Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DoE testing - The Last Word

145791018

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    As far as the windows are concerned, the letter that was sent out has a list of acceptable glass markings, and no, I don't know what they mean either, but as long as they match yours that's good enough.
    If you didn't get a letter just go to the RSA website.

    Best of luck with the rest.


    just a pointer with the windows, i had a van conversion in for test last week, the windows were from a mini bus with a safety mark thats not on the list that rsa issued, the owner took the inititive, and intered the the info from the mark into google, and hey presto. there it was, it was an american mark and it is safety glass, the owner had no printer, but had the info i needed to get it quickly on the test centre computer, and i printed out the info needed to prove it it is saftey glass, i gave him a copy for future tests and put a copy with my paperwork to cover my ass, so if you have a saftety mark that you are not sure of, look it up before you go for the test, and then you know where you stand, makes life easy on the hard working tester,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 148 ✭✭zambo


    Hi
    There is a possibility of confusion here,When you say apply underseal I presume you mean the body only as brake lines covered by underseal can be a fail point as their condition cannot be checked.
    yours zambo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭Morgan The Moon


    Hi Aidan, My original query is not the testing of the brakes ie the disk brake operation. My query is the parking brake testing procedure of a Tagg Axel Al-ko chassis. It would be extremely helpful if you where able to clarify what you consider the correct procedure would be. Many Thanks, Moc

    Hi, Just logged back in hoping a reply was posted, Has anybody else looked into this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭Morgan The Moon


    You are totally wrong in your last statement.

    Beam benders ARE acceptable for the test.

    If in doubt go to their website. It is very clear. And just to be sure to be sure, I rang my contact at the RSA in Ballina.

    Double standards, Temporary "beam benders" would not be allowed on a "self build" being presented for a " Type approval certification ". Yet RSA will accept them them for their test! Hmm.


  • Registered Users Posts: 839 ✭✭✭kelbal


    Hi, Just logged back in hoping a reply was posted, Has anybody else looked into this.

    Morgan, can't help you re the testing procedure - but I can let you know my experience regarding this. One of the 3 things my MH failed on was an inefficient hand-brake (the other 2 being wiper blades and lights pointing wrong way). The fella said it just needed tightening up - basically you had to lift the lever too far up for it to work. He said you usually lift off the cover that surrounds the handbrake and their should be a nut there to tighten it up. I couldn't find any nut, so traced the cable as it went underneath cab. It's a thin, high strength cable. In my case, about half way underneath the MH, this cable joined 2 other similar cables coming from the rear wheels with a bracket system. It was just a case of tightening this up, simple enough to figure out when you're looking at it. I tightened mine so that when lifting the handbrake, after 5 'clicks' the MH was held in position on my sloped driveway. You need to be careful that you don't over tighten it, as the brakes will be permanently on to some degree.
    Apologies for rambling on if this is of no relevance to you - but you never know


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Hi, Just logged back in hoping a reply was posted, Has anybody else looked into this.
    Hi Aidan, My original query is not the testing of the brakes ie the disk brake operation. My query is the parking brake testing procedure of a Tagg Axel Al-ko chassis. It would be extremely helpful if you where able to clarify what you consider the correct procedure would be. Many Thanks, Moc

    The Al-Ko you talk about is not strictly speaking a Tag but is a Twin.

    Unlike the Tag set-up on trucks in which both axles pivot at a central point which ensures both axles exert the same weight on an uneven surface, in the Al-Ko Twin axle set up, being two independent axles, the axle on the 'high ground' will take the weight of the vehicle leaving the axle over the 'lower ground' bearing little weight, this will leave insufficient weight on the axle to test the braking efficiency on a rolling road.

    This is another aspect of testing, unique motorhomes, which has not been fully thought out by the RSA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 942 ✭✭✭gofaster_s13


    zambo wrote: »
    Hi
    There is a possibility of confusion here,When you say apply underseal I presume you mean the body only as brake lines covered by underseal can be a fail point as their condition cannot be checked.
    yours zambo.

