|
|
|
Very! And also very shortsighted of the govt. They have lost the tax revenue from the sales of those parts, the tax from the garages that fitted them and the tax from the mot stations that would have tested them.
The knock on effect on third parties is big too, no more revenue from posting the parts, none from delivery drivers delivering them and possibly even loss of tax from people being laid off due to declining business.
And what were the benefits of no mot again?...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the club spares scheme declines £10,000 per annum for orders of MOT testable parts I had to read that a few times. By "declines" ... you don't mean the club turned away an explosion in orders from a sudden influx of new owners... you mean the revenue from parts ordering dropped by £10k pa as people stopped bothering to replace parts at previous MOT fail points? I can see how that's a worrying anecdote. Equally though, I can also see the possibility that Jowett owners, more than say 1970's Vauxhall owners or 1980's Ford owners, are probably likely to take a great deal of care over the preservation of their truly classic and vintage cars, more likely to keep them garaged and cared for, and at a guess they're possibly only out on the road for a few hundred miles a year attending shows or having steady summer day drives. So it could be viewed the other way. Annually, Jowett drivers found that various components, whilst still having enough life left in them for a few more years, were being forced into replacement parts that the MOT inspector has decided are too worn by modern MOT eyes. The owners know that whilst showing signs of wear, the part is strong and has plenty more life left in it, and that the car is only going to do 100 careful miles before being put away for the winter and some tinkering/servicing work. And yet they had been forced to replace those parts on a given day just to obtain their MOTs every year. It's a shame that the club lost that much revenue, but I wonder if the statistics for Jowetts breaking down, crashing, experiencing terminal failure rose after the MOT exemption, or whether the owner's discretion regarding the condition of parts meant that they carried on being used as before and parts were replaced when the owner felt it was time, not when an MOT inspector did. I think what you're saying is a valid risk for a lot of cars and a lot of inexperienced owners, but at the same time I think it's actually quite reassuring for people who do genuinely care for cars. My car passed its first MOT with me this year. I like to tinker with cars and I do like to worry myself constantly that there might be something wrong (for me, owning an old car is like getting a complimentary ticket to paranoid anxiety land), and really I can't help thinking my car probably has a few parts that I would choose to replace just to be safe by my standards and comfort zone. It's just my paranoia. Mycar went to a reputable MOT place that does a lot of work on classics and who came highly recommended by a classic car club. I got my pass, so I then decide not to worry about my (eg) trunnions because they passed. But I do still worry about my trunnions, and ideally I'd prefer to replace them for peace of mind. Without the MOT in place, I am free to allow my worries to focus me in on what I worry about when I can afford to worry about it productively. My life between MOTs tends to consist of six months where I tackle things I can identify as being faulty, and then six months thinking "There's no point in throwing money at absolutely everything I'm worrying about. It could all be fine. The next MOT could throw up something unexpected, so I'll keep my hobby funds in the piggy bank in order to tackle whatever the MOT throws up". When the MOT throws up nothing, I spend three months feeling confident, then three months fixing, then six months worrying myself towards my next MOT. Next year, if I don't need to get an MOT pass, then I can just say "Right, get those trunnions changed so I don't have to worry about them anymore". As long as they don't collapse on me, I am now free to decide to do that in January, February or March, purely for my own peace of mind, because I don't have to have a war chest on standby for an MOT in June. I am convinced my car will get improvements more swiftly without an examination date forcing my to strategise my investment in parts and labour in the case of things I can't do myself.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 3, 2017 9:39:35 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Very! And also very shortsighted of the govt. They have lost the tax revenue from the sales of those parts, the tax from the garages that fitted them and the tax from the mot stations that would have tested them. The knock on effect on third parties is big too, no more revenue from posting the parts, none from delivery drivers delivering them and possibly even loss of tax from people being laid off due to declining business. And what were the benefits of no mot again?........... Hmmm,I don't see it this way. I just don't think people who drive old cars are statistically likely to have the mindset "I'll buy an old car as a loophole on tax and MOT and then I'll just drive it around without any care at all about its roadworthyness". I just don't think enough people do that to make it a consideration. We all obsess over our vehicles. We all tinker constantly... or we ask garages and mechanics to do the necessary work for us. Maybe a few will try to take advantage, but let's be realistic... anyone seeking to own an old car to dodge tax and MOT but with no previous experience is very quickly going to break down and realise it's actually a lot more hassle than it's worth, not very comfortable, not very reliable in the wrong hands, not something you can pull up to Mr Clutch in and have the clutch replaced. Very few garages will look at an old car these days. So these opportunist people are quickly going to get filtered back out of ownership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You misunderstand my post. The fact tha a SINGLE marque of cars has lost £10,000 of parts sales show that even dedicated owners will 'lapse' on the upkeep of their cherished cars. The knock on effect of the work not being done is as I describe above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One man's idea of a lapse though, is another man's idea of discretion rooted in context.
