www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326
Vehicles manufactured before 1960 will no longer have to have to pass an MoT from 18 November, Roads Minister Mike Penning said.
|
|
That sounds sensible to me - there will still be an obligation to keep the car roadworthy and most owners I know of 50-year old cars are passionate about their maintenance
|
"Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money."
Another article I've found claims owners can voluntarily take their cars for an MOT.
I'm all for keeping old cars on the road but is is really safe to presume the owner is an expert in all things automotive who will fettle and check their car. What if the owner of an old car is an 80 year old who might polish the AA badge on the front once every Sunday but might not be able to get down on hands and knees and and spot a leaking fuel pipe or be able to hear a worn wheel bearing above the din of an older engined car with less sound deadening?
My BIL has recently bought a Triumph Herald and whilst he has the benefits of a doctorate from a well known university, I wouldn't trust him to be able to spot a worn trunion.
|
|
Isn't it partly recognising that many MOT testers have no idea what a 1950s or older vehicle should be like in terms of brakes, suspension, steering play etc. I think it's a cop out abandoning the test for older vehicles altogether though.
|
Valid point, but part of the problem with taking an old car to an MOT is that few testers understand the principles by which they work. While it has not happened to me, I know somebody whose car was going to fail for defective steering joints, despite being un-worn and correctly adjusted. The tester had never met the type of joint before and actually suggested the spring nuts be tightened. Had this been done, the car would have been very dangerous, if even drivable.
I responded to the FHBVC survey when this was mooted and suggest pre 1960 was too new. I'm not too sure it's wise to exempt XK150s that will do over 120mph and are pretty much a modern car. Doubt the Herald is exempt, few really early cars survive.
|
>> I responded to the FHBVC survey when this was mooted and suggest pre 1960 was
>> too new. I'm not too sure it's wise to exempt XK150s that will do over
>> 120mph and are pretty much a modern car. Doubt the Herald is exempt, few really
>> early cars survive.
>>
>>
>>
Likewise SP. Prior to WW2 would have been the sensible option, as a good few 50's cars still exist in either original or modified form as daily drives; ISTR there's another thread on here about this where I suggested that many testers actually enjoy the novelty of pitting their wits against vehicles of a previous era.
My worry is that stuff like terminal body-rot could easily go unnoticed or even be deliberately ignored; one distinct advantage of the MOT is that it does allow a second pair of eyes to go over the vehicle, especially underneath if you haven't got a pit or ramp. It's all too easy to miss that vital split pin in a ball joint or suchlike which could have disastrous consequences.
|
It remains to be seen what view insurers take of this. At present they charge very low premiums for classic cars on the basis that they are tested annually.
|
>> It remains to be seen what view insurers take of this. At present they charge
>> very low premiums for classic cars on the basis that they are tested annually.
Could create a nice little sideline for testing stations doing non-MOT tests with a written report.
|
>> claims owners can voluntarily take their car for an MoT
I wondered if that would be the case. I delivered a beautiful 1959 Aston DB4 Vantage the other week, I'd worry that the value of expensive historic cars could be affected in the future if no further MoT history was available.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 21 May 12 at 14:39
|
I'd worry that the value of expensive historic cars could be
>> affected in the future if no further MoT history was available.
>>
If we're being honest, genuine enthusiasts do not give a hoot what their car is worth in financial terms. That is the premise of investment-based collectors who have ruined the classic car scene, especially for beginners, by hoarding stuff instead of putting their money into banks. Good for people like me who already have stuff like the WLC Harley, but not so for our sons.
|
I'm not too sure about this either, don't like the idea that just because a car reaches a certain age it doesn't need a reliable set tests or inspections to pass.
Maybe a different category of testing could apply, where qualified mechanics who know about such things could prove to a responsible body that they have the skill and knowledge to test such vehicles, and be licensed as inspectors...wouldn't be hard to set up, indeed i imagine the classic car scene would prefer something rather than nothing.
No testing sounds like a charter for Bodgit and Scarper to cobble together old salvage, cut and shut, stones of filler, lick of paint, there you go.
|
This actual rule has been in place for some time for vintage heavy commercial vehicles; bringing everyday cars into the equation for the same cut-off date is perhaps a little too radical. I can understand the likes of a 1950's Scammell being exempt from MOT testing, after all it's not the sort of thing you'd be likely to go shopping in; but the likes of Series One Land-Rovers is a different matter, as they're frequently still in use even as daily drives.
I'm inclined to agree with GB on this one, although actually administering it as a seperate entity would probably cause more trouble than maintaining the status quo, and would go against the principle of actually reducing red tape, which I suppose is to be applauded.
