Graeme Smith Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Had my Seven MOTed after a rebuild last week and it was failed on the braking system. As far as I understood them, there’s meant to be a female/female connector between the fluid reservoir and rest of the brake pipe system. Don’t know if the car’s never had this or whether it was changed in the rebuild. Anyway, they charged me a small fortune to fit this (and rebleed the brakes, etc). Can’t find anything in the online manual – anyone shed any light on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shn7 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 *confused*IIRC on my car the reservoir is mounted and feeds directly onto/into the master cylinder so no idea where you would put a F to F connector. Never heard anything like this before. Which circuit have they installed it on? Front or Rear. Why would yit be required? Steve. Sussex (West) AR Not forgetting Percy the Polar Bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Smith Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Sorry, sightly misleading - it's between the master cylinder and the rest of the braking system. They've replaced a couple of inches of brake pipe where it leaves the rearward of the master cylinder, then put a female/female connector which links up to the original brake pipe (going to the rear I take it). It's a live axle, so drums on the back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Durrant Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Graeme Some of the early cars had a brake light switch that worked on the pressure in the system but these were a tad unreliable so many have retro fitted a switch operated by the brake pedal as fitted to later cars. Is this what they have replaced Mark D Comp Sec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Smith Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Don't think so - it's a '99 car so not that old. The guy said "it must have the connector in there" rather than that there was anything wrong with the braking system per se. I'll take photo tonight and post it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
susser Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I, for one, will be waiting with baited breath. 'cos it sounds to me like you've been stitched up. There isn't a good reason (AFAIK) for adding another potential weak link to the chain of brake operation. Edited by - susser on 6 Mar 2008 12:22:35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stationary M25 Traveller Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Photo will be interesting. At the moment, it does sound rather like you have been stitched up ? 7 related photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJG Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What was the wording of the VT30 test refusal certificate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesElliott Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Also sounds like an illegal modification to the braking system 😬 Charles --- My SuperGraduates 2006 diary My SuperGraduates 2005 diary, My Caterham Academy 2004 build and race diary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Smith Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Photo here - you can see the obvious new piece of pipe and connector... Didn't get a fail certificate - they said it would fail on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shn7 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 OK so why did they only make the change in one circuit? Surely the rules would be the same ofr both. I think you're going to have to back to them and ask some searching questions. Like can they point you to the relevant rule(s) in the MOT handbook? Why was the mod. not done to both circuits? Steve. Sussex (West) AR Not forgetting Percy the Polar Bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesElliott Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Graeme - my car is as yours (without the addition) and it passed an MOT last year without issues. Charles --- My SuperGraduates 2006 diary My SuperGraduates 2005 diary, My Caterham Academy 2004 build and race diary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubbster Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 There wasn't some damage to the section of pipe they replaced by any chance was there? It's only taken four and a half years - I have started my website at last! Early days yet . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Question what was there before did the pipe just run into the master cylinder or was there a small piece of pipe there already but with different connectors The fitting on the end of the original pipe looks old so i suspect that what you have is a replacement pipe with two male ends into a female female connector to another pipe with a male end. What may have been there before was a male to female to male pipe That will NOT pass thus the requirement for the female female connector Clue is WHAT was there originally. jj N.I. L7C AR 🙆🏻 Membership No.3927. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezky Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Unfortunately, looks like a stich-up My live axle car hasn't got, nor has it been said it needs this extra connector. Might be worth another visit to the MOT place. I can send a picture of my master cylinder if required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shn7 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Good point from JJ as to what was there before though I don't understand why jj, your presumed setup would be a failure point. Can you enlighten us? Steve. Sussex (West) AR Not forgetting Percy the Polar Bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 integrity of the male to female pipe joint. Likehood of failure unable to be adequately tightened. to prevent leakage It's all supposition as you cant remember what it looked like before the MOT But you cant have a pipe to pipe joint without a bulkhead connector for example where the front flexibles pass through the bodywork to the copper pipes. In other words if joining two pipes they need to Butt into a female female joint. I suspect that originally there was a T in there with a Pressure switch and a small pipe to the T and the existing pipe out of the T Someone took SW out of cct and removed T and instead of replacing the first whole section of pipe fitted a bridging pipe with a female end. Hard to explain in words but you'll get my drift. jj N.I. L7C AR 🙆🏻 Membership No.3927. Edited by - Johnty Lyons on 7 Mar 2008 18:25:52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now