    There is nothing in the DOE test manual that says brake lines cant be undersealed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    Double standards, Temporary "beam benders" would not be allowed on a "self build" being presented for a " Type approval certification ". Yet RSA will accept them them for their test! Hmm.

    Very strange indeed.

    I would suggest that you ring the RSA in Ballina and raise this point with them to see what they say, if you haven't already.

    This might be another oversight.

    Just had a thought, I wonder if someone knows what the score is with regard to this in other EU countries, because that is really what the RSA are trying to do. Bring us in line with everyone else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 148 ✭✭zambo


    Hi
    I have not read the manual but assume it says something along the lines that brake lines must be able to be checked,If not anyone with rusty lines could give them a coating of underbody schutz and nobody could see if they were safe or not.The people writing the rules are not expected to include every example possible it stands to reason that something that needs to be checked must be visible.
    yours zambo


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    zambo wrote:
    Hi
    I have not read the manual but assume it says something along the lines that brake lines must be able to be checked,If not anyone with rusty lines could give them a coating of underbody schutz and nobody could see if they were safe or not.The people writing the rules are not expected to include every example possible it stands to reason that something that needs to be checked must be visible.
    yours zambo


    If you are plaaning to cover your brake lines in order to hide that they are rusty or in bad condition, it may hide It from the tester, but you risk brake failure in the future and causing an accident and in turn you are putting the testers job at risk if this was to happen, and much worse, you are risking lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Hi Aidan, My original query is not the testing of the brakes ie the disk brake operation. My query is the parking brake testing procedure of a Tagg Axel Al-ko chassis. It would be extremely helpful if you where able to clarify what you consider the correct procedure would be. Many Thanks, Moc

    Hi, Just logged back in hoping a reply was posted, Has anybody else looked into this.


    Hey morgan the moon
    The rsa issued a 2 page email to all test centres today regaurding problems that have been encountered with testing motorhomes. Mostly dealing with weight plates. They have not mentioned the testing of the park brake on alko axles as of yet.
    Have you contacted them yourself about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24 Buddha Breath


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    The Al-Ko you talk about is not strictly speaking a Tag but is a Twin.

    Unlike the Tag set-up on trucks in which both axles pivot at a central point which ensures both axles exert the same weight on an uneven surface, in the Al-Ko Twin axle set up, being two independent axles, the axle on the 'high ground' will take the weight of the vehicle leaving the axle over the 'lower ground' bearing little weight, this will leave insufficient weight on the axle to test the braking efficiency on a rolling road.

    This is another aspect of testing, unique motorhomes, which has not been fully thought out by the RSA

    My Al-Ko Twin axle Ducato MH was failed a fortnight ago due to this handbrake issue. The mechanic in the same garage (as they service as well as test) says he's tried everything to pass it, unsuccessfully. I now have new brake shoes, newly lubricated cables and 2 full days of labour to pay for! And it still won't be roadworthy.

    Niloc, are you suggesting the handbrake will never lock the wheels out on the rolling road with a twin axle?


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    The Al-Ko you talk about is not strictly speaking a Tag but is a Twin.

    Unlike the Tag set-up on trucks in which both axles pivot at a central point which ensures both axles exert the same weight on an uneven surface, in the Al-Ko Twin axle set up, being two independent axles, the axle on the 'high ground' will take the weight of the vehicle leaving the axle over the 'lower ground' bearing little weight, this will leave insufficient weight on the axle to test the braking efficiency on a rolling road.

    This is another aspect of testing, unique motorhomes, which has not been fully thought out by the RSA

    My Al-Ko Twin axle Ducato MH was failed a fortnight ago due to this handbrake issue. The mechanic in the same garage (as they service as well as test) says he's tried everything to pass it, unsuccessfully. I now have new brake shoes, newly lubricated cables and 2 full days of labour to pay for! And it still won't be roadworthy.

