Failed WOF raised tons of questions. Add your two cents

[macros87]

So my bike failed WOF today and it opened a whole lot questions I now want answered. As you can see in the photos my rear break has a steel braided line attached to it. According to the man at VTNZ it is illegal for the hose to be attached to the little extension thing with a nut, and should instead be attached through crimping, the same way the stock ones are attached to my front break calliper. And due to this the bike failed its WOF.

Now that is all well and good and normally I would simply agree that if it not set up the way it needs to be by law then it needs to be changed and thats that.
Except when I asked why regulations required it to be crimped, actually curious if it is considered more reliable/safe/whatever other positive property fits here, he kinda shrugged it off and just made it seem he didn’t know.

I almost felt like he didn’t know what he was talking about, maybe I was just annoyed to begin with because when he was checking it over he actually jumped on to take it for a ride and started kicking it into first gear like an idiot before realizing it was in gear already. So maybe I had already made my mind up about him.

But then what does this mean for the other two VTNZ I have taken it to, one of them regularly too, do they just know fuck all? What about the places the previous owner took it to and passed it over the few years he owned it, did they also have no clue? Or the reputable mechanic business that fitted the hose banjo bits and all more than two years ago for which I have the receipt from the previous owner.

Not naming anyone but if It was done by a well established, reputable business shouldn’t they have know making those modifications were illegal??
So the real question I suppose is who should I believe? If I go with today’s guy, it means a whole lot of people have made mistakes/overlooked illegal modifications/have had no real training or knowledge for the job they claim to be professionals at.

248113248115248116248117248114

[nzspokes]

Guess that means most cars on the road are illegal then.

[steve_t]

Where's imdying?

macros87, have a look through here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/129548-Braided-brake-line-legality?

[Ocean1]

From my understanding that line is legal.

The hose terminal is crimped, the fact that a banjo fitting is screwed to that doesn't make it non-compliant.

[macros87]

Where's imdying?

macros87, have a look through here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/129548-Braided-brake-line-legality?

Thanks for that, that answers a few questions.



From my understanding that line is legal.

The hose terminal is crimped, the fact that a banjo fitting is screwed to that doesn't make it non-compliant.

I am reading the legislation from that other thread and its quiet vague. and according to the first section its legal:

g) has an end fitting that is not attached to the hose
by means of swaging, machine crimping or a similar
process (Note 2)

The end fitting is attached to the hose by crimping so should be legal, but then read note 2 'Note 2 Hose end fittings that can be undone using hand tools are unacceptable'. That does seem to render mine illegal. so then which is it.

I was really hoping there would be someone on here that does WOFs himself maybe shed some light.

[98tls]

Cant see a problem with myself,what would annoy me is someone failing it then being unable to give an explanation.I had a similar problem with a wof regarding a tailight lens,it worked,it was safe,it was brighter than the oem but nope,failed a wof,turned out it should have passed anyway.:facepalm:

[sidecar bob]

I am, amongst other things, a qualified w.o.f inspector, & incedentaly had a w.o.f audit today.
The braided hose is legal, because the braided part is clearly crimped into a fitting, which is then threaded to a banjo fitting.
The illegal type, (only illegal for road use) which my classic racing sidecar is covered in, have a threaded banjo, that winds up inside the braided hose, & a threaded ferrule that screws back the other way on the outside of the braiding, to hold it all together.
Your w.o.f inspecting idiot has mis interpreted the manual & seems to be not paticularly worldly wise regarding braided hoses.

[98tls]

I am, amongst other things, a qualified w.o.f inspector, & incedentaly had a w.o.f audit today.
The braided hose is legal, because the braided part is clearly crimped into a fitting, which is then threaded to a banjo fitting.
The illegal type, (for road use) which my classic racing sidecar is covered in, have a threaded banjo, that winds up inside the braided hose, & a threaded ferrule that screws back the other way, to hold it all together.
Your w.o.f inspecting idiot has mis interpreted the manual & seems to be not paticularly worldly wise regarding braided hoses.

Nice work,to the thread starter go back armed with this and put the guy on the spot,may well save the next guy along some hassle.

