The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

Oh, and on the subject of Land Rovers, they are ignored because what has been done to them IS legal! The Land Rover has a separate chassis and on these vehicles identity follows the chassis not the body. You may use the cars original chassis, or a new (not 2nd hand) ORIGINAL STYLE, UNMODIFIED chassis and you are golden! What you put in, or on top of that chassis is entirely up to you. I built a convertible GT6 with a Spitfire body on it, which was just as legal under the same rules.

Monocoque cars are much more restricting.

Steve

Carledo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:29 pm Oh, and on the subject of Land Rovers, they are ignored because what has been done to them IS legal! The Land Rover has a separate chassis and on these vehicles identity follows the chassis not the body. You may use the cars original chassis, or a new (not 2nd hand) ORIGINAL STYLE, UNMODIFIED chassis and you are golden! What you put in, or on top of that chassis is entirely up to you. I built a convertible GT6 with a Spitfire body on it, which was just as legal under the same rules.

Monocoque cars are much more restricting.

Steve

The ones I am talking about are the ones that are blatantly just a 90 or 110 defender with a pre-1977 plate on it for tax purposes.
You can't tell me that a coil sprung vehicle with an r380 gearbox and a 300tdi engine (or even newer in some cases) still has enough points to qualify?!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LAND-ROVER-9 ... SwjyhaHwfw

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1972-LAND-RO ... SwCL9ZrscV

yorkshire_spam wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:45 am

Carledo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:29 pm Oh, and on the subject of Land Rovers, they are ignored because what has been done to them IS legal! The Land Rover has a separate chassis and on these vehicles identity follows the chassis not the body. You may use the cars original chassis, or a new (not 2nd hand) ORIGINAL STYLE, UNMODIFIED chassis and you are golden! What you put in, or on top of that chassis is entirely up to you. I built a convertible GT6 with a Spitfire body on it, which was just as legal under the same rules.

Monocoque cars are much more restricting.

Steve

The ones I am talking about are the ones that are blatantly just a 90 or 110 defender with a pre-1977 plate on it for tax purposes.
You can't tell me that a coil sprung vehicle with an r380 gearbox and a 300tdi engine (or even newer in some cases) still has enough points to qualify?!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LAND-ROVER-9 ... SwjyhaHwfw

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1972-LAND-RO ... SwCL9ZrscV

Well you would only need chassis, steering and axles to qualify, engine and transmission options are irrelevant, but a brief look at the ads you posted is enough to tell ME that they are both somewhat non kosher. For one thing a coil sprung chassis is different to the leaf sprung chassis both should be sporting for those years - so they CAN't be right! However, not everyone is as clued up as you and I - and even less people actually CARE (Ie only one small department at DVLA) These cars and many more like them are at risk of the wrath of DVLA, loss of plate, requirement to take a BIVA test, issue of Q plate and a lifetime of VED and MOTs. And TBH, very little sympathy from me, since they have deliberately flouted well known rules. But I don't really CARE! They've made their choices and if they're caught, they'll pay the price. DVLA have been increasingly active against this sort of thing recently, so the odds against them are going up!

Steve

Imagine a car which was highly modified some years ago (but since 1988) and has been accepted as a Historic Vehicle for all the years it has been on the road. No secret was made of the modifications at the time it was first put on the road and it has been tax exempt and allowed to wear its original registration for years. This vehicle would fail the 8 point criterion so is it now going to be reclassified and have to wear a Q plate? Seems very unfair.

As for the 15% power to weight ratio, it could never be enforced fairly. I have been involved with MGs most of my life, and there can hardly be a standard Sprite/Midget out there. Most have had some head work, perhaps a different camshaft, etc. None of this shows so how is the tester supposed to know the output of the engine and whether it is 14% increased or 16%? Its a mad proposal by people who have no idea about the specialist car fraternity or engines in general.

yorkshire_spam wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:45 am
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LAND-ROVER-9 ... SwjyhaHwfw

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1972-LAND-RO ... SwCL9ZrscV

That first item is being sold by a lady whose husband has suddenly died, and she is trying to clear all of his things. I guess that makes no difference to the sale but I'm a soppy so and so and couldn't help but be touched by the reason for the sale.

Bumpa wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:42 am Imagine a car which was highly modified some years ago (but since 1988) and has been accepted as a Historic Vehicle for all the years it has been on the road. No secret was made of the modifications at the time it was first put on the road and it has been tax exempt and allowed to wear its original registration for years. This vehicle would fail the 8 point criterion so is it now going to be reclassified and have to wear a Q plate? Seems very unfair.

As for the 15% power to weight ratio, it could never be enforced fairly. I have been involved with MGs most of my life, and there can hardly be a standard Sprite/Midget out there. Most have had some head work, perhaps a different camshaft, etc. None of this shows so how is the tester supposed to know the output of the engine and whether it is 14% increased or 16%? Its a mad proposal by people who have no idea about the specialist car fraternity or engines in general.

Well, since the 8 point rule has been in force since 1983, anyone who built a car in 1989 or later which would not comply with the 8 point rule, has been getting away with tax fraud since historic status was introduced (can't quite remember when that was, but quite while now) So forgive me if find this more poetic justice than unfair! I know of several guys who have had exactly this happen to them, mostly the V8 Pop fraternity. They got away with it from build, because, at that time, DVLA accepted without question whatever data an owner offered. Since all cars were taxed then, it made no difference whether the car conformed to the 8 point rule or not. So nobody was very bothered and DVLA didn't have the computer power (or I suspect, the staff) to chase potential offenders. Now there is income involved, they are becoming more proactive!

On the 15% rule, I am 100% with you! It is impractical and almost unenforceable, since even power outputs from a dyno test vary wildly. And again, using my car as an example, I chose to modify a 2 door Toledo, the lightest and lowest powered model in the Dolomite range, and gained in excess of 100% in P2W ratio. Doing the same conversion on my Sprint would hardly gain me 10% and though I would have done (in fact AM doing) a major heart transplant, under the 15% rule, I would not be obliged to declare such! TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!

Steve

Under the 15% rule, neither of my conventionally tuned, period modified cars cars would comply with the exemption rules.

Must have been done before 1988

Carledo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:27 pm Well, since the 8 point rule has been in force since 1983, anyone who built a car in 1989 or later which would not comply with the 8 point rule, has been getting away with tax fraud since historic status was introduced (can't quite remember when that was, but quite while now)

You have a point Steve, but when the car in question was put on the road in 2009 (it was already tax exempt under the 25 year rule) there was no mechanism for declaring any of the changes except the engine transplant, which was done. You might have thought that an MOT inspector would have picked up on the various and very obvious mods, but at every test all that has happened is that the tester has commented on how interesting the car is. The insurer knows all the changes and it still attracts very reasonable premiums. I seriously doubt that anyone would have written to DVLA and told them all the mods and pleaded with them to let you pay tax and get a Q plate.

Actually paying the VED isn't the issue, but getting a Q plate would be such a shame.

Here's a bizarre anomaly. I used to own a 1971 Lotus Elan Sprint. This car had a replacement chassis and apparently Club Lotus has managed to persuade the authorities that the Elan chassis is simply a sub-frame and that the vehicle's identity resides in the bodyshell. Weird, but handy for Lotus owners as the original chassis rusted away in short order!

The current proposal is just that, a proposal. I suspect the 15% thing and a couple of other pointless and impossible to determine points will be removed from the bill when it gains royal ascent.

Bumpa wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:15 pm Here's a bizarre anomaly. I used to own a 1971 Lotus Elan Sprint. This car had a replacement chassis and apparently Club Lotus has managed to persuade the authorities that the Elan chassis is simply a sub-frame and that the vehicle's identity resides in the bodyshell. Weird, but handy for Lotus owners as the original chassis rusted away in short order!

There really was NO need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist about this. Lotus produce new chassis for the car and a NEW chassis is acceptable under the rules. What is NOT allowed is a second hand one from another car as that other car's identity would follow the chassis and be applied to your car. Even this is not a BIG problem so long as the donor's identity was known, it'd still be an Elan after all!

Steve

Bumpa wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:47 am

Carledo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:27 pm Well, since the 8 point rule has been in force since 1983, anyone who built a car in 1989 or later which would not comply with the 8 point rule, has been getting away with tax fraud since historic status was introduced (can't quite remember when that was, but quite while now)

You have a point Steve, but when the car in question was put on the road in 2009 (it was already tax exempt under the 25 year rule) there was no mechanism for declaring any of the changes except the engine transplant, which was done. You might have thought that an MOT inspector would have picked up on the various and very obvious mods, but at every test all that has happened is that the tester has commented on how interesting the car is. The insurer knows all the changes and it still attracts very reasonable premiums. I seriously doubt that anyone would have written to DVLA and told them all the mods and pleaded with them to let you pay tax and get a Q plate.

Actually paying the VED isn't the issue, but getting a Q plate would be such a shame.

It isn't the job of an MOT inspector or tester to pick up on any mod's, they test the car as presented to the standards as laid down by DVSA.

Bumpa wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:42 am Imagine a car which was highly modified some years ago (but since 1988) and has been accepted as a Historic Vehicle for all the years it has been on the road. No secret was made of the modifications at the time it was first put on the road and it has been tax exempt and allowed to wear its original registration for years. This vehicle would fail the 8 point criterion so is it now going to be reclassified and have to wear a Q plate? Seems very unfair.

if a car fails the 8 point system today it would had failed in in 1989 which means the owner has been getting away with exemption, why is that unfair?

Triumph1300 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:47 pm Under the 15% rule, neither of my conventionally tuned, period modified cars cars would comply with the exemption rules.

Must have been done before 1988

I remember reading your build/ restro thread on FB when you built it in 1988

Hi Steve,

I was just thinking the same on the power to weight ratio. I own four Imps (yes - I am a glutton for punishment and lost causes). Three of them (so far) have had enlarged engines, hotter cams, better heads, carbs and exhausts. I have no idea how much power (and hence the increase in power) over standard? How on earth would they monitor / prove this? By putting every car they think comes under this category over a rolling road? I think not. They are too busy selling our personal details to cowboy car parking companies to care. Okay, stepping down off the soap box. I don't have the chassis number of the Sprint to hand, XPC181S, ex demonstator in Inca registered July 78 and I believe built in May 78. Very standard apart from Rimmers Stainless exhaust, K+N air filters and Kenlowe fan. Otherwise as Triumph intended and quite tidy too....

Cheers.