As sent to LRM magazine

[Aragorn]

lansalot: Reading the original article again, it seems he's saying the brakes were down to the metal at some point previously, that he had replaced the pads but not the disks, and the disks had some scoring from when they were run against the old pads' backing plates, not that he submitted it to test with brakes that were down to the metal.

Slightly different, and depending on how bad the disks were, something that may have seemed perfectly fine at the time, no?

[geoflse]

I subscribe to LRM, but only to get a discount on Billing. Now they've pulled out, I'm stuck with it till my sub runs out (roll on).

I stopped reading anything that Frank Elson writes ever since he dedicated almost a whole page to how he had a flat tyre in a pub car park, and another to how he lost a spanner in his garage.

geoff

[mickeyw]

I had thought the owner wasn't supposed to be partaking in the test, in case they were fiddling the system, but anyway - take from that what you will...

I've always sat in and twiddled the light switches, wobbled the steering etc for my MOT tester...

[rtbarton]

I've always sat in and twiddled the light switches, wobbled the steering etc for my MOT tester...

I did that once, I think you can insist on doing it. Asking to be put on the payroll doesn't go down well though.

[Guest otchie1]

I did that once, I think you can insist on doing it. Asking to be put on the payroll doesn't go down well though.

I'm not sure if you can insist but you can certainly observe. Twiddling switches is often the task for the apprentice or if he's busy making tea then the customer will do. You have no active role in the test but sometimes it's useful - I once knew a fail to be issued on account of no washers when all it was just that the tester didn't know where the washer button was and couldn't be bothered to ask.

[cieranc]

Can't comment on either of the journalists columns, as I've driven vehicles known to be unroadworthy on more than one occasion.

Driving my 110 with a leaking swivel seal, oil running down the disc.

Driving a rally car with no seats in it.

Driving a rally car with a bent axle.

Driving wagon with different sized tyres on the same axle.

Pulling a low-loader with known bad tyres.

And I've sent a car for test before without checking it over, simply because I haven't had the time to prepare it. Just sent it to see what it would fail on.

And I'm a fitter by trade, so I can't (and wouldn't) claim ignorance.

[Turbocharger]

Three cheers for an independent internet forum where we can discuss this kind of subject?

[FridgeFreezer]

Three cheers for an independent internet forum that contains more interesting stuff and engineering tech than all the UK comics put together - if that's not worth the price of a year's comic subs into forum funds I don't know what is.

[BogMonster]

if that's not worth the price of a year's comic subs into forum funds I don't know what is.

Hear hear

[mad_pete]

Having just read the articles in question I don't think it's quite as bad as it's made out. I think the journalists slightly up themselves attitude colours opinion against them.

The Range Rover as stated had slightly scored discs but new pads. Failing on structural rust that isn't structural rust is a bit annoying as mine was failed for the same thing.

At the end of the day it's down to the tester. I took mine to a garage that had a better understanding of what bits of metal are and aren't holding mine together and it was fine.

However he was bang to rights on the scored disc

The headlight and play in the steering were known faults that might have been fails. MOT date looms time is short, personally I won't second guess the qualified MOT tester in terms of what constitutes too much play on a 50 year old steering rack and ditto for incorrect headlight pattern. You go down that road you end up replacing everything*

As it was the tester deemed the steering play within limits

The fact the MOT tester didn't know the exact date rubber pedals came in who cares ? It failed legitimately on several other things.

And the fact it's now law to have grip on the brake pedal is probably because muddy boots slip off smooth pedals so maybe getting a rubber pedal is a good idea rather than my car must be as lethal as it legally can be based on the fact it was built when cars were allowed to be quite lethal.

As an MOT tester if you think it's fail and you say it's a fail that's pretty professional really. So he isn't used to separate chassis cars, that's what the appeal process is for.

It's not really a flag wave for MOT dodging danger cars. It's a couple of old land rovers failing on some minor stuff taken by owners who are a bit rude to muggles and don't know how to book an MOT a month in advance of the current ones expiry

*not that you don't anyway

[leeds]

There was the misleading information also given out. A vehicle not having a valid MOT is in itself not illegal. It is only illegal to have it on the public highway.

It is perfectly legal to drive a vehicle without an MOT to and from a prebooked MOT so there was no panic over the MOT on the lightweight.

I get the feeling that these two writers were short of something to say so over egged the cake so to speak.

Also as has been mentioned it is possible to get a 13 month MOT ticket so basically these two writers were disorganised in arranging MOT and spat their dummies out when two old vehicles rightly failed the MOT.

Regards

Brendan

[WHO?]

offroad and 4 wheel drive are doing subscriptions for 2 years for $36!!!!!!

which is funny as i recently stopped my subscription to TOR because a, they didnt know what they were looking at B, wanted more money for 1 year subscription than 2 years of a proper offroad mag