[White trash]

I am, amongst other things, a qualified w.o.f inspector, & incedentaly had a w.o.f audit today.
The braided hose is legal, because the braided part is clearly crimped into a fitting, which is then threaded to a banjo fitting.
The illegal type, (only illegal for road use) which my classic racing sidecar is covered in, have a threaded banjo, that winds up inside the braided hose, & a threaded ferrule that screws back the other way on the outside of the braiding, to hold it all together.
Your w.o.f inspecting idiot has mis interpreted the manual & seems to be not paticularly worldly wise regarding braided hoses.

^^This Man^^ would know. But on the wall of every WOF issuing agent is the contact details of where to take your concerns should things not be right.

[Ocean1]

The end fitting is attached to the hose by crimping so should be legal, but then read note 2 'Note 2 Hose end fittings that can be undone using hand tools are unacceptable'. That does seem to render mine illegal. so then which is it.

I was really hoping there would be someone on here that does WOFs himself maybe shed some light.

Your hose-end fittings can't be undone with hand tools, it's a crimp. I believe the restriction relates to a type of hose terminal fitting that has a barb that goes up the hose inner lining and a ferrul, (sp?) that screws up over the hose outer. I use these for micro-hydraulic applications and they can be a bitch to get right. They obviously can be uncoupled from the hose itself with hand tools, ( a pair of spanners).

Edit: Well late, Bob's got it.

[Katman]

I'm also certified to carry out motorcycle WOF inspections and as Sidecar Bob says, that brake hose is legal.

[macros87]

I am, amongst other things, a qualified w.o.f inspector, & incedentaly had a w.o.f audit today.
The braided hose is legal, because the braided part is clearly crimped into a fitting, which is then threaded to a banjo fitting.
The illegal type, (only illegal for road use) which my classic racing sidecar is covered in, have a threaded banjo, that winds up inside the braided hose, & a threaded ferrule that screws back the other way on the outside of the braiding, to hold it all together.
Your w.o.f inspecting idiot has mis interpreted the manual & seems to be not paticularly worldly wise regarding braided hoses.

Thank you! this is exactly what I needed to know, while it annoys me that someone wasted my time and money, I think I would have been more annoyed to know a small army of qualified people kept getting it wrong over a period of years.

I think even armed with this he would not listen, when I told him that hose had passed several inspections already he told me I should have taken it to VTNZ when I told him I did I don't think he believed me. I had to be somewhere else and to be fair for all knew he could have been right so I didn't want to press the issue.

[White trash]

I am, amongst other things, a qualified w.o.f inspector, & incedentaly had a w.o.f audit today.
The braided hose is legal, because the braided part is clearly crimped into a fitting, which is then threaded to a banjo fitting.
The illegal type, (only illegal for road use) which my classic racing sidecar is covered in, have a threaded banjo, that winds up inside the braided hose, & a threaded ferrule that screws back the other way on the outside of the braiding, to hold it all together.
Your w.o.f inspecting idiot has mis interpreted the manual & seems to be not paticularly worldly wise regarding braided hoses.


Thank you! this is exactly what I needed to know, while it annoys me that someone wasted my time and money, I think I would have been more annoyed to know a small army of qualified people kept getting it wrong over a period of years.

I think even armed with this he would not listen, when I told him that hose had passed several inspections already he told me I should have taken it to VTNZ when I told him I did I don't think he believed me. I had to be somewhere else and to be fair for all knew he could have been right so I didn't want to press the issue.

Yeah, but you have a 28 day right of return at no cost to yourself. Go back, explain POLITELY the situation as you see it and with evidence of the law, I've no doubt he'll see reason. If not, as I said earlier, there's a complaints procedure.

[macros87]

Yeah, but you have a 28 day right of return at no cost to yourself. Go back, explain POLITELY the situation as you see it and with evidence of the law, I've no doubt he'll see reason. If not, as I said earlier, there's a complaints procedure.

Is there a central head quarters number to call on complaints or does ever place manage and receive their own complaints phone line?

can anyone maybe find me a photo of the illegal type of hose fitting? I am looking on google images but I am just not sure what I am looking for.

[Spearfish]

Not all VTNZ centres were created equal.
Small thing I had a problem with was doing a re-vin on a wee pre 80's bike with drum brakes fore and aft, apparently (while the inspector pointed to the front wheel) I needed a disc brake thickness cert before I could unload it off the trailer.:facepalm:


Go back with something to show to say its legal, they don't take criticism very well, probably due to the boy racers trying to get a shit box through a cert after getting a colourful sticker from the popo and having a tantrum with the list of failures.

