UKLPG comments

[LPGC]

t's not an MoT scheme

Well, fancy meeting you on this thread Kidding, mate

Still - MOT testers doing the checks, working out of their usual VOSA approved MOT testing garages whichever way you look at it

Agreed Mike did say his suggestion to DOT was for a specific/different test at an MOT station, and that DOT refused on grounds it would cost too much to introduce whilst there haven't been any LPG accidents to justify that cost. Agreed with DOT's point of view, since this suggestion would mean a lot of retraining for MOT testers there would be cost involved... So I asked Mike why not re-approach DOT with a re-thought through suggestion, the suggestion being a normal MOT following an LPG install - Mike said he hasn't done that but DOT seem to have made up their minds anyway.

I did say to Mike - Since he thinks a modified test by MOT staff would be better than the current system, then as a compromise... since DOT aren't prepared to invest in retraining MOT staff, since UKLPG members only see maybe 1/3 of new installs (which Mike agreed to)... wouldn't it be better for all installs to be checked by MOT staff (instead of 1/3 being checked by UKLPG members), even without spending money to retrain MOT staff... My point is, of course, what should be considered a better situation - a 100% check on all installs that isn't the most thorough check, or a thorough check on only 33% of installs? I would say the 100% check because it will catch the obviously unsafe and crazy installs, which as a group are probably the least likely to be submitted for a UKLPG check anyway.

Simon

[rossko]

Or, a completely zero-cost option for DfT: lean on motor insurers and encourage them to require certification under an self-funding existing scheme (the one the industry invented for itself in the face of government inertia).
There is more than one pragmatic approach.

[LPGC]

Rosko, Agreed that any situation which in effect means all installs must be subject to a check by competent persons should at face value work. Leaning on insurers so they all require vehicles to be UKLPG registered is an obvious way to achieve this, and should at face value work, but this assumes that UKLPG database registered status means vehicles have actually been checked by competent persons - There are problems:

UKLPG's scheme is already easily cheated, Mike Chapman from UKLPG agrees and cannot see how this can be prevented (other than suggesting vigilance by members AND none members - I replied members who take cash over the phone and none members are unlikely to 'bite off their nose to spite their face' - Mike agreed again)... Likely if UKLPG's scheme was involved with 100% of installs we would simply see an even greater increase in the number of cheated registrations with no way of preventing them. Related argument - any scheme which involves certifying own work is less substantial than one that involves independent certification.

Mike said that UKLPG's scheme runs at a loss, the shortfall paid for by gas supply companies, that UKLPG currently sees only 33% of converted vehicles. If it were to cover 100% of converted vehicles they would need to employ more staff, would run at an even bigger loss or scheme charges / gas prices at the pump might need to increase. Nobody wants pump prices to go up, UKLPG doesn't have a majority membership of installers as it stands, higher UKLPG membership costs might not encourage a greater percentage membership even if all insurers required database registration - instead even more registrations might be fraudulent.

Mike said UKLPG don't want to be running the scheme - he has suggested the MOT scheme to government himself. What happens if UKLPG say 'no thanks we're not doing this anymore'... Then we would be in a situation where government has to scrap the idea or set up a new body to check new LPG installs or maybe offer UKLPG incentives such as payment so they will continue, all of which could have been avoided by using the MOT scheme.

How would government lean on insurers? Seems the relevant standard by law is more likely to be BSEN than COP11 so this might imply the government needing to have dual standards or a change in law. All insurers will already have had UKLPG's scheme / case presented to them, yet only a minority have acted on UKLPG's advice... Maybe insurers are put-off by the legal standard being BSEN whilst the trade body touts COP11 / the lack of incidents involving LPG vehicles / they might feel UKLPGs scheme is ineffective / insurers might not want to lose custom by making their customers jump through what they consider unnecessary hoops whilst other insurers don't). Maybe any leaning would need to include the same type of changes in law that, when presented as a requirement for the MOT scheme, you've said couldn't / wouldn't happen.

Recent emails between Mike and myself below... I'm not going behind Mike's back by posting emails etc, he has said he is happy for me to quote him in part or entirely.. Obviously the following are in reverse date/time order due to being copied / pasted emails... start at the bottom and work up! :

Mike Chapman Oct 14 at 6:41 PM
To
simon andrew
Thank you for your message.

