|
Post by David on Jul 25, 2012 10:50:14 GMT
not significantly daveg just excessively as always...important point you should remeber. the manual says: 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. if a cover is missing it's a fail, if it's torn or split excessively it's a fail, if it can be moved because it's insecure it's a fail and make a note of the ETC after dirt.....this means anything, water being one of the ETC's for sure. If you see a pin hole with a bubble of grease pass & advise if you see a split that could allow dirt ETC (e.g. WATER) in it's a fail Keep it simple
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 27, 2012 15:00:26 GMT
this is the last time I'll paste this Baz will confirm too: 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 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
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Jul 28, 2012 11:20:20 GMT
this is the last time I'll paste this 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. Confirmed We were initially in shock when presented with the full Euro list. The other items haven't gone away either - some may make an appearance in the future.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 28, 2012 23:43:50 GMT
As Daveg has said many times and he may correct me if i am wrong,but many things have been discussed by Vosa regarding changes but have never materialized. So don't get to excited
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 30, 2012 10:04:57 GMT
Cheers Baz Nitros, daveg is a newbee that's suddenly become an expert and to the best of my knowledge is giving out incorrect and crazy ideas to testers on what should be a helpful site to testers with testing issues
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Jul 30, 2012 14:32:37 GMT
As already mentioned, a lot of the recent changes have been brought in by the Euro nuts. VOSA wouldn't have imposed them on its own, and didn't want to even now - they had to due to pressure from the DfT which was pressurised by Europe.
I can't remember the full list of items we had to look through, but there were things like (going from a murky memory) alarm systems, heating and ventilation and full diagnostics which didn't make the cut... this time.
Now that Europe has got its claws in you can expect more to come and our test to become more than a basic and minimum standard. Saying that, you may find in the future that minor items (such as blown bulbs, wiper blades, etc) will become more advisory to make up for the dangerous items that may stop the vehicle presenter from legally driving the vehicle away from your premesis.
Any alterations or new items are difficult and long winded to make on the current comp system - one of the requirements of the new system is that any changes can be made virtually overnight. There are changes afoot and it may well be that the test as we know it today could be a totally different animal in the future.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 30, 2012 15:17:15 GMT
thanks for the input Baz We may also see a scoring system for the severity of the fail, vehicles grounded as Baz said, items included in the test you wouldn't dream of like super chipping, service history and many more things that will completely alter the entire scope of the MOT we know..... daveg won't be familiar with these as he became a council member after these discussions took place, but from the example of MOT Comp 2 we've seen there will be facilities to update and amend test items virtually instantly once passed by Parliment. People seem to constantly have a go at VOSA but it isn't always VOSA who make the decisions. The people I know from VOSA started their working life in much the same way as ourselves in a workshop or service dept and they do understand our qualms, but they can't always do anything to help as it's legislation that needs to change the majority of the time. It's a very difficult process just to alter failure text never mind test procedure so any wording in our manuals etc has been extensively worked out....it's not thrown together...it's very carefully put together over years. Do as the manual says and you won't go far wrong, or fall foul of some hidden Acts or the likes, keep it simple
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 30, 2012 15:29:48 GMT
p.s. Nitros,
it's too not to
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 30, 2012 17:07:13 GMT
Can we please get back on the subject of the Track rod end issue,if you want to start discussing something other then, start another thread please ;D
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 30, 2012 17:08:44 GMT
p.s. Nitros,
it's too not to Dave,the words GROW UP spring to mind.
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 30, 2012 20:59:59 GMT
Can we please get back on the subject of the Track rod end issue,if you want to start discussing something other then, start another thread please ;D I think it's pretty much all been said now, hasn't it? There's three threads all on pretty much the same lines, and we're pretty much just repeating ourselves. Except the bit about 'the physics of dirt', I hadn't laughed so hard in years.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 31, 2012 0:43:28 GMT
The point Daveg was trying to make with this thread was should the track rod end fail even though the ball joint is clear of any dirt which results in presenters replacing parts that are unnecessary and causing unnecessary costs. Yes ;we all agree its a fail due to the dust cover being damaged and will no longer prevent the ingress of dirt.
So just to throw a spanner in the works,
RFR no 4477 is written like this on the VTS device;
-BALL JOINT DUST COVER EXCESSIVELY DAMAGED SO THAT IT NO LONGER PREVENTS THE INGRESS OF DIRT
advisory underneath is written; ball joint dust cover damaged,but preventing the ingress of dirt.
