DoE testing - The Last Word

OuterBombie

Hi Lads,

I've pulled my van out of winter storage and spend some time over the weekend doing some spring cleaning and trying to detract from the constant "to-do" list for the van.

In doing some external pre-checks for before the DOE (lights, etc), I spotted the following issue with my exhaust (see attached pic).



I don't remember seeing this before but I imagine the end rusted and then must have gotten a knock.

Would I need to get this resolved for the DOE? If so, any idea's where I'd pick up an end for an exhaust (2001 Fiat Ducato, 2.8JTD).

Thanks,

OB.

Irishgoatman

OK Pjwal,
I still think you are missing the point so I'll ask the question in another way and see if anyone else responds.

Camper van are now to be tested along with the same test periods as cars, so, did anyone here have a 2002 registered car go through its NCT in 2011?

If so were you issued with a 2 year cert, as you were for the previous tests or a 1 year cert ?.

Morgan The Moon

OuterBombie wrote: »

Hi Lads,

I've pulled my van out of winter storage and spend some time over the weekend doing some spring cleaning and trying to detract from the constant "to-do" list for the van.

In doing some external pre-checks for before the DOE (lights, etc), I spotted the following issue with my exhaust (see attached pic).



I don't remember seeing this before but I imagine the end rusted and then must have gotten a knock.

Would I need to get this resolved for the DOE? If so, any idea's where I'd pick up an end for an exhaust (2001 Fiat Ducato, 2.8JTD).

Thanks,

OB.

Hi, you might find a stainless steel "tail" piece. Try Halfords or somewhere similar. You could look at Halfords on line. It may be of some use to you.

OuterBombie

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

Hi, you might find a stainless steel "tail" piece. Try Halfords or somewhere similar. You could look at Halfords on line. It may be of some use to you.

Sound, thanks.

Pjwal

OuterBombie wrote: »

Sound, thanks.

yes, put on a stainless steel end, from halfords of most motorfactors, or straighten up the end of it with a hacksaw and and just spay it up with some high temperature paint. but i think you need some new rubbers for hanging the silencer, more of a chance of failing on that really

Macspower

Irishgoatman wrote: »

OK Pjwal,
I still think you are missing the point so I'll ask the question in another way and see if anyone else responds.

Camper van are now to be tested along with the same test periods as cars, so, did anyone here have a 2002 registered car go through its NCT in 2011?

If so were you issued with a 2 year cert, as you were for the previous tests or a 1 year cert ?.

my mondeo is 2002 and i got it tested in april 2011 and I have a 2 year cert afaik.

Irishgoatman

Macspower wrote: »

my mondeo is 2002 and i got it tested in april 2011 and I have a 2 year cert afaik.

Thanks Macspower, just the sort of person I was looking for.

If you have the full cert document, the one that included the screen disc at the bottom, look just above the disc itself and you will see the expiry date.
Does it read 2012 or 2013 ?.

jpogorman

Hello, I'm due to get a service of the gas system in my Fiat Bustner. Do the new rules have any specific requirements here? should I be requesting some conformance certificate as part of the service?

Thanks

OuterBombie

Pjwal wrote: »

yes, put on a stainless steel end, from halfords of most motorfactors, or straighten up the end of it with a hacksaw and and just spay it up with some high temperature paint. but i think you need some new rubbers for hanging the silencer, more of a chance of failing on that really

Ha! I was wondering would anyone spot the replacement "liveband" which is holding up the silencer!

I'll have to hunt down a new rubber band for that so. Thanks for the heads up.

bluethunder

jpogorman wrote: »

Hello, I'm due to get a service of the gas system in my Fiat Bustner. Do the new rules have any specific requirements here? should I be requesting some conformance certificate as part of the service?

Thanks

The new guidelines make specific reference to gas. They will not be checking it at all but this may change in the future.

Gas installations fitted to Motor Caravans will not be checked as part of the test; however this
will be reviewed in the future to perhaps require a declaration of conformance for the vehicle’s
gas installat to get a service%

Pjwal

bluethunder wrote: »

The new guidelines make specific reference to gas. They will not be checking it at all but this may change in the future.

