Changes to the MOT could spell trouble for HID's and remaps come 2012
09 November 2010, 07:59 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Changes to the MOT could spell trouble for HID's and remaps come 2012
Originally Posted by From another website
There are to be some changes to the MOT test from 1st January 2012 which are being introduced in response to European Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of the 5th July 2010 and which will effect those with aftermarket HID headlights and remapped ECUs:
4.1.4 Compliance with requirements:
(a) Lamp, emitted colour, position or intensity not in accordance with the requirements
(b) Products on lens or light source which obviously reduce light intensity or change emitted colour
(c) Light source and lamp not compatible
4.1.5. Levelling devices (where mandatory):
(a) Device not operating.
(b) Manual device cannot be operated from driver’s seat.
4.1.6 Headlamp cleaning device (where mandatory):
Device not operating.
For anyone with a remap, section 6.1.9 may be relevant.
6.1.9 Engine performance:
(a) Control unit illegal modified.
(b) Illegal engine modification.
(by 'illegal', it is assumed that they mean changed/programmed differently from OEM specifications)
There will also be a new check on the general condition of the wiring:
4.11. Electrical wiring
(a) Wiring insecure or not adequately secured.
(b) Wiring deteriorated.
(c) Damaged or deteriorated insulation
and on the function of airbag and seat belt pre-tensioner systems:
7.1.4. Safety belt Pre-tensioners:
Pre-tensioner obviously missing or not suitable with the vehicle.
7.1.5. Airbag:
(a) Airbags obviously missing or not suitable with the vehicle.
(b) Airbag obviously non-operative.
7.1.6. SRS Systems:
SRS MIL indicates any kind of failure of the system.
4.1.4 Compliance with requirements:
(a) Lamp, emitted colour, position or intensity not in accordance with the requirements
(b) Products on lens or light source which obviously reduce light intensity or change emitted colour
(c) Light source and lamp not compatible
4.1.5. Levelling devices (where mandatory):
(a) Device not operating.
(b) Manual device cannot be operated from driver’s seat.
4.1.6 Headlamp cleaning device (where mandatory):
Device not operating.
For anyone with a remap, section 6.1.9 may be relevant.
6.1.9 Engine performance:
(a) Control unit illegal modified.
(b) Illegal engine modification.
(by 'illegal', it is assumed that they mean changed/programmed differently from OEM specifications)
There will also be a new check on the general condition of the wiring:
4.11. Electrical wiring
(a) Wiring insecure or not adequately secured.
(b) Wiring deteriorated.
(c) Damaged or deteriorated insulation
and on the function of airbag and seat belt pre-tensioner systems:
7.1.4. Safety belt Pre-tensioners:
Pre-tensioner obviously missing or not suitable with the vehicle.
7.1.5. Airbag:
(a) Airbags obviously missing or not suitable with the vehicle.
(b) Airbag obviously non-operative.
7.1.6. SRS Systems:
SRS MIL indicates any kind of failure of the system.
Originally Posted by VOSA
The car/light goods vehicle MOT test is about to change – the European Commission has changed the Directive that covers it. We take a look at when these changes are likely to come into effect and what they mean for MOT testers.
Britain has been testing vehicles under the MOT scheme for 50 years now. Last year, the European Directive covering the MOT test was updated and revised by a modern version called 2009/40/ EC. This was then updated by 2010/48/EU, which was ratified on 5 July this year.
The new Directive keeps the EU minimum 4-2-2 test frequency but adds a number of new elements to the British MOT test. The Directive anticipates all test changes being in place by 1 January 2012, and a common European approach to test certificates in place by 1 January 2014. So what is VOSA doing to introduce the changes?
In terms of test frequency, in mid-July the coalition government confirmed that it intends ‘to look at the issue of MOT test frequencies later this year’. VOSA contributed statistical data to inform the last review in 2008, and we expect that our computer system and the data you have entered will be utilised again in much the same way.
We expect to hear more details of the government’s review proposals later in the year.
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.
The MOT trade can rest assured that VOSA is working closely with you to introduce any new elements as efficiently and effectively as possible, with the minimum of fuss. Just as importantly, we are also working closely with Siemens to ensure that any system changes due on New Year’s Eve 2011 go smoothly! We should know more by the time the MOT seminars take place – come along and ask the experts.
Britain has been testing vehicles under the MOT scheme for 50 years now. Last year, the European Directive covering the MOT test was updated and revised by a modern version called 2009/40/ EC. This was then updated by 2010/48/EU, which was ratified on 5 July this year.
