board_home 

Visit the
UK MOT Testing
Industry Portal


Autotech MOT Audits


 Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Dual Purpose Vehicles  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jun 8th, 2010 08:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 301
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
soz guys:)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jun 8th, 2010 06:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
martin243
Trade Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 12th, 2009
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom
Posts: 51
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Agreed

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 10:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Wesley
Trade Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: Wanted
Posts: 1841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
volksjim wrote: wonder how much they took to totally overhaul the reasons for rejections..no more excessively worn discs or advisorys for slight pitting or wear...haven't had time to have a good gander right through even method of inspection has changed for exhaust noticed that today used to be able to advise tail pipe missing not any more any part missing is a rfr:?

I think you should have started a new thread for this one??:?

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 09:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
kit1958
Trade Member


Joined: Sat May 15th, 2010
Location: The Finest Country On Earth , United Kingdom
Posts: 1099
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Yes there was a SN, about 8 pages. I  wanted to fail ford focus on beam image, but not there, i decided it was "deteriorated so that the light output is well below that required to illuminate the road ahead." Had a quick look at outher bits, seems ok to have a cut seat belt now!:?

Looks like a giant leap backwards.  

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 07:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 301
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
was there a special notice??:?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 07:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
kev1975
Trade Member
 

Joined: Wed Sep 5th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 912
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I wanted to fail a transit headlight today for no image , that aint there either ,the light output was also reduced & so it failed for that .
seems to me like some of the rules were a backward step .

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 07:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 301
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
dunno:? but a lot that was there on sat is no longer there:?  gotta manually type in slight worn discs now lol

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 07:08 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
mark2
Member
 

Joined: Thu Sep 10th, 2009
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 39
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
volksjim wrote:
no more excessively worn discs or advisorys for slight pitting or wear...

But is that a mistake by siemens or vosa?
I had a gander there and the rfrs appear to be the same as for brake drums.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 7th, 2010 07:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 301
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
wonder how much they took to totally overhaul the reasons for rejections..no more excessively worn discs or advisorys for slight pitting or wear...haven't had time to have a good gander right through even method of inspection has changed for exhaust noticed that today used to be able to advise tail pipe missing not any more any part missing is a rfr:?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jun 6th, 2010 05:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1550
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
volksjim wrote: wouldn't it be great if vosa could put this on VSI prior to testing..or is that too simple

Good idea .....if you take the time to browse the VSI without logging on for test -

BUT - if you've already logged it on before you check the VSI and it turns out to be a class VII & your station is only class IV ........

And then in walks your VE :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

Siemens would no doubt want a not inconsiderable sum to change the VSI  - and VOSA ain't exactly overflowing with cash at the moment.  :shock::shock::shock:

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jun 6th, 2010 04:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
castrolrob
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Sep 10th, 2006
Location: Luton,a Minor Province Of, Bangladesh
Posts: 1469
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
yep.....

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jun 5th, 2010 06:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 301
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
wouldn't it be great if vosa could put this on VSI prior to testing..or is that too simple

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun May 30th, 2010 01:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Wesley
Trade Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: Wanted
Posts: 1841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stealth wrote: Wesley wrote:
Hi Stealth,

This seems to be a very "grey" area? of the vosa criteria.:? 

Is It a "Navara D22" or is It a "Navara D40"?:?

wes.

 

I'll hang my head in shame at my mistake Wes - and Spongebob  :dude:

After a bit of trawling through back issues of Matters Of Testing I found this ........


Take the Nissan…

One vehicle we know to be causing problems for testers is the Nissan Navara. The only information on the manufacturer’s plate is the DGW and axle weights – in the case of the Navara, we already know that they are all over 3,000 kg DGW.

Because the unladen weight figure for the Navara is not available, it’s impossible to say whether or not they fall under the classification of dual purpose. To overcome this difficulty, VOSA has agreed with the Department for Transport (DfT) that these can be tested as Class 4.

Adding the exclusion of dual purpose vehicles to the goods vehicle definition in the MVTR was intended to prevent certain Land Rover goods vehicles with a DGW of over 3,000 kg falling under the Goods Vehicle Plating and Testing scheme.

Class IV it is - at the moment - ;)


Hi Stealth,

not your bad,;):P

a navara D22 is "less" than 3000kgs, on the plate, and a navara D40 is slightly "over" 3000kgs.;)

the same as those old landies,;)

Since the Class V11 introduction,? and the latest SN Proposals, many "eons" later than your last paragraph, above, vosa choose to propose changes?:?

should this issue have been addressed when, "Class V11" Was First Introduced?:?

thus alleviating Us of All missconceptions and uncertaincies about what weight of vehicle we are allowed to test in a specified "Class"??:?

wes.

