Roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historic interest.

[xvivalve]

They probably won't Ian; take for instance the current pre '75 concession for emissions being visible only; pre '75 cars will be immediately exempt from the test, so that concession will no longer exist. All cars tested will therefore fail if they no longer meet current emission requirements.

[tinweevil]

As this is, in headline at least, about harmonisation what is the situation in the EU?

[sprint95m]

They probably won't Ian; take for instance the current pre '75 concession for emissions being visible only; pre '75 cars will be immediately exempt from the test, so that concession will no longer exist. All cars tested will therefore fail if they no longer meet current emission requirements.

I understand your point Alun, but this didn't happen with the MOT exemptions for older vehicles already introduced.

There is a group of vehicles that could qualify by age but not by use, working HGVs and PSVs being the obvious examples.
Cars are still be used for commercial purposes (such as Wedding cars) too.

The documents that Bumpa kindly provided links to state that MOT testing as it is will continue as it is. Apparently 7% of those already
exempted are still being MOTed.



Ian.

[Carledo]

Someone on the facebook page "Enthusiasts of British cars built before 1985" recently had his pre '60 car MOT'd and then had to go through a vast rigmarole with DVLA as they demanded VED from him because he'd done an unnecessary MOT! The thinking being, I suppose, that it might be a later car on a private plate or some such. It can't be anything to do with these new rules as they are not in force yet and may be an isolated glitch of the sort we have come to expect from DVLA. But advice on that page now (which I DON'T agree with) is NOT to MOT your pre '60 car and keep your head down!

I am glad the FBHCC is fighting the power to weight ratio increase thing, as far as I can see, there would be almost no way to check or enforce it anyway. Though good little boys like me notify their changes to DVLA, putting it on record (in 2011 in my case, so no pre 88 claim possible) that I have fitted a much bigger engine, and thereby leave myself open to DVLA retrospectively deciding that even though I scrupulously observed their rules, built a 9 point car and told them all about it (even paying several years VED at a much higher rate) that my car is no longer of any historical interest, so no longer qualifies for free VED! Oh well, it still won't need a BIVA and will therefore keep it's plate, which is something! And since the Carledo is more or less my daily driver at the moment and the Dolomega WILL be my daily driver when finished, I suppose I shouldn't grudge them the VED! It doesn't mean I like it, but what can you expect from the incompetent 'tards in government?

But I can see a big disparity growing here between the DVLA description "radically modified" (under 8 points) which mandates a BIVA, Q plate, MOT and VED to be paid - and the MOT (VOSA?) description "substantially altered" which only needs a power increase to take it out of the ball park. It's my opinion that a lot of folks would flat out fib about performance enhancements, just to avoid potential "standardization" of limits at the VOSA level and probably get away with it too!
But my money says the power to weight thing will get dropped and the 8 point rule will become the standard. It's already in force and is fairly well understood (if a bit iniquitous) and though it will not please a few radical-but-undeclared owners, by and large I don't have much sympathy for those who have cheated in this manner! I just pity the poor MOT testers who will end up doing the DVLA's dirty work for them by potentially grassing up such cars (if presented at all of course!)

Steve

[NickMorgan]

This looks like it will be an enormous can of worms.
I still take my Pre-1960 TR3A in for an MOT. The tester does the same as he always has and I am given a certificate. He doesn't tell me I need air bags or seat belts, etc.
I have never had a demand for VED since the MOT exemption was introduced.

[jikovron]

Ive been recently motivated towards biva testing my 1500hl dolomite as it frees it away from the doldrums of being a 0 point car.

sprint axle = 0 axle points.
modified subframe = 0 suspension points.
1850 steering rack and solid mounts = 0 steering points.
engine = 0 points.
transmission = 0 points.
mods to the body = 0 points.

I think only E marked windscreens are the main issue with these as they are BS marked but everything else is merely abit of mild work

the free VED is of zero interest also as tbh its not very expensive compared to the amount of money i waste on the car itself however removing the mot requirement for cars seems a tad regressive albeit nothing surprising when correlated with global politics.

[cliftyhanger]

Not sure it is necessary, have you chopped the actual shell or just the panels attached to it. For example fitting a sunroof would not count.
Steering rack, there is essentially zero difference between an 1850 and 1500 rack (if any, and who knows what you get when you exchange)
Sprint axle, guess you habe dropped a point there, along with engine and transmission. But suspension? still on normal dolomite shocks/springs?

The danger is if the car has inherent design that doesn't met IVA standards it will have to be removed from the road or returned to a more std spec to reach the 8 points.

