MOT station trying it on?

definitely. go back and ask for a form VT17, fill it in and send it off

---------

Thanks, what about the handbrake? - should 'three clicks left after brakes are fully applied' be enough to prevent an 'insufficient reserve travel' failure?

Most testers would be happy.

I'd be happy at that.

going back to the headlight aim, its quite possible for the headlight aim to be ok the previous year but be out of adjustment the next year, it happens.it is permissible to adjust the aims during the test, its the only part of the test you are allowed to carry out adjustments, we do it & also we don't charge for headlight adjustment unless its a major issue like a seized adjuster, have you got automatic headlamp adjusters as these have a bearing on the headlight aim check. have a look under the section Drivers Beam Control

this is the failure criteria for a brake pipe "Note: Chafing, corrosion of, or damage to, a rigid brake pipe so that its wall thickness is reduced by

1/3 (eg approximately 0.25mm for typical hydraulic brake pipe) is a reason for rejection" bit of a difficult one that, if im not 100% sure i pass & advise that the pipe is corroded.

you can download the appeal form from here

but you need to be aware that you should not have any work carried out. Try asking the garage for an appeal form (vt17) they have to provide one, you might find them a bit more ammicable after you've asked them for one as no one likes appeals.

OK, but what do you do while the appeal is underway? Presumably, you'd have to get the MOT done elsewhere if it's about to expire.

You can get an MoT elsewhere, but you should not have any work done on the vehicle, as this could confuse the inspectors. Another good reason to get your MoT done 4 weeks before it is due.

Mrcheerful

I've always thought that a more sensible approach would have been a requirement for a vehicle to be taken to a purpose built government test centre which had absolutely no 'vested financial interest' in its mechanical condition, only whether it was roadworthy or not.

In the event of a failure a list of exactly what was required to be done to enable the vehicle to pass its MOT would be handed to the owner, who would then have the option of selecting a garage offering best value for money safe in the knowledge that any work being carried out would 'genuinely' be needed.

I appreciate that this option is available however compared to the amount of locally available garages, unless one is lucky enough to live close to a test centre they do appear to be a bit thin on the ground.

While I understand your frustration, corrosion on brake pipes can be very difficult to gauge. I did a pipe on my car this year before the MOT

- I'd looked at it, and decided to do it to be on the safe side, even though it didn't really look bad. When I undid the union the pipe snapped in my hand...

That's not the first time I've seen that either. and it only takes a pinhole of corrosion to cause the brakes to fail. So now, I check my cars before the MOT, replace any pipes that have visible rust, and grease the rest.

What price your own safety?

Judging by how dirt cheap stainless steel now appears to be, would I be right in assuming that it can't be used for brake pipes because of some kind of technical limitation?

Ivan wrote: [...]

No need to reinvent the wheel :-)

Just use Kunifer10.

Chris

Hadn't heard of it Chris until I the just looked it up:0.. I was just simply curious, as considering the amount of metal used in brake pipes one would imagine that there would only be a difference of pennies between ordinary steel and stainless steel, and with the consequences of corroded pipes being only to obvious I wondered why it wasn't used, I reasoned that it couldn't be safety being compromised for the sake of a few pennies on a vehicle costing thousands of pounds.

It's too hard to be easily formed. You need to be able to flare the pipe at the unions reasonably easily - as anyone who has tried to re-form regular mild steel brake pipe will testify, even mild steel is not easy, and stainless is less ductile. Steel pipes don't bend easily either - the manufacturers fit them, pre-formed, to the body before the subframes, engine & ancilliaries. Threading a replacement steel tube round an engine bay or through a subframe is nigh-impossible, and so the labour cost of doing such a job would be prohibitive. You'd end up scrapping perfectly good cars for the sake of a £10 pipe. As another poster has pointed out, other corrosion-resistant options exist - Kunifer being an alloy of copper, nickel and iron. This is nearly as ductile as copper, so easily formed and bent, but more resistant to fracture by work hardening, and very resistant to corrosion. For this reason it's used for most replacement brake pipes.

Such places exist and you can take them there.

Yeah...vibration makes it brittle and prone to cracking. One reason you have annual inspections of stainless steel exhausts is to check for cracking. There's a lot of vibration in a car.

You also need some further deformation at the ends when you fit the pipes, and lost stainless is a complete bugger for work-hardening, so even if you did manage to flare the end it wouldn't seal.

Ian

Which is why in my op I did say...

"I appreciate that this option is available however compared to the amount of locally available garages, unless one is lucky enough to live close to a test centre they do appear to be a bit thin on the ground."

<

So would fitting Kunifer as standard to a new circa £11,000 vehicle add considerably to its original cost?

>

[...]

No, it wouldn't, but is unnecessary.

Taking in to account the number of cars that get scrapped early due to accident damage or lack of maintenance, the average life of a car now is probably less than 10 years. The coating used on steel brake pipes will usually mean they outlast the car.

Chris