Rear rear suspension MOT failure (4 Viewers)

[MC 55 FUN]

@vin0114

This could be useful, it's from Fiat's online parts catalogue that I found

http://eper.fiatforum.com/eper/navi...INT_MODE=0&EPER_CAT=SP&GUI_LANG=3&WINDOW_ID=1

 

[Neckender]

i have the same problem with my trade we are governed by gas safe asking them to clarify an issue is a complete waste of time as they will simply refer you back to the gas regs and say its up to you how you interpretate them its all about a***e covering which is whats wrong with so much in this country managers are so scared of being sued for doing what their paid for which is to manage its easier to employ a consultant and pass the buck
i did here a theory on this in a radio discussion where the blame was partially blamed on the number of women in positions of power the theory was women are naturally more cautious than men rant over

Glad I pulled out of it all 3 1/2 years ago @mitzimad.

John.

 

[MikeD]

just the shape & hollow centre indicates aeon spring assisters.

Gus-lopez - I do not mean this in anyway as nasty: But how would a MOT inspector know the centre is hollow?

Its blanked off by associated steelwork/suspension parts at each end.

 

[Bobby22]

Sorry to disappoint you
For the purpose of an MoT test It is a bump stop, period
from the pic it is clear you have insufficient clearance period
It is an MoT fail folks and no amount of arguments will change that
Either shorten them or remove them totaly missing bump stops are NOT a reason for rejection
Geo

Geo, I do appreciate the information that you contribute to the forum, it is usually well informed and helpful.
Since reading this thread though, and the information contained don't you think your advice above is wrong and very dangerous? Whoever has built the van and whatever the interpretation of MOT standards. The assisters are an integral part of the suspension and due to your ignorance of the "new" suspension have advised members they can remove them as they are NOT a reason for rejection.

You clearly don't know of this type of suspension, so do you think you should be advising on it?

 

[Gorse Hill]

Geo, I do appreciate the information that you contribute to the forum, it is usually well informed and helpful.
Since reading this thread though, and the information contained don't you think your advice above is wrong and very dangerous? Whoever has built the van and whatever the interpretation of MOT standards. The assisters are an integral part of the suspension and due to your ignorance of the "new" suspension have advised members they can remove them as they are NOT a reason for rejection.

You clearly don't know of this type of suspension, so do you think you should be advising on it?

I've read the whole thread and am not sure if they are bump stops or assisters, I think it's fair to say Geo knows the difference the problem is the manufacture/system
At least 2 testers think it's a fail and 1 who doesn't and a load of google experts
There's clearly an issue and hopefully the OP will get it resolved so he can get out and use his m/h

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pappajohn]

Geo, I do appreciate the information that you contribute to the forum, it is usually well informed and helpful.
Since reading this thread though, and the information contained don't you think your advice above is wrong and very dangerous? Whoever has built the van and whatever the interpretation of MOT standards. The assisters are an integral part of the suspension and due to your ignorance of the "new" suspension have advised members they can remove them as they are NOT a reason for rejection.

You clearly don't know of this type of suspension, so do you think you should be advising on it?

I don't think for one minute Geo was condoning the removal, he simply said it isn't a fail point because it's missing.
If I was in this situation with a point blank refusal to pass I would remove, then refit AFTER the MOT rather than spend hundreds on air suspension.

 

[vin0114]

Thanks all, I was hoping to find the description more helpful. One German site describes it as a Gummipuffer!
Got to get DVLA to provide testers with some info.
Vin

 

[Minxy]

@vin0114

This could be useful, it's from Fiat's online parts catalogue that I found

http://eper.fiatforum.com/eper/navi...INT_MODE=0&EPER_CAT=SP&GUI_LANG=3&WINDOW_ID=1

That appears to be Fiats from 2001 so not the same base.

 

[Manic]

Gummipuffer, what a wonderful name for Rubber buffer. It sound like there describing a dubredoorknocker.

