DoE testing - The Last Word

Irishgoatman

shaysue wrote: »

Anniversary of DOE or anniversary of first registration??

As I have now been told it's as nailer8 says, the anniversary of your first test, but I'm waiting for more info on this because that will require an ammendment going through the official channels as it will be changing the regs as they exist at the moment.

This also means that, under this new system, if your existing test expires just before the 'vans 10th b/day, you will be issued with a 2 year cert!! where as if it's done on actual b/days, on the 10th you would get a 1year cert.
And we all thought we were savvy regarding testing .

As I said, I'm waiting for a bit more info. so please don't take my word for any of this at the moment.

nailer8

shaysue wrote: »

Anniversary of DOE or anniversary of first registration??

Anniversary of first DOE is the current plan but nothing is in stone yet.

The original proposal was anniversary of first registration as per cars but this caused a major problem for certain commercial operators who maintain their vehicles seasonally during quiet periods (e.g. oil trucks are tested in summer, school buses in summer, milk lorries during the winter etc.).
The operator has the choice when they carry out the first test although it may end up being 6 months before its due.

Irishgoatman

nailer8 wrote: »

Anniversary of first DOE is the current plan but nothing is in stone yet.

The original proposal was anniversary of first registration as per cars but this caused a major problem for certain commercial operators who maintain their vehicles seasonally during quiet periods (e.g. oil trucks are tested in summer, school buses in summer, milk lorries during the winter etc.).
The operator has the choice when they carry out the first test although it may end up being 6 months before its due.

You may be right on this when it comes to commercial vehicles nailer8, but the legislation that is in force for campervans clearly states, and I have the documentation in front of me, the anniversary of first registration.
Therefore an ammendment would have to go through the official paths in order to alter this.

Irishgoatman

I meant to add in the above post of mine, that I am still not happy that we are being linked alongside commercail vehicles all the time.

I'll admit that there appears to be no option but it still doesn't sit well with me.

niloc1951

The EU Directive 2009/40/EC which this country is 'supposed' to have implemented by now says

ANNEX I

CATEGORIES OF VEHICLES SUBJECT TO ROADWORTHINESS TESTS AND FREQUENCY OF THE TESTS

Categories of vehicle Frequency of tests

1. Motor vehicles used for the carriage of passengers and with more than eight seats, excluding the driver’s seat
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

2. Motor vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum permissible mass exceeding 3 500 kg
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

3. Trailers and semi-trailers with a maximum permissible mass exceeding 3 500 kg
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

4. Taxis, ambulances
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

5. Motor vehicles having at least four wheels, normally used for the road carriage of goods and with a maximum permissible mass not exceeding 3 500 kg, excluding agricultural tractors and machinery
Four years after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter every two years

6. Motor vehicles having at least four wheels, used for the carriage of passengers and with not more than eight seats excluding the driver’s seat
Four years after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter every two years

Normally the date of 'first use' is the date of 'first registration' unless the vehicle was being used without being registered which apart from being unlikely is illegal.

BTW, look at number 5........................
We require annual testing for this category but the EU says 4:2:2:2:1, the same as cars/campers

Irishgoatman

niloc1951 wrote: »

The EU Directive 2009/40/EC which this country is 'supposed' to have implemented by now says

ANNEX I

CATEGORIES OF VEHICLES SUBJECT TO ROADWORTHINESS TESTS AND FREQUENCY OF THE TESTS

Categories of vehicle Frequency of tests

1. Motor vehicles used for the carriage of passengers and with more than eight seats, excluding the driver’s seat
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

2. Motor vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum permissible mass exceeding 3 500 kg
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

3. Trailers and semi-trailers with a maximum permissible mass exceeding 3 500 kg
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

4. Taxis, ambulances
One year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter annually

5. Motor vehicles having at least four wheels, normally used for the road carriage of goods and with a maximum permissible mass not exceeding 3 500 kg, excluding agricultural tractors and machinery
Four years after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter every two years

6. Motor vehicles having at least four wheels, used for the carriage of passengers and with not more than eight seats excluding the driver’s seat
Four years after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and thereafter every two years

Normally the date of 'first use' is the date of 'first registration' unless the vehicle was being used without being registered which apart from being unlikely is illegal.

BTW, look at number 5........................
We require annual testing for this category but the EU says 4:2:2:2:1, the same as cars/campers

The above has been implemented, that's why we have them tested now.
In my earlier post the documentation that I was reading was S.I.No. 58 of 2012. This states the same as the above. Anniversary of registration. so any ammendment that is put into force will be against E.U. rules.

