MOT

[DoloWIGHTY]

For what it's worth: If British Leyland could of NOT used one on this car then 100% there is no mistaking they wouldn't of fitted one as it would of saved them money.

Therefore, it should have one fitted, anyone surely can see that?

[TrustNo1]

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.

if you removed it how would the tester know it was missing, unless the tester also owns a sprint?

[TrustNo1]

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

How would you justify the pass to a DVSA official, theres nothing in the manual that makes an allowance if a homemade front brake kit is fitted nor is there anything to allow for a testers own personal opinion as to if an upgrade warrants the removal of the part?

[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

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.

Glen

Yes its an adjustable brake bias valve, ive fitted mine just on the edge of the gearbox tunnel near the PWDA thing

Dave

[matt of the vivas]

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

How would you justify the pass to a DVSA official, theres nothing in the manual that makes an allowance if a homemade front brake kit is fitted nor is there anything to allow for a testers own personal opinion as to if an upgrade warrants the removal of the part?

You wouldn't, you'd get crucified.... For better or for worse you follow "the book". For a lot of the test it's down to your own judgement - how worn is too worn? But an LSV is either fitted or its not - there's no judgement there. A vehicle passed on the basis that a faulty valve has subsequently been bypassed or removed has not been tested to the required standards and if the tester was caught doing so, they would be disciplined. There is, as you rightly say, no allowance for a home made braking system.

[matt of the vivas]

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.

if you removed it how would the tester know it was missing, unless the tester also owns a sprint?

Very unlikely that the tester would know unless he was an expert... However if it was present - and he failed it on being seized or leaking and the car was presented for a retest with the valve removed - it should obviously fail on that point!

[new to this]

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.

if you removed it how would the tester know it was missing, unless the tester also owns a sprint?

Very unlikely that the tester would know unless he was an expert... However if it was present - and he failed it on being seized or leaking and the car was presented for a retest with the valve removed - it should obviously fail on that point!

Matt

A lot of people when modifying brakes do away with the disc back plates, how would you test that pass or fail ?

Just curious Dave

[matt of the vivas]

Absolutely no requirement to have them for an MOT, they are not mentioned in any way in the handbook as a testable item. A lot of modern cars are missing them - on VWs in particular they corroded away and fall off. About the only way they could fail is if they are insecure and likely to foul something - but then simple removal would be sufficient.

[Carledo]

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

How would you justify the pass to a DVSA official, theres nothing in the manual that makes an allowance if a homemade front brake kit is fitted nor is there anything to allow for a testers own personal opinion as to if an upgrade warrants the removal of the part?

You wouldn't, you'd get crucified.... For better or for worse you follow "the book". For a lot of the test it's down to your own judgement - how worn is too worn? But an LSV is either fitted or its not - there's no judgement there. A vehicle passed on the basis that a faulty valve has subsequently been bypassed or removed has not been tested to the required standards and if the tester was caught doing so, they would be disciplined. There is, as you rightly say, no allowance for a home made braking system.

So if I was to present my Sprint to you for an MOT, with it's oversize TJs, dual circuit master cyl (it's a '78, so should be single circuit) LSV and PDWA delete and several other mods, you, knowing what you do about how it SHOULD look if standard, would feel obliged to fail it for all this, even if the numbers on the rollers were exemplary (they ARE!) and there were no other faults? Simply because it's not original?

Kunifer brake pipe and Goodridge hoses aren't standard equipment either but i've never heard the faintest suggestion that they aren't acceptable! Like I said, you need common sense to be a tester, despite what the rules say (and often, IME, because of what they DON'T say)

I'm not talking about a LSV that's still fitted but obviously bypassed, I wouldn't be that obvious, just not there and the standard non Sprint rear flexi hose and fittings used.

My own interpretation of the rules was that a tester is not required or expected to be an absolute expert on every car ever made, so the advice is to test the car as presented, is it safe? In YOUR opinion? This a judgement call, one that keeps honest testers awake nights!

Steve

PS, don't worry, I won't be turning up at your testing station for an MOT, I wouldn't be that cruel!

[matt of the vivas]

It depends on the biscuits you bring.
Digestives - fail.
Chocolate Digestives - pass and advise.
Chocolate Caramel Digestives - pass.
It's a tricky one.... It should fail, really. But can I definitively say THAT PARTICULAR CAR had an LSV from new? No.
If the modifications were done well, and there was some effort to control brake bias - like the Vauxhall valve you mentioned, or an adjustable bias valve others have suggested, then provided it gave good effort on the rollers then I'd pass it. Braided hoses are irrelevant - the requirements are that they should be in good condition etc etc, not that they should be to original specification. The material they are made from has no effect on their efficiency. That said - I don't like seeing braided hoses on road cars anyway - but that's my personal opinion and nothing to do with an MOT.
Matt.