I am currently out of the office on annual leave, returning on 2nd November

I will endeavour to reply as soon as possible , but if you require an urgent response please email autogas@uklpg.org with your enquiry

Mike Chapman
Autogas Manager
UKLPG

Simon andrew Today at 6:41 PM
To
Mike Chapman
Hi Mike,

This was meant to be a quickie, sorry for the length!

Here's the link to the BMW forum thread.. http://www.bimmerforums.co.uk/forum/f15 ... ndex2.html

The above link to the BMW thread was posted on the LPG forum thread: http://www.lpgforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=11760

We may have to disagree on our thoughts on the hypothetical comparison in the email I just sent... In the extreme situation comparison, situation 1 would mean only (literally) a couple of vehicles would be checked thoroughly, with the rest (above 99.5%) not being checked at all.. I think situation 2, which would only check the tank couldn't wobble about but applicable to 100% of installs, would be a better situation. The wobble test would of course be an extremely and laughably basic test, but one which could easily be extended to check tank fastening where fastening points are visible without having to dismantle things like carpets - since dismantling doesn't need to be done on the majority of installs (particularly now most tanks fitted seem to be 30deg internal toroidal) to check tank fastening points / spreader plates, the above comparisons based on real figures would become 33% of installs having a thorough check but 67% of vehicles not being checked at all in situation 1, and in situation2 maybe 80% of vehicles having a meaningful check on tank security but no further checks. Would think tank security to be the most safety critical aspect of an install? I would also suggest that getting MOT man involved at even a very basic level in commissioning LPG systems as 'safe' would raise MOT man's awareness of LPG system safety and this would be reflected in him checking LPG systems more thoroughly during the usual annual MOTs. All above situations involve compromises, point of view will depend on which set of compromises are preferred.

You and I would prefer MOT man to commission LPG systems as safe instead of UKLPG members, DOT won't (literally) buy into it. You also recently pointed out that Vosa wouldn't want to be held responsible for unsafe installs - to this I would answer there will be many vehicles involved in accidents due to vehicle problems even where vehicles have just passed an MOT, on the printed MOTs there was a kind of disclaimer 'this document doesn't necessarily mean the vehicle is safe'. As long as MOT man checks the points he is obligated to check, he and VOSA have done their bit and cannot be held responsible. On the forum I have said before that MOT man is accountable to VOSA and can lose his licence for not doing his job properly, and if found to be at fault will lose his licence to do MOT's. In comparison, an installer can be struck out of UKLPG and still legally convert vehicles... In the general context of the discussion, the argument for responsibility and blame cuts both ways. Maybe to reassure DOT / Vosa, an acceptable compromise would be a test which wouldn't be too technically specific for MOT man, and this kind of basic test also wouldn't involve expensive retraining.

Perhaps we could come up with a suggestion for DOT that would include checking 100% of vehicles but not be too costly or technically specific to prevent DOT from implementing it. Such a scheme will of course mean compromises on what is checked and under what circumstances, i.e. regards the spreader plates point - I would suggest check the suitability if visible without dismantling. Despite talk, which I can only agree with, regards MOT man not being able to dismantle, I have known MOT man to remove carpets etc to check inner sills, floors, etc for corrosion where they have been unsure as to the extent of corrosion having only seen one side of suspected corrosion...

Regards,

Simon Andrew
LPG Conversions
www.Lpgc.co.uk
07816237240

From: Mike Chapman <mike.chapman@uklpg.org>
To: 'simon andrew' <cheapmotoring@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014, 17:01
Subject: RE: UKLPG

Hi Simon

I have to say I disagree regarding the emails – MOT inspectors can’t even lift the boot floor to check if a tank is loose! Checking 100% of very little is worse than a thorough check on 33% and the checks by our installers have picked up real issues which would not have been picked up by the MOT basis.

Am happy for you to go public with my views, we are transparent in what I / we do.

What you have posted is a fair reflection – my only issue was with the MOT which I thus raised.

As regards the Forum, I do not have the hours to devote to checking everything on this or any other Forum and leave our installers to raise points as they wish or advise me if there is a situation they are concerned about

Please do not hesitate to keep in touch or contact me to clarify any issues or concerns you may have

When we spoke you mentioned the BMW Forum with details of the tank installation. I have not been able to find it – do you have a link so I can follow up?

