On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:

> Just reminded me of another problem the thing had, which was with the
> rear brakes.
>
> As I said the things were a bit nose heavy and would dive under hard
> braking, and Fiat was obviously aware of that so they fitted a shut-off
> valve to the rear brakes that was operated by mechanical link to the
> rear suspension. The idea being that in the event that the nose dived
> heavily under brakes, the upward movement of the rear suspension would
> close the valve and shut off hydraulic pressure to the rear callipers
> which in turn would prevent the rear brakes from locking up as the
> weight transferred to the front.
>
> It was a stupid idea, and the best part about it was that it didn't work :)
>
> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived hard
> enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily loaded
> and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event and keep
> the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to lock under the
> reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the brakes to get the
> rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had enough road left to
> pedal your way out of trouble without doing it all over again. Not so
> bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the wet :)

The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the rear
suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the rear, the
rear brakes were cut off entirely.

A friend when we lived in Canberra bought one in NSW and had to
re-register it for the ACT. This involved the dreaded ACT inspection
station (government run), they failed it with front brakes inoperative.
They had a machine that you had to drive on to and apply the brakes, it
measured the braking force on each wheel. He went around two or three
times after trying to find some fault with the front brakes only to find
that the testing station had connected their machine back to front and
it was the back brakes not working. Two bags of cement in the back
solved the problem.

On 18/07/2022 9:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily
>> loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event
>> and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to
>> lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the
>> brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had
>> enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble without doing it all
>> over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the wet :)
>
> The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the rear
> suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the rear, the
> rear brakes were cut off entirely.

This was kind of similar, but worked in reverse.

In official Fiat speak it was called a "Rear Brake Regulator", and
unlike a conventional load proportioning valve this was designed to cut
off rear brake function under heavy braking. As I mentioned previously,
these little 124's were a bit of a lead tipped arrow and they would dive
heavily under hard brakes. Fiat's response to that was to fit the rear
brake regulator to limit rear brake function.

I worked on this car many years ago which, apart from rebuilding the
engine fitted Koni shocks to it and replaced some suspension bushes as
the owner thought it was a Formula 1 car and wanted it specced up a bit.
This was well before the days of the internet and I bought a workshop
manual for it at the time as I needed the torque specs for the engine
rebuild.

I still have the manual, and this is a scan of the page describing the
rear brake regulator's operation and a diagram of it's arrangement:

> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBQWN0

Fiat might have thought it was a good idea, and it may well have worked
in mid range braking applications, but under hard brakes all it ever did
was completely shut off the brake line *after* the brakes had locked and
no amount of adjustment made any difference.

> A friend when we lived in Canberra bought one in NSW and had to
> re-register it for the ACT. This involved the dreaded ACT inspection
> station (government run), they failed it with front brakes inoperative.
> They had a machine that you had to drive on to and apply the brakes, it
> measured the braking force on each wheel. He went around two or three
> times after trying to find some fault with the front brakes only to find
> that the testing station had connected their machine back to front and
> it was the back brakes not working. Two bags of cement in the back
> solved the problem.

Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They make
lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/7/2022 9:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>
>> Just reminded me of another problem the thing had, which was with the
>> rear brakes.
>>
>> As I said the things were a bit nose heavy and would dive under hard
>> braking, and Fiat was obviously aware of that so they fitted a
>> shut-off valve to the rear brakes that was operated by mechanical link
>> to the rear suspension. The idea being that in the event that the nose
>> dived heavily under brakes, the upward movement of the rear suspension
>> would close the valve and shut off hydraulic pressure to the rear
>> callipers which in turn would prevent the rear brakes from locking up
>> as the weight transferred to the front.
>>
>> It was a stupid idea, and the best part about it was that it didn't
>> work :)
>>
>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily
>> loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event
>> and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to
>> lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the
>> brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had
>> enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble without doing it all
>> over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the wet :)
>
> The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the rear
> suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the rear, the
> rear brakes were cut off entirely.
>
> A friend when we lived in Canberra bought one in NSW and had to
> re-register it for the ACT. This involved the dreaded ACT inspection
> station (government run), they failed it with front brakes inoperative.
> They had a machine that you had to drive on to and apply the brakes, it
> measured the braking force on each wheel. He went around two or three
> times after trying to find some fault with the front brakes only to find
> that the testing station had connected their machine back to front and
> it was the back brakes not working. Two bags of cement in the back
> solved the problem.

The load sensing valve needed adjustment. Any time where *only* the
front brakes are operating is a potential stability issue. The *only*
time the valve should *completely* shut off pressure to the rear brakes
is when the vehicle is *jacked up* and the rear wheels are *off the
ground* when the link spring *has no tension* on it. Typically, the
adjustment in the relevant workshop manual will refer to a *set spring
length* at a given loading*. Final note, on a lot of cars to which a
load sensing proportioning valve is fitted, the rear brakes cannot be
bled whilst ever the rear wheels are off the ground.

