Christmas? Whoa! He waited this long...

Yikes.

you know what they say, horse to water...and all that

^ that post is in reply to an earlier post!

Yes I'm surprised that Lee hasn't replaced the ARB yet and I have said this too him, he has how ever got a set of shortened links ready and it seems he has purchased a used ARB from one of your members on here which is he awaiting delivery of.

I would imagine he will be fully ARB equipped very soon, I suppose its all down to budget at the end of the day.

Well, I'm of the opinion that if you can't afford to keep your car in correct running order, then you can't afford a car.

There's always walking...

My thoughts exactly. It's not just you that you're risking it's the other people who may be involved in a crash you cause too

With great power comes great responsibility.

Okay so I guess 180bhp ain't so "great" as such...

Er, driving a car in a state which would fail the MoT is "driving an unroadworthy vehicle" - End of.

Deminfo said "A number of show cars have them removed due to how low they sit...

So just because they're somebody's show piece means they're legal and safe then, does it?"

Are they actually MoTed, or are they just trailer queens?

ps/

I've been asked to remove this thread by midland-vw, it's under review awaiting feedback.

Er, Midland VW have freely admitted to modifying a car into an unroadworthy condition (relevant link already posted). I don't see that they have a case for having the thread pulled unless a 3rd party has libelled them.

Midland VW have not modified any vehicle into an un road worthy condition please do get your facts right. We have performed a task by request of a customer when given a number of options.

Maybe you could state your position from a legal stand point, are you a certified motor vehicle engineer Ken? Are you an MOT tester? do you hold any relevant qualifications that would enable you to clarify exactly what is road worthy and what is not road worthy? Are you an accident investigator?

This whole topic has gone way off track and blown entirely out of proportion.

more weight on the wheel = more tractive effort..... Less likely to slip..

Up until the point where the body rolls so much that the shock absorber then runs out of travel and starts bouncing on the bump stops. Then the car starts skipping. Not good.

Maybe you could state your position from a legal stand point, are you a certified motor vehicle engineer Ken? Are you an MOT tester? do you hold any relevant qualifications that would enable you to clarify exactly what is road worthy and what is not road worthy? Are you an accident investigator?

Ken's qualifications are irrelevant.

From the MOT testers manual:

Reasons for rejection;

1.

A suspension component or its attachment bracket or linkage:

. missing where one is fitted as standard

Is therefore a failure. And not road worthy.

The discretion lies with the NT (nominated tester) as to what fails and what doesn't. You are looking at the MOT 'guide lines' not the physical policy or exact requirements I'm afraid as this changes dramatically from vehicle to vehicle. I had this exact same conversation a number of years ago with a VOSA representative regarding a MK4 Golf which had the front ARB removed due to the Air Ride kit it had fitted. Their response was if it is a permanent modification which as far as the NT (not an individual on a forum, or even a mechanic, the actual NT carrying out the MOT) is concerned has no adverse effect on the operation of the vehicle then it can pass ok and be advised separately. What would fail that would fall into that category would be for example the physical strut had been removed and replaced with say a solid piece of steel meaning there was no physical suspension movement possible therefore seriously compromising the safety of the vehicle. The lack of a ARB does not serious impact the safety of a vehicle.

I think we need to restate we are in fact an MOT test station, I have 3 testers opinions here.

And I quote...

The Testers manual is used by all Vehicle Testing stations in order that a standard is maintained, it will give you a precise guide to the principles involved in testing each item and all the criteria to enable you to make your own pass or fail decisions.

The only excuse could be where the tester simply isn't familiar enough with the particulars of that car, and can see no evidence of being previously fitted. The guidelines are pretty clear though. Since your testers however DO know the history of this vehicle, you do not have that excuse.

Please tell me you haven't had this car in for an MOT in its current state?

No we have not.

'This section allows you to read the complete Mot Testers Guide. You will notice that the manual is in sections ie Brakes, steering, lighting etc'

'You will find the method of inspection for each particular item and the possible reasons for rejection of that item, there is also information about exhaust emissions and the limits that apply for each age of vehicle'

Take note of the wording the terms 'Possible' and 'Guide', also take note of where you are finding your information from. That isn't a Government or VOSA web site, that is a private web site run by a private company offering guides, advice etc to the public. It does not detail our information, and as previously stated the discretion is with the NT and knowing the history of a vehicle is of no consequence to the tester, what our MOT testers are interested in is does the vehicle comply with the requirements of VOSA to be fit for use on the public roads. Those guide lines detail POSSIBLE reasons for failing an MOT. When the reason is not clear then the tester would advise the fault not fail the vehicle.

If your going to argue that you know better than our Testers and they do not know what is fit for the road and what is not, despite one individual having just completed his Testing exam to the very latest standards then I'm sorry your miles off. We are constantly monitored for consistency, you cannot just willy nilly start MOT'ing cars there are regulations.

The only person who can say what will and wont fail is an individual with a MOT Smart Card and the training to test vehicles or a VOSA representative with the relevant qualifications, other wise its just hear say and theoretical outcomes.

Would we fail it? I cannot personally say as that would fall down to the Tester to make the decision. Yes we could fail it, or we could advise it. Given the circumstances we would probably consult VOSA again for their opinion.

Guide (3) To supervise or instruct (a person) ... (8) a model or criterion, as in moral standards or accuracy ... (10) a book that instructs or explains the fundamentals of an instruction or skill.

Possible (1) Capable of existing, taking place or proving true.

