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.
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
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.
Morgan The Moon wrote: » Hi, Just logged back in hoping a reply was posted, Has anybody else looked into this.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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...........................
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
Aidan_M_M wrote: correct indeed.
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?
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.