It never ceases to amaze me just how much misunderstanding there is on
such a simple device as a load sensing proportioning valve and, in the
case of Darren's effort on this topic, *ignorant misinformation*.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/7/2022 11:00 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 9:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily
>>> loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event
>>> and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to
>>> lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the
>>> brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had
>>> enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble without doing it
>>> all over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the
>>> wet :)
>>
>> The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the
>> rear suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the
>> rear, the rear brakes were cut off entirely.
>
> This was kind of similar, but worked in reverse.
>
> In official Fiat speak it was called a "Rear Brake Regulator", and
> unlike a conventional load proportioning valve this was designed to cut
> off rear brake function under heavy braking. As I mentioned previously,
> these little 124's were a bit of a lead tipped arrow and they would dive
> heavily under hard brakes. Fiat's response to that was to fit the rear
> brake regulator to limit rear brake function.
>
> I worked on this car many years ago which, apart from rebuilding the
> engine fitted Koni shocks to it and replaced some suspension bushes as
> the owner thought it was a Formula 1 car and wanted it specced up a bit.
> This was well before the days of the internet and I bought a workshop
> manual for it at the time as I needed the torque specs for the engine
> rebuild.
>
> I still have the manual, and this is a scan of the page describing the
> rear brake regulator's operation and a diagram of it's arrangement:
>
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBQWN0
>
> Fiat might have thought it was a good idea, and it may well have worked
> in mid range braking applications, but under hard brakes all it ever did
> was completely shut off the brake line *after* the brakes had locked and
> no amount of adjustment made any difference.
>
>> A friend when we lived in Canberra bought one in NSW and had to
>> re-register it for the ACT. This involved the dreaded ACT inspection
>> station (government run), they failed it with front brakes
>> inoperative. They had a machine that you had to drive on to and apply
>> the brakes, it measured the braking force on each wheel. He went
>> around two or three times after trying to find some fault with the
>> front brakes only to find that the testing station had connected their
>> machine back to front and it was the back brakes not working. Two bags
>> of cement in the back solved the problem.
>
> Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They make
> lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)
>
Did you actually *read* what you posted Darren? Try that *last
paragraph* wherein it mentions what should be done should the rear
brakes lock up. As I quite clearly said, if the rear brakes are locking
up, there is a *fault* and it should be rectified since that is *not*
how the system was designed to operate.

The device fitted to the 124 *is a load sensing proportioning valve*,
the clue is in the wording of the name - regulator. The primary
difference between it and a unit fitted to, say, the FWD 128, is that it
stops the rear brake pressure exceeding a fixed value after
proportioning. If the only feature of its operation was to limit maximum
pressure at the rear brakes, it would be called a load sensing *limiting
valve*.

As always, you've once again called into attention your limited
comprehension ability. Explains why you failed to get any apprenticeship
ever.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 17/07/2022 11:44 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 17/07/2022 8:55 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/07/2022 8:22 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **Agreed. That monstrosity would never have made it out through the
>>> Alfa gates. In fact, the stylist would have been sacked for showing
>>> such a lack of style.
>>
>> Very few Alfa's manage to make it through the gates unless they're
>> pushed, as their mechanicals are usually not reliable enough to go
>> that far without failing :)
>
> **Sure. Fiat and Alfa are legend for unreliability and rust. Not the
> point. Alvey mentioned their styling. I responded accordingly.
>
> FWIW: One of my clients owns an Alfa. Dunno the model. It's a V6 and
> about 10 years old. She has never had a problem  with the car. So,
> that's one.
>

NoddyLiar wouldn't have a clue either way, he's just auto-repeating the
same tired old rhetoric. Nissan have an appalling reputation for
reliability too but he'll deny that.

>>
>>> A client turned up a couple of weeks ago in an Alfa Spyder. He has
>>> owned it since new and it looked gorgeous.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
> **Not only my opinion. That said, Alfa really nailed style with the
> GTV2000. Still a very attractive car.
>
>

Alfa build some of the most gorgeous cars on the market. Only stupid
culture deprived bogans with a fetish for ugly Fords would deny it.
>
>  I think the early original ones look like someone put a
>> really bad body kit on an MGB.
>
> **MGB = boring. Alfa Spyder = nice.
>
>  Luckily they're so hideously unreliable
>> that few people have ever seen one in the flesh.
>
> **Not the issue.
>
>

Yep.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/07/2022 5:31 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/07/2022 10:18 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 17/7/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily
>>> loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event
>>> and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to
>>> lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the
>>> brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had
>>> enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble without doing it
>>> all over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the
>>> wet :)
>>>
>>>
>> Never drove one long enough to encounter any problems like that but
>> sounds like it wouldn't have been all that difficult to sort out, just
>> remove the linkage and if you still had a rear brake lock up problem
>> just back them off a bit.
>> You could also fit a better designed load proportioning valve.
>
> The owner never kept the car long enough to be bothered with it.
>
>

IOW you fucked up, again.

