Discussion thread: reply to the RSA

Irishgoatman

To hear of someone being opposed completely to having motor homes tested is mind boggling!. I seem to be in the minority here with regard to size/weight of vehicle as my 'van is only a small 2 berth so I think I will, in the next week or two, have mine tested at the local DOE garage and see what happens. I'll report back if I do just in case anyone else has a small camper.

niloc1951

Can I inject a bit of realism into the thread about chaining down for brake testing.

The method was devised to 'load up' axles of HGV's to simulate conditions when they are in use and carrying loads up to their maximum DGVW.
Example from the Volvo FH16 model range
FH42 plated at 18t. has a payload of 10t = 125% of the weight at which the vehicle can be presented for testing.
FH64 plated at 25t. has a payload of 15.7t = 169% of the weight at which the vehicle can be presented for testing.
From the above it can be seen that there is a clear case for such vehicles to be artificially weighted to test the efficiency of their braking systems.

HOWEVER

Please refer to my earlier post where I demonstrated, that in the case of motor caravans, such vehicles are delivered ex factory with payloads in the region of 20% of their 'kerb' or 'unladen' weight and often significantly less.
When present for testing, complete with the owners person effects on board, motor caravans often will have very little available payload left.

Applying the RSA's HVG test logic else where, chaining down should also be necessary for vehicles undergoing an NCT.
Example
A Nissan Micra, Gross Vehicle Weight 1.45t. Maximum a payload of 0.53t = 152% of the weight at which the vehicle can be presented for testing.

Taking all the above into account, can anyone make a logical case for the necessity of chaining down my motor caravan and not my wife's Micra

peasant

That's why I think we should aim for the LGV test criteria to be extended to 7.5 tons for motorcarvans.
Instead of getting bogged down on one single issue (the chaining), this would cover several concerns in one swoop
I've written something in the letter to this regard, see if you agree.

Realistically, any camper weighing in over 7.5 tons will be built on a truck chassis anyway and so that shouldn't be an issue

niloc1951

Slidey,
Thank you for your interest in this thread and please don't take offence to the following observation :).
Quite a lot of your opinions appear, to me at least, to suggest that perhaps it might not be a bad idea if you 'checked out' of few motor caravans.
BTW your Sprinter is a million miles (or should that be kilometres) away for a motor caravan when it some to construction and use. :)

Or, on second thoughts, perhaps you are only being a bit mischievous and stirring it up a bit

niloc1951

peasant wrote: »

That's why I think we should aim for the LGV test criteria to be extended to 7.5 tons for motorcarvans.
Instead of getting bogged down on one single issue (the chaining), this would cover several concerns in one swoop
I've written something in the letter to this regard, see if you agree.

Realistically, any camper weighing in over 7.5 tons will be built on a truck chassis anyway and so that shouldn't be an issue

Absolutely spot on Peasant

peasant

niloc1951 wrote: »

Slidey,
Thank you for your interest in this thread and please don't take offence to the following observation :).
Quite a lot of your opinions appear, to me at least, to suggest that perhaps it might not be a bad idea if you 'checked out' of few motor caravans.
BTW your Sprinter is a million miles (or should that be kilometres) away for a motor caravan when it some to construction and use. :)

Or, on second thoughts, perhaps you are only being a bit mischievous and stirring it up a bit

Ahhh, stop that now ..Slidey is sound

niloc1951

peasant wrote: »

Ahhh, stop that now ..Slidey is sound

I know, I know, but wouldn't he be sounder if he was to go the his nearest motor caravan dealer and climb around a few and it brought him over the fence to our side :D

peasant

I'd say on any given day, most of his customers want him to be on their side or see things from their point of view ...we're not alone

Slidey

peasant wrote: »

Ahhh, stop that now ..Slidey is sound

I'd say you could find as many customers who would disagree as agree with you!

Just a point to note. If you want your camper tested to LGV standard then it is done on presented weight and you then have to achieve 55% instead of 45.

peasant

Folks, I need to put on a bit of pressure here.

While the consultation process runs until May 12th, I myself won't be available to work on this for the last 2 1/2 weeks of this (I shall be drinking mojitos, smoking cigars and have no internet access).

If at all possible, I'd like the letter to be wrapped up by next weekend ...so please have another read and help me finish it, thanks

wonderworm

peasant, have you amended the letter in the last few days? could you direct me to it please and I will have a look at it

Slidey

Had a quick look at it there.

You are incorrect where you say HGV's have air brakes. My sprinter is a HGV and it has fluid brakes.

This tanker has fluid brakes (air over fluid system)

peasant

wonderworm wrote: »

peasant, have you amended the letter in the last few days? could you direct me to it please and I will have a look at it

The letter is stickied at the top of the page ...but here's the direct link anyway http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055876832

peasant

Right, AL-KO headquarters have replied to me re my question about chaining down and possible damage. The mail is in German, so I'm going to give you the gist of it:

-They are indeed aware that sometimes their chassis has to be weighted down in order to perform a brake test. They do that themselves at their factory. However they do it with pressure from above, applied to the main chassis beams (see attachement) and usually only up to a "partial load weight" (they did not specify how much that partial weight is or why they don'y use the gross axle weight in the first place)

- They do share our concern that there could be significant damage to the chassis if the chains were attached in the wrong place

- They do however recommend (strongly) that if such chaining down were absolutely necessary that the chains should be attached to the axle tube, on both sides, as symmetrically as possible and as close to the frame as possible


So ...the AL-KO issue is a bit of a non-issue really. I don't see anything here that we could slap into the RSA's face and stop them from testing AL-KO chassis according to HGV procedures.
Alko are suggesting to do what any right thinking mechanic/DOE tester would do anyway.

