32 replies to this topic

[mini.30]

In my opinion a brake back plate is the part that the wheel cylinder and shoes mount to on drum brakes, not the splash guard from behind the discs

Mark

Edited by mini.30, 15 January 2011 - 07:18 PM.

[mini93]

Could say the same about cam belt covers

not really, cam covers are full covers designed to stop anything getting inside, if designed right you cant get stones inside.
if you had a little pebble jump into your cam gear you can skip teeth and well thats obviously bad news.
My old uni lecturer who used to work in the BTCC said his instructions to drivers were, if your heading off track, lock the wheels up without dipping the clutch to stall the engine, if they had any stones in the timing theres little point them trying to carry on.

[mini-geek]

I had to drive for about 100 miles with it rattling in my MPI about 3 years ago because the little tab on the shield broke off... I removed them on that mini and one of my others stupid things!

[Rob82]

In my opinion a brake back plate is the part that the wheel cylinder and shoes mount to on drum brakes, not the splash guard from behind the discs

Mark

Thats what i mean about how the tester interprets the manual, you could read it as just the back plates on drum brakes as its part of the structural integrity of the brake setup , but the "splash guard" on the front is a back plate , designed to protect the brake lining from the elements for the reasons mab01uk pointed out earlier , so could also be judged to be equally as important , and they are also there to stop stones and debri getting into the the area between the caliper and disc (although , as others have said they do usually end up being the cause of stones getting trapped rather than stopping it) .

[mini.30]

I agreee that it is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion it is a splash guard not a back plate. I work as a Technician at Honda and many new cars don't have a full sheild like the mini does, part of this disc is still visible from the inside. I think you would be very unlucky to get pulled up on MOT for these being missing

Mark

[Deathrow]

I think it'd be silly for an MOT tester to interpret them as Back Plates as their proper name is Brake Disk Shields:

http://www.minispare...ty=pb&pid=35801

I'm changing from 8.4" discs to a Cooper S setup and I've no intention of paying £60 for the shields. You should really be checking your brakes prior to coming off the motorway anyway.

Also, my mothers '06 Corsa suffers from the wet brake syndrome after it's been raining and that surely has brake disk shields in place.

[1984mini25]

If its a track only car its fine to leave them off , theyre there to protect the brakes from dirt , spray n debri thrown up off the road, but they do keep a lot of water off the disc and pads surface if its been raining aswell
If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

I agreee that it is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion it is a splash guard not a back plate. I work as a Technician at Honda and many new cars don't have a full sheild like the mini does, part of this disc is still visible from the inside. I think you would be very unlucky to get pulled up on MOT for these being missing

You will only fail the mot if ONE of the stone shields is missing or is insecure (mounting broken, etc), as if they are fitted you do need both.

If they aren’t fitted and seeing as they have no effect on the brakes for the mot test, there’s no reason to fail it for not having them.

Edited by 1984mini25, 15 January 2011 - 07:41 PM.

[Rob82]

In the same way its also a brake mounting plate on drum brakes , but its also a back plate , and yes it was referred to as a brake mounting plate on the dealership system where i worked can be a pain when even the guidelines dont actually specify for definate but yea would be unlucky , but not impossible

[MiniLuke]

If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

It's not an mot failure, i took mine off when fitting my 7.5" brakes and had an mot a month later and it passed without even an mention.

As above, mine have been off for two years and no problem

it should be an mot failure if they do it strictly by the book really , if they were fitted as standard they should be there for the MOT . I'm not sure if it will
make any difference with if the car was built within certain dates but like i said if they play it strictly by the book they should be fitted .

MOT Testing manual << clicky its th bottom of the 3 options for test manuals , its under section 3.5 very bottom of the reasons for rejection " a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated "

personally my interpretation of it would be if its missing , it should fail

Rubbish, you are reading it wrong. it says it will fail if the securing device for any of the mentioned items is loose, missing or excessively deteriorated, not the shield itself. If it's not there then there is nothing to be secured, however is it is there and a bolt holding it is loose missing etc. then clearly a fail.

[1984mini25]

If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

It's not an mot failure, i took mine off when fitting my 7.5" brakes and had an mot a month later and it passed without even an mention.

As above, mine have been off for two years and no problem

it should be an mot failure if they do it strictly by the book really , if they were fitted as standard they should be there for the MOT . I'm not sure if it will
make any difference with if the car was built within certain dates but like i said if they play it strictly by the book they should be fitted .

MOT Testing manual << clicky its th bottom of the 3 options for test manuals , its under section 3.5 very bottom of the reasons for rejection " a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated "

personally my interpretation of it would be if its missing , it should fail

Rubbish, you are reading it wrong. it says it will fail if the<you> securing device</you> for any of the mentioned items is loose, missing or excessively deteriorated, not the shield itself. If it's not there then there is nothing to be secured, however is it is there and a bolt holding it is loose missing etc. then clearly a fail.

As the same bolts that hold on the disk shields also happen to be the same ones that hold the calliper to the hub. Then yes it should fail, but more because of an insecure calliper than the shield itself.

[Rob82]

If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

It's not an mot failure, i took mine off when fitting my 7.5" brakes and had an mot a month later and it passed without even an mention.

As above, mine have been off for two years and no problem

it should be an mot failure if they do it strictly by the book really , if they were fitted as standard they should be there for the MOT . I'm not sure if it will
make any difference with if the car was built within certain dates but like i said if they play it strictly by the book they should be fitted .

