NCT investigation - Prime Time Thursday RTÉ1 9.35pm

Atlantic Dawn

Just a heads up... I see there's another Prime Time investigates programme on the NCT tomorrow night on RTÉ1, from the promo it looks like they are investigating cars that were improperly tested. Not sure if the blame will be on the test itself or the testers.

shietpilot

Nice one, it'll be interesting to see it. I remember 5 or so years ago they did something similar with an old Carina E at the NCT. They paid off the tester and it got through the test even though the throttle body got stuck open during the test and the car was revving its t*ts off

carzony

Just means the nct will get tougher if faults are exposed:(:(:( I can also see a price rise too.

Atlantic Dawn

Bump, starting in half an hour.

visual

Be interesting to see their findings.

Dord

Should be interesting, it's on next.

ednwireland

nct doesnt test the shocks it tests the imbalance - my car passed last time with two shocks gone i replaced them a few weeks later

Autosport

Who's watching?

NickDunne

*Runs out to buy shares in bilstein*

Easy money.

_Kaiser_

OK so shock absorbers are important.. but as stated the NCT is a snapshot in time. Regular servicing and maintenance checks are the only way - not just when something breaks or the NCT fails.

Autosport

Jeez that car floor :eek:

_Kaiser_

This RSA woman's main concern seems to be shifting blame/responsibility

Charles Babbage

Go to Kerry, avoid Clifden, for the test.

Atlantic Dawn

For that BMW was it not a case of a bung rather than the tester missing all that?

Autosport

So basically saying the nct is a money racket

Atlantic Dawn

"Safer, Cleaner Motoring" is their slogan, surely ASAI should be on to them seeing as there's not actual test to measure what's being pumped out of diesel cars?

Dord

Seems like a lot of "computer says no/yes" rather than common sense.

Charles Babbage

Dord wrote: »

Seems like a lot of "computer says no/yes" rather than common sense.

You can be sure that if they deviated from what the computer says and applied some individual interpretation that there would be uproar on here and the usual immature comments about it being a money making racket.

alta stare

I dont get the fascination people have with a car having an NCT. Its like the sight of a fresh green disc in the windscreen is the holy grail. They dont give a toss then about actually checking the car out. If alot more people gave cars more of a test other than a quick drive down the road then sh!t box cars wouldnt be on our roads.

colm_mcm

Lazy journalism from RTE.

shietpilot

Nothing special from this investigation. Car suspension bouncing like jelly should be a straight fail though!

Fiskar

Now what is the definition of rust, how big can a rust hole be. NCT is not fit for purpose, still see cars with broken indicators and defective lights.

ba_barabus

Can someone summaries the investigation in a picture so I can be prepared for my outraged colleagues who like to be angry and upset about everything?

visual

I know some who never look after their car come NCT it's washed hovered and fingers crossed it passes NCT, if it fails then NCT are too fussy and have to fail a percentage so they where unlucky

If they do spend money it's just oil change and tyres that's it.

General public expectations of NCT'ed car is its perfect

Oil and oil filter change is full service and car should be good for another year

There just isn't a service and preventive maintenance culture here.

jimgoose

ednwireland wrote: »

nct doesnt test the shocks it tests the imbalance - my car passed last time with two shocks gone i replaced them a few weeks later

It tests them just fine, with shock-dynos and the whole lot. The pass/fail criteria is just imbalance, for some reason. So if your two back shocks are equally shagged, or near it, they pass. The likes of Maha and car manufacturers need to get together with the various testing authorities and thrash out some sensible minimum performance indicators.

ba_barabus

Thing is most people are penny smart and pound foolish in ireland.

CJhaughey

Basically the NCT test imbalance on the same axle, not the overall performance.
if the test says that both dampers read 99Mm which is more or less 99mm then they pass regardless of the fact that 99mm is a lot of shock travel and would suggest that the dampers are at the end of their working life.
Its the way the test is designed that is the big issue not the fact that NCT test procedures are faulty.
The problem I guess is that what constitutes a good performance 25Mm 35Mm or 55Mm?
I would hazard a guess that some replacement dampers could give readings in the 50Mm range from new depending on the design and quality, also in cooler conditions they are likely to test harder than in warm conditions.
Basically people are complaining that the test doesn't come down hard enough on shock performance.

colm_mcm

ba_barabus wrote: »

Can someone summaries the investigation in a picture so I can be prepared for my outraged colleagues who like to be angry and upset about everything?

RTE: Would you drive a car with XYZ wrong with it?