[Ocean1]

can anyone maybe find me a photo of the illegal type of hose fitting? I am looking on google images but I am just not sure what I am looking for.

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/bikes-and-gear/components/brake-calipers/1284458691736-19yk3cpgcz0df-500-90-500-70.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/screwed%20brake%20hose%20fittings/swampys16/brake%20lines/DSCF1719.jpg

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/bikes-and-gear/components/brake-hoses/1284458566235-abnshu6uy59d-500-90-500-70.jpg

[tigertim20]

[QUOTE=macros87;1130170782]So my bike failed WOF today and it opened a whole lot questions I now want answered. As you can see in the photos my rear break has a steel braided line attached to it. According to the man at VTNZ it is illegal for the hose to be attached to the little extension thing with a nut, and should instead be attached through crimping, the same way the stock ones are attached to my front break calliper. And due to this the bike failed its WOF.

Now that is all well and good and normally I would simply agree that if it not set up the way it needs to be by law then it needs to be changed and thats that.
Except when I asked why regulations required it to be crimped, actually curious if it is considered more reliable/safe/whatever other positive property fits here, he kinda shrugged it off and just made it seem he didn’t know.

I almost felt like he didn’t know what he was talking about, maybe I was just annoyed to begin with because when he was checking it over he actually jumped on to take it for a ride and started kicking it into first gear like an idiot before realizing it was in gear already. So maybe I had already made my mind up about him.

But then what does this mean for the other two VTNZ I have taken it to, one of them regularly too, do they just know fuck all? What about the places the previous owner took it to and passed it over the few years he owned it, did they also have no clue? Or the reputable mechanic business that fitted the hose banjo bits and all more than two years ago for which I have the receipt from the previous owner.

Not naming anyone but if It was done by a well established, reputable business shouldn’t they have know making those modifications were illegal??
So the real question I suppose is who should I believe? If I go with today’s guy, it means a whole lot of people have made mistakes/overlooked illegal modifications/have had no real training or knowledge for the job they claim to be professionals at.


look, VTNZ are fucking useless cunts.

VTNZ have a tick sheet. they know what is a pass, and what it a fail, but they dont know why. They are not paid to know why. they are paid to follow a ticksheet. thats why VTNZ dont do mechanical repairs, if you asked them to do a decoke, youd turn up to catch them doing lines of coke off your manifold.

VTNZ are fucking lazy, and even with their little tick sheet are renowned for being inconsistent and unreliable

TAKE YOUR FUCKING BIKE TO A BIKE SHOP. Dont be a cheap cunt and go to VTNZ cos its $5 cheaper.

Oh, and with a wof, certainly some things are absolutely important, but the laws around wof regulations were passed into law by a bunch of fucktards who wouldnt know the difference between Jenna Jaimeson's nipple. and a brake bleeding nipple. satisfy the VTNZ cunts, or go somewhere else. easy.

[Gremlin]

TAKE YOUR FUCKING BIKE TO A BIKE SHOP. Dont be a cheap cunt and go to VTNZ cos its $5 cheaper.
Actually easier said than done. I used to have it at a bike shop, as obviously the mechanics are a whole lot better at it (and focussed on the safety side, rather than dotting i's and crossing t's).

However, I no longer use that brand (and they went under), and neither of my current dealers for the bikes actually do WOF's, both taking the bikes to local VTNZs.

Re brake lines OP, the rules have changed a few times over the years, the legality has already been dealt with by those qualified. At the end of the day, the inspectors are human, and not mechanics either. I've corrected their knowledge of lighting laws before. As WT says, explain your position POLITELY, and go from there.

[bsasuper]

NO its not legal, not everyone at a wof testing facility will spot it because the quality of mechanical tradespeople in NZ is dropping, often they dont hold a trade certificate, I have worked next to people in mechanical jobs where their last job was a butcher,carpenter and even a postie.Do you ever ask the person at vtnz who is checking your car what qualifications he has?, anyone can do a short course and become a WOF tester.

