New MOT Regs from December 2011

[h4rdy]

The only one that sounds halfway reasonable is the airbag warning light one, but even then, some road-legal machines which have an aftermarket steering wheel or a seat removed can have the airbag warning on and still be road-worthy.

....And I am living proof that an airbag light displaying on initial systems check only, because of Recaro airbag-less front seats, will pass MOT.

And if you had s child seat in the front and had turned it off?

[QD MBE]

There was some fuss last year IIRC about "OMGWTFBBQ THEY WON'T ALLOW ENGINE SWAPS NO MORE".

Let's look at the source people. "wrecks2riches.co.uk".

The only one that sounds halfway reasonable is the airbag warning light one, but even then, some road-legal machines which have an aftermarket steering wheel or a seat removed can have the airbag warning on and still be road-worthy.

Reckon it's all a load of nonsense tbh.

(Note: just read the article that the site links to on motester.co.uk - it mentions NONE of the things that the wrecks2riches site mentions.)


/cue much arm-waving, wailing, flailing, and gnashing of teeth...

Really?  October VOSA Newsletter

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2048%20-%20Oct%202010.pdf

Quote

As far as changes to the test content are concerned, VOSA has already been analysing the requirements of the new Directive and working out how to implement them. We started this earlier in the year by talking with representatives of the MOT trade at our regular Trade User Group and VTS Council meetings. Both VOSA and the Department for Transport (DfT) are keen to ensure that any changes to the test are introduced in as practical a way as possible, keeping the burden on the trade to a minimum and ideally keeping the changes cost neutral.
In many cases, the changes shouldn’t necessarily lead to an increase in average test times. A good example is the malfunction indicator lamps on the dashboard that indicate defective electronic power steering, electronic stability control and secondary restraint systems. Testers already check the dashboard for other lamps, so no extra time would be required for this addition to the test.
Electrical wiring and batteries are now included in the test’s scope, but testers already check the vehicle structure where wiring is secured – often along the same routes as other testable items, such as brake pipes in the engine compartment. So again, this doesn’t look like an additional burden on the tester. In the pre-computerisation days, testers often (wrongly) failed vehicles for insecure batteries, so they must have been looking at them then! Now, it means that when we implement the new Directive, vehicles can legitimately fail for battery insecurity, for no extra tester effort.

Other items – such as headlamp bulb and unit incompatibility, headlamp levelling devices and illegal engine ‘chipping’ – will need further thought before we can get a workable solution for MOT stations.Some of the new items may require extra effort on the part of the tester – when we know for sure what that is we’ll be talking again with our trade and DfT colleagues to work out what the impact will be.
The common EU test certificate should be relatively easy to achieve – the only data that the Directive expects and that we don’t currently provide is the symbol for the vehicle’s country of origin. Probably 99% of vehicles tested will have
‘UK’ entered here, but if you do test vehicles with a foreign plate, you will need to enter the correct country symbol. We may even be able to make this change earlier if there is a convenient opportunity.

[stealthwolf]

(Note: just read the article that the site links to on motester.co.uk - it mentions NONE of the things that the wrecks2riches site

Pretty much my findings when I read it last night. Couldn't see anything related.

[Richn83]

The common EU test certificate should be relatively easy to achieve – the only data that the Directive expects and that we don’t currently provide is the symbol for the vehicle’s country of origin. Probably 99% of vehicles tested will have
‘UK’ entered here, but if you do test vehicles with a foreign plate, you will need to enter the correct country symbol. We may even be able to make this change earlier if there is a convenient opportunity.[/i]

I like this last bit, sounds to me like foreign cars will be required to pass an MOT equivalent test (apologies if they do already and im missing this) but the state that some of the cars of some foreign cars that are permanently in the country is terrible.  Let hope we get Europe back a bit as well by forcing them to attach headlamp beam deflectors when they enter the country!!! 

[vRS Carl]

I seriously doubt that they could ever enforce failure of an MOT with modification of a car's power.