Brakes, like anything else mechanical just aren't your thing. Maybe you
should have completed an apprenticeship.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/7/2022 11:00 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 9:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily
>>> loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event
>>> and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to
>>> lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the
>>> brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had
>>> enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble without doing it
>>> all over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the
>>> wet :)
>>
>> The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the
>> rear suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the
>> rear, the rear brakes were cut off entirely.
>
> This was kind of similar, but worked in reverse.
>
> In official Fiat speak it was called a "Rear Brake Regulator", and
> unlike a conventional load proportioning valve this was designed to cut
> off rear brake function under heavy braking. As I mentioned previously,
> these little 124's were a bit of a lead tipped arrow and they would dive
> heavily under hard brakes. Fiat's response to that was to fit the rear
> brake regulator to limit rear brake function.
>
> I worked on this car many years ago which, apart from rebuilding the
> engine fitted Koni shocks to it and replaced some suspension bushes as
> the owner thought it was a Formula 1 car and wanted it specced up a bit.
> This was well before the days of the internet and I bought a workshop
> manual for it at the time as I needed the torque specs for the engine
> rebuild.
>
> I still have the manual, and this is a scan of the page describing the
> rear brake regulator's operation and a diagram of it's arrangement:
>
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBQWN0
>
> Fiat might have thought it was a good idea, and it may well have worked
> in mid range braking applications, but under hard brakes all it ever did
> was completely shut off the brake line *after* the brakes had locked and
> no amount of adjustment made any difference.
>
>> A friend when we lived in Canberra bought one in NSW and had to
>> re-register it for the ACT. This involved the dreaded ACT inspection
>> station (government run), they failed it with front brakes
>> inoperative. They had a machine that you had to drive on to and apply
>> the brakes, it measured the braking force on each wheel. He went
>> around two or three times after trying to find some fault with the
>> front brakes only to find that the testing station had connected their
>> machine back to front and it was the back brakes not working. Two bags
>> of cement in the back solved the problem.
>
> Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They make
> lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)
>

Took the Porsche for a RW today, one of the items they failed was the
brake calipers had been painted red by someone?
Same car had a RW middle of last year and passed with no mention of the
painted calipers.

--
Daryl

On 18/07/2022 9:00 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 9:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already heavily
>>> loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after* the event
>>> and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the wheels to
>>> lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually get off the
>>> brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then hope you had
>>> enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble without doing it
>>> all over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road, but dicey in the
>>> wet :)
>>
>> The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the
>> rear suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the
>> rear, the rear brakes were cut off entirely.
>
> This was kind of similar, but worked in reverse.
>
> In official Fiat speak it was called a "Rear Brake Regulator", and
> unlike a conventional load proportioning valve this was designed to cut
> off rear brake function under heavy braking. As I mentioned previously,
> these little 124's were a bit of a lead tipped arrow and they would dive
> heavily under hard brakes. Fiat's response to that was to fit the rear
> brake regulator to limit rear brake function.
>
> I worked on this car many years ago which, apart from rebuilding the
> engine fitted Koni shocks to it and replaced some suspension bushes as
> the owner thought it was a Formula 1 car and wanted it specced up a bit.
> This was well before the days of the internet and I bought a workshop
> manual for it at the time as I needed the torque specs for the engine
> rebuild.
>
> I still have the manual, and this is a scan of the page describing the
> rear brake regulator's operation and a diagram of it's arrangement:
>
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBQWN0
>
> Fiat might have thought it was a good idea, and it may well have worked
> in mid range braking applications, but under hard brakes all it ever did
> was completely shut off the brake line *after* the brakes had locked and
> no amount of adjustment made any difference.

Bullshit. You didn't know how the system was designed to operate or how
to adjust it or rectify the *fault*.

The more you type the more you prove that you never went anywhere near
completing an apprenticeship you fucking "Noddy".

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/07/2022 6:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/7/2022 11:00 am, Noddy wrote:

>>
>> Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They
>> make lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)
>>
>
> Took the Porsche for a RW today, one of the items they failed was the
> brake calipers had been painted red by someone?
> Same car had a RW middle of last year and passed with no mention of the
> painted calipers.

How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?