Regards

Mike Chapman
Autogas Manager
UKLPG, the trade association of the UK LP Gas industry.
mike.chapman@uklpg.org | Visit: www.uklpg.org.
UKLPG is Registered in England No. 977549.

www.drivelpg.co.uk the independent consumer guide to LPG autogas in the UK

From: simon andrew [mailto:cheapmotoring@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:52
To: Mike Chapman
Subject: Re: UKLPG

Hi Mike,

Thanks, I enjoyed our meeting too, was nice to meet you.

Since our meeting, as you know, I have listed points discussed etc on the forum, I hope you agree I've given a fair representation? I did say that you didn't agree that the MOT scheme was suitable as is and mentioned your point about spreader plates.

In my more recent post I again mentioned my thought that although the MOT system, as is, wouldn't be as thorough as a UKLPG check, where only maybe 1/3rd of vehicles are submitted for a UKLPG check, 100% of vehicles could be submitted for a mandatory MOT check. If we took both situations to the extreme for comparative purposes in the following situations then I believe the MOT check would be better... Those situations might be - Situation 1... An MOT check only checks to make sure the tank cannot flop around in the boot, nothing else, but it does that on 100% of converted vehicles. Situation 2... A UKLPG check closely examines every aspect of the LPG system, but only does that on a couple of converted vehicles per year.

I didn't realise that VOSA didn't want to be involved because they feel it would open them up for claims etc, can't remember you bringing up this specific point during our chat. if I mention this now, then I would need to mention our recent emails etc... I hope you're not offended by my listing points discussed during our chat - I didn't get the impression that you would be at the time, and haven't said anything to make me believe you would be since. Still, I'm a little uneasy quoting points discussed in private emails / face to face etc! Not usually the kind of thing I would do... Would you have anything against joining discussion on the forum, consider this an invite?

Best regards,

Yours,

Simon Andrew
LPG Conversions
www.Lpgc.co.uk
07816237240

From: Mike Chapman <mike.chapman@uklpg.org>
To: "'cheapmotoring@yahoo.co.uk'" <cheapmotoring@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "'info@blazegas.com'" <info@blazegas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014, 15:50
Subject: UKLPG

Hi Simon

It was good to have our chat recently and having got back to the office have picked up on your comments on the LPG Discussion Forum

The only thing I would add regarding the MOT, and as mentioned, is that all MOT stations are restricted to assessing components on what they can see and are thus unable to move or lift or remove any items on a vehicle. This would render checks by an MOT station as quite insufficient for checking such things as filler boots, spreader plates etc.

In my discussions with VOSA this restriction on MOT inspectors is sacrosanct to prevent claims on VOSA so without a fundamental change to their way of operating and costs what you are suggesting, whilst on the face of it quite validly, is not something they ate prepared to adopt.

I confirm my / our desire for a legal requirement for proper government checks to replace the Scheme but in its absence we will do the best we can

Regards

Mike Chapman
Autogas Manager
UKLPG, the trade association of the UK LP Gas industry.
mike.chapman@uklpg.org | Visit: www.uklpg.org.
UKLPG is Registered in England No. 977549.

www.drivelpg.co.uk the independent consumer guide to LPG autogas in the UK

[SimonHobson]

Obviously the following are in reverse date/time order due to being copied / pasted emails... start at the bottom and work up!

What's wrong with you copy/pasting them in the right order ?

[LPGC]

Obviously the following are in reverse date/time order due to being copied / pasted emails... start at the bottom and work up!

What's wrong with you copy/pasting them in the right order ?

I expect this will be the same for most people (but I'm not taking the micky mate ) - when Mike and I reply to each others emails, the previous discussion is underneath the most recent - much quicker to copy and paste the most recent email, which contains all the discussion albeit in reverse order, than to copy and paste each reply separately... Not a problem?

Simon

[rossko]

Related argument - any scheme which involves certifying own work is ...

rather like the MoT system, gassafe, electricals, shipbuilding, motor car manufacture, etc.

Seems the relevant standard by law is more likely to be BSEN than COP11 so this might imply the government needing to have dual standards or a change in law.

There are no laws about either ; so no laws need to be changed.
The BS and CoP11 are not mutually exclusive, no-one needs to have dual standards.

Be careful what you wish for; I do not think you've fully grasped EN12979 (it is certainly not straightforward, I had to cogitate on it for a week) - nor reflected on just why the French system is the way it is.

I don't think you read Mike correctly - he doesn't seem to be agreeing "MoT" is a wonderful idea. A seperate one-time certification is not the same thing, and just by being something different is freed of all the baggage "MoT" brings with it - periodic, inclusive (fail on empty washer bottle), yet limited by being non-intrusive (can't lift the boot floor), periodic.

