|
Arguably one could have every components and piece if chassis and bodywork covered by a "beauty" cover.
The vehicle could never fail an MoT unless its performance was obviously impaired - eg: brake efficiency. One may even conceive an exhaust design which precluded insertion of a probe to measure emissions.
|
|
|
|
I know the rule about 'no dismantling', but it makes nonsense of the test if testers are prevented from examining those things they need to.
|
|
Would £50 MOT fee cover the cost of the hours taken to remove and replace the undertrays on hypercars?
|
|
Where a child seat is held by a seatbelt the tester is told only to check the belt visually. They cannot remove the child seat.
As a grandparent however I am having to come to terms with the increased complexity of child seats compared to our first time round 30 years ago. So maybe they are best left alone for the test but it feels a bit lax.
|
Where a child seat is held by a seatbelt the tester is told only to check the belt visually. They cannot remove the child seat.
As a grandparent however I am having to come to terms with the increased complexity of child seats compared to our first time round 30 years ago. So maybe they are best left alone for the test but it feels a bit lax.
Surely with Isofix it is much easier to properly fit a child seat than without?. No faffing about wondering if you've routed the belt the correct way, just click the seat straight in.
|
|
You would think so bbd. However having tried to fit two different seats in three different cars it’s not wholly a click and you’re done. Some seats do not fit some cars due, for example, to an additional strut. My daughter’s baby seat fits her Vitara with ease but her partner couldn’t get into our Mazda 3. It did fit into our Golf. Isofix mounts are standard but beyond that the designs differ and all seats will not fit all cars.
Also, at least on ones like my daughter’s without integral straps, they still use the adult belt and this needs to be routed correctly.
|
|
|
|
Would £50 MOT fee cover the cost of the hours taken to remove and replace the undertrays on hypercars?
Years ago I had Variomatic DAFs, an undertray covered the drive belts and tension adjusters and was held on with over 20 hex head screws. After the first time I took it off and left it off, which saved quite a lot of time.
|
Years ago I had Variomatic DAFs, an undertray covered the drive belts and tension adjusters and was held on with over 20 hex head screws. After the first time I took it off and left it off, which saved quite a lot of time.
Would this not cause dirt and debris from the road to get fouled up in the drive systems?. No idea if my Dad removed them from his DAF 55, I'll need to ask.
|
|
I once took my car for a service and MOT. I put the back seats down and placed my bike in the back, thinking I'd cycle the few miles home and back again to pick it up. The heavens opened!.The dealership took pity on me and offered to get someone to drive me home and deliver the car back.
The MOT stated something like: unable to test rear selt belts due to bicycle!
|
|
I could get quite wound up about MoT testers, but just take deep breaths.
A couple of years ago Son No 1 used to carry work gear around in his car with the back seat folded and got a similar. ' couldn't check seat belts' advisory. Last year Son No 2 was moving house and had some flat pack furniture in the back with seats folded. MoT tester refused to test the car. When I protested, the manager said it's at the tester's discretion which upon checking, is correct.
The other advisory that grates is 'car was wet'. MoT tester bottom protection.
Edited by Chris M on 06/10/2021 at 18:00
|
|
""""A couple of years ago Son No 1 used to carry work gear around in his car with the back seat folded and got a similar. ' couldn't check seat belts' advisory. Last year Son No 2 was moving house and had some flat pack furniture in the back with seats folded. MoT tester refused to test the car. When I protested, the manager said it's at the tester's discretion which upon checking, is correct"""
Common sense tells you that part of the MOT is the testing of all the seat belts. It is not unknown for a belt or buckle to get damaged. I am surprised that it is just an advisory and not an immediate fail otherwise what is the point of having belts that may fail and seriously injure someone
|
|
|
Last year Son No 2 was moving house and had some flat pack furniture in the back with seats folded. MoT tester refused to test the car. When I protested, the manager said it's at the tester's discretion which upon checking, is correct.
If the tester had interfered with customer's goods in the car causing damage, what then ? Anti-litigation measures are rife these days, but this point has to be allowed.
|
|
"If the tester had interfered with customer's goods in the car causing damage, what then ?"
Manager and I cleared the boot and the test proceeded.
My point is the lack of consistency in the process.
|
|
It is entirely reasonable that MoT test stations should expect the vehicle to be presented in a "fit for testing" condition. It is up to you!
If child seats, flat pack furniture, or a cup of tea balanced on the dashboard make this difficult then tough. They should not be expected to remove or risk damaging etc etc.
If they are unable to test properly it is absolutely right that you get an advisory or fail.
|
|
A tester can't fail something they can't test. For example, they can't fail on low brake pad thickness unless they can actually clearly see the brake pads. If they just suspect they are thin, it's an advisory. So they can't fail a seat belt they can't examine. It's an advisory or they refuse to test.
|
A tester can't fail something they can't test. For example, they can't fail on low brake pad thickness unless they can actually clearly see the brake pads. If they just suspect they are thin, it's an advisory. So they can't fail a seat belt they can't examine. It's an advisory or they refuse to test.
