I lift the rubber cover and see no dirt or water in it, then although yes it is damaged and yes you could also argue that deterioration has occured, and yes it looks good for a fail, but VOSA said; To the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc? So the fact for me remains that the rubber cover is damaged and yes deterioration has ocured, but dirt and water is mentioned and so we must see it to prove it, or the cover must be in such a deteriorated state that the internal shank and part of the ball pin can be seen without moving the rubber cover out of the way to see dirt etc, in which case in my example I moved the rubber cover upwards and out of the way, and I found no dirt or water etc, so the cover when I let it go returned to the original position and covered the ball pin and shank, thus making it difficult to ingress dirt and water, which I must advise does not have a conscience to say lets get under the rubber cover and get inside to contaminate the ball joint and pin, so splashing around in that condition might never get inside, and at the time of test, it is a damaged, deteriorated cover, but internally the ingress of dirt and water etc is not present, and visually cannot see the ball pin and shank without lifting the cover, so how clear is it to fail it or pass and advise it? I don't think it is clear cut and dried the decision to take? Dave
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 16, 2012 14:54:40 GMT
Wow, Dave, you really do overthink things. Do you believe the edges of the split will remain together in any position the joint may assume? Yes; pass and advise. No; fail. It really is that simple.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 16, 2012 23:36:43 GMT
Looking at the picture and carefully reading everyones opinions/posts; if the vehicle was presented to me and based on the photo i would have to give it pass/advised.
Like the CV gaiter issue Daveg posted ,in my opinion along with this thread that we are forgeting about minimum standards here once again ; and whats just as important is the MOI stated in the manual is followed in which these components are examined as it does make a big difference ;D
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 25, 2012 12:04:56 GMT
...there's another 3 words too daveg, prevent, prevented & preventing - one in the past and one in the future and one in the present. This is the first time a test item has a fail criteria for what could happen after test and not at the time of test, hence the word prevent is used (see above). If it looks like it would not prevent dirt etc entering in the future it's a fail...simples, if it's got dirt etc in it's a fail, and if it's had dirt etc in it's a fail. Basically unless it's a tiny split it's a fail, pass and advise if you think the tear too small and that it will prevent dirt etc entering till the vehicle's next MOT
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 25, 2012 12:05:47 GMT
...also if it's split around the seal area it's insecure
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 25, 2012 14:58:28 GMT
Dave , the way I interpret the problem is like this; If the dust cover is present but deteriorated around the area of attachment, i.e. the sealing ring department, but the cover is still covering the ball pin and shank, then unless VOSA tell me otherwise I think they are saying pass and advise. A few meanings of words Dave Insecure = loose and or unprotected or undefended. I think that the dust cover is still present and that the dust cover is still able to cover the ball pin and shank, so the ball joint is actually protectedExtent = size or area, coverage, limit of, boundary, magnitude I believe VOSA included the word I highlighted here in bold for a reason, therefore they are saying in my opinion before an NT fails a dust cover for being excessively damaged or deteriorated, think about how bad it actually is at the time you see it, so how much area is unprotected, what coverage has the ball pin and shank got with the dust cover in its present state, what boundary of the ball joint is actually uncovered at the time you see the deteriorated dust cover, can you see a significant amount of the ball joint and shank without moving the dust cover, in other words the magnitude (size of) the issue in question. An NT should try to consider VOSAs take on the decisions to be made, not their own ideas, where an NT could see evidence like presented and believe that yes its deteriorated or damaged and should fail, but VOSA might not consider the evidence severe enough to warrant a fail. Just like the CV gaiter Dave, where you said its a fail but VOSA said no it is not. Daveg
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 26, 2012 6:11:17 GMT
I'm glad you use the phrase 'in my opinion' a lot there. What they actually mean, in my opinion , is what they say. Can dirt get in?(not has dirt gotten in), if yes, fail. If no, pass and advise. No hidden messages, no need for dictionaries.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 26, 2012 8:52:47 GMT
Who in VOSA said it's a pass daveg?
no need to over analyse just do as the manual says, I know for sure that gaitor will not prevent dirt etc entering....water being an etc
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 26, 2012 9:05:28 GMT
daveg another small point! the fail criteria is damaged or deteriorated no need to examine the difference in the English language. Your doing an MOT not a GSCE, if it's either damaged or deteriorated excessively it's a fail
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Jul 26, 2012 14:42:34 GMT
Your doing an MOT not a GSCE, if it's either damaged or deteriorated excessively it's a fail I hear what you are saying Dave but don't forget the " to the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc". That is what all the fuss is about - It could be deteriorated or damaged but still prevent ingress of dirt etc into the joint. Without the use of a dictionary and talking practically - The question has to be what is "excessively" and that has to be "that it fails to stop dirt etc from getting into the joint". Also what is "etc", this has to be anything that could damage or prematurely wear the joint. I know Daveg takes things to the extreme ;D so I will, if the car with a split CV Gaiter or ball joint boot was your own vehicle would you be happy if I throw some sand under the wheel arch at the joint ? I wouldn't be happy if that gaiter or boot was open at all ( irrespective of the dynamics of the trajectory of sand etc ) So in this case it would be a fail. If I was happy then I consider it to be P&A. Wally
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 26, 2012 15:10:28 GMT
....if you think the cover in the pic could prevent dirt etc (water being an etc), from entering then pass and advise... lets not forgot wally, this is a new realm for a test item which now includes after test as well as at time of test so if you think it will prevent the ingress dirt etc (water being an etc), from entering until it's next MOT then pass and advise...but....THAT PIC IS A FAIL!!! simple's experience and knowledge apply now too, advisable to use them on this kind of failure item
|
|