nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Aug 12, 2012 18:37:26 GMT
on last refresher instructor said on this type damage to a belt pass and advise as long as it meets all other requirements if the damage was lateral it is a fail I would have to agree,
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Aug 12, 2012 19:34:36 GMT
In Daveg's pic at leat 25% if not 30% of the belts width is damaged/frayed plus towards the middle you can see through it it's holed. So I would say it's weakened
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 12, 2012 20:07:46 GMT
With this post I am not adding any new information, so what I write now experienced NT's should already know. The exception to this is that any new NT with little experience might not be fully aware of the old belt requirements, so I will point them out to clarify the differences. The old Reason for Rejection was; Condition of seat belts A cut which causes the fibres to separate, Fluffing or fraying sufficient to obstruct correct operation of the belt or which has clearly weakened the webbing. The new reason for rejection, repeated here for clarity. A cut or damage sufficient to obstruct correct operation of the belt or significantly weaken the webbing. I am the only NT who has examined the seat belt and the picture is the only visual examination you guys have, but all damage that is present you can see what I saw, there is nothing else. The webbing as can be seen has some fraying and fluffing present in the photo, but the new reason for rejection does not look for that, so an NT must assess whether the fluffing or fraying, which we now call damage to have an effect on the operation of the tonge of the seat belt, in other words does the damage affect the sliding of the tonge passed this part of the damaged belt. If it does then it fails, but if not then that does not fail, so we are then left with the question, is the belt significantly weakened? Well how do we assess that criteria in the mot test? The manual advises us to use experience in our judgement, which very little experience has been used by all previous posters who just said its a fail, so the condition of the belt is such that the fibres have separated but are not cut, and this rejection has been removed from the test, so what is then significant weakness? The damage is 15mm across the breadth of the belt and the remaining webbing is 30mm of good quality webbing completely un-damaged, so this is how I decided to make my decision because I can use experience in my judgement because VOSA expect me to do that, but I can't do a load test to see if the belt is significantly weakened, so to me as a minimum standard I decided that 33% of the breadth of the belt was damaged, thus leaving 67% of good quality webbing without any damage present, therefore I could not say as a minimum standard examination that the belt was significantly weakened when so much of the belt was remaining in tack. I don't like the idea of passing a seat belt in this condition anymore than anyone who said it was a fail, but if VOSA disagree and I have given them a copy of the evidence, then they cannot say that I did not use experience and understanding in the decision I made based on the new reason for rejection, which I feel is not as good as the old one in my opinion Daveg
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 13, 2012 8:47:33 GMT
I'd say the stitching was badly frayed and incomplete.... Fail
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Aug 13, 2012 9:55:06 GMT
The manual advises us to use experience in our judgement, which very little experience has been used by all previous posters who just said its a fail, so the condition of the belt is such that the fibres have separated but are not cut, and this rejection has been removed from the test, so what is then significant weakness? The damage is 15mm across the breadth of the belt and the remaining webbing is 30mm of good quality webbing completely un-damaged, so this is how I decided to make my decision because I can use experience in my judgement because VOSA expect me to do that, but I can't do a load test to see if the belt is significantly weakened, so to me as a minimum standard I decided that 33% of the breadth of the belt was damaged, thus leaving 67% of good quality webbing without any damage present, therefore I could not say as a minimum standard examination that the belt was significantly weakened when so much of the belt was remaining in tack. Daveg 1) Why is it that everybody else comes into the category "very little experience has been used by all previous posters who just said its a fail" But you can say "I decided to make my decision because I can use experience in my judgement because VOSA expect me to do that". That is just what I was thinking when I said fail. 2) I decided that 33% of the breadth of the belt was damaged, thus leaving only67% of good quality webbing without any damage present, therefore I could say as a minimum standard examination that the belt was significantly weakened by 33% even though so much of the belt was remaining in tack. Wally