This might seem odd to people outside the classic scene, seeing owners actually having resevations about accepting what is after all a useful privelege. I doubt some of the rural independent garages are jumping for joy either, given that classic MOT's would form a decent revenue stream for the very reasons described by the government; that they're inevitably well-maintained when they're presented for test and are therefore less hassle to carry out.
|
|
Does this mean then that I can go back to farmers fields and doing deals to sell on number plates from the rotting carcases like I used to. The need for an MOT stopped that trade stone dead.
|
|
Suspect most old cars in farmers field these days are newer than 1960. Those that aren't probably don't have a V5 so you'd need to prove things to get the number-plate back. No genuine enthusiast will be bothered by DVLA making the number non transferable, but would kill any trade value in the registration.
|
I wonder who it is who actually makes these decisions?
Nobody I know could understand why, suddenly, pre-1973 motors were regarded as historics and could be 'taxed' free of charge, when all that had been asked for was a price differential with the modern stuff. Likewise, why - suddenly - is an annual (or whenever) roadworthiness examination regarded as optional or unnecessary when a vehicle reaches a certain age.
To me, it says more about the ability of people doing the testing, which is not ideal when one starts to think about safety issues.
|
>> it says more about the ability of people doing the testing, which is not ideal when one starts to think about safety issues.
Yes. But there's a sordid calculation too, an assessment of how much (not a lot), and in what style (carefully on the whole), these old jalopies will be used. The MoT is all right as far as it goes but it doesn't cover everything. And any tester can easily miss a suspension anchorage point about to rip out from hidden rust.
Saw another sporting twenties Bugatti on the road the other day. Someone enviable seems to live not that far off.
|
|
I've got someone like that near me - but it's a Teal!
|
Hmmm,
As above, I suspect the insurers will not be happy with any 50yo vehicle and no assurance on its structure or mechanicals. If there's no MoT they'll demand report form an engineer on their 'panel' at £150 a pop.
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
|
In some senses, it's quite sensible and pragmatic. Submitting a car from the early 60's to a modern MOT becomes an excercise in negotiating all of the aspects of a modern test which simply do not apply. Of the £50 or so that a modern test costs, you're probably only getting £10 - £15 of value.
In this respect, the MOT of the 1980's was remarakbly sensible and applicable to these vehicles - perhaps the MOT manuals of the time could be dusted off to form the basis of an MOT-lite which would keep insurers (and garages) happy.
In terms of road safety, it's obviously a complete irrelevance. There aren't too many of these vehicle around which are not in deviant hands, and even if they all caused an accident tomorrow, it would barely cause a significant blip in accident statistics.
In terms of irrelevance, the MOT for all vehicles isn't the guarantor of safety that some people think it is. The number of accidents which could be demonstably prevented by the expensive and time consuming MOT process is quite small.
Having said all of that, the basic idea of an MOT, where another pair of eyes has a nosy under the car every now and again is a fundamentally sensible idea, and much the same might be acheived by taking the vehicle for at least an annual service.
|
I have no real objection to paying and having a test done although the younger testers here haven't a clue what they're doing.
Most garages round our way are run by Asian guys who've never heard of the car, and why should they ? Hamed, who did the test last year hadn't got any idea of what needed testing, he thought he'd got me on white front indicators but I disappointed him on that one ! In the end he just did some of the electrics, checked the chassis and left it at that. He made a pot of tea and we chatted for the rest of the hour.
The old girl has adjustable track rod ends, adjustable steering cones and a few other things not seen now. Where disc-braked cars used to pull up to 3 on the old brake tester, my 9 inch drums get it up to 9. No emissions check needed, king pins can be shimmed, stainless steel exhaust.....nothing wears out !
I don't worry about the test, if it ever fails it's not going to be hard to do or cost much, if anything. It'll be nice not to have to bother, though, and the 40 quid will be better in my wee purse.
Ted
|
>>king pins can be shimmed
Really!
I've always had to get new bushes and ream them.
|
Never had to ream a Jowett one although I've done a few P4 Rovers. You can take up the up/down play with shims.
Ted
|
>> Nobody I know could understand why, suddenly, pre-1973 motors were regarded as >> >> historics and could be 'taxed' free of charge,
IIRC it was 20 year old cars which were initially tax exempt then the decision was made to stop this 'progression' in 1993 or 4 (I guess) - hence the 1973 cut-off.
