Discussion in 'Anything and everything' started by slaphead, Sep 15, 2017.
Surely thats a very bad idea?
Obviously, a lot of classics are owned by enthusiasts who know their car inside out, and can vouch for its safety. But that doesn't include everyone, and the yearly mot is a good time to inspect the underside of the chassis, brake lines and ball joints etc etc.
I agree. I just don't understand the logic.
Historic/classic cars here were exempt and then they brought in a 5yr MOT. Modern cars here are tested every 2 yrs once they are 4yrs old.
No test is a very bad idea !
From what I've read you can voluntarily take your car for a check over which is what I'll be doing
This debate has been running for a long time in the FBHVC Newsletter (we are a member).
It appears that cars that have been substantially modified will still need an Mot. However non of this is finalised yet. So what does substantially actually mean and will this alert the DVLA to hybrids etc etc.
How will they know if no-one voluntarily takes their car in to be checked ?
A different spin (linked on Z Register Facebook page) is suggesting substantially modified cars could be forced off the road completely. I really hope this isn't the direction of travel however we already know it's much harder to run cars with engine swaps etc in most other European countries so it's not out of the question.
Many cars on here exceed the 15% power increase rule
Ok so it appears if your classic car is modified beyond the 15% power increase and the 8 point rule, you wont be exempt from the MOT.
So in other words business as usual for us Modified car owners.
Not the end of the world is it?
There are some that exceed 150%
How can that 8 point rule be implemented realistically - axle or transmission for example? So swapping an R180 for an R200, 240 driveshafts for 280ZX etc etc.
I'm keeping a close eye on this. I will always MOT the Z every year regardless but the modified part is a bit worrying.
Mine will be quite a bit more than 15% more powerful when it next drives under its own steam!
But the undertone is that they may cease to be tax exempt as well
Given this is a draft, I strongly suspect there will be some strong pushback from the classic/modding industry and community and the final article may be softened/clarified in certain areas. One does have to be vigilant though about the possibility of new hoops to jump through. They will have to create a new class between completely standard cars exempt from MOT and those requiring IVA, otherwise the system will face meltdown. I don't mind having to carry on having my car MOTed, but would be livid if it had to face something like the IVA and/or lose its tax exemption.
It all smacks of bureaucracy unaware of the real world practicalities of their output. They float it out there and then it upsets everyone and they have to "clarify".
And on that note, I've just seen something that suggests the 15% figure is subject to change before implementation as part of a revised definition of "substantial change". Looks like it may have been pointed out already that 15% is arbitrarily low. So fingers crossed we see something much higher and more reasonable with respect to other requirements...
Hmmmm.... apart from it being a stupid idea I smell a rat...
Yes, a lot of classic owners know their cars inside out but would they all spot a potentially dangerous situation developing? And how many either don't know or don't bother to check?
How many fatal accidents will it take before xyz Government says "all classics must be dangerous and they're unkind to polar bears and they're modified in an unsafe manner so we're banning the lot"?
Do folks realize that MoT exemption is already in place for pre-1960 cars?
Exactly Rob. This is just an extension of an existing rule.
As far as modifications go, does any one seriously think the DVLA are going to start checking individual cars? That's not going to happen. So the MOT man will get the job of checking your car is safe as normal.
Although I'm sure not all owners are the same I'm very confident that I'd more likely spot something wrong with my car if it were developing than a local MOT tester would - most of them are useless.
surely your insurance requires a valid MOT certificate as a basic requirement to be able to insure you?
i cant see any insurance company paying out if in the event of an accident if the car hadn't been tested for safeties sake.
like many people have allready stated, im not concerned about car enthusiasts, but i am worried about people who wanna drive a classic and not have to pay for tax and mot who also wont look after the car (you know the sort of people who take cars to garages when it starts making a noise).
Separate names with a comma.