What happens if UKLPG say 'no thanks we're not doing this anymore'...

I expect we have different views on that.
Creating a vacuum in a limited space (i.e. a small industry) could be expected to have an implosive effect.

[SimonHobson]

A: Because it's illogical for people used to time going forwards and effect coming after cause.

I expect this will be the same for most people (but I'm not taking the micky mate ) - when Mike and I reply to each others emails, the previous discussion is underneath the most recent - much quicker to copy and paste the most recent email, which contains all the discussion albeit in reverse order, than to copy and paste each reply separately... Not a problem?

Q: Why is top posting bad

It's one of those things that can really get an argument going, but top posting is one of those things that really irritates me, and especially when it leads to lazy/ignorant people leaving a gazzillion lines of excess quoted material (usually including many copies of long signatures) that they haven't realised are off the bottom of the screen.
The rot set in when Microsoft introduced Outlook and defaulted to quoting the entire message (including signature) and leaving the flashing cursor at the top of the quoted material ready to type. Before then, top posting would not have generally been tolerated.

Just to prove the point, you couldn't be a**ed to take the time to copy and paste the thread in chronological order to make it easy for the reader. Or put another way, you didn't consider it important enough to consider the reader, so why should the reader consider putting themselves out trying to make sense of it ?

[Gilbertd]

I have known MOT man to remove carpets etc to check inner sills, floors, etc for corrosion where they have been unsure as to the extent of corrosion having only seen one side of suspected corrosion...

Well he shouldn't have. If he can see corrosion on one side of a panel, there is a procedure for checking if it is excessive without having to see the other side. It's all laid down in the MoT testers manual which can be viewed here http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual/contents.htm with the methods of checking being in Appendix C.

Your proposed 'Enhanced MoT' isn't an MoT test at all but a completely different test that you propose would be carried out by MoT testers which is a different thing entirely. I actually agree with your arguments that some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some, but at the moment it looks like that test is still some way off.

[LPGC]

Rosko, quoting you for clarity mate, not a heated argument between us I hope, both talking sense?

LPGC wrote:
Related argument - any scheme which involves certifying own work is ...
rather like the MoT system, gassafe, electricals, shipbuilding, motor car manufacture, etc.

I know, and might agree, but in our case I see a lot of dodgy work that has been 'approved' by members who ought to know better and I know a lot of approved installs have been approved over the phone. There are a lot of 'gas safe reg'd engineers' and electricians who think they're doing something really techy etc, granted some don't seem to know what day it is or much about what they're doing, and granted some will believe they're doing something techy because it seems techy to themselves. but what they do seem to have ingrained is safety - don't see the same ingrained in all LPG fitters. Don't see how/why (at least in most cases) MOTs are grouped in with this lot?

LPGC wrote:
Seems the relevant standard by law is more likely to be BSEN than COP11 so this might imply the government needing to have dual standards or a change in law.

There are no laws about either ; so no laws need to be changed.
The BS and CoP11 are not mutually exclusive, no-one needs to have dual standards.

Be careful what you wish for; I do not think you've fully grasped EN12979 (it is certainly not straightforward, I had to cogitate on it for a week) - nor reflected on just why the French system is the way it is.

I don't think you read Mike correctly - he doesn't seem to be agreeing "MoT" is a wonderful idea. A seperate one-time certification is not the same thing, and just by being something different is freed of all the baggage "MoT" brings with it - periodic, inclusive (fail on empty washer bottle), yet limited by being non-intrusive (can't lift the boot floor), periodic.

I'm unclear on Mike's suggestion to DOT but he did say he agreed with my MOT suggestion. To me, whether or not an MOT remains an MOT depends on how much it is changed. If Mike suggested MOT man learn a completely different set of skills and applied them once per vehicle for the sake of passing an LPG system as safe then I would agree with you and would not be surprised DOT turned down Mike's suggestion. Mike suggested the MOT route to DOT, I don't know exactly what he suggested but I doubt it was complete re-training of MOT men for an extremely specific one time test, though I expect Mike's suggestion might have been for a more specific test than one I might suggest... the clue being DOT said Mike's suggestion would cost too much to implement. My suggestion would be more of a compromise check by MOT man, I expect involving a less thorough check by MOT man than Mike's suggestion.

