Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 24, 2012 21:05:58 GMT
Pass and advise when gaping on full lock? Why? Is Daveg bribing you? Nothing to do with me that one LOL ;D, although I do fail them for being insecurely mounted to the CV joints, which has nothing to do with being damaged or deteriorated to the extent that they would not prevent the ingress of dirt etc, however I can't say that I have actually ever experienced an insecure boot on full lock allowing dirt or water in, never seen the evidence ;D Dave
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 25, 2012 10:33:33 GMT
.......I love this site it's a real eye opener!! keep it simple is the Golden Rule
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 26, 2012 12:34:39 GMT
...guys if you keep it simple and apply this rule the old rfr's for a cv gaitor would mean that the pic is a fail, the new rfr's don't change the old fail criteria they just include the new ones and re-word to suit Europe, and also to stop abuse of the failure by some larger test centre's who shall remain quick fittingly nameless...as did the change for disc's & road coil springs. The reason for re-wording is due to re-examinations that have gone against testers in the past...e.g. failing what shouldn't fail like a pin hole in a boot etc. That cv boot is excessively split end of...daveg, nitros I think your refreshers are due
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 26, 2012 20:34:02 GMT
...guys if you keep it simple and apply this rule the old rfr's for a cv gaitor would mean that the pic is a fail, the new rfr's don't change the old fail criteria they just include the new ones and re-word to suit Europe, and also to stop abuse of the failure by some larger test centre's who shall remain quick fittingly nameless...as did the change for disc's & road coil springs. The reason for re-wording is due to re-examinations that have gone against testers in the past...e.g. failing what shouldn't fail like a pin hole in a boot etc. That cv boot is excessively split end of...daveg, nitros I think your refreshers are due Dave, There is no CV BOOT in the manual, you will not see A reason for rejection for a CV BOOT. The component is a CV GAITER who needs the refresher now ;D But now YOU say its a" FAIL END OF" i will now start testing to your standards
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 26, 2012 21:09:10 GMT
...guys if you keep it simple and apply this rule the old rfr's for a cv gaitor would mean that the pic is a fail, the new rfr's don't change the old fail criteria they just include the new ones and re-word to suit Europe, and also to stop abuse of the failure by some larger test centre's who shall remain quick fittingly nameless...as did the change for disc's & road coil springs. The reason for re-wording is due to re-examinations that have gone against testers in the past...e.g. failing what shouldn't fail like a pin hole in a boot etc. That cv boot is excessively split end of...daveg, nitros I think your refreshers are due Dave, There is no CV BOOT in the manual, you will not see A reason for rejection for a CV BOOT. The component is a CV GAITER who needs the refresher now ;D But now YOU say its a" FAIL END OF" i will now start testing to your standards Yes Nitros , but to test to Dave's standards you will have to re-write the manual as you just pointed out, and you must not have a good understanding of the English lauguage, but just take every word at its face value and if anything does not look in new condition, just fail it , I am beyond doubt that is what VOSA said in the beginning of the manual when they said; A tester is expected to use experience because it is not practical to lay down hard and fast rules, but Dave has managed it ;D Keep up the good work LOL ;D Daveg
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Jul 26, 2012 22:00:19 GMT
A few ego's in this thread, but to get it back on target, make of this gaiter what you will ;D
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Jul 26, 2012 22:05:56 GMT
Fail
Wally
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 26, 2012 22:07:14 GMT
You have to kidding Wally
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 26, 2012 22:08:41 GMT
Only Joking Wally 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 26, 2012 22:12:00 GMT