 

[Geo]

What is being missed here is
1. I do not profess to be an expert in any given subject, its why I need a manual and a set of rules
2 . As well as a Tester. I am what is called an A/E (Authorised Examiner) responsible for running the MoT scheme.
My main jiob is making sure a station and testers within do not fall foul of the Enforcment and discipline Dept
3. Bump stops of this or very very simular design, have been in use for many a year on numerous vehicles, long before Fiat called them assisters
4. Despite mountains of "Apparent" evidence from other folk and the web, including .Gov Sites, and what look to be "Offical" trade
magazines and others I can Not except ant of it as evidence, hand on heart.
My one and only source of reference I can act on, with any confidence is the Official "Special Notice Route" That i have repeatedly asked for proof of in this thread
If enough people shout long and hard enough the sheep will follow. I will not, if It is proved i'm mistaken so be it, I went with my teachings and beliefs in good faith.
its not ever going to be a pissing contest in my book either.
I take my responsibilities far to serious
Now
Personally I think its no more than a Fiat Juddergate style cover up.
Of course Vosa and I have to listen to the Manufactures that's a given, and Vosa have listened to the "Excuse" and reasoning for a crap suspension system that allows a vehicle to sit on its springs, The excuse " Its a design feature" ( Just Like the Juddering Clutch) till they re designed it out

The cure
"Re name the Bump Stop" So pathetic that even My governing body dare not try and come up with guidance, and instead turn a blind eye.
The guide would be simple

1.Describe how to tell the difference
2. Materials differ in ??? this way
3. Construction differs in ??? this way
Followed by what we call a Method of Inspection
Do This
Do that
Confirm Bump stop (Clearance required)
Spring Assister No clearance required
Its so simple why havent they done it.
My Opinion
Because as stated above these have been in use years before (They had em On my Bedford Cf Flat back) long before Fiats Re Naming Ceremony and there is no way to tell the difference ergo its a bump stop till Vosa tell me otherwise.
The good thing is you are all free to go where suits you best, and for a test that suits you best , I see future Mo Homes suspension falling in half as those that do have conventional suspension bump stops ignored by the sheep, Now how safe is that!!!
G

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

Gus-lopez - I do not mean this in anyway as nasty: But how would a MOT inspector know the centre is hollow?

Its blanked off by associated steelwork/suspension parts at each end.

This is true. There should be a small space at lower end but if not, only the shape gives it away.
The only way fro a special notice to be issued is multiple complaints each time someone is failed to dvsa. it's been going on for more than 13 years .

 

[gus-lopez]

What is being missed here is
1. I do not profess to be an expert in any given subject, its why I need a manual and a set of rules
2 . As well as a Tester. I am what is called an A/E (Authorised Examiner) responsible for running the MoT scheme.
My main jiob is making sure a station and testers within do not fall foul of the Enforcment and discipline Dept
3. Bump stops of this or very very simular design, have been in use for many a year on numerous vehicles, long before Fiat called them assisters
4. Despite mountains of "Apparent" evidence from other folk and the web, including .Gov Sites, and what look to be "Offical" trade
magazines and others I can Not except ant of it as evidence, hand on heart.
My one and only source of reference I can act on, with any confidence is the Official "Special Notice Route" That i have repeatedly asked for proof of in this thread
If enough people shout long and hard enough the sheep will follow. I will not, if It is proved i'm mistaken so be it, I went with my teachings and beliefs in good faith.
its not ever going to be a pissing contest in my book either.
I take my responsibilities far to serious
Now
Personally I think its no more than a Fiat Juddergate style cover up.
Of course Vosa and I have to listen to the Manufactures that's a given, and Vosa have listened to the "Excuse" and reasoning for a crap suspension system that allows a vehicle to sit on its springs, The excuse " Its a design feature" ( Just Like the Juddering Clutch) till they re designed it out

The cure
"Re name the Bump Stop" So pathetic that even My governing body dare not try and come up with guidance, and instead turn a blind eye.
The guide would be simple

1.Describe how to tell the difference
2. Materials differ in ??? this way
3. Construction differs in ??? this way
Followed by what we call a Method of Inspection
Do This
Do that
Confirm Bump stop (Clearance required)
Spring Assister No clearance required
Its so simple why havent they done it.
My Opinion
Because as stated above these have been in use years before (They had em On my Bedford Cf Flat back) long before Fiats Re Naming Ceremony and there is no way to tell the difference ergo its a bump stop till Vosa tell me otherwise.
The good thing is you are all free to go where suits you best, and for a test that suits you best , I see future Mo Homes suspension falling in half as those that do have conventional suspension bump stops ignored by the sheep, Now how safe is that!!!
G

& you shouldn't be put in the position. It should have been sorted out years back between vosa/ manufacturers.