 

  

Last edited on Mon May 31st, 2010 10:43 pm by Wesley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat May 29th, 2010 08:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
castrolrob
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Sep 10th, 2006
Location: Luton,a Minor Province Of, Bangladesh
Posts: 1469
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
the actual problem is that we have no way of confirming the unladen weight,thats why this hassle exists and as such we were told to assume class 4.some stations will have weighing equipment and as such will be certain of the weight but the average station(us included)doesnt.i first raised this query with tech services 5years ago with a dodge ram v10,gvw plate that read 4000kg!class 4 but inform the presenter that it will probably become class7 within the next year or so.this was pre computerisation.....

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat May 29th, 2010 03:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1550
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Ironically - a colleague rang the help desk recently regards a Navara that had a 5th wheel fitted in the payload area - to tow a trailer type motor home.

They advised him it was class VII :?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat May 29th, 2010 01:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1550
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Wesley wrote:
Hi Stealth,

This seems to be a very "grey" area? of the vosa criteria.:? 

Is It a "Navara D22" or is It a "Navara D40"?:?

wes.

 

I'll hang my head in shame at my mistake Wes - and Spongebob  :dude:

After a bit of trawling through back issues of Matters Of Testing I found this ........


Take the Nissan…

One vehicle we know to be causing problems for testers is the Nissan Navara. The only information on the manufacturer’s plate is the DGW and axle weights – in the case of the Navara, we already know that they are all over 3,000 kg DGW.

Because the unladen weight figure for the Navara is not available, it’s impossible to say whether or not they fall under the classification of dual purpose. To overcome this difficulty, VOSA has agreed with the Department for Transport (DfT) that these can be tested as Class 4.

Adding the exclusion of dual purpose vehicles to the goods vehicle definition in the MVTR was intended to prevent certain Land Rover goods vehicles with a DGW of over 3,000 kg falling under the Goods Vehicle Plating and Testing scheme.

Class IV it is - at the moment - ;)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat May 29th, 2010 12:22 am
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Wesley
Trade Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: Wanted
Posts: 1841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stealth wrote: Spongebob wrote: I had a Nissan Navarra (or whatever the crewcabbed pickup is they do) booked in for first MOT a couple of weeks ago. The gross weight put it into the dual purpose vehicle category (3210 kg IIRC) BUT how the heck do I know the unladen weight of it? I'm guessing it would be stated on the log book which wasn't presented at the time?? Assuming a payload of around 1000 kg this would be over the weight stated in the manual so we didn't test it, apart from that it was the size of a small county anyway and would probably have been too big for the ramp.
If it's a 'pick up' and can carry goods &  between 3501 & 3500 kg gross then it would be class VII - unless you could confirm the under 2040 kg unladen weight    ;)


Hi Stealth,

This seems to be a very "grey" area? of the vosa criteria.:? 

Is It a "Navara D22" or is It a "Navara D40"?:?

wes.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 28th, 2010 04:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1550
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Spongebob wrote: I had a Nissan Navarra (or whatever the crewcabbed pickup is they do) booked in for first MOT a couple of weeks ago. The gross weight put it into the dual purpose vehicle category (3210 kg IIRC) BUT how the heck do I know the unladen weight of it? I'm guessing it would be stated on the log book which wasn't presented at the time?? Assuming a payload of around 1000 kg this would be over the weight stated in the manual so we didn't test it, apart from that it was the size of a small county anyway and would probably have been too big for the ramp.
If it's a 'pick up' and can carry goods &  between 3501 & 3500 kg gross then it would be class VII - unless you could confirm the under 2040 kg unladen weight    ;)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 27th, 2010 12:25 am
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Wesley
Trade Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: Wanted
Posts: 1841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
castrolrob wrote: further to the below. the reply was-to change all of this requires an act of parliarment.due to goverment changes it may not happen till post 2010.


Cheers rob,;)

What, You are Confirming is "That", "It Has Not Been Implicated Yet";)

And We (Us Testers), Should All look forward to "SN??..........:?" To Confirm This?;)

"Happy Days"!!..........;):D

taters,

wes.;)

ps; maybye i should send in a claim for loss of earnings??...........lmao!:P

Last edited on Thu May 27th, 2010 12:31 am by Wesley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed May 26th, 2010 09:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
castrolrob
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Sep 10th, 2006
Location: Luton,a Minor Province Of, Bangladesh
Posts: 1469
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
further to the below.reply was-to change all of this requires an act of parliament.due to goverment changes it may not happen till post 2010.who could ever have imagined that a change of government could occur this year?i mean it was only 5 yrs from the last election?that wall eyed twot and all his happy band of minions were almost guaranteed to be f***ed out the door anyway.if this a fair sample of civil service efficiency then the quicker that 1000000 redundancies occur the better.may anyone who believes that i am being unnecassaraiy cynical please advise me of a better species to which i could apply for membership?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 01:31 am Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
MOT Forum - The MOT Testing Forum for the UK MOT Testing Industry > Trade Category (MOT Trade Discussions) > MOT Discipline and Compliance - Report problems (or solutions) here | MOT Forum > Dual Purpose Vehicles Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2011 Data 1 Systems