In my suggestion MOT man wouldn't have to know a great deal about LPG systems, probably wouldn't know COP11 off by heart - You've raised the points about him not being able to dismantle, I say fine, let him check where he can see because this will still cover things like tank and other component security on the majority of installs and, to me, this makes it seem we would still end up with a better situation. MOT man could check spreader plates (where he can see), E67 markings (where he can see), parts security (where he can see), pipe runs (where he can see), emissions on LPG - In most cases, what he can see will be all the things that are relevant, this may miss in some cases and I agree that regrettably this would be part of the compromise. Everything I just mentioned, less the E67 check, he should already be doing in his usual MOT, with 'Check for E67 markings on parts if they are visible' an easy MOT update. Immediately, 100% of new installs would be seen by MOT man, who might not be very knowledgeable on LPG but should still have relevant skills / experience / mechanical knowledge / common sense to know if it is safe... He might fail a fair few of Mr DIYers and Mr Done in a Day's installs, maybe (hopefully) to a lesser degree some pro installs... but in any case, those installs that very likely make up the greater proportion of the 2/3 of installs that UKLPG members would never see. I reckon this compromise, with 100% of installs being checked against the very basics is better than the current situation which involves 1/3 of installs being checked thoroughly. Like I said to Mike, it depends where you'd prefer to see compromises. I say a less thorough check by a mechanically sensible person on 100% of installs is better than a completely thorough check on only 1/3 of installs, That a fair proportion of those 1/3 installs are actually fraudulent entries, maybe with no actual check being done, of course reinforces my conviction on this. What would you say?

I do think I'm being careful what I wish for - Like you I wouldn't want IVA testing / the French system, said before I only want a very slightly modded MOT the first time a vehicle is submitted with an LPG system fitted. If I thought the government might respond by invoking IVA testing I would think again before I had started with this thread!

LPGC wrote:
What happens if UKLPG say 'no thanks we're not doing this anymore'...

I expect we have different views on that.
Creating a vacuum in a limited space (i.e. a small industry) could be expected to have an implosive effect.

I don't know what to make of that really - Are you saying we might have IVA testing etc if UKLPG had not been on the scene? I have said that before but I added that since LPG conversions have been going on for years now, with few incidents, that the industry could be considered intrinsically safe, since UKLPG's penetration is only 1/3 of converted vehicles.

Simon

[rossko]

I simply cannot accept any "certification" that doesn't even check for E-markings. What a waste of time.

[LPGC]

Just to prove the point, you couldn't be a**ed to take the time to copy and paste the thread in chronological order to make it easy for the reader. Or put another way, you didn't consider it important enough to consider the reader, so why should the reader consider putting themselves out trying to make sense of it ?

Getting like BBC 'Points of View' now! I didn't have time to copy and paste in chronological order, took seconds to copy and paste as a job-lot but would take a lot longer to copy and paste individually... I wrote the post over several hours and three different locations with many forced long interruptions; I doubt anyone familiar with my posts will think me a lazy writer, though. Analogy - A chivalrous fella will usually open doors for ladies, but will he sprint 100 yards to beat a lady to a door just so he can open it for her, and if not is he being lazy? Easy enough for the lady to open the door, easy enough to read the emails?

LPGC wrote:
I have known MOT man to remove carpets etc to check inner sills, floors, etc for corrosion where they have been unsure as to the extent of corrosion having only seen one side of suspected corrosion...
Well he shouldn't have. If he can see corrosion on one side of a panel, there is a procedure for checking if it is excessive without having to see the other side. It's all laid down in the MoT testers manual which can be viewed here http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual/contents.htm with the methods of checking being in Appendix C.

Agreed Gilbert, I did imply MOT man shouldn't have done that according to MOT procedures, but it did seem a common sense thing to do and the MOT procedure might otherwise have missed the corrosion at the bottom inside of the B post under the carpet... A sensible check by the mechanic who suspected this condition and thought it better to go beyond procedure to confirm or disprove his concerns, his conscience and potentially customer safety at stake - Couldn't really criticise the guy whether he lifted the carpet or not? Imagine the scenario.. 'Your vehicle has passed the MOT sir', 'Ahh great thanks', drive out of the MOT station and get full sided by a transit van, the B post comes off resulting in more deformation of the vehicle and worse driver injuries than otherwise might be expected.. 'Sorry to hear about your broken back, I suspected the bottom inside of your B post was shot but I'm not supposed to lift the carpet during the MOT, so I didn't, but that meant I couldn't investigate my suspicions' says MOT man..

