|
|
Jul 30, 2019 11:38:16 GMT
|
Personally I'd really like it if MOT inspectors were offering a kind of 'consultation' health check for MOT exempt cars. I'd like to MOT my car for example but it hasn't got one yet because I'm on my second failed Servo and the brakes are absolutely fine with the servo disconnected, so until I get around to deciding to fit another servo (which I have, waiting to go on eventually) I know my car will not pass an MOT because a servo is present but not connected to the manifold. It would be really reassuring to know what else might need attention aside from going through the rigmarole of fitting another servo that will inevitably fail after a year or so. The problem is we have to check the servo is working but if the brakes are fine without why not remove the servo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 11:43:33 GMT
|
Personally I'd really like it if MOT inspectors were offering a kind of 'consultation' health check for MOT exempt cars. I'd like to MOT my car for example but it hasn't got one yet because I'm on my second failed Servo and the brakes are absolutely fine with the servo disconnected, so until I get around to deciding to fit another servo (which I have, waiting to go on eventually) I know my car will not pass an MOT because a servo is present but not connected to the manifold. It would be really reassuring to know what else might need attention aside from going through the rigmarole of fitting another servo that will inevitably fail after a year or so. The problem is we have to check the servo is working but if the brakes are fine without why not remove the servo? I have it in mind to delete the servo, but I'm not good with brakes and wouldnt want to do anything that would then be deemed dangerous. When I've raised the idea of removing it previously I've been told I would have to fit a different master cylinder with a longer, or shorter piston. At that point my pretty little head goes all dizzy and I decide to leave that until after some other jobs I want to do. The stupid thing is it brakes perfectly without the servo connected. So in many ways it drops down my list of priorities and I keep going with my MOT exemption status.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 30, 2019 11:44:13 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 12:23:05 GMT
|
Personally I'd really like it if MOT inspectors were offering a kind of 'consultation' health check for MOT exempt cars. I'd like to MOT my car for example but it hasn't got one yet because I'm on my second failed Servo and the brakes are absolutely fine with the servo disconnected, so until I get around to deciding to fit another servo (which I have, waiting to go on eventually) I know my car will not pass an MOT because a servo is present but not connected to the manifold. It would be really reassuring to know what else might need attention aside from going through the rigmarole of fitting another servo that will inevitably fail after a year or so. My mot tester does do that and I assume plenty of others would too. Ask them to do an mot check but not to log it on the system. Although I really don't see the point in doing that if you know the car is going to fail? All that shows is that you are driving a car that you know would be classed as unroadworthy, maybe even dangerous depending on the type of fail a dodgy servo is. Pretty sure that it was on here the other day that someone said someone they knew had their insurance claim refused because their mot exempt car was found to have faults that would stop it from passing an mot. I've never heard of that before on normal cars so I can only assume insurance companies are now inspecting mot exempt cars much more than they do mot'd cars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 12:27:29 GMT
|
Yeah, it's not a situation I'm e entirely comfortable with, but it's what I'm working with for now. I can refit the servo vaccum hose because I managed to patch up the leaky port on the servo, but I just don't see the point in potentially making the car more of a potential hazard on the road by having a servo connected that could suddenly cause problems any minute, when the car operates perfectly safely without it being attached.
It's on my list though, one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 14:49:40 GMT
|
Pretty sure that it was on here the other day that someone said someone they knew had their insurance claim refused because their mot exempt car was found to have faults that would stop it from passing an mot. I've never heard of that before on normal cars so I can only assume insurance companies are now inspecting mot exempt cars much more than they do mot'd cars? I'd expect an Insurance company to refuse a claim if it had bald tyres? Why should an MoT exempt car be given carte blanche as I'm pretty sure there's something in the small print suggesting the car still needs to be roadworthy - and that applies to all vehicles, last time I checked. An MoT is, as we all know, only valid at the time of the test. Advisories are supposed to be for things that need correcting before they make the car unroadworthy (although why "excessive underseal" falls into that camp, I don't know..).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 15:47:06 GMT
|
Well, I've got myself all of a panic about my servo, so I just stuck the servo hose back on again. I will be cursing all of you if my engine starts drinking brake fluid and running like a wooden sterling engine made by special cub scouts. It hasn't so far, but pre-emptively... DAMN YOU ALL.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 30, 2019 15:47:30 GMT by Deleted
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 15:48:51 GMT
|
If the servo hose just happened to have a blockage (which may or may not have been a short piece of M10 dowel) though, would anyone be the wiser?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 15:53:45 GMT
|
If the servo hose just happened to have a blockage (which may or may not have been a short piece of M10 dowel) though, would anyone be the wiser? I did think about that, but it just ads another layer of absurdity to the rules about MOTs... if I have it attached it's likely to cause problems but *in theory* is required to be road legal. If I don't have it attached and the car is absolutely fine for x years without it it's absolutely safe but immediately classified as unroadworthy. If I have it attached, but there's a bit of dowel down there, and... I'm... it...it's errr, I've... I don't know. It goes to meta for me to really grapple with coherently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 16:12:24 GMT
|
Basically... if I have it attached, but there's some dowel in there so Ive got the best of both worlds hahahah.... is that detectable during the MOT inspection? Do they test the ability of the brakes, or do they test the effectiveness of the components sepcifically... ie could it fail for having 'insufficient servo assistance'?