As I can see it we can only hope that our argumetation with the 7.5 tons (see letter) stacks up and we just might get an LGV test up to 7.5 tons for motorhomes

Irishgoatman

Hi peasant,
Re: letter to RSA, Item 6.

As well as telling them that we want a windscreen disk along the same lines as provided by the NCT, I think they should be asked why we will be expected to travel to the Local Authority Motor Tax Office, which in my case is in the opposite direction to the DOE centre, present the Pass Statement and then pay more money for a Certificate of Roadworthiness.

At the very least the Pass Statement should suffice but a disk stuck in the window along with the tax and insurance disks is proof positive that the vehicle is fully legal.

peasant

So just to re-cap (as i said, i have no personal experience with this) ...if you get a DOE test done, the garage issues you with a pass certificate that you have to then bring to the tax office to get it transcribed into yet another certificate?

That's ridiculous ...why have the commercial customers never complained about the time and money stolen from them this way?

Irishgoatman

peasant wrote: »

So just to re-cap (as i said, i have no personal experience with this) ...if you get a DOE test done, the garage issues you with a pass certificate that you have to then bring to the tax office to get it transcribed into yet another certificate?

That's ridiculous ...why have the commercial customers never complained about the time and money stolen from them this way?

Doesn't make sense does it!.
I didn't know this until reading Appendix 2 of the Consultation document.
And the cert. costs another 6 euro.

Irishgoatman

Should have added in the above posting that for heavier campers the fee for a cert is 13 euro.

Malta1

well spotted Irishgoatman

peasant

< 3.5 tons fee 70.86 + VAT + cert 6.00 = € 91.74
> 3.5 tons fee 94.52 + VAT + cert 13.00 = € 127.37

ouch !

EDIT
letter amended accordingly

niloc1951

Here is what the situation regarding testing across the Irish Sea and, I assume up North
For motor caravans (class IV)
http://online.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/openpopup?type=ONEOFFPAGE&itemId=1082014459&r.l5=1082014255&r.s=e&r.l4=1082103343&r.l1=1081597476&r.lc=en&r.l3=1082103299&r.l2=1082103262&r.i=1082015489&r.t=RESOURCES For Goods Vehicles
As can be seen motor caravans are tested completely differently to goods vehicles

peasant

niloc1951 wrote: »

As can be seen motor caravans are tested completely differently to goods vehicles

More importantly ...motorcaravans are clearly charged the same as private cars !

Letter amended accordingly, thanks

Irishgoatman

Yes peasant,
This is more to the point.
Regardless of the test fee in the U.K., Germany, France etc,
there is very, if any, justification for the charges here being any different from that for a car unless it is maintained that more specialised equipment is required for the test. And I would think that would be a non-runner if it's not needed in other E.U. countries.

peasant

Irishgoatman wrote: »

unless it is maintained that more specialised equipment is required for the test. And I would think that would be a non-runner if it's not needed in other E.U. countries.

They would probably maintain that the NCT can't test large motorhomes ...but it's not our fault that they forgot to think about this class of private vehicle when the NCT was first thought up, is it?

For all I care they can test my camper on gold plated ramps ...as long as I don't have to pay more than the NCT.

Irishgoatman

peasant wrote: »

They would probably maintain that the NCT can't test large motorhomes ...but it's not our fault that they forgot to think about this class of private vehicle when the NCT was first thought up, is it?

For all I care they can test my camper on gold plated ramps ...as long as I don't have to pay more than the NCT.

I agree 100% but I can't see the RSA backing down from making us use the DOE centres.

Irishgoatman

Hi peasant,
Re: Letter to RSA, Items 1 & 6.

Would it be better now, with your revision, to do away with contents of item 6 and add to Item 1, last para, last sentence,"........valid cert. and windscreen disk......." ?.

peasant

The DOE centers are the only ones equipped to deal with our vans ...but we should still try and pay private rates only ...we have private vehicles after all.

This might create a bit of a headache for the RSA, as they might have to come up with the difference and refund the (privately owned) DOE centers ...but that's not really our problem, is it?

Motorhomes should have been catered for in the NCT in the first place ...not our fault either that that wasn't done

peasant

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Hi peasant,
Re: Letter to RSA, Items 1 & 6.

Would it be better now, with your revision, to do away with contents of item 6 and add to Item 1, last para, last sentence,"........valid cert. and windscreen disk......." ?.

"disc" (is it disc or disk ??) entered into appropriate sentence, thanks

the heading for item 6. isstill there so people can see and follow what was done ..there will be no item 6 in the finished letter

Irishgoatman

peasant wrote: »

"disc" (is it disc or disk ??) entered into appropriate sentence, thanks

the heading for item 6. isstill there so people can see and follow what was done ..there will be no item 6 in the finished letter

Yes it is DISC ( got too use to talking about computer DISKS).

The letter looks very good. It seems to me that most, maybe all, points are covered.

Well done.

Des32

Hi
I own a Taxi & bus company and each year I have to get 4 cars tested at the NCT centres and 10 buses tested at the Doe centres and I would rather deal with the Doe centres any day.
I would compare the Nct test to taking your driving test again or going to the dentist. I find that the Doe centre technicians to be fair and not just looking for an excuse to fail your vehicle.
As far as having to go to the motor tax office with your test pass certificate there is no need to do this untill your tax renewal.