MOT test and Hand Break

D

Dougal

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #21

Oily wrote:

> "Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Oily" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>I'll say again
>>
>>
>>>>The ONLY (legal) way your vehicle will legally pass an MOT is if the
>>>>handbrake is tested in accordance with the MOT rules, nothing else.
>>
>
> Yes, I was forgetting about the RULES ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
>>applying the parking brake during a decelerometer test, which is also a
>>controlled speed, 20mph and apply smoothly.
>>
>
>
> It's a good job most Landrover handbrakes are full of oil and gunge or your
> forehead would look like it had mumps. ;-)
>
>
>>>The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied
>>>whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary.
>>
>>Not a valid and legal test, m'Lord. Sorry. Even if I agree with you, which
>
> I
>
>>do, we are confined by the rules.
>>
>
>
> Yep them goddam rules again. ;-)
>
>
>>Now, if the parking/hand brake has been designed to function as the
>>secondary system for emergency use, as it would have been by the
>>manufacturer, and it's design hasn't really altered since (other than
>
> cable
>
>>operation instead of rods), is it not reasonable to assume that it should
>>work correctly either by roller or decelerometer testing? Is that not
>
> *why*
>
>>we are testing the vehicle annualy in the first place, to sort out the
>
> badly
>
>>maintained and unsafe vehicles?
>>Badger.
>>
>>
>
> I don't honestly think Landrover gave a s**t about an emergency backup when
> they designed the handbrake on the old series, or they had a funny sense of
> humour. Bloody lethal as a secondary brake if they are clean and kept
> adjusted.
>
> Martin

Am I missing something here (apart from the fact that this thread
started off from an Eire not NI query) - what's all this about
secondary brakes and emergency brakes etc.?

Without going to read the actual words in the manual (UK or Eire), the
test is a test as a parking brake only and the sole reason I can see
for the use of rollers/decelerometers is that the wording/procedure
has been chosen to recognise that most test stations do not have a
suitable (calibrated!) ramp on which to carry out a static holding test.

The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance
test is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter.

Parking brake balance is irrelevant with a transmission brake - and
that is specifically recognised in the Irish manual.

 

D

Dougal

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #22

Dougal wrote:

> Am I missing something here (apart from the fact that this thread
> started off from an Eire not NI query) - what's all this about secondary
> brakes and emergency brakes etc.?
>
> Without going to read the actual words in the manual (UK or Eire), the
> test is a test as a parking brake only and the sole reason I can see for
> the use of rollers/decelerometers is that the wording/procedure has been
> chosen to recognise that most test stations do not have a suitable
> (calibrated!) ramp on which to carry out a static holding test.
>
> The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance test
> is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter.
>
> Parking brake balance is irrelevant with a transmission brake - and that
> is specifically recognised in the Irish manual.

I read a bit more (should have done it first, sorry) and see that if
there is a service brake with a split system the park brake can have a
reduced effectiveness.

There's also a very interesting little note at the bottom of the
"Brake Efficiency Table" stating that "16% parking brake efficiency
equates to a vehicle holding on a gradient of 1 in 6.25". Is that an
acknowledgement that, at least for the 16% test, it is permissible to
conduct a static holding test on a 16% minimum grade?

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #23

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Am I missing something here (apart from the fact that this thread
> started off from an Eire not NI query) - what's all this about
> secondary brakes and emergency brakes etc.?

By definition, if a vehicle has only one primary braking circuit then the
"handbrake" is classed as a secondary system working on 2 wheels only, and
must meet a higher brake force (as a percentage of the vehicle's mass) than
if the vehicle had a dual-circuit braking system.

> Without going to read the actual words in the manual (UK or Eire), the
> test is a test as a parking brake only and the sole reason I can see
> for the use of rollers/decelerometers is that the wording/procedure
> has been chosen to recognise that most test stations do not have a
> suitable (calibrated!) ramp on which to carry out a static holding test.

