Every car failing every other WOF

Forums › Off topic › Every car failing every other WOF

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

597 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592145 8-Mar-2012 09:12
IlDuce: I always thought WOFs were a visual inspection I thought jamming a pinch bar between here and there and giving it a bend would go a bit beyond the visual realm? I was concerned so much pressure was being applied directly to aluminium wheels.... when demonstrated the fail it took 3 attempts to replicate as there was so much pressure being applied the pinch bar would fly off the ball joint. I now have a document here from Honda which says, if I interpret it correctly, that that area is designed to be squashable and using a lever as they have done WILL compress as per normal manufacturer free play. Free play associated with wear or damage cannot be ascertained by the bar method. Only the wobble from the outside with suspension hanging. So I wonder if I go back and wave that in their face and get a pass, or go somewhere else, and say they failed it as they used incorrect method. NO WONDER I've been failing so many warrants on every car I have had! I would confront them with this information. I also had an WOF experence with one of the VTNZ's in Hamilton, in particular their brake testing machine, a previous WOF from them had passed with a result that was worse than the current test, I brought the paperwork from the previous test to their attention and asked why? They never actually gave me an answer, but they then marked it as a pass. So I guess it's not a very good test when it depends on if the person who is doing the test is having a bad hair day or not! So that was the last time I ever visited VTNZ, now I just take it to my local mechanic.

Jaxson

4254 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 592147 8-Mar-2012 09:15
I've had a few Hondas, from the era you're talking about ~ 1990's. I've had to replace a ball joint, rear wheel beerings, fix seriously faded flaking roof paint etc. As much as your garage may be milking it, these cars do have these issues. The WOF process is intended to keep the cars safe and as such they should be pulling you up on this. A different brand of car will have different issues.

SeanF

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 592161 8-Mar-2012 09:34
clevedon: "Most cars" do not have shims in the ball joints, last one I saw was a old Mini. Ah yes my bad, that will have been where I've seen it, I did assume such useful old technology would of still been in use.

IlDuce

769 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592164 8-Mar-2012 09:42
Jaxson: I've had a few Hondas, from the era you're talking about ~ 1990's. I've had to replace a ball joint, rear wheel beerings, fix seriously faded flaking roof paint etc. As much as your garage may be milking it, these cars do have these issues. The WOF process is intended to keep the cars safe and as such they should be pulling you up on this. A different brand of car will have different issues. I hear what your saying... but... as per the document from Honda, using the bar method will 100% of the time result in false positive as they are failing on free play that is in the manufacturer design. They are using an incorrect testing method. Not a safety issue at all. I've been trying to think of an analogy, I suppose it would be like saying Subarus are ALL noisy, so when we test for those cars noise levels we will shut the garage doors, put mike right next to tail pipe, and rev engine to the rev limiter, and wow, just as we said... they fail every time! That would be applying the test in an incorrect manner, generating false results.

Xile

76 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 592212 8-Mar-2012 11:01
The standards for WoF inspections are set by NZTA. If you go here: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/virm-in-service-certification/virm-in-service-certification.html you will find the Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual. This is the standard required for WoFs and spells out on what grounds a vehicle may fail a warrant. You also need to consider that rules and standards are constantly being reviewed and updated so that a vehicle that passed a warrant years ago may not pass now despite being in the same condition.

IlDuce

769 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592242 8-Mar-2012 11:57
Xile: The standards for WoF inspections are set by NZTA. If you go here: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/virm-in-service-certification/virm-in-service-certification.html you will find the Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual. This is the standard required for WoFs and spells out on what grounds a vehicle may fail a warrant. You also need to consider that rules and standards are constantly being reviewed and updated so that a vehicle that passed a warrant years ago may not pass now despite being in the same condition. Yep I know all about VIRMs and have read them. Without verbatim quoting it, it says a reason for failing is being outside of manufacturer specifications. It does not have an exhaustive list on every single car make/model worldwide and the specs and tolerances of every single part from the whole car. It simply says outside the manufacturer supplied tolerances or words to those effects. In this case, firstly the testing method is not as prescribed, secondly the results are within manufacturer specifications.

clevedon

610 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592245 8-Mar-2012 12:00
IlDuce: I always thought WOFs were a visual inspection Wrong, never have and never will be.

