To Whom it may concern;
During a Shaken test for my motorcycle, I became aware of serious short comings in the ability of the service being provided. I have serious safety concerns that I would like addressed.
I am a motorcycle engineer of 30 years experience; I qualified as Motorcycle technician (London 1985), Honda Centreline technician Honda Britain 1990 and mechanical Engineer Christchurch New Zealand in 1995 ( Certificates available upon request). Therefore I feel I am qualified to express concerns about services that involve motorcycles and motorcycle safety.
On Wednesday the 26 of September I took my motorcycle to Tokorozawa Vehicle testing center. The counter staff and indeed the inspection staff were very helpful and polite and guided me through the testing procedure.
The motorcycle in question a 1985 Royal Enfield Bullet, passed the initial inspection except for a small exhaust leak and the headlamp beam being slightly high. Both an easy fix.
However, due to the original engine ( 8B5) being in an un-serviceable condition. I had swapped the engine for a smaller unit ( 6B3) and thus the engine numbers did not match the paperwork.
At this point, I had no concerns and was trying to do everything correctly, as requested.
The inspection staff required documentation to determine that the engine number ( 6B3) had a capacity of 350cc and was represented by the engine number ( 6B3). I provided the original workshop manual and the updated workshop manual for both the 500cc model and the 350cc model.
The Royal Enfield bullet was originally produced in England as a 350cc in 1937, later enlarged to 500cc in 1955, before the factory went bankrupt in 1968. Later, India bought the tooling and re-manufactured the 350cc and later the 500cc both were imported back into England in the early 1980s. Documentation for this was provided.
After telephone calls and emails to leading experts in the Royal Enfield Models. The best we could do was show how the engine and frame numbers represented the model and that my model was indeed as I had presented. This was not sufficient for the inspectors.
I then stripped, measured and photographed the engine. This provided clear evidence that the engine being presented ( 6B3) was indeed a 350cc engine. I also, being an Engineer calculated the power output from the presented engine dimensions ( bore and stroke). Again this was insufficient evidence.
It was at this point, I was asked if the drive chain was of sufficient strength for the engine being presented. This comment surprised me, as the Enfield is of low engine power and the final drive chain is of a size that is sufficient for motorcycles 3 or 4 time the power outputs ( the Chain is a 530 and has the dimensions of 16 x 9.5mm). I then asked if the inspectors knew about the drive chain numbering system. They did not. I then asked if they were Engineers and knew anything about motorcycles. They were not and did not.
At this point I became very concerned. The staff tasked with inspection of motor vehicles for safety and compliance had limited or no technical knowledge and would be unable to make qualified decisions. This is a major safety concern.
In the case of the motorcycle I presented, a simple internet search would have shown that Royal Enfield only ever produced two models; the 350cc and the 500cc, and as my original engine which had passed a shaken test before, was 500cc. The engine being presented must be either 500cc or 350cc. If the 500cc had passed a shaken, then by default a smaller 350cc engine must also pass the test.
However, I do understand that there could be doubt and that the inspectors must be satisfied that the engine being presented is of the size and power being claimed. So while I was deeply unhappy about stripping the engine. I understood the concerns.
At this point. The original question; was engine 6B3 a 350cc engine had been addressed. The simple fact that the bore and stroke matched the specification sheet and the calculations which I provided showed beyond doubt that the engine was of a 350cc capacity.
Being that the drive chain was shared between both models and prove of this was provided. The inspection should have been completed.
Unfortunately, the inspectors then required evidence that the rear drive chain sprocket was standard and unchanged.
The Royal Enfield rear drive sprocket is part of the rear brake system and CANNOT be changed. This is very clear in the documentation provided.
At this point in proceedings I was almost in tears. I had complied with everything requested to a level that even a child could understand. The documentation provided would stand in any court of law. Yet the inspectors, who may I remind you have no technical knowledge to speak of, refused to complete the Shaken procedure.
My complaint therefore is as follows; While I expect a level of safety when a vehicle is being inspected. I really have deep concerns when the inspectors performing the checks have sufficient knowledge and flexibility to allow them to make reasonable informed decisions. So either the inspectors are of a vexatious nature, I hope, or incompetent. Incompetency has major safety concerns.
The procedure I am enduring is unreasonable. The costs I have had to bear are excessive.
I require a written response to this communication within 7 working days. After which I will seek remedy.
Kind Regards
S. Watson NZCE,
Comments