|
|
Feb 15, 2018 20:31:25 GMT
|
Hello all, right I expect that there is already an answer for this in here somewhere but I am not the best at understanding technical jargen.
So my question is, when is an IVA required?
Some context so as to relate the answer to me. I currently have a zephyr 4 looking sorry for its self and hasnt moved under its own steam for 11 years now. I'm am unsure what to do with it but if I keep it I want to modify it.
The ideas I have are,
Engine swap with mabey a new gearbox meaning cutting a hole in the tunnel for a gear stick.
Improving suspension, front will just be bolt out bolt in but the rear I would want to mabey add trailing arm or 5 linking with coilovers and loosing the leaf springs, meaning cutting floorpan and adding turrets.
People keep mentioning the 8 point rule, what is this and would it affect me?
Also what would be the deal with MOT's now as I know there was chatter about excemption but didnt get my head around it, she is a 1963 but only first registerd is 1971, and like I say been off the road for 11 years.
Please treat me like a child as sometime if there is to much info my mind just goes 'ah f#*& it' and swithes off.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
IVA for dummiesPhil H
@philhoward
Club Retro Rides Member 133
|
|
If you do the changes you are hinting at, then your car will (according to the existing and proposed rules), lose its original identity, be subject to an Individual Vehicle Approval test (BIVA) to allow it to be again classed as a Motor Vehicle and used on the roads which in turn looks likely to enforce a considerably more stringent emissions regulation on any approval and re-registration.
Cutting a new hole for a gearstick - probably not classed as a significant modification.
Suspension - if you change the leaf spring for a 5-link/coilover steup, then that on it's own might not be an issue but the bodywork changes required to accommodate it may well do. Depends of you need to get the angle grinder out or not..
Once modified in any way, shape, or form it's a very close line between being able to gain MOT Exemption and no longer eligible. Such is the crazyness of it all, fitting a 2.0 Pinto to an 1100 Escort is deemed fine, but a 1.4 Zetec is not.
Has your mind gone 'ah f#*& it' yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 13:13:06 GMT
|
Gearstick hole = no issues. suspension change = lose 2 points from your 14 point start place = no issues. cut monocoque body to fit suspension = BIVA = big issues!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 14:55:23 GMT
|
Gearstick hole = no issues. suspension change = lose 2 points from your 14 point start place = no issues. cut monocoque body to fit suspension = BIVA = big issues!!! Haha perfect! Thats what I need! I do understand most of what you said Phil H so thank you for that. Now whats this 14 point start place?? I'm trying not to get sucked into this spining blackhole of BIVA but I can feel the force pulling! By what do you mean 'cut monocoque body'? Would that mean a new gearbox tunnel or similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 16:25:07 GMT
|
Cutting a monocoque body = new gearbox tunnel/cut bulkhead/cut floorpan/altered (rear) wheelarches - cutting ANYTHING apart from removable panels is a (legal) no-no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 16:40:26 GMT
|
Ok cool, that makes sense. I'm assuming that adding to the shell is ok (welding mounting points) as long as the original shell is unaltered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 20:53:13 GMT
|
Not entirely sure on that one I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 21:24:32 GMT
|
so, devils advocate. how do all the mk1 and mk2 escorts get away with 5 linking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 22:06:14 GMT
|
They don't grass themselves up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 22:41:21 GMT
|
so, devils advocate. how do all the mk1 and mk2 escorts get away with 5 linking. The same way everyone else does, most car body shells are NOT of monocoque construction, they are a unibody. Therefore as long as you are not altering a structural part of the shell in such a way as to weaken it, you can carry out such alterations.
|
|
1988 Mercedes w124 superturbo diesel 508hp 1996 Mercedes s124 e300 diesel wagon 1990 BMW E30 V8 M60 powered! 1999 BMW E46 323ci project car
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2018 23:01:53 GMT
|
so, devils advocate. how do all the mk1 and mk2 escorts get away with 5 linking. I was actually thinking the same thing haha
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,700
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
IVA for dummiesDarkspeed
@darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member 39
|
Feb 16, 2018 23:31:37 GMT
|
Welded on wings - part of monocoque? - Glass fibre wings - IVA? Sebring Kit on an MGB - cut away rear arches - modified monoque - IVA? Mini flip front - modified monocoque - IVA? Fitting a roll back Webasto - Big hole in the monocoque - IVA? Cut away a wheel arch on a welded on wing and fit bubble arches - cutting away part of monocoque - IVA? Subframes are also considered to be part of the structure - Notch it change it for a tubular - IVA?
So with all these pretty well being established historical and therefore by default accepted modifications where does that leave us?
And more - lets take the Escort example of 5 linking - well the factory did it and had cars registered on the road with these mods so if you follow the same manufacturer mods ? - If it's quite okay to cut a bloody great hole in the top of the car and just replace it with fabric whats the issue with a hole in the floor?