 

[ludo]

What is being missed here is
1. I do not profess to be an expert in any given subject, its why I need a manual and a set of rules
2 . As well as a Tester. I am what is called an A/E (Authorised Examiner) responsible for running the MoT scheme.
My main jiob is making sure a station and testers within do not fall foul of the Enforcment and discipline Dept
3. Bump stops of this or very very simular design, have been in use for many a year on numerous vehicles, long before Fiat called them assisters
4. Despite mountains of "Apparent" evidence from other folk and the web, including .Gov Sites, and what look to be "Offical" trade
magazines and others I can Not except ant of it as evidence, hand on heart.
My one and only source of reference I can act on, with any confidence is the Official "Special Notice Route" That i have repeatedly asked for proof of in this thread
If enough people shout long and hard enough the sheep will follow. I will not, if It is proved i'm mistaken so be it, I went with my teachings and beliefs in good faith.
its not ever going to be a pissing contest in my book either.
I take my responsibilities far to serious
Now
Personally I think its no more than a Fiat Juddergate style cover up.
Of course Vosa and I have to listen to the Manufactures that's a given, and Vosa have listened to the "Excuse" and reasoning for a crap suspension system that allows a vehicle to sit on its springs, The excuse " Its a design feature" ( Just Like the Juddering Clutch) till they re designed it out

The cure
"Re name the Bump Stop" So pathetic that even My governing body dare not try and come up with guidance, and instead turn a blind eye.
The guide would be simple

1.Describe how to tell the difference
2. Materials differ in ??? this way
3. Construction differs in ??? this way
Followed by what we call a Method of Inspection
Do This
Do that
Confirm Bump stop (Clearance required)
Spring Assister No clearance required
Its so simple why havent they done it.
My Opinion
Because as stated above these have been in use years before (They had em On my Bedford Cf Flat back) long before Fiats Re Naming Ceremony and there is no way to tell the difference ergo its a bump stop till Vosa tell me otherwise.
The good thing is you are all free to go where suits you best, and for a test that suits you best , I see future Mo Homes suspension falling in half as those that do have conventional suspension bump stops ignored by the sheep, Now how safe is that!!!
G

I am concerned and, indeed, amazed by what I continue to read on this thread.

This is not an attack upon anyone, indeed I do honestly respect all other posters on this thread but feel strongly that those in a position to do something constructive about this issue must do so.

Later this year, my Ducato will need its first MOT. If I choose to take it to the OP's MOT station, or Geo's, it will fail as any other Ducato, 2007> will too because Fiat have produced them all with the bump stop/spring assister close to, or touching, the main leaf spring. It will also fail if I take it to any other MOT station whose testers have similar intransigent views. Anyone else taking their Ducatos to any of these stations will suffer the same fate! Indeed, I wonder how many Ducato owners, (including motorhomes, delivery vans, ambulances, etc.), have already been faced with an MOT failure after taking their vehicles there when there has been nothing wrong with their suspension and costing them a fortune to get their vehicles back on the road.

Do these testers care? Do they not understand the stress, upset, expense and inconvenience these failures cause their vehicle owners?

"My main jiob is making sure a station and testers within do not fall foul of the Enforcment and discipline Dept"

4. Despite mountains of "Apparent" evidence from other folk and the web, including .Gov Sites, and what look to be "Offical" trade
magazines and others I can Not except ant of it as evidence, hand on heart.


If, when tested, my van fails due to this ridiculous situation, I most certainly will not be pressured into spending money on completely unnecessary uprated suspension. Instead, I will follow the complaints procedure and, if necessary, I will take the legal route. I strongly suspect that any civil court would readily accept the "apparent evidence" that is, it seems, is not good enough for and rejected by the tester.