|
|
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 16:25:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 17:01:26 GMT
|
Well, if I haven't sold it and it stops running nicely with the hose back on... that's what I'll do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 17:31:33 GMT
|
Pretty sure that it was on here the other day that someone said someone they knew had their insurance claim refused because their mot exempt car was found to have faults that would stop it from passing an mot. I've never heard of that before on normal cars so I can only assume insurance companies are now inspecting mot exempt cars much more than they do mot'd cars? I'd expect an Insurance company to refuse a claim if it had bald tyres? Why should an MoT exempt car be given carte blanche as I'm pretty sure there's something in the small print suggesting the car still needs to be roadworthy - and that applies to all vehicles, last time I checked. An MoT is, as we all know, only valid at the time of the test. Advisories are supposed to be for things that need correcting before they make the car unroadworthy (although why "excessive underseal" falls into that camp, I don't know..). I didn't mention bald tyres and I'm in no way saying anything should be given carte blanche. What I'm saying is I've never heard of a normal car having its insurance claim refused because the car wouldn't pass an mot. Having had cars assessed by insurance, and knowing plenty of other people over the years who have had it done and the inspectors have paid pretty much no attention to the roadworthiness. All they have seemed interested in is what sort of pre crash condition it looked to be in and how much damage was done. I've even known people who have put very questionable tyres on a crashed car because they wanted their alloys off it before the insurance wrote it off. What I'm saying is that it seems that insurance might be paying more attention to mot exempt cars when claims are made. If that's the what's actually happening then imo it's just another reason why paying £30 every year for a second set of eyes to give it an official stamp of appoval is still a good thing Also advisories are nothing to do with what needs to be repaired before it makes a car unroadworthy. An advisory is a way of an mot tester covering their back with the ministry. If a vosa inspector turns up its to show that the tester noticed something but in their opinion it wasn't a fail. This is why excessive underseal is one. They can't remove it to see if anything nasty is lurking underneath it, and they can't fail it because they don't actually know if there's anything dangerous underneath it, but they can advise it to cover their back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2019 17:43:03 GMT
|
What I'm saying is that it seems that insurance might be paying more attention to mot exempt cars when claims are made. This wouldn't surprise me at all. People often think Insurance companies are in the business of paying out money. They're actually in the business of not paying out money. That's where they invest most of their time and effort. So any angle they can take they will.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 30, 2019 18:19:03 GMT by Deleted
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
|
Also advisories are nothing to do with what needs to be repaired before it makes a car unroadworthy. An advisory is a way of an mot tester covering their back with the ministry. If a vosa inspector turns up its to show that the tester noticed something but in their opinion it wasn't a fail. This is why excessive underseal is one. They can't remove it to see if anything nasty is lurking underneath it, and they can't fail it because they don't actually know if there's anything dangerous underneath it, but they can advise it to cover their back. From the .gov.uk site: Why bother monitoring or repairing if it's not going to be a road-worthiness issue? I agree when I've seen notes of "bodykit fitted" as it prevents them checking the structure as much as they would like and take your point on underseal. I think the tester involved is under the watchful eye of VOSA anyway as he "had to find something for an advisory". Now I don't mins that, although the same guy failed another one of the fleet for excessively worn rear brake pads which weren't (still about 5mm on them) BUT both LED number plate bulbs failed between my drive and their test bay so I'll take that it would have failed anyway. As has been said, Insurance companies are in the business of not paying out and here's a perfect excuse on a plate for them, so worth them spending half an hour to give a car the once over, find something that saves them a 10k payout once in a while. You can guarantee it's buried in the small print somewhere..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why bother monitoring or repairing if it's not going to be a road-worthiness issue?"
Why monitor it if it's going to be a roadworthiness issue? If they knew it was going to become one then they would tell you to repair it ASAP. They say to monitor it because it's just some vague catch all wording used to cover their back. You just have to look at the items it's used to cover to see that. Everything from a ball joint that has slight play to a factory fitted splash shield.
I totally agree with your comment on insurance companies, this is the point I was making from the start. If insurance companies are paying more attention to the roadworthiness of mot exempt cars, then owners of these cars need to be on the ball if they don't wanna risk having an insurance claim on their pride and joy denied because they don't see the point in fitting a new master cylinder (mearly using that as an example as it's mentioned in this thread).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOT Exemption becomes immediate on cars older than 40 years old from April 1st each year. You do not need to apply for this. You still require the car to be road worthy condition. Tax Exemption becomes valid to apply for on cars older than 40 years from April 1st each year. You need to apply and send the V5 back to get historic car written on v5 Post office will still issue you a receipt for 0.00 for taxing a car for 12 months. You still need to apply for Tax, even tho its free. If you don't you will fined as per all other vehicles. Jake MOT exemption isn’t April 1st, it’s 40 years from date of manufacture or first registration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOT Exemption becomes immediate on cars older than 40 years old from April 1st each year. You do not need to apply for this. You still require the car to be road worthy condition. Tax Exemption becomes valid to apply for on cars older than 40 years from April 1st each year. You need to apply and send the V5 back to get historic car written on v5 Post office will still issue you a receipt for 0.00 for taxing a car for 12 months. You still need to apply for Tax, even tho its free. If you don't you will fined as per all other vehicles. Jake MOT exemption isn’t April 1st, it’s 40 years from date of manufacture or first registration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My car was 40 on the 1st Aug last year wasn't exempt till 1st April this year
|
|
|
|
scimjim
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 1,503
Club RR Member Number: 8
|
|
|
My car was 40 on the 1st Aug last year wasn't exempt till 1st April this year I think you may be mixing historic class VED with MOT exemption? MOT exemption is 40 years from date of manufacture/registration - historic class VED is April 1st.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My car was 40 on the 1st Aug last year wasn't exempt till 1st April this year I think you may be mixing historic class VED with MOT exemption? MOT exemption is 40 years from date of manufacture/registration - historic class VED is April 1st. Not at all car was motd and was remotd even thou I could have filled in v112. Mot exemption was on 1st of April the year after its 40th start of fanical year not on date of year 40. As stated my car was 40 on 1st Aug not exempt till 1st April 2019
|
|
|
|
|