MOT fail - rear transit suspension

[Keithl]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-19 2:12 PM

 

... I was later advised that following the fitting of the springs, this hadn’t increased the clearance so they also fitted extra up-rate leaves and a subsequent pass MOT certificate was issued.

 

 

The fact they first fitted new springs and this did not improve the clearance proves in my mind that they did not know what they where looking at.

Surely new springs would have cured the situation if it was only due to weak springs as the failure quoted ("rear suspension weak")?

 

Keith.

[Derek Uzzell]

Production of an MOT test-certificate is computerised and the format is standardised.

 

The MOT tester checks a limited number of safety-related items as defined in the MOT Inspection manual that is in force when the rest is carried out. Section 2.4 of the manual relates to a vehicle’s suspension and the page that is relevant in this instance is here:

 

https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/m4s02000401.htm

 

For Mr Motorhome’s Transit the critical factor is the the paragraph in the Information column that instructs the tester that

 

"A suspension bump stop must not

be confused with rubber/synthetic

suspension spring assistors.”

 

If a tester overlooks that instruction, or decides that the long conical rubber/synthetic components above the Transit’s rear axle are not 'spring assistors’ but ‘bump stops’ (which, in fact, is what they are called in Ford’s parts-list) then Check 1.a in the Method of Inspection column will be applied

 

"1. Check:

a. that there is enough clearance of

the axle or suspension with the

bump stop or chassis”

 

Whenever a Transit has been factory-fitted with these ‘cones', whether the vehicle is empty or loaded, there will be little or no clearance between the cone and the rear axle. Consequently, if an MOT tester treats the cones as ‘bump stops’ not ‘spring assistors’ and carries out Check 1.a, Paragraph 1.a in the Reason for Rejection column will apply

 

"1.

a. Inadequate clearance of the

axle or suspension with the

bump stop or chassis”

 

and the vehicle will fail the MOT test.

 

An MOT test certificate is not hand-written by the MOT tester. If a tester concludes that a vehicle should fail the MOT test because there is Inadequate clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis, he/she will choose (via the MOT-test computerised system) the appropriate entry from a list of Reasons for Rejection and, in this instance, the MOT test-certificate will show that the vehicle has failed the test due to "inadequate clearance with the bump stop rear (rear suspension weak riding on bump stops) 2.4.A.1a”.

 

Ford made the Transit FWD platform-cab chassis available to motorhome manufacturers in 2004 and every motorhome built on that chassis since then was factory-fitted with these long ‘cones’. Also, all FWD Transit M 6 and Mk 7 ‘white vans’ with a 3300kg or 3500kg maximum overall weight have these long cones. All of these vehicles will be more than 3 years old, so thousands of them will be MOT-tested annually.

 

I’ve no idea how many FWD Transit ‘white vans’ come up against the bump-stop issue at MOT-test time, but where FWD Transit Mk 6/Mk 7-based motorhomes are concerned (and there are plenty of them in the UK) it seems to be pretty rare as there are only a small handful of mentions of it on on-line forums.

 

Mr Motorhome’s Hymer failed its MOT test because the tester treated the ‘cones’ as bump-stops not spring-assistors. It’s pointless to argue about how much those cones might, or might not, have been compressed when the 1st MOT test was carried out, as the Reason for Rejection was inadequate bump-stop clearance.

 

Mr Motohome said above:

 

"I have telephoned and emailed DVSA and my local Ford commercial/Transit vehicle dealership who carry out their own MOT’s. A Ford workshop manager confirmed they are suspension spring assisters and that they wouldn’t have failed it because of inadequate clearance. I’m still waiting to hear back from DVSA.

 

I don’t believe the workshop was being underhand in any way, I just feel they have mistaken the spring assisters as bump stops resulting in a fail and the subsequent expense of fitting replacement leaf springs.”

 

This summarised the situation exactly and it remains to be seen what the DVSA’s Vehicle Testing and Roadworthiness Team wiil say.

 

It would be best to wait until Mr Motorhome receives a reply from the DVSA before commenting further here.

[paul2]

Hi

Mr motorhome could have appealed at the time of test before any work was carried out.

 

Paul

[Derek Uzzell]

Paul

 

“It is easy to be wise after the event.”

