Kiwifrog Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I remember that my bosses Merc in the early 90's had a lever that locked the foot brake down as a parking brake. How would you test the pawl on that. The tester is an idiot and shoul be told to have sex and travel Alan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 628 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I would agree with you, Andy; I haven't read the legislation but your interpretation seems logical and I'm right with you there. The point I was making was that flyoffs can seem to be illegal "on the face of it", ie. if subjected to the sort of misinterpretation from ignorance the tester is showing, which stems from the original wording of the legislation being apparently written with the assumption that there is only one type of handbrake. Much legislation in general nowadays seems to be hastily formulated by those who appear to know the least about the subject! Surely if a feature of a car which was standard equipment as supplied when new should be acceptable even if it's legal status has subsequently been changed, although the onus of proof lies with the owner. Forewarned is forearmed - perhaps politely explaining the flyoff's operation to a tester before leaving the car is the simple answer - I can just imagine him getting frustrated and cross when releasing the handbrake seems impossible, and failing it out of pique! Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The MOT station to which I have been going for some 16 years lets me sit in the car and then I do whatever the man requires - move the steering wheel, operate the lights, opertate hand and foot brake etc. Saves him time and money (only one tester required). However, I don't believe he would have any problem with fly-off handbrake, rare though they are nowadays, as quite a number of folk with such devices use his place. As Bill Piggott says (see Main Forum), fly-offs are perfectly legal - and he should know, being a legal-eagle as well as once our TR2/3/3A Registrar and Archivist. Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graycow Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Thought I'd throw this MOT related tale into the pond, albeit not related to handbrakes. This year the MOT tester objected to two things on my TR4, neither of which have ever cropped up before. Firstly he failed because there wasn't an external rear view mirror (Because he or someone else in the garage had knocked it off!!! - Yes it was a bit flimsy). Easily sorted and as I had to do other things anyway I didn't argue on this occasion. Secondly he grumbled, but didn't actually fail, because the main beam warning light was red rather than blue as he expected. Don't know whether he is correct on this but it's never been commented on in the previous twenty odd years. I suspect there is no need for anything other than a single rear view mirror on a car of this age, nor any requirement for any particular colour of warning light. Anyone know the truth of this? Probably won't go back to that garage next time Graham C Quote Link to post Share on other sites
roy53 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Have encounterd this handbrake saga myself in the past. Also had a refusal because of the foot operated dipswitch which i had to wait a day for them to check out.But it was amusing watching him trying every thing to hand to get it to dip before i showed him its location My last mot in jan was scary as i just managed to stop them as they were about to jack the car up on the cills as they thought that the inner cill brackets indicated that the cills there were the jacking point. ROY Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Dipswitch position is not relevant, the car simply requires a dipswitch operable from the driver's seat. Headlamps do not require a telltale dash warning light, the colour of one is not relevant. If the car was first used after 1/08/1978 it requires two mirrors - one must be exterior right hand side, the other can be interior, or exterior left hand side. Cars firat used prior to 01/08/1978 require only one mirror, which can be any of the three optional placements. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
88V8 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 ....it's difficult to get MOT testers with either experience of older cars or a brain to interpret the rules sensibly. Motor Sport, May 76... A reader who drives only pre-war cars responds to an article about old cars being little used, and writes of his Rolls... 'MOT testing has recently become a problem - not through the cars being in poor condition, but through the sheer ignorance of the inspectors, who frequently require the most tactful handling. I once watched a mechanic solemnly checking the 'brake pipes' of my 20/25, until I pointed out that the brakes were cable-operated and that he was looking at the centralised lubrication system'. Plus ca change.. Ivor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Young MoT tester at my KwikFit (very good for tyres - read on for MoTs) solemnly told me that he could not test my brakes as the car was obviously four wheel drive. I suspect he had been wound up by the tyre fitters, as they were corpsing behind him, but..........! JOhn Edited February 10, 2011 by john.r.davies Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mike ellis Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 I was having trouble with MoT testers forty years ago. He put the steering (sidescreen car) on full lock and failed it on lift in the steering arm. He wasn't impressed when I pointed out that there should be lift on lock but when the wheels are straight there should be just no lift and I had to go back home to fetch the workshop manual. He then grudgingly passed it but lost the business as I never went there again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmr Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 An update. I presented the car for its re-test today and it passed. I took the line of least resistance and modified the handbrake to change it from fly-off to "conventional". The alteration was simple, quick and didn't cost a penny. I didn't even require any alternative parts. I simply re-bent the pawl release rod so that it hooked over the top of the pawl (i.e. above the pivot) rather than having it pass through the hole at the bottom of the pawl (i.e. below the pivot). James Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 But is a TR without a fly-off handbrake still a TR? Fly-off is so much better for hill starts, not to mention handbrake turns! Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianhoward Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I am curious... My first TR - a '62 had a fly-off handbrake, but the two 6's I have had and my current 5 all have a conventional type - is this the way things went, or does the learned body out there reckon they have been altered over the years? As it happens, I do like the fly-off method! Cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 ...The 5 & 6 went back to the common sort Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jellison Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I always take mine to a race and restoration place that also does MOT's - you need a place that knows or does alot of old cars, then you get none of the ****. Get my 4 back next week - can't wait (almost 5 years since I've terrorised the roads in it). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MadMarx Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) In Germany we have the TUV. I go to the motorsport inspectors of the TUV as they see race cars all the time and "Don't Panic" when they see racing stuff. Cool people. Cheers Chris " DON'T PANIC... a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: nonhitchhiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitchhiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with." Edited February 15, 2011 by MadMarx Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Salisbury Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Fresh back from the local MOT shop,........ 15th straight pass in a row (no advisories or notes).... new tester, Dale, probably 15 years younger than my '65 4A nevertheless very enthusiastic about all old cars (as he says cars with character).... no problem with fly-off hand brakes and happy to talk about and discuss all aspects of the MOT process. If any one needs an MOT in the Surrey area then Berrylands Garage, Surbiton Hill Park, Surbiton can be recommended......... no connection just a satisfied customer for the last 20 years and they happen to be at the end of my road!! Cheers Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lynchpin Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Hi Just to confirm whats already been stated my mech bruv of many years experience also an mot tester says the bloke is talking b------s and does not understand the regs,, Guess where my mot gets done.. Phil.. 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.