    Niloc, are you suggesting the handbrake will never lock the wheels out on the rolling road with a twin axle?


    Was there damage caused to the brakes during the test procedure or is it that your park brake didn't work efficently enough to pass.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24 Buddha Breath


    Pjwal wrote: »
    Was there damage caused to the brakes during the test procedure or is it that your park brake didn't work efficently enough to pass.

    Hi Pjwal, I don't know yet as the MH is still in the garage. I will be collecting it later today. It seems the handbrake just won't meet the pass criteria for the rolling road test, despite all the repairs/replacements carried out. The mechanic says he could swap out all the cables, install new drums etc. but this would still not guarantee a pass.

    If my understanding of Niloc's comments are correct, he is saying that when the axle is placed on the rolling road, the second rear axle is standing on the slightly higher ground and hence taking most of the weight, leaving little weight on the lower axle under test.

    The bottom line for me is that the handbrake works as a parking brake, holding the vehicle on a hill, and will never be used as an emergency brake to stop the vehicle. But this is not how it is tested. I have read of many similar problems on the UK MH forums. People apparently just scraping through the DOE every year after spending lots of money on adjustments before going in for testing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    ...........................If my understanding of Niloc's comments are correct, he is saying that when the axle is placed on the rolling road, the second rear axle is standing on the slightly higher ground and hence taking most of the weight, leaving little weight on the lower axle under test...........................

    Spot on.
    For example when you are levelling the motorhome and you drive one of the rear wheels onto levelling block the other will even lift clear off the ground if the one on the blocks is high enough. Trying to get a brake test reading on a wheel down a hollow is the same thing the other way round, there is reduced weight on the wheel in the hollow as the higher wheel is taking most of the weight.
    As I said in my op the mechanics of the system are not at all like that of a tag axle truck.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Thinking about the problems being experienced when brake testing vehicles with Al-Ko Kober twin axle chassis, the difficulty probable also applies to getting a realistic reading for the main braking as well as the parking brake.

    As this is an area in which the RSA has no previous experience perhaps they should consult with Al-Ko Kober to determine how their product is best tested to check the efficiency of the brakes on their twin axle motor caravan chassis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    Thinking about the problems being experienced when brake testing vehicles with Al-Ko Kober twin axle chassis, the difficulty probable also applies to getting a realistic reading for the main braking as well as the parking brake.

    As this is an area in which the RSA has no previous experience perhaps they should consult with Al-Ko Kober to determine how their product is best tested to check the efficiency of the brakes on their twin axle motor caravan chassis.

    Again, as I said regarding beam benders, I suggest that someone, possibly you niloc1951, as you seems to know what you're talking about ( it's all gobblede gook to me ), gets in touch with the RSA. Even if some testers have mentioned it to them it wouldn't hurt to hear it from a camper owner.

    Don't know if you've ever rung Ballina but they are good listeners and most helpful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Hi Pjwal, I don't know yet as the MH is still in the garage. I will be collecting it later today. It seems the handbrake just won't meet the pass criteria for the rolling road test, despite all the repairs/replacements carried out. The mechanic says he could swap out all the cables, install new drums etc. but this would still not guarantee a pass.

    If my understanding of Niloc's comments are correct, he is saying that when the axle is placed on the rolling road, the second rear axle is standing on the slightly higher ground and hence taking most of the weight, leaving little weight on the lower axle under test.

