|
Post by biggestgerbil on Aug 13, 2012 22:01:38 GMT
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 Now Daveg, remind me NEVER to travel in a car that you have signed off as OK. Do you moonlight as a conservative party speech writer?? We are doing MOT's not rocket science here. If it looks knackered, and we are only allowed to look, for the most part, THEN IT'S KNACKERED! The seat belt in the picture is knackered. No amount of calculating or formula is going to change that. No normal, sane human being would ride in that car. I am sure that the presenter drove away with their pass receipt clutched next to their heart fully believing that their car is safe. Where are my blood pressure pills? ? BG Written before Daveg's 10:59 post
|
|
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 22:15:26 GMT
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 Now Daveg, remind me NEVER to travel in a car that you have signed off as OK. Do you moonlight as a conservative party speech writer?? We are doing MOT's not rocket science here. If it looks knackered, and we are only allowed to look, for the most part, THEN IT'S KNACKERED! The seat belt in the picture is knackered. No amount of calculating or formula is going to change that. No normal, sane human being would ride in that car. I am sure that the presenter drove away with their pass receipt clutched next to their heart fully believing that their car is safe. Where are my blood pressure pills? ? BG Written before Daveg's 10:59 post Where did you dream that statement up from? No normal, sane human being would ride in that carHow long do you think that belt has taken to reach that stage of deterioration? 1 min, 1 hour, a week or a few months or a year? Of course the presenter new about the condition of the belt, we all know what people are like, we have all heard it before, statements like I am selling it etc. What you are all doing is taking the picture at face value, your not thinking about the interpretation of "significantly weakened", just like a VOSA trainer could not answer the question either! However the belt is being given back to me so VOSA can have the belt when I receive it, then they can give advise on it with regards the latest failure reason for rejection, and I am quite confident they won't just say yeah its a fail, they will put some effort into an explanation whichever way they choose to make the decision. Daveg
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Aug 13, 2012 23:52:30 GMT
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 Daveg Firstly, Yes you are mistaken, because that is not what it is states. Secondly, the belt you pictured has multiple stitchings running along its entire length Thirdly, two of the stitchings are badly frayed/incomplete Straight from the manual:
2. A seat belt:
a. cut or damaged sufficient to obstruct correct operation of the belt or significantly weaken the webbing
b. stitching badly frayed, not secure or incomplete[/u] c. which has obviously been repaired[/i] So the belt as pictured fails under B ;D
|
|
|
Post by spotty on Aug 14, 2012 6:23:53 GMT
Still a fail in my opinion. The webbing on that belt is falling apart, the transverse strands are not holding the longitudinal strands in position. Without the webbing strands in their correct position, there'll be a geometry change within the belt, with a geometry change the forces on it will be different to what they were when the manufacturer tested it. That part of the belt will be on the outside of a curve when fitted, so all those induvdiual longitudinal strands will just break as they are not held together.
Can't see why you're talking about failure at 50mph, speed has nothing to do with it. The formula is F=MA, force= mass X acceleration, so it's the rate of decrease in speed that's a deciding factor, the mass of the seat occupant and maybe dependent upon whether the rear seat passenger is wearing a belt.
You don't know if it's going to be used by a person weighing 10 or 20 stone.
A 33% reduction in it's effectiveness of an item is significant.
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Aug 14, 2012 8:47:55 GMT
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. Daveg We are all entitled to our opinions and it seems when ever they differ from yours you stoop down to personal attacks. I've been trying to play nice till now but if you continue this slagging off you'll be getting a few home truths my friend. Last chance saloon.
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 14, 2012 9:08:06 GMT
daveg I used both manual ref's as you do you fool!!!!
the failure for your pic is in both manuals it hasn't changed it's just gone from (c) to (b)
Are we all in agreement on this one? it's a fail? .....apart from daveg of course
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 14, 2012 9:12:28 GMT
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. Daveg We are all entitled to our opinions and it seems when ever they differ from yours you stoop down to personal attacks. I've been trying to play nice till now but if you continue this slagging off you'll be getting a few home truths my friend. Last chance saloon. I agree with Baz, lay off the personal attacks and jibes when your wrong mr daveg it's not big and it's certainly not clever
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Aug 14, 2012 15:01:28 GMT
Having been away for a few days, I'm way too late in getting in to this one, but it has been ever so entertaining. But of course I'm going to put my tuppence worth in anyway. I would fail it. Not because of any herd instinct, but because it's a fail. 33% is, in my opinion, significant. Stitching is stitching, Daveg. It may be going along the belt instead of across, but the point you are ignoring, I mean missing, is that it is going along there for a reason. I'm not going to assume it's merely decorative, so in conclusion, Spell check is your friend, Daveg. And as you like posing riddles, I'll let you work out for yourself what the hell I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 14, 2012 15:43:31 GMT
ha ha jock I've missed you tive times a day
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Aug 14, 2012 17:54:16 GMT
You know chaps and chapeses, I'm a new tester (Dec 2012) I wonder what I've let myself in for here. Every thread is getting into an I'm better than you thread. Someone knows more than someone or is more experianced than someone. For goodness sake do your mum's know your'e out!
I come on here to broaden my knowledge and try to get on an even keel with the scheme in general. But I'm not posting on loads of queiries I have and day to day events as this attitude is pissing me off! Just remember everyone has to start somewhere that includes Daveg!
Gotta go the nurse has realised Iv'e escaped!
|
|
alex
Nominated Tester
Posts: 305
|
Post by alex on Aug 14, 2012 18:52:27 GMT
The belt in the picture is significantly weakened no one is being too harsh in saying its a fail. If vosa say otherwise the we might a well give up.
