|
|
|
On a similar topic..... A mate of mine was bidding on this on eBay last night: MGB GT body on an MX5 chassis & running gear. You've got to admire the skills of the guy who did it, but I'm not 100% sure how far your insurance company would back you up in the case of an accident. I'm kinda glad for his sake that he got out-bid at the last minute.
|
|
Currently driving a 1972 BMW 1602 as my daily. Don't ask about previous cars - there have been way too many and I stopped counting at 160!
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,690
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
Spitfire MX5..?Darkspeed
@darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member 39
|
|
Your mate dodged one there - That is the reason BIVA was introduced - and its not to stop people from building their own cars - you can - it was introduced to protect the poor soul unfortunate enough to buy things like this when the cowboy sells it on. That is grim.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2022 9:33:39 GMT by Darkspeed
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
|
That’s a bit harsh. I was thinking of this car when I opened this can of worms, but didn’t mention it as I thought it unfair.
It isn’t a road legal mx5 or a road legal mgb
|
|
Total classic car pervert
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 10:02:55 GMT
|
Guess work is not needed; The radically altered vehicle scheme has a point-based system for modifications; It is an entirely clear set of rules that defines what you can do on the original V5 and what needs an IVA. I don't understand people's fear of taking a car through an IVA, it is not hard at all. Having taken a vehicle through an SVA (older version of IVA), I can say it is not much more than a glorified MOT. It does mean I have a Q-plate and pay road tax, which might put people off. But I prefer it over driving an illegal car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 10:08:05 GMT
|
On a similar topic..... A mate of mine was bidding on this on eBay last night: MGB GT body on an MX5 chassis & running gear. You've got to admire the skills of the guy who did it, but I'm not 100% sure how far your insurance company would back you up in the case of an accident. I'm kinda glad for his sake that he got out-bid at the last minute. The question is whether this is on an MX5 V5, or an MGB V5. If you run this on an MX5 V5, and you kept all the load bearing parts of the MX5, it could be seen as a bodyswap wwhich does not cost points on the radical altered vehicle scheme.
|
|
|
|
misteralz
Posted a lot
I may drive a Volkswagen, but I'm scene tax exempt!
Posts: 2,338
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 10:17:44 GMT
|
Guess work is not needed; The radically altered vehicle scheme has a point-based system for modifications; It is an entirely clear set of rules that defines what you can do on the original V5 and what needs an IVA. I don't understand people's fear of taking a car through an IVA, it is not hard at all. Having taken a vehicle through an SVA (older version of IVA), I can say it is not much more than a glorified MOT. It does mean I have a Q-plate and pay road tax, which might put people off. But I prefer it over driving an illegal car. It's absolutely the Q-plate. I wouldn't want a car with one, and if I built a car like that MGX-5, I wouldn't be putting it in for BIVA either. Because it'd end up with a Q-plate. I'd have it MoTd every year, of course. But rightly or wrongly, Q-plates have got a stigma. Getting rid of them altogether would help.
|
|
|
|
braaap
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,596
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 10:26:22 GMT
|
What does the Q plate stand for or why does it have a stigma?
Seeing the photo with the mg body hanging over the mx5 chassis the first thing catching my eye is the amount of visible rust. I don't know if it was removed before marriage, but I rather would not like to see such a car on public roads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 10:41:36 GMT
|
Q-plate means build from parts or undetermined origin (like a stolen and recovered car). The stigma is that built from parts or stolen sounds dodgy to some people and insurance companies don't like it either.
Coming back to the MGB, there is a rule I believe, that if you use all parts from a single donor vehicle with a V5 present, you may get an age-related registration instead of the Q plate; so if you play your cards right, you could build the above MGB or spitfire legally and avoid a Q-plate. I have no experience with this though, so check first with the DVLA.
|
|
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 10:43:09 GMT
|
The way I understand it is if you keep the monocoque complete and reclothed in different body you are entitled to just get on with it. But the moment you cut a part of the monocoque off you are in the doodoo.
Pretty much all these body conversions cut off the rear quarter panels and the screen pillars. That I believe makes them a Q plate after a lot of problems. But they all run around on the V5 of the tax and mot exempt bodywork donor.
I love a daft project, I’ve built loads, but stay within the rules.
