| Author | Post |
|---|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15th, 2010 11:27 pm |
|
kev1975 wrote: Spongebob wrote:
Can't remember ever seeing anything fitted with a wishbone bearing (anyone care to enlighten us?) so obviously the prime candidate to be kept on the RFR list then.
pretty sure the MGF has bearings in the upper front wishbones , could be wrong though 
nissan primera! 
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 755 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14th, 2010 08:49 pm |
|
Spongebob wrote:
Can't remember ever seeing anything fitted with a wishbone bearing (anyone care to enlighten us?) so obviously the prime candidate to be kept on the RFR list then.
pretty sure the MGF has bearings in the upper front wishbones , could be wrong though
|
Spongebob
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Boycottland |
| Posts: | 147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14th, 2010 08:10 pm |
|
kit1958 wrote: Anyone else see latest SN, regarding headlamp aim.
The previous Reason for Rejection (RfR) for "beam image adversely affected" is no longer available.
Until an alternative is available, if the headlamp beam image does not match any of those in the Inspection Manual and it will dazzle other road users it should be failed using RfR 8909 for a headlamp "aimed so that it dazzles other road users". Otherwise, Pass and Advise.
An amendment to the Inspection Manual will be made in due course.
Well done VOSA, at last
Interesting to see if they introduce a MOI for assessing dazzle then. Maybe put headlights on dip beam and walk a reasonable distance away. Or maybe a road test with dip beams on and if anyone flashes you then fail it. A simple fix you'd think but bound to be complicated by the need to go before the minister and all the red tape that entails.
|
Spongebob
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Boycottland |
| Posts: | 147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14th, 2010 08:03 pm |
|
bimmer wrote: maybe if people looked at the new updates a bit more objectively they might not find them quite so bad.
The first thing you think is have they cocked it up again as with beam pattern and the answer is usually yes they have. They won't tolerate incompetence or a drop in standards from us so why should we tolerate it from them? After all their communication level is hardly first rate anyway.
A simple list of what they're taking out would be a big help especially as in my case the new manual arrived when I was off and the old one got binned straight away with no chance to see anything that got removed (such as the need to tap certain lights which I only found out after the special notice relating to classes 1 and 2) they wonder why mistakes and the wrong standards creep in. In effect they seem to be dumbing down the MOT. A seized strut top bearing is very easy to spot anyway so why the need to remove the RFR?
Can't remember ever seeing anything fitted with a wishbone bearing (anyone care to enlighten us?) so obviously the prime candidate to be kept on the RFR list then.
I also find it a pain to have a boatload of fails from other vehicle classes included which have no relevance to anything I test.
Still I've only got just over a week left of this then I'll get to see it from the punters perspective which will no doubt be stressful for other reasons.
Last edited on Wed Jul 14th, 2010 08:06 pm by Spongebob
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11th, 2010 09:17 am |
|
that soon, better start warming up the VTS device then 
Last edited on Sun Jul 11th, 2010 02:38 pm by bimmer
|
golf
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11th, 2010 03:48 am |
|
due course, ...................
2040 manual lol
|
kit1958
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10th, 2010 08:58 pm |
|
Anyone else see latest SN, regarding headlamp aim.
The previous Reason for Rejection (RfR) for "beam image adversely affected" is no longer available.
Until an alternative is available, if the headlamp beam image does not match any of those in the Inspection Manual and it will dazzle other road users it should be failed using RfR 8909 for a headlamp "aimed so that it dazzles other road users". Otherwise, Pass and Advise.
An amendment to the Inspection Manual will be made in due course.
Well done VOSA, at last
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 6th, 2010 08:34 am |
|
maybe if people looked at the new updates a bit more objectively they might not find them quite so bad.
Last edited on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 08:38 am by bimmer
|
kit1958
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 5th, 2010 10:33 pm |
|
| maybe, time will tell.
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 5th, 2010 07:32 pm |
|
i dont think it would effect the presenters as the failure for roughness, stiffness would still have to be diagnosed, but by the workshop and not the tester, same outcome, vehicle repaired gets a pass and a VT20. as we cant dismantle to find the part causing the problem maybe this is a better way of doing it ?
Last edited on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 07:42 pm by bimmer
|
kit1958
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 5th, 2010 07:21 pm |
|
Not very good for presenters, but, I suppose it makes it just a little bit harder to pin faults and points on testers. 
I still think that there is some sort of fiddle with the figures to lower the fail rate of the uk "national fleet", so some pencil pusher can have a bright idea of 4 2 2
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 5th, 2010 08:31 am |
|
the individual parts of the steering are not mentioned now as they are covered by " the steering system" as in the link. according to VOSA it is not our job now to determine which part of the steering mechanism has roughness or stiffness only to report that it is present. vague, yes but easier to test if you think about it as we don't have to figure out where the roughnes, stiffness is coming from e.g. top mount, bottom ball joint, steering rack etc... that is the job of the workshop. this is what i was told, so don't shoot the messenger just passing on the WISDOM of VOSA.
Last edited on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 09:10 am by bimmer
|
volksjim
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 4th, 2010 01:46 pm |
|
cant see strut bearing mentioned in rfr where it was previously mentioned under macpherson strut where it should always be..still waiting on reply from vosa but can see resting on turning plates check the rfr has got even more vague..only been testing for 24 years
time to hang up the cat lol
Last edited on Sun Jul 4th, 2010 01:55 pm by volksjim
|
Spongebob
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Boycottland |
| Posts: | 147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 1st, 2010 08:07 am |
|
It is totally unacceptable that they remove things without properly informing us. After all any new inclusions get a big black line alongside to highlight them. Plus I came back off a half day t find the new testing manual in place and the old one had been binned making it difficult to see any changes. If not for the last special notice about classes 1 and 2 we'd still be tapping lights.
Also under what category do we fail things like high level stop lights if over 50% of the individual light sources aren't working. Now included in the MOI and information column but NO ACTUAL RFR FOR IT!!!!
One useful amendment to an RFR which still doesn't go far enough is removing the word "feels" from wheel bearing feels rough when rotated which I assume is to cover the fact that 99.99% of bearings are noisy long before you can actually feel it and in a previous update to the testing guide they specifically put in listen to noise indicating roughness but again didn't put an RFR for it.
|
goddens
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 30th, 2010 11:10 am |
|
Spongebob wrote:
I contacted them about this (along with dozens of others no doubt) and was told to use the aimed so that it dazzles other road users. That being despite the manual clearly stating that RFR only applies to older vehicles which have headlights which don't comply with the 3 types shown in the manual.
Yes, the manual states vehicles older than 1950 for this RFR. they really know how to cock things up.
It would be nice if we were given a list of all changes as it would be easy to tell a customer something is a failure without looking on the VTS at the booking in stage.
Well done VOSA!
|
kit1958
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 20th, 2010 06:14 pm |
|
| A giant leap back, but if you p&a and someone decides in 28 day you were wrong (unlikely) at max only 10, or 5, or 0 points!
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 20th, 2010 02:05 pm |
|
2.2. D.1 http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s02000206.htm covers the strut top bearing.
Last edited on Sun Jun 20th, 2010 08:14 pm by bimmer
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 755 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19th, 2010 11:26 pm |
|
volksjim wrote:
nope only other bearing mentioned is wishbone bearing??!!?
yet another backward step
|
volksjim
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19th, 2010 09:21 pm |
|
| nope only other bearing mentioned is wishbone bearing??!!?
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 755 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19th, 2010 08:46 pm |
|
is there nothing else you could fail it under ?
never had the need to look since the rules changed but what about steering malfunctioning ?
|
Current time is 01:04 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
