DDK - Die Deutschen Klassiker

No! Please keep the info coming, esp as we are now in a more private area of the forum. DVLA (in common with all of gov) have a history of bold plans that get heavily moderated eventually. They will probably realise the scale of the problem, recognise that they face an unclimbable mountain, and cut back their plans. We should all be aware of the situation, and your news feed is invaluable for this, but public recorded discussion about specific vehicles and people is not the answer. A pause for thought gives an idea of the numbers of lhd-rhd conversions, TR, MGA, Healey, Hot Rods, Tritons, Rally cars, etc etc etc. They can't possibly deal with all of these, and these are the easy ones. Power to weight ratio, 3.2 in place of 2.4, 6 cyl in place of 4 etc. Are much more tricky to police. They may go after some before the reality dawns, let's try not to give them the reason to choose us first. W

They've chosen Ford first, by the way. Processing of paperwork for early Fords has slowed right down – almost certainly because, apart from the Bugatti fiasco, Fords represent the largest body of suspect vehicles (hot rods etc).

Keith,
Please continue to keep us up to date with any news or views you feel is relevant. Thank you for the posts you have made so far.

Agreed, forewarned is forearmed as they say. Maybe not all rules and regulations will eventually get passed, but I would rather know the worst case scenario. Really appreciate you taking the time to get the knowledge out there.

Very very important break-through announced today in the classic car press.

The DVLA have dropped their proposals, the FBHVC have met with the DfT and convinced them their proposals were un workable.
There are still some areas that I am not sure about, but the full story is in this week's Classic Car Weekly newspaper, second page, best get it and read it yourselves.

Seems modified cars will not be able to claim historic status and have to take the MoT as usual (and presumably pay road tax)
The FBHVC are doing to draft for the DfT a guidline to 'modified classic cars'. No publishing date given.

Any pre 60's modified car HAS to take an annual MoT.

I do not think this is all over and us modified lads can breath easy, the Fat Lady is yet to sit down (and go home), big change though.

I hope Keith can clarify the facts for us as usual.

Sorry, don't get excited. It's a grand piece of misreporting by a paper which has a great reputation for misleading headlines.

Fact of the matter is that nothing has changed. The Federation's statement is laughable: "We told DfT that we think the systems are unworkable , they SEEMED to agree so we don't THINK they'll pursue further...". Basically, there is nothing to report – the rest of the 'article' simply repeats that need for MOT for modified historics, and that the definition of what constitutes substantial change, etc, has not yet been agreed (which we already knew). It then goes on to quote the FBHVC as saying it hopes to design an alternative means for defining 'substantial change' to put to the DfT. What they omit to say is that the consultation closed months ago, with the FBHVC realising too late that they hadn't been paying real attention because they thought 'it would never happen'. Classic Car Weekly really is fish wrap.

Thanks for the reply Keith.
As I said, it isn't done until the fat lady has left the building and gone home, and she is still singing.

Thought it too good to be true, but wanted it to be true!
So we still wait for the DVLA to clarify Substantially Modified in Nov or sometime before May 18.
I expect only the DfT / DVLA can actually make a statement to the merry throng of Modified Owners.

Disappointing and miss-leading information.

Just found this recent letter from the DfT on a hot rod site.

Ignoring the use of '30 years' which should be '40 years', and interesting read. Note the last paragraph.

So what's all the fuss about again?
If all that is needed is an MoT, not an IVA, then that's fine surely?
Or does the DfT man speak with forked tongue?

911hillclimber wrote:Note the last paragraph.

We already knew that - 'substantially changed' is in reference solely to the power to weight ratio, more than a 15 per cent increase means an MOT for a VHI.

The letter doesn't state that there is any change when it comes to radically altered vehicles which fall outside the 8-point rule. That still means BIVA (or IVA if professionally built).

So, like I say, nothing has changed at all – the letter only reinforces what was stated following the consultation.

ahh, nuances I'd not understood...thanks KS.

So substantially changed = >15% power increase = continued MoT
radically changed=whatever they define in terms of chassis mods etc = BIVA (and I presume continued MoT).

ahh, nuances I'd not understood...thanks KS.

So substantially changed = >15% power increase = continued MoT
radically changed=whatever they define in terms of chassis mods etc = BIVA (and I presume continued MoT).

We're waiting to see detailed definitions, but everybody tries to read into the 'rules' what they want to read – or, in some cases, what they don't want to read!

So, I'm disappointed again!
Nearly Nov, so 4 weeks to wait max for a definition.
Never knew BIVA was for armature build, and IVA for the pros.

Not sure there is much difference?

911hillclimber wrote:So, I'm disappointed again!
Nearly Nov, so 4 weeks to wait max for a definition.
Never knew BIVA was for armature build, and IVA for the pros.

Not sure there is much difference?

Whatever is decided in four weeks, the 8-point rule will be the same as it has been in place since 1988 (which includes changes to the monocoque/unitary body…). BIVA recognises that enthusiasts building a car for themselves at home are different to companies making a living from doing the same for customers. Indeed, one way you can get around full retrospective IVA (all 308 pages of the manual) when buying a pre-built hot rod is to dismantle it and rebuild it yourself, carefully photographing the build process as you go to show that it was you who'd assembled the vehicle along BIVA guidelines.