DDK - Die Deutschen Klassiker

Afraid he means me, the owner of a thread banned on DDK!

No, my wife says this is not the end of the world as I know it.
I will fix the car and it will have a Q plate, and Keith assures me that it's weak value will not weaken!
My shell is sound as a pound, it will be repainted and it will keep the rhd conversion I did using Porsche panels in my garage one Xmas break in around 1984.
I converted it on safety grounds, as my suffering wife had to judge and shout out if I could overtake a car when it was Lhd, she was not good at this little task.
Rest of the shell is stock, and I'm f..d if I'm going to convert it back!

It's tax is due end of this month, I will tax it for free for 12 on this, so this issue is delayed somewhat before I have to say it is modified.
The real situation will by then be clear or a real cock up and I will have to join the long wait at my local over worked VOSA centre. They will need a new person to cash all the £450 cheques.

Will the tiny tax and MoT exempt (and stock) Terrot bike ever ever ever run?
A new carb should be waiting for moon my return to the ever obediently governed UK.

Imagine all the Aston Martin race cars with flared arches, welded in cages etc suddenly having to be Q plates.
1,000,000 pound cars suddenly worth..and the Lotus', and the E Types and lots more.

I believe 4 peers of the realm did the consultation work on this, and one turns up at events and dinners in a Jenson.

But you (gridgeway) told them it had a big engine, or whatever, didn't you. What is important is that you will have notified the insurer that your car is not stock any more. That is enough – DVLA doesn't need specific details at this point but will now ask YOU to provide details. If there's any doubt, off to the VOSA testing station you go...

There's a ton of reading here about BIVA and IVA – and it's all been available since it was published four and half years ago...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... scheme.pdf

So, will it be the responsibility of the owner to prove that any modifications were carried out prior to 1988 ?

If, for example you've owned your (modified) car for, let's say 10 years & the previous owner had owned it for ~ 15 years in the same (but non-original) spec, what happens if you have no paperwork to verify when the modifications were carried out ?

If I buy a classic Alfa which was originally fitted with a 1600cc engine & I replace it with a (visually similar) 2.0 litre engine (which many have done) & notify DVLA of the change, are they going to require me to prove what the relative power outputs are ?

Yes, the onus will always lie with the owner to prove things in his favour. If you can show photographs, magazine features, receipts or other documentary evidence, then you're OK. If you can't then it will be treated as newly modified. That's going to p•ss off a lot of people.

On the subject of engine swap, according to DVLA it would appear you will have to take your car to a VOSA station where it would undergo a basic IVA test, which is very visual for most things. As far as the engine is concerned, I can see it would only take a moment to pop your car on the rolling road and take a power reading...

I think there would have to be some form of short IVA test or one appropriate for the situation. Having built two racers, sometimes kit car companies provide good lightweight solutions to things, so I get mailed all the time with their normal offerings. The 'now SVA compliant' banners on mundane items is quite staggering, almost nothing that we would consider normal and functional is compliant.

So taking the example of an E type with wide arches presented as a racer, it would need a whole bunch of crappy plastic interior switches that have additional features like the fog lights automatically turning off when you turn the lights off and great big elephant ear wing mirrors - that's before you get to the standard wood rim steering wheel and offset gear lever etc. Any period correct car that has been modded would basically need to be turned into a monster to pass the test!

^^^^Exactly!
That is what I have read the last few days.
That original Porsche interior rear view mirror is a failure, you need a nice new plastic Car Builder Solutions one, in fact you HAVE to have one.

Make no mistake, this is going to be ugly.

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.

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.

As far as I'm aware, the original EU proposals came about because some of the truly appalling vehicles on the road in the poorer EU states. The sort of thing that might be half tractor, half horse cart. I don't think the intention is to disadvantage classic owners in weathly countries with histories of pretty decent safety standards and sensible owners.

The eight point system, and it's associated language has already been with us for years.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 .

Calming words from Barry, thank you!
Power to weight is an odd term to read in a Government document and hints that there is a knowledgable person in this somewhere I hope.

I am however sure my 911 fits in the significantly modified slot due to my DIY rhd conversion.
At least I have had an enjoyable car got 20 odd years!
How a shell with re enforced jacking points et for rally or cosmetic purposes fairs I'm not sure.

Maybe if you have modified the cars shell then you simply take it to a VOSA site and get some kind of pre- BIVA done that sets you on the full BIVA path or you get exempted?

In my particular case just how is the integrity of my conversion going to be assessed?
All the welds are behind the heater air box and the dash panels were Porsche.
Thankfully I took a lot of pics, pre digital days so can show what and how I did it.

The car since then has had about 22 MoTs, been raced and has hit a tree at t top of Shelsley Walsh too and been straightened on a cellette and still my welds are tight!

Shell also has a bolt in cage, but that can simply come out.
If it isn't there it can't be tested.

What a lot of bother, a lot of in clear communications, and little to guide this new breed of vehicles...
A classic car, MOTD all its life and now under suspicion.
I think my car is presently in sellable.

