As a 'cheap' way of checking my suspension I thought I'd put it in for MOT.
37 quid. I'm sure I only paid 26 last January?
I still have 2 months to go. I take it if it fails on lights or something I still keep the 2 months in the bag.
|
Dave
Correct, you "still keep 2 months in the bag".
However, my advice would be to wait for one month, if at all possible, as you can pre-date your MOT by a maximum of one month. Thus, the MOT tester would activate your new certificate from the expiry date of the old certificate, giving you, in effect, a 13 month MOT, assuming the car passed, of course ;-)
Yours
Andy
|
Andy wrote:
> However, my advice would be to wait for one month,
I do the relegiously however I smacked the front wheel on a kerb yesterday and I want a check of the suspension etc.
|
Dave
I don't believe you'll get the check you really want with an MOT.
They will look for excess play in suspension joints etc, and will fail anything visibly bent, but I have a suspicion your car needs a decent full alignment check, and that sure isn't on the MOT schedule. they may spot that rubbing driveshaft though!
OK, it seems you don't want to keep it much longer, but don't be too surprised to find that the tyres are wearing badly or similar problems.
As for the dodgy spare - no it isn't part of the MOT, so it can't ba a fail. However running on defective tyres is an offence.
Regards
JS
|
John S wrote:
>
> Dave
>
> I don't believe you'll get the check you really want with an
> MOT.
I only want to know it safe. If it passes an MOT it's safe. QED. Plus the RAC bloke said it was ok too. (Although I can't see what he looked for that I didn't)
> > They will look for excess play in suspension joints etc, and
> will fail anything visibly bent, but I have a suspicion your
> car needs a decent full alignment check, and that sure isn't
> on the MOT schedule. they may spot that rubbing driveshaft
> though!
Not since I hack-sawed the dynamic damper off last night! There's loads of clearence now!!! ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
> OK, it seems you don't want to keep it much longer, but don't
> be too surprised to find that the tyres are wearing badly or
> similar problems.
I imagine it will eat tyres if theres been any movement in the front wheel. However if it's safe I'll keep it and run it 'till the big end kills it.
> As for the dodgy spare - no it isn't part of the MOT, so it
> can't ba a fail. However running on defective tyres is an
> offence.
Take your point and I'm well aware of the legal implications. I don't want 3 points. However I've never used a spare in 10 years of driving. I doubt it'll be used. *If* it is it will only be as far as the nearest tyre source. Of course it may well not hold air now the rim's bent so I may just have to live without a spare.
|
|
Sods Law comes to mind. No punctures in 10 years, there must half a dozen nails just lining up outside your driveway as we speak....
|
|
I agree with Pete. As I understand it you do not have to have a spare but if you do it has to be legal (there's a certain logic in that - if you have no spare you cannot put it on the car but if you have it should be fit to put on). So yes, take it out.
|
Tomo wrote:
>
> I agree with Pete.
Then you're both wrong! The Spare is *not* part of the MOT.
Boot remained closed throughout the test.
|
|
|
|
Dave,
This is one for the trade boys but won't it fail because of the knackered rim and split tyre that is sitting as the spare?
perhaps that ought to be *shouldn't* it fail because...... ;-)
|
Stuart B wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> This is one for the trade boys but won't it fail because of
> the knackered rim and split tyre that is sitting as the spare?
Nope, spare tyre isn't an MOT item. If they fail it on that I'll appeal. To be honest I don't care if it fails or not. As long as on eof the fail items isn't front suspension/steering I've got two months to sort anything else out. (Or 14 days if I want the free re-test).
|
OK Dave don't take this the wrong way but......
I knew its not an MOT item, thats the problem with this internet stuff, you don't get the tongue in cheek nature of the "shouldn't it fail....."
Let's say this, tyre fails while being used as an "emergency spare".......see those lawyers run!
|
Stuart B wrote:
> Let's say this, tyre fails while being used as an "emergency
> spare".......see those lawyers run!
I see!
Yeah, I take your point. However I'm not buying a tyre and a steel wheel for the last few months of this car's life!
If I ever have a blow out I will be *very* careful about how/where I drive on the dodgy rim. I certainly won't be going further than a few miles.
|
|
|
|
Mine are perished but in no way split.
