Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites
New Topic New Poll New Reply
Author: Subject: SVA - Bolts
Chris Leonard

posted on 8/1/03 at 01:08 PM Reply With Quote
SVA - Bolts

Hi All,

I've done my paneling and braving the sub zero temps last night was bolting my front suspension arms on when I found a problem that I hope someone can help me with.

The front suspension bottom rear mounting bracket is quite close to the upright. So much so that with a nulock nut I can not get 2 threads out the end. I read somewhere that for SVA you must have this amount sticking out. Is this true - I couldnt find anything in a cursory glance through the manual.

If this is the case would it be OK to weld a nut on the end near the upright and then put a spring washer on the head end of the bolt.

Just to confound things I have a similar problem with the upper shock mounting, I have put it under the top rail and can't get a bolt it it now! dohhh - However I managed to get a shorter bolt in that will fit without any washers - hoping this is OK.

Cheers Chris

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
bob

posted on 8/1/03 at 10:08 PM Reply With Quote
I've been told they never pull off nut covers on the test,if your worried use slightly thinner washers.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Rorty

posted on 9/1/03 at 02:17 AM Reply With Quote
There are thin Nyloc nuts available called, believe it or not, Thin or Half Height Nylocs. They may let you achieve the "two threads past" regulation.
Wishbone bolts don't really have to be very tight anyway. Just as long as the crush tube is pinched tight, as the bolts are in shear, not tension.





Cheers, Rorty.

"Faster than a speeding Pullet".

PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
jollygreengiant

posted on 9/1/03 at 09:51 AM Reply With Quote
I would assume that the same rules apply to SVA as to MOT. That is no dis-assembly is allowed. If you cannot see it because it is covered then you cannot remove the obstuction (nut covers). The best example is a wheel, it must be fully secured by all nuts/bolts, that is none broken or missing.
Now consider a car taken for mot with no wheel trims. It fails because it only has 1 securing nut/bolt fitted out its normal compliment of 4/5 per rim.
15 minutes later the car is fitted with wheel trims (and you've watched him fit them over the missing nuts/bolts) and presented for retest.
Now legally & ethically I am required to pass that vehicle for although I know that it has nuts/bolts missing, I am not allowed to test with prior knowledge & if I can't see the failable Item Then I cannot issue a fail. (But rest assured I would do my best to try & see them). The only way that I could cover myself is to write notes to the effect of what I suspect (actually know) on the vehicle inspection form, of which a copy should be given to the customer.


Personally from a moral point of view I would like to see a change in the regulations.

Enjoy.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member

New Topic New Poll New Reply


go to top






Website design and SEO by Studio Montage

All content © 2001-16 LocostBuilders. Reproduction prohibited
Opinions expressed in public posts are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the views of other users or any member of the LocostBuilders team.
Running XMB 1.8 Partagium [© 2002 XMB Group] on Apache under CentOS Linux
Founded, built and operated by ChrisW.