(Arthur Conan Doyle - The Complete Sherlock Holmes)

 

‘Official’ advice on MOT-test result appeals and problems is on this webpage

 

https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/problems-with-your-test-result

 

Being well aware of this Ford Transit MOT-test-related issue, if I had presented my (hypothetical) 2007 Hymer 682CL motorhome for testing I would have forewarned the test station that the vehicle was fitted with rear ‘spring assistors’ and, if this produced an argument refer the tester to the MOT Inspection Manual’s warning, and to the 2013 DVSA blog entry that mentions "rubber/ polyurethane cones” and that Deneb provided a link to in his posting of 16 March 2018 10:09 AM above. After that, if there were still any likelihood of the vehicle being failed because of ‘inadequate bump-stop clearance’ I would not have permitted the MOT-test to be carried out.

 

When Mr Motorhome presented his Hymer for MOT-testing he was unaware of the Transit bump-stop issue. Clearly, If he had been aware of the issue, he would have been in a position to discuss the tester’s conclusion before remedial work began.

 

But Mr Motorhome’s Hymer motorhome was being MOT-tested by an NCC Approved workshop and he believed what he was told - that the tester’s reasoning and conclusion were valid and that replacing the rear leaf springs was necessary and the best approach - and (perfectly understandably) allowed the ‘repairs’ to begin. Subsequently Mr Motorhome discovered that this issue had been discussed here as far back as 2010 (I became aware of it in 2008 when my 2005 Hobby was first MOT-tested) and hence his inquiry and this discussion.

 

I get the impression (hopefully wrongly) that some of the comments above are seeking to place a degree of responsibility for this unfortunate event having occurred (and the resultant £750+ bill) on Mr Motorhome. That’s not so - he is the innocent victim of an error of judgement made by staff at the NCC Approved workshop.

 

Of course "Mr motorhome could have appealed at the time of test before any work was carried out” but perhaps you could explain, please, why he should have appealed when he did not know there was a reason to appeal?

[colin]

Derek Uzzell - 2018-03-22 1:58 PM

- he is the innocent victim of an error of judgement made by staff at the NCC Approved workshop.

 

I've been pondering this for quite a while, it's possible that there was nothing wrong with the rear suspension, but it would be odd that a experienced MOT station would get this wrong after the type of set up has been around for so many years. Then there is that they replaced the standard springs with more of same and where still unhappy. When I look at the photo it strikes me as odd the assister should be distorted as it appears even with HD springs, this leaves another possibility, the assister itself has distorted and 'failed', maybe after years of heavy loading, and now the workshop has sorted out the clearance, but with the wrong fix, but it's all speculation as nobody on here saw it when first MOTed.

BTW AFAIK when the assisters are fully compressed they become bump stops which might explain Ford calling them that.

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2018-03-22 2:32 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2018-03-22 1:58 PM

- he is the innocent victim of an error of judgement made by staff at the NCC Approved workshop.

 

I've been pondering this for quite a while, it's possible that there was nothing wrong with the rear suspension, but it would be odd that a experienced MOT station would get this wrong after the type of set up has been around for so many years.

Mr Motorhome said, "The workshop that carried out the MOT is a NCC Approved workshop for Caravans and Motorhomes but not a Ford dealership". He later also said (my italics) "Yes, you would have thought a garage used to dealing with MH’s would, but the fact that they told me they had sought two lots of advice from other sources would indicate otherwise. I also know they have failed other MH’s for the same reason." I can only say that those two statements rang alarm bells for me.

 

This is not your average MoT test station: it is an NCC approved workshop with an MoT tester on its staff. The relevant experience lies with the tester and, if the tester's experience/knowledge is inadequate, in respect of rear spring assisters, he will be prone to mistake them for bump stops. An axle should only hit the bump stops when the suspension is on full bump, which is why a clearance is necessary. That clearance needs to be sufficient to allow the axle sufficient vertical movement relative to the chassis to absorb spring compression as axle load varies between "unladen", and "maximum permissible load" - and still absorb "normal" carriageway irregularities without hitting the bump stops.

 

I have no idea what the clearance might be for a standard 3.5 tonne Transit in the absence of the spring assisters (or for any other van, for that matter) but, given that the 3.5 tonne Transit has a maximum rear axle load of 2,250kg, and that ours had an unladen rear axle load of 1,500kg after conversion, the movement must be substantial. I would imagine we're looking at a clearance that one might more or less get one's fist into.

 

Then there is that they replaced the standard springs with more of same and where still unhappy.

But, forgive me, Colin, they did not replace with "more of the same". They replaced the original single leaf rear springs (visible in my photo above) with "heavy duty" (and I don't know what that infers in terms of load carrying capability) double leaf springs, and then found that even those didn't create the clearance they thought should be there. So, they then added spacers to further increase that clearance.

