MOT

[Lucky_Lou]

Next week....... fingers xxxxxxxxx
Lou

[montmil]

Gertie?  She'll be right.

[Tony Smith]

Next week....... fingers xxxxxxxxx
Lou

I have always been somewhat intrigued by the concept of a yearly MOT, your post caused me to finally do some research to find out more about the MOT.

As I suspected it is more a revenue raising operation rather than something that will actually increase overall safety on the road.

All in all it seems pretty basic and obvious stuff. A bike could be a complete dog and fundamentally unsafe, but would, i suspect, pass an MOT.
 
If you want some fun, ask the tester what actually constitutes an oil leak and see if he/she knows.

[Bob_Roller]

Up until June, 2013, motorcycles here in the Phoenix area, had to have an exhaust emissions test as part of the yearly registration process .

The cost of the test, would be more than the registration cost for an older bike .

[Barry]

Mine's also due it's MOT test this month. I know the guy who does it and he knows the bike so I don't expect any problems.  I think they like to test something out of the ordinary run of modern bikes. No emissions test and just the usually check for play in wheel bearings and suspension and a brake efficiency test on a rolling road.

[clonmore1]

All the best for Gertie!

[Lucky_Lou]

All in all it seems pretty basic and obvious stuff. A bike could be a complete dog and fundamentally unsafe, but would, i suspect, pass an MOT.
 
If you want some fun, ask the tester what actually constitutes an oil leak and see if he/she knows.

All good passed no problem... for me the key bit of the MOT is the rolling road brake test, I am not too bothered how fast a bike goes but I do want it to stop when needed......
Lou

[Tony Smith]

Good news Lou.

But seriously..... Would you not know your brakes were defective BEFORE putting the bike on a rolling road machine?

I hope we never introduce such silliness as an annual inspection here, although I am all for random testing to put defective vehicles off the road.

simple reasoning - annual testing I get to pay money to be told my vehicle is fit for the road, whereas with random testing ar$ewipes who deliberately drive defective vehicles are put off the road and stung appropriately in the pocket.

[Barry]

Lou,

You can't rely on passing the rolling road test to indicate you have really good brakes but you could ask the tester what % efficiency they achieved.

Thinking that an  old bike will struggle to meet the standard, I once talked to the tester about the rolling road brake test. He told me it passed easily.

That's not because the brakes are anything special, it's because the pass mark is set so low.  From memory the brakes have to be 30 % efficient which translates to 0.3 g retardation of the vehicle. The rolling road must weigh the bike and tester as part of the test in order to work that figure out from measuring the braking force on the rollers ( here's a tip - if you fail the test ask the tester to lose some weight ! ).

To put that into perspective, on a dry road an experienced rider with good tires and brakes should be able to produce 0.8 g retardation.

So passing the brake efficiency test is no big deal. If you watch the tester though he is also testing for a smooth application of the brakes. Any snatching or judder is a fail and this is a more common cause of failure than not meeting the minimum retardation.

[steve hawkins]

My R100 is in for an MOT today at 11am.  It always shows up as having a slight judder on the PFM Cast Iron discs, but never enough to fail.  

I really should take for a decent ride first, to rid myself of any rust spots that form on the discs.  Especially where wet pads have been touching the discs whilst drying, etc.

But only time will tell.

Rev. Light

[Barry]

Just back from my MOT and it passed OK.

I had a good chat with Malc the tester and what the rolling road does is weigh each wheel while measuring the retardation, then it calculates the % efficiency. Mine did 57% front and 46% rear without really trying after riding on wet roads. The pass figures are one wheel must be at least 35% and the other 25% and it doesn't matter which wheel. It's actually easier to get a good result on the rear as the measured weight with rider was much heavier.

[Barry]

Well I've had a busy and productive day. MOT for the bike this morning and this afternoon I bought a new car. New to me at least and I think I got a good deal. 21 years ago I bought a 5 year old Mercedes 190e for £9000.  21 years and a lot of inflation later I've just bought a mint 5 year old Mercedes C180K for a fair bit less money. It has supercharger and goes like the wind compared to the 190e. Top speed 143 MPH  

[Lucky_Lou]

Just back from my MOT and it passed OK.

I had a good chat with Malc the tester and what the rolling road does is weigh each wheel while measuring the retardation, then it calculates the % efficiency. Mine did 57% front and 46% rear without really trying after riding on wet roads. The pass figures are one wheel must be at least 35% and the other 25% and it doesn't matter which wheel. It's actually easier to get a good result on the rear as the measured weight with rider was much heavier.

Make a note of the brake % so next time you will be able to compare and see if they are dropping off, ask nice and they will give you a print out, that's why I like that bit of the test.
 A couple of years back the front had dropped to 50% and I had not really noticed it riding but as it turned out a piston seal was weeping. I did not mess about stripped all and fitted new seals and pads.
Lou

[steve hawkins]

Mine passed as well, but my front brakes are suffering a bit of 'run-out'.  Looks like its time to rid myself of the PFM's and go for something better.  They wont be standard and they won't be Grimeca's. I have not had good experiences with those.  EBC's are very expensive though - especially as I will need a pair.

Ho hum.

Rev Light

[Tony Smith]

Mine passed as well, but my front brakes are suffering a bit of 'run-out'.  Looks like its time to rid myself of the PFM's and go for something better.  

What you need is a nice little lump of Meehanite cast iron, preferably well stress relieved from which some discs can be cut out and then machines on a lathe and finished on a blanchard grinder.
 
Where do you find Meehanite I hear you ask? Well, let me tell you that your country abounds with it. All you need to do is relieve your local council of one or more of it's sewerage manhole covers. Best, if your country's foundry practice is the same as ours, the year of casting will be on it somewhere - 100 years is a lot of stress relief........
 
Actually there is no need to cause public endangerment or break the law, most council depots inevitably end up with a few broken ones and frequently there is enough "virgin" metal available to make 2 or more discs. They make superb brake discs.
 
The only drawback is that they rust very quickly and if "put away wet" will rust weld to the pads in just a few days. My R100 is still wearing the set I made in 1984 to replace the standard crack-o-matic ones BMW fitted in 1978. Don't sweat the gas holes, any shop with a pedestal drill and a dividing table can  do that for you and you can countersink them yourself (actually a friend I made some "blanks" for made adhesive backed paper drilling templates and drilled his on his Chinese pedestal drill and got perfectly acceptable results.