The new Directive keeps the EU minimum 4-2-2 test frequency but adds a number of new elements to the British MOT test. The Directive anticipates all test changes being in place by 1 January 2012, and a common European approach to test certificates in place by 1 January 2014. So what is VOSA doing to introduce the changes?
In terms of test frequency, in mid-July the coalition government confirmed that it intends ‘to look at the issue of MOT test frequencies later this year’. VOSA contributed statistical data to inform the last review in 2008, and we expect that our computer system and the data you have entered will be utilised again in much the same way.
We expect to hear more details of the government’s review proposals later in the year.
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.
The MOT trade can rest assured that VOSA is working closely with you to introduce any new elements as efficiently and effectively as possible, with the minimum of fuss. Just as importantly, we are also working closely with Siemens to ensure that any system changes due on New Year’s Eve 2011 go smoothly! We should know more by the time the MOT seminars take place – come along and ask the experts.
09 November 2010, 08:11 PM
#4
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (51)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wherever I park my car, that's my home
Posts: 20,491
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Suppose I'll just have to pull my finger out and develop a wiring loom to convert the 4-pin standard WRX levellers to suit the 6-pin STI headlights, and a cleaner for those with a HID conversion.
ATEOTD, HIDs provide more light and are therefore a safer solution than standard bulb elements so why the push to try and outlaw them
Either that or just
to the system and qualify as a dodgy MOT tester
ATEOTD, HIDs provide more light and are therefore a safer solution than standard bulb elements so why the push to try and outlaw them
Either that or just
to the system and qualify as a dodgy MOT tester
09 November 2010, 08:12 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Agree, often emissions go down. They keep commenting on 'illegal remaps', but I can't recall anyone making engine mods illegal. Lights can fall foul of construction and use regs, and become damned dangerous if blinding other people. I can't see any problem with making a (example) 200bhp engine into a 260bhp engine when there are plenty of engines already 260bhp and much more. What's the difference between making it 260 later, or buying it 260 in the first place ?
Last edited by corradoboy; 09 November 2010 at 08:17 PM.
09 November 2010, 08:14 PM
#7
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (51)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wherever I park my car, that's my home
Posts: 20,491
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The levelling and cleaning of HIDs are mandatory where they are fitted as OE, so it makes sense that these options should be fitted for after market kits to ensure that they remain safe.
Trending Topics
09 November 2010, 08:17 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Easy solutions...
1. Don't bother
2. Use Πmarked uprated bulbs instead (Philips X-Treme are great)
3. Replace the full headlight unit for one made for the job, including the washers and levelling
4. Risk an MOT fail, roadside VOSA check fail, or head-on smash with a blinded oncoming car
09 November 2010, 08:21 PM
#10
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (51)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wherever I park my car, that's my home
Posts: 20,491
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Because cheap and badly designed systems fitted to cars not designed to take them can cause severe glare to oncoming drivers, which is both inconsiderate and dangerous. Without self-levelling this can be made worse if carrying a load or towing, and without washers the scatter from dirty lenses can also make it worse.
Easy solutions...
1. Don't bother
2. Use Πmarked uprated bulbs instead (Philips X-Treme are great)
3. Replace the full headlight unit for one made for the job, including the washers and levelling
4. Risk an MOT fail, roadside VOSA check fail, or head-on smash with a blinded oncoming car
Easy solutions...
1. Don't bother
2. Use Πmarked uprated bulbs instead (Philips X-Treme are great)
3. Replace the full headlight unit for one made for the job, including the washers and levelling
4. Risk an MOT fail, roadside VOSA check fail, or head-on smash with a blinded oncoming car
09 November 2010, 08:25 PM
#12
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (51)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wherever I park my car, that's my home
Posts: 20,491
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Not necessarily, if you've changed the design or some element of the car that compromises it safety or suitability then you'll face the wrath of VOSA. Lights are regularly bodged - look at the number of aftermarket 'Audi-style@ LED strips that you get blinded by on chav-mobiles.
09 November 2010, 08:41 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not interested in the lighting debate. However, I really don't see what they are trying to achieve by clamping down on a remap.
Surely the point of an MOT is to ensure that a vehicle is both safe and roadworthy and therefore not a danger to the owner/user and other road users. I cannot see how a remap and in any way endanger these groups (unless you argue extra power = danger. In which case ban all fast cars).
I'm a relatively law abiding citizen and I don't have a remapped vehicle nor altered lights. However, if I had something like a 535d I would probably have it remapped and, if needs must, I'd take it to get MOT'd somewhere on a nudge, nudge, wink, wink (NNWW) basis.