Jesus :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/7/2022 5:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 5:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/07/2022 10:18 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 17/7/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>>>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already
>>>> heavily loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after*
>>>> the event and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the
>>>> wheels to lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually
>>>> get off the brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then
>>>> hope you had enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble
>>>> without doing it all over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road,
>>>> but dicey in the wet :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Never drove one long enough to encounter any problems like that but
>>> sounds like it wouldn't have been all that difficult to sort out,
>>> just remove the linkage and if you still had a rear brake lock up
>>> problem just back them off a bit.
>>> You could also fit a better designed load proportioning valve.
>>
>> The owner never kept the car long enough to be bothered with it.
>>
>>
>
>
> IOW you fucked up, again.
>
> Brakes, like anything else mechanical just aren't your thing. Maybe you
> should have completed an apprenticeship.
>
Nah, he didn't reach the *secondary school minimum entry level*,
remember? The biggest laugh here is he once again provides an item of
proof that *proves him wrong*. It's right there on his link - "It
follows that the regulator will need attention if the rear wheel begins
locking regularly when the brakes are applied in earnest". It's what I
said, "you had either a *faulty valve* or a *maladjusted one*". The
stupid bastard can't even read his own links. Now you know why they put
minimum education requirements on apprenticeships.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 6:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/7/2022 11:00 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They
>>> make lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)
>>>
>>
>> Took the Porsche for a RW today, one of the items they failed was the
>> brake calipers had been painted red by someone?
>> Same car had a RW middle of last year and passed with no mention of
>> the painted calipers.
>
> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>
> Jesus :)
>
>
>
Stuffed if I know:-)
According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat", he
was just as confused as me when I mentioned that some models have
painted calipers from the factory but apparently if its not factory its
not allowed.
Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.

--
Daryl

On 18/7/2022 7:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/07/2022 6:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 18/7/2022 11:00 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They
>>>> make lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Took the Porsche for a RW today, one of the items they failed was the
>>> brake calipers had been painted red by someone?
>>> Same car had a RW middle of last year and passed with no mention of
>>> the painted calipers.
>>
>> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>>
>> Jesus :)
>>
>>
>>
> Stuffed if I know:-)
> According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat", he
> was just as confused as me when I mentioned that some models have
> painted calipers from the factory but apparently if its not factory its
> not allowed.
> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>
If you can *prove* it is the proper caliper paint, you can get it
approved. If not, you're going to have to remove it.

Damn, there's a lot of this proof stuff goin' round, eh?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/07/2022 7:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>>
>> Jesus :)
>>
>>
>>
> Stuffed if I know:-)
> According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat", he
> was just as confused as me when I mentioned that some models have
> painted calipers from the factory but apparently if its not factory its
> not allowed.

Bizarre. I have the current copy of Vicroad's roadworthy requirements
here and it mentions nothing about painted brake components, nor does
VSI 8 which is the current Vicroads standard for modified vehicles.
Unless he can show you a reference to it in any kind of official
documentation I would be challenging it.

Who's doing the inspection?

> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.

If you want it done then drop them off to be and I'll vapor blast them
for you, but if you want the car passed call me tomorrow and I'll give
you the name of a tester to take it to.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/7/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 7:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>>>
>>> Jesus :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Stuffed if I know:-)
>> According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat",
>> he was just as confused as me when I mentioned that some models have
>> painted calipers from the factory but apparently if its not factory
>> its not allowed.
>
> Bizarre. I have the current copy of Vicroad's roadworthy requirements
> here and it mentions nothing about painted brake components, nor does
> VSI 8 which is the current Vicroads standard for modified vehicles.
> Unless he can show you a reference to it in any kind of official
> documentation I would be challenging it.
>
> Who's doing the inspection?
>
>> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>
> If you want it done then drop them off to be and I'll vapor blast them
> for you, but if you want the car passed call me tomorrow and I'll give
> you the name of a tester to take it to.
>
>
Naturally Darren has a shonky mate!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/7/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 7:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>>>
>>> Jesus :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Stuffed if I know:-)
>> According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat",
>> he was just as confused as me when I mentioned that some models have
>> painted calipers from the factory but apparently if its not factory
>> its not allowed.
>
> Bizarre. I have the current copy of Vicroad's roadworthy requirements
> here and it mentions nothing about painted brake components, nor does
> VSI 8 which is the current Vicroads standard for modified vehicles.
> Unless he can show you a reference to it in any kind of official
> documentation I would be challenging it.

It does seem weird.
>
> Who's doing the inspection?

Pro Auto Group
>
>> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>
> If you want it done then drop them off to be and I'll vapor blast them
> for you, but if you want the car passed call me tomorrow and I'll give
> you the name of a tester to take it to.
>
>
OK thanks.
Funny thing is there are a couple of things that I expected to fail such
as the wiper blades but they passed, he failed the LH rear tyre which
didn't surprise me, I was going to replace them anyway mostly because
they are 9yrs old.

