DoE testing - The Last Word

Pjwal

Irishgoatman wrote: »

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,

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.

Morgan The Moon

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

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.

Morgan The Moon

Irishgoatman wrote: »

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.

kelbal

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

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

niloc1951

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

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

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

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

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.

Irishgoatman

Morgan The Moon wrote: »

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.

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

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.

Pjwal

Morgan The Moon wrote:

Morgan The Moon wrote:

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.

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?

Pjwal

Buddha Breath wrote:

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.

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.

niloc1951

Buddha Breath wrote: »

...........................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.

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.

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.

Pjwal

Buddha Breath wrote: »

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.

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.

Pjwal

Buddha Breath wrote: »

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,

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 .

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.

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.

Aidan_M_M

correct indeed.

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.

Aidan_M_M

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

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.

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.

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.

WildWater

Okeydokey, thanks guys.