Primalec seals deal with Unicorn

Published:  11 April, 2019

Primalec has established a strategic partnership with the Holland-based Unicorn Tools.

The alliance will see Primalec open the UK market to a wider range of Unicorn’s product portfolio with faster lead times and less currency risk. At the same time, Unicorn will make Primalec brands available to more of its own customer base.

The deal, according to the two companies, puts them in a stronger position to take advantage of opportunities presented by Brexit, while minimising potential threats. The partnership also extends an ongoing relationship between the two owner-managed businesses dating back many years. Primalec’s Richard Doran and Unicorn’s Ronald Viskil have known each other and traded regularly for more than 20 years.

Richard Doran said: “The current political situation has been a catalyst for us to agree this strategic partnership which will enable us to offer a more stable and even better service to our customers. We respect each other and will now work more closely together while each retaining our own independence. We are increasing the strengths of both companies without compromising our individual values so everyone should be happy.”

Ronald added: "With the ongoing consolidations in the industry, it becomes ever more difficult for the larger companies to provide specialist, high quality and lower volume solutions. This strategic alliance will allow both Primalec and Unicorn to maintain their respective specialisms, while opening up doors to larger audiences."

To support the expansion, Primalec’s management team is to be strengthened by the appointment of Aaron Macfarlane in the new role of Senior Product Manager, AC&R. He will take on responsibility for managing major parts of the Primalec and Unicorn AC&R product portfolios.

Related Articles

  • NTDA takes legal action on false membership claims 

    The NTDA is taking action against a number of UK tyre retailers who are falsely claiming to be members of the Association, are displaying the NTDA logo on their recovery vehicles, websites and marketing collateral, or who are advertising that repair work carried out at their tyre depots is carried out to “the NTDA standard”.

  • Turbo hoses 

    Although still sometimes thought of as a dealer-only product, First Line’s range of turbo hoses now encompasses more than 700-part numbers, to provide the aftermarket an extensive coverage of the UK car parc. Popular applications include Ford Focus/C-Max 1.8 TDCi (First Line part number FTH1564), Ford Transit Connect 1.8 02> (FTH1291), Ford Mondeo 2.0TDCi 00-07 (FTH1292), GM Insignia 2.0D (FTH1394), Nissan Qashqai 1.5 DCi (FTH1709) and VAG A3, Leon, Golf V 1.9 TDI (FTH1078). First Line also offers slower-moving examples such as BMW E90/E90N/E91/E91N/E92/E92N (FTH1623), Ford Focus 2.5T 08-11 (FTH1592), Mercedes Sprinter 06> (FTH1363) an VAG A4/A6/Passat 1.9TDI 98-05 (FTH1097).
    www.firstlineltd.com

  • Where next for MOT testing? 

    The UK Ministry of Transport Roadworthiness test (MOT test to you and I) has been in place since 1960 and has withstood some serious challenges in recent years – both from changes in European legislation that wanted to only allow dedicated test centres that were not directly connected to the repair of a vehicle to conduct the roadworthiness testing, but also from within the UK to try and change the frequency of the existing 3-1-1 test frequency.
        
    Thankfully, common sense triumphed in both cases and the UK MOT test soldiers serenely on.
        
    The original MOT test was a basic mechanical test and although many other elements have been added over the years, today it still predominately remains focused on the mechanical condition of the vehicle, plus exhaust emissions. However, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin', as Bob Dylan sang four years after the original MOT test was introduced.
        
    The future of the MOT test has drawn many diverging views and there are many who champion its continued format and frequency. At the other end of the spectrum there are those who see it as an unnecessary expense for the motorist, as well as being technically obsolete as automated systems and autonomous vehicles impose the mandatory testing  of their functionality. Effectively, in their view, the vehicle safety is self-tested every time it is driven. Somewhere in between are those who simply want to update the test to include an assessment of today’s electronic safety systems.
    However, the ‘self-test’ approach is being discussed at the UNECE level in Geneva, both as part of the autonomous vehicle requirements, but separately as how ‘periodic technical inspection’ (PTI) should be conducted. These discussions are not restricted to what the UK does, or even Europe, but includes all those countries who have signed the 1958 UNECE agreement to adopt what is agreed – which includes the UK who signed on 16  March 1963. This all comes under the snappy title of ‘Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958.‘

    There are now discussions to formalise the improvement needed to suit modern complex electronic systems and provide a solid health check for PTI. This may include how a system conducts functional plausibility, performance monitoring and self-healing abilities. This is a long way from today’s visual check of a vehicle! However, for the UK MOT there is also a timing issue to all of this. Although we know that automated systems are being introduced, there are many electronic systems which have been mandatorily fitted to vehicles for many years (e.g. ABS) and have yet to be included in the MOT test as an independent electronic check or functional test. This was the subject of a recent DVSA meeting which questioned what should be included in the future MOT test for systems that are already fitted to today’s vehicles, including how these electronically controlled systems should be tested, but also to consider the cost- benefit analysis to evaluate if there is a greater benefit than the costs involved to implement a specific test requirement. The simple proposal is to use a PTI scan tool connected via the OBD port and communicate with the vehicle and its safety related systems to detect if any faults have been detected. Is this going to provide a better test method and result than observing the malfunction indicator light (MIL) on the vehicle’s dashboard? The answer may be either a ‘yes’, but probably only if a deeper assessment of the system is made, bringing in the ‘cost-benefit’ question of the development of the PTI scan tool software, but also a ‘no’ if it can be shown that the vehicle is effective and accurate in identifying problems itself. However, this is also part of the problem. Where is the independence of the MOT if the vehicle manufacturers can create their own test methods? There is currently an ISO standard being developed that seeks to define what access to what data will be provided by the vehicle during a PTI test and from this, what test method will be possible. However, the data access is controlled through the use of a vehicle manufacturer’s electronic certificate and their intention is to provide the minimum data, probably related to the MIL activation, so this may restrict what test methods can be implemented unless legislation forces greater data access/functional control, which will also be subject to the cost/benefit analysis.

