That's very convenient David to lock thread

I think that Administrators and Mod's of the board should not lock threads that they have a valid interest in locking because a member of the forum might post something they don't like, but is not personal to them.

Phaetonett thread should have been left open David in my opinion as he might want to reply to replies other members have made.

I have made a further reply here David in reply;

David ,

Technically Phaetonott was or could have been incorrect also, hence I said only the NT who did the test would know what he experienced.

The park brake efficiency part of the test is just checking the recorded brake efforts for the brake under test, if the brake produces no effort then with regards to the "old days" of testing we used to fail the vehicle for having "Little or no effort" recorded from any brake, in the manual paper system.

I know this to be true because in the "old days", the older manuals never worded this reason for rejection as above, and I in co-operation with the Vehicle Inspectorate advised them in my professional opinion that it would be better worded as above, hence they agreed and re-worded the manual as I wrote it above.

Now "Little or no effort" only applies to a brake that is clearly not working as intended, and that reason for rejection is not purposed for the use of a brake that has a mechanical defect present, like a park brake lever with no reserve travel, or a park brake recorded result of 0.00 because the mechanical system has malfunctioned, i.e. a suspected cable fault in this example. The reason for rejection might well be affected by a mechanical system fault, but the true purpose of it is to measure the effort recorded for efficiency purposes only. Other parts of the manual cover other defects as I pointed out in the other thread, which I am quite confident that Phaetonett might want to have a discussion about.