An MOT inspector will look at a component and decide it's not sufficient to pass for another 12k miles of annual use until the next MOT test is due. It might appear to have only 8k miles left in it.
The owner will know he's only going to do 300 miles a year, slow driving, local use... and therefore a part with a likely 8k miles left on it could be good for another decade before it is worn to a point that it needs replacing in the context of the car's use.
I don't think that's bad ownership. It would be bad ownership if the classic car was going to do 12k miles a year, but if it's only doing 300 then why change a perfectly good part out?
The MOT offers no negotiation on those points. You can't get an MOT for 300 miles a year. You just get an MOT. Pass, advisory or fail.
But I get your point about the knock-on effects for support industries. I'm not rabidly pro-exemption. It works for me personally but I don't think it's a good idea. I'm just playing devil's avocado a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the club spares scheme declines £10,000 per annum for orders of MOT testable parts I had to read that a few times. By "declines" ... you don't mean the club turned away an explosion in orders from a sudden influx of new owners... you mean the revenue from parts ordering dropped by £10k pa as people stopped bothering to replace parts at previous MOT fail points? I can see how that's a worrying anecdote. Equally though, I can also see the possibility that Jowett owners, more than say 1970's Vauxhall owners or 1980's Ford owners, are probably likely to take a great deal of care over the preservation of their truly classic and vintage cars, more likely to keep them garaged and cared for, and at a guess they're possibly only out on the road for a few hundred miles a year attending shows or having steady summer day drives. I don't think that is the case - firstly I would think that the majority of classic / retro owners will take their vehicle to a MOT testing centre that is classic / retro friendly and not somewhere that is incapable of interpreting the testing manual incorrectly / fairly or equally being heavy handed in the failure decision making process - i.e. failing a vehicle for movement in a bush when the said bush was factory designed to have movement in the first place. I would love to think that owners are taking a great deal of care over the preservation of their Jowetts but clearly not if £10,000 worth of MOT testable parts sales dry up overnight. They might only be doing a few hundred miles per annum to shows etc but it's no excuse to ignore a failing wheel bearing, leaking brake cylinder or a tyre that holds good tread but is so old that that the sidewalls are cracked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other thing, which was covered a few weeks ago is that it's unlikely the Govt are concerned about the loss of tax revenue from teh classic car parts and servicing industries. The ultimate goal is to drive a revolution in motoring to a point where we all micro-contract EV mobiles according to our specific use.
I personally believe the end goal here is a lot more ambitious than any concerns about lost tax revenue in a niche area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another point to consider... the pre-1960 thing, apart from perhaps a Jag e-type and maybe a few other high end motors the top speed of pre-1960 vehicles was reasonably tame. This is when 100mph was considered fast!
Now, a rolling 40 years, brings us to 1978 next year when it's introduced and soon after into the 1980's when things were really kicking off.
Hot hatches and fast versions of average saloon cars, GTI's, GTE's, SRI's etc..... 1986 brings us the Sierra RS Cosworth for exmaple.
Not to mention this also effect motorbikes. The advances during the 70s and 80s were immense in terms of performance and it was a manufactures race for the fastest top speed, quickest acceleration... it was like the race to the moon - but for everyday people.