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 14, 2012 19:32:30 GMT
No-one should take it as someone else said on this forum that I am an authority on testing, because I have never said that ever, and whatever I write is the way that the reader interprets what I write, what you think about it is your ideas not mine. I post up problems and offer my views and opinions, I am not saying that I am always right, and you the reader might not interpret what I write in a way that you think is having a go at you, which I am not but you might think it reads that way, its nothing personal. I started this thread because the change in the wording of the reason for failure through me in the way it is written, I gave a picture and asked for your call on the subject, most if not all said its a fail. I wanted more from experienced testers, my problem was not whether a tester would pass it or fail it, but how the interpretation of significantly weakened had been established. Until I wrote about the percentages of failure of the belt not much feedback had been given, next all the backstabbing arrives and everyone starts being bitchy, which is not necessary. All I wanted to know was NT's opinions on how they interpret significantly weakened, nothing else but I did not get the answer I looked for, where I expected more from experienced MOT Testers than its failed, anyone can do and say that whether its right or wrong. Now I am not having a stab at the poster previously who said that I was wrong with the stitching of a seat belt, but my view is that the manual refers to stitching as that part of the belt around the seat belt buckles, anchorage points. The manufacturer of seat belts has clearly stated that the material of a seat belt is not stitched together but is solid woven together or weaved. Having watched the process how seat belts are made this process is different that stitching the belt together. VOSA must have had good reason to change the wording from the old reason for rejection from; Fibres that have separated, to a seat belt which is significantly weakened. Daveg
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Aug 14, 2012 19:42:26 GMT
I must say the way I interprit the manual about stiching is The sewing machine type stitching that "Stitches" the belt webbing together where it's wrapped around a fixing IE belt buckle OR body anchor etc
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 14, 2012 20:30:08 GMT
Example of seat belt webbing and stitching, the webbing weaved together looks a bit different than stitching in my opinion Daveg Attachments:
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Aug 14, 2012 22:51:14 GMT
daveg I used both manual ref's as you do you fool!!!! the failure for your pic is in both manuals it hasn't changed it's just gone from (c) to (b) Are we all in agreement on this one? it's a fail? .....apart from daveg of course The answer to your qustion is NO we are not all in agreement. ;D Reading the replies has brought up some good arguments but i think if the arguments was challenged by a VOSA VE i think i know what the outcome will be. For me its still a pass/advise
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Aug 15, 2012 9:42:58 GMT
I'm more interested in what a court of law has to say than a VE.
Oh and have a browse around the securon website. They state the following:
5mm Cut = 63% Strength Loss
I'm not bothered about arguing over that figure, but feel free to take it up with that seat belt manufacturer if you wish
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Aug 15, 2012 15:50:03 GMT
I would not find that surprising, excessive. like any other item on the vehicle, the whole of the finished product is what gives the strength. Take away any part and a simple comparison of the width of the bit that's left will not give you a direct comparison of the strength of it. I am pleased to see the results you have there, because, given your source, I am happy to use it when dealing with any customer or with VOSA after failing a seat belt. Nitros, you are happy to pass and advise the belt Daveg has shown us, but lets face it, before now, how many of us have had any actual facts on seat belts, and what they can withstand? Although even as I write I'm sort of flip flopping , because obviously if in doubt P and A. and it's the customer's responsibility to put it right, unless he secretly hates Auntie Jean and that's her seat. And without any hard facts there has to be doubt. And no, I don't apologize for changing my mind halfway through
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 15, 2012 19:18:46 GMT
I'm more interested in what a court of law has to say than a VE. Ohand have a browse around the securon website. They state the following: 5mm Cut = 63% Strength Loss I'm not bothered about arguing over that figure, but feel free to take it up with that seat belt manufacturer if you wish Just looked on Securon website and read their technical spec sheets where I can't find the figure you quote above, I would therefore appreciate a link to the exact page please for us to clarify the point. I am not in a position to advise further on what you say above with regards the strength loss on such a small cut, but my understanding would doubt that figure because if a belt is 47mm wide and you say 5mm cut takes away 63% of the strength of the belt, then what does the other 42mm equate to? How can 42mm equate to 37% and 5mm equate to 63%? The belt is designed to have equal strength in the webbing at every point across the lateral and longitudinal lengths I am sure of that. In my understanding I would of said that the force required to start to damage the belt must be significantly more than the force required to continue to damage the remaining webbing across the width of the belt, i.e. the force would be 100% reducing as the width of the belt gives way in damage, reducing 90, 85, 80, 70, 63% etc, therefore the more damage you have the less force required to continue the damage, and that is assuming that the belt design is such that the webbing being weaved together permits this action, which in regards to the picture of the second seat belt I posted, check it, you will see that the belt is manufactured in sections across the width, I am sure that the reason for that is to maintain the integrity of the strength of each section independantly of the other sections for added safety. Daveg
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Aug 15, 2012 20:59:32 GMT
I'm more interested in what a court of law has to say than a VE. Oh and have a browse around the securon website. They state the following: 5mm Cut = 63% Strength Loss I'm not bothered about arguing over that figure, but feel free to take it up with that seat belt manufacturer if you wish That may well be the case regards the fig but the belt is not cut.
|
|
wally
Nominated Tester
Posts: 139
|
Post by wally on Aug 15, 2012 23:45:42 GMT
I'm more interested in what a court of law has to say than a VE. Ohand have a browse around the securon website. They state the following: 5mm Cut = 63% Strength Loss I'm not bothered about arguing over that figure, but feel free to take it up with that seat belt manufacturer if you wish Just looked on Securon website and read their technical spec sheets where I can't find the figure you quote above, I would therefore appreciate a link to the exact page please for us to clarify the point. www.securon.co.uk/seat_belts_firstframe.htmIt is also interesting to note a 66% loss of strength because of a knot in the belt. Wally
|
|