So what next? - Page 4

marinabrian · 9th September 2018, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb

Does the back end not need an alignment check after changing the arms, Brian?

I wouldn't have thought so, the arms are identical dimensions old and new, and any change if indeed there is any will be minuscule.

It drives exactly the same as it did yesterday morning on a trip to the beach today

Brian

Comfortably Numb · 9th September 2018, 20:47

As related elsewhere, my car drove beautifully, and dead straight with hands off, on the motorway at 70+. after a few months it developed a vibration at speeds of 50mph. On investigation, the 2 front tyres were almost equally worn, down to the wire on the inner edges, with 4mm of tread on the outers. 2 new front tyres and tracking, and drives as smoothly as ever. In April, aware that the rears were down to 2mm on the outside groove, but with 4.5mm on the inners, I adjusted the toe adjustment brackets on the forward arms outwards. When I recently changed these tyres, they were down to 1.5mm on the outer ring, and 3mm on the inner, showing that my adjustment had somewhat balanced the wear out. The car had done 117,500miles total. I am going to regularly check tyre wear to ensure I have got it right. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that as the upper arm bushes wear, the wheels will start to lean inwards at the top, so causing greater wear on the inner edges of the tyres, - the opposite of mine. Judging by appearances, I think most of my rear suspension is quite old, and the only cause for excess wear on the outer tyre edges I can think of, is that someone has previously over compensated for wear in the upper arm bushes. If I am right, I would expect your rear tyres to be worn more on the inner edges, if your bushes were worn;- this camber would be rectified by replacing the arms, so as you say, no further adjustment necessary. Also, if wear in the upper arm bushes was minimal, and so was the difference in wear on the tyres, then replacement without adjustment should rectify the difference.

RogerHeinz57 · 9th September 2018, 22:24

Testing cars can be an absolute pain, from experience I can confirm that many testers are put under much duress to achieve a number of tests in a day which I dont agree with in principle. However, one needs to be careful with both advisories and failures. This in the main is due to the fact that anybody can appeal your judgement by making a phone call to DVSA, and dispute your decision in either case of unfair, or that you missed something.
An advisory stating "Rigid brake pipes corroded/coated in grease" is a valid one as your not supposed to remove coatings. A corroded pipe - is corroded, a greased pipe is greased, and you can add into the text box your reasons for the judgement.
Surface corrosion is also another valid advisory frequently used as many components are not so easily fully inspected, and as such it may be rotten as a pear in a zone not visible.
So in both cases, the advisory rule is valid in my opinion, and discretion should be used in all areas of testing,
A couple of advisories in not the end of the world based on the age of our cars when you consider much younger cars we are testing now have structural issues, and vehicles like 6 year old Corsas with front subframes rotting like hell.
These are my interpretations, and I don't expect all to agree with me, but I practice the rule book, and hope to continue testing for some time.
BTW, Phil T-4 is now testing as well, & happy to say that I was able to help him with routines and some of the practices with some of the equipment that he'd never used before.

Gate Keeper · 11th September 2018, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerHeinz57

Testing cars can be an absolute pain, from experience I can confirm that many testers are put under much duress to achieve a number of tests in a day which I dont agree with in principle. However, one needs to be careful with both advisories and failures. This in the main is due to the fact that anybody can appeal your judgement by making a phone call to DVSA, and dispute your decision in either case of unfair, or that you missed something.
An advisory stating "Rigid brake pipes corroded/coated in grease" is a valid one as your not supposed to remove coatings. A corroded pipe - is corroded, a greased pipe is greased, and you can add into the text box your reasons for the judgement.
Surface corrosion is also another valid advisory frequently used as many components are not so easily fully inspected, and as such it may be rotten as a pear in a zone not visible.
So in both cases, the advisory rule is valid in my opinion, and discretion should be used in all areas of testing,
A couple of advisories in not the end of the world based on the age of our cars when you consider much younger cars we are testing now have structural issues, and vehicles like 6 year old Corsas with front subframes rotting like hell.
These are my interpretations, and I don't expect all to agree with me, but I practice the rule book, and hope to continue testing for some time.
BTW, Phil T-4 is now testing as well, & happy to say that I was able to help him with routines and some of the practices with some of the equipment that he'd never used before.

Hi John, by coincidence, today I attended Phil’s garage and he passed the MOT with an advisory about the brake pipe. I thanked Phil for the advisory and for pointing out some other things pertaining to the early pre-launch 75’s. With the brake pipe, when the 75 goes into storage, I will have the work done to replace it. Next month the car will be 20 years and so will OVP.

Great work, keeping us safe, thank you very much.

9th September 2018, 20:47	#32
Comfortably Numb Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Saloon Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: Penrith Posts: 1,336 Thanks: 165 Thanked 303 Times in 241 Posts	As related elsewhere, my car drove beautifully, and dead straight with hands off, on the motorway at 70+. after a few months it developed a vibration at speeds of 50mph. On investigation, the 2 front tyres were almost equally worn, down to the wire on the inner edges, with 4mm of tread on the outers. 2 new front tyres and tracking, and drives as smoothly as ever. In April, aware that the rears were down to 2mm on the outside groove, but with 4.5mm on the inners, I adjusted the toe adjustment brackets on the forward arms outwards. When I recently changed these tyres, they were down to 1.5mm on the outer ring, and 3mm on the inner, showing that my adjustment had somewhat balanced the wear out. The car had done 117,500miles total. I am going to regularly check tyre wear to ensure I have got it right. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that as the upper arm bushes wear, the wheels will start to lean inwards at the top, so causing greater wear on the inner edges of the tyres, - the opposite of mine. Judging by appearances, I think most of my rear suspension is quite old, and the only cause for excess wear on the outer tyre edges I can think of, is that someone has previously over compensated for wear in the upper arm bushes. If I am right, I would expect your rear tyres to be worn more on the inner edges, if your bushes were worn;- this camber would be rectified by replacing the arms, so as you say, no further adjustment necessary. Also, if wear in the upper arm bushes was minimal, and so was the difference in wear on the tyres, then replacement without adjustment should rectify the difference.

9th September 2018, 22:24	#33
RogerHeinz57 I really should get out more....... A Reasonably Priced Car Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Burton Latimer Posts: 2,530 Thanks: 408 Thanked 1,064 Times in 712 Posts	Testing cars can be an absolute pain, from experience I can confirm that many testers are put under much duress to achieve a number of tests in a day which I dont agree with in principle. However, one needs to be careful with both advisories and failures. This in the main is due to the fact that anybody can appeal your judgement by making a phone call to DVSA, and dispute your decision in either case of unfair, or that you missed something. An advisory stating "Rigid brake pipes corroded/coated in grease" is a valid one as your not supposed to remove coatings. A corroded pipe - is corroded, a greased pipe is greased, and you can add into the text box your reasons for the judgement. Surface corrosion is also another valid advisory frequently used as many components are not so easily fully inspected, and as such it may be rotten as a pear in a zone not visible. So in both cases, the advisory rule is valid in my opinion, and discretion should be used in all areas of testing, A couple of advisories in not the end of the world based on the age of our cars when you consider much younger cars we are testing now have structural issues, and vehicles like 6 year old Corsas with front subframes rotting like hell. These are my interpretations, and I don't expect all to agree with me, but I practice the rule book, and hope to continue testing for some time. BTW, Phil T-4 is now testing as well, & happy to say that I was able to help him with routines and some of the practices with some of the equipment that he'd never used before.