Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:16:52 GMT
OK I failed this one today because the manual says; A ball joint dust cover missing, insecure or excessively damaged or deteriorated to the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc. There are a series of photos to follow, they are all the same track rod, which I have now sectioned to give the best pictorial view I can. The edit is now to advise what you are looking at, my picture would not post previously so tried it and now to give info. The track rod is from the drivers side, which is positioned behind the MacPherson strut suspension system, so direct view from the front is not possible. As can be seen if you zoom in to the photo the evidence of dirt is not questionable in appearance, so at that point one could argue that dirt and water etc would get in the joint? Check the next picture. Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:28:02 GMT
This is another picture of the same track rod but from the rear of the mac Pherson strut side, in other words the trailing side of the suspension. As can be seen the dust cover is split, this is exactly as you see it on the vehicle without touching it, if you zoom in (Sorry photo not perfectly clear) there is very little dirt on this side of the track rod from the rear view. Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:30:48 GMT
This is a picture of the dust cover removed. Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:33:14 GMT
This is a picture of the dust cover removed without causing any further damage and opened up in my fingers to show the damage to the dust cover. Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:39:40 GMT
This is a picture of the track rod as seen from the rear of the MacPherson strut, in otherwords as you see it when the assistant is rocking the steering. As can be seen there is a shoulder just above where the sealing ring secures the dust cover to the track rod body, this shoulder when viewed up closely clearly shows that dirt that passes the seal would still not enter the inner ball socket as will be shown. Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:43:11 GMT
This is a top view of the ball joint, look at the inside of the ball and socket and look at the shiny ball pin, show me the dirt which was seen on the outer body in the first picture? Attachments:
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 17, 2012 21:46:24 GMT
This is another picture with the ball pin moved to the other side, look closely and sho me the dirt? Take note also that the track rod is only designed to move in two directions, the ball pin socket has raised shoulders to give added strength and protection. So how bad then does that statement by VOSA "To the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc" actually have to be before it is actually justifed to say it will not prevent dirt etc getting in? Dave Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Jul 17, 2012 22:37:40 GMT
How do you know that boot has been split long enough so as to allow dirt ingress? Just because there has been no ingress of dirt yet doesn't mean there won't be. The boot could have split on the way to the test.
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 18, 2012 6:14:55 GMT
If the edges of the split do not meet then it is unable to prevent dirt from entering. Remember, the question is not 'how is the dirt going to get in?', but merely 'can the dust cover prevent it?'.
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Jul 18, 2012 8:57:16 GMT
It's split so it's a fail.
I haven't got enough time allocated to me per test (and the test fee wouldn't justify) to examine every aspect of every part that may or may not be affected by the new eurozone items.
To be honest, I wouldn't be bothered either.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 18, 2012 9:00:56 GMT
How do you know that boot has been split long enough so as to allow dirt ingress? Just because there has been no ingress of dirt yet doesn't mean there won't be. The boot could have split on the way to the test. Take a closer look at the pictures there is enough dirt on the track rod to say it has been there a while. Take a closer look at the inside of the ball joint and show me the dirt? Where could you ever dream up such crap that the dust cover could have been split on the way to the test Read the failure criteria again; A ball joint dust cover missing, insecure or excessively damaged or deteriorated to the extent that it would no longer prevent the ingress of dirt etc.On closer inspection of the design of the ball joint, even the manufacturer has gone the extra mile to ensure the relability of the ball joint by raising the shoulders to create a secondary back up to even further reduce the possibility of the ingress of dirt etc. The there is the abutment between the steering arm pivot point and the actually track rod itself, which is the same close fit on ball joints. The dust cover is fitted between them and this also makes it difficult for dirt to get inside when the cover is damaged or deteriorated as shown above and in other examples. Two things spring to mind for me; 1/ How bad does VOSA think the dust cover really needs to be before they consider that statement "To the extent that it will no longer prevent the ingress of", and 2/ The unjustifiable cost of replacement of a compoent that has absolutely nothing wrong with it just because somebody sat in an office who probably wouldn't know what one is anyway says a dust cover damaged or deteriorated is a justifiable reason to take a persons vehicle out of service, who just also might be living on the bread line. Maybe just like they did with the hydraulic park brake system when they justified that design as OK, then VOSA had to spend time and money getting them to overturn their own decision and make it a fail, thus the buyer of the product gets the bill for something that is absolutely beyond their understanding and control. There are too many academics now with a text book intelligence and no common sense and practical application of experience anymore. Just imagine a typical cost to the customer for changing this track rod? MOT Test fee has to be paid anyway, so that is not included. Cost of track rod, I don't know say £30 Cost of fitment, say another £30 Cost of wheel alignment say another £30 Say the Test Station charges a retest, say half fee, another what £27.43 How would you do your retest for the track rod? So the customer could end up with a bill of £117.43 Could be less or could be more, but all that money in this example is absolutely waisted money to get a car through the mot test, just because somebody without any experience says it should fail? Dave
