|
Post by baz657 on Jul 18, 2012 16:08:22 GMT
We, as testers and AE's can't do anything about the methods of testing or the failure criteria Dave. If you want to change any of these then you're in the wrong line of work and possibly living in the wrong country. All your what if's and but's should be presented to the policy makers at the DfT in London and the decision makers in Brussels - not at us lot on a forum trying to help each other earn a crust by using and trying to understand the rules that are already out there, all without getting into bother with VOSA .
We, as VTS council members can try to help VOSA implement any changes that they are required to or would like to make. Some of these have gone very smoothly - the introduction of partial retesting for example - and others not so well - like the recent changes that still haven't been completely introduced or finalised.
These are political and policy issues that you have a habit of bringing up and I, personally, don't think that either of those should confuse or get in the way of testing, methods of testing or fail criteria as far as we as testers and AE's are concerned
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 18, 2012 18:04:38 GMT
So what are you saying Dave? If you're just blowing off steam because you recognise that this part of the updated MOT is ridiculous, then that is understandable, and nobody is going to argue that it's a good idea to fail perfectly servicable parts because of a split boot. But if you're saying you won't, even though the new european part of the manual says it is a fail, then you are making your own test up. Something which you have counseled others against many times in the past. So which is it?
|
|
|
Post by EcoTrans (Leicester) on Jul 18, 2012 18:46:57 GMT
I try and test with-out blinkers on, see the bigger picture and remain bomb-proof in my judgements but that is not always easy. You need to be fair to the customer AND make a profit (I suspect some of the regular posters have never run their own business, and that's probably the best place to be!). The job is difficult (and interesting) enough without over-complicating issues; the Euro club do that for us. Unified standards have never been further away and the testing-standards binoculars never more focused. On us. K.B.O (Winston Churchill) & vote UKIP, perhaps? I'm going for a lie down.
|
|
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 18:50:09 GMT
Everybody said that because the manual says damaged or deteriorated to the extent that it will permit the ingress of dirt etc is a fail, which as NT's yes we have to follow the guidelines given, however we do have slight opinion in that we can pass and advise in limited circumstances if an NT considers that the boot is not likely to ingress dirt etc, then you have to be able to justify the decision taken, but it seems now that argument is twofold with the latest written ideas. Jock wrote;If you're just blowing off steam because you recognise that this part of the updated MOT is ridiculous, then that is understandable, and nobody is going to argue that it's a good idea to fail perfectly servicable parts because of a split boot That really is what I am doing, it is absolutely beyond belief for me that VOSA would be given an instruction from the DfT from Europe to fail all these dust covers without some form of information in the information column to advise NT's to use some discretion where necessary, like in my example, where the joint is in perfect working order with only a split boot caused probably by some heavy handed mechanic for some reason when it was originally fitted. And in my opinion in regards to the drive shaft boots, the original failure criteria was better, a pin hole or traces of grease indicating a leak was a pass and advise, but a split boot was a fail, common sense there was evident, but not anymore. Daveg
|
|
alex
Nominated Tester
Posts: 305
|
Post by alex on Jul 18, 2012 18:58:19 GMT
The boot in your photo I would personally fail ,a small pin hole/tiny tear/split I would pass and advise as well as dirt as it states i think also about the ingress of water which in time will wash away the grease inside the joint,I don't agree with changing serviceable parts these replacement boot kits are becoming more popular which is a good idea and a fraction of the price of replacement wishbones drop links etc,there will be aspects of the mot which all of us on this forum might not personally agree with, you can virtually drive around with bald tyres but if you,ve got a split seal in a susp joint bad enough then it,s a fail even though it might not have any excess play.its common sense on decisions to p&a or fail and as said you will have differences of opinions between testers :)best thing keep calm and carry on ;D
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 18, 2012 19:43:27 GMT
And I think on that note we're pretty much all in agreement ;D
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 18, 2012 23:49:02 GMT
Whenever and whoever decided to include this reason for rejection in the test has not given it much thought as i can see Daves point. We pass/advise ball joints with a degree of wear evident and the dust cover is perfectly intact,yet we fail dust covers for not being able to prevent ingress and the ball joint is perfectly o.k.;doesent sound right to me,which one if left, is going to give up 1st??