    The bottom line for me is that the handbrake works as a parking brake, holding the vehicle on a hill, and will never be used as an emergency brake to stop the vehicle. But this is not how it is tested. I have read of many similar problems on the UK MH forums. People apparently just scraping through the DOE every year after spending lots of money on adjustments before going in for testing.


    ok sir, park brake requires 16% force to pass the test, emergency brake requires 22.5% force, so a higher reading is required for emergency brake, but the emergency brake is not always the handbrake, i.e. on a ford transit or iveco-the emergency brake is a cross brake using foot brake readings,i.e left hand front and right hand rear brakes added together, the emergency brake is what the manufacterer says it is, so it is possable that your tester is trying to obtain higher readings then what is needed for your vehicle to pass the test.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24 Buddha Breath


    Pjwal wrote: »
    ok sir, park brake requires 16% force to pass the test, emergency brake requires 22.5% force, so a higher reading is required for emergency brake, but the emergency brake is not always the handbrake, i.e. on a ford transit or iveco-the emergency brake is a cross brake using foot brake readings,i.e left hand front and right hand rear brakes added together, the emergency brake is what the manufacterer says it is, so it is possable that your tester is trying to obtain higher readings then what is needed for your vehicle to pass the test.

    Hi PJWal,

    That would depend on

    1. Who is considered the manufacturer in this case - Al-ko or Fiat?
    2. Does the manufacturer class the emergency brake as the handbrake?

    I have emailed Al-ko to try and get some answers because as a previous poster pointed out there are thousands of these tandem axles all over the continent and they have been DOE'ing vehicles on the continent for at least a decade.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Hi PJWal,

    That would depend on

    1. Who is considered the manufacturer in this case - Al-ko or Fiat?
    2. Does the manufacturer class the emergency brake as the handbrake?

    I have emailed Al-ko to try and get some answers because as a previous poster pointed out there are thousands of these tandem axles all over the continent and they have been DOE'ing vehicles on the continent for at least a decade.


    i dont know the answer the answer to either question i am afraid, sorry, but i do know that a lot of testers automaticaly take the park brake as the emergency brake in the absence of information to tell them otherwise, and usually, high enough readings would be obtained to do the job, but they would be commercials that would be tied down, i think aiden m-m might be the man in the know or have the way of finding out,
    or ring the rsa in loughrea and look for john forde as he is the rsa rep charged with job of trying to sort out motorhome testing problems, he is a sound chap, but is pretty swamped at the moment,


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Aidan_M_M


    seeing as all the braking componests are Fiat (in a ducato based vehicle) , I think it's fair to assume that the Manufacturer is Fiat? Just my opinion now.

    thanks for the vote of confidence above , but I'm no expert! , just speaking as I find . I have read in some manual (can't recall where though...) that the Handbrake on the Ducatos is a park brake , not an emergency brake . And from experience , having driven literally hundreds , The "handbrake" on a Ducato isn't fit to stop a moving MH . I have tried it with drum and rear-disc braked ones , and if you pull it steadily while driving , it'll only slow you , not stall the vehicle or lock the rear wheels . In fact the rear-disc braked ones are worst , as they actually have a small drum and shoes working inside the "bell" of the disc . like this

    I do know that in either case , they seem to only lock , when you apply them to a stopped vehicle , not a moving one . It is something the RSA and test centres will need to resolve , unfortunately it'll take a good few failures before they do .

    It's all a bit "ara , that'll be grand" , IMHO , when we grilled the RSA on testing 2 years ago , they hadn't a clue about MHs . They'd never heard of Al-Kos . when asked if they'd accept beam-benders , the reply was " ah yeah , they should be ok , I think" !!!!
    The same as regard to whether or not vehicles with single fog and reverse lights would need them swapped side to side . Back then they were talking about testing them every year , installing speed limiters or tachos , reflective markings like trucks..... More stuff too .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Aidan_M_M wrote: »
    seeing as all the braking componests are Fiat (in a ducato based vehicle) , I think it's fair to assume that the Manufacturer is Fiat? Just my opinion now.

    thanks for the vote of confidence above , but I'm no expert! , just speaking as I find . I have read in some manual (can't recall where though...) that the Handbrake on the Ducatos is a park brake , not an emergency brake . And from experience , having driven literally hundreds , The "handbrake" on a Ducato isn't fit to stop a moving MH . I have tried it with drum and rear-disc braked ones , and if you pull it steadily while driving , it'll only slow you , not stall the vehicle or lock the rear wheels . In fact the rear-disc braked ones are worst , as they actually have a small drum and shoes working inside the "bell" of the disc . like this

    I do know that in either case , they seem to only lock , when you apply them to a stopped vehicle , not a moving one . It is something the RSA and test centres will need to resolve , unfortunately it'll take a good few failures before they do .