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Jul 18, 2012 10:30:13 GMT
1) There are too many academics now with a text book intelligence and no common sense and practical application of experience anymore. 2) Could be less or could be more, but all that money in this example is absolutely waisted money to get a car through the mot test, just because somebody without any experience says it should fail? Dave 1) I sometimes wonder if you come into this category. 2) Are you now calling a VTS Council member (baz) an inexperienced Tester ? I am at the moment fitting an new o/s/f lower ball joint to a golf. The boot was split around the center, this has allowed water into the joint which is now badly worn and has failed the test as the corrosion on the ball has created a rough surface that has worn thru the plastic insert the ball sits in. Totally goosed joint but no signs of dirt in the joint, just water and rust. Wally
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 18, 2012 11:47:36 GMT
1) There are too many academics now with a text book intelligence and no common sense and practical application of experience anymore. 2) Could be less or could be more, but all that money in this example is absolutely waisted money to get a car through the mot test, just because somebody without any experience says it should fail? Dave 1) I sometimes wonder if you come into this category. 2) Are you now calling a VTS Council member (baz) an inexperienced Tester ? I am at the moment fitting an new o/s/f lower ball joint to a golf. The boot was split around the center, this has allowed water into the joint which is now badly worn and has failed the test as the corrosion on the ball has created a rough surface that has worn thru the plastic insert the ball sits in. Totally goosed joint but no signs of dirt in the joint, just water and rust. Wally Wally I think you need to read the threads properly before you post a reply , nowhere in my previously thread did I mention Baz In regards to your ball joint, very convenient that you have no picture to show us Dave
|
|
hayden
Nominated Tester
VTS AEDM, SM & QC
Posts: 828
|
Post by hayden on Jul 18, 2012 12:07:19 GMT
dave, we are not forensic experts who have to examine every part of a vehicle in detail and take numerous photos to find a possible cause as to why a part failed and maybe caused an RTA. we are mot testers working to a minimum standard of examining vehicles and using our experience, common sense and judgment not only for interpreting the rules as laid down by VOSA but also putting them into practice when we do the test itself. there will always be disagreement between testers as to what degree of wear, damage etc.... decides whether a component should pass or fail, that's called being human. if you feel so unhappy about VOSA and the mot scheme why are you still involved with it. surely even you must realize you cant change VOSA or the system even though you try very hard, too hard sometimes.
|
|
ste
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by ste on Jul 18, 2012 12:12:39 GMT
i would fail it if it came to my station, as i would that c.v boot you had posted up, but i think at the end of the day as long as you testing everything (i know a few that don't test everything and seem to get away with doing mots in 30 mins or so) and are happy with your opinion weather it fail or pass then that's all good
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Jul 18, 2012 12:51:26 GMT
Daveg
WHERE DO I DREAM UP SUCH CRAP!! You need to get a life Dave!
I was merley pointing out as when you dicected the tre you found no dirt in there! Even though as you say the front of it is covered in grime & grit. That the split could well be recent I was being flippant when I said it could have split on the way to test. Just because there is no dirt in there doesn't mean it won't let dirt in! After all it's test as presented
The cost of a tre for just a boot fail is imaterial to the mot test. Because of this a market in now begining to flurish in replacement boot kits although I prefer to fit a new tre. My bro in laws garage now salvage all GOOD boots and clips from arms and ball joints etc that have been replaced due to exess play. They then offer a second hand boot replacement if poss for around a £5 a boot! On a new wishbone at say £40'/£60 ish thats a big save for the custy!
Reason for Editing: spelling
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Jul 18, 2012 14:12:53 GMT
........ just because somebody without any experience says it should fail? That'll be me then. And at least 90% of the posters here. And the policy makers at VOSA. And the d1ckheads from the eurozone that added it as a fail criteria a few years back. Oh, and YOU Daveg - you failed it initially if I'm not wrong?I'll remember to strap on my full CSI kit next time I carry out a 27 hour test.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 18, 2012 14:50:11 GMT
........ just because somebody without any experience says it should fail? That'll be me then. And at least 90% of the posters here. And the policy makers at VOSA. And the d1ckheads from the eurozone that added it as a fail criteria a few years back. Oh, and YOU Daveg - you failed it initially if I'm not wrong?I'll remember to strap on my full CSI kit next time I carry out a 27 hour test. You got it right in your 4th line Baz, which are the people I was referring to, all the rest just follow their rules and nobody says anything about it, just argue its a fail and keep taking money, but hey we must not use common sense and think about the effect on world resources and throwing good parts away for nothing, and when somebody like me comes along and puts arguments forward that shows its a money making racket and no engineering experience or common sense is used, everyone says VOSA say its a fail so its a fail and nobody dare say jack crap about it people say that this country is rip off Britain, I wonder why, a few years ago I used to work for a main dealer, at the end of the financial year the yearly stock take was nothing short of empty the shelves into the skip and re-stock the new parts, not that there was anything wrong with the new parts being thrown into the skip to start with, except the excuse Oh it costs money to re-stock them. No wonder the Country is called rip off Britain, like I said before like dominos one falls eveyone follows suite and does the same, and nobody ever says but what if? Dave
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Jul 18, 2012 14:55:42 GMT
The MOT's not about what IF
It's about what IS on the day
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 18, 2012 15:42:57 GMT
But that is not what I meant.
|
|