EXPERT: No

RTE: Why?

EXPERT: Because it's unsafe

NCT: people think an NCT is a guarantee that a car is perfect

JOE PUNTER: we thought because it had an NCT it would be perfect


Throw up some graphics with pass/fail rates in different parts of the country, get perfectly reasonable explanations from NCT ref age profile of cars etc, Don't actually do any research ref average age of cars tested in these centres or the reason for failure or how many passed second time.

Etc etc.


I was nearly shouting at the tv a few times. All this does is plays down the importance of testing.

ba_barabus

colm_mcm wrote: »

RTE: Would you drive a car with XYZ wrong with it?

EXPERT: No

RTE: Why?

EXPERT: Because it's unsafe

NCT: people think an NCT is a guarantee that a car is perfect

JOE PUNTER: we thought because it had an NCT it would be perfect


Etc etc.

Basically every conversation I hear around motoring. Reminds me I must do my car park sweep of tyre condition at work. Apparently my colleagues now rely on me to tell them when their tyres are shagged.

visual

colm_mcm wrote: »

Lazy journalism from RTE.

It was very poor journalism
Imbalance is a word that they didn't seem to grasp.

RTE could have pointed out the NCT is a basic minium safety test nothing more and car should be inspected serviced and have preventive maintenance done at regular intervals

Mervyn Skidmore

ba_barabus wrote: »

Basically every conversation I hear around motoring. Reminds me I must do my car park sweep of tyre condition at work. Apparently my colleagues now rely on me to tell them when their tyres are shagged.

Please tell me you don't go round inspecting other peoples cars at work.

Noccy_Mondy

Very weak "investigation". At one point they were comparing the DOE and NCT, used the focus as an example, used a mk2 van, and a mk3 car, yet say that they were the "same". Few other bits that showed the sloppiness.

visual

CJhaughey wrote: »

Basically the NCT test imbalance on the same axle, not the overall performance.
if the test says that both dampers read 99Mm which is more or less 99mm then they pass regardless of the fact that 99mm is a lot of shock travel and would suggest that the dampers are at the end of their working life.
Its the way the test is designed that is the big issue not the fact that NCT test procedures are faulty.
The problem I guess is that what constitutes a good performance 25Mm 35Mm or 55Mm?
I would hazard a guess that some replacement dampers could give readings in the 50Mm range from new depending on the design and quality, also in cooler conditions they are likely to test harder than in warm conditions.
Basically people are complaining that the test doesn't come down hard enough on shock performance.

I've sold my jeep and don't have the results of NCT but it had large suspension travel as it was designed to go off road. I'm guessing it would test a lot different to a 2 seater coupe with stiff suspension test has to be broad enough to test all makes and models without false positives so it will never be perfect for all cars

ba_barabus

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Please tell me you don't go round inspecting other peoples cars at work.

I don't want to give much away about my workplace but a family like atmosphere means people are very appreciative of the help. I've helped a few who haven't noticed obvious things like wires sticking out of their tyres.

ongarite

visual wrote: »

I've sold my jeep and don't have the results of NCT but it had large suspension travel as it was designed to go off road. I'm guessing it would test a lot different to a 2 seater coupe with stiff suspension test has to be broad enough to test all makes and models without false positives so it will never be perfect for all cars

It would be an impossible test to come up with. You would need massive database of every car ever on the market along with its suspension travel data from new, never mind how to give an acceptable result based on age , wear and tear.
Not even getting into vehicles with modified suspensions, which would be impossible to quantify what is good and bad.

Mervyn Skidmore

ba_barabus wrote: »

I don't want to give much away about my workplace but a family like atmosphere means people are very appreciative of the help. I've helped a few who haven't noticed obvious things like wires sticking out of their tyres.

I can imagine telling a colleague that their tyre was almost flat or something but going around telling them that they needed to change their tyres? Sorry, it just sounds weird to me, even though I'm sure you have good intentions.

ba_barabus

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

I can imagine telling a colleague that their tyre was almost flat or something but going around telling them that they needed to change their tyres? Sorry, it just sounds weird to me, even though I'm sure you have good intentions.

Each tother their own

Del2005

Fiskar wrote: »

Now what is the definition of rust, how big can a rust hole be. NCT is not fit for purpose, still see cars with broken indicators and defective lights.

If someone wants to hide rust it's not that hard a job, the problem is people put more effort into scamming than fixing problems.

The lights or indicators could break the day after the test, then you've a year or two to get them fixed.