[GTiJohn]

I'm trying to disassemble an LSV to rebuild it and have managed only to get the Allen screw out so far.

Is the next step to drift out the coil/arm and pin?

There are some very nice photos of a stripped one in another thread but does anyone have the instruction of how to get from here to there, please?

[Carledo]

It depends on the biscuits you bring.
Digestives - fail.
Chocolate Digestives - pass and advise.
Chocolate Caramel Digestives - pass.
It's a tricky one.... It should fail, really. But can I definitively say THAT PARTICULAR CAR had an LSV from new? No.
If the modifications were done well, and there was some effort to control brake bias - like the Vauxhall valve you mentioned, or an adjustable bias valve others have suggested, then provided it gave good effort on the rollers then I'd pass it. Braided hoses are irrelevant - the requirements are that they should be in good condition etc etc, not that they should be to original specification. The material they are made from has no effect on their efficiency. That said - I don't like seeing braided hoses on road cars anyway - but that's my personal opinion and nothing to do with an MOT.
Matt.

HMMMM, judgement calls based on biscuit quality! I guess i've heard less logical ideas!

I get the idea of brake bias/balance and what is involved with changing CofG etc. But there is a difference between an overbraked modern car (and they are ALL overbraked, with the tendencies controlled by ABS) and an old non ABS car like ours. All that is required to make a Sprint safe is that you improve the front brakes to the point where the front wheels always lock FIRST. The LSV achieves this by limiting the performance of the rear brakes, but on the Sprint, the gap between too good (at the rear) and right is relatively small. From experience of running a Sprint system WITHOUT an LSV, whilst discomfiting and maybe downright dangerous in extreme situations, it's not noticeable in "normal driving". So it doesn't take a big front upgrade to achieve a safe and satisfactory balance.

Until I fitted the TJs, I needed the pressure reg to get the brake balance right on the Carledo and left it there afterwards out of sheer laziness. But it didn't need it as i've proven with at least half a dozen susequent conversions with TJs fitted and LSV deleted and replaced with exactly nothing. In practise, it's a non issue! Sure it's not as safe, or should I say as foolproof, as a modern, but that's the nature of the beast, you have to actually DRIVE it! Which, for me, is part of it's charm!

Steve

[xvivalve]

My opinion sides with Matt here as there are two statements which are true with a standard Sprint:

1. The front is under braked
2. The rear is over braked.

Solving '1' with bigger/vented brakes does not automatically alter the second statement, but that is the errant assumption often made. The load sensing valve does adjust the bias by the number of passengers/luggage on board, you only have to read the setting up part of the installation guide to realise this, but FAR more importantly it senses the load transfer under braking, heavy or otherwise, as the suspension geometry changes due to momentum under retardation.

I don't agree that smaller rear brakes would have 'solved' the problem either, if BL could have done this I'm certain they would have, so clearly in certain circumstances, the full capability of the standard rear brakes ARE required and the LSV allows this to occur incrementally.

[Carledo]

My opinion sides with Matt here as there are two statements which are true with a standard Sprint:

1. The front is under braked
2. The rear is over braked.

Solving '1' with bigger/vented brakes does not automatically alter the second statement, but that is the errant assumption often made. The load sensing valve does adjust the bias by the number of passengers/luggage on board, you only have to read the setting up part of the installation guide to realise this, but FAR more importantly it senses the load transfer under braking, heavy or otherwise, as the suspension geometry changes due to momentum under retardation.

I don't agree that smaller rear brakes would have 'solved' the problem either, if BL could have done this I'm certain they would have, so clearly in certain circumstances, the full capability of the standard rear brakes ARE required and the LSV allows this to occur incrementally.

I get the point, believe it or not. I can even say, without prejudice, that a proper, working LSV is a better solution to the design criteria than my own cobbled in pressure control valve.

The problem lies in the idea of a "proper, working LSV" If I could FIND such a thing, i'd probably use it, BUT, here's the rub, I have a number of seized LSVs in my possession, I can't remember recently (ie last 20 years) seeing one in working order on a Sprint, even one used frequently. The thing apparently doesn't move enough in service to keep it free, and as Alun well knows, attempts to sleeve one in stainless for longer and more trouble free life have failed at the first fence, it just ain't technically possible!

The only thing I can think is that many seized up LSVs are (or were) being consistently overlooked on MOTs on a national basis.I've even watched it happen at least once personally - I kept schtum and let it happen, less hassle.

Nowadays, with every standard Sprint being MOT exempt, what are the odds of many ever being fixed? And if the blessed thing doesn't work correctly (or at all!) what's the point of having it?

At least my PCV works!

Steve