DoE testing - The Last Word

Aidan_M_M

niloc1951 wrote: »

There is definitely something to the issue of a low reading followed by a lock-up resulting in the required reading not being reached and hence a 'fail'.

See THIS FIAT FORUM where this issue is being discussed and the comment Each rear wheel eventually just barely complied to the minimum standard efficiency. Luckily, the wheels tend to lock before they reach the minimum and that is a pass according to UK MOT testing..

This seems to confirm the fact that whatever the arrangement of the parking brake is it appears to 'snatch on' when the lever is pulled, it would also account for the 'bang' experienced if the lever is pulled or the park brake comes on at speed.

See further discussion on the issue HERE

So come on you techies in the trade, how about a call to AL-KO, as it appears to be only a problem with AL-KO chassis, is the system exactly the same as that fitted by FIAT on their axles or is it modified in some way by AL-KO, there seems to be no report of Ducatos having the same issue.

In a number of forum discussions the advice given by mechanics that the brake is a 'parking brake' and should not be applied when the wheels are in motion and damage to its internals could result crops up again and again.
As the saying goes, there's no smoke without fire

Finally, is it realistic to expect such a small friction surface as represented by the little shoes inside the small drum (top hat) has been designed with the task of bringing 4 tonne of vehicle to a halt in place of four large servo assisted disc brakes in mind, I think not.

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.

Finally, is it realistic to expect such a small friction surface as represented
by the little shoes inside the small drum (top hat) has been designed with the
task of bringing 4 tonne of vehicle to a halt in place of four large servo
assisted disc brakes in mind, I think not

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.

Pjwal

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.

That all makes sence.

shaysue

Just back from having my motorhome DOE and all went well. Even had road worthiness cert issued by council and though classed and tested as an HGV, only had to pay €6 for cert. Do not see any date on the cert to indicate it is a 2 year cert. Am I missing something?
Personnel in test centre (Irish commercials in Naas) very helpful even to the extent of carrying out a slight adjustment to headlight beams. Another worry out of the way for a while though overall cost for test and cert was €99.16. This for a vehicle that will not do a lot of mileage but at least now I know it is roadworthy. Good morning so far.

Irishgoatman

shaysue wrote: »

Just back from having my motorhome DOE and all went well. Even had road worthiness cert issued by council and though classed and tested as an HGV, only had to pay €6 for cert. Do not see any date on the cert to indicate it is a 2 year cert. Am I missing something?
Personnel in test centre (Irish commercials in Naas) very helpful even to the extent of carrying out a slight adjustment to headlight beams. Another worry out of the way for a while though overall cost for test and cert was €99.16. This for a vehicle that will not do a lot of mileage but at least now I know it is roadworthy. Good morning so far.

Nice to hear some good news:). It shouldn't in any way be classed as commercial though. Check your reg cert. Vehicle category, Item J, halfway down page 2. This should read "M".
Cert should be valid for 2 years if the 'van doesn't reach it's 10th birthday in that period. From it's 10th birthday it's due every year. This goes by the first reg. date as shown on the registration cert.

Happy motoring.

shaysue

Many thanks Goatman. Yes, the reg cert shows its M1. Also, as its only 4 years old, the road-worthiness cert is for 2 years as outlined by yourself. Now to get use out of it. Looks like the weekend is to be mild.

Irishgoatman

That's all good then.

It's not the cost of the test that bothers me too much, although I'd love to pay less, it's the €6 for an extra piece of paper that I object to.:mad:
But at least it's in the pipe line to sort that out.

nailer8

Irishgoatman wrote: »

But at least it's in the pipe line to sort that out.

There is a plan to change the system but all that will happen is you will pay the €6 or €13 to the test centre and they will pay it to the RSA and you will get your cert in the post. All vehicles will then be able to be taxed on-line provided your cert is in date. Save you a trip to the council office at least.

Irishgoatman

nailer8 wrote: »

There is a plan to change the system but all that will happen is you will pay the €6 or €13 to the test centre and they will pay it to the RSA and you will get your cert in the post. All vehicles will then be able to be taxed on-line provided your cert is in date. Save you a trip to the council office at least.

Where did you get this info from?, the last time I was talking to the RSA in Ballina they had plans to set everything up the same as for cars with a windscreen disc. Including commercial vehicles.

I think I'll give them another ring tomorrow. Windscreen discs are the best, that way we would not have the bother of being stopped and asked to produce proof of test. Proof will be there in front for everybody to see.
And afterall, why should we have to pay for proof on our campers when we dont have to on our cars!.

nailer8

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Where did you get this info from?

We are a test centre.

The plan is to introduce a centralised computer system called COVIS which all test centres will use. As soon as your test is passed the CVR cert will be issued from Shannon to the registered owner. There was talks of a window cert to be printed in the test centre but there was no mention of that at the last meeting so I suspect it is gone.

The other significant change is your DOE will be due on the same date every year(or two) so even if you let it lapse or the vehicle is off the road the new cert will only bring you up to the same date. The date will be the anniversary of your first DOE test.

shaysue

Anniversary of DOE or anniversary of first registration??

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.