Wanderer78

was told mine shouldnt have passed last time, it certainly will not pass next time

ianobrien

The problem is people expect the NCT to be a full inspection of a car and a pass means nothing has to be done to the vehicle for another year. The NCT is only a snapshot in time and they can't go disassembling the car to check for issues (hidden rust, etc). Also, given our cute hoor culture, a standardised test is needed, with well designed parameters for a pass/fail.

Also, for the geographical spread of failures, there was no trending of results. There was no reason explored for the higher fail rates in Cliften. Could it be the ****e roads out west, coupled to an aging car profile?

jimgoose

ongarite wrote: »

It would be an impossible test to come up. You would need massive database of every car ever on the market along with its suspension travel data from new, never mind how to give an acceptable result based on age , wear and tear.
Not even getting vehicles with modified suspensions, which would be impossible to quantify that is good and bad.

It's bloody tricky, that's for sure. It might be doable with manufacturers of vehicles, shocks and shock dynos fully on-board, providing Mm ratings per-shock and per-application.

barneygumble99

I noticed no registration number on the NCT disc for the bmw, I reckon it was fake to be honest. Also why show a car that was tested over 5 years ago?? Was the car stored away in a warehouse since? I smell bull****.

Markcheese

So are you suggesting a guard follow every motorist around..the nct is a snapshot... the motorist is still responsible for their own car...

Noccy_Mondy

ianobrien wrote:

Also, for the geographical spread of failures, there was no trending of results. There was no reason explored for the higher fail rates in Cliften. Could it be the ****e roads out west, coupled to an aging car profile?

Precisely that. A combination of poor roads with poor cars. There is an awful lot of badly maintained older cars out there.

carzony

My car passed last week and I was delighted. After watching the programme it's a very basic test that really doesn't mean much. The test for me now really just means less hassle getting it put through.

barneygumble99

Noccy_Mondy wrote: »

Precisely that. A combination of poor roads with poor cars. There is an awful lot of badly maintained older cars out there.

Plus coastal area cars suffer worse with corrosion.

CJhaughey

The problem is that people have unrealistic expectations from the NCT, this country had no test for years and now that there is a test car owners are under the impression that once the NCT is passed the car needs nothing done until the next NCT.
Routine maintenance is alien to many drivers and you can see that by the way that people say my car needs €x00 worth of work to pass it so I am going to sell it and buy another car.
Instead of replacing parts as they wear or become unserviceable they wait until they are forced to do so to pass a Test. Resulting in one large bill which rattles them.

Charles Babbage

ianobrien wrote: »

Also, for the geographical spread of failures, there was no trending of results. There was no reason explored for the higher fail rates in Cliften. Could it be the ****e roads out west, coupled to an aging car profile?

They were comparing Clifden with Cahersiveen, which was fair enough I thought, both areas on western seaboard with rural roads.

Lux23

CJhaughey wrote: »

The problem is that people have unrealistic expectations from the NCT, this country had no test for years and now that there is a test car owners are under the impression that once the NCT is passed the car needs nothing done until the next NCT.
Routine maintenance is alien to many drivers and you can see that by the way that people say my car needs €x00 worth of work to pass it so I am going to sell it and buy another car.
Instead of replacing parts as they wear or become unserviceable they wait until they are forced to do so to pass a Test. Resulting in one large bill which rattles them.

However, the NCT was advertised as a test of roadworthiness up to a few months ago. So you can't blame people for thinking that is what it is.

jimgoose

Lux23 wrote: »

However, the NCT was advertised as a test of roadworthiness up to a few months ago. So you can't blame people for thinking that is what it is.

No, you really can't. It's all very well for an engineer or dyed-in-the-wool car fan to know a basic point-in-time inspection when he/she sees it, but Joe and Josephine soap are of course going to take all the bull and hyperbole about the fantastic new roadworthiness test largely at face-value.

JohnBoy26

barneygumble99 wrote: »

Noccy_Mondy wrote: »

Precisely that. A combination of poor roads with poor cars. There is an awful lot of badly maintained older cars out there.

Plus coastal area cars suffer worse with corrosion.

You'd have to be living right on the edge of the coast and an Atlantic gale blowing quiet often for that to be an issue.

I think road salt is a far more corrosive. I've seen UK cars that were never near a coast with extensive corrosion due to road salt yet I seen examples of the same car here that were by the coast with no major corrosion. Road salt effects wheel arches, chassis legs, sills, axles, wishbone arms etc far more than on a car living on the coast imo.