I have 1 week before bike trip and the mot failed.

The tester raised the bike off the ground and pushed the front wheel up and down saying, when the forks are fully extended there is several inches of up and down movement wich has no contact with any spring.
I was like, im not going to ride with the wheel in mid air!
Not sure what to do, only 1 week left, my forks are just standard b33 tele's. the last mot guy never did that.
are my springs likely to be the culprit?

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

Maxwell, take it to another MOT tester. Find one who's sympathetic to classics. If they can find an excuse to pass it, they probably will.

I had one MOT tester tell me that he needed me to leave the bike with him for a few hours because he had special equipment to test the girders.

I took it down the road and got an MOT from another shop, no problem.

Better sort out any wheel bearing problem though.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

I agree with Danny. Both of my local bike MOT stations admit to being sympathetic to classics when asked and if I've ever been unsure about something for the MOT I've always asked first as I guess that it's better to know what's what rather than them spotting it anyway and having some grey area issue.

email (option): lee@twowheelstested.co.uk

yea i had to give him 30 quid for the privalige of the fail.

i tried to say theyre just standard bsa forks, nowt but a spring, bushes and tube.
yea maybe i cut my losses and try somewhere else.
anyone reccomend a classics freindly mot'er in london?

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

Maxwell, I live in East London and use a little shop called Howard Powell Motorcycles. 0208 472 8301. Talk to Charles. Tell him you were recommended by a guy who brings his BSA WM20 and Triumph Bonneville in each year. I wear a helmet camera. Charles will remember me (with a bit of prodding). He's a good guy, friendly and chatty, and will be as helpful as he can. I can't recommend anyone else in London. But it might be worth a ride over to the East. Does that help?

If not, talk to Bill Crosby at Reg Allen Motorcycles in Hanwell, West London, W7. I don't know if he does MOTs, but he's the kind of guy who'll know someone who can help.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

thanks will do.
I actually went to a place in east london, made the trip because they said they are accustomed to classics.
i dont think they were tho, real modern place ful of kawasaki ninjas etc.
ill try the ones you said

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

oh yea I know at first glance my bike doesent look like itd pass as scrap let alone an mot.
so i think its immediately putting mot'er's off.
no lights (daytime use) etc

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

The MOT tester was right if there was, in fact, no contact between the springs and the bottom yoke with the forks extended...They should remain in contact all the time. It is possible you have the wrong springs from another (smaller?) model fitted..It's not just about having some contact when the wheel is on the floor, with the wrong springs pre load and poundage ratings would be completely wrong for the weight of the bike, total fork movement would be reduced and rake and trail figures would be affected, which could all have a detrimental effect on machine stability...Looking at the bigger picture I think this story illustrates the advantages of an annual MOT,or at least an MOT when a new rebuild first gets on the road..If you have inadvertantly fitted the wrong springs or have made some other error during assembly, the tester has, rightly, picked this up at the inspection (along with the defective wheel bearing). It's an inconvenience admittedly, but in some circumstances, and this may be one, it might turn out to be a life saver. Getting rid of the MOT is a great idea..as long as everyone is totally proficient at assembling and preparing bikes for the road and won't deliberately use a bike with a potentially serious fault...Life isn't like that though...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Hi Maxwell, I think you may have a problem if you take it elsewhere because now the MOT's are all computerized, when the new place puts your bike details in the fail from your last MOT will come up and the MOT guy will pay special attention to the forks.He may be reluctant to go against the decision of the previous tester unless he is happy that you have looked into the problem and sorted it.Good luck,Mick.

Hi maxwell

Reg allens dont do mots but could possibly recommend

Bill had an acident recently so is limited in movement, he may not be about to answer the phone but mark will be

Alternatively, on eastcote lane near rayners lane - swallow motorcycles or swallow motor company ? Do my m20 (last 4 years) & my 72 daytona more recently

Check them on google, they'll sort it for you

Best regards

Job

email (option): Jonnyob1@googlemail.com

Yea the wheel bearings is fair enough not sure why I didn't look at those.
But the things the guy was saying, as he raised the bike off the ground and the forks got longer and longer he then stopped saying
'how far before the forks fall apart'
I was like 'huh?'
then he kept saying the forks are falling apart, thats before even trying the up and down with the wheel thing. surely there's no way of controlling how far the forks extend when the bike is raised is there?
Anyway Ive ordered new springs, see what that does.

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

Maxwell, the comments about the bike being defective are right. But it's a question of degree. You can argue that all bikes more than twenty or thirty years old are defective inasmuch as they have brakes that aren't up to modern standards and traffic conditions.

Ditto for lighting issues and lack of indicators. And plenty can't maintain a "reasonable" motorway speed. Then there's the fire risk issue with older classics.

Your bike does need to be be fit for the road (whatever that means to you). I was simply thinking that some testers are extremely finicky/petty. That's all.

And yes, MOTs are all computerised. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a second opinion will automatically fail a component that was picked up by a previous tester. There is some latitude, and MOTs are only meaningful at the time they occur.