Gas installations fitted to Motor Caravans will not be checked as part of the test; however this
will be reviewed in the future to perhaps require a declaration of conformance for the vehicle’s
gas installat to get a service%

yes bluethunder, that is what i heard too, testers are not qualified gas installers, so in the future it will be up to the owner to supply proof that the system is up to standard from a suitably qualified person.

niloc1951

Isn't this a busy thread, I've been away for five days and so much has been posted.

Ref: the consultation period.
The RSA had a number of 'stakeholders' on board representing the views of a number of motorhome clubs and also The Caravan Club which has a membership of over 5,000 on this island.

The Alko issue was well flagged to the RSA during the consultation process by the above stakeholders.

Changes to the GVW of a motor caravan is common place and is carried out in conjunction with base vehicle manufacturers or accredited agents like for example SvTech

Alko chassis come with various weight bearing capabilities. For example a motorhome with a particular Alko chassis can be plated at any weight from 4,200Kg down, a person with a C1 or C licence might opt for a 4,200Kg GVW plate while a person with a B licence will have to opt for a 3,500 plate and sacrifice payload to stay legal. In both instances the physical characteristics of the chassis remain unchanged as the plated weights remain within the maximum capability of the chassis.
Following the exercise to increase the GVW of the original chassis, chassis cowl or chassis cab unit supplied by the original manufacturer of that component, by means of fitting for example an Alko chassis extension or air suspension, the correct and accepted practice is to fix the new plate partially over the original while still leaving the original values visible.
This begs the question, in the case of motor caravans which share common dimensions and construction, why should one vehicle be sent down the LGV lane just because its owner has a B licence and ordered it with a 3,500kg GVW plate while another exact same model with a GVW of 3,850kg or 4,000kg is subjected to the same testing lane as a 32,000kg GVW truck

This leads me to an interesting observation of one of our club members.
While watching his beloved motorhome being put through its paces while being tested recently he noticed that one of its rear wheels was only partly supported on the testing machine, the other was only just fully on.
His motorhome has a GVW of 3,200 and was therefore being tested on the LGV lane. However its Alko chassis having dimensions identical to heavier versions presents itself with quite a wide track, 2,050mm when measured to the outside of the tyres. To those of you in the know what is the safe maximum width which the equipment in the LGV lane is designed to handle. He was also concerned about the vigorous 'shaking' his wood, plastic and polystyrene motorhome was subjected to being of the opinion that it might be ok for an all metal van or truck but not really good for his motorhome which is held together by wood screws and mastic.

Pjwal

niloc1951 wrote: »

Isn't this a busy thread, I've been away for five days and so much has been posted.

Ref: the consultation period.
The RSA had a number of 'stakeholders' on board representing the views of a number of motorhome clubs and also The Caravan Club which has a membership of over 5,000 on this island.

The Alko issue was well flagged to the RSA during the consultation process by the above stakeholders.

Changes to the GVW of a motor caravan is common place and is carried out in conjunction with base vehicle manufacturers or accredited agents like for example SvTech

Alko chassis come with various weig

ht bearing capabilities. For example a motorhome with a particular Alko chassis can be plated at any weight from 4,200Kg down, a person with a C1 or C licence might opt for a 4,200Kg GVW plate while a person with a B licence will have to opt for a 3,500 plate and sacrifice payload to stay legal. In both instances the physical characteristics of the chassis remain unchanged as the plated weights remain within the maximum capability of the chassis.
Following the exercise to increase the GVW of the original chassis, chassis cowl or chassis cab unit supplied by the original manufacturer of that component, by means of fitting for example an Alko chassis extension or air suspension, the correct and accepted practice is to fix the new plate partially over the original while still leaving the original values visible.
This begs the question, in the case of motor caravans which share common dimensions and construction, why should one vehicle be sent down the LGV lane just because its owner has a B licence and ordered it with a 3,500kg GVW plate while another exact same model with a GVW of 3,850kg or 4,000kg is subjected to the same testing lane as a 32,000kg GVW truck

This leads me to an interesting observation of one of our club members.
While watching his beloved motorhome being put through its paces while being tested recently he noticed that one of its rear wheels was only partly supported on the testing machine, the other was only just fully on.
His motorhome has a GVW of 3,200 and was therefore being tested on the LGV lane. However its Alko chassis having dimensions identical to heavier versions presents itself with quite a wide track, 2,050mm when measured to the outside of the tyres. To those of you in the know what is the safe maximum width which the equipment in the LGV lane is designed to handle. He was also concerned about the vigorous 'shaking' his wood, plastic and polystyrene motorhome was subjected to being of the opinion that it might be ok for an all metal van or truck but not really good for his motorhome which is held together by wood screws and mastic.