Surely item number 5, above, refers only to goods vehicles?. Any size Camper must come under number 6 is my reading of it. Unless i'm missing something.

niloc1951

Irishgoatman wrote: »

......................................................Surely item number 5, above, refers only to goods vehicles?. Any size Camper must come under number 6 is my reading of it. Unless i'm missing something.

Yes you are correct, the test for campers is not size specific, all sizes are to be tested the same as cars and light (not over 3,500kg) goods vehicles both of which are to be tested 4:2:2:2:1 and to the same standards according to the Directive.

The point, I made as an aside, at the end of my post is that here in Ireland LGV's are tested every year from new, contrary to the Directive requirement that the frequency is to be set to the same as for Category 6.
In fact the same test criteria is specified for Categories 4, 5 & 6, with Category 4 (Taxis and Ambulances) required to have annual testing.

Irishgoatman

Yes niloc, I think you're right on that.

As I've only a car and camper I was being very narrow minded:).

nailer8

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I meant to add in the above post of mine, that I am still not happy that we are being linked alongside commercial vehicles all the time.

I'll admit that there appears to be no option but it still doesn't sit well with me.

As someone who ownes a camper and works with commercial vehicles i really don't understand why camper owners are so unhappy with being linked alongside commercial vehicles. Almost all campers start off life as a commercial vehicle chassis. They may be heavily modified and do low mileage but they are still the same nuts and bolts as their commercial cousins.
You can register a 27 tonne truck as a camper (I've seen a few horse boxes done) but ultimately it's a still a truck and needs to be tested in the same manner.

Re the test dates this is only a plan as far as i know. It was communicated to the VTN testers by the RSA at a meeting recently. There will be new legislation before any changes are made. As it stands the RSA aren't even the authorised body for vehicle testing it is the local authorities in each county.

Irishgoatman

nailer8 wrote: »

As someone who ownes a camper and works with commercial vehicles i really don't understand why camper owners are so unhappy with being linked alongside commercial vehicles. Almost all campers start off life as a commercial vehicle chassis. They may be heavily modified and do low mileage but they are still the same nuts and bolts as their commercial cousins.
You can register a 27 tonne truck as a camper (I've seen a few horse boxes done) but ultimately it's a still a truck and needs to be tested in the same manner.

Re the test dates this is only a plan as far as i know. It was communicated to the VTN testers by the RSA at a meeting recently. There will be new legislation before any changes are made. As it stands the RSA aren't even the authorised body for vehicle testing it is the local authorities in each county.

I've nothing against commercial vehicles as such, it's just that they have far more rules, regulations and conditions attached to them that I prefer ny campervan to be distanced from them.

As far as I see the test date and registration date have to be the same. If it is not, that goes against E.U. directives as shown by niloc1951 so how would this be got round?. The government of the day eventually get round to enforcing all E.U. directives, a little late maybe but they get there in the end, septic tanks is a (sore)point with regards to their speed.

I'll perhaps have more info when someone from the department involved in this gets back to me. But I'm not holding my breath.

niloc1951

nailer8 wrote: »

........................................Almost all campers start off life as a commercial vehicle chassis. They may be heavily modified and do low mileage but they are still the same nuts and bolts as their commercial cousins...........................................................

Almost all campers do not start off life as commercial vehicle chassis, many only employ a chassis cowl and others a chassis cab.

The 'nuts and bolts' analogy is good and it shows a complete misunderstanding of how motor caravans differ from goods vehicles with regard to the robustness of their bodies and chassis.

Goods vehicles are as a rule full metal bodied assembled by welding, riveting, and /or bolting. Such bodied are designed for industrial activity which includes mechanical loading and travel on all types of terrain.

Contrast this to motor caravans whose bodies are lightweight beauty board, polystyrene and aluminium all held together with glue and woodscrews and contain a variety of domestic appliances and furniture of similar construction and fixing.

Both vehicles are as different as a plastic Shannon Cruiser and a steel Ship of the Sea.

nailer8

niloc1951 wrote: »

Almost all campers do not start off life as commercial vehicle chassis, many only employ a chassis cowl and others a chassis cab.

I take your point re the differences between campers and commercial panel vans. There is no similarity what so ever in the body work (with the exception of b-class campers).

