Well yesterday had one of the three annual MOTs we currently have to undergo and all was fine (not failed an MOT in over 45 years and 3 cars min per year).
I gather recently from my tester/testing station that the MOT regs have been yet again upgraded. I'll be checking out the latest regs in due course but as last year the tested pointed out the flaking power coat on the "B" 's rear springs. Last year it was not at advisory level (for him other testers may advise or even fail). This year not advisory (but potentially will be next year or a fail).
The joint under car inspection was interesting in that the following discussions arose.
a) Anti-roll bars and surface rust now come under the MOT
b) The new MOT software does not really allow then to "write" advisory information. Instead they have to just pick from a selection of pre-defined options, which whilst is convenient for testers who want to really help customers, especially of specially/classic cars, the pre-defined options do not allow the tester to pass on more information/details.
Now what amused both of us was that you could just remove the anti-roll bar as not have an MOT problem. Also in his 50 years in the motor industry he has never ever encountered a broken anti-roll bar (excluding accident damage) even on badly rusted ones due to the overall diameters off them compared to springs and drop links.
Now the guy I use (when I can) is an ex MOT gov Inspector/Trainer and was recently assessed by the same. The same picked him up on not checking oil temperature. He responded why? The car was up to temperature, fan cutting in. Emissions all passed. So what is the point of the oil temp test? It is not mandatory and only provides extra help if the emissions are marginal.
The discussion I gather then got then got "more fun" when my tester said "so it is perfectly acceptable for a cold car start to fail emissions when many cars doing local runs never get temperature and especially oil temps up to "test levels". Apparently the visiting inspector could not counter argue etc.
My tester then added "well so it is perfectly OK to kill someone with cold brakes not up to temperature" but is not acceptable to test a cold engine "which already meets the testing criteria".
I know these discussions / views can be very emotive etc. but it would appear to me that bureaucrats (with no real technical education and training) are infiltrating the departments that draw up rules and regulations that get pushed out with no more detailed industry/other constructive feedback and criticism.
Now i have a little bit of work to do for next year
I gather recently from my tester/testing station that the MOT regs have been yet again upgraded. I'll be checking out the latest regs in due course but as last year the tested pointed out the flaking power coat on the "B" 's rear springs. Last year it was not at advisory level (for him other testers may advise or even fail). This year not advisory (but potentially will be next year or a fail).
The joint under car inspection was interesting in that the following discussions arose.
a) Anti-roll bars and surface rust now come under the MOT
b) The new MOT software does not really allow then to "write" advisory information. Instead they have to just pick from a selection of pre-defined options, which whilst is convenient for testers who want to really help customers, especially of specially/classic cars, the pre-defined options do not allow the tester to pass on more information/details.
Now what amused both of us was that you could just remove the anti-roll bar as not have an MOT problem. Also in his 50 years in the motor industry he has never ever encountered a broken anti-roll bar (excluding accident damage) even on badly rusted ones due to the overall diameters off them compared to springs and drop links.
Now the guy I use (when I can) is an ex MOT gov Inspector/Trainer and was recently assessed by the same. The same picked him up on not checking oil temperature. He responded why? The car was up to temperature, fan cutting in. Emissions all passed. So what is the point of the oil temp test? It is not mandatory and only provides extra help if the emissions are marginal.
The discussion I gather then got then got "more fun" when my tester said "so it is perfectly acceptable for a cold car start to fail emissions when many cars doing local runs never get temperature and especially oil temps up to "test levels". Apparently the visiting inspector could not counter argue etc.
My tester then added "well so it is perfectly OK to kill someone with cold brakes not up to temperature" but is not acceptable to test a cold engine "which already meets the testing criteria".
I know these discussions / views can be very emotive etc. but it would appear to me that bureaucrats (with no real technical education and training) are infiltrating the departments that draw up rules and regulations that get pushed out with no more detailed industry/other constructive feedback and criticism.
Now i have a little bit of work to do for next year