My old tank of a 1980 GS1000 will be exempt soon, it has a book speed of 139+ you'd be mental to try it but there's a lot of mental bikers out there. You'd also have to have a screw lose to put your own life at risk to have a machine with this capability and not maintain it. But there are many deluded that they do know what they're doing and consider they're fine. But miss one little detail and it could be epic. It won't be long before the first iterations of FZR, CBR, etc all come of age. The grandparents of the super-sports machines currently available. Compared to 1970-80, the last 30 years of bike technology has been utterly boring. With advances like ABS and Traction control being the main talking point, and production bikes limited to 186 mph
by the mid 80's bikes were capable to 170+ and 0-60 in under 3 seconds, these can be picked up for under a grand so unlike the e-type example or even the cossie they're priced to be accessible to a much wider audience. Surely regarding safety on this kind of power cannot be compared the chances of a Morris Marina causing havoc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An MOT inspector will look at a component and decide it's not sufficient to pass for another 12k miles of annual use until the next MOT test is due. It might appear to have only 8k miles left in it. The owner will know he's only going to do 300 miles a year, slow driving, local use... and therefore a part with a likely 8k miles left on it could be good for another decade before it is worn to a point that it needs replacing in the context of the car's use. I don't think that's bad ownership. It would be bad ownership if the classic car was going to do 12k miles a year, but if it's only doing 300 then why change a perfectly good part out? Sorry, you don't understand what the MOT tester judges as OK or no good. Your thinking and argument are incorrect. He isnt allowed to judge on the basis of whether the part might last for another year, he can only judge whether the part meets the required standard at the time of the MOT. The tester can have the opinion that the part meets the standards today but very soon wont, he cant fail it though, the most he can do is pass and advise. If an old Jowett fails its test its because, in the MOT testers judgement, applying the rules to the best of his knowledge, it does not meet the required standard today. It definitely doesnt mean that he thinks it may become below standard within a year, or any other time period. He will not be asking you to "change a perfectly good part out". The part is already not good enough. The most obvious example is tyres, if they have 1.6mm of tread etc etc he will pass them, if its not obvious how deep the tread is he will measure it and apply the standard. If it passes you can drive away. If the tyre is illegal next week thats your problem and responsibility, the MOT isnt a years permission to use or a years guarantee of safety, its a check to minimum standards of limited features. Its also very important to know that many of the limits the MOT tester works within are very restrictive to him, an MOT is no guarantee of overall safety, it only means that he checked the things he is allowed to check, in the way he can check them and to the standard allowed. MOT testers for example cant remove any covers from anything so a lot goes untested. He cant remove underseal to reveal that structural patch thats been pop riveted on by a bodger, and what he has to pass since they changed his manual on brake disc condition is pretty shocking (although not dangerous on the day). Not changing things the tester would have failed usually means that the car doesnt meet the required minimum standard and may not be safe or legal to drive. I do accept that there are testers who arent familiar with older cars though and can make the wrong judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well yes, you're absolutely right, but you are also saying the same thing. I also gave a bad description. I don't assume MOT inspectors project forwards consciously about how long a part will last... but I was trying to suggest a thought process that might influence their decision-making.
"He isnt allowed to judge on the basis of whether the part might last for another year, he can only judge whether the part meets the required standard at the time of the MOT"
That's exactly what I'm saying. The owner might know the car and the part in question so intimately that he knows that despite not being perfectly 'by the book' there is in fact another 500 miles left in that old component. The MOT inspector is not allowed to consider that though.
"applying the rules to the best of his knowledge"
Exactly... to the best of his knowledge. So the owner, with greater knowledge of his own vehicle, is better placed to make a decision about the part than the MOT inspector who is going by the book, cold viewing, on one day of inspection. But with the MOT the owner's hand is forced. It HAS to be replaced that week or he's off the road.
MOT testers are imperfect humans and aside from being guided by the book/manual (itself an imperfect guide attempting to impose a blanket decision-making process to a wild variety of vehicles), they do also have to exercise a degree of personal judgement about what meets the manual's criteria and what does not. It's human nature. "There's some play in your bearings, so it's failed" "But this car was designed to have some play in the bearings"... "Well I'm going by the book, and by the book, it's failed". It happens. There are fewer classic savvy MOT inspectors around with every passing year. The ones who are classic savvy are getting on in years. I still maintain that the Jowett owner will, as the years roll by, be better placed to make a judgement on his pride and joy that he cares for with obsessive attention than any given MOT inspector picked randomly from a book of 'good' MOT inspectors.
The MOT inspector's discretion will generally err on the side of caution in the case of a 'good' MOT inspector. The very fact that we frequently refer to 'good' and 'bad' MOT testers on all car forums attests to the basic fact that it is not simply a matter of robotically going by the book. It is not all done by a set standard.
A 'good' MOT tester might be one that turns a blind eye... is that really good though? It's also a description of a 'bad' MOT tester.
Going rigidly by the book is 'Good' if you are a stickler for absolute correctness, but 'Bad' if you get a fail and you completely disagree with the tester about his reasons for failing.
