Mikey G
|
| posted on 22/8/05 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
SVA and failed MOT
Took my car for its annual critisism the other week and it failed, it goes for a retest tomorrow. All problems sorted but i was questioned about the
emissions and brake balance. CO was @ 2.9% and brake balance was 100% front to 160% rear?!?! Now the tester has told me that all the info he wants
will be on the SVA certificate but i dont have one as the car is a few years old and the previous owner never had a problem with the last MOT.
Now as i understand it the SVA certificate gets handed in when the car is registered? so how can he refer to this to get the information needed to
know these limits?
Surely he cant fail me for not having the SVA certificate?
Apart from the brake balance which will be sorted the emissions are within limits for a Q plater but he wasnt happy as he didnt have nothing to refer
to? which has confused me as he stated they pass for the info he has in his book?!?!?!?
|
|
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 22/8/05 at 07:34 PM |
|
|
q plates are exempt from emisions test,visual smoke only,he should have a testers manual,tell him to read it
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
Mikey G
|
| posted on 22/8/05 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
It sounds like he has never tested a Q car before. Snoopy, if you dont mind I think i will be printing that picture off and showing him that the
details are not recorded on the SVA certificate, if he fails it a protest will be put forward, and a recomendation put forward that he goes back to
MOT school
Cheers guys
|
|
|
beefy
|
| posted on 22/8/05 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
What he's looking for is the weight to work out the efficency of the brakes,
if three of the wheels lock out on the foot brake he shouldn't realy need weights
[Edited on 22/8/05 by beefy]
|
|
|
muzz
|
| posted on 23/8/05 at 05:43 AM |
|
|
I had my MK tested last week prior to Sva and the tester, whos a mate, showed me a revision in the test manual that came through earlier this year
saying tha kit cars had to be tested according to year of first use. This means thst anything built after 1993 would have to have a cat test
regardless of age. Although some testers may overlook this at the minute, once computerised testing comes in they wont be able to.
|
|
|
Kissy
|
| posted on 23/8/05 at 06:21 AM |
|
|
If it is a fairly old car it is likely it never got SVA'd. My car which is a 'refurbished' F27 (a most the liberal interpretation
of the phrase) was built around '95. Only issue I had was changing the wording on the registration docs to read F27, rather than 'twin
axle rigid bodied sports'. I was correctly advised by Steve Porter (ex-of F27) to change it to avoid SVA as it came in. At the last MOT the
tester (who races Monoposto as it happens) didn't check emissions "don't bother, you aren't going to do loads of miles in it
are you", and understood I had bias braking, which passed no probs.(I'd be worried with 160%-vs-100%, I've never seen brakes which
are 260% efficient!)
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 23/8/05 at 10:16 AM |
|
|
I've never seen brakes which are 260% efficient!)
You just have to blow gently on the pedal and they stop you ten yards before you apply them . I think it means the fronts are 100% and therefore the
rears are beating them by 60% which is wrong.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Kissy
|
| posted on 23/8/05 at 12:13 PM |
|
|
So really split 38.5%-61.5% F-R then.
|
|
|
Mikey G
|
| posted on 23/8/05 at 04:36 PM |
|
|
Well it passed today 
I was there this time and i pushed the pedal on the brake test the % thingy was incorrect as the guage reads in Kgs. what he meant was it had
100kgs force on the front when locked and 160kgs on the rear, i suppose it is more down to the weight distribution over the rear. I got it down to 130
on the rear in the end
Cheers guys
|
|
|
Petemate
|
| posted on 24/8/05 at 08:54 AM |
|
|
Hi Muzz
This "new" ruling your MOT tester mate has indicated surely is contradictory? While I can see that newly built kits are exempt from MOTs
(despite what some idiots at local VROs say) surely cat necessity depends on engine age?
Pete
|
|
|
muzz
|
| posted on 25/8/05 at 07:29 PM |
|
|
It said in the manual the car was to be tested according to the year of first use . This pressumably will be the same for imported cars. I've
seen somebody mention on here that after Sva an Mot isnt required for 3 years. Is this right. I've had mine tested every year
|
|
|
Marcus
|
| posted on 25/8/05 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
The MOT thing is correct. 3 years before you need one. My local post office had to ring DVLA, they didn't believe me!
I'd like to see a cat on a crossflow!!
They're not unleaded friendly so good old 4 star or additive will bugger it up quicktime!!
Marcus
Marcus
Because kits are for girls!!
|
|
|
muzz
|
| posted on 25/8/05 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
Its about time somebody made the rules clearer ! Everybody you deal with seems to cak themselves when trying too deal with kit cars.
|
|
|