IlDuce

769 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592248 8-Mar-2012 12:05
clevedon: IlDuce: I always thought WOFs were a visual inspection Wrong, never have and never will be. Please elaborate on that comment so it is of some value? Perhaps instead of visual I should have said sensory - see smoke coming out the exhaust, feel the pulling to left of the steering wheel, hear the grinding of the wheel bearing, smell the exhaust leaking, etc etc... as opposed to (as I have heard of happening) taking an angle grinder to the car to see if paint is concealing a rust repair, or in this case using a tool to measure something in a manner which is not prescribed in the testing procedure.

clevedon

610 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592251 8-Mar-2012 12:14
IlDuce: clevedon: IlDuce: I always thought WOFs were a visual inspection Wrong, never have and never will be. Please elaborate on that comment so it is of some value? How can you check a wheel bearing visually? It has to be physically checked with your hands for play and also your ears for roughness - for one example. One part of the brake check is with either a Tapley type in car decelerometer or rolling road machine - neither can be checked just visually. Steering and suspension systems are checked also by hand for play and wear as well as looking visually. Is any of that of value to you?

IlDuce

769 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592267 8-Mar-2012 12:33
clevedon: Is any of that of value to you? Not really because I said that before you posted anyway. I made a typo as I've heard it referred to as "visual" so many times its become engrained much like how so many people incorrectly call vehicle licencing "registration"; If one says vehicle licencing not everyone knows what you mean, whereas if one says registration - even though its wrong in the context its being used, everyone understands what is meant, and one would probably only point out to them they are incorrect if one likes to be pedantic about things.

Xile

76 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 592373 8-Mar-2012 15:06
If you think that the garage has not complied with VIRM then you should raise the issue wit them. If having done that you are not satisfied with their response then make a complaint to the Transport Agency. They are the ones who authorise and audit garages and testing station.

Jaxson

4254 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 592385 8-Mar-2012 15:17
It's a good point about the test not being accurate. Take that up with Honda too..... It's certainly not visual only. Brake tests would be the obvious one, they are testing performance/balance with that, not just observing and saying yes it appears to have brakes fitted. If the amount of allowable play is fixed and a certain manufacturer designs it to be normalyl outside of those specifications, then wouldn't that be too bad on the owner, given the manufacturer has created something that will regularly fall out of legal spec? That said, how specific are the tests, and how much is allowable by a grumpy testing dude on the day?

tchart

431 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592525 8-Mar-2012 20:43
Jaxson: The WOF process is intended to keep the cars safe Right... In theory that would be great however, just like with speeding tickets, generally the people who pay/comply are the ones who can A) afford a $50+ WOF test and B) afford to fix your car if it fails. While compared other countries Ive lived in there are far less unroad worthy cars in NZ I still think its a rort. Now if they added $50 to my car license and this included an annual WOF test at vendor A, B or C then I would feel a lot more comfortable about the whole experience.

rphenix

554 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592594 9-Mar-2012 00:12
Recently I was arguing with the local garage over a very small chip in the windscreen, they tried to fail it for it. I don't have a problem with getting it fixed, except....they had passed it with that for what 8 years now so my question was why now. The chip hasn't grown in size. Think I'll take it to the AA testing center from now on. I take my motorbike there and its pretty good prefer not having to wait in line like you do at VTNZ but sit down have a coffee etc..

riahon

770 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 592607 9-Mar-2012 05:10
gregmcc: IlDuce: I always thought WOFs were a visual inspection I thought jamming a pinch bar between here and there and giving it a bend would go a bit beyond the visual realm? I was concerned so much pressure was being applied directly to aluminium wheels.... when demonstrated the fail it took 3 attempts to replicate as there was so much pressure being applied the pinch bar would fly off the ball joint. I now have a document here from Honda which says, if I interpret it correctly, that that area is designed to be squashable and using a lever as they have done WILL compress as per normal manufacturer free play. Free play associated with wear or damage cannot be ascertained by the bar method. Only the wobble from the outside with suspension hanging. So I wonder if I go back and wave that in their face and get a pass, or go somewhere else, and say they failed it as they used incorrect method. NO WONDER I've been failing so many warrants on every car I have had! I would confront them with this information. I also had an WOF experence with one of the VTNZ's in Hamilton, in particular their brake testing machine, a previous WOF from them had passed with a result that was worse than the current test, I brought the paperwork from the previous test to their attention and asked why? They never actually gave me an answer, but they then marked it as a pass. So I guess it's not a very good test when it depends on if the person who is doing the test is having a bad hair day or not! So that was the last time I ever visited VTNZ, now I just take it to my local mechanic. Shouldn't your question be, why was I allowed a WOF last time with poor brakes? No doubt they are on the cusp of a pass/fail. If it was me I would not want my brakes to be on the fringe of a pass/fail. I would want them to perform as close to optimum as possible. It could be me that you narrowly miss but for the grace of top performing brakes. I live in Hamilton.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5