It’s like all the escorts running around on Sierra floor pans they are completely not road legal.
|
|
Total classic car pervert
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:02:50 GMT
|
Guess work is not needed; The radically altered vehicle scheme has a point-based system for modifications; It is an entirely clear set of rules that defines what you can do on the original V5 and what needs an IVA. I don't understand people's fear of taking a car through an IVA, it is not hard at all. Having taken a vehicle through an SVA (older version of IVA), I can say it is not much more than a glorified MOT. It does mean I have a Q-plate and pay road tax, which might put people off. But I prefer it over driving an illegal car. It's absolutely the Q-plate. I wouldn't want a car with one, and if I built a car like that MGX-5, I wouldn't be putting it in for BIVA either. Because it'd end up with a Q-plate. I'd have it MoTd every year, of course. But rightly or wrongly, Q-plates have got a stigma. Getting rid of them altogether would help. Interesting, as I would be very reluctant to own, let alone buy, a radically modified car that didn't have a Q-plate. The rules for registering such cars have been in place for decades, but there are still lots of kit-cars, hot-rods and other specials that are registered as Escorts, Pops and others that existed only as a registration document when the car was built. All too many of these are so badly engineered and built that the person responsible shouldn't be trusted with scissors, paper and a Prittstick. And this is just one of the reasons why I think the MOT exemption is a terrible idea.
|
|
|
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:10:11 GMT
|
Totally agree mot exempting old cars is ridiculous.
I look after mine and don’t take them for mot.
But these cobbled together cars would be found if they had to go for mot.
|
|
Total classic car pervert
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:16:50 GMT
|
Q-plate means build from parts or undetermined origin (like a stolen and recovered car). The stigma is that built from parts or stolen sounds dodgy to some people and insurance companies don't like it either. Coming back to the MGB, there is a rule I believe, that if you use all parts from a single donor vehicle with a V5 present, you may get an age-related registration instead of the Q plate; so if you play your cards right, you could build the above MGB or spitfire legally and avoid a Q-plate. I have no experience with this though, so check first with the DVLA. You need two components (engine and box will do) from the donor to get an age related plate, it's that easy. Just keep the V5 for the donor and use it when registering after IVA. That will (should) get an age related plate for the same year as the donor vehicle. Personally I see nothing wrong with a Q plate, they are bulletproof. Also, contrary to popular opinion insurance companies are ok with them.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2022 11:17:54 GMT by crockpot
Proton Jumbuck-deceased :-( 2005 Kia Sorento the parts hauling heap V8 Humber Hawk 1948 Standard12 pickup SOLD 1953 Pop build (wifey's BIVA build).
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:19:49 GMT
|
The Q-plate stigma also relates to insurers as they seem to be a bit scared to cover them - generally you will need a Specialist. Edit - after seeing crockpot's post, having worked in the insurance sector, most of the "big" companies tend to not offer standard cover but will "load" accordingly as it isn't their core business. However, an appropriate specialist can easily find you cover.
There were a lot less rules when my Midas was built (1981). It is correctly registered (showing as a Mini Midas Hatch on the V5) along with the "Rebuilt -assembled from parts some or all of which were not new". However it does not have a Q-plate.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2022 11:22:09 GMT by mrbounce
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:38:06 GMT
|
I hear you, however there are quite a lot of ‘I guess’ going on there. There is zero guess work that if you build something like that, you have essentially lied about what it is. Therefore insurance would be invalid & you would be in lots of poo. Its an interesting point, if you told your insurance exactly what it is would your insurance be invalid? As far as i'm aware there is no correlation between insurance and the DVLA on this subject (yet) so the car could be incorrectly registered from the DVLA's perspective but correctly insured as a Triumph Spitfire with an MX5 chassis/floorpan from the insurers perespective. Would this then invalidate the insurance? I suspect that they might try and wiggle out of paying the car owners claim but I doubt they could sidestep the liability to the third party.
Its a contenious issue and it prevents people carrying out even realivly minor/accepted modifications to cars. Clearly a Spitfire on an MX5 chassis/floor is at the extreme end but now in theory you can't fit a webber box to a mini or a turbo box and yet there are load of them out there that have had this done before and no doubt after the regulations came into force. There is a current case with a mini owner who converted his car to electric and because he drilled a hole in the boot floor for cables to pass through they have revoked his V5C and withdrawn the vehicles identity.