By the same token they can't pass a vehicle they can't test fully. So if they aren't allowed any dismantling they may refuse to test.
|
|
Just to confirm that a certain (perhaps unavoidable) arbitrary quality also applies to testing here in Taiwan, I took the rear seat out of my car since I never use it and it cuts my load space.
No safety issue since there are no rear seat belts, so if anything its safer without the seat.
Wouldn't test it. Had to go and refit it and come back. Fortunately I hadn't chucked it away..
|
"If the tester had interfered with customer's goods in the car causing damage, what then ?"
Manager and I cleared the boot and the test proceeded. My point is the lack of consistency in the process.
Fortunately you were still present. If you had just parked the car and gone to work, how would you have expected the tester to proceed ?
|
|
"Fortunately you were still present. If you had just parked the car and gone to work, how would you have expected the tester to proceed ?"
I expected him to do the same as the tester did for Son No 1. Record it as an advisory.
The point of sharing this particular experience was to highlight the inconsistency between testers. Neither tester was wrong, it's down to their own judgement. They were both following the same rules. Which coming back to the OP' original point, some ignore the fact that an engine cover or undertray is fitted and some record it as an advisory, in my view because they want to protect their backsides. And to pick up on some earlier point, how does the tester do a proper test if the undertray is hiding a leaking brake pipe or power steering leak?
Edited by Chris M on 07/10/2021 at 09:59
|
|
You really should be presenting the car in a fit state so that it can be properly tested, then there will be no need for testers to "protect their backsides" in matters like this? It's not difficult and surely, it’s in everyone's interest that a car should be properly tested. What if your son had an accident and a passenger found to their cost that their seatbelt wasn't working?
|
|
Agree it's in everyone's interest to have working seat belts, but also not having a brake fluid leak. Are you suggesting MoT testers should be allowed to dismantle parts of the car to give everything a thorough check? Do you remove the undertray on your car prior to the test or instruct (and pay) for the garage to do it?
And what do you suggest happens where a child seat is fitted?
Edited by Chris M on 07/10/2021 at 12:45
|
|
Good, so you agree that it is everyone's interest to test the seatbelts. The question is why are you presenting a car for an MOT in a condition that prevents that being done and then arguing that the issue lies with the tester?
A more relevant comparison would be if I welded the bonnet shut or stuck a cover over the horn button before an MOT and can tell you that I do neither.
|
The point of sharing this particular experience was to highlight the inconsistency between testers. And to pick up on some earlier point, how does the tester do a proper test if the undertray is hiding a leaking brake pipe or power steering leak?
There will always be inconsistency between testers, especially where their judgment is needed about disc pads, for example. Before the days of on-line MoT histories it used to be possible for a car to fail at one test station, and then be passed at another soon afterwards.
I can't agree with the suggestion that untested seat belts should become an advisory, implicitly after a pass. I would agree that a tester should be allowed to remove cargo to be able to do the test - and I suspect many testers might do that for regular customers.
As for the undertray, that is a removable maker's part, reasonably considered to be non-dismantlable by the tester. Cargo placed on a lowered rear seat is different.
|
|
"their judgment is needed about disc pads, for example"
Agree, the test is all about judgement. The rules are there and it's their personal interpretation of them. Brake pads are a fail if they are below 1.5mm, but they can't remove them to measure accurately. On a car with steel wheels and trims they stand very little chance of being able to inspect them, but a car with alloys, especially those with very open five spoke designs, it's quite easy. More likely to get an advisory on the steel wheel equipped car.
|
|
Manufacturers should design cars which are capable of being put through an MoT without being dismantled. However the complexity of modern cars means there may be a case for additional fees for the removal of components necessary for proper inspection.
This should be fixed and vary by vehicle - from zero to others with undertrays, alloy wheels, wheel arch protectors, engine covers etc which may need significant effort.
If MoT tests are an important contributor to road safety, condition of safety related items must be capable of inspection. If not, why bother with MoTs anyway.
My attitude has changed over the years - at 18 I regarded the MoT as a real threat to my wallet, 50 years later it is an essential check and any work is done immediately.
Brakes are a good example. On the day their efficiency can be measured. If material remaining cannot be inspected it is either an advisory or the wheels need to be removed!
But there is no excuse for delivering a vehicle to a testing station where customer contents make normal inspection difficult or impossible without additional work.
|
|
If MoT tests are an important contributor to road safety, condition of safety related items must be capable of inspection. If not, why bother with MoTs anyway.
Big IF
They'll be a contributor, sure, but important?
The vast majority of accidents are likely to be pilot error.
Safety inspection is much less onerous here in Taiwan, where the accident rate is much higher, but Taiwanese drivers are anecdotally much worse, and there are more motorcycles per capita than anywhere else in the world, so very little of that excess is likely to be down to a lack of inspection.
Safety inspection might have a bigger effect though as the age of the vehicle fleet increases (average UK age now 8.4 years, apparently)
https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/05/25/uks-vehicle-fleet-reaches-pension-age/?
(They seem to be ignoring the energy involved in vehicle construction with their Net Zero warning, but then they are the SMMT, so Rice-Davies applies)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