I take it it won't fail on that?
|
|
|
|
|
Take the spare out. You are not legally obliged to carry one and if it isn't offered for inspection the car can't fail on that item, I think!
|
I have always understood that the law on tyres only applies to those wheels in contact with the road surface. I cannot find anything under the Road Traffic Acts or Con and Use Regs making it mandatory to have a spare wheel.
However there is an offence under Section 40A RTA 1988 of using a vehicle on a road, the parts and ACCESSORIES of which are in such condition as likely to cause danger. Accessories are not defined in the interpretion section of the Act, and the previous argument of use would seem to be stretching this a bit too far, but may be why Dave's rozzer was keen.
The question re MOT should be resolved if one of you will tell us what it says in the D of T Testers Manual (The Garage Bible).
|
> However there is an offence under Section 40A RTA 1988 of
> using a vehicle on a road, the parts and ACCESSORIES of which
> are in such condition as likely to cause danger.
DVD,
I got to the same place myself, with the slight addition that it has to be shown whether or not it is reasonable to think you were going to use it or intended to use it. It is not clear upon whom the burden of proof lies.
M.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave
Apologies. Only after reading Stuart's reply did I link your query to your previous post.
Halfords, owned by the AA, offer all AA members one MOT per year at £20. This is where I had my previous car tested in July but am not totally sure whether the offer is still running. Similarly, some garages around Rutland, where I live, offer cheap MOTs as a "loss-leader", hoping that, should your car fail its MOT, you will choose to commission the garage to do the repair work.
Only advice I can offer, therefore, is to shop around for the cheapest price, wait whilst your car is tested, and try to have a chat with the MOT tester, if your suspension fails, in order to gain an idea of the full extent of the problem. Fingers crossed.
Yours
Andy
|
Andy wrote:
> Only advice I can offer, therefore, is to shop around for the
> cheapest price,
Damn I've already booked it in at 37. Worth the extra 17 quid just to know *now* I guess!
> wait whilst your car is tested, and try to
> have a chat with the MOT tester, if your suspension fails, in
> order to gain an idea of the full extent of the problem.
Sound advice! I will do the above. Although I'd be suprised if the MOT finds any problems. I wonder if he'll study my suspension as throughly as I did last night? I guess he'll look at the steering in more detail than me. All I could see was the tracking rods.
|
|
|
|
The confusion is the difference between the usage laws and the MOT.
1) Indeed not part of the MOT test
2) If you are stopped by a policeman and have no spare - no issue. But if you have one and it is bald or whatever, you are guilty of an offence.
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
> 2) If you are stopped by a policeman and have no spare - no
> issue. But if you have one and it is bald or whatever, you
> are guilty of an offence.
Are you sure?
What if you don't have a spare, but you are carrying an old knackered wheel in illegal condition to dispose of. And what if you are carrying that wheel in the spare compartment for convinience on you way to the tip?
Or, for example, a lorry disposing of old wheels might have 200 illegal wheels which would be dangerous if fitted to the lorry.
I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems like a hard law to enforce without a strict definition of a spare tyre.
|
Mark
I believe Dave is right. Tyre laws only apply to tyres in use. There is no legal requirement to carry a spare, and the faulty spare only becomes illegal if or when you use it. Be damn difficult carrying it to the tyre centre to get it replaced otherwise!
regards
JS
|
I thought I was right, but you do have a point. When I have a minute I'll check for sure. However, first day back, chaos and all that, it probably won't be until tonight.
M.
|
|
|
John S wrote:
> I believe Dave is right. Tyre laws only apply to tyres in
> use. There is no legal requirement to carry a spare, and the
> faulty spare only becomes illegal if or when you use it. Be
> damn difficult carrying it to the tyre centre to get it
> replaced otherwise!
Muddying the waters a bit further, I know of one mate's who's had a rozzer check his spare...
Maybe Mark is right, maybe the rozzers don't know the law.
|
The spare wheel isn't a testable item, unless it's a space saver fitted as a road wheel at the time of the test. Then it becomes testable - and probably a failure.
Construction and use Regs. aren't neccessarily part of the MOT. Neither are manufacturers recommendations. When I did the testers course (few years ago), there were three police traffic car drivers there, they did a short version, lights, tyres wipers and so on. As for the police checking the spare, it's happened to me as well, I think they were looking for something else, and checking the spare gave access to the boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