For heavens sake, these vans are built this way from new and the design has, no doubt, been accepted by the Department of Transport before authority for them to be sold for use in the UK was given. What more evidence is required?

Thank goodness some MOT testers are not surgeons! Yes sir, I must take your leg off to cure your ingrowing toenail: the rule book says that I have to! If is was a corn, I could just remove the corn!

 

[peterc10]

Reading this thread I am glad that my Fiat based motorhome has an Alko chassis.

 

[Steve and Denise]

I think a more detailed explanation is in order!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vin0114]

jacked the van up this morning in an effort to see the bottom of the suspension assistor but my jack will not raise the chassis enough to photo the hole in the bottom to prove it is hollow which @Geo says is solid and therefor a bump stop. I too am amazed for an A/E to suggest the removal of these assistors to get a 'PASS' as its not illegal. Off to garage now.
Vin

 

[Larrynwin]

I am concerned and, indeed, amazed by what I continue to read on this thread.

This is not an attack upon anyone, indeed I do honestly respect all other posters on this thread but feel strongly that those in a position to do something constructive about this issue must do so.

Later this year, my Ducato will need its first MOT. If I choose to take it to the OP's MOT station, or Geo's, it will fail as any other Ducato, 2007> will too because Fiat have produced them all with the bump stop/spring assister close to, or touching, the main leaf spring. It will also fail if I take it to any other MOT station whose testers have similar intransigent views. Anyone else taking their Ducatos to any of these stations will suffer the same fate! Indeed, I wonder how many Ducato owners, (including motorhomes, delivery vans, ambulances, etc.), have already been faced with an MOT failure after taking their vehicles there when there has been nothing wrong with their suspension and costing them a fortune to get their vehicles back on the road.

Do these testers care? Do they not understand the stress, upset, expense and inconvenience these failures cause their vehicle owners?

"My main jiob is making sure a station and testers within do not fall foul of the Enforcment and discipline Dept"

4. Despite mountains of "Apparent" evidence from other folk and the web, including .Gov Sites, and what look to be "Offical" trade
magazines and others I can Not except ant of it as evidence, hand on heart.


If, when tested, my van fails due to this ridiculous situation, I most certainly will not be pressured into spending money on completely unnecessary uprated suspension. Instead, I will follow the complaints procedure and, if necessary, I will take the legal route. I strongly suspect that any civil court would readily accept the "apparent evidence" that is, it seems, is not good enough for and rejected by the tester.

For heavens sake, these vans are built this way from new and the design has, no doubt, been accepted by the Department of Transport before authority for them to be sold for use in the UK was given. What more evidence is required?

Thank goodness some MOT testers are not surgeons! Yes sir, I must take your leg off to cure your ingrowing toenail: the rule book says that I have to! If is was a corn, I could just remove the corn!

You state that you do not attack anyone and you respect all posters and yet you refer to some as intransigent.
Testers work to information issued by DVSA and if that information is incorrect it is up to the vehicle manufacturer and Dvsa to remove the ambiguity.
On this thread alone we are aware of more than one tester with a different interpretation of the purpose of the bump stop / spring assister so there could well be many across the country on either side of the fence with differing opinions.
We will obviously know more when Geo gets further info from DVSA.

 

[telsdog]

What is being missed here is
1. I do not profess to be an expert in any given subject, its why I need a manual and a set of rules
2 . As well as a Tester. I am what is called an A/E (Authorised Examiner) responsible for running the MoT scheme.
My main jiob is making sure a station and testers within do not fall foul of the Enforcment and discipline Dept
3. Bump stops of this or very very simular design, have been in use for many a year on numerous vehicles, long before Fiat called them assisters
4. Despite mountains of "Apparent" evidence from other folk and the web, including .Gov Sites, and what look to be "Offical" trade
magazines and others I can Not except ant of it as evidence, hand on heart.
My one and only source of reference I can act on, with any confidence is the Official "Special Notice Route" That i have repeatedly asked for proof of in this thread
If enough people shout long and hard enough the sheep will follow. I will not, if It is proved i'm mistaken so be it, I went with my teachings and beliefs in good faith.
its not ever going to be a pissing contest in my book either.
I take my responsibilities far to serious
Now
Personally I think its no more than a Fiat Juddergate style cover up.
Of course Vosa and I have to listen to the Manufactures that's a given, and Vosa have listened to the "Excuse" and reasoning for a crap suspension system that allows a vehicle to sit on its springs, The excuse " Its a design feature" ( Just Like the Juddering Clutch) till they re designed it out

