Rear load sensor - failed MoT

[giugno]

Hi guys

i know there's been a lot written about this previously however my car has just failed
the mot because of it.

i have the 172 cup that has the sensor fitted but with no 'actuating arm' (according to the VOSA document) The bloke is saying my Clio HAS the actuating arm but no 'linkage' he claims its fell off. Is he talking a load of crap or is he right? Are the 'linkage' and the 'actuating arm' not the same thing??

I have shown him the document VOSA released detailing this issue but he isn't budging???

looking for a swift response on this one please people!!

thanks a lot

 

[mikeh]

I assume your car is in fact a Cup? If so, It's the rod that doesn't get fitted AFAIK.

Go back in there and ask him to get VOSA on the phone, or speak to them first.

If the prop valve isn't actually used on the 172, it's irrelevant what he thinks is missing.

Edit:

I take it you've shown him this?
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....k/vosa/repository/MoT Issue 31 - Apr 2006.pdf

 

[giugno]

Hi mate.

Yes 172 cup. And yes shown him that article from VOSA.

so is the 'rod' the same thing as the 'linkage' or 'actuating arm'?

so you're saying the 172 doesn't use the sensor at all?

thanks

 

[ilovewilly]

I had this years ago. In the end I took the cup elsewhere and paid another fee as the bloke wasn't having any of it whatsoever.

 

[mikeh]

Indeed. the 172 doesn't even use the sensor, that's why the rod/arm is missing.

As I say, unless you're willing to cough up for another MOT where you could end up with the same issue, I'd call VOSA.

 

[giugno]

Well the MOT place eventually backed down but guess what... the car failed AGAIN!

This time because the Brake Efficiency is below 50% (48%)

FML. The bloke says it could be because the pads on the back are new as its the back thats showing very low values.

What the hell am I supposed to do now!?

 

[AlexW]

Thats normal though?! Honestly, the rear brakes on Cups do nothing.

 

[giugno]

He's having none of it. 2 B*****d percent?!!!

 

[GrahamS]

Can you post up the results of the tests so we can have a look.

Alex and I were just saying the other day how the rear brakes are complete pants

 

[giugno]

He put it through twice and got:

257
244
32
36

254
252
31
32

 

[clioben182]

So why didn't he fail it for poor efficency in the first place?
Take it for a drive and just pull the handbrake up a touch to bed the pads in a bit

 

[giugno]

No idea why it didn't fail first time. He reckons cos I've put new pads on back since 1st test. Is that the best way to bed them? what about cable tying the valve?

 

[Dr HMS Derv Destroyer]

cut your losses and go elsewhere. guy doesnt know about the load sensor on a 172 neither does he know about the dvla spec on the rear brakes

 

[giugno]

You think its worth cable tying the valve?

 

[McGherkin]

Alex and I were just saying the other day how the rear brakes are complete pants

Trust me, you don't want them to be good.

 

[GrahamS]

McGherkin I know I know

were were making bare banta yeah in a cauldron about spending big wonga on pads for that 10% braking

 

[AlexW]

@McGherkin I know I know

were were making bare banta yeah in a cauldron about spending big wonga on pads for that 10% braking

LOL.

I miss having decent rear brakes (as per my old drums)

 

[giugno]

Cable tie anyone lol?

 

[Dr HMS Derv Destroyer]

Leave it and go elsewhere. The guy sound like he will not pass it. I can see him still not passing it even if you cable tie it up

 

[giugno]

Passed!!! up to 67% efficiency with the tie wrapped valve. unbelievable.

 

[MarkCup]

He's an idiot. The VOSA clearly states in black and white that low brake efficiency on the rear IS NOT a reason to fail a 172 Cup.

You may have shown him the article, but he obviously knew better and ignored everything it had to say.

On that basis alone I'd go back and smash his face in for being a c**t.