--
Daryl

On 18/07/2022 9:47 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/7/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Bizarre. I have the current copy of Vicroad's roadworthy requirements
>> here and it mentions nothing about painted brake components, nor does
>> VSI 8 which is the current Vicroads standard for modified vehicles.
>> Unless he can show you a reference to it in any kind of official
>> documentation I would be challenging it.
>
> It does seem weird.

It's nuts. I just looked through everything I have which is current and
there is absolutely nothing about painted brake calipers listed
anywhere. The idea is a nonsense given that many cars come with painted
calipers from the factory. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to
think that Brembo cast their calipers in a special red aluminium alloy :)

>> Who's doing the inspection?
>
> Pro Auto Group

Even *more* bizarre. They're normally very good.

>>> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>>
>> If you want it done then drop them off to be and I'll vapor blast them
>> for you, but if you want the car passed call me tomorrow and I'll give
>> you the name of a tester to take it to.
>>
>>
> OK thanks.

Happy to do it, but if you want me to blast them then I'd recommend you
pick up a couple of caliper rebuild kits and give them new seals and
dust boots while they're off. The blaster will bring them up like brand
new, but the only effective way to ensure every bit of glass bead is out
of them is to have them completely dismantled and if you're going to
that trouble you may as well kit them.

> Funny thing is there are a couple of things that I expected to fail such
> as the wiper blades but they passed, he failed the LH rear tyre which
> didn't surprise me, I was going to replace them anyway mostly because
> they are 9yrs old.

Some people are just getting ridiculous. I was talking to a bloke in a
forum not long ago who reckoned he was a licensed vehicle tester who
claimed that he regularly knocked back modifications that had been
approved by a recognised Vicroads signatory, and when I asked him if he
thought a vehicle tester overriding an automotive engineer was just a
*tad* above his pay grade he said he was the "final word" when it came
to approving modifications :)

Fuck I laughed :)

He then went off on some bat shit crazy spiel in response to some guy
talking about his HR Holden how you couldn't fit a Ford 9 inch into any
car that didn't have one originally despite the regulations clearly
stating that the use of any type of transmission or rear axle is free in
any vehicle built before 1969 provided there are no chassis
modifications required to accommodate them.

A *real* Clueless Clasener type. Pin a badge on them and they think
they're God, despite being about as clueless as a stale dog turd.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/7/2022 10:08 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 9:47 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/7/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Bizarre. I have the current copy of Vicroad's roadworthy requirements
>>> here and it mentions nothing about painted brake components, nor does
>>> VSI 8 which is the current Vicroads standard for modified vehicles.
>>> Unless he can show you a reference to it in any kind of official
>>> documentation I would be challenging it.
>>
>> It does seem weird.
>
> It's nuts. I just looked through everything I have which is current and
> there is absolutely nothing about painted brake calipers listed
> anywhere. The idea is a nonsense given that many cars come with painted
> calipers from the factory. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to
> think that Brembo cast their calipers in a special red aluminium alloy :)
>
>>> Who's doing the inspection?
>>
>> Pro Auto Group
>
> Even *more* bizarre. They're normally very good.

That was the only odd item on the list, there is a small piece of what
Porsche call a "trim" next to the front indicator that is cracked, I've
ordered the part because it looks crap and he crossed that of the list
when I pointed out to him that it isn't part of the indicator.
>
>>>> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>>>
>>> If you want it done then drop them off to be and I'll vapor blast
>>> them for you, but if you want the car passed call me tomorrow and
>>> I'll give you the name of a tester to take it to.
>>>
>>>
>> OK thanks.
>
> Happy to do it, but if you want me to blast them then I'd recommend you
> pick up a couple of caliper rebuild kits and give them new seals and
> dust boots while they're off. The blaster will bring them up like brand
> new, but the only effective way to ensure every bit of glass bead is out
> of them is to have them completely dismantled and if you're going to
> that trouble you may as well kit them.

Thanks, I'm going to try brake cleaner first as a lot of people on
various forums are saying that it will take it straight off.
>
>> Funny thing is there are a couple of things that I expected to fail
>> such as the wiper blades but they passed, he failed the LH rear tyre
>> which didn't surprise me, I was going to replace them anyway mostly
>> because they are 9yrs old.
>
> Some people are just getting ridiculous. I was talking to a bloke in a
> forum not long ago who reckoned he was a licensed vehicle tester who
> claimed that he regularly knocked back modifications that had been
> approved by a recognised Vicroads signatory, and when I asked him if he
> thought a vehicle tester overriding an automotive engineer was just a
> *tad* above his pay grade he said he was the "final word" when it came
> to approving modifications :)
>
> Fuck I laughed :)
>
> He then went off on some bat shit crazy spiel in response to some guy
> talking about his HR Holden how you couldn't fit a Ford 9 inch into any
> car that didn't have one originally despite the regulations clearly
> stating that the use of any type of transmission or rear axle is free in
> any vehicle built before 1969 provided there are no chassis
> modifications required to accommodate them.

