Merc convertible

Ya you provided your data your images your explanation and they made a decision just like that based on a scenario that wasn't even a real situation,
Who ever you spoke to has no knowledge,experience and probably never even come across this type of component seeing that you had to send him images lol ,it's they opinion same as mine at end of the day ,it's not official until I see it in black and white .
Failing the component under suspension is like you saying abs pumps have a prescribed area ,you believe that because the same people told you .
Every suspension part I know moves and does exactly that suspends ,
Does you suspension arms on this cabby do that ,no !
And thanks for taken the thread down a negative path AGAIN

Probably why no ones intrested any more as I seen the flaws
Your a moderator,why don't you act like one instead of trying to wind people up .

Our source is solid. Many of us know him very well via the councils.

He is the reason why we have this forum.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but we do have it in black and white now since we raised the issue.

It's now in 5.3.3. Suspension arms, rods, struts, sub-frames, anti-roll bars etc.

This one went to I.M. and he clarified with standards.

The issue we raised resulted in an updated section in the Inspection Manual 5.3.3. Suspension arms, rods, struts, sub-frames, anti-roll bars etc.

The chassis is if you like “ the fifth spring “ the monocoque frame is held stable by the roof and pillars in a standard version and the suspension is designed around it, the same vehicles without a roof have these support structures crisscrossing the underside of the structure to keep rigidity in the framework allowing the suspension to do its job.
I haven’t had to fail one because the bar itself was defective but I’ve failed more than one when where the area one of these bolts to is excessively corroded even when outside a prescribed area due to structural rigidity reasons .
The only convertible I’ve ever enjoyed owning/driving was a series Land Rover but different chassis on that with no difference in rigidity roof on or off.
I’ve driven loads of others and can’t say I’ve really enjoyed the experience a great deal because of the lack of feedback,scuttle shake etc, it’s like being in a boat. (even when the bars are intact)
My experience tells me that a convertible without these structures below floor level built into them from factory would compromise road safety because of compromised overall rigidity and the negative effects on the suspension and handling of the vehicle.
I don’t think I’d like to jack one up without the bars attached or lift one on a two post lift and risk opening a door.
A fail all day long.

Enjoy Kos nitros44.

Having read most of this thread I'm still of the opinion you shouldn't buy a box without a lid. 

As a (now!) outside observer it seems to me that whatever we all think, and there do seem to be a variety of views, the DVSA have spoken and, well, that's it. If the DVSA say that bar is testable and you have one rotted through then you HAVE to fail it. That's ultimately it.

So I've got the job of fitting a Akrapovic Evolution Line (Titanium) Exhaust System to an AMG merc next week ,the cost of system is just over £7 grand .
To fit the system the car is going to need some modifications ,however in the way is these bars ,the only way is to remove em and reshape ,modify the bars in a different route ,or leave them off .
So we've given the option to the customer what he wants us to do ,in the meantime we've contacted the DVSA to ask about these bars if we can remove them or modify and if it will render the vehicle unroadworthy.
Should be interesting