Mots

[History]

Just a few points about Mots.

The owner is by law entitled to get the maximum use out of components. The testers job is to draw the line.

There fore the mot test is the minimum standard.

The phrase excess wear is used this does not mean no wear.

A car cannot pass with flying colours.

A pass means that at the time of the test the car met the miminum standard. 5 minutes after the car fail a test because a bulb has blown.

The only time used is 3 months for rust. Every thing else is strickly at the time of the test.

Mot exempt still must met the minimum standard.

No mot is does not mean that an accident is more likely but excessively worn bits does. Insurance is still valid with out mot but not if vehicle is defective. Only 3rd party claims will be met in the advent of an accident and the cat is defective such as a bald tyre.

About me.
I am a retired auto engineer with 50 years experience. I have diploma in Historic Restoratiom and conservation with distinction.
I am also ex home office mechanic for the police and ex Vosa inspector.

My cars are 1974 Shadow and a 1993 Cherokee.

[rich.]

welcome.. you had better not see my transit...

[kstrutt1]

I totally agree (I think you meant car not cat?), the duty of care is on the driver, every car should be serviced as per the manufacturers directions (which always include safety checks)if you don't know what you are doing it needs to be done (or at least checked) by someone who does.

If you do it yourself fill in a service sheet and keep receipts for parts( important with the poor quality of many pattern parts).I recently had a total brake failure on my landrover - root cause a 6 month old pattern master cylinder, fortunatelly there was no accident but if there had of been I would have been able to prove it was not down to poor maintenance.

One area where the mot really gives little idea of a vehicles condition is corrosion, I have seen loads of cars with patches on patches and all the corrosion underneath and most of the inner structures rotted away, repaired to the minimum mot standard but still death traps.

[tractorman]

The thing that worries me more is the "iffy testers". My Land Rover had been tested two months before I bought it and, IMHO, it was dangerously unroadworthy. There were things like corrosion around rear shock absorber mounts (and one broke off within five miles of me buying it), blowing exhaust and missing gaiter on the front propshaft (though I wouldn't necessarily say that was a failure point - but the slop in the shaft was). There were other failure points - it had lap seat belts that were only held onto the sides of the seatbox by a bolt - no reinforcement on the 2mm ally panels and a dodgy indicator switch (the multi-function type) - the RH indicator wouldn't stay on. Those are the ones I remember, but there wee other things too!

I suspect most of the members of this forum are pretty well clued up about safety and MOT requirements (though I have only been driving legally for 45 years!) and, as can bee seen in most of the "Members Restorations", the quality of the work is excellent. Note that I don't suggest my Land Rover's resto is excellent, but it will be safe - or as safe as I can make it - when I eventually complete it!

Thinks - the kitchen is almost finished now (just some cupboard doors to refit tomorrow and, over time, the quarry tiles need deep cleaning to remove various marks and stains). Unless I can find a lot to do outside (and I can think of a few quite urgent jobs), I will be working on the Landy next week!

[History]

Iffy mot testers are very rare. But engineers do have off days.

A iffy tester would soon be spotted by Vosa. The tester could be commiting a criminal offence and prison is not unknown.

Landrovers are often kept well beyond their useful life and excessively welded with patches on patches. The land tover is thought of as lasting forever which they certainly dont. I personally think a landrover is great as a farm vehicle but useless as a family vehicle, an estate car works better.

Strickly speaking a car should be able to pass the mot at any time.

Second guessing the cops, an exempt car would attract a quick stop for a check.

VOSA rarely stops cars for checks but the cops do. So exemption is not a such big deal.

In India many drivers think as long as the hand brake works. This is an enforcement problem

Some USA States do not test cars. Friends stateside say cars are not flying off the Road due to dodgy repairs. This is because the Dot guys and cops enforce the rules.

Insurance and the Mot.

