JFD
Well-known member
i'd say go to the shop that issued the safety and ask them about the 'unsafe' pieces.
|
|
|
Questionable bike safety
- Thread starter slowbird
- Start date
If in doubt, take the bike to a shop you trust and explain your concerns. They can do another inspection (probably won't be free) and let you know what maintenance items are worn/broken/requiring attention.
As always: whether something passes a safety or not is up to the inspecting technician. If you have questions, please make sure to ask for clarification. Most techs will be happy to explain their rational if something is "near the limit".
Edit: From a quick look back through the standards: I can't find any wording that would allow me to fail a bike due to rotor run-out alone. In this, I personally disagree with the standards, but I didn't write them..
As always: whether something passes a safety or not is up to the inspecting technician. If you have questions, please make sure to ask for clarification. Most techs will be happy to explain their rational if something is "near the limit".
Edit: From a quick look back through the standards: I can't find any wording that would allow me to fail a bike due to rotor run-out alone. In this, I personally disagree with the standards, but I didn't write them..
Last edited:
As I said earlier in the thread, if the manufacturer provides a maximum run-out, and it measures above this limit, I will absolutely fail it under excessive wear 2.(5) All mechanical components of the service and parking brake systems that are external to the wheel shall have no mechanical part misaligned, insecure, excessively worn, broken, binding, seized, missing, frayed or disconnected.
If they do not provide a spec, I will fail it if the brake lever travel is excessive 2.(6)When moderate force is applied to a brake control, the travel shall not exceed 80 per cent of its available travel. Granted that would take require a large warp to achieve.
I don't disagree, but many shops (especially private) do not have access to the manufactures' specifications. I probably would fail it too, but there would be a discussion that accompanied that fail. By the "letter of the law" both sides could be right with their arguments. Not sure if run-out counts as wear. I would err on the side of safety and do my damnedest to convince the rider their life was worth more than a set of rotors. Not everyone would listen.
If there is a spec and it's exceeded, that would absolutely count as 'excessively worn'; as in 'excess' of the specified limit
slowbird
Well-known member
From what I have gathered from this incident, from the relevant comments on this thread, and talking to bike shops....is that some shops would have checked the rotor run-out and some wouldn't.
Some would have failed the bike, and some wouldn't.
A test ride should be done for the safety, but not every shop does.
I'm not upset, or butt hurt lol. Everything is a learning experience. The previous owner was riding the bike everyday and I wrongfully assumed he would have noticed and repaired such an obvious brake issue, (he insists he never noticed a problem) I also, quite naively, thought anything serious would have been found by the bike shop doing the safety and repaired by the owner as per our agreement. (It may not have failed the safety but they should have atleast noted it)
The seller has been nice enough to keep in contact with me throughout this and suggested "coming to an agreement" if I took it to a professional to get it looked at and it required serious repairs. (New rotors are a heap ton of $$)
I'll get it looked at but for the main topic of this thread I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that IMO the original shop did not do a good enough safety. If they did they would have atleast suggested/recommend to the owner that the front brakes be looked at. I have the invoice from the safety and they only called a "chain adjustment". So it most likely got a quick visual inspection and was passed.
Neil V/LPakkala: Would you both agree that whether you'd pass the bike or not, at the very least you'd note it on the work order and pass the concern over to the owner?
Some would have failed the bike, and some wouldn't.
A test ride should be done for the safety, but not every shop does.
I'm not upset, or butt hurt lol. Everything is a learning experience. The previous owner was riding the bike everyday and I wrongfully assumed he would have noticed and repaired such an obvious brake issue, (he insists he never noticed a problem) I also, quite naively, thought anything serious would have been found by the bike shop doing the safety and repaired by the owner as per our agreement. (It may not have failed the safety but they should have atleast noted it)
The seller has been nice enough to keep in contact with me throughout this and suggested "coming to an agreement" if I took it to a professional to get it looked at and it required serious repairs. (New rotors are a heap ton of $$)
I'll get it looked at but for the main topic of this thread I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that IMO the original shop did not do a good enough safety. If they did they would have atleast suggested/recommend to the owner that the front brakes be looked at. I have the invoice from the safety and they only called a "chain adjustment". So it most likely got a quick visual inspection and was passed.
Neil V/LPakkala: Would you both agree that whether you'd pass the bike or not, at the very least you'd note it on the work order and pass the concern over to the owner?
Last edited:
My understanding from our discussion is that neither one of us would have passed the bike based on the information here, I wouldn't. Given that I (and I assume Neil) have/has not seen the bike in person, I would want to look over the whole thing in person before rendering final judgement. Speaking for myself: if there are maintenance items that don't necessarily affect safety (not this case), I always point them out and note them on the work order.
I believe the real take away from this thread is as someone already stated, it "may" also depend upon who is paying the bill. You OP have no idea of what the relationship between the seller and the shop is. Could be he has brought his bikes there for decades or years. They know he is getting another bike do they risk that relationship by hitting him with a $250 rotor bill on a bike they know he is selling? Will that jeopardize future business from him. This should IMHO NEVER be the consideration, but the techs are human and who knows what pressure, (if it is a larger shop or dealership), is put on techs by those higher up.
Safety should ALWAYS be first and foremost. I think OP you have made a wise decision get it checked over for your own peace of mind. Seller sounds like a stand up person so work with him, if he has made the offer be fair and rather than 50/50 it might be a 75/25 split for you, but 25% is better than 0.
Safety should ALWAYS be first and foremost. I think OP you have made a wise decision get it checked over for your own peace of mind. Seller sounds like a stand up person so work with him, if he has made the offer be fair and rather than 50/50 it might be a 75/25 split for you, but 25% is better than 0.
slowbird
Well-known member
Understood!
thanks for taking the time to read this thread and give your opinion. Much obliged.
statsman
Well-known member
My point was directed towards those who take their motorcycles to car shops that don't do motorcycles.