Quite. Someone, somewhere, decided that the "handbrake" should be tested in
a similar fashion to the main braking system(s). That's the test that is
stipulated by VOSA in the UK, so that's the test that we, as testers, have
to conduct. Anything else and we leave ourselves wide open to penalisation
(and possible loss of testing authorisation) by VOSA. To be honest, I have
no issue with that on a vehicle where the "handbrake" is the secondary
system, i.e. single-circuit service brakes. As I already said, it ought to
work correctly or there is some sort of fault. Soft engine and gearbox
mountings are a favourite.

> The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance
> test is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter.

Sorry, don't get you there. The efficiency, as I understand it, is the brake
force applied relative to the vehicle's weight. I tested my own 110
yesterday, it has a brake test weight of (I think, from memory) 2210kg and
it produced over 1900kg brake force on the rollers, which I feel is quite
good for the type. Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly
higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that
surprised me, I must admit.

> Parking brake balance is irrelevant with a transmission brake - and
> that is specifically recognised in the Irish manual.

Parking brake balance is pretty much irrelevant anyway, as long as the
required "efficiency" total is met there's no problem. (Unless, of course,
one side is down due to an obvious fluid leak onto the brakes)
Badger.

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #24

On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:20:33 +0100, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance
>test is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter.

it's expressed in terms of braking force as a percentage of vehicle (or
axle, actually, I think) weight.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #25

On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:42:17 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly
>higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that
>surprised me, I must admit.

they're bloody good brakes, those drums.

mind, have you got EBC pads on the front? they tend to take a bit of heat
to work really well, IME, although they work much better when hot, and don't
seem to glaze like some pads one could mention.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #26

On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:57:57 +0100, "Oily"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:01:57 +0100, "Oily"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied
>> >whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. The
>handbrake
>> >is a *parking* brake and should only be tested as such, the dual line
>> >braking system is fitted to deal with as a backup as I see it.
>>
>> The law says otherwise, though, I suspect. And there are credible
>failures
>> of a dual-line system which can disable both lines.
>>
> Poor maintenance?

well, yeah, that I suppose. I had in mind the brake failure warning thing
you tend to get between the 2 lines on some systems... somehow, linking 2
supposedly independant systems doesn't make sense.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

 

O

Oily

Guest

• Oct 25, 2006

• #27

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote :-
> >>
> >> The law says otherwise, though, I suspect. And there are credible
> >failures
> >> of a dual-line system which can disable both lines.
> >>
> > Poor maintenance?
>
> well, yeah, that I suppose. I had in mind the brake failure warning thing
> you tend to get between the 2 lines on some systems... somehow, linking 2
> supposedly independant systems doesn't make sense.
>
Both fluid systems are separate and at the same pressure, being fed from two
separate compartments of the master cylinder of the same diameter and if the
pressure falls in one system as in a burst pipe, the greater pressure of the
other system forces the shuttle valve towards the leaking system in the
'pressure differential valve' and blocks it so there are no further leaks
and also lifts a switch connected to a warning lamp and after one more
stroke of the master cylinder, restores the pedal position so you can stop,
albeit with less braking efficiency. The warning lamp then stays lit until
repairs are effected and the shuttle in the valve is returned to the central
position (unless of course the bulb is popped or a million other things go
wrong that could).

Martin

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #28

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:42:17 +0100, "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly
> >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that
> >surprised me, I must admit.
>
> they're bloody good brakes, those drums.
>
> mind, have you got EBC pads on the front? they tend to take a bit of heat
> to work really well, IME, although they work much better when hot, and
don't
> seem to glaze like some pads one could mention.

No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't touch
brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!!
Badger.