You have to kidding Wally I was reasonably sure last time I looked in the online manual that the reason for rejection had changed for CV Gaiters , or is that BOOTS size 12LOL ;D Daveg
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 27, 2012 5:39:38 GMT
As Dave said, the wording has changed, with the addition of the ingress of dirt etc, and it was expanded to include inner and outer gaiters, or 'boots' as many people might say(until they get their wrist metaphorically slapped). But for me a pass before the change is a pass now, same for a fail, because I wouldn't have failed them before unless they were gaping, as long as they were not getting grease on the brakes.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 27, 2012 14:18:44 GMT
not my standards daveg, VOSA's jock thank you for having a common sense approach to testing Gentlemen trust me.....it's the first step in what could be a complete change to MOT Testing. These are European Regs not VOSA regs. Council members will confirm that what Europe actually wanted to introduce to the MOT would have meant huge expense to test stations for equipment, MOT testing similar to service level and an MOT test time taking nearly half a day. VOSA put the proposals to the Councils we all worked through them and eventually what was introduced in Jan and what will be introduced fairly soon was the cheapest and easiest to include in the test. Nitros it is a preventative introduction to the MOT test and more will sadly follow if Europe has it's way. The wording is key to the failure, a boot was a cv boot but it now means any rubber boot, steering or rear steering, ball joints and the likes all with the same fail criteria. I'm not trying to re-write anything...Europe is though! Sometimes it's better to have big ears and to listen and learn than to comment without knowledge....I did that's how I know Daveg.....pfffft your comments are typical Nitros..I haven't suggest any tester do anything I said what the 2012 manual says and that is: if it looks like it won't prevent not is not preventing, the ingress of dirt etc it's a fail. No need to examine the ins and outs of a cats arse as daveg would, just use common sense and professional judgement to assess what you see, if you think it can prevent dirt etc pass and advise, if you think it won't fail...... ..the pic used is a fail... ....I'll do a special daveg just for you nitros: pre•vent/priˈvent/ Verb: Keep (something) from happening or arising: "action must be taken to prevent further accidents". I don't forget much nitros, I do listen and learn when I have to though I rest my case
|
|
alex
Nominated Tester
Posts: 305
|
Post by alex on Jul 27, 2012 18:09:58 GMT
I would fail that but the steering is locked over so the split /hole is clear to see no question on another thread regarding condition of a drop link seal I mentioned that when the steering was on lock f the split drop link seal was bad enough to prevent the ngress of dirt etc I would also fail it but there was a reply saying this was incorrect call ,if when any of these seals are checked surely they might appear not to bad when the steered wheels on in the straight position but when on lock the seal opens up bad enough to obviously see it would,nt prevent the ingress of dirt etc in my opinion that justifies a fail as we have said common sense and yes keep it simple
|
|
|
Post by biggestgerbil on Jul 27, 2012 19:55:45 GMT
Oh! Dear!
My instinct is to say that part of the gaiters job is to keep the lubricating grease IN!!
2.4.4.e does not mention keeping the lube of life in the joint, but only keeping the dirt and ubiquitous "ETC" out.
I can only imagine that the powers that be have considered this, as in the picture above, and see that it would help prevent corrosion to the hub assembly by issuing a carefully metered portion of CV joint grease onto said hub whenever the vehicle is driven. When you mix nice clean grease with dust and dirt it makes a very good grinding paste. The designers of the CV joint have tried to make a precision engineered device for allowing the smooth delivery of power from the gearbox to the road wheel. Grinding paste is not particularly welcome in this environment.
Fail it, I say, fail it. I would rather get points for being over zealous than for contributing toward injuring someone.