It is possible there is no one on staff there who even has an "M" Licence.
slowbird
Well-known member
Amen. All very good points. Thanks hedo.
CalamariGSX-R
Well-known member
Who is riding the bike on the highway? Is it the previous owner? Is it the mechanic who did the safety?
It is the wrong attitude to think because you paid 100 for a safety that all of a sudden the bike is safe to ride. We put so much trust into the system and what other people say, or what we pay them for...we have to come back to common sense at some point.
The safety certification is a way for the MTO to basically verify the vehicles that go on the road are looked at when they change hands, and we do not have a bunch of junk on the road that have 30 year old cracked rubber on them, or no brakes etc.
Please learn about your bike, or take it to a bike shop with a good reputation, get the mechanic of a bike shop to go over it with a fine toothed comb, don't trust some mechanic apprentice working at Canadian Tire, with your life.
I always think about Joey Dunlop and the TT race where he had this huge accident, the back rim blew up. These guys have each part of their bike apart before a race, inspect everything, and put it all back together.
The safety certificate is just to get the bike on the road, it does not mean it is safe. Learn about the bike, inspect things, which it looks like you are doing...replace things that worry you. Get help from a good bike mechanic...I trust Glen at Flying Squirrel if I have questions, I always ask him.
M
It is the wrong attitude to think because you paid 100 for a safety that all of a sudden the bike is safe to ride. We put so much trust into the system and what other people say, or what we pay them for...we have to come back to common sense at some point.
The safety certification is a way for the MTO to basically verify the vehicles that go on the road are looked at when they change hands, and we do not have a bunch of junk on the road that have 30 year old cracked rubber on them, or no brakes etc.
Please learn about your bike, or take it to a bike shop with a good reputation, get the mechanic of a bike shop to go over it with a fine toothed comb, don't trust some mechanic apprentice working at Canadian Tire, with your life.
I always think about Joey Dunlop and the TT race where he had this huge accident, the back rim blew up. These guys have each part of their bike apart before a race, inspect everything, and put it all back together.
The safety certificate is just to get the bike on the road, it does not mean it is safe. Learn about the bike, inspect things, which it looks like you are doing...replace things that worry you. Get help from a good bike mechanic...I trust Glen at Flying Squirrel if I have questions, I always ask him.
M
I am not at all surprised to see that it may be everyone's favourite Dixie Rd shop.
My own personal opinion - most shops will suggest a new chain at the drop of a hat. I would be miffed if my safetied bike came with an old chain. However, when I look at a bike for purchase, my mechanics gloves come with me, and fondling the chain is one of the first things I do
My own personal opinion - most shops will suggest a new chain at the drop of a hat. I would be miffed if my safetied bike came with an old chain. However, when I look at a bike for purchase, my mechanics gloves come with me, and fondling the chain is one of the first things I do
GateKeeper
Well-known member
Fortunately only a licensed mechanic can sign off on a safety after he has done the safety.......Apprentice mechanics DO NOT do a safety nor can they sign them
I'm not saying I would not have passed the bike. My point was the standard is a minimum safety requirement and there really isn't this "grey area" everyone likes to point to; rather techs who follow the regulation, and techs who inspect based on the way they were taught, which isn't always right. In this situation it is entirely possible the rotors and chain pass. It all depends on the severity of the wear, and for that there are specs and measurements to point to; it really isn't a judgment call. But as LPakkala stated, without seeing the bike I'm not going to sit here and say it should have passed or not.
Edit: If the pulse was felt on the road test and the chain was marginal, but for example, they both passed based on the measurements supplied by the manufacturer, I would absolutely have replace rotors and chain on an estimate and strongly recommend the owner do so. This is actually a good case to point out a recommendation I make to all my customers, and that is; take the bike/car to your guy before you buy even if it is already certified. I make this point often because again, the standard is a minimum, at best.
Fair enough, but they would be doing the inspection illegally; unless the inspecting tech can operate a bike and they're lot is large enough to hit at least 30kph
Last edited:
slowbird
Well-known member
Thanks Neil V. Good points all together.
Exactly.
...and the bike was taken to a Motorcycle shop for the safety. Reputable is an opinion though. (One man's trash is another man's treasure)
Exactly.
...and the bike was taken to a Motorcycle shop for the safety. Reputable is an opinion though. (One man's trash is another man's treasure)
statsman
Well-known member
Exactly the point that is being made on this thread.
Just because you have the mandatory piece of paper in your hand doesn't mean the motorcycle is safe.
All it means is that you can get a licence plate for it.
slowbird
Well-known member
I don't think anyone is arguing that a Motorcycle is automatically guaranteed safe if it gets a safety written for it. We should all do mandatory checks before every ride. A bike can become "unsafe" overnight.
The actual point of this thread is whether or not the 2 issues I mentioned should have been found during the safety.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
Yes only if they did not meet spec, if specs were met then NO, they would not be a cause for concern or flagged for any reason....
.
@slowbird, I can only offer my opinion, but it is such that I agree with most if not all of what you have posted. I would expect that even if passed minimum safety standards, that any concerns would be brought forth. I may or may not have gotten a shady safety on one or three vehicles in the past, but only on vehicles I was purchasing, and would be fixing in the near future. I may still be naive enough to think that any mechanic that is providing a safety to the seller of a vehicle would go above the minimum work required, at least as an fyi.
I guess the lesson here, at least for me, is to be present at the safety, if at all possible.
Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk
I guess the lesson here, at least for me, is to be present at the safety, if at all possible.
Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
|