As I said, find a sympathetic tester. But take heed if they tell you there's something seriously/significantly wrong. Sympathetic doesn't imply irresponsible.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Misinterpreting the meaning and spirit of the word 'defective' in the context of an MOT inspection or a machines design is misleading.. The design features of a 50 year old BSA (or any other old bike) may not equate directly to the same features in a modern design but that doesn't make them 'defective'..not even in the case of a direct comparison..just different. That would be like saying a bike is defective because it only has one cylinder, not four. They become 'defective' when they do not function correctly in the manner intended in the design.
Whereas it is perfectly legal to ride a properly prepared 50 year old machine on the road (or a new one come to that), it is not so (or advisable) when the machine has a defect that could compromise its correct function in relation to handling or stopping etc. etc....
I would imagine the testers comments about Maxwells forks being defective were made because he didn't think they were correctly put together/functioning and they were therefore 'defective'..not because they weren't the same as a pair of upside down Ducati forks...And if the springs aren't contacting the bottom yoke on full extension they ARE 'defective' for all the reasons I mentioned in my previous post...
Whilst it may be fair to criticise a tester who simply doesn't understand how what he is testing works, you can't really blame him if he does identify a genuine problem..
Had he not found a problem with that and the wheel bearing I would assume the ticket would have been issued....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

I realise that, defective means defective, not 'not as good as ninja forks'
Its my opinion that there is no probem with the forks, I put the bike together, and I did the forks, all according to bsa guidelines.
In my opinion the tester wrongly made a fuss as the bike went up, the forks got longer. then he tried to prove his point by shoving the wheel up and down, resulting in a 'arguing the toss' situation resulting in a fail.
I think it was not lack of spring contact.
it was spring contact but with springs that resist less than the modern bikes he is accustomed to.
unless the springs have succomed to excessive wear since the last mot.
I would be interested to see how easy it is to push the wheel up and down on another bsa tele with the front wheel raised

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

Maxwell, if there is spring preload at full extension then simply do the wheel bearing & then take the bike back for re test without fork shrouds on & prove it, this could be with old springs or the new ones you have ordered, that will stop any argument.

good idea!

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com

Hi Ian, I don't entirely agree here. Whilst it's okay to reason that, strictly speaking, a bike (or whatever) is defective if it fails to perform as originally designed, in reality it's not that simple.

A braking system, for instance, might well be designed to stop a bike within a given distance, but that distance isn't an arbitrary one. That distance is related closely to contemporary things such as congestion, or the relative speed of other vehicles, or the acceleration of other vehicles.

A braking system designed for one era might well become defective (in the broader sense) in another era—not necessarily in a technical sense, but certainly in spirit. If, for example, you spoke to a designer of a 1930s braking system and told him that one day this vehicle will be used when other vehicles are moving two, three, or four times as fast, would he still consider the system safe? I’m certain he’d tell you that the braking (in that future date) would be defective. Or, if you prefer, inadequate. No, it doesn’t necessarily have an engineered defect. But it might well be defective in usage.

Ditto for lighting. Modern car headlights are so powerful than my poor old M20 almost disappears. The lighting on my bike hasn’t changed, but the CONTEXT did—and you can’t have one standard without the other. Everything is contextual.

And it might well be argued that a single cylinder bike IS defective when compared to a multi-cylinder machine, not that it’s necessarily defective in a technical sense, but defective in usage (i.e. on motorways where it can’t maintain a “reasonable” speed).

Of course, an MOT tester is employed to test things in a technical sense, but he still has a certain latitude. And where he doesn’t have access to design data (spring rate, braking efficiency, freeplay) he’s obliged to use his own judgement.

A carburettor tickler, as another example, might function as designed, but that was designed with the expectation of a certain amount of leakage when safety standards were lower. Of course, if tickled precisely, it might not leak. But in practice, it will. Once again, here’s an example of something that might be argued as defective. “It leaks fuel, so I’m not passing that!”

It’s all a question of degree and latitude. I’m not even sure defective is really the issue. It’s only a question of danger. A petrol tank with a dent in it might well be classed as defective; inasmuch as it has a defect. But it’s not necessarily a danger.

As I said, these things need a sympathetic MOT tester, but never one who’ll issue a pass certificate to an overtly dangerous vehicle.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

If its not up to modern standards its inadequate, but its not a defect really is it.

Hi Danny..As you say I think inadequate is a better term to use than defective in this context, when considering an old machines performance in a modern environment.
However, despite any perceived inadequacy (and that is subjective until someone legislates on any aspect of it) the fact is the older designs are accepted by 'the powers that be' as 'adequate' when it comes to using them on the road today...unless they are defective.. .(outside the working limits of the original design)..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

The last time I took my M20 in for an MOT, the bike went through okay, but it was me who got a couple of advisories.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Hi Maxwell,
just checked the teles on my M21 plunger.
With the front wheel raised I can only compress the forks(lift the wheel)about an inch, tops before it lifts off the centre stand. These are rebuilt forks with good second hand springs.

email (option): spacemonkeym@gmail.com

cheers nice one. im going to have a look at the bike when i get a chance

email (option): hutman80@hotmail.com