MOT

[new to this]

How do you get the valve out from the load sensing valve mine is rusty ?

Thanks Dave

[new to this]

I've had another go at this, I've got the Centre pin to move, but is this normal the centre pin pulls in, ?
Second question are they meant to be the same thread on both outlets ? and what size thread should it be ?

Dave

[xvivalve]

I *think* from memory the threads are both the same and are 3/8" UNF

Presumably you've removed the pivot pin from the spring assembly giving full access to the valve? Removal of the dust cap then allows you to get a socket onto the flats to remove the valve cover.

[shaunroche]

Hi Dave, this is a great thread to look at..

https://forum.triumphdolomite.co.uk/vie ... &start=285

Once you've taken the dust cap off and got your big socket on the thing that sandwiches the brkt on, I think you remove the circlip and get a screwdriver in and push the ball bearing and spring in and that lets the whole assy to be with drawn...I can't remember properly how to do it, but you may need to take a circlip out first?

You'll work it out I'm sure!

[new to this]

If i fit my rear load sensing valve to the car, but don't connect the brake lines to it just blank them off would it fail an MOT ?

Dave

[dollyman]

Pretty sure it would Dave. If something is fitted it has to work, i know you fail them if they are seized up and you can't blank them off as a fix. Depends how friendly you are with the tester.

Tony.

[SprintV8]

From the tester’s manual.

1.1.17. Load sensing valve
Defect Category
(a) Load sensing valve linkage defective Major
(b) Load sensing valve linkage obviously incorrectly adjusted Major
(c) Load sensing valve seized or inoperative and:

(i) ABS functioning
(ii) ABS not fitted or inoperative

Major
Dangerous
(d) Load sensing valve missing where fitted as standard Dangerous



I would presume not connected would be the same as missing.

[Carledo]

I do the job properly, remove the LSV and replace the nuts and washers on the studs. then use a non-Sprint rear flexi hanger, flexi hose and rear section of front to rear brake pipe. That way what is there looks pukka even to someone who knows Dolomites.

My tester, whom I am admittedly on very good terms with, has never once even commented. But his only concerns are no leaks and good numbers on the rollers, he knows i'm a bit fanatical about brakes!

Since I know you have some sort of TJ style vented disc conversion, I would simply point them out to any smart assed tester who wants to condemn your lack of an LSV. Fit TJs (or reasonable facsimile) and the need for an LSV evaporates!

Steve

[new to this]

Thanks for the replies,

Dave

[matt of the vivas]

I do the job properly, remove the LSV and replace the nuts and washers on the studs. then use a non-Sprint rear flexi hanger, flexi hose and rear section of front to rear brake pipe. That way what is there looks pukka even to someone who knows Dolomites.

My tester, whom I am admittedly on very good terms with, has never once even commented. But his only concerns are no leaks and good numbers on the rollers, he knows i'm a bit fanatical about brakes!

Since I know you have some sort of TJ style vented disc conversion, I would simply point them out to any smart assed tester who wants to condemn your lack of an LSV. Fit TJs (or reasonable facsimile) and the need for an LSV evaporates!

Steve

Surely doing the job properly would be repairing the valve and refitting it?
If a car was brought back to me with the valve removed after I'd failed it for being seized or leaking then I'd fail it again, as above "removed when it's fitted as standard equipment".
It's there for a very good reason on a Sprint and shouldn't be bypassed.
Bad advice imo.

[Carledo]

I would draw your attention to again to this part of my post!

Since I know you have some sort of TJ style vented disc conversion, I would simply point them out to any smart assed tester who wants to condemn your lack of an LSV. Fit TJs (or reasonable facsimile) and the need for an LSV evaporates!

Steve

Surely doing the job properly would be repairing the valve and refitting it?
If a car was brought back to me with the valve removed after I'd failed it for being seized or leaking then I'd fail it again, as above "removed when it's fitted as standard equipment".
It's there for a very good reason on a Sprint and shouldn't be bypassed.
Bad advice imo.