    Telematics
    Another angle is the ability to use the vehicle’s telematics system to remotely communicate with the vehicle and monitor its status and safety related functionality whenever it is being driven. If a fault is detected, then the vehicle manufacturer is able to assess the seriousness of the fault (effectively ‘advisory’, ‘failure’ or ‘dangerous’) and propose to the vehicle owner that a repair is necessary and direct them accordingly to a workshop of their choice, where the relevant spare parts would also be provided by the vehicle manufacturer. Unfortunately, this may signal one of the real issues here – the vehicle manufacturer is not only able to decide if a fault occurs and know when this happens, but then is also able to propose where it is repaired using their OEM parts. This is not a good scenario for either independent vehicle testing or for the competitive choice of where any MOT failures are repaired.
        
    So, although the communication to the vehicle might still be via the OBD connector, the testing of the electronic safety systems may still be controlled by the vehicle manufacturer and subsequently restrict what truly independent testing will still be possible. In the longer term, autonomous and connected vehicles will become much more capable of self-testing, but this still leaves how the choice of their repair being influenced by the vehicle manufacturer who becomes, judge, jury and executioner. If these vehicles are not tested in MOT centres, will the UK government return to enforcing vehicle safety via Traffic Police with the associated cost of police officers in patrol cars? I think not, so where will this leave independent roadworthiness testing and the test centres that conduct these tests?
        
    This may well come down to how the use of vehicles changes and the subsequent ‘mobility’ models of who is responsible for the vehicle, but this will also need a change in the law concerning who is responsible for the roadworthiness of a vehicle when it is being driven on the road. As I said at the beginning,  ‘The Times They Are A-Changin'.

    xenconsultancy.com

  • And the worst MOT tester in the UK is… YOU 

    To save money and raise efficiency, the DVSA has turned to automation. They no longer need an army of Vehicle Examiners wandering from MOT bay to MOT bay. Instead they are collecting data all the time.
        
    Let’s say I am the boss and my business is low on revenue. I beat up the manager and he in turn influences the tester to fail everything coming through the door. The customer is now stuck with no MOT and I have some simple high yield repairs.
        
    Here’s where it gets interesting. The DVSA computer is monitoring individual tester behaviour and looking at averages. The pattern is really easy for a computer at the DVSA to see because it’s just not possible that lots of cars fail on the same items every day.  The DVSA’s fix is to target garages where data shows they are hunting for work and send in a VE to crosscheck. He needs only to wait nearby until our tester issues his favourite fails and then arrive to retest the car.
        
    We all, as testers, now have access to our TQI. Lots of testers that I speak to have the sentiment that this data is all rubbish but, here is the rub. The DVSA have a team of very capable data processors looking at this data and writing algorithms that alert them to trends that need investigation.

    Take my example of one of my longest-serving testers and allow the DVSA computer to tell me every car that he has tested in the last two weeks of November for the last seven years and add in that we only want to know about cars tested after 4:30pm. We find only one car; a Y reg (2001) BMW 320i convertible, always tested after 5pm with a longest test time of thirty-two minutes and shortest of twenty-seven. Guess what, it’s my guy’s brother-in-law’s car!
        
    For me the horror is that the car has never failed an MOT. It’s also never been in the workshop for any repairs. It looks absolutely dogged out and is on around 180,000 miles. Worst still my guy has never once even advised anything on this car. The VE would assume  Barry’s guy is prepared to let things slide at the end of the day, so maybe he plans to visit me after 5pm on a Thursday.

    Conflicting vehicle locations
    This is a fun story from a close and trusted friend. My guy is at a DVSA IVA check and overhears a conversation by a couple of Vehicle Examiners. It goes like this; VE no.1 is suspicious of an MOT bay offering fraudulent MOT tests. He parks down the road from an MOT bay in Kent and checks which vehicle is logged on and being tested. He takes the registration number of the vehicle in question and calls the DVLA, identifies himself and asks if the vehicle has been seen on the DVLA camera system anywhere in the last half hour. The car was last seen on the M25 twelve minutes ago near Watford in Hertfordshire over 70 miles away.
      
    So, our VE is in Kent and the car is in Hertfordshire. If this works today in a manual sense how long will it be before computers can do this to every single test? Talk about an easy way to stop fraudulent MOTs, just using computers that the government already own.



  • WIN with Absolute Alignment 

    Absolute Alignment, the UK  provider of wheel alignment equipment and Official Technical Partner to Power Maxed Racing in the Kwik Fit British Touring Car Championship (BTCC), has a pair of tickets to give away to the round of your choice this season!

Most read content


Search

Sign Up

For the latest news and updates from Aftermarket Magazine.


Poll

Where should the next Automechanika show be held?



Facebook


©DFA Media 1999-2019