Your proposed 'Enhanced MoT' isn't an MoT test at all but a completely different test that you propose would be carried out by MoT testers which is a different thing entirely. I actually agree with your arguments that some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some, but at the moment it looks like that test is still some way off.

I like your balanced views mate, thanks for all comments. It could be argued any MOT update results in an 'enhanced MOT' but whether or not we should consider the changes I might suggest an 'enhanced MOT' should surely depend on what those changes are...

I haven't gone as far as to form rigid views on what I think those changes should be but I'm not proposing an extremely specific test. I recently suggested that when MOT man sees a vehicle with a new gas system he should test it running on gas. The rest of the test could even be just the same as any other MOT. MOT man could be updated to do usual MOTs with a little more emphasis on the things he should already by checking, like security of parts fitted. I believe MOT man should already fail parts that are not stamped with the relevant E mark such as bulbs (though granted he cannot remove a bulb to check), an MOT update could advise MOT man that gas parts should be stamped E67.. Now we have covered the bases - parts security, leaks, emissions (< already covered by MOT but as said MOT man could be 'updated' to pay these a little more attention where fitted), E67 stamps an easy update? As said, not a comprehensive COP11 check but sensible checks that MOT man can do without needing to change current procedures much at all, certainly not enough to consider this not an MOT.

I simply cannot accept any "certification" that doesn't even check for E-markings. What a waste of time.

Our posts crossed over mate, so I edited my post to add your quote here at the bottom, the rest of my post above hasn't been edited but might answer your point regards E markings anyway. Even if my point on E markings doesn't meet with your approval, though, how many installs do we see where parts fitted don't have E markings? And still better to have 100% vehicle checks (even if E markings are not checked) than to have only 1/3 vehicles comprehensively checked including the E marking check?

Simon

[SimonHobson]

Just to prove the point, you couldn't be a**ed to take the time to copy and paste the thread in chronological order to make it easy for the reader. Or put another way, you didn't consider it important enough to consider the reader, so why should the reader consider putting themselves out trying to make sense of it ?

Getting like BBC 'Points of View' now! I didn't have time to copy and paste in chronological order, took seconds to copy and paste as a job-lot but would take a lot longer to copy and paste individually.

So my comment was correct, you just couldn't be a**ed spending the few extra seconds it would have taken to make the readers job easier. Or put another way, you value your few seconds above a few seconds of everyone else's time added together - or you want people's opinions, but you want them to put the effort and time in so you don't have to.

Frankly, some of your long posts are tedious to read at the best of times, don't make it doubly hard

[LPGC]

So my comment was correct, you just couldn't be a**ed spending the few extra seconds it would have taken to make the readers job easier. Or put another way, you value your few seconds above a few seconds of everyone else's time added together - or you want people's opinions, but you want them to put the effort and time in so you don't have to.

Frankly, some of your long posts are tedious to read at the best of times, don't make it doubly hard

Almost correct mate, except for the times involved... I said seconds to copy and paste the email in entirety but 'a lot longer' to copy and paste each individually, and I really didn't have the extra minutes. You didn't quote my analogy, which I thought helped get the point across....

Analogy - A chivalrous fella will usually open doors for ladies, but will he sprint 100 yards to beat a lady to a door just so he can open it for her, and if not is he being lazy? Easy enough for the lady to open the door, easy enough to read the emails?

Frankly, I'm surprised this has annoyed you so much - Is it really so big a deal? Surprised you call me a lazy writer in one post and then in the next comment on my long posts . Also a bit surprised, especially since my last post involved an analogy, you didn't take the opportunity to include an analogy yourself... one of your electrician trade analogies, perhaps - they're not tedious at all mate

Simon

[Gilbertd]

I really didn't have the extra minutes.

Simon, if you kept your posts short and to the point without explaining the same thing in at least three different ways, you'd win yourself extra days not just minutes!

[LPGC]

Simon, if you kept your posts short and to the point without explaining the same thing in at least three different ways, you'd win yourself extra days not just minutes!