No moral to this but for me it's just don't be stupid with the mods - If in the main it is still what it says on the V5c then crack on with it. But don't try and convince anyone that building a 5.0L V8 mid engined 4 wheel drive MK1 Fiesta can still remian on its 1.0L Popular plus V5c. Apply some common sense, don't take the curse word and don't plaster anything questionable all over public forums.
When is IVA required? - When you have to ask!
|
|
|
|
Badger
Part of things
Posts: 250
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 12:27:17 GMT
|
Subframes are also considered to be part of the structure - Notch it change it for a tubular - IVA? I thought subframes counted as part of the axle? Part of my plans for the Dololololomite is quite affected by that!
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,700
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
IVA for dummiesDarkspeed
@darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member 39
|
Feb 17, 2018 14:16:06 GMT
|
Subframes are also considered to be part of the structure - Notch it change it for a tubular - IVA? I thought subframes counted as part of the axle? Part of my plans for the Dololololomite is quite affected by that! Clue might me in the name - Sub Frame - If you can't cut the frame why would you be allowed to chop up a sub frame? especially when that part of the frame often fixes the steering and the suspension to the main frame ! Axles sit between wishbones/struts or if live between leaf springs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 16:03:06 GMT
|
Hmmm so my lottery win plans for a Defender 130 chassis with portal axles,Cummins 6bt engine, chopped Discovery body to replace the defender crewcab body might not fit the criteria?? ....
|
|
|
|
Badger
Part of things
Posts: 250
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 16:55:27 GMT
|
Clue might me in the name - Sub Frame - If you can't cut the frame why would you be allowed to chop up a sub frame? especially when that part of the frame often fixes the steering and the suspension to the main frame ! Axles sit between wishbones/struts or if live between leaf springs On the flip side they also unbolt from the main structure of the vehicle, and so are not PART of the chassis\monococque (defined as "body and chassis as one unit"). Emphasis on subframe. It kind of makes sense to treat the subframes as part of an axle in an independent suspension set up; arguably the old Jag IRS set up is a subframe assembly. I've had a look and can't find anything to say it's one or t'other. I guess as with much of this stuff it seems to depend on how you read it.
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,700
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
IVA for dummiesDarkspeed
@darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member 39
|
Feb 17, 2018 18:29:59 GMT
|
Well - darned if I can find where I read it, pretty sure I didn't dream it as I thought - Yep that makes sense. Anyway I can't find it and if you follow the rule that if it does not say you can't then by implication you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 18:50:50 GMT
|
guess it would be fine if you make a new subframe.
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,700
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
IVA for dummiesDarkspeed
@darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member 39
|
Feb 18, 2018 17:10:45 GMT
|
Found it - me getting confused this time. - well maybe.... As you can see from this .GOV statatement subframes are considered under the chassis and quite separate from axles. However jou could read this that modifications to subframes are quite okay but then the car is no longer considered VHI's. To me allowing subframes to be modified but not monocoques or full frames is a bit of a loophole.
It's from the VHI consulatation.
Implementing the EU minimum would involve introducing a certification process to determine if a vehicle has been ‘substantially changed’ and exempting vehicles using a 30 year rolling mechanism (exempting vehicles from 1987 in 2017). We will also have to define ‘substantial change’ as there is no definition in the Directive. If we continue to exempt VHIs that were manufactured or registered before 1960 we will still have to define ‘substantial change’, as it is a requirement of the Directive. DVLA uses an 8-point rule to determine whether vehicles that have been radically altered should be re-registered. In our consultation of 2016, we proposed using this rule to determine whether a vehicle has been substantially changed. We received a variety of comments from respondents. A number said that the rule had been used for some time and was established. Others said that some amendments would be needed and/or that modifications could make a vehicle safer. We have amended DVLA’s rule to meet these concerns. The revised definition reads: To be considered as a VHI the vehicle must have been first registered over 40 years ago and the following components need to be of a design of which would have been fitted to that vehicle at the time of its manufacture. • the original unmodified chassis or body shell (including any sub frames) or, • a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell (including any subframes) of the same specification as the original • suspension (front and back) • steering assembly • all axles • transmission • engine For M2, M3, N2, N3, O3 & O4 vehicles that have been subject to alteration, the vehicle may still be considered as a VHI if it has been the subject of a notifiable alteration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 10:13:47 GMT
|
so, devils advocate. how do all the mk1 and mk2 escorts get away with 5 linking. The same way everyone else does, most car body shells are NOT of monocoque construction, they are a unibody. Therefore as long as you are not altering a structural part of the shell in such a way as to weaken it, you can carry out such alterations. ok, you've taken the literal scientific definition and applied it correctly. when .gov say "monocoque" do you think they have entered two paragraphs for the maclaren F1 and single seater race car owners. or do you think (like everyone else) they mean unitary construction/ unibody ?
|
|
|
|
|