Think about it. BMW, Mercedes & Audi all offer a de-restriction of the engine from 155mph to at least 174mph. This "could" be classed as chipping. Some of them (i know Merc does for definate) have a manufacturer power upgrade (Performance Plus Driver's pack in the case of AMG Merc's) Also look at the amount of cars on the road that have had modifications done. Most of us on this website would now fail an MOT if this was introduced. Let alone all the Subaru,EVO, Focus ST, Astra VXR etc etc on the UK roads that are mapped.

As long as the vehicle is insured for the mods then i think the worst they could do would be to increase your road tax. They would severely pi55 off a lot of multimillion £ companies if it were the case the car failed an MOT for a Remap. Effectively putting the likes of REVO, APR, GIAC and specialist insurance companies, to name a few, out of business.

In fact this would effectively end BTCC & WRC in the UK as don't they have to be Road Legal cars?

All that info says is that the "Engine Chipping will need further thought before a workable solution is found" so i think the original website is doing a bit of scare mongering.

[Richn83]

the crucial part of stokeballons quote is illegal engine chipping all that needs clarifying is what is meant by this statement.  This could clearly mean only certain types of chipping would be illegal, and if registered UK companies are supplying software for Road use then I doubt that the chipping that Revo etc undertake can be accredited as illegal.  Also for something to be illegal would require a UK law to be passed which im sure we would have heard about.

As stated in comments above in some EU countries it is illegal to tune cars, the statement copied by Stokeballon also mentions the common EU test certificate could the illegal chipping comment be related to this?  The question would then be is this EU test to replace the MOT, or is this only going to be necessary on foreign cars?

And how in these countries where it is illegal to chip your car do they determine the change from OEM?  Something I have read recently about APR mapping suggests they are able to determine the integrity of a cars map before they tune by comparing the <2Mb file with a server copy, if this is what I think and determines if another tuners map is loaded then it would sound to me like this would be a fairly simple process to enact????  Happy to be corrected on any points in this post as it is all made on details ive read.   

[cmdrfire]

Really?  October VOSA Newsletter

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2048%20-%20Oct%202010.pdf

Quote

As far as changes to the test content are concerned, VOSA has already been analysing the requirements of the new Directive and working out how to implement them. We started this earlier in the year by talking with representatives of the MOT trade at our regular Trade User Group and VTS Council meetings. Both VOSA and the Department for Transport (DfT) are keen to ensure that any changes to the test are introduced in as practical a way as possible, keeping the burden on the trade to a minimum and ideally keeping the changes cost neutral.
In many cases, the changes shouldn’t necessarily lead to an increase in average test times. A good example is the malfunction indicator lamps on the dashboard that indicate defective electronic power steering, electronic stability control and secondary restraint systems. Testers already check the dashboard for other lamps, so no extra time would be required for this addition to the test.
Electrical wiring and batteries are now included in the test’s scope, but testers already check the vehicle structure where wiring is secured – often along the same routes as other testable items, such as brake pipes in the engine compartment. So again, this doesn’t look like an additional burden on the tester. In the pre-computerisation days, testers often (wrongly) failed vehicles for insecure batteries, so they must have been looking at them then! Now, it means that when we implement the new Directive, vehicles can legitimately fail for battery insecurity, for no extra tester effort.

Other items – such as headlamp bulb and unit incompatibility, headlamp levelling devices and illegal engine ‘chipping’ – will need further thought before we can get a workable solution for MOT stations.

Interesting, but if the only changes are going to be searching for "illegal" chipping what does that even entail? REVO/APR/et al are not doing anything illegal and manufacturers themselves offer the same engine unit with different software et cetera. So it broadly hinges on what the definition of illegal is really.
As for headlamp leveling devices, it is already illegal IIRC to fit HID type lights without including a ballast unit, and will cause an MOT fail already (IIRC), so it's just a further clarification of that.

I still maintain that everything said on the wrecks2riches site is a load of arm-waving nonsense, but the VOSA link you've provided clarifies things somewhat and is a better source.


(also, that MOT tester's thing is the sort of mag that would turn up on Have I got News for You I think...)

[h4rdy]

I don't think it would end the mapping industry as everybody before MOT would just get a flash back to stock factory Map and then after MOT back again for the Remap back on.

That will be £100 sir, thankyou!!!

The work involved to make this work is immense.