The cure
"Re name the Bump Stop" So pathetic that even My governing body dare not try and come up with guidance, and instead turn a blind eye.
The guide would be simple

1.Describe how to tell the difference
2. Materials differ in ??? this way
3. Construction differs in ??? this way
Followed by what we call a Method of Inspection
Do This
Do that
Confirm Bump stop (Clearance required)
Spring Assister No clearance required
Its so simple why havent they done it.
My Opinion
Because as stated above these have been in use years before (They had em On my Bedford Cf Flat back) long before Fiats Re Naming Ceremony and there is no way to tell the difference ergo its a bump stop till Vosa tell me otherwise.
The good thing is you are all free to go where suits you best, and for a test that suits you best , I see future Mo Homes suspension falling in half as those that do have conventional suspension bump stops ignored by the sheep, Now how safe is that!!!
G

I concur with most of what you say, especially about the failures of Manufaturers and DVSA to get this problem sorted out. I am also a AE and my main job is to make sure we as a station test to the letter of the manual. In view of the overwhelming info on this particular make and model it would appear that it is fitted with aeon assistors. Therefore I would test it as such, by the book, and pass and advise. Different makes and models would be tested on their own merits or lack of. The "official" trade evidence to which you refer, Matters of Testing, is actually written and published by DVSA and their advise is to determine whether a spring assistor is fitted. I appreciate this is not the same as a special notice. Like you I take no pleasure in failing a vehicle and even less pleasure when there is nothing wrong with it so find it difficult to see why, given the same vehicle to test, you would piss a customer off, and run the risk of an appeal which I feel you would be on the loosing end of. As for the bit at the end about the sheep?? Just because one make and model has assistors and is tested, by the manual as such, it will not be assumed all vehicles have assistors.

 

[Abacist]

I removed mine and fitted Dunlop air suspension but kept them just in case!

Here are two photos to show that they are hollow!

@Geo Does this help you determine that they are not bump stops?

 

[Minxy]

Not sure if this link has been posted previously ... the onus for whether the vehicle passes or fails falls squarely on the tester KNOWING what they are looking at:

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/the-knowledge-spring-assisters-and-bump-stops/

Before failing a vehicle under this RfR, testers should first determine if a spring assister is fitted, and whether the suspension really is so weak that the body would foul a road wheel.
​

If a tester cannot fathom out whether it is a bump stop or a spring assister then they need to update their knowledge IMV and NOT expect the owner of the vehicle to tell them!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Abacist]

To be fair to MOT testers it must be difficult to keep up with all the technological changes given the thousands of different cars and vans and derivatives and the changes that people make to them.

 

[Minxy]

To be fair to MOT testers it must be difficult to keep up with all the technological changes given the thousands of different cars and vans and derivatives and the changes that people make to them.

Yes and no ... they are paid and expected to have the knowledge to be able to do the job in hand correctly and not by misidentifying things ... if they can't then they shouldn't be doing it IMV.

 

[eddie]

For heavens sake, these vans are built this way from new and the design has, no doubt, been accepted by the Department of Transport before authority for them to be sold for use in the UK was given. What more evidence is required?

Actually the vans were built as daily delivery vans, designed to be stop start, Monday to Friday, with varying loads from full to empty. The DOT would never sign off any motorhome so I am glad that they don' have to inspect them

When a motorhome converter fills up the back of the van, leaving little or no payload the van is sitting at or close to it maximum weight, twenty four hours a day, Seven days a week 365 days a year. This must have an impact?

I wonder what the non bump stop, "bump stop" would look like when the van leaves the production line, the van being empty.