I think the notion that old cars don't need an MoT test is preposterous, they can still have defective brakes, steering and lights even if they perhaps need to be tested under less stringent criteria given the improvements in brakes (in particular ABS, EBD, dual circuits, discs etc) over the past decades.
Does the GBP 50 fee make such a difference in the ownership costs ?
|
|
This is of course nothing to do with motoring; there are targets to cut so called Red Tape.
|
>> I think the notion that old cars don't need an MoT test is preposterous, they
>> can still have defective brakes, steering and lights .........
I absolutely agree.
|
>> ... they can still have defective brakes, steering and lights .........
In many cases, they were designed with defective brakes, steering and lights (by modern standards)!
Many of these cars only do 200 or 300 miles a year. I'm in favour of dropping the MOT for them. I know my local museum can't afford the MOT fees, so many of the cars stay in the building when they are perfectly roadworthy - with this new scheme they could come out now and again.
As the country which was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, I think we should be backing plans which allow the history to be kept alive.
With the non-existent passive safety in the cars (no airbags, collapsable steering columns, side impact protection etc) they're more of a threat to the driver and passengers than anyone else.
Most MOT testers don't know how to test these old cars anyway.
I can't believe the number of people decrying this as a reduction in general road safety. If we really wanted to cut the number of deaths on the road we could bring in compulsory top-up driver training every 3-5 years. But we don't - because when it comes down to it, we don't really want to improve that standard of driving enough to go through the pain.
|
>> >> Nobody I know could understand why, suddenly, pre-1973 motors were regarded as
>> historics and could be 'taxed' free of charge,
>>
>> IIRC it was 20 year old cars which were initially tax exempt then the decision
>> was made to stop this 'progression' in 1993 or 4 (I guess) - hence the
>> 1973 cut-off.
1 it wasn't sudden, it had been going a few years.
2 It was actually a rolling 25 years old and was one of that nice Mr Brown's first grabs in 1998
3 It was a bit annoying if, like me, you own a 1974 vehicle but it's not a major cost of classic motoring all things considered.
Old cars do need to be tested but it is difficult to do with the same technology as vehicles more then 50 years more advanced. Some of the ideas mentioned earlier in this thread on specialised classic MOTs make a lot of sense.
|
>> Old cars do need to be tested but it is difficult to do with the
>> same technology as vehicles more then 50 years more advanced.
There are things which aren't related to technology, such as rust of structural parts.
|
|
Sorry my memory how the road tax exemption works isn't very good. I've been away a while and all the 'historics' I owned were made well before 1973. I do well remember turning up to get a disc for my Rover P6 and being unable to understand why all the bureaucracy still had to be dealt with to issue the disc but I didn't have to pay anything. It still doesn't make any sense to me.
|
>> It still doesn't make any sense to me.
>>
I can't fathom why any vehicle should be exempt from an appropriate MoT and chargeable RFL, it doesn't matter whether someone uses a car for 200 miles or 200,000 a year - they use the roads and the RFL is a way of keeping track of their vehicle - that it is roadworthy and insured (at least at renewal time) - like the old dog licence really.....
The sums involved must be trifling in the overall scheme of things - albeit an argument for not charging vintage car owners this is equally an argument for charging them as any other road user.
Can't see how this is a vote winner either, unless there are hoards of potential voters who will somehow benefit ?
|
|
Cars of this age haven't survived this long without being maintained and fettled beyond the norm.
|
>> I can't fathom why any vehicle should be exempt from an appropriate MoT and chargeable RFL
Does that include bicycles? After all they use the roads too.
Given that 20% of vehicles fail their first MOT, and there are a lot more of them on the road than pre-1960 vehicles perhaps it would make more sense to have MOTs for newer cars from 1 year old?
|
There is some sense in that suggestion. Somebody I know, who was a rep and a collection and delivery agent spent a huge amount of time on the road. He also covered a huge mileage, so much so his van got to over 100,000 miles before it was a year old.
I don't think the firm kept them vans much beyond a year, but at that rate, the vehicle could have more miles than most get to in a lifetime, and still be under 3 years old and not need an MOT.
|
As most of you will be aware, that is the norm for goods vehicles over 3500kg GVW, and all buses and coaches.
I too can see the merit in the idea, given the mileages some cars clock up; I can't see the trade being so enthusiastic as it would remove one of the major perceived advantages of buying a new car.
Mind you, unless I'm mistaken the French MOT is bi-annual, and given that it's a far bigger country one might expect vehicle mileages to be even higher. Anyone more qualified care to confirm this please?
|
>> Mind you, unless I'm mistaken the French MOT is bi-annual, and given that it's a
>> far bigger country one might expect vehicle mileages to be even higher. Anyone more qualified
>> care to confirm this please?