We all know that happens often enough. This forum and most others are riddled with stories of frustrations about getting failed when it just didn't seem fair. My buddy has a pristine P5b that he's owned since the 1980's and can strip and rebuild with a blindfold on. A couple of years ago his regular MOT tester failed him on two points. He disagreed strongly with one, arguing that the part was as per the required condition, standard and fit for purpose for a Rover P5b. So he fixed the one thing, and then took the car off to a different place who passed him on the failed thing (which he hadn't touched in between the two tests), but failed him on something else entirely that was previously deemed passable. By the book? I don't think so.
The book description of how to spot a failed part is exactly as you described it - a required standard. Owners of cars with specific knowledge and a meticulous approach to owning and running their vehicle will not see a failed part in quite the same way as a 'good' or 'bad' MOT tester... not all of the time, and whilst they might know that whilst part A is now quite worn, it only has to trundle slowly for 50 more local miles at 30mph before it goes back in the garage for maintenance work.
"many of the limits the MOT tester works within are very restrictive to him"
Yes, exactly my point. I think.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 3, 2017 18:18:04 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be very interested in knowing whether there was an uptick in crashes, serious breakdowns, fatalities or collisions in the period following the 2012 decision to exempt pre60's cars.
if not, I don't think the situation has changed that much in five years that we should all fear armageddon on the road this time around.
I agree with the previous comment that there are faster cars now in scope for exemption, but pre60's cars have their fair share of speedy machinery, and they are big heavy things with crude brakes and suspension.
If enough people were motivated to buy an MOT exempt car to thrash it dangerously about without concern for safety and vehicle fitness, that would have happened post 2012.
if there's no evidence of that, I'm not going to worry about it this time.
Was there any uptick in Jowett related failures, accidents or fatalities after the lost 10k in revenue? The owners club would know, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,688
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
|
Have a full read of the thought process that brought us to this point. fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/recent-consultations/_file/239/historic-vehicles-consultation-pdf/Please read in context with the full document. Although the Directive allows Member States to exempt from testing 30 year old vehicles, our preferred option is to exempt 40 year old vehicles. This is mainly for safety reasons as the Impact Assessment shows that vehicles first registered between 1978 and 1987 (broadly 30-40 years old when the regulatory changes need to be made) fail 33.7% of MOT tests. For vehicles registered between 1960 and 1977 the failure rate is 25.3% and for pre-1960 vehicles is 14.8%. There are also approximately twice as many vehicles in the 1978-87 age group involved in personal injury road accidents compared with 1960-1977 vehicles. The 40 year old vehicle option is also in line with the current rolling 40 year exemptions from VED.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 3, 2017 19:13:57 GMT by Darkspeed
|
|
|
|
|
Bit late for this discussion , the time was during the consultation , it's already been through parliament and it will be law.It was decided a long time ago though before the consultation period, DVLA let the cat out of the bag when they put loads of cars registered as historic to mot exempt status on the vehicle tax check system. All the safety arguments now being presented were boxed of by the stats and not yet seen the Daily Fail frontpage headline on road deaths caused by pre 1960 cars.
Anything can fail, who saw the tv programme plane restoration with the Mustang? tested and certified yet it's still crashed and killed a passenger, just as vehicles on our roads currently cause mayhem and the majority of them are tested. The MOT may raise safety standards howeve it doesn't make cars /vehicles safe , drivers do that.
I do support the use of MOT's as I have over the last two years rebuilt a Landie , chassis and every nut and bolt and the final inspection before returning to the road was an MOT, with a defined structure to the inspection, a fresh set of eyes and a cheap set at that.
The only bit now that can be influenced is the definition of standard v modified, thats where the efforts need to be directed if you support all vehicles having mots,the discussion should argue any deviation from showroom means an MOT.
So radials instead of crossplies? laminated screen ? aftermarket steering wheel? maybe even just adding a towbar? but be very careful what you wish for ,at the moment we have very slack rules on mods, its only the extreme that bring attention, if any mod brings such attention what happens with period mods? how do they decide when they were done? a copy of a factory or period mod or a real in period mod?
|
|
retired with too many projects!