[sidecar bob]

NO its not legal, not everyone at a wof testing facility will spot it because the quality of mechanical tradespeople in NZ is dropping, often they dont hold a trade certificate, I have worked next to people in mechanical jobs where their last job was a butcher,carpenter and even a postie.Do you ever ask the person at vtnz who is checking your car what qualifications he has?, anyone can do a short course and become a WOF tester.

Care to explain why its not legal there Trevor?
Clearly im not smart enough to spot it.

[bucket boy]

Care to explain why its not legal there Trevor?
Clearly im not smart enough to spot it.
I think its just up to who ever putting the wof on vehicles,my hotrods had those and I had to change them, the new ones have this stupid bit of rubber over the braided line then they crimp it and they say thats safer.My ducati has these ones aswell and have no dramas.So just take it somewhere else.

[nodrog]

I know fuck all, and even I know that is legal.

[Katman]

The issue of legality comes down to the fact that the pre-made lengths with swivel fittings crimped to the hose have been made in a factory that has been required to prove their manufacturing process meets certain standards.

Braided brake lines that are made up by Joe Bloggs have no way of proving that the job has been done to a safe standard.

[pritch]

Braided brake lines that are made up by Joe Bloggs have no way of proving that the job has been done to a safe standard.

Basically, that's it in a nutshell.

When the new standard was introduced there was a lot of confusion. A relatively obscure standard was quoted with no explanation given as to why. There's at least one post on KB where a tester wanted a standard printed on the brake line, didn't matter too much what standard so long as there was one.

Unfortunately none of the manufacturers mark their lines with a standard, although HEL did fit a sleeve with some appropriate markings just for our benefit.

When TPTB finally awoke to their cock up an explanation was forthcoming. The whole point of the change was to exclude home made brake lines.

[Movistar]

In my experience (and I've only had a little bit :msn-wink:) is that if you have something fail for a WOF, and you doubt the reason why, or the explanation, ask for the inspector to show you in the VIRM, the specific regulation that constitutes the failure.

Then you can see that the inspector is correct, or that the regulation is so grey that you can politely argue your point until it will pass (usually...)

[macros87]

Yes I have heard VTNZ are pretty shocking at what they do. I would take it to a motorcycle shop, but west Auckland shops seem to have a habit of closing up/moving to the shore/take your shit down to VTNZ anyway.

Supose from now on ill have to make the trip into the city for it as soon as i find a shop that issues WOFs themselves.

I will be making a trip to the specific VTNZ that failed me though, sort it out, I work weekends so cant make it there till monday, will update then.

thanks Ocean1 thats just the shit I needed.



In my experience (and I've only had a little bit :msn-wink:) is that if you have something fail for a WOF, and you doubt the reason why, or the explanation, ask for the inspector to show you in the VIRM, the specific regulation that constitutes the failure.

Then you can see that the inspector is correct, or that the regulation is so grey that you can politely argue your point until it will pass (usually...)

That is exactly what I was hoping to do when I asked for help here. Now armed with KB wisdom (is there is such as thing anyway) I can surely go down there and rectify the situation.


NO its not legal, not everyone at a wof testing facility will spot it because the quality of mechanical tradespeople in NZ is dropping, often they dont hold a trade certificate, I have worked next to people in mechanical jobs where their last job was a butcher,carpenter and even a postie.Do you ever ask the person at vtnz who is checking your car what qualifications he has?, anyone can do a short course and become a WOF tester.

Are you playing devils advocate there? or are you actually saying that it is ILLEGAL just because he said So, combined with the fact that some people out there are shit at their jobs....

[Spearfish]

If you book ahead at a bike shop they are done in just about enough time to rat around the retail shop..just about.

[bsasuper]

Care to explain why its not legal there Trevor?
Clearly im not smart enough to spot it.

as others have said, it has a screw together fitting in the line.

[Madness]

I reckon we should have a poll on the subject. Macros87, how's your suspension?

[SPP]

as others have said, it has a screw together fitting in the line.

eh? the others have said they're legal


...
g) has an end fitting that is not attached to the hose by means of swaging, machine crimping or a similar process (Note 2)

'Note 2 Hose end fittings that can be undone using hand tools are unacceptable'.


note 2 is ambiguous because it doesn't state which connection it's referring to.

If note 2 is referring to the hose end connector to banjo bolt then the lines are illegal as you've said.
If note 2 is referring to the hose to hose end connection (and therefore legal) then the note is redundant since (g) already states that the hose needs to be machine crimped or swaged... unless there are machine crimps which can be undone using hand tools??