I really didn't have the extra minutes regards further editing on that post - I started the reply while at work, broke off to crack on with work, continued the post at the mother in law's, continued at home for a while, broke off for tea and to talk to son / daughter when they got in, continued and completed the post shortly before laptop battery died.
I'm aware and glad you notice I've often said the same thing in 3 different ways - Usually it seems I need to do so because others seem not to have taken note the first and second time I said it. To end the most recent repetitive cycle, where I have explained my thoughts repeatedly on why I consider my suggestion should not be considered too distant from an MOT check, you might explain the reasons why you think it should be considered distant enough from an MOT not to be called / classed MOT... instead of just repeating it isn't an MOT

Simon

[rossko]

Suggestion: tell us what your scheme does do? Better still, outline the purpose, so that we can have more informed views on whether it meets its aims?

[LPGC]

Getting side-tracked and I'm as guilty as others involved...

I had the last pop, I will take others pops on the chin without biting - so we can get back to the discussion instead of the ridiculous bickering?
Rosko made the last non-inflammatory post... Continue from that point?

Simon

[LPGC]

My own and Rosko's most recent posts crossed over again... getting confusing!

Suggestion: tell us what your scheme does do? Better still, outline the purpose, so that we can have more informed views on whether it meets its aims?

At least one of us wasn't involved in the bickering, cheers Rosko.
Since we got side-tracked, I will repeat what I recently posted on this:
I haven't gone as far as to form rigid views on what I think those changes should be but I'm not proposing an extremely specific test. I recently suggested that when MOT man sees a vehicle with a new gas system he should test it running on gas. The rest of the test could even be just the same as any other MOT. MOT man could be updated to do usual MOTs with a little more emphasis on the things he should already be checking, like security of parts fitted. I believe MOT man should already fail parts that are not stamped with the relevant E mark such as bulbs (though granted he cannot remove a bulb to check), an MOT update could advise MOT man that gas parts should be stamped E67.. Now we have covered the bases - parts security, leaks, emissions (< already covered by MOT but as said MOT man could be 'updated' to pay these a little more attention where fitted), E67 stamps an easy update? As said, not a comprehensive COP11 check but sensible checks that MOT man can do without needing to change current procedures much at all, certainly not enough to consider this not an MOT.

So on that basis Rosko mate, my suggestion there doesn't cover much of what a COP11 check would test at all, but it would at least be compulsory. However, as said, I don't have rigid views on what the MOT check could cover without being changed to the point where it would no longer be simple enough to implement. In earlier posts I also suggested that following a successful test, the MOT man might be able to facilitate a change of fuel type on the vehicle logbook.

Related comment:

I actually agree with your arguments that some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some, but at the moment it looks like that test is still some way off.

In my own and others (well, Gilbert's) views, then, a compromised but compulsory check is better than a thorough check on a fraction of installs - Gilbert at least implies this in his quote above. Since 'some sort of test' is an open/wide comment that could by definition include an MOT test, what needs to be discussed (for those who agree with the concept), like I implied above, is the extent of acceptable compromise.

The requirements would be, on the one hand, the need to ensure the test wasn't too far removed from an MOT that at least customers would still think of it as an MOT and DOT wouldn't need to throw lots of money at it / on the other hand, to keep the likes of Rosko and others including myself happy (no offence Rosko - name mentioned because it makes for a clearer argument)it would need to be a meaningful test.

Gilbert mate, you have at least nodded in my direction on this, From the starting point of a normal MOT, what changes do you reckon would need to be made until this 100% of newly converted vehicle covering mandatory MOT type test were at least as good a scheme as the 33% of new installs covering voluntary check - I.e. Do you think these changes could be incorporated into the MOT via normal MOT updates like I have suggested above? If not, what changes do you think would be necessary and why couldn't they easily be implemented?

Edit: Since I started with my 'suggestions', my suggestions have changed based on what I have been told is/isn't possible by others, those others include people who are apparently very much against the concept(s) behind my suggestions. Since my early bold suggestions, I have attenuated the extent/range of my suggestions by a lot - but I still think that even with the compromises involved with the things I now suggest, the suggestions would still make for a more thorough safety scheme than what we have at the moment. One of the best managers I ever knew seemed to have the ability to go into any firm and, although he didn't always know the tech stuff behind what the firm did, he was able to make positive improvements. The last I heard of him he was managing an electronics firm and he knows nothing of electronics, but regardless can draw on people around him's skills and make good decisions - though granted the people around him are usually working with him and on his side wanting the same outcomes. I have changed views during this discussion, and although I don't know that much about MOTs etc, I have been able to learn from those in the discussion, even those arguing against me. I doubt any of us think my suggestions are really impossible - If there is the will to make a positive change I reckon it can and should be done... If not, why not?