BG
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 28, 2012 9:42:07 GMT
Nitros I searched and searched for a CV gaitor tool but can only find CV Boot tools....in fact when I search for a CV Gaitor tool it's brings back results for a Boot Tool.... boot, gaitor all the same really
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 30, 2012 23:46:50 GMT
not my standards daveg, VOSA's jock thank you for having a common sense approach to testing Gentlemen trust me.....it's the first step in what could be a complete change to MOT Testing. These are European Regs not VOSA regs. Council members will confirm that what Europe actually wanted to introduce to the MOT would have meant huge expense to test stations for equipment, MOT testing similar to service level and an MOT test time taking nearly half a day. VOSA put the proposals to the Councils we all worked through them and eventually what was introduced in Jan and what will be introduced fairly soon was the cheapest and easiest to include in the test. Nitros it is a preventative introduction to the MOT test and more will sadly follow if Europe has it's way. The wording is key to the failure, a boot was a cv boot but it now means any rubber boot, steering or rear steering, ball joints and the likes all with the same fail criteria. I'm not trying to re-write anything...Europe is though! Sometimes it's better to have big ears and to listen and learn than to comment without knowledge....I did that's how I know Daveg.....pfffft your comments are typical Nitros..I haven't suggest any tester do anything I said what the 2012 manual says and that is: if it looks like it won't prevent not is not preventing, the ingress of dirt etc it's a fail. No need to examine the ins and outs of a cats arse as daveg would, just use common sense and professional judgement to assess what you see, if you think it can prevent dirt etc pass and advise, if you think it won't fail...... ..the pic used is a fail... ....I'll do a special daveg just for you nitros: pre•vent/priˈvent/ Verb: Keep (something) from happening or arising: "action must be taken to prevent further accidents". I don't forget much nitros, I do listen and learn when I have to though I rest my case Well now you have rested your case with another load of crap,what ever goes on between VOSA and council members is best debated on a different thread and what your stating regards a preventative approach is laughable. Your understanding of the reason for rejection is wrong. In your special as you say PREVENT means" to keep from happing"as in the concept of the future,however the word PREVENT also does mean to STOP something from happing in the concept of now,in our case the time of test. Here is what the standard is in written form,not if or buts in the future, and these paragraphs are the actual reasons for rejection from the VTS device during selection. 1099.GAITER DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT NO LONGER PREVENTS THE INGRESS OF DIRT ect(the word excessive is not contained in the rfr on the vts device,but is in the manual) the advisory underneath states; (gaiter damaged,but preventing the ingress of dirt) Now this is the part which you fail to acknowledge. Notice that the rfr also contains the words NO LONGER which means NOW which to me and other testers means at the time of test. So please don't give us anymore crap about "if it looks like it wont prevent"not is not preventing,as it might in the future. The inspection manual is a guide for us to make the correct decisions/judgments on components during a test,but at the end of the day careful reading and selection of the correct reason for rejection on the VTS device is what it comes down to as its the wording of the rfr that gets printed on the documentation. Purpose and Scope of the Test 1. The purpose of the MOT test is to ensure that cars, other light vehicles (including some light goods vehicles), private buses and motor bicycles over a prescribed age are checked at least once a year to see that they comply with key road worthiness and environmental requirements in the Road Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 as amended. 2. A Test Certificate is issued following successful completion of an examination. 3. The Test Certificate relates only to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as: · evidence of their condition at any other time; · evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle; or · evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use purpose and scope of the test; taken from the manual,not testers,council members or mine The question was,and still is, should the item fail (according to its condition at the time of test)
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 31, 2012 8:42:56 GMT
dirt etc Nitros, e.g. water, any split will allow water in. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/no-longer: in the past but not nowFrom the new 2012 manual: How To Use This Manual - Introduction – page 9 4. Assessment of Component Wear and Deterioration Because it is not practicable to lay down limits of wear and tolerances for all types of components on different models of vehicle, a NT is expected to use experience and judgement in assessing the condition of a component. The main criteria to be used when making such an assessment are: a. whether the component has reached the stage where it is obviously likely to affect adversely the roadworthiness of the vehicle b. whether the condition of the component has clearly reached the stage when replacement, repair or adjustment is necessary. For some reason people seem to think correcting wrong information given out is a form of attack, in reality it isn't it's a correction based on knowledge and experience. just keep it simple and use your experience to decide a failure. We all know what a good gaitor and a bad gaitor looks like, at the end of the day it's the testers call
|
|
chris
Nominated Tester
Posts: 21
|
Post by chris on Aug 1, 2012 20:19:18 GMT
Hi all, the picture is great it shows 3 holes which all allow ingress. Lack of lubrication and dirt contamination is the main cause of CV failure. Don't think i would pass and advise its a FAIL. If you had just purchased this car for one of your family what would you expect.
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 2, 2012 13:03:14 GMT
well said Chris
|
|