I have Venhill lines on mine. I hope I get a WoF checker that has some common sense and passes them. After all, the banjo can be undone by any monkey with a spanner and is prefectly ok.
<img src='http://www.venhill.co.uk/Images/TUV%20hose%20and%20bolt.jpg'>

[MikeD400]

Youve got 28 days to do a resit, this does not have to be done at the same VTNZ you can get your resit done anywhere if it were my situation i would take it to another VTNZ and have it retested...

[SPman]

Unfortunately none of the manufacturers mark their lines with a standard, although HEL did fit a sleeve with some appropriate markings just for our benefit.
.
HEL give you the option of fitting an approval sticker on their lines - we've got them on our bikes....just in case....and it doesn't cost any more...

[SPP]

HEL give you the option of fitting an approval sticker on their lines - we've got them on our bikes....just in case....and it doesn't cost any more...

Can HEL banjos be spun in the crimp (if the lines are twisting)?

I'm looking to get HEL or Speigler if the WoF dude gets pissy to avoid the arse ache.

*sorry macros87 for the hijack*

[PeeJay]

as others have said, it has a screw together fitting in the line.
No the screw together bit screws into a fitting which is swaged onto the line. So legal.

[bsasuper]

No the screw together bit screws into a fitting which is swaged onto the line. So legal.

????If there is any sort of screw fitting on the line then it is not up to NZ standard.The line must be a direct crimp to the banjo, with no screw fittings, even if they are just for decoration.Hope you can understand this time.

[tigertim20]

Youve got 28 days to do a resit, this does not have to be done at the same VTNZ you can get your resit done anywhere if it were my situation i would take it to another VTNZ and have it retested...

you sure about that? I thought you had to pay again if you went somewhere else

[Kickaha]

????If there is any sort of screw fitting on the line then it is not up to NZ standard.The line must be a direct crimp to the banjo, with no screw fittings, even if they are just for decoration.Hope you can understand this time.

Really? my stock standard Ducati brake fittings wouldn't comply then

[SPP]

g) has an end fitting that is not attached to the hose by means of swaging, machine crimping or a similar process
(Note 2)

'Note 2 Hose end fittings that can be undone using hand tools are unacceptable'

After a re read, Note 2 means "or similar process" can't be a connection which can be undone using hand tools. Legal (as many here have already said).

[avgas]

Braided brake lines that are made up by Joe Bloggs have no way of proving that the job has been done to a safe standard.
I believe the technical term for this wonderful test is called a "brake (or break) test".

They used to be common place back in the day when people gave a damn and didn't have a checklist.

I love the fact the "Screw back" fittings are considered illegal......yet from an industrial sense they are fantastic.....and crimp fittings are "those ones that leak all the time".

Perhaps its review time......tests need to be performed. Facts need to be updated.
Checklists need to be improved.

[avgas]

I am now wondering if they will let us have push-lock lines. Those can spin and not undo.

[Katman]

????If there is any sort of screw fitting on the line then it is not up to NZ standard.The line must be a direct crimp to the banjo, with no screw fittings, even if they are just for decoration.Hope you can understand this time.

Regardless of how you interpret the wording, the question of legality lies with the distinction between brake lines that rely on the integrity of the fitting of a ferrul by who knows what class of monkey and brake lines with swivel fittings crimped onto brake lines by a factory that has met certification standards.

The hoses in the OP are of the latter type.

[bogan]

Really? my stock standard Ducati brake fittings wouldn't comply then

and my KR1 stuff has a screw together bit in the middle where it goes from one line to two, guess that is no good either :innocent:

I just got an aftermarket line for the rear which has similar fitting to the OP's, unlikely to get pulled up on it, but good to know that it relates to the hose-end crimp bit just in case.

[tigertim20]

I believe the technical term for this wonderful test is called a "brake (or break) test".

They used to be common place back in the day when people gave a damn and didn't have a checklist.

I love the fact the "Screw back" fittings are considered illegal......yet from an industrial sense they are fantastic.....and crimp fittings are "those ones that leak all the time".

Perhaps its review time......tests need to be performed. Facts need to be updated.
Checklists need to be improved.

climb off your high horse and consider the possibility that, while the brakes will probably work when you take the bike in an hour after installing them, home made crap on such an important part of the bike has no proven longevity of performance.