I too think the Control Technic is biennial (ie every two years). Whether French cars do more miles is interesting. On the one hand the country is bigger so longer holiday etc trips. On the other I don't think they've (yet) acquired our habit of long distance commuting/business travel. Many more French live in flats in cities.
But then again they have a lunchtime rush hour when everyone goes home to eat.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 22 May 12 at 18:34
|
>> the French MOT is bi-annual,
>>
Is that twice a year, or every 2 years?
|
Some stats just published on the 'other' side.
good-garage-guide.honestjohn.co.uk/mot-data-the-mot-files/the-mot-files-cars-registered-before-1960/
Between October 2010 and September 2011 there were 55,000 MoTs for cars registered before 1960 (out of 24.5m MoT tests) and the overall pass rate for all the years combined was 85.2 per cent. That's actually better than the pass rate for 3-year old cars (80%).
Pre WW2 cars seem to fare well, and 1950s cars not quite so well. I guess if I were creating the legislation it would be tempting to make the cut off date 1940 based on these figures. But I guess the government have the advantage of knowing what the failure reasons are for the rest, and so whether they are mainly a hazard to themselves or to others.
|
Just because a car is well-maintained and checked thoroughly beforehand doesn't mean it's going to pass the MOT. So much depends on the whim and interpretation of the tester that beyond a certain point it's just not worth trying to anticipate him, easier just to take the car along and see and then fix anything for the re-test if required.
A common feature of older cars is that their mechanical components had designed amounts of permitted free play. Many younger MOT testers don't understand this, so are liable to condemn something as worn unacceptably when in fact it is within manufacturing tolerances.
A common example is taper roller wheel bearings. The correct end-float might be between 2 and 4 thou. But the tester might wobble the wheel and say it is too much. It's not worth arguing with him. Accept the "fail" and then go back for a re-test having tightened the nut up one flat.
|
Ah, taper rollers. Before a hillclimb event I had a MSA scrutineer insist on no play being present. So I tightened it up and as soon as he was out of sight, loosened it again. No way was I driving the car with no play, folk have had wheels fall off as a result of overtightening before.
As far as I can tell, most cars with these bearings are ok with play that you can just feel at the wheelrim. No science needed.
|
Mercedes Benz have an interesting system on their front wheel bearings. They are held by a split nut which is clamped onto the thread - so, there is no split pin, and no need to line up the holes.
The spec for end float on these bearings is 0.01 mm - which is far too small to set up by hand - you absolutely need a dial gauge.
The reward you get for setting these properly is really good brake pedal feel because the disc doesn't knock the pads back as far.
So, while you could bodge these, and set up by feel, it is actually worth doing the job properly.
|
It would be interesting to try my hands on a just set up Merc. I wonder if I could feel that end float.
Bearings with holes to line up generally don't give much or any choice in the set up as tightened up with no play, undone to the next hole is often about right. Perhaps the one after, but that is it from my experience.
|
Some have 2 holes, at 90 degrees, so with 6 flats that gives a finer choice of options.
Even so I have been reduced to rubbing down the washer on a stone to get an acceptable clearance.
|
>>I wonder if I could feel that end float.
I absolutely guarantee you can't. No way.
|
>> >>I wonder if I could feel that end float.
>>
>> I absolutely guarantee you can't. No way.
>>
>>
Do you mean literally feel the end float, and possibly measure it, or detect it by grasping the wheel at top and bottom?
If you can feel say a waggle of 10 thou at the tyre, what does that equate to in bearing end-float?
|
>>what does that equate to in bearing end-float?
By the time you're looking at an end float of 0.01mm, the waggle at the tyre's rim is largely due to the clearances betwen the bearing inner races and the stub axle. In other words, you can't really equate the two means of assessing bearing clearance when the spec is this tight.
|
So they join all sorts of other things like cranes and pick-up trucks and cherry pickers.
Never understood why they're exempted, but certainly have no strong view one way or another.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326
>>
>> Vehicles manufactured before 1960 will no longer have to have to pass an MoT from
>> 18 November, Roads Minister Mike Penning said.
I'm pleased it's "manufactured before 1960", and not 1970, otherwise my 1967 Hillman Hunter (if it's still in existence!) might have escaped having an MOT. As it was it didn't pass its first MOT because of having a hole rusted in the floor and the underfloor strengthening member practically rusted away!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 25 May 12 at 09:01
|
Classic and historic cars exempted from MoT - Tigger
