jmr Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hi All My 1966 TR4A IRS has just failed its MOT. The main reason for failure was the rear brake efficiency - 46% - and I will address that problem. However, it also failed because it has a fly-off handbrake. The actual wording on the Refusal Certificate is "Parking brake lever pawl spring does not push the pawl positively into the ratchet teeth [3.1.5]." I spoke to the tester and pointed out that it was a fly-off and he said that he had double checked the computer and it was a fail. He checked to see if there was an exemption for older cars and couldn't find one. He ended the conversation with the statement that a fly-off handbrake is illegal for road use. The car passed its MOT down South a year ago so I'm wondering if the tester is correct. Has anyone had a similar experience? I did notice in a recent thread that a TR6 handbrake lever is a straight swap so would this be the simplest remedy? Thanks, James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hi All My 1966 TR4A IRS has just failed its MOT. The main reason for failure was the rear brake efficiency - 46% - and I will address that problem. However, it also failed because it has a fly-off handbrake. The actual wording on the Refusal Certificate is "Parking brake lever pawl spring does not push the pawl positively into the ratchet teeth [3.1.5]." I spoke to the tester and pointed out that it was a fly-off and he said that he had double checked the computer and it was a fail. He checked to see if there was an exemption for older cars and couldn't find one. He ended the conversation with the statement that a fly-off handbrake is illegal for road use. The car passed its MOT down South a year ago so I'm wondering if the tester is correct. Has anyone had a similar experience? I did notice in a recent thread that a TR6 handbrake lever is a straight swap so would this be the simplest remedy? Thanks, James James If the handbrake can be locked on it is legal Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BrianC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) It's a common problem that MOT testers cannot release the handbrake to move the car in the first place, but once they've been educated and had a laugh I've never had a refusal. However, the last time Lynda's TR4A was tested at my usual garage, the newly qualified MOT tester had some serious misunderstandings and was also making absurd claims about reasons for failing another (modern) car, even claiming he'd checked on the computer. Alan, the garage manager sent him off to find evidence and apparently he disappeared for several hours and admitted he couldn't find it. Fortunately, Alan, who doesn't suffer fools gladly, gave him his marching orders after another couple of incidents. The new guy is much better, and did my TR3A without problems, but apparently it's difficult to get MOT testers with either experience of older cars or a brain to interpret the rules sensibly. Edited February 7, 2011 by BrianC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hi James, the man is confusing his orifices, and pontificating from the nether regions . . . . he's also wrong. Suggest you telephone VOSA and explain your problem, they'll descend upon him from on high, and probably suggest he's in need of a retest or a refresher course himself. Link to Vosa contacts http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/contactus/contactus.htm Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmr Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Thank you all for your answers and suggestions. Alec, tomorrow I'll phone VOSA as you suggest and see what they say. James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shuggie159 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I too had the same problem 18 months ago. The inspector (who sat on some local VOSA commitee) showed me the wording in the MOT inspector's instructions and I couldn't argue against his application of the letter of the law. He was convinced that no cars had been manufactured with fly-off handbrakes and that they were all after market modifications... it was only by showing the guy the origional workshop manual and a series of frantic telephone calls to VOSA that he agreed to pass my car. Needless to say he would not accept that the manual was wrong, but churlishly agreed that there should have been some addendum that identified models such as tyhe TR's. He pointed out that huge amounts of money are spent devising all these regulations and distributing them etc. Needless to say I have never taken the TR back there again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Usual problem with younger MOT testers who have never come across one. VOSA will take notice if you contact them and as Alec has mentioned they will be round there like a shot to recommend the guy for retraining. I used to get similar problems with one of the local garages who didnt understand the concept of separate chassis cars Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris59 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Some people seems to haven't been equipped with the "brain option" when they left their "factory".... James, hope you will solve this problem asap, and this young tester will learn his job rapidly ! Chris. Edited February 7, 2011 by Chris59 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmr Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Using the link provided by Alec I have found the MOT Testing Manual & Guide online. The relevant section relating to handbrakes lists a raft of tests to be carried out along with reasons for rejection. The test in Section 3.1.5 (which my car failed on) states:- "Without operating the pawl mechanism, apply the parking brake slowly and check the effective operation of the pawl mechanism by listening for definite and regular clicks as the pawl moves over the ratchet teeth". The Reason for Rejection against this test is as exactly quoted on my Refusal Certificate. I think that the important words in this instance are "Without operating the pawl mechanism..." I'm not an expert but by my reading the tester was strictly correct in failing the handbrake. Anyone got other thoughts? James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmr Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Just to put the record straight, this is not a young tester. I would estimate his age as mid-fifties - but I don't know how long he has been a tester. James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hi James, the wording 'may' be at fault but there have been many fly-off handbrakes over the ages. Your 50+ jobsworth needs sorting. If there is a problem with the legislation why hasn't he or his chums sent feedback to VOSA. Your handbrake is fine. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BrianC Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 This must be a problem for many other classic and historic sportscar owners. Maybe it's something the FBHVC could raise to get the wording and/or guidance fixed in the MOT tester's manual and training. We have at least two members in high places in the FBHVC, so I suggest you write to Chris Cunnington. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Be interesting to see how he would get on with an XJS handbrake then. To operate that you pull it up and press the button in and then it drops back to the floor so you can get out as its on the sill side of the seat. To disengage you pull it up and then press the button in and drop it back to the floor. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmr Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 An update. I have phoned VOSA for guidance. They told me that my sole remedy is to appeal the decision. An Examiner would then inspect the handbrake and, if found to be satisfactory, would issue an exemption on an individual vehicle basis. I have no desire to do battle with any individual MOT Test Station or with VOSA (potentially every year) so I decided to take the easier route and to follow Stuart's suggestion in a recent thread by fitting a TR6 handbrake. I turned to my Moss Catalogue and in the list of parts for the TR4A handbrake (page 63 in my catalogue) there is a note which I quote: "The pawl for the TR4A (134143) is not available. In the original fitment the TR4A handbrake was a "fly-off" type... We suggest that you use the alternative fitment which is part number 104737, the pawl from the TR6 handbrake. The TR6 handbrake is not a "fly-off" type ...but at least you will be able to drive and have a car that is able to pass your annual vehicle inspection." (My emphasis added.) So this has obviously arisen before. The part in question only costs £3.17 so that's what I'm going to do. James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ade-TR4 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Are there no "classic-friendly" garages near you? I have mine MOT'd at a garage where the owner spends most of the day working on classics: He's well aware of fly-off handbrakes and uses his common sense during the test. I can PM you his details, but it will mean a trip to Manchester for you to have him inspect the car. Ade Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 . I turned to my Moss Catalogue and in the list of parts for the TR4A handbrake (page 63 in my catalogue) there is a note which I quote: "The pawl for the TR4A (134143) is not available. In the original fitment the TR4A handbrake was a "fly-off" type... We suggest that you use the alternative fitment which is part number 104737, the pawl from the TR6 handbrake. The TR6 handbrake is not a "fly-off" type ...but at least you will be able to drive and have a car that is able to pass your annual vehicle inspection." (My emphasis added.) So this has obviously arisen before. The part in question only costs £3.17 so that's what I'm going to do. James The note in the Moss catalogue has been there for years and actually refers to the ability to lock the handbrake on to pass the test not that a fly off wont pass. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 The note in the Moss catalogue has been there for years and actually refers to the ability to lock the handbrake on to pass the test not that a fly off wont pass. Stuart. As I said Stuart you must be able to lock it,even when using a hydraulic fly off on rally cars we always made a temp cable rig up for the MOT. So how do they go on with some modern cars ie electric handbrake? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmr Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Ade - thanks for the offer but it's a bit too far. Mind you, the last time I drove that far the car only broke down once! Thanks to everyone for their helpful input to my problem. I'm taking the easy way out and converting the handbrake. I'll keep the fly-off parts in case I may want to revert to original at some future date. James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
67_gt6 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Using the link provided by Alec I have found the MOT Testing Manual & Guide online. The relevant section relating to handbrakes lists a raft of tests to be carried out along with reasons for rejection. The test in Section 3.1.5 (which my car failed on) states:- "Without operating the pawl mechanism, apply the parking brake slowly and check the effective operation of the pawl mechanism by listening for definite and regular clicks as the pawl moves over the ratchet teeth". The Reason for Rejection against this test is as exactly quoted on my Refusal Certificate. I think that the important words in this instance are "Without operating the pawl mechanism..." I'm not an expert but by my reading the tester was strictly correct in failing the handbrake. Anyone got other thoughts? James hi, don't agree he was correct, he has totally failed to understand how a fly off works and doesn't understand what the button does. "without operating the pawl mechanism" ie without pushing the button ie without disengaging the pawl. on a modern handbrake, pushing the button disengages the pawl. so the test is to lift the handbrake with the pawl engaged ie by not pushing the button. so that you can hear the ratchet teeth. this is fine on a standard handbrake, but on a fly off you can only achieve that by pushing the button, as the pawl is disengaged from the ratchet until the button is pushed. andy Edited February 8, 2011 by 67_gt6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve R Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I agree with Andy, by holding the button in as you move the lever you can hear the pawl click over the ratchet, which is what they need to hear to pass the test, the fact that it works the other way round to most of the stuff they get in, shouldn't matter. The thing about common sense is.....it's just not that common anymore. Mine passes every year without comment on the handbrake. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 628 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I find that nowadays a lot of rules and regulations are formulated without proper research into the subject. They susequently don't cover all the possibilities , or they have 'knock-on' adverse effects on other things which were not intended to be included. Individual interpretation often has a big influence in this. It seems that flyoffs are illegal on the face of it, but I would suggest that whoever wrote the regulation in this case was simply unaware of the existance of such things as flyoff handbrakes, and has assumed that the conventional pawl operation is the way that all mechanical handbrakes work. Perhaps we will see an addendum in the distant future (don't expect burocracy to work that quickly!). Incidentally, my TR4 has had a 4A tunnel-mounted flyoff lever fitted (for handbrake turns as it's a rally car) and passes the MOT every time; I do take it to a local tester who is a circuit racer and is knowlegable about classic cars so can be regarded as 'one of the converted'! I have had flyoffs on almost all my rally cars of various makes through the years, and never had this problem, however on some I used a separate lever mounted alongside the original which had no ratchet and was hydraulically operated. I had to do that on an Alfasud once, as the handbrake operates on the front wheels! Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 The quartet of testers at the MoT station I've used for 20 years have no problem with fly-off hand brakes of the mechanical persuasion, insisting that it's a matter of engaging brain . . . . and that it's a topic covered in past VOSA advice notes, dealing separately with OE fitment on the one hand, and conversions and kit cars on t'other. They're baffled as to the attitude expressed by VOSA to James, except from the point of view that every bureaucracy has its resident idiot jobsworths who don't actually understand their own rulebook. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Flashart Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 What seems strange to me is that my TR3 in England didn't need seat belts as the were not fitted new but they are now worried about a handbrake that just works differently? I was lucky, the MOT tester that looked after my car served his apprenticeship with Standard Triumph and looked forward to my car turning up so he could take it for a "brake test" run! It never failed! I think I'd be looking for a TR sympathetic garage rather than altering the car. Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
67_gt6 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I find that nowadays a lot of rules and regulations are formulated without proper research into the subject. They susequently don't cover all the possibilities , or they have 'knock-on' adverse effects on other things which were not intended to be included. Individual interpretation often has a big influence in this. It seems that flyoffs are illegal on the face of it, but I would suggest that whoever wrote the regulation in this case was simply unaware of the existance of such things as flyoff handbrakes, and has assumed that the conventional pawl operation is the way that all mechanical handbrakes work. Perhaps we will see an addendum in the distant future (don't expect burocracy to work that quickly!). Incidentally, my TR4 has had a 4A tunnel-mounted flyoff lever fitted (for handbrake turns as it's a rally car) and passes the MOT every time; I do take it to a local tester who is a circuit racer and is knowlegable about classic cars so can be regarded as 'one of the converted'! I have had flyoffs on almost all my rally cars of various makes through the years, and never had this problem, however on some I used a separate lever mounted alongside the original which had no ratchet and was hydraulically operated. I had to do that on an Alfasud once, as the handbrake operates on the front wheels! Nigel Sorry Nigel but I don't agree that fly offs fall foul of the legislation. The test requires that the handbrake is operated in such a way as to hear the pawl engage with the teeth on the ratchet. To do that on a fly off you must press and hold the button as you lift it. The Test regulation doesn't say anything about whether the button should or should not be pushed, it requires that it is tested "without operating the pawl mechanism" which the tester interprates as "don't press the button the disengages the pawl from the ratchet" - on a modern car. if you lift a fly off handbrake without pressing the button you are disengaing the pawl from the ratchet. so it is not being tested properly. this kind of thing needs to be challenged when it happens, after all we are paying for a test to be performed to a certain standard. i've never had any issue with the fly off during my tests, and I get my MOTs at Kwik Fit!! andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
North London Mike Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Are there no "classic-friendly" garages near you? I have mine MOT'd at a garage where the owner spends most of the day working on classics: He's well aware of fly-off handbrakes and uses his common sense during the test. I can PM you his details, but it will mean a trip to Manchester for you to have him inspect the car. Ade I agree with Ade................and I'm sure ALL TR specialists have a local MOT tester that 'knows' how a fly off works and how to test it. So, James, look up your local specialist and ask them where they get their customer cars/ sales cars tested ? They are sure to have one Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.