 

I assume Mr Motorhome's photo was taken after he had his van back home, so after it had passed its MoT test, and therefore after the new twin leaf springs (which can clearly be seen in the picture) etc. had all been fitted. His picture shows his (dirty, so presumably original) spring assisters (compare with mine after two years use) in contact with his rear axle. That contact with the rear axle was the reason cited for failing the van and, even after the work that has been carried out, there remains no clearance yet the van can now pass its test. How could that be?

 

So, after all that work, where now is the clearance between rear axle and bump stop, the absence of which resulted in the previous fail.

 

When I look at the photo it strikes me as odd the assister should be distorted as it appears even with HD springs, this leaves another possibility, the assister itself has distorted and 'failed', maybe after years of heavy loading, and now the workshop has sorted out the clearance, but with the wrong fix, but it's all speculation as nobody on here saw it when first MOTed.

I'm not surprised that Mr Motorhome's bump stops look a little more the worse for wear then did mine. Our van was two years old at the time the picture was taken, at somewhere around 16,000 miles. Mr Motorhome's van is now about 11 years old with 28,000 miles on its "clock". Age, and those extra 12,000 miles will have wrought some changes.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not inferring that this was all a monstrous scam, with a bent MoT tester conspiring with a "hungry" workshop manager to generate work for their employer. I assume that the MoT rester is genuine (though inexcusably wrong) in his judgement, and that the workshop was genuine in accepting that judgement. What I am inferring is that the tester (who acts in loco for DVSA, a government department) is incompetent (I'm reluctant to say mistaken, because he was trained, and has qualified, for his task, so cannot be allowed "mistakes" - especially when his reference manual specifically identifies the potential for the error he made), and that the workshop (who deem themselves adequately experienced and knowledgeable to undertake the work) were sufficiently gullible not to question why the work they had done did not eliminate the cause of the failure. Put more simply, no-one, including the tester, seems to have used their nous and questioned that initial judgement, despite the evidence that something was wrong.

[Derek Uzzell]

Colin

 

When an MOT tester overlooks (or ignores) the advice in the MOT Inspectiion Manual that ""A suspension bump stop must not be confused with rubber/synthetic suspension spring assistors” (You’ll note the words “Must not”) and decides to treat the long conical spring assistors that were fitted as standard to the FWD Transit platform-chassis that motorhomes and heavier FWD Trasit panel-vans used, then the vehicle will fail the MOT test.

 

In Mr Motorhome’s case the NCC Appproved workshop then addressed the ‘problem’ by replacing the original single leaf springs with a twin-leaf springs (which my Hobby had and would have made little or no difference clearance-wise) and then (apparently) adding some sort of extra springing in an attempt to gain clearance between the ‘bump stop’ and rear axle. Although this procedure (unsurprisingly) elevated the Hymer’s rear end, the photo shows that the ‘bump stop’ still sits on the rear axle.

 

This sort of thing is sometimes referred to as an error cascade, where an initial small (and correctable) error escalates, each further error amplyfying the effect of the previous. It happlens in medicine, where a wrong dagnosis or treatment for a minor complaint ends up with a dead patient. In this instance it has ended up with two MOT tests, Mr Motorhome paying a large bill, and his motorhome with rear springing that it was never designed to have.

 

Transit Mk 6s and Mk 7s have different ‘bump stops’ depending on whether they are RWD or FWD. The RWD versions have ‘genuine’ short bump stops that are there to prevent the rear axle hitting the underside of the chassis.

 

The FWD versions can have two lengths of ‘bump stop’.

 

1: If the FWD vehicle’s MAM is below 3300kg it will have a medium length conical ‘bump stop’ (with plenty of clearance between it and the rear axle) that will only come into play if the vehicle is heavily loaded when it will provide spring assistance. So this ‘bump stop’ could be described as a “bump-stop/spring-assistor”.

 

2: If the FWD vehicle’s MAM is 3300kg or above (all coachbuilt motorhomes will have had a MAM of 3500kg) it will have a long conical ‘bump stop’ (with little or no clearance between it and the rear axle) and this will be continuously in play when the the vehicle is even lightly loaded. So this 'bump stop’ is always a "spring-assistor”.

 

Although each different type of ‘bump stop’ has its own part number in Ford’ parts-list, they all come under the same “bump stop” heading. There’s nothing significant about this as far as the functionality or purpose of the ‘bump stop’ is concerned - it’s just how Ford has written their documentation.