Just about every car with an ECU can be remapped all with different port pin outs and software!

I can't see it working or maybe I am naive?

Or a new Revo box with a 'factory' switch? £250 thankyou sir!!!

Surely the potential VAT on all the performance mods is worth not killing the industry?

Or will we have VOSA approved parts like TUV approved in Germany.

[KRL]

The term "illegal engine chipping" suggest to me that they would be targeting the tunners themselves.

Perhaps they are looking to clamp down on the amount large number of dodgey tuning boxes and remaps etc available at the moment. 

[Cooper]

My car has a custom map on it and the tuning company that did it maintain that there is no way the manufacturers can know the car has been remapped unless they actually open the file and look at the coding as they make a copy of the standard map and edit that file and load the edited map onto the ecu.

[ub7rm]

My interpretation of illegal engine chipping would be something that makes the car illegal - strugling to think of an example that you could pin soley on 'chipping' but along the lines of tuning the engine to an extent where the emissions were illegal.  Although that would be a fail in its own right ...

[RedRobin]

Other items – such as headlamp bulb and unit incompatibility, headlamp levelling devices and illegal engine ‘chipping’ – will need further thought before we can get a workable solution for MOT stations.

Interesting, but if the only changes are going to be searching for "illegal" chipping what does that even entail? REVO/APR/et al are not doing anything illegal and manufacturers themselves offer the same engine unit with different software et cetera. So it broadly hinges on what the definition of illegal is really.

....Exactly, Revo/APR/Superchips etc are highly unlikely to find their tuning products suddenly being termed as "illegal".

It's the typical eBay cheapo tuning box and ECU-hardware-tampering characters that need to be worried by this I reckon.

Are there any countries in the EU which have outlawed remapping? - I'm thinking of if the UK's MOT is scrapped in favour of a Brussels sprout alternative.

[RobH]

Reading replies it seems this link was false but it would not suprise me in the slightest to see the do-gooders in brussels dreaming up another ridiculas law which we have to enforce.

Is there an actual reason why we're so under the thumb of Europe, carnt we just tell them to and have done?

At least then we have control of our own borders and be able to deport terrorists instead of them claiming human rights and giving scum bags in prison rights to vote and have to give them billions to dream up these stupid laws!

Incase you havnt guessed i hate Europe and all it stands for!

Rant over

[PDT]

Hopefully this will go some way to getiing rid of the crappy 'tuning box' industry, also the check on wiring loom is a good idea as this is also a component affected by a diy tuning box.

[cmdrfire]

Reading replies it seems this link was false but it would not suprise me in the slightest to see the do-gooders in brussels dreaming up another ridiculas law which we have to enforce.

Is there an actual reason why we're so under the thumb of Europe, carnt we just tell them to and have done?

At least then we have control of our own borders and be able to deport terrorists instead of them claiming human rights and giving scum bags in prison rights to vote and have to give them billions to dream up these stupid laws!

Incase you havnt guessed i hate Europe and all it stands for!

Rant over

Not to get into a European argument (though that's precisely what I'm doing), but the EU, for all it's flaws (and there are many) gives us a common market (means the stuff I'm designing can be sold all over Europe without requiring a seperate type approval), harmonised standards (very important this one, it protects YOU and makes life generally more pleasant for everyone), free-ish movement of people* (very important - we have a few engineers from Europe here, because there wasn't anyone in the UK qualified - hardly surprising when everyone wants to become a footballer or a pop star**) and ideas, and probably most importantly, has resulted in the largest period of peace found in Central and Western Europe since... well... forever.


*I want to expand more on this point. Being able to hire the right people with the right qualifications and experience means we (meaning the R&D/industrial/manufacturing sectors now) are able to design and build better products which reults in an increase in business; this has obvious benefits for the UK's economy. Plus foreign workers are staying here and spending their earnings here as well...

**Yes, really. People in the UK generally do not want to go into science, or engineering, and it's serious problem. I'm quasi-involved in outreach programs to youngsters for STEM, and all too often people are simply not aware or interested in what scientists and engineers do - and this is a still a problem when UK society is looked at generally. We get no respect, man.


/sorry for ranting, please don't ban me, back to MOT reg talk.