|
|
|
|
|
I still maintain that the Jowett owner will, as the years roll by, be better placed to make a judgement on his pride and joy that he cares for with obsessive attention than any given MOT inspector picked randomly from a book of 'good' MOT inspectors. I would dearly love for this to be case but I know it's not - Firstly I don't want to tar every Jowett owner with the same brush - there are some owners within the club that maintain their Jowetts to exacting standards, there are others that maintain their Jowetts to an acceptable standard, then again we have the ones who just wing it and think that by just checking the oil, water & brimming the fuel tank is all the maintenance that the car requires. In case you are not aware I run a small restoration business and amongst other things I tend to see a fair few Jowetts through the workshop - I also undertake vehicle judging at the clubs annual concours - it's always nice to see the looked after cars equally it's always disappointing to see the cars where the owners are clearly oblivious to what a correct maintenance schedule should be - its normally the ones that think that the 20 year old tyres are fine because they still have 4mm of tread on them - the fact the side walls are badly cracked & perished is totally irrelevant to them.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 3, 2017 22:05:17 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
So radials instead of crossplies? laminated screen ? Here is my take - amongst my fleet I have a 1952 Jowett Javelin - it left the factory on crossplys - I still have it on crossplys - radials are available but I don't want them and originality has nothing to do my decision - thing is you can push the Javelin on a bit, it handles pretty well for a car designed at the end of second world war - keep it on crossplys and you have to be sensible about the speeds you hold through corners & roundabouts - stick radials on a Javelin and you will push the car beyond it's design limits before you know it - resulting in early component failure & several near misses prior to sticking it in a ditch. Has for the screen I have no choice it's toughened and laminated windscreens have never been available - (coincidently the first production car with a curved windscreen)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Govt figures show that mot's for exempted cars are only 6% so 94% of owners feel it unnecessary. Shows that they can't be bothered to mot, so why bother to service?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, just stick fuel in and drive you don't even need to check the brakes work. Except that the responsibility for roadworthyness lies with you and you alone. You have no MoT to hide behind if you mow down a bus queue of orphans, nuns and goldfish. Except that having an MOT doesn't mean your car is roadworthy but that aside I was answering the comment that you could do it I didn't say I would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It always makes me laugh when people cite Facebook as evidence of the idiocy of mankind. Facebook is comprised of the people you associate with. What it brings to your attention is dictated only by your own preferences. So it isn't a reflection on society in general, or even of Facebook, but of your own social circle and personal choices about preferred content. Not aiming this at you EddyPeck, it's just that it gets said a lot and it always makes me chuckle. Last time I looked at facebook it was full of videos and comments that complete strangers had made and posted, just posted via a friend who had seen it. Same as youtube it's full of people you don't know posting their stupidity. So yes look at FB for evidence of mankinds stupidity and idiocy.
|
|
|
|
Rob M
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,915
Club RR Member Number: 41
|
|
|
Ok, we have had tyres stretched to their limits on wheels, coils cut 'professionally' ( coz we is ALL pro motor engineers, aren't we) and strapped to the cups to stop them falling out, cars lowered way beyond how the people designed them to go and a zillion other modifications done out side homes up and down the country and all ok because the MOT man passed them. Nobody bats an eyelid and those doth protest too much are shouted down for being old farts or overcautious zealots or summat. But scrap the MOT and...... It's a bit like that old joke where the couple are shagging each other to death on a crowded train and nobody looks or bats an eye lid until they both climax, get off each other and light up a celebratory ciggie whereby the whole carriage are up in arms about smoking in a no smoking train. So, Ok, I'm the old fart then. Clearly, the single biggest issue to the new MOT exemption rules will be the running down of parts suppliers when the market collapses for second hand parts. As has been said, if £10k worth of car parts are not being bought then there will be no point in supplying £10k worth of car parts in the future. Who is going to remanufacture parts that nobody is going to buy? Down the line, those vtal parts that you simply must buy to keep your car on the road will not be there. That will kill our hobby just as effectively as any legislation. In saying that, this utter obsession with the new MOT directive will become pointless if the very ownership of our classics and modifieds become all but pointless when local councils, bouyed by Euro legislation, the Green brigade and people that have less than a positive disposition towards the motor car per se get given copious amounts of wind to put in their sails. They have no interest in the money it generates for the economy and no interest in the reality that our cars leave only a baby sized carbon footprint on the environment. I totally respect the view that it's stupid to exempt vehicles from the MOT, I happen to agree with that stance but, sorry, the MOT debacle is not the priority, we have bigger battles to win or we may as well not bother.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 4, 2017 15:14:17 GMT by Rob M
|
|
|
|
|
Which is why BIVA is actually a good option. My pop when it passes will be a 2018 car so will be free to drive anywhere as any 2018 car will be.
|
|
|
|
|