Barry wrote:After a quick Google around just now, I landed on this Gov doc from earlier in the year. Bypassing any media guesswork etc, it does seem to hint at the general mood of the minister concerned over this.
1) Note that early on, the definition of substantially modified has been highlighted and kept deliberately vague and undefined. I take this to mean that the U.K. government (with a pretty good history of supporting classic / modified cars), has given themselves (and us) wiggle room whilst being able to report back to the EU that they have implemented incoming legislation.
2) The eight point system, and it's associated language has already been with us for years.
3) Keith, can you link to the docs that spell out modifications that would fall foul of the proposed / perceived incoming regs? I think you mentioned wheel-arches?
4) Also during my Googlings I came across a line somewhere on a Gov doc (lost where it is now), that stated quite clearly that a vehicle would fail to be awarded an age related plate (as opposed to retaining an original
historic one) where it had 'any new parts'. It gave no definition of what this meant at all: I'm sure they meant chassis / monocoque or whatever, but actually could have been taken as an oil filter or spark plug. This wasn't anything to do with the upcoming proposals from what I could see, just has been there for some time, presumably quietly interpreted sensibly by whomever.
5) Anyway, I suspect that given the historically generally supportive stance of UK government of 'interesting vehicles', the public support for the same, and (hopefully) a basic will not to want to introduce another swathe of uncertainty across a valuable sector will mean in practise much of this will come out in the wash one way or another.
6) Personally I have a double interest in this,
a) because I've got a Triumph TR6 that I want to rebody in the style of a 1960's Italian coupe, but retaining the original inner tub.
b) I've recently aquired the bucks / jigs and rights to build aluminium bodys for Austin Sevens in the style of a 1 1/2 seater Brooklands racer type thing.
Both hit the 8-point system minimum score with no problem. There could be a slight discussion on the chassis of the A7's, as a rear body support is left off (previously rivetted into place) . I think it should be fine though, as the main chassis remains intact. The greater question for both is the new body (A7) and new outer shell (TR6). This is a question that has been rolling around the coachbuilding industry for the last few years. My chum Rod Yates alone has built over 220 Ulster rep. bodies. He is one of many in that line of work. I really can't invisage a situation where the government is going to shut Rod and his collegues down over this. What would be the motivation? Most of the wealthier EU countries have vibrant and popular classic, vintage and modifying scenes / industries. The level of disruption and upset would be tremendous, using political capital for what purpose? It simply doesn't add up. What we (as Porsche folk) are taking to be substantial modifications are I'd guess actually fine details by most people's standards. Front slam panels, rear arches and so on? Surely they're thinking more drastic than that?
7) Here's that doc, the tone, to me, sounds pretty mild on the whole. I know this was earlier in the process, but I would like to see some hard government docs that support the need for the (understandable) worry seen on this thread. Failing that, I suspect that actually many people will enjoy their new MOT exemptions (wrong decision in my books, but there you go) and free RFL's, and the rest will settle down after the initial inevitable rush of confusion, panic, administrative misjudgements, headlines and so on
.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... hiness.pdf
BTW, for all of my above comments, I can't square away to Power to Weight thing
.
I've numbered your points to make it easier to answer (if I can...).
1) It's not that vague – the DVLA is simply adopting VOSA's 8-point ruling in which 5 points are awarded to an unmodified monocoque or chassis. That is very clear – any changes made to a chassis will lead to the need for IVA and the issue of a Q-plate.
2) True - it's just that most people have chosen to ignore it and there has, until recently, been little or no cross-referencing between the DVLA and the insurance industry. DVLA now makes use of access to the MID - motor insurance database – where details will be available of any mods you've made (assuming you've told the insurers), along with photos you supplied to get an agreed valuation.
3) The 8-point rule talks specifically about an unmodified monocoque. I've been in discussion with the main person involved with the negociations between ACE (Association of Car Enthusiasts), FBHVC (Federation of British
Historic Vehicle Clubs) and the DVLA, a longtime hot rodder who's devoted his recent life to fighting for the 'rights' of modified and
historic car owners. He is about to produce a dummies' guide to the whole IVA system. I've discussed with Kev about the implications of installing wide arches, or changing front bulkheads on 911s and the answer is clear: on a 911, the rear wheel arches are an integral part of the body structure. They are 'joined' to the main monocoque along their full length. They are structural. Cutting these out to replace them with anything non-standard is a no-no. You can carry out an accident repair back to stock, no problem. I had raised the point of a GT40 requiring a new tub after a major shunt and the answer is that as long as the replacement is to factory specification, then it's not a problem.
As for backdating the front bulkhead/slam panel, changing that is no different to changing the main bulkhead when carrying out a LHD to RHD conversion. It is regraded as a change to the main monocoque.
How will anyone know? OK, when you come to tax your
historic next year for the first time under the news system, you will be asked to confirm if it's MOT exempt (ie, an unmodified
historic vehicle, or VHI) or not. If it is, then you will be required to show proof. If you say 'no', implying that it is
historic but that certain changes have been made, then you will be required to fill in V765/1, a form that needs to be completed by a member of an approved club who will confirm (or deny) your car is a
historic vehicle. I can Steve Kevlin at PCGB is going to come under a lot of pressure from people asking him to 'sign off' their modified 911s...but if the details are on the MID, then he would be foolish to go along with the deceit. He is not a foolish man... This process will be no problem for the vast majority of people on DDK who've carrried out only fairly modest changes.
4) That's in reference to a
historic vehicle being built up out of age-correct old parts and is generally interpreted to mean the components covered by the 8-point ruling, not minutiae such as plugs and belts.
5) Once upon a time there was a brand new test called the MOT – it was introduced in 1960, prior to which people said it would never happen. Remember, DVLA and VOSA are essentially independent government departments, irrespective of which party is in power.
6) Well, the hot-rod scene is having to accept the change in rules, and there have been a number of instances in recent months where cars have suddenly had their V5 revoked as DVLA has started to show more interest in modified vehicles. Most wise hot rodders are now doing their new builds in line with the requirements of IVA, etc. It's not popular but as some well known cars have already been deemed illegal, the scene is having to embrace change. It could be argued why should it be any different for people wishing to build modern Austin 7 conversions? Removing any part of the chassis falls outside the 8-point ruling. If you wish to avoid IVA and a Q-plate, the shape of the body will just have to be changed to accommodate it. Will anyone ever know? That's for the owner/builder to risk. However, rodders who've chosen to use a Reliant Scimitar chassis and drivetrain fall foul of this as the removal of the stock body mounts for the Reliant body to allow a slimmer body to be fitted has meant IVA...
7) Well, we can all bury our head and hope it goes away. The guys who've had their V5s revoked did and paid the price. Now that the MID is shared, and the new rulings put in print, don't be surprised if there are some high-profile 'hangings'. Who will be the first to lose the V5 for his Zagato Aston?
In reality, I think the DVLA has opened a can of worms which is bigger than they ever imagined, and I am certain that most modified 911s, RSR reps included, will slip under the radar. BUT to do so will require the owner to lie about any modifications when they come to tax their car next year.
