A thread ive started in the engines forum made me think about the number of failure points that are based on the subjective view of the tester. I
think its things like this that worry me for the test. Using the manual is one thing but if there are subjective points to the test you can never be
certain of passing first time.... and would mean you build your car to pass certain IVA centres.... such as beverley insisting on doubly securing the
mushroom insert on sierra stubs....
And yes I do understand that the tester probably has a lot more experience than some.
How many on here have failed from subjective points that arent stated in the manual? Are they completely happy with these failure points?
cheers
I'm afraid there is little that can be done about it, I think there might be an appeal procedure?
The thing about it is that the tester has to be able to use his common sense, and that's subjective... If I was a tester I would be asking the
question, would I let my son/daughter drive the car, after all the next person to by it will not be the builder...
Without the element of judgment like that you could have really doggy car that will pass as it's technically correct but is down right
dangerous..
The real problem I have with this is you can't talk directly to the SVA center anymore.. This is a problem as you can't clarify anything
before the test, i.e. ask if your particular kit has known issues that are likely to come up.. Obviously this will probably not help for a scratch
build car...
Personally I found the SVA very good and fair in fact the tester insisted on some lock nuts on the rear hub carrier that the manufacture did not
mention and I am very glad he did! It would have failed If I hadn't fixed it on the spot.
Dan
[Edited on 21/10/09 by Bluemoon]
Its ok if you have a tester who knows what he is talking about....
But when the tester starts arguing about the structural design of the chassis... its not good... I know for a fact he was not qualified in any way to
be making such statements... Especially on a well known chassis from a well known manufacturer..
I swear the tester I had must have been abused as a child!
There is an appeals process you can go through if you aren't happy with the result of your test.
The form you need to complete is IVA 17
Here -> http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/repository/Individual%20Vehicle%20Approval%20Notice%20of%20Appeal%20(IVA%2017).doc
If it's just one tester at one station that's failing something and other stations/testers are happy you are probably going to get a good
hearing, of if they decide it's a bit dodgy then all the centres will at least be realigned and made consistent.
However the tester is well within their rights to fail anything that, in their opinion, is unsafe.
Read the General Construction section (page 253 of the July Manual pdf file) especially Required standard 3 and the associated Note 2.
The manual obviously can't be expected to cover all possible methods people choose to use for construction of their car, and just because a
manufacturer sells it to you like that doesn't mean it's safe.
One fail (on many) that really pee'd me off at SVA was the tester insisted that the indicators must be amber (meaning lenses) and that clear
lenses with amber bulbs was a fail
"9.1 An obligatory lamp is not of the correct colour (Front indicators must be amber)"
I pointed out to him that most modern cars have clear lenses with amber bulbs but he would not accept my arguement and failed me anyway.
The IVA manual is the same as the SVA manual in this respect and just states that
"All indicators must emit amber light."
The test centre was Southampton by the way and I have my retest tomorrow!
Mine failed the speedo test. This was because my speed was measured from a single driveshaft, but the measuring machine measured the average of both
rear wheels.
Pretty annoying.
I was polite, they had some time, and we found a solution (they drove around the centre behind an approved vehicle and shouting!).
I think that a first time pass is difficult, and that some test centres are very harsh. I wouldn't bother going to Southampton (from what I have
read on here).
Matt
I went to Southampton, and they were fair, polite, gave me time to fix things that could be fixed (like weeping rear brake caliper connections and
sharp bits on projections), and gave me advice about things that couldn't be fixed there and then, like the speedo (turned out to be a dodgy
earth)..... there one or two bits I thought they were a bit overzealous about, which weren't safety critical, but those bits were in the
rules!
Overall, certainly not worth going miles out of your way to get another centre - maybe if you're half way between Soton and another place, try
the other one.... but its likely to be just as 'bad'!
Chris
Had my test at Gillingham in Kent. My first test and the tester said my steering wheel was not type approved, radius were ok.
On my retest i was already to fit my Sierra steering wheel after passing all the other bits. Tester says oh dont bother that wheel is not a fail
anyway.... WTF either it is a fail or it isn't.
Think they just make it up as they go along.
Then the next car they passed on Noise test even tho it was several decibels above the limit. 
Matt
mine was the same on the speedo, but he just disengaged one side of the rollers
tony
quote:
Think they just make it up as they go along.
Then the next car they passed on Noise test even tho it was several decibels above the limit.
quote:
Originally posted by reme101
Unless you were actually holding the db meter I would recommend that you don’t make defamatory remarks that you cant substantiate in court.
quote:
Originally posted by reme101[/I]
Unless you were actually holding the db meter I would recommend that you don’t make defamatory remarks that you cant substantiate in court.