 

D

Duracell Bunny

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #29

Badger wrote:
> "Duracell Bunny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> They still use Tapley meters on a 4wd in this day & age???
>>
>
> Indeed they do, Karen. As the vehicles have become more and more
> sophisticated with all their ABS, Active differentials, Traction Control,
> Electronic Brake Distribution etc etc, there are now a lot of vehicles that
> "chuck the teddy" if placed on rollers that do anything other than turn all
> 4 wheels at the same speed! Some will light up their dashboards like
> Blackpool Illuminations, some will attempt to "leave" the rollers. For this
> reason, we still use Tapley and Bowmonk type decelerometer testers. In all
> honesty, they are good, reliable and accurate devices.
> They also give the tester the oppertunity to assess the brakes whilst
> actually driving, possibly allowing a sensible tester a bit of leeway in
> deciding that something is actually ok???
>
> Badger.
>
>
I'd rather assumed that they'd gone into museums. I live in a state where annual
vehicle testing is not done, only requirement for a roadworthy test is upon sale
of the vehicle as a road-going vehicle. So my 38 year old Series never sees the
inside of a commercial garage. There are pro's & con's to Queensland's laws, we
do have a few 'bombs' around but mostly the police roadside checks pick 'em up
before someone gets killed by them.

You make a sound argument for their use, I must admit.

--
Karen Gallagher

"Reverse the polarity and invert the particle flux!"
"You mean put the batteries in the other way?"
"...yes."
-Star Trek (any of them)

 

E

EMB

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #30

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:00:43 +0100, "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> The "Park" facility on an auto IS NOT an emergency brake however, it is a
>> safety device to prevent the vehicle moving and crushing a mechanic/owner/
>> innocent bystander should an internal hydraulic fault cause a gear to be
>> engaged whilst the vehicle is being worked on with the engine running.
>> Applying it whilst in motion is a sure-fire way to shear the operating pawl
>> within the 'box, making it a one-shot system!
>
> I recall hearing a possibly-apocryphal tale about testing the strength of
> the parking pawl in the Borg-Warner factory and inadvertently finding a very
> fast way of removing the engine and gearbox from a Ford.

Sounds like an urban myth to me - despite my best efforts (deliberately
with old wrecks just to see what would happen) I've never managed to
have a catastrophic failure by engaging park at speed. Engaging reverse
whilst traveling forwards at speed does however cause a whole range
of interesting effects and could well tear an engine and gearbox off
it's mounts (and is quite a good way to spit bits of driveshaft all over
the road).

--
EMB

 

E

EMB

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #31

Badger wrote:

> No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't touch
> brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!!

Assuming that's the same "B" that supply sub-standard brake parts here
I'll quite agree with you.


--
EMB

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #32

On or around Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:53:06 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:42:17 +0100, "Badger"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly
>> >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that
>> >surprised me, I must admit.
>>
>> they're bloody good brakes, those drums.
>>
>> mind, have you got EBC pads on the front? they tend to take a bit of heat
>> to work really well, IME, although they work much better when hot, and
>don't
>> seem to glaze like some pads one could mention.
>
>No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't touch
>brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!!

EBC doesn't begin with B... and come to that, nor did the pads that got
glazed. I think they Delphi ones.

My main objection to standard parts is the price of same, and for a lot of
things, the price difference is not reflected in the quality. This may not
apply to brakes, I don't know.

Paddock, for example, had CV joints for 25 quid a bit back. Now, these are
undoubtedly not as good as genuine LR ones, but then again, at that price,
and bearing in mind they're not hard to fit, you could replace 'em every 2
years.

consider, from Beamends's list:

FTC1332 Front Driveshaft (Inc CV Joint) - RH 33-Spline

3 options: Britprat at 94 quid, Spicer at 199.63, Genuine at 446.50, all
including the chancellor's cut. I daresay Britprat ones aren't as good, but
I doubt frankly that the genuine ones are at least 4 times as good, and it's
quite possible that the Spicer ones are the same as the genuine ones but
without the LR badge on.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117)
Agricola, 30