a lot of good info there, but unfortunatly, none of it has been passed from the rsa to the test centres, and even now, while testers are seeking the info, they are still not passing it on,the authorising officer from the council covering one south eastern area has instructed all test centres under his control to fail all campers that have had weights changed on original plates, which i feel myself is outrageous, but it is pretty typical of how rsa operates. the shaching on the shacker plates is pretty voilent alright, i can see why it may concern somebody, i ll measure the width of brake rollers in our garage tomorrow, but they are well wide for any vehicle, but not all garages have the same equipment fitted,

niloc1951

Pjwal wrote: »

a lot of good info there, but unfortunatly, none of it has been passed from the rsa to the test centres, and even now, while testers are seeking the info, they are still not passing it on,the authorising officer from the council covering one south eastern area has instructed all test centres under his control to fail all campers that have had weights changed on original plates, which i feel myself is outrageous, but it is pretty typical of how rsa operates. the shaching on the shacker plates is pretty voilent alright, i can see why it may concern somebody, i ll measure the width of brake rollers in our garage tomorrow, but they are well wide for any vehicle, but not all garages have the same equipment fitted,

"the shaching on the shacker plates is pretty voilent alright"
What have I just put my camper through, the year before last when in what used to be the GDR I nearly went crazy driving on the cobbled roads I was so concerned for my motorhome's longevity that I often travelled at only 15Kph.

Regarding the weight plates, when a revised GVW has been given by an 'authorised' body or person the accepted procedure is for the new plate, which should bear the authorised person or body'organisation name or logo, to be fixed over the existing plate is a manner as to allow the original weights to be seen.

An example of this pracice can be seen in my own motorhome which recently passed its RW test. The original FIAT plate is overlayed with the Alko plate which is in turn is overlayed with the converters plate.
The FIAT plate has all the weight fields blank because they (FIAT) only provided the chassis/cowl and therefore would have had no knowledge as to the final stats of the vehicle/
The Alko plate provides full weights and the GVW of 3,500kg.
The converters plate shows a GVW of 3,850Kg, a figure which is within the original axle weights on the plate of the chassis provider, Alko.

In the motorhome business it is the axle weights, as provided by the axle/chassis manufacturer, which are sacrosanct, however the GVW is often increased or decreased for payload or licence reasons by authorised persons or organisations/companies, like SvTech and the new plate fixed over the old as described above.

I have an email from the RSA confirming their acceptance of the above.

I can well accept however that undocumented changes to an existing plate, as opposed to a new plate being overlayed by an authorised person or organisation, could be a cause for concern.

Pjwal

niloc1951 wrote: »

Pjwal wrote:

a lot of good info there, but unfortunatly, none of it has been passed from the rsa to the test centres, and even now, while testers are seeking the info, they are still not passing it on,the authorising officer from the council covering one south eastern area has instructed all test centres under his control to fail all campers that have had weights changed on original plates, which i feel myself is outrageous, but it is pretty typical of how rsa operates. the shaching on the shacker plates is pretty voilent alright, i can see why it may concern somebody, i ll measure the width of brake rollers in our garage tomorrow, but they are well wide for any vehicle, but not all garages have the same equipment fitted,

"the shaching on the shacker plates is pretty voilent alright"
What have I just put my camper through, the year before last when in what used to be the GDR I nearly went crazy driving on the cobbled roads I was so concerned for my motorhome's longevity that I often travelled at only 15Kph.

Regarding the weight plates, when a revised GVW has been given by an 'authorised' body or person the accepted procedure is for the new plate, which should bear the authorised person or body'organisation name or logo, to be fixed over the existing plate is a manner as to allow the original weights to be seen.

An example of this pracice can be seen in my own motorhome which recently passed its RW test. The original FIAT plate is overlayed with the Alko plate which is in turn is overlayed with the converters plate.
The FIAT plate has all the weight fields blank because they (FIAT) only provided the chassis/cowl and therefore would have had no knowledge as to the final stats of the vehicle/
The Alko plate provides full weights and the GVW of 3,500kg.
The converters plate shows a GVW of 3,850Kg, a figure which is within the original axle weights on the plate of the chassis provider, Alko.