What is scary is I got dragged over to talk to a chap on Sunday. As I know a bit about Triumphs. He has bought a 1970 vitesse salon, unfinished restoration. And wants to sell all teh bodywork/interior etc.
reason is he wants to build a "bugatti" special. Which involves cutting and extending the chassis. I pointed out tat would mean IVA would be required, at which poit he got a bit stroppy and said it was his car and he can do what he likes with it. That means (I reckon) he will NOT get an IVA, and will not get the rebodied car correctly registered. So it will just be a vitesse on the V5, with not a single MOT or check whatsoever when he puts it on the road. And unlikely to ever get caught, unless he has an serious accident at which point he may run into serious problems....

[jikovron]

Its all obscure items really but its my understanding that even a like for like replacement engine would loose a point as the original is suitable for reconditioning in the main unless it is completely none salvageable, similarly all of the the other points outside of consumable parts are the same situation expect brakes which understandably are not to be encouraged down reconditioning route repeatedly.

Evidently in the case of a reconstructed classic taking in parts from donor cars of the same type this would fall within the scope of a Q plate car however of course in real terms who could possibly tell and really common sense prevails in that regard i would say.

In my cars case the subframe being modified has a significant effect upon the identity system as it counts as the front axle and suspension points given that it has a direct relationship with the wishbones and forms an axle assembly

In the case of the steering rack i fitted a 3.25 turn rack from an early 1850 onto solid mounts which is about a tenuous as these things get but is still something that can be discovered with a few seconds on google

the shell is definately outside the scope of the 5 points as lt77 gearboxs cannot be fitted without raising the tunnel above the propshaft as its really deep.

i guess maybe asl the rear suspension is standard i do score a single point!

if i could fit a smaller gearbox i could get it above the 8 points but the subframe is abit of an issue really.

[Carledo]

Its all obscure items really but its my understanding that even a like for like replacement engine would loose a point as the original is suitable for reconditioning in the main unless it is completely none salvageable, similarly all of the the other points outside of consumable parts are the same situation expect brakes which understandably are not to be encouraged down reconditioning route repeatedly.

Evidently in the case of a reconstructed classic taking in parts from donor cars of the same type this would fall within the scope of a Q plate car however of course in real terms who could possibly tell and really common sense prevails in that regard i would say.

In my cars case the subframe being modified has a significant effect upon the identity system as it counts as the front axle and suspension points given that it has a direct relationship with the wishbones and forms an axle assembly

In the case of the steering rack i fitted a 3.25 turn rack from an early 1850 onto solid mounts which is about a tenuous as these things get but is still something that can be discovered with a few seconds on google

the shell is definately outside the scope of the 5 points as lt77 gearboxs cannot be fitted without raising the tunnel above the propshaft as its really deep.

i guess maybe as the rear suspension is standard i do score a single point!

if i could fit a smaller gearbox i could get it above the 8 points but the subframe is abit of an issue really.

Right, having built a car with a different engine (Vauxhall 2.0) this is my take.

I have a completely unmodified shell (5 points and mandatory)

I have modified the front subframe and swapped in a Sprint rear axle (though the rear axle is debatable the subframe mods mean 0/2 points for axles as the subframe is the "front axle")

The engine has been replaced with a non standard item (0/1 points)

The gearbox has been replaced with a non standard item and the prop has been modified (0/2 transmission points)

All suspension is of the original type and design and fits to original mounting points (2 points)

Steering is of original type and design and fits to original mounting points (2 points)
NOTE, I have also used solid mounts but since they mimic the originals and fit to the same mounting points this is acceptable.

So I have a 9 point car and no BIVA is needed

A few other points, You ARE allowed to ADD things like additional engine mounts or strengthening to a chassis or monocoque WITHOUT penalty and CAN remove SOME bits like non structural unwanted engine mounts.
Cutting different holes or even making an entirely new gearbox tunnel is fine cos it's not part of the monocoque but a bolt in panel.

You may have modified the front subframe, but so long as you have not altered the suspension mount points, you will not lose suspension points for it, just the 2 axle points ( you wouldn't get 1 point for a stock rear axle anyway, it's 2 points for 2 stock "axles" or 0 if even 1 is not stock)

As others have said, a Dolomite rack is a Dolomite rack, the ratio is unimportant. They wouldn't check this anyway so long as it LOOKS as if it belongs. The same applies to uprated springs and shox, so long as they are direct replacements for factory stuff, it's OK.

The points scheme makes no mention of brakes, for or against, so brakes are more or less free to do as you want with.

As far as I can tell, your only problem lies in what has been done to the trans tunnel of the monocoque to clear the prop. Depending on how well this has been done, it MIGHT pass muster if checked.

But if you DO decide to take it for a BIVA, PLEASE post the results!!!!