Simon

[rossko]

The requirements would be, on the one hand, the need to ensure the test wasn't too far removed from an MOT that at least customers would still think of it as an MOT and DOT wouldn't need to throw lots of money at it

Ah now, there's the nub at last.
Why do customers need to think of it as an MoT?? Hoops are hoops to jump, call em what you like.

I'm not a complete fool and do understand why you'd prefer it that way, for political ends. Thats by the by. But you make a huge rod for your back.
Example: when faced with "we ought to check everything is E-marked" - "not possible in MoT environment" - "um, well thats not important, just details". Really?

You are stuck in this endless loop because you go at it backwards. You select your solution, and try moving goalposts to fit.

[Gilbertd]

In my own and others (well, Gilbert's) views, then, a compromised but compulsory check is better than a thorough check on a fraction of installs - Gilbert at least implies this in his quote above. Since 'some sort of test' is an open/wide comment that could by definition include an MOT test, what needs to be discussed (for those who agree with the concept), like I implied above, is the extent of acceptable compromise.

The requirements would be, on the one hand, the need to ensure the test wasn't too far removed from an MOT that at least customers would still think of it as an MOT and DOT wouldn't need to throw lots of money at it / on the other hand, to keep the likes of Rosko and others including myself happy (no offence Rosko - name mentioned because it makes for a clearer argument)it would need to be a meaningful test.

Gilbert mate, you have at least nodded in my direction on this, From the starting point of a normal MOT, what changes do you reckon would need to be made until this 100% of newly converted vehicle covering mandatory MOT type test were at least as good a scheme as the 33% of new installs covering voluntary check - I.e. Do you think these changes could be incorporated into the MOT via normal MOT updates like I have suggested above? If not, what changes do you think would be necessary and why couldn't they easily be implemented?

The MoT test is a test done for a specific purpose to strictly laid down rules. I've posted a link to the testers manual above so you can see exactly what they will be looking for and what is and isn't a fail. Now on to how your idea could be implemented.

It appears fairly clear that DoT aren't willing to amend the existing requirements by any appreciable amount so that is out of the window. Who is to say that an additional test becomes compulsory and how would it be enforced? Say I have bought my kit from TT and have converted it over the last few weekends. Why should I take it for an MoT when it isn't due for another 8 months? In fact, if I do take it for an MoT the first thing that happens is that the computer says it isn't due yet (I know this as my wife lost the MoT certificate for her car and as the tax was due I assumed the MoT would be too so booked it in and sent her down to get it tested. The tester phoned me to say that it isn't due for another 6 months why has it been booked in?). OK, so the computer system is amended so there is a tick box to say it's an interim test due to a change in fuel type. That, on a bespoke system that was written for DoT a few years ago, won't be cheap for starters. How would it be enforced? When was the last time you were stopped by the police while driving down the road? How would a police officer, on the rare occasion he has nothing better to do, know that your car has recently been converted but not recently MoT'd and needs a check? What mechanism is there to flag up that the car needs to have an MoT? There isn't one as far as I can see.

Then we get to the test itself. As Mike Chapman has told you, the no dismantling is sacrosanct so how does a tester even look at a toroidal tank in a spare wheel well? He'd have to lift the cover, which he currently isn't allowed to do, then he'd have to undo the wing bolts holding the plate over the multivalve , which he also isn't allowed to do, to check the date on the tank. So he can't even look at the rust covered tank you found in a car in a scrapyard. If the tank is secured around the top he can't see if it is secure or just sitting in there held in place by gravity alone let alone if spreader plates have been used. There is nothing in the test requirements about security of fuel fillers, other than that they must be secure so can't be flapping around on the end of a bit of hose, so a filler mounted in a plastic bumper with no bracket behind it would be fine. Fuel pipes must be secure, so attaching them to existing fuel or brake pipes with a couple of tie wraps or a bit of tape would be fine. In fact, a bit of orange barbecue hose would be fine, it's marked for LPG use after all. No different to when I replaced the rusty steel petrol pipes on my LSE with flexible rubber fuel hose. Although nowhere in the test is it mentioned that anything must be marked in any way to say that it is fit for purpose. While replacing a fuel hose with a bit of garden hosepipe might be frowned upon, it isn't a fail as long as it is secure and not leaking.

As Ross has said, you've come up with an answer and are now trying to make the circumstances fit but they don't.