Keeping a strict standard might seem annoying to those cheapasses that thing stuffing some wedges of wood in instead of brake pads will suffice, but a set standard that is unwavering means that only fittings that have already proven longevity in reliability and performance means that (hopefully) bikes that are legally on the road are actually safer

[macros87]

I have the general KB view on it (not counting bsasuper), now I am going to find out if I can change Mr VTNZ technician's view of it. Check back in a couple of hours to see what happens!

[Str8 Jacket]

you sure about that? I thought you had to pay again if you went somewhere else

No I bought a bike that failed a warrant in Carterton VTNZ, fixed the problem and took it to Upper VTNZ within 28 days. Wasn't charged anything extra!

[MikeD400]

you sure about that? I thought you had to pay again if you went somewhere else

Yup im sure i do it all the time.. I live in pukekohe and owrk in manukau i often fail in pukekohe then get it fixed and pop down to the manukau VTNZ during my lunch break for a resit, no problems at all. :)

[imdying]

According to the man at VTNZ it is illegal for the hose to be attached to the little extension thing with a nut, and should instead be attached through crimping, the same way the stock ones are attached to my front break calliper. And due to this the bike failed its WOF.He is wrong. It is illegal for the nut on the end of the braided piece to be retained by a method other than crimping. Once you have that crimped connection terminating the braided line, what you screw on to it is your business. That includes banjo adaptors as in this case, but also includes such things as male male flare joiners and/or other thread size changers.

[macros87]

Yup im sure i do it all the time.. I live in pukekohe and owrk in manukau i often fail in pukekohe then get it fixed and pop down to the manukau VTNZ during my lunch break for a resit, no problems at all. :)

That is good to know, but for me it is a question of principle to tell people they are wrong! so I had to make a point of going back to the same one :p


He is wrong. It is illegal for the nut on the end of the braided piece to be retained by a method other than crimping. Once you have that crimped connection terminating the braided line, what you screw on to it is your business. That includes banjo adaptors as in this case, but also includes such things as male male flare joiners and/or other thread size changers.

And with that piece of information I went down there, and the original guy who failed the bike wasn't even there. so I explained the situation to another guy and he seemed apprehensive on going back on the original technicians decision so he went for a second opinion. The next guy straight away said it was legal.

Then the sore losers gave the bike another look over, finally I got my warrant, and I was happy to leave.

[SPman]

Can HEL banjos be spun in the crimp (if the lines are twisting)?

I'm looking to get HEL or Speigler if the WoF dude gets pissy to avoid the arse ache.

*sorry macros87 for the hijack*I'll check, tonight.....

[SPP]

I'll check, tonight.....

Thanks.

Since the legality of screw in banjos has been settled I don't need rush out and buy some but it'd be good to know.

[awa355]

After a re read, Note 2 means "or similar process" can't be a connection which can be undone using hand tools. Legal (as many here have already said).


Is a hacksaw a handtool? Seems like anything could be used to weaken or loosen a brake line or fittings.

[imdying]

Is a hacksaw a handtool? Seems like anything could be used to weaken or loosen a brake line or fittings.You would be best to assume that no braided lines are legal on your motorcycles then. You should also consider having mum blunten all of the instruments in the cutlery drawer.

[tigertim20]

That is good to know, but for me it is a question of principle to tell people they are wrong! so I had to make a point of going back to the same one :p



And with that piece of information I went down there, and the original guy who failed the bike wasn't even there. so I explained the situation to another guy and he seemed apprehensive on going back on the original technicians decision so he went for a second opinion. The next guy straight away said it was legal.

Then the sore losers gave the bike another look over, finally I got my warrant, and I was happy to leave.

wait a minute, Im sure someone will correct me if i am wrong, But I was under the distinct impression that if you fail a WOF and return for a retest, they are only able to recheck the items that did not pass, and are not allowed to fail you for an item they passed initially, so why the second look over?

[bogan]

wait a minute, Im sure someone will correct me if i am wrong, But I was under the distinct impression that if you fail a WOF and return for a retest, they are only able to recheck the items that did not pass, and are not allowed to fail you for an item they passed initially, so why the second look over?