The rfr in the manual is different to the rfr on the VTS device.
|
|
phaetonott
Nominated Tester
I may not be right but at least I am trying!
Posts: 376
|
Post by phaetonott on Jul 31, 2012 0:49:03 GMT
My rule is "If I can see through the hole, at any point of the steering lock, dirt can get in"
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jul 31, 2012 20:19:20 GMT
The point Daveg was trying to make with this thread was should the track rod end fail even though the ball joint is clear of any dirt which results in presenters replacing parts that are unnecessary and causing unnecessary costs. Yes ;we all agree its a fail due to the dust cover being damaged and will no longer prevent the ingress of dirt. So just to throw a spanner in the works, RFR no 4477 is written like this on the VTS device; -BALL JOINT DUST COVER EXCESSIVELY DAMAGED SO THAT IT NO LONGER PREVENTS THE INGRESS OF DIRT advisory underneath is written; ball joint dust cover damaged,but preventing the ingress of dirt. The rfr in the manual is different to the rfr on the VTS device. That doesn't change anything. Yes it has to fail according to the Euro instructions through VOSA. We don't want to force anybody to change things unnecessarily, that is why it's good that new dust covers have become available. They don't have to change the joint, which is undamaged. they do need to change the dust cover if it is no longer serviceable thus prolonging the life of the joint.
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 31, 2012 21:10:05 GMT
The point Daveg was trying to make with this thread was should the track rod end fail even though the ball joint is clear of any dirt which results in presenters replacing parts that are unnecessary and causing unnecessary costs. Yes ;we all agree its a fail due to the dust cover being damaged and will no longer prevent the ingress of dirt. So just to throw a spanner in the works, RFR no 4477 is written like this on the VTS device; -BALL JOINT DUST COVER EXCESSIVELY DAMAGED SO THAT IT NO LONGER PREVENTS THE INGRESS OF DIRT advisory underneath is written; ball joint dust cover damaged,but preventing the ingress of dirt. The rfr in the manual is different to the rfr on the VTS device. That doesn't change anything. Yes it has to fail according to the Euro instructions through VOSA. We don't want to force anybody to change things unnecessarily, that is why it's good that new dust covers have become available. They don't have to change the joint, which is undamaged. they do need to change the dust cover if it is no longer serviceable thus prolonging the life of the joint. thats part of the problem,i dont know anyone that just changes the boot its always a full tre and when i get retest back that get done elsewhere its always has a new tre on i was told on my course it would have to be really bad to fail
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Jul 31, 2012 23:38:52 GMT
The problems I have seen a few times alrerady when just the boot has been replaced by whoever, 1) they have to remove the track rod end from the taper and have used one of those fork type joint splitters which has damaged the actual joint, 2) not drilled out and replaced the split pin after shearing it off whilst removing the retaining nut, 3) not replaced the nylock nut with a new nut after damaging it whilst removing from a badly corroded thread. In all these cases it would have been cheaper just to fit a new t/r/e the first time.
Wally
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 1, 2012 11:58:39 GMT
Not really Wally , my original point not many I think really understood what I was getting at. If the dust cover fails and nothing is wrong with the track rod end, then professionally the steering alignment should be checked to ensure that uneven tyre wear does not appear because guesswork has been used based on personal opinion of experience, getting round the use of track guages to finish the job for mot purposes, which is an added cost to the repair, for something that for the last 50 odd years has never been a test item, with all the crap that has been manufactured over the years and now we have really good engineering standards, we attact the rubber dust covers to find more revenue from the customers. A competent engineer would drill out the pin and replace it, but some experienced mechanics do have an answer for everything and the evidence speaks volumes, as you pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Aug 4, 2012 15:19:05 GMT
Not really Wally , my original point not many I think really understood what I was getting at. If the dust cover fails and nothing is wrong with the track rod end, then professionally the steering alignment should be checked to ensure that uneven tyre wear does not appear because guesswork has been used based on personal opinion of experience, getting round the use of track guages to finish the job for mot purposes, which is an added cost to the repair, for something that for the last 50 odd years has never been a test item, with all the crap that has been manufactured over the years and now we have really good engineering standards, we attact the rubber dust covers to find more revenue from the customers. A competent engineer would drill out the pin and replace it, but some experienced mechanics do have an answer for everything and the evidence speaks volumes, as you pointed out. Thank you Daveg, for once again giving us your opinion on our abilities to understand you, VOSA, and our job.
|
|