Bloke who bought the original Clubman that Les and I built more than
20yrs ago let the rego run out so he had to get a RW, the RW person is
asking to see the original engineering papers despite the car being
registered for the last 20yrs.
>
> A *real* Clueless Clasener type. Pin a badge on them and they think
> they're God, despite being about as clueless as a stale dog turd.
>
>

There is a element of that but apparently Vic Roads are a bunch of
pricks to deal with and will take away a RWC tester license for almost
no reason so some testers think that they need to go above and beyond
even if something meets the rules.
They are becoming especially difficult on anything with modifications.
There are some testers who are sympathetic to modified cars, the green
Torana went to 4 different testers before he found someone who didn't
come up with a long list of trivial "faults".

--
Daryl

On 19/07/2022 7:57 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/7/2022 10:08 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>>> Who's doing the inspection?
>>>
>>> Pro Auto Group
>>
>> Even *more* bizarre. They're normally very good.
>
> That was the only odd item on the list, there is a small piece of what
> Porsche call a "trim" next to the front indicator that is cracked, I've
> ordered the part because it looks crap and he crossed that of the list
> when I pointed out to him that it isn't part of the indicator.

I found a bloke and his son who are over in St.Albans who are great.
Nothing shonky, they just know what they're doing and don't put their
own interpretation on the rules like so many people try to these days.
Happy to pass on their details if you need them.

>> Happy to do it, but if you want me to blast them then I'd recommend
>> you pick up a couple of caliper rebuild kits and give them new seals
>> and dust boots while they're off. The blaster will bring them up like
>> brand new, but the only effective way to ensure every bit of glass
>> bead is out of them is to have them completely dismantled and if
>> you're going to that trouble you may as well kit them.
>
> Thanks, I'm going to try brake cleaner first as a lot of people on
> various forums are saying that it will take it straight off.

Brake cleaner or lacquer thinners. Give it a go. If you get stuck I'm
happy to blast them, but that will be a much bigger job obviously.

> Bloke who bought the original Clubman that Les and I built more than
> 20yrs ago let the rego run out so he had to get a RW, the RW person is
> asking to see the original engineering papers despite the car being
> registered for the last 20yrs.

For fuck's sake.

>> A *real* Clueless Clasener type. Pin a badge on them and they think
>> they're God, despite being about as clueless as a stale dog turd.
>
> There is a element of that but apparently Vic Roads are a bunch of
> pricks to deal with and will take away a RWC tester license for almost
> no reason so some testers think that they need to go above and beyond
> even if something meets the rules.

In most cases it's all electronic now. Photos are directly uploaded to
Vicroads.

> They are becoming especially difficult on anything with modifications.
> There are some testers who are sympathetic to modified cars, the green
> Torana went to 4 different testers before he found someone who didn't
> come up with a long list of trivial "faults".

This is the problem on the "club permit" scene. Most testers these days
were born after the car they're testing was actually made, and they have
no idea what standards to apply. Last documentation I got from Vicroads
stated that they were instituting an "education process" to help testers
deal with older cars.

I mean, for fuck's sake the requirements are all in black and white.
It's not difficult but some people carry on as if they're Jesus Christ.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 7/18/2022 7:34 PM, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/07/2022 6:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 18/7/2022 11:00 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Fucking idiots. A bit like some of the "experts" around here. They
>>>> make lots of noise, but have absolutely no fucking idea :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Took the Porsche for a RW today, one of the items they failed was the
>>> brake calipers had been painted red by someone?
>>> Same car had a RW middle of last year and passed with no mention of
>>> the painted calipers.
>>
>> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>>
>> Jesus :)
>>
>>
>>
> Stuffed if I know:-)
> According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat",
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All that air rushing past dosn`t help remove any heat eh??. Rules for
the sake of it!..(Maybe krypsis has been freelancing?)

he
> was just as confused as me when I mentioned that some models have
> painted calipers from the factory but apparently if its not factory its
> not allowed.
> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>