[Mr Motorhome]

Hi All,

 

Firstly, thanks again for the replies so far. The information provided is very helpful. Thank you.

 

I’ve received an email today from DVSA (copied below). It seems to imply that I would have had a case to appeal prior to any remedial work being carried out (I think we all knew that anyway), but I don’t know whether that means they believe the vehicle should have passed the MOT initially.

 

They also state that they ‘do not hold the information on the fitment of individual vehicles component parts’. However, I did advise them in my original email that my MH is fitted with assisters and I was hoping they would at least confirm whether they believed it should have passed or failed on that point alone ie confusing a bump stop with an assister. I realise they wouldn’t be in a position to make a judgement on whether any parts were ‘faulty’ having not examined the vehicle.

 

Now that I have heard back from both Ford and the DVSA, I think the next step is to contact the workshop concerned to discuss this further. I’ll obviously keep you updated ??

 

Email from DVSA:

 

‘We have received the following response from our Vehicle Testing and Roadworthiness department.

 

DVSA do not hold the information on the fitment of individual vehicles component parts. This would need to be taken up with the vehicle manufacturer/converter. While it does sound like this should have been an appeal originally unfortunately you are no longer eligible be able to do this. We can only suggest that you points out the note in the inspection manual and discusses this with the testing station.

 

If you are not happy with the outcome then we recommend you try your local trading standards/citizens advice.

 

If upon taking the vehicle in for a subsequent test, the tester fails it again for this issue then you have the right of appeal for this refusal’.

 

Regards,

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-22 6:28 PM

 

Then there is that they replaced the standard springs with more of same and where still unhappy.

But, forgive me, Colin, they did not replace with "more of the same". They replaced the original single leaf rear springs (visible in my photo above) with "heavy duty" (and I don't know what that infers in terms of load carrying capability) double leaf springs, and then found that even those didn't create the clearance they thought should be there. So, they then added spacers to further increase that clearance.

 

 

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-19 2:12 PM

I was later advised that following the fitting of the springs, this hadn’t increased the clearance so they also fitted extra up-rate leaves

 

"extra up-rate leaves" are not spacers in my book, although the post is not at all clear and it's been a long time since I've had to look a Tranny's rear suspension, but I suspect the first set of springs where standard and then the HD's where fitted, but once again neither you nor I know for definite, so I'm still keeping a open mind.

[Robinhood]

...I don't think there is a lot more to add, but anyway.......... ;-)

 

I had a Hobby based on a 2010 FWD Transit platform cab, fitted with the same spring assisters.

 

I don't have photographs, but my memory is that they were on or very near the axle even in unladen state.

 

In the years between acquiring it and it needing an MOT test, there was quite a bit of discussion on various forums about vehicles having been failed on that basis.

 

It led to the following document (now in archive) being linked to, providing some clarification:

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130406050032/https://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2050%20-%20May%202011.pdf

 

....which contains similar text and instructions as to the treatment of spring assisters as is now contained in another link above.

 

On my first MOT test, I printed a copy and presented it to the tester in advance of him taking the vehicle. This is at a local bus garage that does a large number of tests on vehicles of all sizes, and was at the time regularly testing vehicles for a local motorhome dealer.

 

After he had tested and (happily) passed my 'van, he told me it was a good job I'd shown him the excerpt, as otherwise at best he would have given an advisory, but would probably have failed the vehicle.

 

I had no such issues at subsequent testing there.

 

I have little doubt (on the evidence presented) that the OP's vehicle should have passed its MOT. It is worthwhile noting however that, as already posted up-thread, a prominent garage-owning, MOT-testing, motorhome owner (who has tested many a motorhome for members of the forum he posts on) has recently held out on that forum for a long time on a thread discussing this very subject that such a vehicle should fail its MOT on the "bump-stops" rule. TBF, after extended debate and taking advice, he rescinded that view.

 

I think the most worrying thing for me is that the 'van has been modified to correct a non-existent problem, and is now unlikely to exhibit the suspension and handling characteristics it was designed with. Who knows what effect that might have?

 

Mistakes are made, and I wouldn't want to pursue things unpleasantly (at least not at first ;-) ) but I would want the suspension returning to its factory state, and a refund of the charges made for the "correction".

[paul2]

So dvla said same as me "appeal before work done".

