A long long time ago (probably 25 years ago! ), when I was an mot tester, there was a 'Special Notice' about testing the brakes on 2CVs. I think it referred to early ones before hydraulic dampers, as it said something about the possibility of the car lurching sideways out of the rollers whilst applying the brakes. It recommended testing the brakes on the road, using a decelerometer (commonly known as a Taply meter). This special notice seems to have disappeared since it all went onto computer. Mot stations still have to have decelerometers for other cars that can't go on the brake rollers, such as (proper) Land Rovers where the handbrake acts on the prop-shaft and low cars that bottom out in the rollers (which I personally think are not fit for the road anyway!).

Yes I'm afraid I will get all hung up about failing for the wrong reason. The car sailed through the second test following a kingpin and welding (that I knew about). This guy should not be testing if he's clueless.

So let me be sure on the facts you knew it needed welding and you knew the king pin was u/s so were you hoping he would not spot this ???? most testers would not have come across tie rod eyes on a 2cv but on the plus side some people may after an unnessary failure have taken the knife edge out to see how it works and possibly have found a knive edge blunt or even the rod eye fractured while looking .. have you contacted your local club to find where they take their cars too after all we are all on the site to help one another .... would you be moaning if he had passed the kingpin and not seen the welding required.. I,m ducking waiting for the flack to fly... many years ago I had a 2cv fail on corrosion on the inner front wing and that was a newly qualified tester too,

The car failed. The car _deserved_ to fail. The handbrake wasn't good enough. One kingpin was knackered. The body was rotten. The precise fail point wording on the certificate are, to be honest, academic.



And, presumably, fixing the handbrake...?

I hate MOTing cars, it doesn't seem to matter what kind of effort I go to preparing it and checking things my cars always fail on something unexpected and irritating to fix. However, what can you do? The MOT is mostly down to the discretion of the individual tester and if he says the kingpins fucked it doesn't matter what any other tester thinks, if you want a pass then when he retested it he wants to see the play down to what he considers an acceptable level. You can get all upset and shout the odds over it but at the end of the day it's not worth the effort in my opinion. Now, lets not forget that most MOT testers spend all day of every day routinely going over normal, average cars which are, basically, the same and have the same tolerances, design layout and components. Presenting them with what is, in this day and age, a frankly bizarre vehicle with its many unusual design features is presenting them with many things they aren't used to and aren't routine for them. We are basically a very, very small minority. It's quite common for folk, even 2cvers it would seem, to completely misunderstand how the knife edges work and to misinterpret the huge sloppyness you can feel when they're unladen as a huge amount of wear. Unless you can convince them it's actually the way it's meant to be, and bear in mind how many people must try it on with excuses for stuff it's quite understandable that they're going to remain sceptical. It's not through trying to make your life difficult or because they've got a 2cv based chip on their shoulder, it's because he's trying to do his job properly. It wouldn't be any surprise to see an MOT tester bemused by some pre First World War vehicle as its a world away from their normal everyday work. They have a 45minute slot in which they must check everything testable and make judgements as to whether its within their tolerance of acceptability, they just don't have time to research every unusual foible of every vehicle ever made.

However, my cars booked in for its MOT on Saturday and when (not if) it fails I'm probably going to come straight on here and moan that the tester was some inexperienced, wet-behind-the-ears yob who has it in for me and my rusty little death trap.

What can I say guys. We all get our cars MOT from different experts. Human nature being what it is the expert might have some competency in understanding the engineering applied to a car produced for 42 years then again not. If the matter is not addressed you might all meet an incompetent tester.
I also knew my car was going to fail and was intending to work with feed back from the tester. The precise wording on the certificate is in that case highly pertinent in this case as the tester discovered a fault with some thing that does not exist on any 2CV, torsion bars. So I'm not really hung up for the wrong reason. I'm concerned for a very valid reason. Incompetence.

As you're, rightly, >that< concerned then you should report him to the relevent authority. He should learn his lesson then.

+1 to the last post
i use a garage that know 2cv,s inside out, i never give them work as i do my own repairs
on the last mot the headlights were out of alighnment(a fail) the fella allowed me to adjust them during the test(i had slackened the bowel nuts before hand and had a socket and ratchet in hand )

Im yet to mot a vehichle and have it pass first time!

Taking a car for an mot can cause them to be a bit slack anyway