MOT Testing manual << clicky its th bottom of the 3 options for test manuals , its under section 3.5 very bottom of the reasons for rejection " a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated "

personally my interpretation of it would be if its missing , it should fail

Rubbish, you are reading it wrong. it says it will fail if the<you> securing device</you> for any of the mentioned items is loose, missing or excessively deteriorated, not the shield itself. If it's not there then there is nothing to be secured, however is it is there and a bolt holding it is loose missing etc. then clearly a fail.

read the middle column luke , method of inspection , "presence and security of brake back plates, wheel cylinders and calipers"

key word being presence . not if they are present the must be secure . As ive said people will interpret it differently , and although i
dont agree with everybody , i can see it from their point , how they interpret the text and so wouldn't go telling them they are talking rubbish

As with mini.30 i am also a techinician with over a decade of experience so now how great dealing with VOSA rules n regs can be

[MiniLuke]

If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

It's not an mot failure, i took mine off when fitting my 7.5" brakes and had an mot a month later and it passed without even an mention.

As above, mine have been off for two years and no problem

it should be an mot failure if they do it strictly by the book really , if they were fitted as standard they should be there for the MOT . I'm not sure if it will
make any difference with if the car was built within certain dates but like i said if they play it strictly by the book they should be fitted .

MOT Testing manual << clicky its th bottom of the 3 options for test manuals , its under section 3.5 very bottom of the reasons for rejection " a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated "

personally my interpretation of it would be if its missing , it should fail

Rubbish, you are reading it wrong. it says it will fail if the<you> securing device</you> for any of the mentioned items is loose, missing or excessively deteriorated, not the shield itself. If it's not there then there is nothing to be secured, however is it is there and a bolt holding it is loose missing etc. then clearly a fail.

As the same bolts that hold on the disk shields also happen to be the same ones that hold the calliper to the hub. Then yes it should fail, but more because of an insecure calliper than the shield itself.

Agreed, the point being it's the securing device that is in question. I nearly have an MOT failure because I used a spring washer and plain nut instead of a nyloc nut on the lower front suspension pin, but after a short conversation about being there as standard he saw reason.

[Rob82]

If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

It's not an mot failure, i took mine off when fitting my 7.5" brakes and had an mot a month later and it passed without even an mention.

As above, mine have been off for two years and no problem

it should be an mot failure if they do it strictly by the book really , if they were fitted as standard they should be there for the MOT . I'm not sure if it will
make any difference with if the car was built within certain dates but like i said if they play it strictly by the book they should be fitted .

MOT Testing manual << clicky its th bottom of the 3 options for test manuals , its under section 3.5 very bottom of the reasons for rejection " a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated "

personally my interpretation of it would be if its missing , it should fail

Rubbish, you are reading it wrong. it says it will fail if the<you> securing device</you> for any of the mentioned items is loose, missing or excessively deteriorated, not the shield itself. If it's not there then there is nothing to be secured, however is it is there and a bolt holding it is loose missing etc. then clearly a fail.

As the same bolts that hold on the disk shields also happen to be the same ones that hold the calliper to the hub. Then yes it should fail, but more because of an insecure calliper than the shield itself.

Agreed, the point being it's the securing device that is in question. I nearly have an MOT failure because I used a spring washer and plain nut instead of a nyloc nut on the lower front suspension pin, but after a short conversation about being there as standard he saw reason.

as before thats your interpretation of it, which i can understand and accept , but to me it says , back plate , wheel cylinder and caliper must be present and secure , this would include all securing devices for the parts aswell. but again this can be debatable with the stupidity of MOT rules , at one time (and may still be the same now) if you presented a vehicle with a prop shaft bolt loose , it would fail for a loose fastener , if the bolt was missing it would pass as long as a certain percentage of the fasteners were present and secure . Thats the absurdity of dealing with VOSA

Think this has gone on long enough though so i'll just agree to disagree , i came back to TMF for ideas, advice and motivation for a mini project later this year not debate MOTs

Edited by Rob82, 15 January 2011 - 08:35 PM.

[MiniLuke]

If its to be used on the road aswell though its an MOT failure if they're missing

It's not an mot failure, i took mine off when fitting my 7.5" brakes and had an mot a month later and it passed without even an mention.

As above, mine have been off for two years and no problem

it should be an mot failure if they do it strictly by the book really , if they were fitted as standard they should be there for the MOT . I'm not sure if it will
make any difference with if the car was built within certain dates but like i said if they play it strictly by the book they should be fitted .

MOT Testing manual << clicky its th bottom of the 3 options for test manuals , its under section 3.5 very bottom of the reasons for rejection " a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated "

personally my interpretation of it would be if its missing , it should fail

Rubbish, you are reading it wrong. it says it will fail if the<you> securing device</you> for any of the mentioned items is loose, missing or excessively deteriorated, not the shield itself. If it's not there then there is nothing to be secured, however is it is there and a bolt holding it is loose missing etc. then clearly a fail.

read the middle column luke , method of inspection , "presence and security of brake back plates, wheel cylinders and calipers"

key word being presence . not if they are present the must be secure . As ive said people will interpret it differently , and although i
dont agree with everybody , i can see it from their point , how they interpret the text and so wouldn't go telling them they are talking rubbish

As with mini.30 i am also a techinician with over a decade of experience so now how great dealing with VOSA rules n regs can be

Sorry Rob82, "rubbish" is a little harsh i guess. We'll just disagree and leave it there.

[designermatt]

In my opinion a brake back plate is the part that the wheel cylinder and shoes mount to on drum brakes, not the splash guard from behind the discs

Mark

yes your totally right, i should have wrote brake disc splash guards, i simply described them as backing plates not realising that the term back plate is specifically for the back plates on drums and are essential to the design of drum brakes to mount the cylinders,handbrake,cables.

because what i was thinking was that its the plate at the back of the disc so wrote that without thinking.

And lets be honest a lot of MOT testers dont check everything they should do.

Back on topic i was thinking of taking them off for trackdays to help the brakes keep cooler than they would be with shields.