| Motoring Discussion > UK MOT consulation | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Slidingpillar | Replies: 6 |
|
New Thu 22 Sep 16 16:50
UK MOT consulation - Slidingpillar
|
|
Released today www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest Issue of defining historic interest is fudged in my opinion. Basically the 8 point rule as per DVLA rules on for registering radically altered vehicles with I think the modification that anything with a second-hand or altered chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame; is deemed to have less than 8 points... Bear in mind, a fair few three wheelers are not on their original chassis as for a while, some dealers offered a service exchange. Same or similar would apply to other makes and models I guess. I was going to do the reply before posting this, but had to bomb out as somehow, we need to tell the government how to their job... All of the 'options' are in some way unsatisfactory as with their preferred options, a 142 mph E type would be exempt. I really do not wish to meet one on the road! Any bright ideas on how to define the issue of historic-interest for them? Do please circulate this widely, we have till the 2nd November. |
|
New Thu 22 Sep 16 17:56
UK MOT consulation - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> for a while, some dealers offered a service exchange. >> That's easy surely - just extend the definition of "new" to include authorised dealer service exchange? Already they allow a brand new chassis to count as original, so combined with remanufactured body parts, exchange reconditioned engines, etc, a so-called historic vehicle can legally have virtually no original parts at all. But they don't actually mean "historic" at all, merely "old", however defined. If historic was defined similarly to listed buildings, a car a year old might conceivably already be historic. What they really mean is: a) too old and primitive to be possible or worth the faff of testing under modern regulations b) probably doing a tiny mileage, rarely at peak times, and probably not for regular commuting. c) probably owned by nutters who like tinkering with old cars so probably maintain them properly anyway. So why not do away with the whole concept of age and historic, and simply say non-electronic engine management, owner must be a member of a recognised enthusiasts' club, and possibly have an annual mileage restriction, if actually enforceable? |
|
New Thu 22 Sep 16 18:32
UK MOT consulation - Slidingpillar
|
|
That's easy surely - just extend the definition of "new" to include authorised dealer service exchange? Given the event probably took place in the 30's or 40's, nigh on unprovable. I'm leaning towards counting any chassis that is to the correct dimensions and unaltered. That is simple and non-brain taxing. Of my favourite make, Morgan, only one dealer around now was around then, and they may not have offered either. A mid 70s car engineering wise is pretty much present practise, but simpler to MOT with no airbags, ABS, etc. I very much doubt any tester would have a problem with any aspect. |
|
New Thu 22 Sep 16 21:53
UK MOT consulation - Harleyman
|
|
and >> possibly have an annual mileage restriction, if actually enforceable? >> >> Don't even go there! |
|
New Thu 22 Sep 16 18:43
UK MOT consulation - Manatee
|
|
I think an argument could rest on the view that the both the meaning and purpose of "substantially altered" differ for the purposes of establishing roadworthiness vs. the DVLA's requirements, which presumably have to do with identity rather than roadworthiness. The fact that the same term is used is unfortunate. Actually, I do wonder how the DVLA goes on with its own definition. It's pretty common with historic cars to have all sorts of bits swapped around as I'm sure you know, it really does go with the territory. Nevertheless the chassis thing is understandable when it is identity that is in question. For roadworthiness, why would anyone suppose that an owner would fit a second hand chassis if if made the car worse? And a second hand one is probably all that is available. |
|
New Thu 22 Sep 16 21:19
UK MOT consulation - Slidingpillar
|
|
For roadworthiness, why would anyone suppose that an owner would fit a second hand chassis if if made the car worse? And a second hand one is probably all that is available. Exactly! I've seen an email from a VSCC member I know, and I think he's very close to what they should do. Any exempt vehicle owners claiming the exemption just has to sign saying the car is correctly registered. Which in fact is what already is done. DVLC are cracking down on incorrectly registered cars, but so many are, they'll be at it till the cows come home. Doesn't matter, the mechanism exists, is being used and Brexit allegedly will make the issue academic anyway. Anyone who looks at the 'classics' listed on eBay will see plenty of cars whose historical aspect is seriously dodgy. Not a case of being a point short of the 8, but near enough all of them. |
|
New Fri 23 Sep 16 11:20
UK MOT consulation - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> why would anyone suppose that >> an owner would fit a second hand chassis if if made the car worse? >> But it wouldn't necessarily. It's very tempting, and often done, to canibalise two or more vehicles, rebuilding an otherwise good vehicle with a rotted chassis onto another with a good chassis, but retaining the legal identity of the rotted car. It sounds perverse, but it is perfectly acceptable to buy a brand new chassis made yesterday, stamp it with the old chassis number, and then the vehicle retains its "identity" for MOT, taxation and historic purposes. Yet a genuine secondhand chassis in perfect condition of the right period is in theory not allowed. Also the secondhand chassis would be minutely correct in every detail. Remanufactured chassis are almost inevitably going to have tiny modifications, or are going to be a generic compromise covering a range of similar models of the period. Until a few years ago for example replacement Landrover chassis for Series II, IIA and III were all to the Series III design, the differences being either immaterial or could be accommodated by modifying components. Now separate model-specific chassis are available, but they are nearly always now galvanised, an obvious improvement. yet that is clearly a modification, because none were originally galvanised. It's a can of worms, but of the authorities' own making because they don't know what they are trying to achieve. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
