From: F Murtz on 13 May 2010 00:10
> "John Tserkezis"<jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
>> It's scary. Was talking about how bad brakes can get with a mechanic
>> some time back. He said it was all bullshit, and you could have metal
>> against metal and still pass.
>> Never mind about that godawful loud metallic grinding noise - as long
>> as the numbers are within spec, you're good.
> The regulations are fucked, and have been for years.
> I had a bloke knock me back for a rwc some years ago on an otherwise
> immaculate LH Torana because it had a tear in the seat material. The tear
> was about an inch long, and on the side squab seam at the piping. There was
> no exposed springs or anything nasty, and it was just normal wear and tear
> that didn't impact on the seat or it's safety in any way, yet it was an
> automatic fail. A trip to the local K-mart to buy a 10 buck seat cover to
> put over the seat to hide the tear saw it pass, yet the bloke never took a
> wheel off to even look at a brake.
> I just shook my head in amazement.
I had one even weirder, on an r100 bike with a full fairing I got
knocked back because there was a hole in the rubber boot between the
forks and the fairing. Were they worried a bit of air would come through
and make me cold?
From: Noddy on 13 May 2010 20:00
"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
> Pink slip (annual inspection) places, OTOH, don't have to put up
> a bond. The RTA has much less leverage over their behaviour,
> and this is reflected in the quality of the inspections carried
> out by some places. I know of one place, for example, where it
> was perfectly possible to walk there with 2 sets of rego papers,
> with the odometer readings and compliance plate month/year on a
> piece of paper, and walk out with 2 LPG pink slips. I've seen a
> gas tank 18 months past its 10-year inspection passed because
> the guy didn't even bother to check the date on the tank...
Gotta love government regulations. What starts of as a fair idea soon
becomes a shitful mess.
From: Noddy on 14 May 2010 02:55
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
> All good in theory but it there is no evidence that it works in practise.
> I'd only agree with annual roadworthies if there was evidence that they
> actually achieved something.
> I agree there are plenty of cars on the roads in very poor condition but
> despite that fact unroadworthy cars aren't high in the list of crash
There's nothing to suggest they are anyway. Nor is there anything to suggest
that cars in NSW are in any better average condition than they are despite
annual tests being in force there for some time.
From: Noddy on 14 May 2010 02:58
"jonz" <fj40(a)deisel.com> wrote in message news:4becf2d6(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Onya feral.............
That just reminded me of some bloke watching a conversation that went so far
over his head that you could drive a double decker bus through the gap, but
he still went "Wooh-wooh-wooh" at the end anyway :)
From: D Walford on 14 May 2010 05:15
On 14/05/2010 6:27 PM, Feral wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> No, they're not all crooks, just like not all roof insulation
>> installers are
>> crooks, but if you create the environment where crooks can prosper out of
>> the woodwork they'll come.
> Crooks can prosper anywhere.
>> By "slave cylinder" I presume you're talking about a clutch, and if so I
>> fail to see how the failure of such a device could have caused you to
>> to a "sticky end".
> Try "needing to stop in a fkn hurry", fool.
A "slave cylinder" operates the clutch and has nothing to do with
stopping a car.
I assume you meant a wheel cylinder, if so a small leak is not likely to
result in total brake failure, since the time when you were a lot
younger car shave been fitted with split brake systems so even on the
slight chance that a rear wheel cylinder totally failed the front brake
would still work and since the fronts do the majority of the braking you
probably wouldn't notice much difference.