Will your bike pass the 2016 mot ?, will anyones motorcycle pass ?

[JOOLZ]

For more than a year, MAG has been warning that the EU wanted to replace our current MoT test with something that could be more complex, more expensive and which may further restrict the rider’s ability to modify their bike or trike. We’ve... also been asking whether these ideas will make a significant difference, and whether they can be justified (‘thanks’ to everyone who supported Jon Strong‘s complaint to the European Ombudsman).

Now that the proposed EU Regulation on ‘Road Worthiness Testing’ (RWT) has been published, we can start to see what we are really faced with and big changes are on the way:

· noise levels tested with a meter (done by ear in the bike MoT)
· pollution tested with a gas analyser or data from On-Board Diagnostic devices (not in the bike MoT)
· compliance with EU Type-Approval to be checked, ie; ‘Illegal power-train modification’, (the MoT looks at UK construction and use regulations)
· brake fluid water content / boiling point analysed (not in the bike MoT)
· anti-theft devices tested (not in the bike MoT)
· re-test when the registered keeper changes, or after modification to safety / environmental systems and components, or after serious damage (these will be decisions for the UK authorities)
· dangerous faults will result in the vehicle’s registration being revoked until it passes the test (currently, such vehicles just can’t be driven on the road)
· information about each vehicle to be gathered by EU linking the databases held by national governments and manufacturers (depending on the results of a feasibility study)

· expect the new test around 2016 (we’ll keep you posted)

RWT certificates would contain new information, such as;

· boil temperature / water-content of the brake fluid
· brake forces and efficiency for each wheel
· exhaust emissions

Countries with more stringent road worthiness requirements than the Commission proposes, may keep them. For example, it seems likely that the UK would keep to annual testing (which is more frequent than the EU proposes).

The Regulation says "The goal of road worthiness testing is to check the functionality of safety components, the environmental performance and the compliance of a vehicle with its approval" - which ties-in neatly to anti-tampering/modification, which is the other Regulation (COM(2010)542) we are working on at the moment.

In essence, the RWT covers the similar items to our MoT: Identification of the vehicle; Braking equipment; Steering; Visibility; Lighting, horn, etc.; Axles, wheels, tyres, suspension; Chassis and attachments; Nuisance (noise and pollution)

However, RWT will treat pass/fail differently;

If 'Minor' deficiencies (ie; no significant effect on the safety of the vehicle, etc.) are all that’s found, the registered keeper of the vehicle will have to rectify the problem(s) 'without delay', but the vehicle may not need a re-test (this would be a decision for the UK authorities).
'Major' deficiencies (ie; may prejudice the safety of the vehicle or put other road users at risk, etc.) could still see vehicles continue to be used for up to 6 weeks before undergoing another test.
'Dangerous' deficiencies (ie; posing direct and immediate risk to road safety such that the vehicle may not be used on the road under any circumstances), would mean the vehicle registration is withdrawn until a road worthiness certificate is issued.

Some EU countries have never tested bike road worthiness; conversely the German ‘TuV’ test is linked to the vehicle’s registration papers, listing any modifications and after-market components on the vehicle, type-approved of course, to be checked at the test.
The Commission estimates that RWT in all member states will reduce casualties by 8%, but this figure seems very high compared to findings from various EU countries.

FEMA and many of its member organisations question whether RWT will make much difference to safety and a day of action is being planned for September.

Our National Committee is giving careful consideration to MAG’s policy on RWT, which will form the basis for our campaigning with riders, media, politicians and officials.
MAG predicted that, although the Commission might concentrate on making sure all EU member states have at least a basic road worthiness test, they like to aim high and we might get something more like the German TuV test, rather than the UK’s MoT. We also predicted it would be linked to the new EU Type-Approval Regulation to control any changes to the power-train, etc.

Some scoffed, accusing MAG of deliberately scaremongering – judge for yourself

[Andy M]

I wouldn't use TUV as a scare tactic. It's actually better than the MOT in that they are fully independent. They won't start failing you for having blown bulbs the day a huge shipment of bulbs arrived and they test enough vehicles not to worry about all their tests passing first time that week. Their measuring kit is likewise consistent, no shiney rollers on a fifty year old brake tester or adhoc decisions about which horn is strident.

I would worry if UKGOV decided to try and enforce TUV levels within a structure designed to find rust holes in Ford Angulars using a torch, a hammer and the instincts of someone who charges 40-quid an hour to weld.

Andy

[JOOLZ]

Its the emissions test that will get most people. Air cooled engines have to run rich, to help with engine cooling, and the bigger the cylinder the worse the unburnt hydrocarbon problem becomes. I would imagine that no large capacity air cooled single with a carburetor would be able to pass an emissions test. 
Exhaust noise is another problem, even if your silencer is BS or CE marked the total noise picked up on a sound meter could easily be exceeded by adding in the mechanical sounds from the engine operation.
Finally you have the type approval. (For example) Are your tires the exact make and model as fitted to the machine as standard ? if not then they would have to be changed to the original, got a K & N filter that could be a problem.

[Richard]

I guess I can only hope that the extreme age of my stable will let me through then..................................

MZs do smoke a bit even when new.  Mind you the BMW smokes even more after being on the sidestand overnight.

[JOOLZ]

I guess I can only hope that the extreme age of my stable will let me through then..................................


Only if they are pre 1960

[Andy M]

Finally you have the type approval. (For example) Are your tires the exact make and model as fitted to the machine as standard ? if not then they would have to be changed to the original, got a K & N filter that could be a problem.

Components were never logged at type approval (which didn't even really start until the 1970's) except by the manufacturers part number. This data is all on paper, or at least it was when I was doing type tests in 2008. There is no way to tell an MOT station what the correct air filter for a 1986 MZ actually is, the information is in a file or on a 5-ich floppy in Dresden. A tyre size they might be able to trace, but I doubt it will be worth the hassle of retrospective legislation. They aren't going to tell owners of vintage Rolls Royces about even tyre sizes without a lot of coughing behind copies of the Times in the upper reaches of government. They won't do it.

There was/is a move to create a database of part numbers and manufacturers markings for a list of major components presented at type approval or subsequently by component manufacturers. These could then be checked on new vehicles. Present a 2020 Honda for it's first MOT in 2023 and you might be daft if you've removed the ABS ECU or fitted tyres not on an approved list, but you'll get plenty of warning that this is coming because the 2020 model could just be the 2015 one with new colours and the industry members won't let competitors launch legacy models 24 hours before the legislation comes in.

This is the reason to oppose the changes, if you want to stick with a 5 year old bike, although while I bet most of us will want freedom of tyre and exhaust choice I bet we don't all agree that anyone with a laptop should be able to change the stability control settings on a vehicle that is naturally unstable. If the list of approved components is very short and open to modification by SVA I think it might be a good idea.

The 1960 MOT move will be interesting. They can't make it a rolling time period as once you hit 1980's vehicles you'll really struggle with the safety electronics. They have however dropped a huge spanner in the classic bike market. A 1961 bike is worth less than the same model from 1959, so one will go for parts to feed the other! I doubt this is in any way related to the public good, I'm betting they get a lot of complaints when the MOT testers don't know about old technology and they all look like prats trying to get acetylene brake lights to work.

Andy

[Richard]

Looks like I will be out of bikes at this point then - can't afford a new and good enough one.

Have to concentrate on weather ladies instead.

[Ian]

Have to concentrate on weather ladies instead.

Sounds like a spiffing idea to take your mind off bikes