| Author | Post |
|---|
Bones n Hombre
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Sat Dec 12th, 2009 09:46 am |
|
relisys wrote:
Still 40 points as a AE for something that was not my doing.
AE's are held responsible for the actions of their testers, probabaly would have been ok if he had advised it , because now it looks like he missed it (30 points) advised the bush and incorrect would have been (10, 5 or 0 points) depending how dangerous it was my guess is not dangerous at all so (0 points)
B4 of the testing guide says..
" AEs are in law fully responsible for ensuring that statutory MOT testing at their
VTSs is carried out to the required standard and in the manner instructed by VOSA "
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11th, 2009 12:00 am |
|
relisys wrote: Ok so finally I got 40 points and a formal warning.
30 for the bush and 5 each for the shockers which the NT failed and VE said were a pass and advise.
They wanted to give me 10 points for each shocker but I argued the shockers down to 5 points each. I pointed out that something most have been wrong with them otherwise why would the VE suggest that they were a pass and advise and not a straight forward pass. Car was a vectra, taxi with a lpg conversion so a heavy tank in the boot. Even the presenter complained about rear shockers suggesting they were shot, but VE said they were a pass.
NT also has to do a fresh demo test sometime soon.
Still 40 points as a AE for something that was not my doing.
Sorry to Hear about Your Outcome, On "Rear Suspension Components"
These, "Bushes", Are "Rose Joints"? And Not! "Bushes"? And are Indeed Bolted Within, A "Secure Environment", Which Cannot, "Easily Fail" To Produce An Incident without a serious failure of the supporting area??
"Refresher Already Booked"
Laters,
Wes.
|
relisys
Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10th, 2009 11:23 pm |
|
Ok so finally I got 40 points and a formal warning.
30 for the bush and 5 each for the shockers which the NT failed and VE said were a pass and advise.
They wanted to give me 10 points for each shocker but I argued the shockers down to 5 points each. I pointed out that something most have been wrong with them otherwise why would the VE suggest that they were a pass and advise and not a straight forward pass. Car was a vectra, taxi with a lpg conversion so a heavy tank in the boot. Even the presenter complained about rear shockers suggesting they were shot, but VE said they were a pass.
NT also has to do a fresh demo test sometime soon.
Still 40 points as a AE for something that was not my doing.
Last edited on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 11:30 pm by relisys
|
Dynamic Balance
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 08:00 pm |
|
Spongebob wrote: I suppose you could always try and argue there is no fail for them as they aren't actually part of the rear arm but the hub for which there is no RFR. Similarly how do you fail a peugeot 406 or similar for a worn bottom all joint as it isn't part of the suspension arm?
The limitations of the computerisation RFR's are sometimes a bit of a hinderance but then again they only reflect what's written in the manual.
Nice try Spongebob, but method of inspection (2.4G.3) specifically says;
Check the security and the amount of play at pins/bushes/mountings and ball joints locating; Notice the word (Locating) which is significant here.
a/ Upper and Lower Suspension arms/wishbones
b/ Trailing arms
c/ Tie bars/rods
d/ Radius arms
e/ Panhard rods
f/ Torgue/ reaction arms
g/ antiroll bars and linkages
h/ subframes
Check the above also for security, tightness of nuts and bolts, cracks, fractures, excessive damage and corrosion.
So even though the bush is within the wheel hub and not the suspension arm, it makes no difference because the bush is locating the suspension arm to the hub.
DB
|
Spongebob
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Boycottland |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 07:06 pm |
|
I suppose you could always try and argue there is no fail for them as they aren't actually part of the rear arm but the hub for which there is no RFR. Similarly how do you fail a peugeot 406 or similar for a worn bottom all joint as it isn't part of the suspension arm?
The limitations of the computerisation RFR's are sometimes a bit of a hinderance but then again they only reflect what's written in the manual.
|
Dynamic Balance
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
relisys wrote: Can anyone tell me what the acceptable level of movement is in a rear lower suspension arm bush on a vectra for MOT purposes?
I spoke to a Vauxhall dealership who says there should be some play though cannot give a figure.
VOSA propose to give me a 30 point penalty as my NT missed the bush. VOSA say that there was 5mm of play. From the photos they provided I would suggest 3 to 4 mm.
I need to offer a response asap so any help would be grateful.
Hi relisys,
Using the criteria set out in the mot testing manual, the following guidlines are;
Excessive play in a pin/bush or pin/bearing. for example;
02mm for a 12mm diameter pin
03mm for a 25mm diameter pin
10% of the diameter for pins over 25mm diameter.
I don't want to rewrite the manual so please read page 09 of section 2.4. There is some information there which you may be able to use to your own defence with regards some bushes are designed to show a comparatively high degree of compliance, they are therefore likely to show some movement.
The key to understanding I think here is that a comparison from the nearside to the offside should have been completed by your tester, if one side showed play and the other did not, then a worn bush is present.
Vauxhall in my view have given you wrong information, I test a lot of vectra's and the bushes when in good order normally do not have free play present.
It is the VT32 that keeps you out of trouble, but if one is not issued then problems can and do arise.
DB
|
relisys
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 04:42 pm |
|
Kev
Thaks for the quick reply.
I have always advised and passed when there has been a small amount of play as per my original VOSA inspectors advice which was if its not going to fall out then pass and advise.
Think I will have to take this one on the chin
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 04:35 pm |
|
3-4mm is too much.
Its a rose joint.
There is no play at all when new.
Its a common fail item too.
Take the 30 points!
Hope you resolve it OK though.
Kev
|
relisys
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 04:32 pm |
|
Can anyone tell me what the acceptable level of movement is in a rear lower suspension arm bush on a vectra for MOT purposes?
I spoke to a Vauxhall dealership who says there should be some play though cannot give a figure.
VOSA propose to give me a 30 point penalty as my NT missed the bush. VOSA say that there was 5mm of play. From the photos they provided I would suggest 3 to 4 mm.
I need to offer a response asap so any help would be grateful.
|
Current time is 08:32 am | |
|
