RUUUUST

Post by **Defender110** » Thu May 26, 2011 10:38 pm

At the end of the day it needs doing so should be done at the very least for safety if not to prolong the life of the car.

citronut · Post by **citronut** » Fri May 27, 2011 8:01 am

i agree it needs fixing otherwise the tin work will continue on its quest to eat your car

regards malcolm

Gibbo2286 · Post by **Gibbo2286** » Fri May 27, 2011 9:31 am

mat_fenwick wrote:I can't find where this quote has come from:

'withinn 30cm of any structural member'

All I can find is the reference to corrosion in load bearing areas (figures 1-4) which are things like the chassis rails, sills, inner wings etc; and 'prescribed areas' which are defined as
The load bearing parts of the vehicle to which the testable items defined in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Inspection Manual are mounted, and
any load bearing or supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of the mounting location.
That said, I reckon it will have *some* effect on the structural integrity, but not be an MOT failure.

Out of the mouth of the government VOSA inspector as he suspended an employee of my regular MOT station for letting a rusty boot floor Citroen through. Gibbo.

Post by **mat_fenwick** » Fri May 27, 2011 10:01 am

That IS interesting. Difficult to comment without seeing the car, but by the letter of the manual it seems differently worded to the VOSA inspector's interpretation.

Gibbo2286 · Post by **Gibbo2286** » Fri May 27, 2011 11:01 am

Let me explain how this came about.

I have for over thirty years used the same mot garage whilst I was trading, now retired I was there with my last BX waiting for the test when the VOSA man arrived with a client in another BX, the chap had apparently bought the car of a local trader with a full mot but had complained to VOSA that it it was unroadworthy so they'd brought it back to the tester who passed it for an explanation.

The tester argued his case but was overruled by the inspector and as my BX was on the lift he took the tester and the complainant under the car and pointed out areas which he and VOSA considered to be 'structural' which included the length of floor along the back edge of the boot and the area of floor along the left hand edge of the boot which on the compainant's car were holed in a similar way to the ones in the photos above.

The tester wasn't happy and continued to argue but was told he would be suspended from testing until he'd undergone 'further training' Gibbo.

Post by **Defender110** » Fri May 27, 2011 11:23 am

Is that area not classed as part of the rear inner wing, and lets be honest a boot is also surely a 'load bearing area' as its purpose or use is just that to carry a load?

Post by **mat_fenwick** » Fri May 27, 2011 11:45 am

Defender110 wrote:a boot is also surely a 'load bearing area' as its purpose or use is just that to carry a load?

Not according to the MOT manual though - but I agree with your logic and that it *should* be welded in an ideal world, just that I don't see it to be an MOT failure. Sorry if I sound a bit pedantic about this, but part of my job involves reading and interpreting standards (and sometimes having to justify that what we are doing is within what the standard specifies...)

Post by **Defender110** » Fri May 27, 2011 2:35 pm

How about ''Supporting panneling'' within 30cm of a supporting structure, i.e. the rear chassis leg?

I don't think you are being pedantic BTW I too am interested in the correct interpretation and do like thinks to be black and white not grey!

Post by **mat_fenwick** » Fri May 27, 2011 3:20 pm

Defender110 wrote:How about ''Supporting panneling'' within 30cm of a supporting structure, i.e. the rear chassis leg?

That comes under the 'prescribed areas' and are defined as:

The load bearing parts of the vehicle to which the testable items defined in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Inspection Manual are mounted, and
any load bearing or supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of the mounting location.

2 is steering/suspension
3 is brakes
5 is seat belts

So I read that as anywhere to which steering/suspension/brakes/belts are mounted to, and anywhere within 30cm of that mounting point.

(Note that the actual wording states "any load bearing or supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm". In practice, without a knowledge of monocoque design I guess it is difficult to prove whether a particular area is load bearing or not, so in practice it would make sense to err on the side of caution and treat everything within 30 cm of the steering/suspension/brakes/belts mountings as being potentially load bearing/supporting).

Although NOT everything within 30cm of the areas defined in the pictures as load bearing. To me, severe corrosion within 30cm of a chassis leg for example, *must* have a significant effect on the safety in a crash, so perhaps it should be an MOT failure. However I can find nothing in writing (the only thing that would stand up in a legal sense) to suggest that it would be a failure.