Car insurance is a special sort of contract in law.
Insurance companies rely on UTMOST GOOD FAITH. This means the insurance company will accept any thing the insured says. In the advent of a claim the insurers then check. Suspose you run into the car in front.
( I have been rear ended, not nice). If you have told the insurers that you are a vicar who only drives on Sundays when you are a travelling salesman bombing up the M1. Then the insurers will pay the 3rd party claim but your own car will be not covered.
This is because the special nature of the insurance certificate. The certificate can be voided ( usually non payment) but the insurance company have to notify the driver first. The insurance company cannot void it after a 3rd party claim. They are mindful of a car and trailer ending up on a mainline railway. ( SELBY). This is why insurance even 3rd party is expensive. A 250k RR Phantom is a small risk compared to the 20million quid Selby cost. So the value of the car is of little interest.
A car with no mot is not of concern in an accident but a defect that caused the accident is of material concern.

I remember a Vitesse rag top that collided with another car the truimph vitesse had no mot and a corroded chassis but because the corrosion didn't cause the accident the insurers paid out. I brought the salvage and repaired the car and made a £200 profit. (1977 I was still wet behind the ears then and mucked up the respray still the new owner had a solid car with 12swg side rails. Still had scuttle shake).

Material Fact on proposal for insurance means for example that a missing leg is material fact but having ginger hair and a unkempt beard is not.

I always get my insurance from a broker. Because I have fully comp he does all the leg work and fights my side. In the advent I have an accident. The cost is still competive and he is a local man.

The cops use the term road traffic collision rather than accident. Trouble is though a collision means both vehicles were moving. Meaning that one can't collide with a tree or a parked car.

I like cats, I dont have a cat myself but my jeep has one. Ha ha.

Also never tell porkies to Insurance companies just tell it the way it happen using words like unfortunately and sorry.

In 50 years and many miles I have had accidents that were my fault, I just own up to my insurers and I have never had any hassles. Also I always tell my insurers of all and any accidents regardless.

Note if anybody recognises my style of writting and guesses I am Bob UK from the Australian Rolls Royce club forum then you are right.

Bob Reddington.

[JPB]

..a solid car with 12swg side rails..

Sorry, but since you're [quite rightly] keen to make sure that we keep our vehicles in good shape I thought that confession at odds with the sentiment. Try to imagine how the remaining chassis would have behaved, had there been an accident collision involving that thing in the state it ended up as a result of someone's not taking the time to question what you did.
There's a very good reason for modern cars' "crumple" zones to be on the extremities of the vehicle's structure rather than the bit between the A and D posts. I don't see a Thatcham slide for the Vitesse, maybe its structure is sufficiently similar to the Herald's for that not to be required, but does Thatcham state that it's acceptable to use steel that's over 200% of the intended thickness for this job?
Suppose the buyers of that "solid" car had been involved in that coming together; can you tell us precisely how the backbone and outriggers would behave when their perimeter section would, regardless of the direction of any such impact, collapse in a completely unpredictable way - dictated by which outrigger had wasted to the greatest extent? Canley preferred steel of consistent gauge for a very good reason, its use would be the difference between a bruise or two and severe crush injuries. Of course this bodge wouldn't have a massive effect upon scuttle shake since the points on the backbone members that are immediately in front of and behind the attachment points of the front and rearmost outriggers are still only connected to the rest of the car by the correct, 18swg steel.

Please, don't anyone use steel that's thicker than that intended unless you've done your calculations and modelled any potential differences before you so much as pick up your welding torch.

[kstrutt1]

Most of the cars we are driving were never designed with crash performance in mind and many had known weaknesses, personally I have used thicker steel on the chassis rails for our minor, the originals crack around the control arm mounting, I would rather the wheels stay on and avoid the crash rather than worrying about what happens if it crashes, because in reality the crash perfomance is going to be appauling anyway.

There are things you can do to help, like adding high back seats, seat belts etc. but these only really help in a light to moderate accident, the best option is to drive defensively as if you were on a Bike and if your car has some major weaknesses such as poor brakes or know structural weaknesses look at improving these.

Interestingly I was talking to my MOT tester yesterday, he said since the cuts have taken hold he hardly ever sees a VOSA inspector....