    It's all a bit "ara , that'll be grand" , IMHO , when we grilled the RSA on testing 2 years ago , they hadn't a clue about MHs . They'd never heard of Al-Kos . when asked if they'd accept beam-benders , the reply was " ah yeah , they should be ok , I think" !!!!
    The same as regard to whether or not vehicles with single fog and reverse lights would need them swapped side to side . Back then they were talking about testing them every year , installing speed limiters or tachos , reflective markings like trucks..... More stuff too .

    Why oh why do we always seem to try and re-invent the wheel in this country, is our problem about looking elsewhere for best practice something to do with 700 years of occupation and now we'll be dammed if we are going to ask outsiders for their input.

    Motor caravans have been roadworthiness tested for years elsewhere in Europe, what problem had the RSA about consulting the testing organisations in other countries and distilling best practice from their input, instead of firstly going half cocked three years ago and now not doing a much better job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Aidan_M_M wrote: »
    seeing as all the braking componests are Fiat (in a ducato based vehicle) , I think it's fair to assume that the Manufacturer is Fiat? Just my opinion now.

    thanks for the vote of confidence above , but I'm no expert! , just speaking as I find . I have read in some manual (can't recall where though...) that the Handbrake on the Ducatos is a park brake , not an emergency brake . And from experience , having driven literally hundreds , The "handbrake" on a Ducato isn't fit to stop a moving MH . I have tried it with drum and rear-disc braked ones , and if you pull it steadily while driving , it'll only slow you , not stall the vehicle or lock the rear wheels . In fact the rear-disc braked ones are worst , as they actually have a small drum and shoes working inside the "bell" of the disc . like this

    I do know that in either case , they seem to only lock , when you apply them to a stopped vehicle , not a moving one . It is something the RSA and test centres will need to resolve , unfortunately it'll take a good few failures before they do .

    It's all a bit "ara , that'll be grand" , IMHO , when we grilled the RSA on testing 2 years ago , they hadn't a clue about MHs . They'd never heard of Al-Kos . when asked if they'd accept beam-benders , the reply was " ah yeah , they should be ok , I think" !!!!
    The same as regard to whether or not vehicles with single fog and reverse lights would need them swapped side to side . Back then they were talking about testing them every year , installing speed limiters or tachos , reflective markings like trucks..... More stuff too .


    you ve earned the confidance vote. so maybe with that in mind, that the park brake wont stop the mh, its possable that that the cross brake or lowest pair of footbrake readings are the emergency, i examined an alko chassis closly today, am i correct in saying that the ducato back plate is bolted onto the alko stub axle.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Aidan_M_M


    correct indeed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Aidan_M_M wrote:
    correct indeed.

    gotchya now. The only tag axle I v come across had a park brake on both axles so with the combination it had loads of brake for the emergency. So I gather there are some with park brake only fitted to one axle and theese are the problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Aidan_M_M


    ah no . any I've seen have had park brakes on both axles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 741 ✭✭✭WildWater


    Getting back to the whole Certificate of Road Worthiness...

    I actually managed to get around to changing my Test Certificate for the Certificate of Road Worthiness (I'll refrain from a rant as we've already been there). But now I have a question...


    Are we supposed to display this on the windscreen ala the NCT cert on a car or is it sufficient to produce it when asked?

    The reason I ask is because the CRW contains my name and I don't particularly want to drive around with my name on the windscreen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,101 ✭✭✭dickwod1


    WildWater wrote: »
    Are we supposed to display this on the windscreen ala the NCT cert on a car or is it sufficient to produce it when asked?