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be fascinated to find out what the powers make of a Dolomite. Whilst I suspect the exterior would be pretty much OK, with the possible exception of the shape of the bumpers and the relatively "sharp" rear edges on them, I rather fancy you would have to do some work on switchgear, seatbelts and other stuff inside to pass.

Steve

[geeksteve]

As far as I can tell, your only problem lies in what has been done to the trans tunnel of the monocoque to clear the prop. Depending on how well this has been done, it MIGHT pass muster if checked.

Underseal..

[jikovron]

Back when i first put the car together i did actually hide all of the evidence by carefully smoothing all of the joints and applying sound proofing to the tunnel , however after a few years of enjoyment of the car and almost 60'000 miles i have reached a point where its now easier to reconstruct the car in modified form and enjoy the freedom of fitting any engine suspension subframe etc than it is to replace the rotten floor pan and boot as per the original just to carry on as normal with compromises.

i shall gradually work it towards the dreaded biva!

[Carledo]

They probably won't Ian; take for instance the current pre '75 concession for emissions being visible only; pre '75 cars will be immediately exempt from the test, so that concession will no longer exist. All cars tested will therefore fail if they no longer meet current emission requirements.

This is not quite the case, at the moment there are 4 levels of MOT emission criteria.
Up to 75 (and ALL Q plate cars) Visible smoke only.
75-86, under 4.5% CO and 1200ppm hydrocarbons.
86-92, under 3.5% CO and 1200ppm hydrocarbons.
92> Cat test, under 0.3% CO, 200ppm hydrocarbons and lambda limits (some carb fitted cars registered between Aug 92-Aug 93 may be tested to the next lower standard)

So the car would not need to meet "current" ie CAT test levels, just those appropriate to it's age.

So a 76 car would still be tested at the same 75-86 level it always has been, and TBH, if it can't meet THOSE figures, it DESERVES to fail!

I've had the Carledo on the gas tester at the MOT (my choice, you can elect to have the car emission tested to the standard of the age of the car OR of the age of the engine, in my case 1989) On all but the lambda limits, my fuel injected, but not CAT fitted engine came within a whisker of cat test limits and middling good on the lamba figures (I do have a plumbed in lambda sensor, just no CAT which upsets the figures a bit) It's my guess that a similarly injected and programmed ignition fitted slant would achieve similar figures. If you really want to help the environment (and incidentally get much better fuel economy) without the bother of an engine transplant, this is a conversion worth considering!

Steve

[Russetauto]

I am a MOT tester of nearly twenty years. The amount of newish cars that fail on poor maintenance and cheap components is scary! Most classic drivers do tend to look after there cars better. But many are diyers which can be dangerous. And with old age comes wear and tear and corrosion. That fresh pair of eyes is a god send to any vehicle let alone a 40 or 50 year old one. I test the car on its merits and age. Yes there is free play rust and iffy repairs but I judge it on would I feel safe driving it? That's all you can do! But luckily most old car owners are sensible and want there cars in a safe condition. Which is good.

[dollyman]

I am a MOT tester of nearly twenty years. The amount of newish cars that fail on poor maintenance and cheap components is scary! Most classic drivers do tend to look after there cars better. But many are diyers which can be dangerous. And with old age comes wear and tear and corrosion. That fresh pair of eyes is a god send to any vehicle let alone a 40 or 50 year old one. I test the car on its merits and age. Yes there is free play rust and iffy repairs but I judge it on would I feel safe driving it? That's all you can do! But luckily most old car owners are sensible and want there cars in a safe condition. Which is good.

This is what a "good" mot tester should do
I used to do the same when i tested cars. Some bodge jobs were downright lethal others were very clever and an improvement on original.
I for one will just check my car myself and save the money
I never used to check it before an mot, and just let the garage do the test.
If ever there was a "fail" it was usually a bulb or something not dangerous.
But my cars are not "daily drivers" this is where any problems might come up
Cheers, Tony.

[shaunroche]

Right, having built a car with a different engine (Vauxhall 2.0) this is my take.
I have a completely unmodified shell (5 points and mandatory)
I have modified the front subframe and swapped in a Sprint rear axle (though the rear axle is debatable the subframe mods mean 0/2 points for axles as the subframe is the "front axle")....
...All suspension is of the original type and design and fits to original mounting points (2 points)..
...Steering is of original type and design and fits to original mounting points (2 points)...
Steve

So where do I stand on this Steve? Is mine edging towards a Q car?

My car has the original engine, gearbox, rear axle and front subframe types, ie not original to the car but certainly in keeping with the model, albeit with Trackerjack front Brakes: the only difference to the shell is the inclusion of a cage and the removal of all seats and interior trim. The battery is inside the cabin now as are all the brakes and fuel lines and the fuel tank has been replaced with a rectangular alloy one.....?