The post itself was aimed at Dave in particular, not people (Sprint owners) in general.

I'm more than aware WHY a standard Sprint has an LSV fitted! I could make a good case for "doing it properly" being replacing the LSV with something that actually WORKS for more than 5 mins before seizing up!

I have a large and growing collection of Sprint LSVs, all of which were removed seized solid. I can't recall EVER seeing one working as advertised.

I feel perfectly entitled to do away with the troublesome LSV because ALL my cars have the Trackerjack conversion that obviates the need for the LSV. As I'm sure you (and the vast majority of readers here) know well enough.

I ran the Carledo on stock Sprint brakes sans LSV when first built and found out the hard way that it's a bad idea! So MY first move was to seek an LSV. When I couldn't find a working one for love or money, I fitted a Cavalier pressure limiter which fixed the problem. Then I went to TJs and the problem went away.

Now I've been a tester myself, I can understand your point. If someone presented a stock Sprint to me with the LSV seized, I would fail it. If they re-presented it with the LSV removed or bypassed, I would fail it again! But, if they presented or re-presented it with TJs and no LSV, i'd pass it happily!

Were I a "normal" tester and not a Dolomite nut, I'd behave the same way, Except if the car had been redesigned without the LSV but looked standard otherwise, I probably wouldn't know any better! It's quite easy to spot something present but not working, much harder to realise something is missing when you don't KNOW it should be there and it's absence is carefully concealed! Which is why I do it so carefully, it's not necessarily to bend the rules, it just saves a long discussion, possibly even involving the ministry.

Rules are rules, but a degree of common sense is also required to make a good tester.

Steve

[cleverusername]

I would draw your attention to again to this part of my post!

Since I know you have some sort of TJ style vented disc conversion, I would simply point them out to any smart assed tester who wants to condemn your lack of an LSV. Fit TJs (or reasonable facsimile) and the need for an LSV evaporates!

Steve

Surely doing the job properly would be repairing the valve and refitting it?
If a car was brought back to me with the valve removed after I'd failed it for being seized or leaking then I'd fail it again, as above "removed when it's fitted as standard equipment".
It's there for a very good reason on a Sprint and shouldn't be bypassed.
Bad advice imo.

The post itself was aimed at Dave in particular, not people (Sprint owners) in general.

I'm more than aware WHY a standard Sprint has an LSV fitted! I could make a good case for "doing it properly" being replacing the LSV with something that actually WORKS for more than 5 mins before seizing up!

I have a large and growing collection of Sprint LSVs, all of which were removed seized solid. I can't recall EVER seeing one working as advertised.

I feel perfectly entitled to do away with the troublesome LSV because ALL my cars have the Trackerjack conversion that obviates the need for the LSV. As I'm sure you (and the vast majority of readers here) know well enough.

I ran the Carledo on stock Sprint brakes sans LSV when first built and found out the hard way that it's a bad idea! So MY first move was to seek an LSV. When I couldn't find a working one for love or money, I fitted a Cavalier pressure limiter which fixed the problem. Then I went to TJs and the problem went away.

Now I've been a tester myself, I can understand your point. If someone presented a stock Sprint to me with the LSV seized, I would fail it. If they re-presented it with the LSV removed or bypassed, I would fail it again! But, if they presented or re-presented it with TJs and no LSV, i'd pass it happily!

Were I a "normal" tester and not a Dolomite nut, I'd behave the same way, Except if the car had been redesigned without the LSV but looked standard otherwise, I probably wouldn't know any better! It's quite easy to spot something present but not working, much harder to realise something is missing when you don't KNOW it should be there and it's absence is carefully concealed! Which is why I do it so carefully, it's not necessarily to bend the rules, it just saves a long discussion, possibly even involving the ministry.

Rules are rules, but a degree of common sense is also required to make a good tester.

Steve

The pressure limited is a more elegant solution because the rear brakes don't do much of the braking anyway, so there is no real problem permanently restricting them.