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 19, 2012 6:04:34 GMT
Of course it's not right, but in europe they don't have the minimum safety outlook which we had here till they dumped this rfr on us.
|
|
ste
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by ste on Jul 19, 2012 13:10:21 GMT
i think we all know vosa struggle to know what they are doing at times, take the diesel test problems when it came about (my machine wasn't used for about a year) the latest diesel crap up, pay to update your diesel machine to test 08 on but they have removed the fail section for 08 onwards vehicles on the vosa pc, the fact that you can fail an insecure battery but they have not included a fail on the vosa pc yet etc, and you can fail a number plate on loads of different thing but seat belts not to many etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Jul 19, 2012 13:45:19 GMT
Ste, yopu cant fail battery yet on vts device because it's in annex B and are only advisory untill god knows when
|
|
ste
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by ste on Jul 19, 2012 13:58:33 GMT
i haven't got anything in annex b, but its there in the manual section 1, 1.9, 1, but like you say not no the vts pc yet, same as loads of other fail items, reminds me when they brought in more fail items for number plates and forgot to change the law so we could fail them and had to drop fail items like british standards mark etc
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 23, 2012 15:15:24 GMT
daveg do you seriously look for for dirt on assessment? stop it!!!! it's a theoretical description of a failure in the manual.....keep it simple, if the grease has got out dirt can get in.... ..aint no failure for an item being dirty but there is if the item cannot prevent dirt entering through it....
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 23, 2012 17:04:38 GMT
Not strictly true, grease can be escaping through small splits that can still be preventing dirt from entering.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jul 23, 2012 18:21:18 GMT
daveg do you seriously look for for dirt on assessment? stop it!!!! it's a theoretical description of a failure in the manual.....keep it simple, if the grease has got out dirt can get in.... ..aint no failure for an item being dirty but there is if the item cannot prevent dirt entering through it.... Dave, rubbish that LOL, look at my photo uploaded here. The dust cover has been peeled back by my hand around the flange where it clips to the joint, the cover has completely deteriorated around this part, but unless you actually lift the cover the dirt can't of its own free will get into the joint. On close inspection you can see the grease and the shiny ball pin, with no rust or dirt present, which beyond doubt proves that just because a dust cover is damaged or deteriorated as in this example does not mean that it is in such a condition that it should fail, as the manual clearly states; The ball joint dust cover must be damaged or deteriorated to the extent that it would not prevent the ingress of dirt etc. Now my example clearly shows a dust cover which is deteriorated all round the circumference, yet unless I help it to see the inside you can't see the inside, so dirt can't get in either. Looking for dirt, don't do it!!!!! What does the manual say; A dust cover is such a condition that it would not prevent the ingress of dirt etc. OK no problem Dave, we won't look behind the covers for dirt because you say no we should not do it, so in my example beyond all doubt you are saying that we cannot fail this damaged, deteriorated dust cover because we cannot see behind it without moving it, therefore we must pass and advise it as I have said all along You can't have your cake and eat it Dave, simple it has no dirt in it and you cannot prove that dirt can get in it even when you have looked and dirt is not in it, and the cover is deteriorated and still no dirt in it. I rest my case, pass and advise. On my other thread with regards the CV boot one member asked VOSAs trainers and they agreed that was a pass and advise, they commented and said the damage, deterioration would have to be much worse before a fail is considered. The dust covers will have to be significantly bad before a fail, that literally means practically missing off the joint. Your too keen LOL Dave Attachments:
|
|
alex
Nominated Tester
Posts: 305
|
Post by alex on Jul 23, 2012 19:21:59 GMT
I tested a toyota yaris today and the seal was 99%Missing and the joint itself was rusty as hell and apart from that it had loads of play made me laugh when I saw it thought of the discussions on the forum wish I had taken a picture now to show you all ;D
|
|
phaetonott
Nominated Tester
I may not be right but at least I am trying!
Posts: 376
|
Post by phaetonott on Jul 23, 2012 22:40:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by biggestgerbil on Jul 24, 2012 7:01:09 GMT
Mmmm! Interesting. I am going to order one of those, just to have a look. BG
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 24, 2012 8:14:16 GMT
So in this case Daveg wou will say the trainer is giving VOSA's decision because he agrees with you, but if a trainer disagrees with you, then that's just his opinion, we all have different training , experience, etc, doesn't mean he's right,etc,etc, ad nauseam. Double standards? ;D
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Jul 24, 2012 9:23:07 GMT
I had a Honda civic in last week, that needed a lower joint cover. Unfortunately the rubber is bonded within the joint, so those rubber kits wouldn't work.
I have got a box set of those rubbers kits though, and when they can be used, they work a treat.
They where about 50 quid mind, but they work really well if the joint allows it too.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 24, 2012 21:02:52 GMT
Thanks for the info excessive
|
|