What I was referring to by "nuts and bolts" were the key mechanical elements engine, clutch, gearbox, axles, steering, brakes, emission control, exhaust, chassis etc which other than the alko chassis are almost all OEM from the base vehicle manufacturer (Merc, Renault, Fiat etc). These coincidentally are the components of most importance in a roadworthyness test as well.

niloc1951

nailer8 wrote: »

.........................................What I was referring to by "nuts and bolts" were the key mechanical elements engine, clutch, gearbox, axles, steering, brakes, emission control, exhaust, chassis etc which other than the alko chassis are almost all OEM from the base vehicle manufacturer (Merc, Renault, Fiat etc). These coincidentally are the components of most importance in a roadworthyness test as well.

I accept that the above components need to be tested, but I have to question the appropriateness of subjecting my little collection of 'nuts and bolts' and my glued and screwed body to the rigors of testing equipment designed for vehicles like a Volvo FH16 or Mercedes Benz 8X4 Actros

nailer8

Totally agree.
It is a concern for the over 3.5t category. The LGV test lane equipment is pretty similar to what they have in the NCT centres and is used down to little 1t vans.

The HGV lane equipment is a different matter. But if it is any reassurance the HGV lane doesn't have a lift or shock tester. It is really only the shaker plates i would have a concern with and they are still unlikely to be as bad as a bad road in Ireland.
We have tested a lot of campers and had no trouble as far as i know most are passing first time or with minor repairs.

niloc1951

nailer8 wrote: »

.....................................It is really only the shaker plates i would have a concern with and they are still unlikely to be as bad as a bad road in Ireland. ........................

In a former life when I drove a 6X4 tanker with air suspension the worst that our roads can throw at a vehicle did not bother me nor did I expect did it bother the truck.

But now when on a bad bit of road in my motorhome I wish I could carry it on my back as I feel it's not really designed for such abuse. Hence my concern when it's put down the HGV test lane.
It is after all just the 'nuts and bolts' of a 3,500 kg GVW Ducato with an upgrade to 3,850kg GVW because the sum of the axle weights allowed it and 113 load index tyres were fitted.

Irishgoatman

Re dates for testing campervans (& commercail vehicles).

I've just, today, received an email from a very helpful chap at the RSA.
I've cut and copied the relevant piece. This should settle at least this confusion.

Testing of Commercial Vehicles:

As per the Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness (CVR) consultation 2011 on the proposed reforms as relates to registered owners, operators and drivers. It is proposed that commercial vehicles will become eligible for testing on the anniversary of their first registration date, rather than on the anniversary of the date of testing so that this is in line with EU requirements to have the vehicle tested annually. At present it is possible for a vehicle to be non-compliant by using short term taxation renewal periods, followed by a 12 month period, commencing close to the expiry date of the certificate of roadworthiness (CRW) and there has been significant slippage in test dates. This has not been difficult to address, not least because commercial vehicles are not currently required to display proof of test on their windscreens, nor is the system automated enough to allow testing data to be used in the Garda ANPR system. These are amounst the issues which will be addressed by the CVR reform.



For existing vehicles, it is proposed that future test expiries will fall annually on the date of the first expiry date following the introduction of this change. If a vehicle is tested six months after the test due date then the CRW will only last for six months.



The proposals in the consultation are now contained in the Road Safety Authority Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness Act 2012.

nailer8

That appears to clear that up, although no mention of test frequency in that 2012 bill.

Not good for the testers (or seasonal operators) with 50% of the years work turning up in the month Jan/Feb.

Irishgoatman

nailer8 wrote: »

That appears to clear that up, although no mention of test frequency in that 2012 bill.

Not good for the testers (or seasonal operators) with 50% of the years work turning up in the month Jan/Feb.

I thought I saw mentioned that it was as is current for cars (although not in those words).

But that will only be for the first year after this is implemented. Then surely your work will be more staggered?.

nailer8

From what he sent you it would appear for existing vehicles the test will be the anniversary of their current CRW expiry but for new vehicles it will be the anniversary of their registration date. The problem is most vehicles are registered in Jan/Feb where as some operators prefer to carry out the CRW in the summer. To be fair we are still extremely busy in Jan and Feb now but due to slippage, vehicles off the road or people testing early CRW renewal dates tend to spread around the year as vehicles get older.

Example: Customer takes delivery of 10 new trucks in 1st week of January. However he only has one spare so can only take one off the road at any time. Normally we would test the first one in October and stagger them 1 per week so they are all done by the deadline of January.

Don't think the date will really impact the camper community though so this is probably a little bit OT

Irishgoatman

nailer8 wrote: »

From what he sent you it would appear for existing vehicles the test will be the anniversary of their current CRW expiry but for new vehicles it will be the anniversary of their registration date.