Not in my experience, went back for a suspension re-check (they reckon the front end on my 250 felt a bit soft) and they pulled my up for a shorty* brake lever.




*By shorty I meant the end broke off when I dropped it at caltex :facepalm:

[Owl]

*By shorty I meant the end broke off when I dropped it at caltex :facepalm:

You don't have much luck with fuel stations do you?:msn-wink:

[bogan]

You don't have much luck with fuel stations do you?:msn-wink:

:lol: There have been good reasons both times, the last one was a damn good ride, and there was a hottie going past the caltex.
I do find myself wondering how much fuel the frame spars could hold though....

[avgas]

climb off your high horse and consider the possibility that, while the brakes will probably work when you take the bike in an hour after installing them, home made crap on such an important part of the bike has no proven longevity of performance.

Keeping a strict standard might seem annoying to those cheapasses that thing stuffing some wedges of wood in instead of brake pads will suffice, but a set standard that is unwavering means that only fittings that have already proven longevity in reliability and performance means that (hopefully) bikes that are legally on the road are actually safer
Because crimping a bit of tinfoil around your fittings is SOOO difficult. <_<:violin:

Standardization never fixes anything. Simply sets a bar of perception.

[avgas]

wait a minute, Im sure someone will correct me if i am wrong, But I was under the distinct impression that if you fail a WOF and return for a retest, they are only able to recheck the items that did not pass, and are not allowed to fail you for an item they passed initially, so why the second look over?
Nope they can refail what ever they want.
I had to go back 3 times for 3 different problems once.

[imdying]

I can't believe you homos are still debating this. Katman is the closest to the reasoning behind our current rules, whether anyone accepts it or not.

Customer assembly is indeed the first problem, but it is actually a secondary problem; a monkey could put them together correctly initially.

The primary problem is that monkeys then undo the brake hose there, instead of at the caliper to hose junction (whether banjo or screw in), ignorant of the fact that the internal retaining olives on some brands of "make your own braided brake hose" are designed with a single use and then replacement, in mind. Some clamp down and damage the hose requiring the hose to be shortened if it is disassembled and then reassembled.

As Avgas mentions, from a performance perspective the screw together hoses are more than up to the task, but that relies on correct handling by somebody aware of their pitfalls. Even if that pitfall is as simple as don't take it apart again.

Most Kiwis have a much higher opinion of their mechanical abilities than is the reality; one reason we leaning towards becoming a nanny state regarding vehicle modification.

Research, knowledge, prudence, humility, these are the tenets that will keep you alive. Unfortunately we have a culture of "how hard can it be", "looks good to me", "she'll be right", and "I'm a man I can fix this" instead. Whilst that attitude has its place, and has allowed us to accomplish many things that people from other countries would drop in the too hard basket, it is not suitable when sharing the road or track with others who're relying on you for their lives.

[Ender EnZed]

wait a minute, Im sure someone will correct me if i am wrong, But I was under the distinct impression that if you fail a WOF and return for a retest, they are only able to recheck the items that did not pass, and are not allowed to fail you for an item they passed initially, so why the second look over?

If that was the case then if a car failed on bald front tyres but the rears were fine then you could just swap them over in the car park and take it back for a pass.

[steve_t]

If that was the case then if a car failed on bald front tyres but the rears were fine then you could just swap them over in the car park and take it back for a pass.

It is the case, but specifically with tyres, they have to check that you haven't done just that

[macros87]

Can HEL banjos be spun in the crimp (if the lines are twisting)?

I'm looking to get HEL or Speigler if the WoF dude gets pissy to avoid the arse ache.

*sorry macros87 for the hijack*

All good, I had not even noticed. I also got what I needed out the thread already, I am surprised it kept going quiet so long.

[macros87]

wait a minute, Im sure someone will correct me if i am wrong, But I was under the distinct impression that if you fail a WOF and return for a retest, they are only able to recheck the items that did not pass, and are not allowed to fail you for an item they passed initially, so why the second look over?

well I was under that impression too... But it let me give them a little back handed comment of `go for it, he didn't know what was legal and what not with brakes, who knows what else he missed`.

I didn't mind so much, I try no to save money on safety, if something needs doing on the bike it gets done. I just don't eat that week. I was fairly confident it should pass no matter what. So my face would have been a great picture moment had it not passed.