Of course a better solution would have been for Triumph to just fit smaller rear drums.

[matt of the vivas]

I would draw your attention to again to this part of my post!

Since I know you have some sort of TJ style vented disc conversion, I would simply point them out to any smart assed tester who wants to condemn your lack of an LSV. Fit TJs (or reasonable facsimile) and the need for an LSV evaporates!

Steve

Surely doing the job properly would be repairing the valve and refitting it?
If a car was brought back to me with the valve removed after I'd failed it for being seized or leaking then I'd fail it again, as above "removed when it's fitted as standard equipment".
It's there for a very good reason on a Sprint and shouldn't be bypassed.
Bad advice imo.

The post itself was aimed at Dave in particular, not people (Sprint owners) in general.

I'm more than aware WHY a standard Sprint has an LSV fitted! I could make a good case for "doing it properly" being replacing the LSV with something that actually WORKS for more than 5 mins before seizing up!

I have a large and growing collection of Sprint LSVs, all of which were removed seized solid. I can't recall EVER seeing one working as advertised.

I feel perfectly entitled to do away with the troublesome LSV because ALL my cars have the Trackerjack conversion that obviates the need for the LSV. As I'm sure you (and the vast majority of readers here) know well enough.

I ran the Carledo on stock Sprint brakes sans LSV when first built and found out the hard way that it's a bad idea! So MY first move was to seek an LSV. When I couldn't find a working one for love or money, I fitted a Cavalier pressure limiter which fixed the problem. Then I went to TJs and the problem went away.

Now I've been a tester myself, I can understand your point. If someone presented a stock Sprint to me with the LSV seized, I would fail it. If they re-presented it with the LSV removed or bypassed, I would fail it again! But, if they presented or re-presented it with TJs and no LSV, i'd pass it happily!

Were I a "normal" tester and not a Dolomite nut, I'd behave the same way, Except if the car had been redesigned without the LSV but looked standard otherwise, I probably wouldn't know any better! It's quite easy to spot something present but not working, much harder to realise something is missing when you don't KNOW it should be there and it's absence is carefully concealed! Which is why I do it so carefully, it's not necessarily to bend the rules, it just saves a long discussion, possibly even involving the ministry.

Rules are rules, but a degree of common sense is also required to make a good tester.

Steve

Common sense would surely say that if you improve the front brakes, then under hard braking you will get more weight transfer to the front and even more reason to retain the LSV to avoid locking the rears.
I'm a Dolomite nut and a "normal" tester, unfortunately I test fairly and by the book - which is why my tester rating is consistently good despite doing 30 tests a week...." The Book "says a missing LSV is a dangerous fault - and I'd endorse that. It should be pretty obvious that if an LSV is failed for being faulty, that however well you remove it and however factory you make it look, that when it's taken back for a retest it should fail for being missing - as it was there in the first place in order to fail.... Should you choose to take it somewhere else for another full test then I accept they are unlikely to know it "should" be there and it'll pass - but that's the limitations of the system.
Matt.

[new to this]

One of the main reasons for asking was my original LSV is rusty, i dont think i need a LSV on my setup, (tracker kit up front and rear disc) but belt and braces etc im putting a newer adjustable LSV i the engine bay, ( for the rears) but for originality i thought i mite be able to leave the original LSV for looks

Thanks for your help Dave

[GlenM]

One of the main reasons for asking was my original LSV is rusty, i dont think i need a LSV on my setup, (tracker kit up front and rear disc) but belt and braces etc im putting a newer adjustable LSV i the engine bay, ( for the rears) but for originality i thought i mite be able to leave the original LSV for looks

Thanks for your help Dave

Is that an adjustable brake bias valve you are fitting Dave? I have exactly the same set up (T.J. fronts and rear discs) and I was going to mount one on the bulkhead in the engine bay, where it is relatively easy to plumb it into the brake line for the rear brakes.