Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I can see the 'road tester' has a stopwatch or two in his left hand but does anyone know what the other gubbins inside the car is, and it's purpose?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234634696634?

[Nick W]

It's a decelerometer for testing the brakes.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

It's a decelerometer for testing the brakes.

Which one?

[Lizzie Zoom]

It's a decelerometer for testing the brakes.

Yes the MOT tests on my A40 in 1970-72 were carried out using that very basic devise.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I'm still none the wiser as to which one.

[Andy B]

'my' tester still has a decelerometer because his rollers won't take my 4x4 ...... my previous tester had rollers that would turn the wheels on the same axle in opposite directions

[Andy B]

I'm still none the wiser as to which one.

Are they not both the same thing?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I'm still none the wiser as to which one.

Are they not both the same thing?

Both?....there are 4 things. What is the thing on the dash?

[Andy B]

....

Both?....there are 4 things. What is the thing on the dash?

point taken .... I was just looking at the things on the door. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

The one on the left side of the dashboard is the type of brake tester they used to put on the floor were the front passenger sat.  They would do a short drive and come back with their opinion about your brakes.  Mine always passed as I maintained them well.

The other devices in the picture I believe do a similar job, and are just to show what testers used in 1965.  By certainly the late sixties, I saw only the aforementioned brake deceleratometer being used. After all cars were so basic then, so testing as I witnessed was very simple.

My regular tester at a local SE London garage just used a small hammer to tap the chassis / floor pans for rust and passed my A40 every time.  The chassis though was so rotten the body was not attached to it, and the cross member supporting the front passenger was not attached to the chassis or body; floating in the air!!

Yes, MOT tests were simple then and let our old bangers go around long past their use by date!

[ronnyd]

Started off just lights, brakes and steering. God there were some deathtraps on the road in those days, tyres down to the canvas or cords. My old A55 had holes in the floor and we could watch the the road unfold by just looking down. 

[countrywoman]

Yes it was still basic in 76 when I first started doing MOT testing, you had to be over 21 and have X amount of experience before . Not like now, just a basic course with no knowledge about cars ----------
Only equipment we had was a pit, trolley jack , basic beam tester and decelerometer brake tester.   

[LC0112G]

AIUI the MOT tester is still supposed to use a decelerometer (Tapley tester) for cars fitted with limited slip (or locked) differentials.

https://www.bowmonk.com/products/view/tapley-brake-test-meter

[Lizzie Zoom]

Started off just lights, brakes and steering. God there were some deathtraps on the road in those days, tyres down to the canvas or cords. My old A55 had holes in the floor and we could watch the the road unfold by just looking down. 

How familar

My A40 filled up with water on it’s floors whenever I drove through large rain puddles.  My passengers got used to putting their feet up so they didn’t get soaked!

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

No MOT test before 1960. Old people have told me it was common to see tyres as bald as a babies arse with the inner tube showing.

No tubeless tyres back then.

[TheBoy]

see tyres as bald as a babies arse

And that doesn't happen now?


That reminds me, I need some rears very, very soon

[Raeturbo]

AIUI the MOT tester is still supposed to use a decelerometer (Tapley tester) for cars fitted with limited slip (or locked) differentials.

https://www.bowmonk.com/products/view/tapley-brake-test-meter

               Yes you are correct,  my tester uses a calibrated G meter when he mot’s  my Evo  as it has is 4 wheel drive and LSD front and rear,….brakes are metal on it though so he has to make sure he is well strapped in🤣 I won’t Allow  it on the brake  rollers anyway as it will wind the diffs up.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

see tyres as bald as a babies arse

And that doesn't happen now?


That reminds me, I need some rears very, very soon

It does happen now but it is illegal, whereas back in the days when dinosaurs still roamed the earth it was OK.

As for you needing new rear tyres....... what a surprise.

My XFR could be made to rubbish a set of rears in less than 5000 miles. Being 285/30/20 they were not cheap to replace.

[Raeturbo]

Err.. mental I meant🤭

[Andy B]

....
  it on the brake  rollers anyway as it will wind the diffs up.

that's why my previous tester had rollers that would drive in opposite directions ..... he's shut the test station now though 

[Doctor Gollum]

My tester does a road test rather than the rollers. Although the 4 matic equipped cars can be tested in the normal manner provided some very strict criteria are met...

[BazaJT]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

[Doctor Gollum]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

[Nick W]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

That is simply untrue.

[Doctor Gollum]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

That is simply untrue.

It might not have airbags and abs etc,  but mechanically it is no more likely to have worn brakes or suspension components or tyres than anything else on the road.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

I reckon Tiggers' desirable 1.8 Marina coupe would have all the crash protection of a Corflakes box.

We didn't worry about nancy boy things like safety back then.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

I reckon Tiggers' desirable 1.8 Marina coupe would have all the crash protection of a Corflakes box.

We didn't worry about nancy boy things like safety back then.

When it failed it's MOT miserably, I used it as field car until my Dad got pissed off and told me to get rid of it. 

There was nice hump in one field where you could do a nice 'Dukes of Hazzard' all four wheels off the ground style jump! 

How I never rolled it, I'll never know.   

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

I reckon Tiggers' desirable 1.8 Marina coupe would have all the crash protection of a Corflakes box.

We didn't worry about nancy boy things like safety back then.

When it failed it's MOT miserably, I used it as field car until my Dad got pissed off and told me to get rid of it. 

There was nice hump in one field where you could do a nice 'Dukes of Hazzard' all four wheels off the ground style jump! 

How I never rolled it, I'll never know.   

I rolled two plastic pigs in my youth whilst under the influence.

[johnnydog]

Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident

A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.

That is simply untrue.

Why is that then? You havent substantiated this questionable statement.

For once, I'm in agreement with DG

Having owned so called classics for the majority of my driving life, and the ones I currently own are now between 46 and 55 years old, I would argue that they ARE in a better state of mechanical and structural condition than a good number of modern cars on the road. The fact is that with extended service intervals on modern vehicles, owners only tend to attend to maintenance jobs when the car lets them down, or at the alloted service interval (if they adhere to it). Some of the safety issues with steering, suspension and structural components only come to light at MOT or service time, whereas with the majority of classics, the owners take a pride in their vehicle, they are driven accordingly recognising it is a 40 / 50 year vehicle, and they are serviced regularly to maintain optimum running (they have to be), whereas routine maintenance in modern cars is generally overlooked until the car itself tells the driver of an issue.
Owners who buy a classic without realising the implications of looking after it correctly, and with the regular servicing and maintenance required, soon end up selling them on. The dedicated owners certainly do maintain their classics to a high standard, and in my opinion as such they are just as safe on public roads as any modern car.
I'm not saying they don't break down - they do, but it usually is because on a non safety related issue.
If the Government thought that 40+ year old classics on the road DID impose a safety risk, why was the annual MOT exempted and left to the owners discretion for these vehicles? One actual reason for the change in this legislation quoted by the Government was the actual low numbers of MOT failures of vehicles in this catagory.......