So, if that's what I am willing to do...relatively law abiding, socially concious and talking about a decent car (535d). What do you think your average chav in a 10 year old Impreza/EVO/GTI-r is going to do?
Exactly, they will be forced to go under ground for their MOT's where it is unlikely that the full test (i.e the stuff that really matters) is completed. I have experience of this when I couldn't be bothered to change the downpipe on my Impreza. The NNWW MOT I had done to pass emissions was basically a total farce - the guy checked that the car wasn't crumbling and that was about it.
So, this is no doubt an attempt to prevent after market modifications pushing the CO2 of vehicles above standard and potentially into a new tax band. In trying to be green we will be increasing the amount of unsafe vehicles on the road.
Great plan.
Surely the point of an MOT is to ensure that a vehicle is both safe and roadworthy and therefore not a danger to the owner/user and other road users. I cannot see how a remap and in any way endanger these groups (unless you argue extra power = danger. In which case ban all fast cars).
I'm a relatively law abiding citizen and I don't have a remapped vehicle nor altered lights. However, if I had something like a 535d I would probably have it remapped and, if needs must, I'd take it to get MOT'd somewhere on a nudge, nudge, wink, wink (NNWW) basis.
So, if that's what I am willing to do...relatively law abiding, socially concious and talking about a decent car (535d). What do you think your average chav in a 10 year old Impreza/EVO/GTI-r is going to do?
Exactly, they will be forced to go under ground for their MOT's where it is unlikely that the full test (i.e the stuff that really matters) is completed. I have experience of this when I couldn't be bothered to change the downpipe on my Impreza. The NNWW MOT I had done to pass emissions was basically a total farce - the guy checked that the car wasn't crumbling and that was about it.
So, this is no doubt an attempt to prevent after market modifications pushing the CO2 of vehicles above standard and potentially into a new tax band. In trying to be green we will be increasing the amount of unsafe vehicles on the road.
Great plan.
09 November 2010, 08:42 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Neither Airbags nor Seatbelt Pre-Tensioners are compulsory at the current time, therefore removing them from a vehicle (in a safe manner) surely cannot result in an MOT fail
09 November 2010, 09:26 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm totally fine with that so long as they still allow ECU modification to imported 90's Jap cars. Imports are a special category and don't fit in so well. JDM turbo cars of that era ran very rich anyway. As for all those re-mapped BMW's, Audis etc, crush 'em I say!
09 November 2010, 09:29 PM
#20
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dare I say bullsh*t!
"6.1.9 Engine performance:
(a) Control unit illegal modified.
(b) Illegal engine modification.
(by 'illegal', it is assumed that they mean changed/programmed differently from OEM specifications)"
My mods aren't "illegal"
TX.
"6.1.9 Engine performance:
(a) Control unit illegal modified.
(b) Illegal engine modification.
(by 'illegal', it is assumed that they mean changed/programmed differently from OEM specifications)"
My mods aren't "illegal"
TX.
09 November 2010, 09:33 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 November 2010, 10:40 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 November 2010, 10:58 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 November 2010, 11:07 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Swansea
Posts: 4,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its bollocks.
As long as your ECU remap is declared to insurers, and it will pass an emissions test, then
This will be a draft proposal that will never see the light of day, imagine the law suits for once legal cars becoming Illegal, also define Illegal lol.
I agree with some types of HID, but surely a way of testing that is a beam cut-off test further away than the beam aligners they use. As its the dangerous beam everywhere lights that are the problem, not the HIDS that have good cut off and are just like normal bulbs just a tad brighter.
Anyways mines an Import Occifer, so none of this applies to me, as not even Subaru know what mine is or not lol.
As long as your ECU remap is declared to insurers, and it will pass an emissions test, then
This will be a draft proposal that will never see the light of day, imagine the law suits for once legal cars becoming Illegal, also define Illegal lol.
I agree with some types of HID, but surely a way of testing that is a beam cut-off test further away than the beam aligners they use. As its the dangerous beam everywhere lights that are the problem, not the HIDS that have good cut off and are just like normal bulbs just a tad brighter.
Anyways mines an Import Occifer, so none of this applies to me, as not even Subaru know what mine is or not lol.
09 November 2010, 11:09 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot of ECU remaps cant be detected anyway so unless they can see if the map has been altered i don't see what they hope to achieve there. In the case of some remaps like Bluefin they can often be flashed and put back to OEM in 10 mins. do that before or after the MOT. An MOT is only really good for the time it's issued.