[History]

The truimph vitesse. Of course using 12 swg mucks up the original design from a crash point. But in 1977 things like crumple zones was a new idea and a 1967 vitesse as new had no crumple zones. As I said I was wet behind the
ears. I wouldn't like to have a front ender in a Herald or Vitesse or Spitfire. I suspect even a good one would fold up and snap ones ankles.

One of the risks of old cars is in accidents, no modern life saving stuff.

Because old cars had no crash testing welding in thicker metal may improve it's crash worthiness or make it worse or make no difference. One can't tell unless you are going to crash test the car, which is not going to happen.

I am a retired pro auto engineer and refuse to critise anybody ideas on what swg to use. As long as its structrally sound.

12swg is about 3mm. O.125"
16swg is about 1.5 mm. 0.064"
18swg is about 1.2 mm. 0.048"

I find 18 for general stuff, 16 for stress areas and 12 for brackets and subframes.

Restoring old cars often requires well thought out sensible bodges. It would be nice to have it exactly as it left the factory. But the car wasn't made with a welded in wheel arch. One just does the best one can.

My car for example is a 1974 Shadow. Wings are seriously expensive and major major body work to replace. So naturally a rusty wheel arch replacement panel makes sense. If one gets to pedantic then the cost is so high the car would be scrap.

Note SENSIBLE bodge not insensible botch.

I have seen many welded cars and some were bad and some deserve a medal for the welder.

Incidently owning a Rolls Royce does not mean I think other cars aren't as good.
The best car in the world is differcult to name. Because best at what. RRs are best at using lots of gas whereas a Morris Minor is better for not using lots of gas.
I also like Minis.

Fuzz Townsend repaired the front A posts on a Corvette by welding in what appeared to be 12 swg gussets. Which is exactly what I would have done. A well engineered sensible bodge. As he said if he couldn't then the body shell would be scrap. That sensible bodge saved the car.

Cars were not designed to be restored.

Bob Reddington
My email is reddington1@hotmail .com##$@#×÷.

The ##$@×÷ at the end is not part of the email and is there to foil spam bots. So omit that bit.

Any help needed just email me because I have 50 years experience and I am well qualified in restoration and conservation of Historic Vehicles. Or old cars as I prefer. I cannot physically help due to ill health. But I can pass on my knowledge.

[JPB]

OK, model the Vitesse chassis using flexible drinking straws and squeeze it from the outside of one side rail to the other. Then remove the straws from the side rails and use Bic tubes in their place, then repeat the exercise. The Minor wasn't part of that comparison but its chassis legs support the TCAs and tie the crossmember and sills to that structure, making thae things from thicker steel can be a good idea for the reason cited by Kevin; the cracks that can develop in tired examples or those used on bad surfaces, but the small Triumph chassis were developed to deform in a predicted way, not from the inside outwards. Have a look through some of your own Thatcham slides, Bob, and you'll see what I'm on about.
It's a common misconception that older cars were necessarily designed with no thought for how their structure would serve its occupants if the unthinkable were to happen. (I stepped out of the car seen in the image below, this was taken after it had been hit 3/4 head on by a Transit that was coming the wrong way at me up a one way street, but these are hardly the first car you'd think of if asked to suggest something of the same overall dimensions as a mini that could survive and protect its occupants better. The brochure of the period did suggest that it would, that I'm here today, some 30 years later, is the evidence).
I like the idea of running your Royce's massive V8 on gas, though its price advantage over petrol seems to be closing up a little. Is it a recent conversion? Sure & many of us here would love to read more on that.

Or old cars as I prefer.

Agreed, it avoids any of the usual argument that could otherwise pop up where the C word is used. Or the R word, the V word or the NC and NR words!

[SirTainleyBarking]

You could take the view that replacing a rear crossmember / quarter chassis on a Landrover could be considered dangerous as there are welds where welds wern't before.
In practice most if not all Series and Defenders will have had this done at around 5 years old. Provided the joint is properly welded and for preference reinforced inside it's a perfectly good "Bodge" that even the factory did.
The original 127 (The 2+2 crewcab with the load bed off a 110 pick up) was a 110 chassis cut, extended and shut when it was made by special vehicles.
(For Heavens sake don't tell dogwatch)
They did get the full size chassis made up later when it became more popular