I must admit that I find that piece very unclear.
I did look on the RSA website to try to understand it but really got no further.

Perhaps you could try if you've time?.

I'll ring the guy up again after the bank holiday.

nailer8

I will see if I can find out for definite. There is due to be another testers meeting shortly and it will probably come up at that.

Things are in transition in commercial testing at the moment so there are a lot of proposals that may or may not come into force, it is hard to find anything out for definite as people don't actually know themselves. There are a lot of changes going through due to the change over from local authorities to the RSA. New premises and equipment standards, ISO for testers, reduced test fees due to RSA levy, new software, new fixed term licences, etc. etc.

It should improve the experience for the customers and provide a more standardised testing environment across the network but as usual nobody likes change and there is a lot of complaining going on.

Irishgoatman

Looking at it from the point of view of this site of course, it certainly doesn't look as though it will affect us.

It's laid down pretty clearly that motorhomes/campervans will be due a test on the anniversary of first registration.

The other queation that I asked the person I spoke to was regarding the extra charge for the CRW.
The answer was that when testing stations take over the issuing of this, that charge would be incorporated in the testing charge. BUT he couldn't/wouldn't say if this meant a higher testing fee as that side of things wasn't on the agenda at the moment. I think I can see what that means:(.

nailer8

Current proposal as I understand it (could change of course) is that the current CRW fee (€6 or €13) will be added to the test fee charged by us. However the test centre must have this fee paid to the RSA in advance of the test commencing. We are also paying a €2 per test levy which is not to be passed on the the customer.

The CRW fee is to pay for enforcement of the regulations.
The levy is to pay for the new software.

niloc1951

nailer8 wrote: »

.................................................The CRW fee is to pay for enforcement of the regulations. The levy is to pay for the new software.

And I thought the Gardaí were paid out of Government funds (our taxes) to enforce the laws of the land :mad:.

And if McDonalds introduce new software in their business will we have to pay a levy on our Big Mac's too :eek:

What a load of sh1te :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Irishgoatman

I wonder how much "enforcement" can be bought for 6euro per year on my vehicle?.

Morgan The Moon

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Firstly , this may make me unpopular , but the plain truth is most motorhomers don't have their rear brakes/handbrakes adjusted properly , be it either old skool drums , or Top Hat inside disc arrangement! This is not usually the fault of the owner , rather lazy mechanics who find it faster to just tighten up the handbrake cable. I regularly have to wind on 15-30 clicks , a side , when servicing a 'van , no exaggeration .If it's one I see regularly , normally only 3-5 clicks is enough .

I still maintain that a properly adjusted Top Hat handbrake doesn't come on with a bang if adjusted correctly . To do this I slacken the handbrake cable/rod till it's loose , then adjust the brakes at the wheel , whilee spinning and tapping the hub gently to settle it . stay clicking til it starts to bind then wind it back a few notches . finally take up the slack from the rod/cable. Doing it this way meand the brake comes on more progressively ,and you don't have to reverse back to release the handle if the vehicle is on a slope , nose down.
And I've never had any customer complain after , nor have I had anyone with their brakes heating , binding , nor any failures in the DOE centres , and not just my local one. Hence , I'm happy I must be doing something right.


Next , re the Al-Ko... The parts , be they the older drum or newer disc and Top Hat ARE Fiat parts . I've seen enough of them to know:P ! I've fittted stock Ducato shoes , discs and bearings to them.... In my opinion , the reason the Alko seems more problematic is twofold . a lot of alkos are twin axle , and therefore there are 2 sets of rear cables pulling from the main handbrake rod .The angle of the rear cables and the install of them seems a little different to the OE Fiat style , so it seems like you don't get the same "pull" getting to the wheels . Also you're having to do more work with the same single arm of your body! Between trying to lock on 4 brakes , not 2 , and the extra drag of the second cable.

Next , the Alko suspension is In my opinion , creating more pressure back against the wheel when the brake is applied to a moving vehicle than a comparable OE leaf sprung chassis. The suspension arm is of a trailing type , and moves in a very short arc . so much so that if you jack up the vehicle as the wheel starts to clear the ground , the point where the wheel touches the ground moves forward . So naturally , when you brake , or apply the park brake to a moving vehicle , with weight transfer etc the vehicle tries to rise slightly on its susoension , and thus tries to force the wheels forward slightly and as a result exerts extra force on an already hard working component .
With the OE leafspring type , the arc created is imperceptible due to the much greater length of the spring vs the Alko arm , so you don't get the same pressure , nor will it have the same tendency to try "jack up" the body under braking.


re the above... Fiat/PSA-Citroen would have no doubt had to pass certain rules and regulations to be able to sell the base vans all over Europe , so obviously it must be deemed sufficient . I agree though , it does seem overpowered by the weight of a camper , or indeed even a well laden van .

