|
|
Mar 25, 2021 12:57:08 GMT
|
My track car was caught out in the MOT yesterday for having harnesses and failed for 'belts of incorrect type fitted'. I'm putting the factory 3 point inertia belt back in the drivers side for the MOT.
Please can anyone with knowledge of the regulations confirm that having inertia belts with buckets seats won't fall foul of the regs? Providing the belts are routed correctly through the holes so that they sit on the body correctly.
Also, whether removing the passenger seat entirely will negate the need for the passenger seat belt, even if I leave the eyelets in the body but no part of the belt remaining?
Thanks in advance
|
|
Project Diary1975 Viva / 1988 T25 Camper / 1989 Mini / 1991 MX5 / 1992 Mini / 1994 Saab 9000 / 1997 Saab 9000 / 2008 Saab 9-5
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 13:05:29 GMT
|
MOT only checks the belts for condition & type so seat type should not be an issue. Interesting to see they are (starting?)to pick up on harnesses now - it was always a fail but generally missed/ignored.
|
|
|
|
Paul Y
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,948
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 13:21:50 GMT
|
Not suitable for this forum but one of my cars came from the factory with 3 point belts, fixed back seats and 5 point harness. Never really thought about it being a fail before. P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 13:39:00 GMT
|
I've just had a look at the mot regs, there's nothing I can see that makes harnesses a fail. According to DVSA as long as they are bs marked and not just FIA then they are fine.
|
|
Proton Jumbuck-deceased :-( 2005 Kia Sorento the parts hauling heap V8 Humber Hawk 1948 Standard12 pickup 1953 Pop build (wifey's BIVA build).
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 13:42:50 GMT
|
Thank you for confirming, that was my understanding. Having just put it all back, due to the design of the OEM seat belt stalk I can't route the belt through the inboard hole of the seat to clip it into the retainer, so it has to sit outside. Do we know how this stands up to the MOT regs? Can always put the standard seat back in but far more of a faff.
|
|
Project Diary1975 Viva / 1988 T25 Camper / 1989 Mini / 1991 MX5 / 1992 Mini / 1994 Saab 9000 / 1997 Saab 9000 / 2008 Saab 9-5
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 13:50:05 GMT
|
I've just had a look at the mot regs, there's nothing I can see that makes harnesses a fail. According to DVSA as long as they are bs marked and not just FIA then they are fine. This was the issue, not BS marked. The only ones that are, are 4 points with the road car style buckle with red button. I wouldn't be happy using them on track given the lack of ASM design. I've now found Schroth make a proper harness but with a red button and ECE approval, and you can add crotch straps to make it 6 point, but they cost the thick end of £1k so will need some saving up. Hopefully more harness manufacturers start making similar ECE approved designs if it starts becoming more of an issue. Interesting point about a factory car with inertia belts and harnesses, as I though this was against regs too. Has to be one or the other and has to be BS marked or equivalent.
|
|
Project Diary1975 Viva / 1988 T25 Camper / 1989 Mini / 1991 MX5 / 1992 Mini / 1994 Saab 9000 / 1997 Saab 9000 / 2008 Saab 9-5
|
|
Paul Y
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,948
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 16:29:29 GMT
|
. Interesting point about a factory car with inertia belts and harnesses, as I though this was against regs too. Has to be one or the other and has to be BS marked or equivalent. Schroth belts with a red turn buckle where what was fitted 3 point belt fixes over the top of the bolsters, always felt safer wearing the harness as it actually held you in the seat where as the 3 pointer you tended to float about a bit. P.
|
|
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,937
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 17:51:18 GMT
|
I must be missing something here, as an MOT tester for at least 15 years I've never found anything in the UK testing manual for failing 3 or 4 point harnesses. Let alone the type of clasp that secures them! From the pictures you have shown, the MOT tester was either an or doesnt know the correct part of the manual
|
|
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,937
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 17:59:10 GMT
|
MOT only checks the belts for condition & type so seat type should not be an issue. Interesting to see they are (starting?)to pick up on harnesses now - it was always a fail but generally missed/ignored. How have harnesses always been a fail? Never found this in the manual In the online manual it just says about checking it works, and is basically installed the right way and not held in with chewing gum or similar But actually failing harnesses for being the incorrect type I've never heard of. MOT doesn't test to anywhere near C&U regs at the end of the day, just that the vehicle meets minimum road safety standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 18:19:34 GMT
|
the problem is a lot of testers interperet the rules to suite themselves , i retired from testing 18 months ago and i just followed what it says in the testers manual , read the manuals on line and if you have a problem tell the tester hes wrong , we are not perfect and i would never have bothered me to be corrected !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 18:28:23 GMT
|
The manual specifically makes allowance for harnesses. Section 5.1 page 2 para 9.
|
|
Proton Jumbuck-deceased :-( 2005 Kia Sorento the parts hauling heap V8 Humber Hawk 1948 Standard12 pickup 1953 Pop build (wifey's BIVA build).
