MoT question

No.

it wont fail the test as the gearbox, clutch & engine isn't part of the test, however a road test is permitted if the tester considers one is necessary to check the results of an inspection, brakes, wheel bearings ect, so if the tester deems that because the gearbox is damaged or wont allow a road test then he should issue a refusal to test.

Vim Fuego ( snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Not even reverse .?

?

Stuart

that'll be a refusal, as its no good driving onto the ramp or the brake rollers and finding you cant back it out !

but weren't some cars made without a reverse? Bonds or something like that?

There's hundreds of bike-engined cars out there with no reverse that need and get MOTs, they're usually light enough to push backwards though :)

Was that the 3 wheled thing .You picked up the front end and swung it round .

S

The Bond engine and single front wheel were built as one unit. IOW the engine turned with the wheel. I do know the unit could rotate 90 degrees, meaning the car could turn in it's own length. What I don't know, is whether it could be turned 180 degrees to give reverse. Mike.

so how could an mot tester refuse a car with no reverse? it may be a pain, but not a reason to refuse to test, surely?

I have known several cars (usually autos) with broken reverse, they got through tests I am certain, although I don't remember taking one in, they were customers cars

[...]

Well, I suppose you could call them cars :-)

They were three wheelers, and had a 250cc two-stroke motorcycle engine under the bonnet. Early ones were started by operating the kick-start after opening the bonnet!

Later ones were equipped with something called a Siba Dynastart. This used the crankshaft-mounted generator to double up as a starter. Some switching circuitry allowed it to also spin the engine over backwards, and as a crude two-stroke it would run in reverse. You could then use all four of the forward gears to travel backwards!

Some quirk in licencing laws meant that only the ones without reversing capabilities could be driven on a motorcycle licence.

Chris (showing his age!)

How about a pre MOT check.

The brass door hinge on my Alvis sheered. The MOT tester instantly refused to MOT it without a drivers door but was happy to do a pre-MOT check. Worth the price of a MOT as it allowed me to order any further parts needed while I was waiting for a new door hinge.

That's because 3 wheelers without reverse were taxed and classed as m/cycles. That class included m/cycle combinations. Those with reverse were classed as cars, and taxed as such. Even the ones that had reverse fitted when new, could be classed as m/cycles, as long as the reverse was disabled. Mike.

Do you get four faults for that?

Steve

Chris Whelan wrote in news:VYGYg.17694$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:

Aren't you confusing Bond Bugs with the old blue invalid carriage?

No. Chris is quite right. Might sound silly by todays stds, but driving, and taxation classes have changed a lot over the last 50-60 years. Mike.

Well, I know I said I was showing my age, but I'm still reasonably compos mentis!

The Bond Bug was an entirely different vehicle; it wasn't around until the early '70s.

The Bond Minicar that I was describing dated from the late '40s.

Chris

"Mike G" wrote in news:4533c41b$0$8722 $ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net:

backwards,

Sorry, I meant the description of the vehicle, not the licence type required. I had a mate who had a Bond Bug with no reverse gear fitted and was legal with a full bike licence, but I'm pretty sure the engine was 700-750cc, not 250cc. The invalid carriage or Invicar was a 175-

250cc engine. Mind you, like Chris, I'm going back a bit, and the memory does get hazy.

I should have added that the "old blue invalid carriage" was the Greeves Invacar. (The same Greeves that produced mainly off-road motorcycles.)

Chris