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 13, 2012 10:48:46 GMT
very well said wally
|
|
ste
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by ste on Aug 13, 2012 11:25:38 GMT
With this post I am not adding any new information, so what I write now experienced NT's should already know. The exception to this is that any new NT with little experience might not be fully aware of the old belt requirements, so I will point them out to clarify the differences. The old Reason for Rejection was; Condition of seat belts A cut which causes the fibres to separate, Fluffing or fraying sufficient to obstruct correct operation of the belt or which has clearly weakened the webbing. The new reason for rejection, repeated here for clarity. A cut or damage sufficient to obstruct correct operation of the belt or significantly weaken the webbing. I am the only NT who has examined the seat belt and the picture is the only visual examination you guys have, but all damage that is present you can see what I saw, there is nothing else. The webbing as can be seen has some fraying and fluffing present in the photo, but the new reason for rejection does not look for that, so an NT must assess whether the fluffing or fraying, which we now call damage to have an effect on the operation of the tonge of the seat belt, in other words does the damage affect the sliding of the tonge passed this part of the damaged belt. If it does then it fails, but if not then that does not fail, so we are then left with the question, is the belt significantly weakened? Well how do we assess that criteria in the mot test? The manual advises us to use experience in our judgement, which very little experience has been used by all previous posters who just said its a fail, so the condition of the belt is such that the fibres have separated but are not cut, and this rejection has been removed from the test, so what is then significant weakness? The damage is 15mm across the breadth of the belt and the remaining webbing is 30mm of good quality webbing completely un-damaged, so this is how I decided to make my decision because I can use experience in my judgement because VOSA expect me to do that, but I can't do a load test to see if the belt is significantly weakened, so to me as a minimum standard I decided that 33% of the breadth of the belt was damaged, thus leaving 67% of good quality webbing without any damage present, therefore I could not say as a minimum standard examination that the belt was significantly weakened when so much of the belt was remaining in tack. I don't like the idea of passing a seat belt in this condition anymore than anyone who said it was a fail, but if VOSA disagree and I have given them a copy of the evidence, then they cannot say that I did not use experience and understanding in the decision I made based on the new reason for rejection, which I feel is not as good as the old one in my opinion Daveg So the seat belt, in your opinion is not significantly weakened, how much would you say is significant as a % ?
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Aug 13, 2012 11:50:33 GMT
An amount of free play of 10% of the pin diameter for a track rod end or ball joint is stated in the manual as a fail. I'd use the same criteria for a seat belt and to me 33% is way too much even for minimum standards. I stick with my original answer of fail. PS - I knew I'd be wrong for some reason I seem to be getting everything wrong so I'd better watch out for a VOSA visit soon.
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 13, 2012 13:03:22 GMT
There's only one person gets everything right Baz....
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 13, 2012 13:14:05 GMT
New failure Sec 5.2 (2c) or (2b) in the old manual = stitching badly frayed, not secure or incomplete
You should have used that buddy, just in case you hadn't noticed a seat belt has stitching which runs from end to end either side of the webbing.
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Aug 13, 2012 15:44:29 GMT
That particular belt has a number of stitches along its length, two are clearly badly frayed, there is your failure.
|
|
|
Post by biggestgerbil on Aug 13, 2012 15:59:45 GMT
A friend of mine has a pig farm. Next time he does a slaughter run I am going to borrow a freshly killed pig, before it is butchered (i.e.with all it's insides ETC!!) strap it into an old banger (no pun intended) with bad seat belts, and run it into a wall at about 30mph. Just to see what happens.
Watch this space.
BG
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 13, 2012 16:40:51 GMT
A friend of mine has a pig farm. Next time he does a slaughter run I am going to borrow a freshly killed pig, before it is butchered (i.e.with all it's insides ETC!!) strap it into an old banger (no pun intended) with bad seat belts, and run it into a wall at about 30mph. Just to see what happens. Watch this space. BG love it
|
|
|
Post by martin243 on Aug 13, 2012 18:27:44 GMT
Define "significantly weaken" last refresher I was on instructor refused.