    I drive a commercial Nissan Navara and im not required to display my CRW on my window so I presume the cert for the camper is the same.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    dickwod1 wrote: »
    I drive a commercial Nissan Navara and im not required to display my CRW on my window so I presume the cert for the camper is the same.

    Correct.

    Produce on demand or within a given number of days with the date on the cert being before the request to produce.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 741 ✭✭✭WildWater


    Okeydokey, thanks guys.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24 Buddha Breath


    Pjwal wrote: »
    gotchya now. The only tag axle I v come across had a park brake on both axles so with the combination it had loads of brake for the emergency. So I gather there are some with park brake only fitted to one axle and theese are the problem.

    Well, I collected my tandem axle Alko MH from the garage yesterday and the mechanic claimed that after 2 days working on it he couldn't get the handbrake working correctly. After handing over in excess of €600 for an "unroadworthy" vehicle I was appalled to find I had to open the drivers door to release the handbrake, as the cable had been adjusted so tightly that I could only lift the handbrake by 1 click with all my force. I think this is starting to look like a problem with the garage, as opposed to the handrake system.

    Pjwal, I'm assuming the MH you tested easily satisfied the 16% parking brake and 22.5% emergency brake criteria then?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭killalanerr


    ah lads i thought we had this doe thing sorted, just back from the center and she failed on handbrake balance,so all it will take is a small adjustment to rebalance the rear brake ya ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    I'm starting a new thread - The AL-KO Parking Brake and The Roadworthiness Test

    NEW THREAD


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Well, I collected my tandem axle Alko MH from the garage yesterday and the mechanic claimed that after 2 days working on it he couldn't get the handbrake working correctly. After handing over in excess of €600 for an "unroadworthy" vehicle I was appalled to find I had to open the drivers door to release the handbrake, as the cable had been adjusted so tightly that I could only lift the handbrake by 1 click with all my force. I think this is starting to look like a problem with the garage, as opposed to the handrake system.

    Pjwal, I'm assuming the MH you tested easily satisfied the 16% parking brake and 22.5% emergency brake criteria then?

    It me it looks like you might have been 'taken to the cleaners' by somebody who did not understand the problem in the first instance.

    I personally have a big problem with people 'investigating' how to fix a problem they are unsure about and charging me for their education, and particularly if they ultimately FAIL.

    I would go about getting my money back, after all they did not deliver a solution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Aidan_M_M wrote:
    ah no . any I've seen have had park brakes on both axles.


    Cool enough, the one I checked just got lucky then.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Pjwal wrote:
    gotchya now. The only tag axle I v come across had a park brake on both axles so with the combination it had loads of brake for the emergency. So I gather there are some with park brake only fitted to one axle and theese are the problem.

    Well, I collected my tandem axle Alko MH from the garage yesterday and the mechanic claimed that after 2 days working on it he couldn't get the handbrake working correctly. After handing over in excess of €600 for an "unroadworthy" vehicle I was appalled to find I had to open the drivers door to release the handbrake, as the cable had been adjusted so tightly that I could only lift the handbrake by 1 click with all my force. I think this is starting to look like a problem with the garage, as opposed to the handrake system.

    Pjwal, I'm assuming the MH you tested easily satisfied the 16% parking brake and 22.5% emergency brake criteria then?


    It did. It had over 30%


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    Well, I collected my tandem axle Alko MH from the garage yesterday and the mechanic claimed that after 2 days working on it he couldn't get the handbrake working correctly. After handing over in excess of €600 for an "unroadworthy" vehicle I was appalled to find I had to open the drivers door to release the handbrake, as the cable had been adjusted so tightly that I could only lift the handbrake by 1 click with all my force. I think this is starting to look like a problem with the garage, as opposed to the handrake system.

    Pjwal, I'm assuming the MH you tested easily satisfied the 16% parking brake and 22.5% emergency brake criteria then?

