Jump to content


Show

Major Eazy

Member Since 06 Apr 2013
Offline Last Active Dec 26 2013 03:00 PM
-----

#280175 Would This Be An Mot Failure ?

Posted by Major Eazy on 05 August 2013 - 07:39 PM

Hi all,
This may be a stupid question but I am not to sure on the answer ,
If I was to tint / smoke my rear fog and reverse lights would this pass an MOT ?
I wouldn't go for a dark tint just a slight one...
Thanks in advance :-)


It will be assessed on its merts and will fail if...

Less than 50% of the light sources is illuminating,

Obscured so less than 50% illuminating surface is visible.

Not visible from a reasonable distance due to having productions on the lens or light source.

And to pass it must show correct colour.

This is from a downloadable MOT handbook in pdf format, so therefore...

You should be advised to double check with a garage rather than do a DIY project, there's a good chance that the garage could get it tinted for you correctly, while you yourself would mistakenly made it too darken and get it failed the MOT.

Also, if I remember rightly, I once watched one of those real-life documentary programmes where television cameras followed police, and the police stopped a car due to having darken brake lights/rear lights/or fog lights, don't recall, which part. The police told the driver that his cool look is illegal becuase instead of tinting the glass, the driver actually decided to paint the mirrors inside the housing darker. I think that the officer imply that tinting the brake light should be fine if not made too dark, but tinting or totally painting the mirrors or tinting the blub is no-no.

There is no mention of reverse lights in the MOT handbook therefore I assume reverse lights are not part of the MOT, so you could tint it as you wish, but rear fog lights are MOT item, so be careful there, remember not to make them less than half of their original brightness.


#271990 Pirelli Or Silverstone?

Posted by Major Eazy on 01 July 2013 - 06:17 PM

Agreed.
How does killing another driver make it more interesting?
It's already dangerous enough without adding avoidable hazards.


I agree too.

Safety rules is not just there for its primary role, to ensure the safefy of the drivers, but also for its secondary role, it already makes F1 challenging and interesting enough, (it is easy to break the rules to win, but it is more challenging and harder to try to design a safer car, and to drive it safety within the rules,) without Pirelli thinking ramping up the danger levels.


#271983 Pirelli Or Silverstone?

Posted by Major Eazy on 01 July 2013 - 05:53 PM

It was the main body of the tyres letting go rather than the side walls.
I reckon a design flaw coupled with that step made for a nasty hazard that caught quite a few out.
For Hamilton to complain it must have been bad.


Is there a different between the usual side wall as we know it which we can see and the side wall that is on the other side of the tyre? I mean, I assume the outer side of the side walls would be designed to be tough because sometimes the side walls get touched by other cars' front wings, other tyres, and so on, it seems that according to the camera view of the kerb, the drivers's cars, if too far to the left, would result in the other side of the side-walls against the outer edge of the kerb.


#271722 Pirelli Or Silverstone?

Posted by Major Eazy on 30 June 2013 - 04:57 PM

During the 2013 British Grand Prix at Silverstone, 5 cars had their tyres blew out (4 of them had their rear wheels blew while the other 1 had its front wheel blew, I believe according to reports but neverless...) all are actually on the left side. At the end of the race, during post-race interviews, one of the BBC reporters and a camera crew went out to the left-hand corner where it seems to be where the cars get the tyre cuts that leads to blow-outs, they showed that the kerb seems to have a little step.

But considering that Pirelli who supplied the tyres to all F1 team, if I remember, didn't FIA suggest new rules that tyres must be designed to last shorter time rather than longer time, in order to ensure cars come in for more pit-stops, because when to come in and change tyres is part of the game. Because of that, could Pirelli have designed a much weaker range of tyres?

I'm rather confuse. Should Silverstone having some parts of its course, like the kerb at that corner which cut the tyres leading to blowouts be at fault for having unsafe tracks,, or should it be Pirelli's fault for badly design of the tyres, weren't they supposed to make the tyre itself wear out faster but ensure the tyre walls should be strong enough, maybe lower standards than what the FIA asked for?