|
|
|
Post by martin243 on Aug 13, 2012 18:32:09 GMT
And as for David reply, just say that to the person who flew through the windscreen at 50 mph, I'm sure he would agree with such a thoughtful and detailed "pass"
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 13, 2012 20:35:35 GMT
You might be interested to know that speed is nothing to do with the mot test, so if the belt failed at 50MPH, you can't test it in the test bay at 50MPH. Your trainer refused to comment on the question asked about defining significantly weakened belts! It's not really an easy question to answer because you need the manufacturer specifications and test results to do it, which I am sure VOSA don't have! Many more replies have now been given, Council Members are now saying that other areas of the Testers Manual should be used, like wear in pins and bushes, which is completely unacceptable and VOSA clearly state you must not mix reasons for rejections from one part of the manual to another to justify failing a vehicle. Another Council Member has just posted that the old reasons for rejections should have been used to fail the belt, probably because the new reason for rejection is not that easy to use anymore when the belt fibres have separated, but are not cut, because the reason for rejection only says obstructed or significantly weakened, and the trainer couldn't answer that one! It seems that Council Members are not reliable in their threads here, using wrong sections of the manual and old out of date reasons for rejections that can't be used anymore, the evidence speaks volumes. A tester is expected to use experience when making a judgment call. Where is that experience going to originate from? Training courses attended, not VOSAs, but other courses or manufacturer technical information. How did I decide the decision to take based on the new reason for rejection? I had to make a judgment call based on what I thought would constitute a significantly weakened belt, so I did it this way; All motor vehicle compoents have a safety factor, the seat belts are designed to withstand repeatedly or sudden loads, therefore higher values of safety factors are used. Difficulty arises in obtaining the correct manufacture data in regards to applied testing loads to seat belts, which is not impossible and is better than average gossip from the local trade or a VE saying in his/her opinion the force might be 20 Tonnes? We need from the manufacturer data to establish the working stress of the belt, which will provide the working load and from this the factor of safety can be calculated. Working with a manufacturer figure for seat belts I have I calculated a safety factor of 5.1. This safety factor means that the belt is over tive times stronger than it actually needs to be, so when I calculated that 67% of the belt was remaining in good condition, then I also calculated that the safety factor would reduce from 5.1 to 3.42, which is still more than three times stronger than required, which does not include the damaged part of the belt, which still has strength left in it becasue the fibres are only separated from each other and not cut, therefore maintaining some strength in that part of the webbing. In conclusion 67% = SF of 3.42 > 3 times the strength required. The belt is therefore not significantly weakened. Daveg
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Aug 13, 2012 20:42:19 GMT
With a hint of banter in my voice "Hell, you do talk some bollocks"
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 13, 2012 20:45:39 GMT
New failure Sec 5.2 (2c) or (2b) in the old manual = stitching badly frayed, not secure or incompleteYou should have used that buddy, just in case you hadn't noticed a seat belt has stitching which runs from end to end either side of the webbing. If I am not mistaken the stitching badly frayed, not secure or incomplete actually refers to the anchorage points, where the belt has been stitched by the vehicle manufacturer, and not somebody with a sowing machine, or as my local VE said, by someone using staples to stitch it? Daveg
|
|
phaetonott
Nominated Tester
I may not be right but at least I am trying!
Posts: 376
|
Post by phaetonott on Aug 13, 2012 21:19:09 GMT
I used my experience. I said fail. Bollox to the maths, the belt's fffffinished.
If in doubt, pass and advise, but I am not in doubt.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 13, 2012 21:59:52 GMT
Interestingly the near future of mot testing is going to have to get used to passing defective items that normally fail the test, whether NT's agree or not because the EU is planning on having vehicles with some defects that normally fail pass the mot test and you will have to issue a pass with the fail items failed Something along the lines of; Definitions of severity are to be brought into the mot test. Minor defects that would result in an mot test failure would not prevent the certificate being issued, and the EU are saying that the vehicle owner will be responsible for correcting the failures without having to have the repair confirmed by an NT or mot station. The joe public will absolutely love that one, yeah no problem I'll promise I will get it sorted, but I am selling it next week so it don't really matter Just get used to it the EU are taking the control away from garages and putting the responsibility on the owner. I wished I had a crystal ball then I could see where it will all end up ;D Daveg
|
|