Its the thing that has always put me off putting the XJR running gear into a MK2 jag as while this would be a fabulous project and doesn't require that much in the way of modifications it does need some alterationm of the engine bay area and a bit for the back subframe, as I understand it welding bits onto the car is ok but taking things away is a problem.
|
|
|
|
goldnrust
West Midlands
Minimalist
Posts: 1,872
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:47:26 GMT
|
The way I understand it is if you keep the monocoque complete and reclothed in different body you are entitled to just get on with it. But the moment you cut a part of the monocoque off you are in the doodoo. Pretty much all these body conversions cut off the rear quarter panels and the screen pillars. That I believe makes them a Q plate after a lot of problems. But they all run around on the V5 of the tax and mot exempt bodywork donor. That’s the key isn’t it, as soon as you modify the monocoque then you’re in need of an IVA. I’m sure I read about some minis where people had boxed the firewall to make room for a bigger carb setup ending up on a Q because that small firewall modification is a modification to the monocoque. If the wings are a weld on design, then they are part of the monocoque and cutting them back to fit wide arches is technically modifying the monocoque. I don’t think you’d be pulled up there, unless someone was looking for a reason to throw the book at you, and there’s a few grey areas like brackets. Most custom bikes treat the removal of unwanted mounting brackets (for things like the battery box or fairing mounting points) as not modifying the frame, but I’m pretty sure if you cut the outriggers that hold body mounts on a car chassis off then you’d be modifying the chassis. But regardless of the perceived grey areas in the eyes of legislation it’s a simple line; any modification to the monocoque or chassis means IVA. No ifs no buts. Though as homersimpson points out above, you can add any extra bits you like as long as the original metalwork all remains intact. What is also clear, is there’s no such thing as the ‘mx5 chassis’ many of these listings mention There is only the floor pan of the monocoque. No only Is this not the slightest bit ‘grey area monocoque modification’ but that floor pan is not inherently strong, and certainly not designed to be self supporting. The monocoque design relies upon all the panels working together to create the strength. So without some serious understanding of the forces involved, I doubt many of these cars drive with the pedigree that their donor floorpan used to. Starting with a suitable ‘body on frame’ / chassis donor makes a lot of sense. As discussed in threads like Dez recent one on his Scimitar there are still good chassis options out there at sensible prices. Keep the chassis, front suspension and rear axle and you’ve got all the points you need to avoid Q plate and can pretty much do anything you like with the body, engine and gearbox.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2022 11:51:12 GMT by goldnrust
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:49:50 GMT
|
Exactly, if you keep the entire chassis or monocoque it’s ok.
As soon as you alter the chassis or monocoque you need full inspection.
I am just a bit grumpy about people using tax exempt v5 when all they have done is cobbled something together and used a few bits of bodywork from the v5 donor.
It isn’t right.
|
|
Total classic car pervert
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,888
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
Spitfire MX5..?bstardchild
@bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member 71
|
Nov 20, 2022 11:53:06 GMT
|
Yes respect for finishing it . BUT You regularly see cars for sale with modern floor pan under classic body using v5 off old car. They are not road legal at all. You should either be IVA tested which they won’t pass or use the complete monocoque shell and then use the modern v5. If you cut any part off a monocoque it is then considered modified. I’d love to build something on a modern floor pan hacked to fit a classic car but I would get caught and be in the brown stuff. I thought spitfire like the GT6 were a chassis with a body on top not a monocoque construction? On this basis I assumed that and engine and running gear changes would be not enough points to require IVA???
|
|
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 12:18:43 GMT
|
I don’t think there is any spitfire under that spitfire.
So why is it gaining the tax exempt status of what it isn’t?
|
|
Total classic car pervert
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,888
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
Spitfire MX5..?bstardchild
@bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member 71
|
Nov 20, 2022 12:33:55 GMT
|
I don’t think there is any spitfire under that spitfire. So why is it gaining the tax exempt status of what it isn’t? if that is the case then I'd agree
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,690
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
Spitfire MX5..?Darkspeed
@darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member 39
|
Nov 20, 2022 12:42:38 GMT
|
People that know me would be in stitches if you think that's me being harsh.
|
|
|
|
|