The Top hat style is not good , full stop , but tbh , very few vehicles with rear discs have a handbrake/park brake any where near as good as a rear drum braked assemly . The H/B is my Seat Inca van and Dad's Citroen Berlingo feels more secure than the one in my own (rear disked) Audi A4 , or my old VW Corrado .....or my old Lexus IS 200..... or my old Citroen Xsara Coupe..... or my g/f's Golf mk2 and mk5.......

And the other style of rear disc park brake , where there is a mechanical actuation of the rear calipers.... that is not really any better! See the VWs above , or the Renault Master chassis for example . They tend to need regular cleaning and re-adjusting to keep right.


Long post , but this is an issue bothering lots of people , me included.

Thanks Aiden for your detailed description and sharing your experience.

My experience with regard to the Park Break question is now first hand. I.E. took the Motorhome for the test. All is well for me, it passed.

My concerns though have not been alleviated, I was told by the tester the "Park brake" only just scraped through!!!

I watched the test being carried out at the VTN and contest the correctness of what was carried out.

As in your post, I can definitely claim that the braking system on my double axle, Al-Ko chassis Motorhome was serviced by experienced diligent mechanics prior to the test. I admit this service and test was carried out 1000 k/m prior. It was done in Germany at a Fiat garage then tested by TUV engineers. The brake report was a conclusive pass as would be required for the TUV. It was tested on a Dual Axle machine ! I.E. All four "park brake " devices tested at the same time. Test weights considered were Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight as documented in the vehicle registration document, verified against the plating on the vehicle.

I have never had a problem with my " park brake " binding or having to reverse to release them when having been parked on a slope.

The brake components is not the issue, Al-Ko expressly document "the park brake" is not to be operated whilst the wheels are in motion.

Your observation as to the axle suspension operation is excellent and would in fact support the testing concern.

When the "park brake" is operated on the rolling road with only one set of wheels turning the deflection downwards is of course an unnatural movement. Unnatural because only one axle is being subjected to the test, the deflection down is in fact some of the brake effort. The other axle's brakes are of course operated but the performance is not recorded or documented. That axle does not deflect so some of the resistance will in fact negate some of the force / performance being measured by the Axle being tested. I know the description prior is brief but if you watch the test being carried out it is fairly obvious.

Another anomaly with the test, my Motorhome is documented at 4500 k/g GVW. Most of the time when I am using it, it would be fully loaded, i.e. near to maximum as possible. For the test I removed some of the normal weight by empting some of the lockers and of course having no water on board. The presented weight was 3290 k/g. All the breaking systems tested with this consideration. Not really an accurate performance test, if according to the tester my vehicle "scraped through" I consider I was lucky it was not loaded.

The RSA hopefully will look into all anomalies before my next visit in two years time !!

My advice to any dual axle Motorhome owners with an Al-Ko chassis requiring a test, have your "park brake" adjusted properly as Aiden describes. Arrive at the test centre with as little weight as possible. Cross your fingers and pray !!!!!

Why will the local councils not except a CRW issued from another EU. State. Is this Irish Policy or an EU Directive.

Thanks to All who joined in with my posts on this subject.

Aidan_M_M

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

Thanks Aiden for your detailed description and sharing your experience.



I have never had a problem with my " park brake " binding or having to reverse to release them when having been parked on a slope.

.

My pleasure. Your "handbrake" is one of the few properly adjusted so!

nailer8

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

Arrive at the test centre with as little weight as possible.

I could be wrong (not a tester myself) but my understanding is easier to pass the brake test loaded than unloaded because the braking force calculations are based on your plated GVW not the weight you present with.

Extract from the manual
"Note the braking effort indicated from the brake of each roadwheel, and calculate the total braking force available. Calculate the braking efficiency as a percentage of the manufacturers design gross vehicle weight."

NB: Make sure you don't exceed your GVW though or you cant be tested.

dee bee

hi, i had to look around a lot for help on this topic but wasn't sure at the end. now that my camper has passed the vtn test thot i'd post this pic to show what got me thru.

my camper is a left hand drive and so the beam had to be deflected away from the middle of the road. i stuck the beam deflectors myself by following the instructions on the pack as the garage fella wasn't sure how 2 do it.

hope it helps those who r still trying to figure out the position of the stickers. now mine is a patterned headlamp, so not sure where the clear lamps shud have their stickers fixed.

cheers.