On 7/18/2022 6:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 9:00 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/07/2022 9:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 17/07/2022 9:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact it worked in reverse in that by the time the car nose dived
>>>> hard enough to operate the valve the rear brakes were already
>>>> heavily loaded and all the valve managed to do was to close *after*
>>>> the event and keep the rear brakes fully pressurised and allow the
>>>> wheels to lock under the reduced weight bias. You had to actually
>>>> get off the brakes to get the rear wheels rolling again, and then
>>>> hope you had enough road left to pedal your way out of trouble
>>>> without doing it all over again. Not so bad on a straight dry road,
>>>> but dicey in the wet :)
>>>
>>> The Renault 5 had a similar system, there was a linkage between the
>>> rear suspension and the rear brakes. If there was no weight in the
>>> rear, the rear brakes were cut off entirely.
>>
>> This was kind of similar, but worked in reverse.
>>
>> In official Fiat speak it was called a "Rear Brake Regulator", and
>> unlike a conventional load proportioning valve this was designed to
>> cut off rear brake function under heavy braking. As I mentioned
>> previously, these little 124's were a bit of a lead tipped arrow and
>> they would dive heavily under hard brakes. Fiat's response to that was
>> to fit the rear brake regulator to limit rear brake function.
>>
>> I worked on this car many years ago which, apart from rebuilding the
>> engine fitted Koni shocks to it and replaced some suspension bushes as
>> the owner thought it was a Formula 1 car and wanted it specced up a
>> bit. This was well before the days of the internet and I bought a
>> workshop manual for it at the time as I needed the torque specs for
>> the engine rebuild.
>>
>> I still have the manual, and this is a scan of the page describing the
>> rear brake regulator's operation and a diagram of it's arrangement:
>>
>>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBQWN0
>>
>> Fiat might have thought it was a good idea, and it may well have
>> worked in mid range braking applications, but under hard brakes all it
>> ever did was completely shut off the brake line *after* the brakes had
>> locked and no amount of adjustment made any difference.
>
>
> Bullshit. You didn't know how the system was designed to operate or how
> to adjust it or rectify the *fault*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HMmmm, Inquiring minds need to know!. How about giving me (not *us*)
*your take* on the design and fix?????...
>
> The more you type the more you prove that you never went anywhere near
> completing an apprenticeship you fucking "Noddy".
>
>
>
>

On 19/07/2022 11:16 am, JONZ wrote:
> On 7/18/2022 7:34 PM, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/7/2022 6:23 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> How the fucking hell is painted calipers a roadworthy fail?
>>>
>>> Jesus :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Stuffed if I know:-)
>> According to the tester Vic Roads says that paint can "retain heat",
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  All that air rushing past dosn`t help remove any heat eh??. Rules for
> the sake of it!..(Maybe krypsis has been freelancing?)

Lol :) It's about his level of intellect. Be even funnier if you could
ask them to explain why it is that "factory" paint on some calipers is
okay, but after market paint isn't.

Stand by for Clueless Clasener to give us a long winded but utterly
ridiculous rant about how the factory uses "rooly rooly speshul" paint
that dissipates heat compared to caliper paint you buy from Supercheap.

As we all know, this moron is the *last* person on Earth who should ever
be talking about brakes :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/07/2022 11:43 am, JONZ wrote:
> On 7/18/2022 6:00 PM, Clocky wrote:

>> Bullshit. You didn't know how the system was designed to operate or
>> how to adjust it or rectify the *fault*.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> HMmmm, Inquiring minds need to know!. How about giving me (not *us*)
> *your take* on the design and fix?????...

An odd comment from the irrelevant mudflap fitter considering that he's
never so much as been within 3 suburbs of one of these things whereas I
have the workshop manual detailing the correct adjustment process right
here in my workshop bookcase :) If he actually *had* any relevant
experience he would know that like many devices attached to many
vehicles they might be a good idea in theory but in practice they just
don't fucking work.

It's interesting to observe that the two munts who make the most noise
about their credentials *also* happen to be the two most clueless
"experts" this group has ever known :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/7/2022 12:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 11:43 am, JONZ wrote:
>> On 7/18/2022 6:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> Bullshit. You didn't know how the system was designed to operate or
>>> how to adjust it or rectify the *fault*.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> HMmmm, Inquiring minds need to know!. How about giving me (not *us*)
>> *your take* on the design and fix?????...
>
> An odd comment from the irrelevant mudflap fitter considering that he's
> never so much as been within 3 suburbs of one of these things whereas I
> have the workshop manual detailing the correct adjustment process right
> here in my workshop bookcase :) If he actually *had* any relevant
> experience he would know that like many devices attached to many
> vehicles they might be a good idea in theory but in practice they just
> don't fucking work.

