Has failed MoT because the rear Anti roll bar is missing.
I have had the LR fro 4+ years and I hve not removed the anti roll bar, so has passed in previous years without one.
Any comments?
Yes, go back to the tester and point out it never had one fitted from new, if he still objects call in the inspectorate.
Mike
>
I've got a 1994 Defender 110 hard top (now a pickup) and it's never had anti-roll bars at either end.
On the following link;
They've never moaned about my RRC one missing, and it did have one. If you want one for the 110" I've got a spare, also the rubbers (new) and mountings for the chassis (they are different than the RR) but I've no spare ball joints that fix to the axle but they are cheap enough on Ebay (fortunes from L/R).
Martin
I think that both with and without are possible dependant on s/n.
Early unlevelled (no Boge unit) were without
Optional levelled (with Boge unit) were with.
Later unlevelled (no Boge unit) were with.
If you don't have the brackets on the axle you never had it (they are unlikely to have been cut off). But the presence of axle brackets or chassis pads does not necessarily mean that did have it (both parts had provision for the optional fitment)
Proposal for simplified MOT examination.
Does it .... # go in a staight line # go round corners # stop .... without fuss or drama?
Good, now can we please stop fannying about with the minutiae and get on with r/l
Very odd, I have 1986 110 CSW this has (had) rear anti roll bar fitted from new, but at one MOT it failed due to the rubber bushes being a bit slack, so I removed the whole thing and it passed. But this is a local rural MOT place who knows LR's and whether they are safe or not. I left the anti roll bar off until I fitted some greenway chacos which produced weird handling, so put it back on with immediate improvement, but I could not tell the difference when I had avon rangemaster tyres.
Andrew
Pratt. Martin
/shrugs
suppose it's democracy in action when folk are prepared to support state micro-management of the minutiae of everyday life.
each is entitled to their opinion - I don't agree with those in favour but I will support the right to voice the opinion.
... or to grossly exaggerate. An MOT test is hardly "state micro-management of the minutiae of everyday life", there's so many idiotic chancers on the roads that there has to be a way to catch duff cars, and before you come back with the obvious retort, it'd be a lot worse without regular tests of a car's state of repair.
We live in an age of communication, unfortunately this has shown how readily people leap onto soapboxes and cry about the end of the world being nigh.
In message , Ian Rawlings writes
Which is why it was introduced in the first place.
You're damn right folk have a right to an opinion but I didn't say I was in support and I'm not impressed with control freaks, state run or otherwise.
Martin
bah - there's nowt wrong with a little bar-room exaggeration.
indeed there does.
agreed, but is the minutiae absolutely necessary?
and here is the more-or-less expected obvious ....
Last year I noticed that a rear driving lamp was out. Fixing it slipped mind completely on arrival at base. Wasn't until some while later the thought popped to the top of the stack and the job was done.
Thirty odd years ago, I wouldn't have made more than 2 or 3 trips without being 'reminded' by the local constabulary.
Less traffic cops? Relying on MOT & ANPR to pick up faults? Too busy? Not giving a damn?
I don't know, but I do know that a driver that wants to run a heap-o-s**te stands a very good chance of getting away with it - as witnessed by the number of cyclops style lighting patterns seen round here.
it is? damn.
Then I completly misunderstand the point you are making above.
More joys of text. Anyway, not important now.
Problem is it's a national epidemic and people believe their own twaddle, I've seen people claiming to be unable to feed their own children and how burglars and rapists can commit their crimes at will without any fear of being caught. It's utter s**te from top to toe but if you challenge them on it they defend it by saying "but it's true", which as a defence is pretty poor, especially when their kids are fat useless lazy oafs.
What "minutiae" in particular? You need well defined rules in order to enforce them, otherwise the much loved but totally useless "common sense" creeps in and that's what causes all the grief in the first place 'cos it's bloody fictional!
It's easy to hark back to the "good old days" and state that you'd be picked up for a minor fault and be given a clip round the ear and be told to run along now etc etc. Whether it's actually true is another matter of course and conveniently untestable.
Elsewhere on usenet someone was moaning about how people who work up ladders have to use platforms and aren't supposed to use ladders any more, not like in the "good old days" where peope just got on with their jobs. Never mind that in 2005-2006 3,500 people fell, 700 injured themselves badly (breaking bones or worse) and 80% of those were from falls of less than 6 feet. When stuff gets measured, issues come into perspective and action gets taken, hand-waving "good old days" talk isn't the kind of stuff you run a country with.
Fuck me, where'd that soap box come from!
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.