|
|
|
Sept 25, 2011 18:30:44 GMT
|
Right, I'm aware this has come up in passing before but I hope someone (a friendly MOT tester perhaps?) can give me a definitive answer. I have a Peugeot 306 and it has a leaky sunroof, as is common with all Peugeots that are anything over about a year old  We sealed it up not long after buying it in February with gaffer tape, at which time the roof was a little rusty. It's got considerably worse since then and in attempting to treat it this weekend, it's gone through in holes in a couple of places. This is being "fixed" in the only way that's sensible for a 132k, 450 quid L-reg Peugeot, with filler, gaffer tape and other shameful bodges  So by the time the MOT comes around in February, it will no doubt be worse. My question is, can it fail on a rusty roof? I know the rules state it can fail on sharp edges and if the rust is in within 30cm of a suspension or seat belt mounting point. Does this include seat belt top mounts? How is the 30cm measured - in any plane? Is it a question of tester's discretion on what is severe rust, etc? I know ideally I'd remove all the rust and weld in new metal and all that, but it's gone through in areas I can't get to the back of, I can't weld and it would cost more than it's worth to get someone else to do it for me. |
| |
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary. |
|
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 3,047 
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
Roofs, Rust and MOTsmk2cossie
@mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member 77
|
Sept 25, 2011 19:22:43 GMT
|
its basically a 30cm radius ball from any seatbelt, suspension or steering component mount ;D although if its the roof panel itself, its non supporting panelling, and should just be a pass and advise at least  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2011 19:24:04 GMT
|
|
AFAIK it's rust ANYWHERE within 30 cm of a seat belt mounting.
To be honest unless you are attached to the vehicle and it's otherwise in good condition elsewhere I'd start saving up the pennies toward something in better condition when MOT expires.
Paul H
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2011 19:29:45 GMT
|
|
You more or less have it right, corrosion testing falls into three catagories - sharp edges, prescribed areas and structural.
Sharp edge test is for pedestrian safety - could someone injure themselves just by brushing past? A roof is unlikely to fail for this unless the gutter edge is razor sharp - areas in the middle of the roof are unlikely to be contacted by a pedestrian and therefore won't count.
Prescribed area is, as you say, any hole or weakness caused by corrosion or damage within 30cm of a mount, be it seatbelt, suspension, steering or whatever. This is in all planes, so if you imagine a 60cm diameter ball around your rust hole it would fail if an upper seatbelt mount was within this. Alternatively, imagine spheres around all the mounting points and consider how much of a modern small car can be "prescribed"
Structural rust is actually quite hard to fail for. It needs to be so bad that the vehicle is in danger of compromising steering or braking. In practice, you have failed 10 times over for prescribed area before this happens.
|
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2011 20:04:17 GMT
|
Cool, thanks chaps, kind of as I suspected. So, looking here gives this: Does the roof skin come under "supporting panelling"? The rust is around the edge of the sunroof so I would say not a danger to pedestrians, as you say Scary. Compo: if it fails it fails  We'll have got a year out of it, but if we can keep it going longer it would be a plus. |
| |
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary. |
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2011 22:27:41 GMT
|
|
^ I recommend reading Appendix C of the Tester's manual.
|
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2011 23:22:30 GMT
|
Ahh, you mean the one entitled Structural Integrity and Corrosion... That's actually very helpful, probably should have looked there first really. Cheers for your help Scary  (...Is Corrosion Assessment Tool just a euphemism for a hammer?) |
| |
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary. |
|
|
|
|
Sept 26, 2011 0:35:49 GMT
|
|
|
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
|
|
|
Sept 26, 2011 11:05:52 GMT
|
I thought you were taking the mickey - live and learn ;D Who'd of thought you can buy hammers for pokng not hitting ;D Thanks for the education |
| |
|
|
bortaf
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,549
|
|
Sept 26, 2011 13:23:29 GMT
|
I thought you were taking the mickey - live and learn ;D Who'd of thought you can buy hammers for pokng not hitting ;D Thanks for the education well this is a goverment agency thing, they just invented a special £60 tool for checking towbar electrics when a £9.99 Tailboard would have done the same job |
| |
R.I.P photobucket
|
|
|
|
10mpg
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,253
Club RR Member Number: 204
|
Roofs, Rust and MOTs10mpg
@10mpg
Club Retro Rides Member 204
|
Sept 27, 2011 22:48:13 GMT
|
|
I cant see hoe a rusty roof could fail you.....
I don't think i've ever had a tester look at the roof, and i put in a couple of cars for test most weeks...
|
| |
The Internet, like all tools, if used improperly, can make a complete bo**cks of even the simplest jobs...
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 27, 2011 23:59:31 GMT
|
|
This is also the conclusion at which I have arrived.
The back-up plan was just to go around testing stations until I found a tester under about 4'6"...
|
| |
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary. |
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 6:48:22 GMT
|
|
Rich, would they even consider that it may be corrosion rather than a leaky sunroof if you just covered it in gaffa tape?
|
| |
...proper medallion man chest wig motoring. |
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 8:56:03 GMT
|
|
could you nit just remove the seatbelt in question?
|
| |
1992 190E 2.0 - first car, currently being driven by the wife.
1989 500SEC
1968 W115 4.2 V8
2000 CL500
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 10:09:29 GMT
|
could you nit just remove the seatbelt in question? Probably not, and even if you could the mount is still a prescribed area. |
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 14:38:33 GMT
|
|
but with no belt present the mount is no longer a mount its just a welded on nut, or a hole or whatever means the belt used to mount to.
|
| |
1992 190E 2.0 - first car, currently being driven by the wife.
1989 500SEC
1968 W115 4.2 V8
2000 CL500
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 15:05:53 GMT
|
|
Ugh. Do you really want to argue this one out? Fine.
We are talking about a car that needs a minimum of FOUR seatbelts, two fronts and two backs. All are statutory belts, if one is missing the car will fail. Absence of a statutory belt won't prevent the mounts being checked for prescribed area corrosion - it is still a seatbelt mount and no amount of argument will change that. In fact, if the seatbelt buckle is mounted to the seat, each seat to floor bolt becomes a prescribed area too.
I would take the view however that rear belt mounts (without belts fitted in a car registered pre april 1985) are not prescribed, but would get an advisory in case anyone was thinking of using them. Trouble is these are on the floor and hardly pertinent to a roof problem.
|
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 15:54:18 GMT
|
|
my brother has the same issue with the same car, a 97 306 dturbo with rainroof.
strip of vinyl over it and passed the MOT no bother, no attempt to hide it and nothing was asked about it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 18:06:44 GMT
|
Ugh. Do you really want to argue this one out? Fine. We are talking about a car that needs a minimum of FOUR seatbelts, two fronts and two backs. All are statutory belts, if one is missing the car will fail. Only if it has 4 seats though right? I thought if you removed the seat altogether then theres no requirement for a belt? And no, I don't want to "argue this one out", I'm interested as I planned to MOT my car with only a drivers seat and belt present. |
| |
1992 190E 2.0 - first car, currently being driven by the wife.
1989 500SEC
1968 W115 4.2 V8
2000 CL500
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 28, 2011 18:26:54 GMT
|
|
Fair enough, and your question is an interesting one - If you remove the passenger seat there is still a requirement for the most forward nearside seat to have a belt. This would be the passenger side of the back seat. Remove that too, and you *probably* only need a driver's belt. You would have to satisfy the tester that the back seat isn't a seat anymore - just taking the cushions off isn't enough if it could still be used as a seat.
|
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
|
|
We'll have got a year out of it, but if we can keep it going longer it would be a plus.