In the motorhome business it is the axle weights, as provided by the axle/chassis manufacturer, which are sacrosanct, however the GVW is often increased or decreased for payload or licence reasons by authorised persons or organisations/companies, like SvTech and the new plate fixed over the old as described above.

I have an email from the RSA confirming their acceptance of the above.

I can well accept however that undocumented changes to an existing plate, as opposed to a new plate being overlayed by an authorised person or organisation, could be a cause for concern.

Yes. The alko plates are no prob at all. The are taking responsability for thier work on extinding the chassis and the gvw of thier own axles. The prob with with the likes of my own old girl, the gvw on the original has a line scribed through it and a higher gvw weight is scribed beside it in a very amature looking manner that could be done by anybody. Bringing the gvw from 2800kgs to 3100kgs. And some of them also the front axle weight has been raised by 100 kgs. And some B class hymers have a second sticker type plate fitted externaly on the body nowhere near the original plate with higher axle weights and second chassis no. Which bears no resemblance to the real chassis no. And one 04 camper that we tested on Friday came in over weight on the rear axle using the fiat plate but could scrape through using the hymer weight. But when we rang the rsa and autherising officer, neither would say that we could use the hymer weight. It doesn't make our job easy when they won't give us the info. But we took a chance and worked away with the hymer axle weight.

niloc1951

Pjwal wrote: »

........................... And some B class hymers have a second sticker type plate fitted externaly on the body nowhere near the original plate with higher axle weights and second chassis no. Which bears no resemblance to the real chassis no. And one 04 camper that we tested on Friday came in over weight on the rear axle using the fiat plate but could scrape through using the hymer weight. But when we rang the rsa and autherising officer, neither would say that we could use the hymer weight. It doesn't make our job easy when they won't give us the info. But we took a chance and worked away with the hymer axle weight.

Not wishing to be pedantic but 'B' class is not a term used to describe a type of motor caravan here in Europe. We have 'A class' which are built using only a chassis/cowl and 'coach-built' which describes those which are built using chassis/cab. The Hymer you describe would be a B NNN which is a model line in the same way as they have an S model line.

Regarding the Hymer weight plate. Any tester or the RSA itself should have no reason not to be confident that the figures on the Hymer plate are anything but correct and valid, after all Hymer are one of the oldest and most respected builder of motor caravans and trailer caravans in Europe and would not jeopardise their reputation by publishing false data. As the final vehicle builder which generates the Certificate of Conformity it is not unreasonable to expect that modifications may have been made to the original chassis/suspension which warrants an increase in axle or whole vehicle gross weights.

As regards the positioning of the plate itself, this is probably to comply with German and other European countries requirements which require such information to be displayed externally on the vehicle.

Pjwal

niloc1951 wrote: »

Not wishing to be pedantic but 'B' class is not a term used to describe a type of motor caravan here in Europe. We have 'A class' which are built using only a chassis/cowl and 'coach-built' which describes those which are built using chassis/cab. The Hymer you describe would be a B NNN which is a model line in the same way as they have an S model line.

Regarding the Hymer weight plate. Any tester or the RSA itself should have no reason not to be confident that the figures on the Hymer plate are anything but correct and valid, after all Hymer are one of the oldest and most respected builder of motor caravans and trailer caravans in Europe and would not jeopardise their reputation by publishing false data. As the final vehicle builder which generates the Certificate of Conformity it is not unreasonable to expect that modifications may have been made to the original chassis/suspension which warrants an increase in axle or whole vehicle gross weights.

As regards the positioning of the plate itself, this is probably to comply with German and other European countries requirements which require such information to be displayed externally on the vehicle.

been confidant is one thing, been covered by law is another, i have no doubt that it 100% above board, but hymer did not build the chassis and axles, the test manual produced by the rsa state that manufactuorers spec is to be followed at all times unless the owner has an engineers report for alterations made, and then that engineer is accepting resonsability for alteration. there was a large case of with harris truck importers dublin who are main agent for a few different makes and with mercedes truck who were fitting different plates other then what the truck left the factory with changing gvw and axle gvw and doing it using the manufacterers plates, but that was deemed illigal, so until it is recieved from a higher authority, we cant just assume its ok or we will be disaplined if there is a problem afterwards,
just to continue on yesterdays chat about the width of wheel base on the brake tester, ours is 270cm/105inches.