    It me it looks like you might have been 'taken to the cleaners' by somebody who did not understand the problem in the first instance.

    I personally have a big problem with people 'investigating' how to fix a problem they are unsure about and charging me for their education, and particularly if they ultimately FAIL.

    I would go about getting my money back, after all they did not deliver a solution.

    I would agree with that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    dickwod1 wrote: »
    I drive a commercial Nissan Navara and im not required to display my CRW on my window so I presume the cert for the camper is the same.

    Correct.

    Produce on demand or within a given number of days with the date on the cert being before the request to produce.


    I know from experience that if you put that cert on the window it will quickly fade to a White sheet of paper. I know most fleet owners photocopy it and thier other documents, and keep the copies in vehicle to produce on demand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,192 ✭✭✭deadl0ck


    Had my 01 EuraMobil 515 DOE'ed today. No problems whatsoever :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Aidan_M_M


    all the ones i've got ready for test have passed so far, from 1990 to 2008...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Aidan_M_M wrote:
    all the ones i've got ready for test have passed so far, from 1990 to 2008...


    Most are passing. Only a handfull of fails and none with major problems. Altered weight plates are going to be the biggest prob as now we have been instructed not to pass them anymore and it is up to the owner to go back to the manufacterer to get it sorted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Aidan_M_M


    realistically though , how do you do this? I bet your bottom dollar not many FIAT etc garages will do it .


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    Aidan_M_M wrote:
    realistically though , how do you do this? I bet your bottom dollar not many FIAT etc garages will do it .


    Correct. A simular prob came up latly with imported commercials with no weight plates fitted. They pass the onous onto the owner so that they don't have to deal with it. It puts us in an awkward position with the owners, a lot of whom have no clue what we are talking, and it's not thier job to know.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Pjwal wrote: »
    Most are passing. Only a handfull of fails and none with major problems. Altered weight plates are going to be the biggest prob as now we have been instructed not to pass them anymore and it is up to the owner to go back to the manufacterer to get it sorted.

    You DO mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional' plates with a higher weight than the original and which are in agreement with the GVW on the RF101, don't you !!


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    Pjwal wrote:
    Most are passing. Only a handfull of fails and none with major problems. Altered weight plates are going to be the biggest prob as now we have been instructed not to pass them anymore and it is up to the owner to go back to the manufacterer to get it sorted.

    You DO mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional' plates with a higher weight than the original and which are in agreement with the GVW on the RF101, don't you !!


    Yes I mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Pjwal wrote: »
    Yes I mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional'.

    Thanks, the RSA Circular VI 05/12 didn't make it clear, from my reading of it, it appears very ambiguous as to whether my motor caravan, which is from a major European manufacturer and which has three plates and had no physical change between the last two, should pass (it did last month).
    I have written to the RSA for clarification but not got a reply yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    Pjwal wrote:
    Yes I mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional'.

    Thanks, the RSA Circular VI 05/12 didn't make it clear, from my reading of it, it appears very ambiguous as to whether my motor caravan, which is from a major European manufacturer and which has three plates and had no physical change between the last two, should pass (it did last month).
    I have written to the RSA for clarification but not got a reply yet.

    if your mh has an alko chassis and rear axle and one of the plates has a higher rear axle gross weight and a higher gvw-that is no prob. Hymer has in cases placed an extra plate that has a higher front axle gross weight then what the base vehicle manufacterer has allowed and that one is a problem. But the usual ones of concern are where the original weights have been scribed over or punch marked with a heavier weight.
    Let me know if I havnt got that across clearly. The dyslexia gets the better of me at times.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    Pjwal wrote: »
    if your mh has an alko chassis and rear axle and one of the plates has a higher rear axle gross weight and a higher gvw-that is no prob. Hymer has in cases placed an extra plate that has a higher front axle gross weight then what the base vehicle manufacterer has allowed and that one is a problem. But the usual ones of concern are where the original weights have been scribed over or punch marked with a heavier weight.
    Let me know if I havnt got that across clearly. The dyslexia gets the better of me at times.