Aidan_M_M

They work better twisted at an angle. As they are they'll stop dazzling other road traffic but aren't actually dipping to the left.

Pjwal

nailer8 wrote: »

I could be wrong (not a tester myself) but my understanding is easier to pass the brake test loaded than unloaded because the braking force calculations are based on your plated GVW not the weight you present with.

Extract from the manual
"Note the braking effort indicated from the brake of each roadwheel, and calculate the total braking force available. Calculate the braking efficiency as a percentage of the manufacturers design gross vehicle weight."

NB: Make sure you don't exceed your GVW though or you cant be tested.

All campers have thier brakes tested against presented weight and not gvw, same as light goods vehicles. More weight does increase the breaking efficiency of the vehicle, but it also increses the test weight so that higher brake readings are required to pass. But it is possable to adjust the load sensing valve on the rear axle to obtain higher readings without the weight, but you should revert it back to the proper setting after the test as it is not good if you are traveling light and the rear brakes are locking up in the wet.

Des32

Got my Motorhome tested last week, it will be 10 years old next July however when I got the new CRW in the motor tax office it does not expire until March 2015.
Is this a mistake?

I thought I would only get a cert for one year.

Irishgoatman

Des32 wrote: »

Got my Motorhome tested last week, it will be 10 years old next July however when I got the new CRW in the motor tax office it does not expire until March 2015.
Is this a mistake?

I thought I would only get a cert for one year.

Hi Des, Under 10 yes 2 years is right, yours is under 10 so if I was you I'd keep quiet and see what happens prior to next March.:)

You'll only get away with it once so make the most of it.

I hope to be up your way again this year if so I'll give you a ring.

goldsalmon33

There are about 6 windows in my camper that have plastic windows from factory. They have no stamp, only a sticker inside them from their manufacturer (see thro plastics Ltd) who are now out of business. Am I right in reading that they will now make me re-glaze these plastic windows as I can't get a cert from manufacturer and there is no stamp on them!

Has anyone come up with a 'work-around' to this issue?


Cheers for any help/ideas...

Irishgoatman

goldsalmon33 wrote: »

There are about 6 windows in my camper that have plastic windows from factory. They have no stamp, only a sticker inside them from their manufacturer (see thro plastics Ltd) who are now out of business. Am I right in reading that they will now make me re-glaze these plastic windows as I can't get a cert from manufacturer and there is no stamp on them!

Has anyone come up with a 'work-around' to this issue?


Cheers for any help/ideas...

I've been looking at getting new windows for my camper made locally, made of the same material as the original ones but will not have stickers, so not legal. I've been on to the RSA for advice and help and my gut feeling is that yes you may well need new windows. Having said that try ringing them and explaining the situation. They are a friendly bunch so they might have ideas. Their number is 096-25014. They're in Ballina. Mayo.
Could be a case of looking for second hand windows, as I'm going to be doing.

Best of luck and let us know how you get on please.

darkvalley

hi all
My van just failed the test. Problem is a very small amount of rot in the timber floor at the right hand rear of the van. It is an area of about 2 inches by 6 inches, right in the corner. Is the tester being a bit pernickety in failing it for this?
In fairness its good to know there is a problem while it is still relatively small and it does need to be looked into, just annoyed at failing for a habitation issue rather than a mechanical or safety one.

niloc1951

darkvalley wrote: »

hi all
My van just failed the test. Problem is a very small amount of rot in the timber floor at the right hand rear of the van. It is an area of about 2 inches by 6 inches, right in the corner. Is the tester being a bit pernickety in failing it for this?
In fairness its good to know there is a problem while it is still relatively small and it does need to be looked into, just annoyed at failing for a habitation issue rather than a mechanical or safety one.

Have a look HERE, there is lots of mention about rust but nothing about wood rot

If the bit of rot is not a structural/safety issue perhaps it shouldn't be a fail. If it was me I would argue the issue and try and get a 'pass', but at the same time get it repaired for the sake of the 'van.

I wonder if a truck or van with a wooden floor had a bit of similar damage would it be a fail, I can see no reference to such in the testers manual.

darkvalley

Thanks for that niloc1951. The tester wasn't very interested in discussing it so I'm stuck with it. I can see no reference to the problem in the manual either!