At the end of the day and no matter what you post on here you know well that a car designed to have an arb fitted should not have it removed. Asking the customer does not remove you from the process, you still removed it.

MOT questions aside by removing it the cars handling ability is much reduced and should an emergency situation arise on the road it may well not be capable of avoiding a crash.

You have come on here to offer an explanation and that's commendable but IMO you are trying to defend what is undefendable. It should not have been removed even if the customer begged.

As for the thread being removed the only reason I see for you to ask for that is to try and hide what has been done in order to protect your reputation. You have admitted yourself that you carried out the work so stand by it and all that it means.

Edited 20 February, 201313 yr by Frisco

well i still stick by what i said in the first, i think midland vw have answered the question quite eloquently too, all this armchair gesturing about how dangerous it all is is purely conjecture, in my opinion (engineering background and previously an mot tester) it is not unsafe to drive the vehicle without the anti roll bar fitted nor would it be an MOT failure so long as all the other fixtures are also removed, you guys are just arguing yourselfs silly other a pedantic issue

Midland-vw

I'm sorry but I see no reason to question the terms "possible" or "guide", in the given context. Guide refers to the guidelines as a whole and does not suggest flexibility. Nor does the term possible when referring to a list of "possible reasons". That does not suggest it is up to any individual to choose to ignore them. They are not open to "creative interpretation".

The information may not have come from a government site, but the information IS the same as their guide, as I am sure you are fully aware.

Are your testers prepared to stand up in court and say that the information given is different to what they were given when they took their test?

At the end of the day, it's not much different to the LOLER and PUWER regulations that I used to have to comply with every day. In anybody removed a stability aid from any of the vehicles that I have worked on, I would have to issue it with a fail when it comes to thorough examination (on relevant vehicles). Not quite the same, I'm prepared to admit, but then the guidelines are available for all to see.

The only person who can say what will and wont fail is an individual with a MOT Smart Card and the training to test vehicles

There's a cop out if I ever heard one.

And we're not necessarily claiming that the car is now dangerous, but it has been drastically altered from standard. The point we are making it that it should not pass an MOT, HAS been modified for the worse, and probably would not be insured even if the underwriters were made aware of the issue.

The question on my mind is have the insurers been made aware of this modification? If so, what did they make of it? If not, why not? Not passing the MOT is a minor concern compared to driving uninsured all this time and that decision is purely down to the underwriter, regardless of the standard/reason/type of work done.

Also, kudos to Midland VW to actually come on here to give their side of it.

This happened over here a couple of years ago.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0606/104235-navan/

ABS system was not mandatory in all vehicles so was removed when it went wrong, the bus passed its DOE test because it didn't specify that ABS was needed. Technically the bus had a valid test but the liability was shared around because if what happened.

I could honestly understand all of this nonsense if we had actually advised the customer that this was a 'good' idea and something that we would recommend freely to others. That is not the case, we simply laid out some options for a customer allowing him to make his own decision. I cannot offer any more information other than that, he had already got it in mind that he was going to be replacing the arb at some point so this temporary modification saved him the cost of us refitting his original suspension or fabricating some suitable arb links.

This is a flaming, I'd love to see the situation if this concerned one of you guys its all well and good saying this and that, its just hear say. Honestly I cannot believe Ive been dragged onto here to defend our reputation, I take these things very seriously we take pride in our business and our customer volumes show that.

Your entitled to an opinion its the damaging statements where you are attempting to suggest we have committed some unforgivable sin or even some criminal offence of sorts that I'm not happy with.

Its just not fair guys at all, if Lee had come on here with a negative vibe and said jeez the garage cut the arb off what should I do etc then I can understand the witch hunt you've semi started but that isnt the case at all.

please delete this thread as its going nowhere to clarify i was not aware 100 per cent it was dangerous or not as i was not aware the drop links had been removed aswell as the roll bar untill today i have had the cam belt done today by themselves and they did a great job they are a top garage and reputable company and i feel there is no point to this thread anymore and think it should just be deleted as i have requested to an admin

I myself have removed the drop links on my VRS. But only to go for a very short drive around the block to find out if the knocking noise I was experiencing was down to drop links and/or ARB bushes. The car was then driven back to garage and new drop links fitted. Job done and no noise. I commend Midland VW for explaining the circumstances and the options that were given to the customer and feel that it is down to the owner of said vehicle in making judgement as to continue to drive the vehicle on a public road. I hope that the OP has also had ARB and drop links replaced as well as cam belt today ?

A VRS without a FARB fitted will produce much more front end grip with greater turn in and less rear end grip. If a cam belt snaps you are in for a big repair bill. However if you lift off mid corner and oversteer into a ditch/tree/oncoming vehicle I'm not certain all the kings horses and all the kings men could put humpy back together again.

this shouldn't be deleted, there is a lot of factual info as well as conjecture, however the forum is a forum, for discussion, and opinion, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be removed, locked perhaps, but there is no reason that i can see that it should be deleted, its not a flaming, just a lot of enthusiasts opinions...

.Heres my fave.... if you have a spare in the boot and the tyer is bald you will fail the MOT.... remove the wheel from the boot..... put it back in for MOT and it will pass

I'm afraid that that isn't true, the spare wheel isn't testable, the closest thing that is testable is if the spare wheel mounting is external on the car and it's tested for security.

As for a missing anti roll bar, if it's fitted as standard and it's not there, it's a fail. Testers manual section 2.4G.

I've never seen an Octavia without one, so I wouldn't think twice about failing it.