Ahem Darren, the idea worked *perfectly* on a huge range of vehicles
right up until ABS/TCS supplanted it. Fiat had no issues with them on
any of the 128 series FWD cars and, I might add, FWD cars are where the
load sensing proportioning valve comes into its own. Did you also know
that most utes had them as well - not surprising given the huge mass
difference between empty and fully laden on those. Oh, and I notice you
are *again* harping on about *relevant experience*. Since you know you
can't claim an apprenticeship (or two), your *pseudo-experience* is your
only fallback. Funny to watch, especially since you make it patently
obvious you are unable to learn.
>
> It's interesting to observe that the two munts who make the most noise
> about their credentials *also* happen to be the two most clueless
> "experts" this group has ever known :)
>
Puir wee Darren, I was working on these jiggers *way before* you got out
of short pants. You couldn't even *comprehend* the instructions you
posted which, I might add, matched my take on the *claimed fault* which
was adjust or replace. Whilst those units can be dismantled, they
typically have no service parts availability and manufacturers do not
recommend they be repaired anyway. Even the proportioning valves that
are integral within a master cylinder service the valve as a complete
assembly.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/7/2022 10:08 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 9:47 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/7/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Bizarre. I have the current copy of Vicroad's roadworthy requirements
>>> here and it mentions nothing about painted brake components, nor does
>>> VSI 8 which is the current Vicroads standard for modified vehicles.
>>> Unless he can show you a reference to it in any kind of official
>>> documentation I would be challenging it.
>>
>> It does seem weird.
>
> It's nuts. I just looked through everything I have which is current and
> there is absolutely nothing about painted brake calipers listed
> anywhere. The idea is a nonsense given that many cars come with painted
> calipers from the factory. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to
> think that Brembo cast their calipers in a special red aluminium alloy :)
>
>>> Who's doing the inspection?
>>
>> Pro Auto Group
>
> Even *more* bizarre. They're normally very good.
>
>>>> Hopefully it won't be too difficult to remove.
>>>
>>> If you want it done then drop them off to be and I'll vapor blast
>>> them for you, but if you want the car passed call me tomorrow and
>>> I'll give you the name of a tester to take it to.
>>>
>>>
>> OK thanks.
>
> Happy to do it, but if you want me to blast them then I'd recommend you
> pick up a couple of caliper rebuild kits and give them new seals and
> dust boots while they're off. The blaster will bring them up like brand
> new, but the only effective way to ensure every bit of glass bead is out
> of them is to have them completely dismantled and if you're going to
> that trouble you may as well kit them.
>
>> Funny thing is there are a couple of things that I expected to fail
>> such as the wiper blades but they passed, he failed the LH rear tyre
>> which didn't surprise me, I was going to replace them anyway mostly
>> because they are 9yrs old.
>
> Some people are just getting ridiculous. I was talking to a bloke in a
> forum not long ago who reckoned he was a licensed vehicle tester who
> claimed that he regularly knocked back modifications that had been
> approved by a recognised Vicroads signatory, and when I asked him if he
> thought a vehicle tester overriding an automotive engineer was just a
> *tad* above his pay grade he said he was the "final word" when it came
> to approving modifications :)
>
> Fuck I laughed :)
>
> He then went off on some bat shit crazy spiel in response to some guy
> talking about his HR Holden how you couldn't fit a Ford 9 inch into any
> car that didn't have one originally despite the regulations clearly
> stating that the use of any type of transmission or rear axle is free in
> any vehicle built before 1969 provided there are no chassis
> modifications required to accommodate them.
>
> A *real* Clueless Clasener type. Pin a badge on them and they think
> they're God, despite being about as clueless as a stale dog turd.
>
Nice to see I'm really getting to you Darren? You've made my day!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 19/07/2022 10:14 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 11:43 am, JONZ wrote:
>> On 7/18/2022 6:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> Bullshit. You didn't know how the system was designed to operate or
>>> how to adjust it or rectify the *fault*.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> HMmmm, Inquiring minds need to know!. How about giving me (not *us*)
>> *your take* on the design and fix?????...
>
> An odd comment from the irrelevant mudflap fitter considering that he's
> never so much as been within 3 suburbs of one of these things whereas I
> have the workshop manual detailing the correct adjustment process right
> here in my workshop bookcase :) If he actually *had* any relevant
> experience he would know that like many devices attached to many
> vehicles they might be a good idea in theory but in practice they just
> don't fucking work.
>

They work fine on millions of vehicles in use every day and the opinion
of one shonk oblivious to that fact and who has never completed an
apprenticeship isn't worth a pinch of shit.

> It's interesting to observe that the two munts who make the most noise
> about their credentials *also* happen to be the two most clueless
> "experts" this group has ever known :)
>

You *prove* you are clueless and the real mechanics in here recognise it
:-) You can only sell your bullshit to a few numpties who aren't
qualified and like you have never completed an apprenticeship. (well
except Daryl, but he chooses to be complicit in silence knowing what
will happen if he crosses you).

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."