Goldigga

I will be testing my 1990 Hymer Camp (Citroen C25) for the first time in a couple of weeks.

What are some common items that a camper of this age tend to fail on?

Aidan_M_M

Goldigga wrote: »

I will be testing my 1990 Hymer Camp (Citroen C25) for the first time in a couple of weeks.

What are some common items that a camper of this age tend to fail on?

Seized calipers, rusty brake pipes, emissions, worn suspension bushes.

Goldigga

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldigga
I will be testing my 1990 Hymer Camp (Citroen C25) for the first time in a couple of weeks.

What are some common items that a camper of this age tend to fail on?

Seized calipers, rusty brake pipes, emissions, worn suspension bushes.

Done the test today. Funnily enough, I didn't fail for any of the above items. However i did fail for

-Deteriorated gearbox mount
-unseated CV boot
-Badly deteriorated rubber exhaust mounts
-parking brake imbalance

Time to get cracking and get these fixed!

Aidan_M_M

All simple fixes, not so bad.

nailer8

This might interest the Camper community. Changes to the CVR testers manuals.

---

Original Message

---

From: CVRT Admin [mailto:CVRTAdmin@rsa.ie]
Sent: 24 05 2013 18:17
Subject: Publication on Website of draft Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) and Light Commercial Vehicles (LCV) Test Manualscolm@cilt.ie


Notice of the publishing of draft Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) and Light Commercial (LCV) Test Manuals

Dear Stakeholder,

I am writing to you to inform you that the Road Safety Authority has now published new drafts of the Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) and Light Commercial (LCV) Test Manuals and comments are being sought on their content. The Manuals are intended to achieve standardised and consistent testing of HCV and LCV. The Manuals will be adopted as Guidelines issued by the Road Safety Authority under Section 38 of the Road Safety Authority (Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness) Act 2012. CVR test operator and CVR testers will be required to comply with the guidelines in full when adopted by the RSA. The manuals are available to view or download from the following website; www.rsa.ie/cvr The new test manuals will take effect at the same time as the Commercial Vehicle Information System (“CoVIS”) system which is intended to be launched in September. We would welcome any views or comments you may have on the test manual before Monday the 17th of June. The final versions of the test manuals will be subsequently published and you will be notified when these are uploaded to the CVR website.

The main changes which will be introduced when the new test manuals become effective in September are as follows;
1. Updates to the Introduction including ;
a. how the test is processed through CoVIS and the issuing of test reports and pass statements
b. provision for a “voluntary safety CVR test”
c. requirement to present a valid identification (passport or driving license) at the time of the test
d. provisions for vehicle which are found to be dangerously defective at the test.
e. Requirement for the odometer reading to be recorded at the time of test and that the presenter is given the opportunity to verify.
f. Importance of ensuring ownership details are correct on the National Vehicle Driver File at the time of the test as the Certificate of Roadworthiness will issue directly to the registered owner.
2. Removal of the requirement to bring Vehicle Registration Certificate or Trailer Licensing Card to the test as the vehicle details will be checked directly against the National Vehicle Driver File.
3. Updates to both manuals in order to categorise the seriousness of failure for each defect into minor, major or dangerous defects.
4. Updates to both manuals include the text of recently published circulars into the body of both manuals
5. The section previously set out in the introduction with regard to declarations for vehicle modifications is now moved to the body of the test manuals (section 60 of the LCV and section 71 of the HCV) and more guidance is provided with regard to the modifications for which a modifications report shall be required and a template for the form is introduced.
6. Updates to the HCV manual to the Vehicle Weights And Dimensions Plate Section due to the recently published 46 tonne regulations
7. Updates to both manuals with regard to corrosion assessment, and its failure criteria (including diagrams newly added to the HCV manual)
8. Updates to both manuals with regard to tyre specifications. Additional detail on tyre mixing is now added and a tyre speed index table is added. Conditions whereby the additional load speed index rating can be used in now introduced.
9. Updates to the HCV manual whereby the braking efficiency (service brake, parking brake and Emergency/ Secondary Brake) for semi-trailers with up to 3 axles is now based on the sum of the individual axle weights plated in IRL.
10. New methods of testing and reasons for failure are introduced to various test items as “unsafe Repair or Modification”. Such an unsafe repair or modification may require the presentation of a modifications report as specified in Section 60 of the LCV and Section 71 of the HCV Test Manuals.

Should you have any views or comments on the drafts of the test manuals, please submit them in writing by 17 June to cvtadmin@rsa.ie. When making a comment on a particular section of the draft manual, please ensure that you identify the section of the manual to which your commentary relates. Otherwise, the RSA will not be able to deal with the points being made.

