| Author | Post |
|---|
Stealth
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26th, 2010 08:14 pm |
|
Point noted bimmer - but ....
What percentage of class 4's are rear wheel drive nowadays ?
Obviously a greater proportion of class 7 are rear wheel drive, but how often do you come across a propshaft with a bolt together front flange ?
Sure, there will be a small minority of designs, typically 4x4 - that may have such an arrangement, but as I said earlier - the standards are to a great extent legislated down to the lowest common denominator.
|
bimmer
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26th, 2010 06:32 pm |
|
worst case scenario. vehicle doing 70 mph, front of propshaft becomes insecure drops down digs into pothole sends vehicle sideways, steering and brakes have no effect, vehicle rolls over. this may seem dramatic but it could happen. i agree that we should not have a free hand at what we can fail, but on the issue of propshafts in my opinion they sould be made a testable item. on a lighter note i have just taken over the roles of SM and QC at the vts where i test. 
Last edited on Fri Feb 26th, 2010 06:45 pm by bimmer
|
Stealth
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26th, 2010 03:20 pm |
|
karlosthejackel wrote: Im back again havin a moan lol!
We test for a Jaguar dealership. I came across an X type i believe the AWD version with 4wd. The car was low milage around 30k and was first MOT being 3 years old. I found the prop shaft was loose and only had 3 of the 6 retaining bolts left on the flange.
On the rear seat was a child seat fitted.
Obviously i couldnt fail the vehicle but advise the prop and put it down as dangerous. Thing is i wanted to see this vehicle again but due to MOT computerisation legislation it was free to go.
I just feel that i was passing a vehicle that basically was a death trap in my opinion and seeing the child seat strapped in the back it just makes you think that what if....
VOSA will only let us fail the things that they say which is fair enough but in certain circumstances,the ones who they nominate to test the nations vehicles day in day out shouldnt we be able to decide now and again if a vehicle should be failed on an item other than that in the MOT bible?
Lowest common denominator I'm afraid karlos. 
Propshaft drops off equals no drive but the vehicle can still be steered & braked to a stop.
Allowing testers to ''decide now and again if a vehicle should be failed on an item other than that in the MOT bible'' is also opening up a whole can of worms, with the inevitable opportunists taking advantage by ripping off unsuspecting punters.
There's enough of that still happening without giving licence to it !!
Last edited on Fri Feb 26th, 2010 03:26 pm by Stealth
|
karlosthejackel
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 21st, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 10:13 pm |
|
| Ill second that mate-my sidekick's missus has dropped their first baby this morning at 2 am. i had to rant at him as we were way too busy today!!! Mother and baby are fine-dad is shattered.....soft lad! Looks like a long week!
|
mjk
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 09:58 pm |
|
I have never had to abandon or abort a test, but believe you can still charge for an abandoned test. You can't charge for an aborted test due to equipment failure, tester dying etc! Mind you, may be wrong, seems to have been a long week already.
Martin
|
karlosthejackel
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 21st, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 09:47 pm |
|
Hi mjk, only problem with that is youve spent 20-30 mins on a test and dont get paid for it lol!
We need to make a living too but i definately see your point. The fuel pipe thing is a grey area too. i see a lot of older jap stuff with fuel pipes that have gotten so corroded they have almost doubled in width to look at-yet cant be failed because they not yet leaking. well at least petrol isnt too dangerous!! 
|
mjk
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 09:29 pm |
|
| I agree about having to let cars go in a dangerous condition - fuel pipe corrosion is another example. With the jag, though, as it was an AWD, it probably needed a tapley test so it could have been failed as unfit to drive and test abandoned.
|
karlosthejackel
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 21st, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 08:42 pm |
|
I did actually think this too and you are right some guys would go OTT. I havent come across many cars where ive felt so strongly about occupant and/or general public safety whare the particular problem or issue cannot be failed but now and again it does happen and i guess as a tester you just fear the worst.
Putting down an advisory and ticking the dangerous box does cover the tester and testing station but when you are genuinely concerned for safety maybe an emergency helpline or something would help?
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 568 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 08:31 pm |
|
karlosthejackel wrote:
Im back again havin a moan lol!
We test for a Jaguar dealership. I came across an X type i believe the AWD version with 4wd. The car was low milage around 30k and was first MOT being 3 years old. I found the prop shaft was loose and only had 3 of the 6 retaining bolts left on the flange.
On the rear seat was a child seat fitted.
Obviously i couldnt fail the vehicle but advise the prop and put it down as dangerous. Thing is i wanted to see this vehicle again but due to MOT computerisation legislation it was free to go.
I just feel that i was passing a vehicle that basically was a death trap in my opinion and seeing the child seat strapped in the back it just makes you think that what if....
VOSA will only let us fail the things that they say which is fair enough but in certain circumstances,the ones who they nominate to test the nations vehicles day in day out shouldnt we be able to decide now and again if a vehicle should be failed on an item other than that in the MOT bible?
the only problem with that is that some testers may get a bit carried away & start failing allsorts of things , I don't like this sort of thing anymore than you do but as long as you have tested according to the rules & strongly advised the defect then you have done all you can .
Just hope the customer sees the dangerous advisory & does something about it .
|
karlosthejackel
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 21st, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 08:26 pm |
|
Im back again havin a moan lol!
We test for a Jaguar dealership. I came across an X type i believe the AWD version with 4wd. The car was low milage around 30k and was first MOT being 3 years old. I found the prop shaft was loose and only had 3 of the 6 retaining bolts left on the flange.
On the rear seat was a child seat fitted.
Obviously i couldnt fail the vehicle but advise the prop and put it down as dangerous. Thing is i wanted to see this vehicle again but due to MOT computerisation legislation it was free to go.
I just feel that i was passing a vehicle that basically was a death trap in my opinion and seeing the child seat strapped in the back it just makes you think that what if....
VOSA will only let us fail the things that they say which is fair enough but in certain circumstances,the ones who they nominate to test the nations vehicles day in day out shouldnt we be able to decide now and again if a vehicle should be failed on an item other than that in the MOT bible?
Last edited on Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 08:28 pm by karlosthejackel
|
Current time is 08:36 am | |
|