I have read this thread with great interest, but feel pretty confused. Maybe the knowledgeable ones on here can advise.

When I bought my PreA in 2004 it had a 912 engine in it (not installed before 1988) and came with a 1500 super (installed in the 60s) in bits.
I changed the 912 engine for a 1600 normal (60hp) which is more than 15% more powerful than the original 1300 would have been (44hp) but is more suitable for the car.

So I assume with this change I am going to need to keep MOTing the car or do I need to do anything more?

Also, the 1500 super that was installed in the 60s will eventually be rebuilt and put back in the car. If or when I do this will that mean I don't need an MOT then (I will have one done anyway as I believe it is proof of any vehicles roadworthiness). The spanner in the works for this is I informed DVLA of the engine swap to the 1600 and so am not sure how they will react when I change back, (the original logbook shows the change to the 1500 as proof it was in the car a long time ago).

Any advice gratefully received (I think).

Also, I was going to put the 912 engine in the notchback when it is done but think I may look for a 1600 normal as that is the original engine spec that was in the car when it was new and will save hassle.

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.

Hendrik Moulds wrote:I have read this thread with great interest, but feel pretty confused. Maybe the knowledgeable ones on here can advise.

When I bought my PreA in 2004 it had a 912 engine in it (not installed before 1988) and came with a 1500 super (installed in the 60s) in bits.
I changed the 912 engine for a 1600 normal (60hp) which is more than 15% more powerful than the original 1300 would have been (44hp) but is more suitable for the car.

So I assume with this change I am going to need to keep MOTing the car or do I need to do anything more?

Also, the 1500 super that was installed in the 60s will eventually be rebuilt and put back in the car. If or when I do this will that mean I don't need an MOT then (I will have one done anyway as I believe it is proof of any vehicles roadworthiness). The spanner in the works for this is I informed DVLA of the engine swap to the 1600 and so am not sure how they will react when I change back, (the original logbook shows the change to the 1500 as proof it was in the car a long time ago).

Any advice gratefully received (I think).

Also, I was going to put the 912 engine in the notchback when it is done but think I may look for a 1600 normal as that is the original engine spec that was in the car when it was new and will save hassle.

You won't have any problem other than you will be required to have an MOT each year. Simple. As for reinstalling the correct engine at a later date, I have been advised that once you go the VHI with an MOT route, you won't be able to go back, but that doesn't really matter in the scheme of things as I assume you get your car MOT'd anyway, or at least keep it in MOT-able condition.

"BUT to do so will require the owner to lie about any modifications when they come to tax their car next year."
I know this discussion is primarily aimed at VHI, but this will impact slightly differently on later backdated or modified 911s (my own 1987 car has Turbo arches fitted). Will these cars owners be asked about modifications when apply (and paying for) RFL?

Nick Moss wrote:"BUT to do so will require the owner to lie about any modifications when they come to tax their car next year."
I know this discussion is primarily aimed at VHI, but this will impact slightly differently on later backdated or modified 911s (my own 1987 car has Turbo arches fitted). Will these cars owners be asked about modifications when apply (and paying for) RFL?

No, the new rules are primarily in relation to VHI and exemption from MOT.

KS wrote: 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 these cases ... I'd also expect us to see quite a few test cases by the owners being brought to Court as there are a lot of wealthy guys out there who will challenge

Thank you for the comprehensive reply Keith.

A thought on this one:

'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.'

It occurs to me that there might be a case for arguing that if arches are replaced steel for steel, and front slams swapped from late to early (all over the 40 year minimum age), and bulkheads from left to right or whatever, these are all parts available in period, in the style of the period and used in period. You are swapping one Porsche steel arch (for example) for another Porsche steel arch. I suspect 'non-standard' might turn out to mean fibreglass or similar instead of steel.

Also, isn't there a whole industry in the kit / replica world where panels are clad over the top of a standard car (Tribute Automotive, all those MR2's and so on). They surely don't leave the rear wings on? I thought they were exempt from any new testing and that was the point of that sort of kit? Perhaps I'm wrong, but if that was the case, going from (eg) one steel arch welded in to another steel arch of an equally period profile seems much milder to me.

I'm not trying to argue out of this, just trying to square what is trying to be achieved here with what they might actually end up with and what good it is doing anyone. Is it a genuine fear that there are dangerous cars out there? Is it a fear that people are using the VHI as a VED evasion method? Or is it a desire to keep the historic fleet original and accurate? I could possibly understand that given the number of vintage saloon bodies that get binned in favour of new sports bodies etc. It would be helpful to know what the starting point of all this really was, what the early objectives were, and where everything is realistically expected to end up once the dust has settled.

I did type a huge follow up to my original post btw, but your reply beat me to it, and swiped away most of my platitudes .

My overarching gut feel though is a lot of this will shake out after some on the ground real examples have been worked through. As has been said, its a huge tin of worms, and I simply cannot see where the political / departmental pay-off is coming from. There's no groundswell from the public to rid the roads of classics and politicians I'm sure are pretty positive about our scene.