Slidey

Pjwal wrote: »

been confidant is one thing, been covered by law is another, i have no doubt that it 100% above board, but hymer did not build the chassis and axles, the test manual produced by the rsa state that manufactuorers spec is to be followed at all times unless the owner has an engineers report for alterations made, and then that engineer is accepting resonsability for alteration. there was a large case of with harris truck importers dublin who are main agent for a few different makes and with mercedes truck who were fitting different plates other then what the truck left the factory with changing gvw and axle gvw and doing it using the manufacterers plates, but that was deemed illigal, so until it is recieved from a higher authority, we cant just assume its ok or we will be disaplined if there is a problem afterwards,
just to continue on yesterdays chat about the width of wheel base on the brake tester, ours is 270cm/105inches.

Thankfully most replating in this country is not allowed. Only manufacturers are allowed to do it and Harris slips in there as the vehicles are assembled on site.

With regards to the test lanes.


Lads, if you vehicle isn't able for the shaking of the test plates of the rollers it shouldn't be on the road. The stresses they experience when doing a test are nothing compared to an emergency stop fully loaded at 50mph. Simple as that.

The LGV test lane has to be able to take a vehicle up to 4200kg I think but nothing over 3500 is allowed to be tested in it. The reason being, the excess weight may damage the shock testers.

The HGV rollers are no more severe than the LGV ones anyway. They are bigger but once the brake force exceeds the weight/friction available the wheel will rise up out of the rollers and cut them out.

niloc1951

Slidey wrote: »

Thankfully most replating in this country is not allowed. Only manufacturers are allowed to do it...................

Mine is uprated from 3,500kg to 3850kg and it passed its RW test.
Are you suggesting that all the motor caravans here in the RoI which have been uprated from 3,500kg to 3,850kg, 4,000kg and 4,200kg etc. will be failed. If so the RSA still do not understand the motor caravan sector of vehicle construction.

In the eyes of the tester (RSA) or their agents just who is the 'manufacturer'.
Is it the company who for example built the chassis/cowl or chassis/cab, which does not constitute a 'whole vehicle' and is not capable of self propulsion, eg. FIAT
Or is it the company who added the chassis extensions and rear axle assembly, eg AL-KO Kober.
Or is it the company who added the body and accommodation, eg. Hymer.
All three are competent and authorised by the various component manufacturers to uprate weight limits once the stay within the technical capabilities of the components.

As has been said before it is common practice to 'down plate' the GVW to have a presence in the car licence market and reversing the process to order for purchasers who have LGV or HGV licences is the industry norm, an industry which has over 1.2 million vehicles on the roads of Europe and is highly regulated.

Slidey

niloc1951 wrote: »

Mine is uprated from 3,500kg to 3850kg and it passed its RW test.
Are you suggesting that all the motor caravans here in the RoI which have been uprated from 3,500kg to 3,850kg, 4,000kg and 4,200kg etc. will be failed. If so the RSA still do not understand the motor caravan sector of vehicle construction.

In the eyes of the tester (RSA) or their agents just who is the 'manufacturer'.
Is it the company who for example built the chassis/cowl or chassis/cab, which does not constitute a 'whole vehicle' and is not capable of self propulsion, eg. FIAT
Or is it the company who added the chassis extensions and rear axle assembly, eg AL-KO Kober.
Or is it the company who added the body and accommodation, eg. Hymer.
All three are competent and authorised by the various component manufacturers to uprate weight limits once the stay within the technical capabilities of the components.

As has been said before it is common practice to 'down plate' the GVW to have a presence in the car licence market and reversing the process to order for purchasers who have LGV or HGV licences is the industry norm, an industry which has over 1.2 million vehicles on the roads of Europe and is highly regulated.

Ah I am not even gonna bother.

No longer a tester or in Ireland so just gonna walk away, ye all know best anyway, there is no telling ye :rolleyes:

650Ginge

Slidey wrote: »

niloc1951 wrote: »

Mine is uprated from 3,500kg to 3850kg and it passed its RW test.
Are you suggesting that all the motor caravans here in the RoI which have been uprated from 3,500kg to 3,850kg, 4,000kg and 4,200kg etc. will be failed. If so the RSA still do not understand the motor caravan sector of vehicle construction.

