| Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| KA body rot | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11th, 2016 06:31 am |
|
1st Post |
|
kit1958 Trade Member 
|
If you look at a box made of cardboard each of the sides or panel if you like each one on it's own is fairly flimsy, but when it is whole say in a cube it is much stronger as each panel supports the adjoining panels. Hope that makes sense.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Feb 8th, 2016 11:34 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
skootashaun wrote: goddens wrote:The video on you tube is pretty vague as it shows some of the rear quarter on the fiesta painted and the lower area around the fuel filler left blank even though it is very close to the top shock mount. Not too good with the descriptive and technical words myself, but as said above, outer panels must be supportive to the structural area's. If I was to kick an outer wing, Ka or similar it would easily buckle and bend, if I was to kick an inner wing as in the pictures of 'supportive/structural' in the manual, it wouldn't budge. So, how can an outer, easily buckling, non strong wing possibly be supportive?? Shaun.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Feb 8th, 2016 11:29 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
goddens wrote: The video on you tube is pretty vague as it shows some of the rear quarter on the fiesta painted and the lower area around the fuel filler left blank even though it is very close to the top shock mount. +1
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Feb 8th, 2016 01:36 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
goddens Member
|
Double post, sorry Last edited on Mon Feb 8th, 2016 01:40 pm by goddens |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Feb 8th, 2016 01:35 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
goddens Member
|
The video on you tube is pretty vague as it shows some of the rear quarter on the fiesta painted and the lower area around the fuel filler left blank even though it is very close to the top shock mount. The manual just says you need to consider whether panelling in the prescribed area is supportive or not. 2. Prescribed areas Certain areas of the vehicle structure are particularly important for the safety of a vehicle. Particular attention must be paid to these areas during an inspection. These areas are: · the load bearing parts of the vehicle to which the testable items defined in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Inspection Manual are mounted, and · any load bearing or supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of the mounting location. To give an example; during the examination of a seat belt mounting on an inner sill, consideration must be given to the outer sill (or the sill reinforcement if the outer sill is a plastic cover), door pillar, floor panel or any other structural part within 30cm of the component’s mounting point. It is accepted that it is not possible to assess some of these areas due to the fitment of body trim etc. In the old corrosion video when talking about wings the VOSA man says "if the wing were welded on then the tester would have to decide was the outer wing supportive or not" I think it pretty far from being black and white unless there is another resource regarding corrosion assessment.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Feb 7th, 2016 08:18 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
kit1958 Trade Member
|
Stealth wrote:Hi goddens. Personally I don't see where the misunderstanding comes from, there is a video available on you tube,the preferred media of young people. Just an observation but I think that the change in refresher courses can't help.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Feb 4th, 2016 08:54 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator 
|
Hi goddens. Scroll back a few posts and you will see I referred back to the Manual and agreed I was initially wrong regards the foglamp. Corrosion in the KA panel as shown in the photo WOULD result in a 5 year warning - 30 points for corrosion missed on a testable item. I've issued 2 formal warnings for the same defect. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Feb 4th, 2016 12:54 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
castrolrob Trade Member
|
yup,they used to tell you to pay particular attention to the areas around pre existing holes but you obviously don't believe us despite being told repeatedly.do yourself a favour,send dvsa a messge and ask.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Feb 4th, 2016 10:04 am |
|
9th Post |
|
goddens Member
|
Stealth wrote: I was a VE for 27 years before I took early retirement and entered the world of self employment. I had an appeal case just like yours, on a KA, for corrosion around the fuel filler. Ironically it was the same purple colour as the photos. The tester received a 5 year warning. The fog lamp should fail for "showing other than a steady red light to the rear"  Hi Stealth, I tend to agree rightly or wrongly with Shaun. If a Ka outer wing piece of corrosion received a pass and advise would the NT still receive a five year warning or would it be minor points in your opinion?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2016 01:18 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
castrolrob Trade Member
|
read the post below again,if its a panel that could be simply unbolted and the car driven then it aint a problem,if the panel concerned is welded on its part of the structure.this means wheel arches at strut mounts(think transit front)seat/belt anchors and every other thing prescribed areas are supposed to be.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Feb 2nd, 2016 09:29 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
Stealth wrote: skootashaun wrote: Ooh, flashing sidelights, good one
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jan 29th, 2016 09:29 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
skootashaun wrote:
I stand corrected - the RFR clearly states a "mandatory fog lamp" another contentious item along with flashing sidelights. 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 11:12 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
Stealth wrote: If you continue to pass defects such as the KA panel then I fear you wil eventually end up in trouble. We will see, recently with various VE's, DVSA and the whole industry, things are no longer uniformed. Times, they are a changing, as Bob said. What was your thoughts on the fog light??
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 10:51 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
If you continue to pass defects such as the KA panel then I fear you wil eventually end up in trouble.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 09:48 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
On a sperate matter, I was pulled to task by a VE 2 years ago for passing 'Tesco's mother and toddler parking permit' in the swept area. Referred him to the manual, and he still took me to appeal saying that the allowed parking permit DID NOT MEAN a Tesco's one. Manual didn't state that, and I won. Big two fingers up to that chap 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 09:44 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
Thanks Stealth for coming back, I have it drummed into me for years that rot such as that KA is not a failure, and that I have to pass corroded and holed sills, even though the shell is a monocoque. I will continue to pass these ares (depending on inner wings/sill closes etc). Re: the nearside fog lamp, the manual states: 'This inspection applies to the one rear fog lamp which is required to be fitted to the centre or offside of vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1980' So a nearside is untestable, therefore how could I fail it?? Shaun.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 09:27 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
skootashaun wrote:I still maintain that an outer wing, welded or bolted IS NOT a load bearing/structural member. I was a VE for 27 years before I took early retirement and entered the world of self employment. I had an appeal case just like yours, on a KA, for corrosion around the fuel filler. Ironically it was the same purple colour as the photos. The tester received a 5 year warning. The fog lamp should fail for "showing other than a steady red light to the rear"
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 09:16 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
skootashaun Member
|
I still maintain that an outer wing, welded or bolted IS NOT a load bearing/structural member. If the KA was like the one pictured and the inner wing/structural area was sound I am sure it would be a lose at appeal for the tester that failed it. Do we have any acrual VE's on this forum, or is it just NT's that are reading things into the rules to suit their own fail idea's?? I had a broken nearside foglight lense showing pure bright white light to the rear last week, was I right to pass that??? Shaun.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 06:21 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
Clifford Pope wrote:A general but relevant question - does the 30 cm rule mean in a straight line through air or the shortest route along metal? They might be considerably different if a hole is in an outer wing. A straight line Clifford. Picture a 60cm beach ball with the corrosion at the centre of the ball.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2016 09:26 am |
|
20th Post |
|
KevG Super Moderator 
|
Straight line Clifford. It's an imaginary sphere 60 cn in diameter centred on the mounting point of the item in question.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:09 am | Page: 1 2 |
| MOT Forum - The MOT Testing Forum for the UK MOT Testing Industry > Public Category (Ask questions about your car and the MOT) > Pass or Fail? Ask about your car and the MOT | MOT Forum > KA body rot | Top |