 

I was an mot tester until last May when I retired We ran a fleet of mixed vehicle some with this type of suspension on having passed 15 or so of this vehicles 2 or 3 times, there was one special van that was fitted out with kit that ran and stood at almost max load all the time this failed at 3 years old. Mr Motorhomes van is 10 years old, even suspension with assisters can wear and with out a before photo it's all guess work. But when looking at the after photo with new heavy duty spings fitted what was it like with 10 year standard springs. When i've fitted heavy duty springs to a vehicle they have always raised the ride high.

 

It would be nice to know who tested the vehicle last year was it the same test station.

 

Derek I to would taik to the tester and I still have the printed copy of Matters of testing with the rear suspension advice in it in my van.

 

Paul

[Mr Motorhome]

 

Thank you for the additional information and especially for the link to the article. Much appreciated

 

Robinhood - 2018-03-22 8:26 PM

 

...I don't think there is a lot more to add, but anyway.......... ;-)

 

I had a Hobby based on a 2010 FWD Transit platform cab, fitted with the same spring assisters.

 

I don't have photographs, but my memory is that they were on or very near the axle even in unladen state.

 

In the years between acquiring it and it needing an MOT test, there was quite a bit of discussion on various forums about vehicles having been failed on that basis.

 

It led to the following document (now in archive) being linked to, providing some clarification:

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130406050032/https://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2050%20-%20May%202011.pdf

 

....which contains similar text and instructions as to the treatment of spring assisters as is now contained in another link above.

 

On my first MOT test, I printed a copy and presented it to the tester in advance of him taking the vehicle. This is at a local bus garage that does a large number of tests on vehicles of all sizes, and was at the time regularly testing vehicles for a local motorhome dealer.

 

After he had tested and (happily) passed my 'van, he told me it was a good job I'd shown him the excerpt, as otherwise at best he would have given an advisory, but would probably have failed the vehicle.

 

I had no such issues at subsequent testing there.

 

I have little doubt (on the evidence presented) that the OP's vehicle should have passed its MOT. It is worthwhile noting however that, as already posted up-thread, a prominent garage-owning, MOT-testing, motorhome owner (who has tested many a motorhome for members of the forum he posts on) has recently held out on that forum for a long time on a thread discussing this very subject that such a vehicle should fail its MOT on the "bump-stops" rule. TBF, after extended debate and taking advice, he rescinded that view.

 

I think the most worrying thing for me is that the 'van has been modified to correct a non-existent problem, and is now unlikely to exhibit the suspension and handling characteristics it was designed with. Who knows what effect that might have?

 

Mistakes are made, and I wouldn't want to pursue things unpleasantly (at least not at first ;-) ) but I would want the suspension returning to its factory state, and a refund of the charges made for the "correction".

[Mr Motorhome]

Apologies, I’ll try and clarify.

 

Originally single leaf springs were fitted, along with suspension spring assisters.

 

The leaf springs were removed and double leaf springs (76mm 07-13) were fitted (2 x £150)

 

A further UP-RATE leaf was also added (2 x £46) because, as I was told, the fitting of the double leaf springs (76mm 07-13) did not achieve the required clearance.

 

The above leaf spring descriptions are as they are written on my invoice and the prices quoted don’t include VAT or fitting. No mention on the invoice of the words ‘heavy duty’ but that is how they were described verbally to me by the workshop.

 

Regards,

 

colin - 2018-03-22 8:13 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-22 6:28 PM

 

Then there is that they replaced the standard springs with more of same and where still unhappy.

But, forgive me, Colin, they did not replace with "more of the same". They replaced the original single leaf rear springs (visible in my photo above) with "heavy duty" (and I don't know what that infers in terms of load carrying capability) double leaf springs, and then found that even those didn't create the clearance they thought should be there. So, they then added spacers to further increase that clearance.

 

 

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-19 2:12 PM

I was later advised that following the fitting of the springs, this hadn’t increased the clearance so they also fitted extra up-rate leaves

 

"extra up-rate leaves" are not spacers in my book, although the post is not at all clear and it's been a long time since I've had to look a Tranny's rear suspension, but I suspect the first set of springs where standard and then the HD's where fitted, but once again neither you nor I know for definite, so I'm still keeping a open mind.

[Mr Motorhome]

 

Last years MOT was carried out at an independent vehicle repair/MOT garage that I use for my car. It’s not a caravan/Motorhome specific garage.

 

Regards,

 

paul2 - 2018-03-22 9:32 PM

 

So dvla said same as me "appeal before work done".

 

I was an mot tester until last May when I retired We ran a fleet of mixed vehicle some with this type of suspension on having passed 15 or so of this vehicles 2 or 3 times, there was one special van that was fitted out with kit that ran and stood at almost max load all the time this failed at 3 years old. Mr Motorhomes van is 10 years old, even suspension with assisters can wear and with out a before photo it's all guess work. But when looking at the after photo with new heavy duty spings fitted what was it like with 10 year standard springs. When i've fitted heavy duty springs to a vehicle they have always raised the ride high.

 

It would be nice to know who tested the vehicle last year was it the same test station.

 

Derek I to would taik to the tester and I still have the printed copy of Matters of testing with the rear suspension advice in it in my van.

 

Paul

[colin]

Thanks for clearing that up, so you now have three leaf springs in place of the original one, I note this appears to still compresses the assister down to 80% of Brians lightly loaded one.

I wonder how many vans this workshop tests? as I would guess the majority of vans made in the last 10+ years have a similar suspension set up and they will have little if any gap under the assister.

[Mr Motorhome]

 

That’s correct, three leaf springs in place of the original one.

 

I’m not sure how many vehicles they test. The fact they had to seek advice from two other sources with regard to my suspension set-up, to me suggests they weren’t familiar with it.

 

Regards,

 

colin - 2018-03-22 10:33 PM

 

Thanks for clearing that up, so you now have three leaf springs in place of the original one, I note this appears to still compresses the assister down to 80% of Brians lightly loaded one.

I wonder how many vans this workshop tests? as I would guess the majority of vans made in the last 10+ years have a similar suspension set up and they will have little if any gap under the assister.

[colin]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-22 10:47 PM

 

 

That’s correct, three leaf springs in place of the original one.

 

I’m not sure how many vehicles they test. The fact they had to seek advice from two other sources with regard to my suspension set-up, to me suggests they weren’t familiar with it.

 

Regards,

 

colin - 2018-03-22 10:33 PM

 

Thanks for clearing that up, so you now have three leaf springs in place of the original one, I note this appears to still compresses the assister down to 80% of Brians lightly loaded one.

I wonder how many vans this workshop tests? as I would guess the majority of vans made in the last 10+ years have a similar suspension set up and they will have little if any gap under the assister.

 

It is interesting that they sort advice and didn't just do something without reference to anyone else, it would be useful to know who they got this advice from, logically you would think they would ask Ford or a Ford dealer for advice, hopefully it wasn't "my mate fred from down the pub".

[Derek Uzzell]

My Hobyby motorhome was built on a Transit Mk 6 FWD platform-cab chassis, whereas Brian’s and Robinhood’s Hobby Vans, and Mr Motorhome’s Hymer, were built on a Transit Mk 7 FWD platform-cab chassis. My Hobby had twin-leaf rear springs and I believe that was the norm for motorhomes built on the Mk 6 chassis, whereas motorhomes built on the Mk 7 chassis had single-leaf rear springs.

 

Just because a spring has two leaves does not automatically make it ‘stronger’ than a single-leaf spring, though it’s be expected that there will be a difference in how each spring-type behaves. But it’s perfectly possible that the spring comprising two thin leaves fitted to my Hobby was no firmer (or even less firm) than the thicker single-leaf spring fitted to Transit Mk 7s. That’s why I mentioned above that when the fitment of twin-leaf springs to Mr Motorhome’s Hymer failed to achieve increased clearance I wasn’t much surprised.

 

The ‘three leaves’ approach taken by Mr Motorhome’s NCC Approved workshop is very peculiar (I hesitate to say “hare-brained”) as there alternatives that are better and/or cheaper.

 

The best approach is undoubtedly to do as Brian did and fit an air-bellows kit that dispenses with the controversial spring-assistor ‘cones' and allows the motorhome owner to adjust the vehicle's stance according to the load it is carrying. The first attached photo shows an air-bellows fitted to a FWD Transit. It will be noted that the spring is twin-leaf type and that the vertical distance between the axle and chassis is little different to that in Mr Motorhome’s photo of his Hymer’s rear suspension after the original single-leaf spring had been replaced.

 

If it’s considered of paramount importance to retain the original ‘cones’ but to gain clearance between the cone and axle, fitting coil helper-springs is relatively inexpensive and easy and quick to do. The 2nd and 3rd photos show examples fitted to a FWD Transit rear suspension and the effect is plain. There’s a video-clip here

 

 

showing MAD coil helper-springs being fitted to a RWD Transit Mk 8, but adding similar springs to FWD Transit Mk 6s and Mk 7s would be just as straightforward. It’s to be expected that this approach would firm up the rear springing significantly and would be best applied only if a Transit-based motorhome’s on-road behaviour suggested that firmer springing were required (eg. the vehicle wallowed on corners) or if the motorhome were always driven heavily loaded.

 

It’s vital that Mr Motorhome contact the NCC Approved workhop that modified his Hymer as soon as possible. If it’s to be argued that the MOT-test failure resulted from the tester not identifying that the ‘cones’ were spring-assistors and that unnecessarily replacing the leaf springs was a consequence of this, returning the vehicle to its pre-MOT-test state (ie. refitting the original single-leaf springs) may be required so that the motorhome can then be professionaly examined. And this, of course, would require the workshop to have retained the original springs....

[paul2]

I will just add two things ,

 

When I have changed rear springs on this type of suspension i have never been able to reuse the assisters they have always been falling apart.

 

On all the mot courses I attended we were always told if you are unsure Pass and advise.

 

Paul

 

[Brian Kirby]

paul2 - 2018-03-22 9:32 PM

 

So dvla said same as me "appeal before work done".

 

I was an mot tester until last May when I retired We ran a fleet of mixed vehicle some with this type of suspension on having passed 15 or so of this vehicles 2 or 3 times, there was one special van that was fitted out with kit that ran and stood at almost max load all the time this failed at 3 years old. Mr Motorhomes van is 10 years old, even suspension with assisters can wear and with out a before photo it's all guess work. But when looking at the after photo with new heavy duty spings fitted what was it like with 10 year standard springs. When i've fitted heavy duty springs to a vehicle they have always raised the ride high.

 

It would be nice to know who tested the vehicle last year was it the same test station.....................

Paul

There is an important issue here. When an MoT tester checks a vehicle, he does so on behalf of the government, and not on behalf of his employer. He is acting as a government inspector, which is why he has the power to order a vehicle off the road until whatever defect is remedied. In doing so, he imposes a repair cost on the vehicle owner. This imposes a duty on the tester to be scrupulous, unbiased, accurate, and completely disinterested in the result of the test. This is why he must get the grounds for his fail notice right. He acts as both judge and jury on that vehicle. In effect, he runs his own little Diplock Court.

 

I'm suspicious about the ineligibility for an appeal, as I think this is unreasonable. This relates to (half remembered) a judgement by (I think) the late Lord Denning, regarding the point at which a case against a builder to remedy a defect could reasonably be brought. The builder claimed that the case could not be brought, because it was out of time. Denning judged that it could be brought, because the clock only started when a person, "in the course of their normal life, could reasonably be expected to become aware that the defect existed" (or words to that effect).

 

DVSA's statement requires Mr Motorhome to have had such detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of MoT testing, and of Ford Transit rear suspension design, that he could challenge the tester's verdict and appeal the failure. This approximates to Catch 22! It is only now that Mr Motorhome is gaining that knowledge and, therefore, it is only now that he is in a position to appeal. However, I doubt Mr Motorhome wants to pursue DVSA into the Supreme Court! :-)

 

In this case, it seems the tester got his fail notice wrong, with the consequence that a workshop needlessly engaged in a lot of expensive work, which Mr Motorhome needlessly paid for. I think the question that follows, is who DVSA thinks Mr Motorhome should sue. The tester in person, or the garage that, like Mr Motorhome, trusted the tester's flawed judgement? Under these circumstances, I think either Citizen's Advice, Trading Standards, or possibly any insurances that Mr Motorhome may have that include an element of legal advisory insurance, should be consulted. But, first and foremost, Mr Motorhome should speak to the NCC approved garage in person to see how they react and, if then, if they prevaricate, consider whether he wants to take the legal route.

 

I assume that Mr Motorhome may, at some point, need to engage the services of a Ford Commercial dealership to provide written evidence of the design state of his Transit, and that in its present state it no longer conforms to that design. This should quite easily be obtained by using the vehicle's VIN.

[Derek Uzzell]

There’s something perverse about what the NCC Approved workshop did after the MOT-test failure. If I was one of the workshop’s mechanics and had accepted the MOT-tester’s opinion about the lack of bump-stop clearance, I would have assumed that this was due to the motorhome’s original leaf springs having weakened and would have addressed this by fitting new Ford-provided springs with the same specification as the originals.

 

I’m pretty sure I would not have chosen to fit 2-leaf springs instead and I’m positive that I would not have added a 3rd leaf. Fitting same-spec springs would (almost certainly) have not increased the clearance, but might have caused the workshop to re-think, and the fact that the 2-leaf springs were also ineffective clearance-wise should really have set alarm bells ringing.

 

Mr Motorhome’s 2007 Hymer would have been produced with European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA) meaning that, when the motorhome left the Hymer factory, its complete specification (mechanical and otherwise) would have been approved by Hymer, and that specification included a rear suspension with single-leaf springs and the conical ‘bump stops’.

 

Th UK is very laid-back over any effect on a vehicle’s ECWVTA that after-sale modifications might have, but the NCC Approved workshop chose not only to fit 2-leaf rear springs - which some FWD Transits do have - but then added an extra leaf to produce 3-leaf springs that (to the best of my knowledge) no FWD Transit is ever factory-fitted with.

 

If push comes to shove, it would be worth exploring with Ford and Hymer how each company feels about Mr Motorhome’s Transit/Hymer motorhome’s original ECWVTA-covered single-leaf-springs+’cones’ rear suspension design having been converted into the triple-leaf-springs+’cones’ arrangement that the vehicle now has.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2018-03-23 2:05 PM

 

There’s something perverse about what the NCC Approved workshop did after the MOT-test failure. If I was one of the workshop’s mechanics and had accepted the MOT-tester’s opinion about the lack of bump-stop clearance, I would have assumed that this was due to the motorhome’s original leaf springs having weakened and would have addressed this by fitting new Ford-provided springs with the same specification as the originals.

 

I’m pretty sure I would not have chosen to fit 2-leaf springs instead and I’m positive that I would not have added a 3rd leaf. Fitting same-spec springs would (almost certainly) have not increased the clearance, but might have caused the workshop to re-think, and the fact that the 2-leaf springs were also ineffective clearance-wise should really have set alarm bells ringing.

 

Mr Motorhome’s 2007 Hymer would have been produced with European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA) meaning that, when the motorhome left the Hymer factory, its complete specification (mechanical and otherwise) would have been approved by Hymer, and that specification included a rear suspension with single-leaf springs and the conical ‘bump stops’.

 

Th UK is very laid-back over any effect on a vehicle’s ECWVTA that after-sale modifications might have, but the NCC Approved workshop chose not only to fit 2-leaf rear springs - which some FWD Transits do have - but then added an extra leaf to produce 3-leaf springs that (to the best of my knowledge) no FWD Transit is ever factory-fitted with.

 

If push comes to shove, it would be worth exploring with Ford and Hymer how each company feels about Mr Motorhome’s Transit/Hymer motorhome’s original ECWVTA-covered single-leaf-springs+’cones’ rear suspension design having been converted into the triple-leaf-springs+’cones’ arrangement that the vehicle now has.

Agreed. The other seeming perversity is why, having gone for twin (and then apparently three!), leaf springs to correct a perceived defect, and found this produced no remedy, no-one challenged the initial assumption. It just has a slightly disconcerting "niff" to it, especially when taking into account Mr Motorhome's comment he knows "they have failed other MH’s for the same reason". It seems odd that no-one appears to have questioned why all these vans need new rear springs.

[Mr Motorhome]

Hi All

 

I had intended calling the workshop today but I have contacted DVSA again to ask more specific questions.

 

I have stated that my vehicle ‘is’ fitted with suspension spring assisters (having confirmed this with Ford) and asked whether they can state if my vehicle should have failed an MOT purely on the lack of inadequate clearance and assuming there were no other faults found. Whether they are willing, or able, to do this remains to be seen but you never know ??

 

I am going to spend the weekend re-reading the very helpful replies posted here, making notes and bullet points, then contacting the workshop early next week.

 

Thank you all once again for the very informative replies. If nothing else, I’m personally learning a lot about my MH’s suspension ??

 

Regards,

 

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Good lord, you are talking about this for years. About a body or chassis that would foul a road wheel., Or make a hole the chassis rails. I am on alko and they now what they doing on max axle loads.. In down under the rules are very strict. A motorhome whit twin axles on the rear should have air suspension mandatory of paired axle loads requirements. In Holland the mot is carried out by your local garage afther approval by the RDW. Every competent garage of a ford transit and air retrofitters have original oem tables abot this. All goes back to the standard oem ride height.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

The standard ride height is measured from ground to ? The RWD is higher. Wheels size and inclination at load is included