 

[MC 55 FUN]

I wonder what the non bump stop, "bump stop" would look like when the van leaves the production line, the van being empty.

I would suggest something like this - our unladen 2010 M.H. with 7,500 on the clock, spring assistors look very similar to Geo's earlier pic :

 

[ludo]

You state that you do not attack anyone and you respect all posters and yet you refer to some as intransigent.
Testers work to information issued by DVSA and if that information is incorrect it is up to the vehicle manufacturer and Dvsa to remove the ambiguity.
On this thread alone we are aware of more than one tester with a different interpretation of the purpose of the bump stop / spring assister so there could well be many across the country on either side of the fence with differing opinions.
We will obviously know more when Geo gets further info from DVSA.

This is not exactly what I said! I did say, "This is not an attack upon anyone", referring to that particular post.

If my post has offended you, or anyone else for that matter, it was not my intention and I do apologise.

However, I fail to understand what is wrong with saying, "some are intransigent"? Some, in fact are! Frankly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, including the fact that all Ducatos are made/built this way, and accepted by the Department of Transport as such and Despite the UK Gov. "matters of testing" that says, " Before failing a vehicle under this RfR, testers should first determine if a spring assister is fitted, and whether the suspension really is so weak that the body would foul a road wheel.", some will not move from their point of view, insisting that the spring assister is too close to the spring when it is designed to be like that! Is that not intransigence?

Yes, I fully agree that this matter needs addressing once and for all. The problem is, this matter has been going on for 10 years, while owners of Ducatos have been facing MOT failures during this time. Why haven't the testers complained before? Has it taken Motorhome Fun and this particular thread to stir them into action?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Munchie]

I was told yesterday that my 2012 x250 Fiat Ducato LWB PVC had failed the MOT because there was insufficient clearance between the bump stop and the leaf spring. The garage suggested that either air suspension or a heavier leaf spring would be an option which they are looking into as well as contacting Fiat as its quite a young van for this to occur. On searching the web I found several forums stating that this is not a test failure and the bump stop is in fact a suspension assistor. I have contacted the dealer I bought the van from 12 months ago and they are looking into it.
I would be grateful for any comments or advice especially from anyone who has had a similar experience. I've enclosed a photo below.View attachment 144437
Thanks
Vin

My brand new van looks exactly like that. In my view it does not look like a bump stop rather part of the suspension system!
I mine failed MOT i would use Fiat dealership to do it!

 

[Abacist]

Spring assist or or bump stop that pic shows adequate clearance in my mind!

 

[vin0114]

Just spent a good while arguing my case with printouts of all the evidence from your goodselves. At first the tester when told that I had 'complained' to DVLA said there was nothing more that could be done as I had gone down that route but the document that most interested him was the DVSA BlogMatters of Testing where he still argued that there was no way to determine whether they were bumpstops or spring assistors. He still maintained that on checking with Fiat they had said this vehicle should have been fitted with double leaf springs. He did a vehicle check of some sort and as a steady queue was building up behind me he issued a PASS with advisory - pic below.
I did ask if the same thing would happen next year and he said it would be with the same advisory.
So success but a damn shame that people with the same assistors will be faced with the same problem.
Thanks to all for your support.
Vin

 

[ludo]

Actually the vans were built as daily delivery vans, designed to be stop start, Monday to Friday, with varying loads from full to empty. The DOT would never sign off any motorhome so I am glad that they don' have to inspect them

When a motorhome converter fills up the back of the van, leaving little or no payload the van is sitting at or close to it maximum weight, twenty four hours a day, Seven days a week 365 days a year. This must have an impact?

I wonder what the non bump stop, "bump stop" would look like when the van leaves the production line, the van being empty.

Like this!

 

[dabhand]

Can't believe you can't get a definitive answer on this matter, I think you should write to your MP, it will take his mind off Brexit! Talking of Brexit, there's another thing, under the European directive 33/45632/Azx463271B part 6 sub section 3, when we have our hard Brexit, won't the rules about spring assistors and bump stops as contained in Directive 33/45632/Azx463271B part 6 sub section 3 change anyway!!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}