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:10:52 GMT
|
Interesting to see how regulations vary between countries. A fellow I used to drink with here in New Zealand had full harness belts in his T-bucket (pretty much a drag racing altered with just enough lights to be road legal) and every wof/mot he had to explain to the tester how a full harness is far safer than a lap and diagonal seat belt in order to get it passed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:22:46 GMT
|
Do you have a link to the manual? I have to admit that when I looked I couldn't see anything in the document on the gov site that meant it was a fail, yet every forum conversation I've ever seen says that harnesses do not carry that standard to pass an MOT (except for those few that are ECE marked).
I would like to take it up with the tester, or centre manager, because to justify his decision he showed me his phone where he'd googled it, and it came up with an extract from a forum that says the harness needs to be BS approved. I would have thought he'd refer back to the actual MOT regs. Conversation moved on rather quickly and I forgot to come back to it.
The tester's attitude on the day did stink. He initially tried to fail my bottom shock mounting nuts for not being a nyloc or other locking type. When I pushed back on this (because it's all the OE Mazda hardware) he got really shirty, looked it up and then conceded. Also failed the brake pedal for not having a rubber cover despite it having a Mazda dealer fitted aluminium pedal cover with raised dimples, for want of a better description. I know in the regs it allows for this too, but from experience of arguing unrelated fails with previous testers I thought it was easier to buy a £5 pedal rubber than argue with his interpretation of excessive wear.
|
|
Project Diary1975 Viva / 1988 T25 Camper / 1989 Mini / 1991 MX5 / 1992 Mini / 1994 Saab 9000 / 1997 Saab 9000 / 2008 Saab 9-5
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,226
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:26:57 GMT
|
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 25, 2021 20:31:09 GMT by Rich
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:29:24 GMT
|
And on the subject of igor's post, this tester went off on one about how I don't understand the amount of responsibility testers have, how if he passes it and I crash and die then it's on him. He didn't appreciate being asked why he'd rather I drive a roll caged car with only a 3 point belt. I wasn't going to argue it because if the rules are no harnesses (IF) then he's right by the book to fail them regardless of logic, but don't feed me horse manure about it being for my safety.
Sorry, this guy pushed buttons. Also came out with the, "well I could also have failed it for X, Y, Z", "you shouldn't have a roll cage", "I could also fail the belts (harnesses) for excessive movement" i.e. Because they're wrapped around a harness bar (properly).
|
|
Project Diary1975 Viva / 1988 T25 Camper / 1989 Mini / 1991 MX5 / 1992 Mini / 1994 Saab 9000 / 1997 Saab 9000 / 2008 Saab 9-5
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,226
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:30:12 GMT
|
And on the subject of igor's post, this tester went off on one about how I don't understand the amount of responsibility testers have, how if he passes it and I crash and die then it's on him. He didn't appreciate being asked why he'd rather I drive a roll caged car with only a 3 point belt. I wasn't going to argue it because if the rules are no harnesses (IF) then he's right by the book to fail them regardless of logic, but don't feed me horse manure about it being for my safety. Sorry, this guy pushed buttons. Also came out with the, "well I could also have failed it for X, Y, Z", "you shouldn't have a roll cage", "I could also fail the belts (harnesses) for excessive movement" i.e. Because they're wrapped around a harness bar (properly). Sounds like someone who doesn't know how to do their job as appointed to them by the ministry if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:38:14 GMT
|
Sorry, should have clarified - not harnesses that are a fail, but the aircraft style buckles fitted to them don't carry the proper approval.
As the OP stated harnesses are ok if they have the red button style of fixing/BS/E markings on them.
It does sound like you should take this further though - lodge an appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:39:05 GMT
|
This is what I was looking at yesterday but it doesn't correlate with crockpots reference. Section 7 is for belts and while it doesn't specifically state anything against harnesses, buckle types or anything like that, it does refer to these tables. I think I'm supposed to conform to B, so it needs to be a 3 point or disabled belt, which I guess is where harnesses fall foul.
|
|
Project Diary1975 Viva / 1988 T25 Camper / 1989 Mini / 1991 MX5 / 1992 Mini / 1994 Saab 9000 / 1997 Saab 9000 / 2008 Saab 9-5
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,937
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:53:19 GMT
|
This is what I was looking at yesterday but it doesn't correlate with crockpots reference. Section 7 is for belts and while it doesn't specifically state anything against harnesses, buckle types or anything like that, it does refer to these tables. I think I'm supposed to conform to B, so it needs to be a 3 point or disabled belt, which I guess is where harnesses fall foul. And how many point are your harnesses?
|
|
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,226
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
|
Mar 25, 2021 20:54:28 GMT
|
This is what I was looking at yesterday but it doesn't correlate with crockpots reference. Section 7 is for belts and while it doesn't specifically state anything against harnesses, buckle types or anything like that, it does refer to these tables. I think I'm supposed to conform to B, so it needs to be a 3 point or disabled belt, which I guess is where harnesses fall foul. The letters correlate to the failure points the the table in section 7.11. Referring to 'C', the RFR I posted, a 3 point harness is acceptable. I should imagine having a 4 or 5 point harness falls under '3 point harness' in my opinion as the rules are written awfully, and as such I would see no reason to fail the car provided the equipment fitted was up to standard.
|
|
|
|
|