    My motorhmone has an Al-Ko chassis and an Al-Ko plate over the Fiat one, which incidentally has no weights recorded on it as its Fiat component is only a front chassis/cowl, perhaps.
    Over the Al-Ko plate is affixed a manufacturers plate showing a higher GVW,(3,850kg) but the same axle weights, but an owner with only a B licence could have an identical vehicle with a 3,500kg GVW late. This results in me having an increased GVW without any physical change from the 3,500Kg plated one which seems to not be acceptable to the RSA (Circular VI 05/12)

    Also, I can't believe that leading brands will have their vehicles failed because their plates will not be accepted in this country. It is most unlikely that Hymer, or any of the reputable builders of motor caravans would expose themselves to legal hazard by boosting axle weights without the approval of the axle manufacturer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Pjwal


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    Pjwal wrote:
    if your mh has an alko chassis and rear axle and one of the plates has a higher rear axle gross weight and a higher gvw-that is no prob. Hymer has in cases placed an extra plate that has a higher front axle gross weight then what the base vehicle manufacterer has allowed and that one is a problem. But the usual ones of concern are where the original weights have been scribed over or punch marked with a heavier weight.
    Let me know if I havnt got that across clearly. The dyslexia gets the better of me at times.

    My motorhmone has an Al-Ko chassis and an Al-Ko plate over the Fiat one, which incidentally has no weights recorded on it as its Fiat component is only a front chassis/cowl, perhaps.
    Over the Al-Ko plate is affixed a manufacturers plate showing a higher GVW,(3,850kg) but the same axle weights, but an owner with only a B licence could have an identical vehicle with a 3,500kg GVW late. This results in me having an increased GVW without any physical change from the 3,500Kg plated one which seems to not be acceptable to the RSA (Circular VI 05/12)

    Also, I can't believe that leading brands will have their vehicles failed because their plates will not be accepted in this country. It is most unlikely that Hymer, or any of the reputable builders of motor caravans would expose themselves to legal hazard by boosting axle weights without the approval of the axle manufacturer.


    Your plate is fine as alko is taking resonabily for it as it is thier chassis and rear axle reguardless of the fact that a twin sister of your vehicle would have a gvw of 3500kg, the hymer plate I mentioned is one of the ones where an axle weight is changed without a physical change been made to vehicle as it is still a full original manufacterers chassis,cab and axles. So there is no proof of autherisation from the manufacterer for this change. Now I do fully agree with you,I also can't see any top end motorhome builder putting themselves at risk and performing such an act without proper autherisation. It's just the rsa aren't bothered looking into it so they are leaveing it up to the owner to sort it. Most of the other plates that were changed with a simple scriber or number punches were done without autherisation. Because of the vrt system that was once in place. If the motorhome weighed more then 3000kg then only e50 vrt had to be payed, but as most of older model fiat,Peugeot,Talbot,(pre 1995)only had a gvw of 2800kg it was common place to match them to the model that had a gvw of 3100kg. (my own mh been included)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 100 ✭✭clionaricho


    So I had my camper for test on Friday (coincedently the same day that they received instruction from the RSA) regarding the weight. Anyway my plate had been altered as in stamped over. So here are my questions :

    It was obvioulsy changed so that the VRT amount paid was lower??

    So basically in order for me to drive it on a B licence I would prefer if it was under 3500 tonne. But I am wondering about the implications of this, would I now be liable for the additional VRT? If so would it be much ? Am I better emptying the van and so getting it below the 3500 tonne weight ?

    Also I am in the South Dublin area and I really am not clear as to what is expected of me to get this problem rectified. Mine is a Peugeot Hobby, so basically am I expected to find a Peugeot garage and ask them to agree with the weight from a weigh bridge ?

    Thanks for all advice as I need to get this sorted as quick as possible.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement