How many of you with pre-60 cars still get an mot?

No point for me. Just look yourself. MOT is hardly rocket science and tbh you should be checking your car out more often than once a year anyway imo.

^ My thoughts exactly mate, hence the post. I've had loads of stuff pop up over the years on MOTs that I didn't know about.

Other than the hassle for a tester possibly having to do a manual brake calibration on a test run I'm not sure why there's any need not to MOT pre-60's?

Don't have anything pre 60 myself, but work on several pre 60 cars for customers, I have a 54 Austin Metropolitan in ATM. Nearly all of these are MOT'd every year, even though both I and my customers know they are properly maintained. Why? Because I'm human! And my customers are human! And humans don't always get it right! It might be a bit belt and braces, but a fresh look once a year by a disinterested party can't hurt. My tame MOT tester is very classic friendly, so we don't get "stupid" fails.

I guess it goes back to when I was a mere Stripling of 20 or so and I did a "foreigner" for a family friend. A 63 Superminx convertible that belonged to a 19 YO university student, but had been in his family from new. I serviced the car and did a ton of work on the brakes which were in a dreadful state. A week later, the poor lad was killed when he drove the car into the back of a parked lorry at 60+ mph.
You all probably know, that in the event of a road traffic fatality, the police go over the car with a fine tooth comb to try and determine why. So I Sh*t conkers for several weeks till the police report came out, which said that as far as they could tell the car was in perfect shape (advertising I could live without) and the lad simply dropped off at the wheel (the crash was in the small hours of the morning) But incidents like this certainly make you think "what if?" and you get hyper aware of how you carry peoples lives in your hands every time you pick up a spanner. This all happened nearly 50 years ago, but is as fresh in my mind as if it were yesterday and will stay with me always. You CAN'T be too careful!

Steve

I have about 50 pre-60 cars on my books including my own, and since the law changed I've not MOTed a single one, for me or for a customer- including all the customers who at the time said they'd keep on putting it in each year.

That's because they mostly now just give me £25 instead to spend an hour giving it a more thorough check than most testers would (with the exception of brake rollers), as I know the cars inside out (I've built or done major works on most of them), and know exactly what I should be looking at on each vehicle, unlike most testers.

So it's not they don't get looked at, it's just often by someone who is more specialist than a normal run of the mill MOT tester.

Years ago, a mate built a Ford Pop hotrod. Good quality build, all new parts etc, he brought it to me for it's first MOT, where I found a lower ball joint that he'd simply forgot to tighten up.
It was on finger tight, wonder how far he would have got, if it hadn't been for the MOT check?

Not long before the rules changed, I was present at the MOT of a 1919 Crossley tourer. It's owner was a great enthusiast and had owned the car for many years. It still failed miserably! Play in the steering (a lot of play) a massive fuel leak and a couple of other things I can't now recall, but all were the sort of things he should have caught himself before the tester even SAW the car! The tester in question is not particularly classic friendly but watching the test pretty up close and personal (nosy sod that I am) I could not argue with him over the validity of the fails. We all like to think that nothing should go wrong with the pride and joy we lavish so much time and money on, but entropy must increase, stuff wears out and we don't always notice. best to get it checked every so often!

so those who don't have mot, how do you know your brakes are up to standard?
to save a few quid? pathetic.

a) They check them themselves, or b) (My preference) They get a garage to check everything annually in case they miss something.

Sorry fella, calling it pathetic to have no MOT is too simplistic, there are other ways of making sure the car is safe.

I don't think anyone is living in a bubble there is no reason to get an MOT certificate for a vehicle that doesn't require one.

Most test stations will do a pre mot inspection which is essentially a test without the paperwork, does that make the car any less safe than having an mot?

Surely if you have your vehicle checked by a garage it is as good as having an MOT without the unnecessary cost.