Further information on the CVR Reform Programme and the changes and benefits of the new system are available at www.rsa.ie/cvr

Yours sincerely

Denise Barry
Director
Standards and Enforcement

Irishgoatman

Quote:
(originally posted by nailer9)
This might interest the Camper community. Changes to the CVR testers manuals.

I've just read through this post and although it was interesting, it was, of course, for owners of Heavy and Light Commercial Vehicles so I can't see how it could/would affect campervan owners whose vehicles are no in any way commercial.

nailer8

Only to the extent that the "Light Commercial (LCV) Test Manual" is the one used to test campers during the DOE (now named CVR) test and people on this forum expressed concern that some of the tests were not appropriate for campers.

niloc1951

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Quote:
(originally posted by nailer9)
This might interest the Camper community. Changes to the CVR testers manuals.

I've just read through this post and although it was interesting, it was, of course, for owners of Heavy and Light Commercial Vehicles so I can't see how it could/would affect campervan owners whose vehicles are no in any way commercial.

The note below which appears on both the LCV and HCV manuals has extremely serious consequences for owners here in Ireland.
If left unchallenged the section underlined will deny us the facility to avail of uprating or downrating the DGVW which is available to owners elsewhere in the EU.

It is not uncommon to get a motor caravan downrated to 3,500kg GVW if the owner looses his/her C1 licence if age or driving licence restrictions mean the owner is restricted to a B licence.
Or, perhaps a person with a C1 licence wishes to uprate a motorhome from its plated 3,500kg GVW for extra payload.

SV Tech are a company which provide this facility and often no physical change is necessary, certainly not if the vehicle is being downrated.
SEE HERE for more information. Note also that SV Tech are not 'authorised distributors' but a technically competent organisation to carry out the revision of vehicle DGVW's, among other activities.

From the Draft LCV & HCV Manuals

Motor caravan supplementary note
In cases where a vehicle modifier has fitted an additional manufacturers plate to a vehicle this will be acceptable provided that the plate contains the required information, i.e. the vehicle’s identification number; or modifier`s reference number. Design gross vehicle weight (DGVW) & maximum permissible axle weights. A vehicle’s DGVW may not be amended without a physical change being made to the vehicle. Any such change should be justified, approved and documented by the original vehicle manufacturer or his authorised distributor.(Modifier and reference number should be noted on test report)

It is essential the The RSA drop this requirement, otherwise what they will be saying in effect is that the services of organisations like SV Tech, which provide the service under discussion here to clients throughout Europe, will not be recognised here in Ireland. A position which I believe is not a sustainable policy under EU regulations on the free movement of goods and services.

The RSA do really need to look outside their own little bubble or will it be a case of 'here they go again' without checking their facts, just like they did when they issued Circular RSA VI 07/09

niloc1951

nailer8 wrote: »

Only to the extent that the "Light Commercial (LCV) Test Manual" is the one used to test campers during the DOE (now named CVR) test and people on this forum expressed concern that some of the tests were not appropriate for campers.

If this is true, why are notes relating to motor caravans contained in the HCV test manual

nailer8

niloc1951 wrote: »

If this is true, why are notes relating to motor caravans contained in the HCV test manual

My reply was a bit rushed.
I assume the HGV manual has to be used on campers above 3.5 tonne GVW.
Not certain, I'm not a tester.

niloc1951

nailer8 wrote: »

My reply was a bit rushed.
I assume the HGV manual has to be used on campers above 3.5 tonne GVW.
Not certain, I'm not a tester.

It's all a bit confused, so what's new.

At my local VTN test centre the admin chap who checked in my 3.850kg GVW motorhome instructed the tester to "use the light goods manual but do it on the heavy goods lane". So why are motor caravans even mentioned in the HCV manual.

According to the EU Directive all motor caravans are to be tested the same as M1 and N1 category vehicles and the MoT in the UK similarly treat motor caravans as Class 4 (same as cars) when it comes to testing.
It escapes me why our dear old RSA should feel the need to be different.

Irishgoatman

My apologies. My post on this subject was looking at it from a narrow personal point of view as I only have a small one campervan.


nailer8's original post contained the draft proposals for the new regulations and was asking for views/opinions to be submitted by the 17th of June, therefore those who feel that they will be affected have 18 days to try and get these ammendments changed.

As it was a letter to stakeholders, I would have thought that all of us who wrote to the RSA regarding the testing of 'vans should have received this letter.