In the eyes of the tester (RSA) or their agents just who is the 'manufacturer'.
Is it the company who for example built the chassis/cowl or chassis/cab, which does not constitute a 'whole vehicle' and is not capable of self propulsion, eg. FIAT
Or is it the company who added the chassis extensions and rear axle assembly, eg AL-KO Kober.
Or is it the company who added the body and accommodation, eg. Hymer.
All three are competent and authorised by the various component manufacturers to uprate weight limits once the stay within the technical capabilities of the components.

As has been said before it is common practice to 'down plate' the GVW to have a presence in the car licence market and reversing the process to order for purchasers who have LGV or HGV licences is the industry norm, an industry which has over 1.2 million vehicles on the roads of Europe and is highly regulated.

Ah I am not even gonna bother.

No longer a tester or in Ireland so just gonna walk away, ye all know best anyway, there is no telling ye :rolleyes:

Yeah this thread has run into the ground. Repeat repeat I'd anyone has a problem take it up with the relavant authority.

Pjwal

650Ginge wrote: »

Yeah this thread has run into the ground. Repeat repeat I'd anyone has a problem take it up with the relavant authority.

i agree, a lot different info and opinions, i feel the rsa has a lot to answer for, they brought in the testing and keep the regulations a secret to themselves,

Irishgoatman

niloc1951,
What's this RW test that you have referred to a couple of times?.

650Ginge has said that he thinks this thread has run its course.
My thought is that this thread should stay as a general Q & A thread, which I think it started out as, but things like the weight problem could go into a seperate thread, which has gone on and on and could well continue into the next year. Just my opinion.:)

Macspower, if you're around could give me the answer to my question please.

niloc1951

Irishgoatman wrote: »

niloc1951,
What's this RW test that you have referred to a couple of times?....................

Road Worthiness as in CRW Certificate of Road Worthiness

Irishgoatman

niloc1951 wrote: »

Road Worthiness as in CRW Certificate of Road Worthiness

So in other words it's the DOE test that most people are, obviously wrongly, referring to it as. The test that I've had for the last 2 years.
And, again wrongly, the title of this thread.

Pjwal

Irishgoatman wrote:

niloc1951 wrote: »

Road Worthiness as in CRW Certificate of Road Worthiness

So in other words it's the DOE test that most people are, obviously wrongly, referring to it as. The test that I've had for the last 2 years.
And, again wrongly, the title of this thread.

On a lighter note. How have ye been fairing out with the test if ye have done it. We have been able to pass a lot more then fail.

650Ginge

I got a pass today at the first attempt. Battery secured, bulb and headlamp focus adjust was all that was needed.

I had already replaced the crossmember under the rad that was fun.

Pjwal

650Ginge wrote:

I got a pass today at the first attempt. Battery secured, bulb and headlamp focus adjust was all that was needed.

I had already replaced the crossmember under the rad that was fun.

The crossmember under the rad is a common problem.

kelbal

Malta1 wrote: »

Another happy camper here.....got van DOE done yesterday at VTN centre in Ardcavan Wexford. Failed on dip lights......the tester told me where to get Beam Benders and that I should not try to fit them, rather bring them back to him and he would do them for me.
Purchased benders and not only did he fit them, he also got out the spanners to slightly adjust the headlight level. Left with a pass cert and a smile

Well done to the guys in the test centres that are going beyond what they need to do

My MH (on Transit chassis) just failed the DOE because the lights pointing wrong way - hadn't thought to put the deflectors/benders on it (it is LHD). Have them now, and the fella said he'd give it a go at putting them on at the re-test - but he did warn me that a colleague of his failed another MH that had the deflectors on them, found the light was blurry/tunneled (his words). Want to try to definitely get deflectors working, as Ford garage have given me a price of roughly €600 for 2 new Irish headlamps. Any tips on the positioning of them to help me get it passed?

thanks

deadl0ck

In my understanding, if you bring the beam benders to the test with you they guys doing the test will actually fit them correctly for you as they have the equipment to check the alignment there (That's what I was hoping when I go for mine !)