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #33

On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:43:11 +0100, "Oily"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Both fluid systems are separate and at the same pressure, being fed from two
>separate compartments of the master cylinder of the same diameter and if the
>pressure falls in one system as in a burst pipe, the greater pressure of the
>other system forces the shuttle valve towards the leaking system in the
>'pressure differential valve' and blocks it so there are no further leaks
>and also lifts a switch connected to a warning lamp and after one more
>stroke of the master cylinder, restores the pedal position so you can stop,
>albeit with less braking efficiency. The warning lamp then stays lit until
>repairs are effected and the shuttle in the valve is returned to the central
>position (unless of course the bulb is popped or a million other things go
>wrong that could).

yes, I know how it works in theory. I've also seen such things as engine
oil pressure switches that leak oil out of the top...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117)
Agricola, 30

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #34

On or around Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:22:05 +1300, EMB <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>> I recall hearing a possibly-apocryphal tale about testing the strength of
>> the parking pawl in the Borg-Warner factory and inadvertently finding a very
>> fast way of removing the engine and gearbox from a Ford.
>
>Sounds like an urban myth to me - despite my best efforts (deliberately
>with old wrecks just to see what would happen) I've never managed to
>have a catastrophic failure by engaging park at speed. Engaging reverse
> whilst traveling forwards at speed does however cause a whole range
>of interesting effects and could well tear an engine and gearbox off
>it's mounts (and is quite a good way to spit bits of driveshaft all over
>the road).

Way I was told it, they were testing the box to make sure that it didn't
break when idiots did things like engaging park on the move. It's possible
that it was shifting to reverse that removed the engine, mind.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117)
Agricola, 30

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #35

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:53:06 +0100, "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:42:17 +0100, "Badger"
> >> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >>
> >> >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly
> >> >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that
> >> >surprised me, I must admit.
> >>
> >> they're bloody good brakes, those drums.
> >>
> >> mind, have you got EBC pads on the front? they tend to take a bit of
heat
> >> to work really well, IME, although they work much better when hot, and
> >don't
> >> seem to glaze like some pads one could mention.
> >
> >No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't
touch
> >brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!!
>
> EBC doesn't begin with B... and come to that, nor did the pads that got
> glazed. I think they Delphi ones.
>
> My main objection to standard parts is the price of same, and for a lot of
> things, the price difference is not reflected in the quality. This may
not
> apply to brakes, I don't know.
>
> Paddock, for example, had CV joints for 25 quid a bit back. Now, these
are
> undoubtedly not as good as genuine LR ones, but then again, at that price,
> and bearing in mind they're not hard to fit, you could replace 'em every 2
> years.
>
> consider, from Beamends's list:
>
> FTC1332 Front Driveshaft (Inc CV Joint) - RH 33-Spline
>
> 3 options: Britprat at 94 quid, Spicer at 199.63, Genuine at 446.50, all
> including the chancellor's cut. I daresay Britprat ones aren't as good,
but
> I doubt frankly that the genuine ones are at least 4 times as good, and
it's
> quite possible that the Spicer ones are the same as the genuine ones but
> without the LR badge on.

Austin, I was referring to the pads that "glaze like some I could mention",
not the EBC's.
Badger.

 

E

EMB

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #36

Badger wrote:

> Austin, I was referring to the pads that "glaze like some I could mention",
> not the EBC's.

I assume they are the B?????x ones - summat like Bollox


--
EMB

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #37

On or around Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:40:24 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin, I was referring to the pads that "glaze like some I could mention",
>not the EBC's.
>Badger.
>

I know you were, and personally, I don't buy cheap-brand pads such as first
line and the like - however, I've been disappointed with the quality of the
supposedly-good lockheed/delphi ones, which used to be OK.

I had genuine pads on the 110 ISTR, mainly 'cos no-one seemed to list the
ones for those calipers (early 110) at the time I wanted to buy 'em, and
they performed well.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8

 

O

Oily

Guest

• Oct 26, 2006

• #38

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> yes, I know how it works in theory.

Doh... I cud 'ave saved me breath. ;-)

I've also seen such things as engine
> oil pressure switches that leak oil out of the top...

Yebbut, them's Fords and OT. ;-)

Martin

> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
> "Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117)
> Agricola, 30