Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,712
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
Spitfire MX5..?Dez
@dez
Club Retro Rides Member 34
|
Nov 20, 2022 13:28:26 GMT
|
|
It’s good to see this discussion happening and it’s not me instigating it 😬
Yeah, all the cars mentioned in this thread so far are done the rubbish way and are illegal. It’s a that negative? No, it’s the truth.
It needs to be highlighted and addressed so people don’t keep building things the wrong way and getting caught out (or realistically whatever poor beggar they flog it to gets caught out).
There is ways to do it right, and trying to run around on a tax exempt v5 for the cars physical appearance they’re using is not one of them. If they were using the mx5 v5 and paying tax and MOTing it, even though it’s technically not legal I’d have no issue with it as they’re not trying to pull a fast one that drags us all into disrepute with the powers that be.
It’s like my ranger/47 truck build. I had both v5s in hand and I could have used the ‘47 one but I didn’t as I know that’s asking for trouble. I used the ranger one, I’ll tax it, MOT it, and get left alone. If you’re entering into a build like this and are obsessed with ‘saving’ £250 a year by committing fraud that will potentially loose you your vehicle, you’re a damn idiot.
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2022 13:29:11 GMT by Dez
|
|
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 13:53:41 GMT
|
People that know me would be in stitches if you think that's me being harsh. It was a throw away comment. If we were in a pub discussing this over beeeers I would be way harsher. 😂 I have been trying to be slightly diplomatic since opening this can of worms as it’s very public. |
| |
Total classic car pervert
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 13:55:35 GMT
|
It’s good to see this discussion happening and it’s not me instigating it 😬 Yeah, all the cars mentioned in this thread so far are done the rubbish way and are illegal. It’s a that negative? No, it’s the truth. It needs to be highlighted and addressed so people don’t keep building things the wrong way and getting caught out (or realistically whatever poor beggar they flog it to gets caught out). There is ways to do it right, and trying to run around on a tax exempt v5 for the cars physical appearance they’re using is not one of them. If they were using the mx5 v5 and paying tax and MOTing it, even though it’s technically not legal I’d have no issue with it as they’re not trying to pull a fast one that drags us all into disrepute with the powers that be. It’s like my ranger/47 truck build. I had both v5s in hand and I could have used the ‘47 one but I didn’t as I know that’s asking for trouble. I used the ranger one, I’ll tax it, MOT it, and get left alone. If you’re entering into a build like this and are obsessed with ‘saving’ £250 a year by committing fraud that will potentially loose you your vehicle, you’re a damn idiot. We are on same page. If you get caught you don’t lose vehicle. You lose the identity and they stamp the chassis with a new number and it’s off road till you get it registered correctly. A few years ago I broke a landy for bits that I bought cheap after it was caught on a tax exempt v5 incorrectly. |
| |
Total classic car pervert
|
|
fogey
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,592
|
|
Nov 20, 2022 22:00:18 GMT
|
There are so many curse word takers trying to get away with things by bending/ignoring the rules - ultimately, they will only stuff it up for the rest of us as the channels we have to build cars legally (BIVA) will be withdrawn altogether.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2022 15:28:21 GMT
|
|
So where should the line be drawn?
It used to be common for 100" landrovers to be built on tax free docs despite being built on fairly modern range rover coil sprung chassis.
Obviously floor pan swaps are at the extreme end but as mentioned earlier with the mini SU sawps, there have been several cars with minor bulk head or transmission tunnel mods to accommodate engine swaps.
Should these also be tested?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2022 16:30:43 GMT
|
What does the Q plate stand for or why does it have a stigma? Q is for QUESTION  Come on man, FUNK DAT! |
| |
|
|
fogey
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,592
|
|
Nov 23, 2022 17:24:16 GMT
|
Q is for Quality - the official mark of approval for when you've done things right and passed a BIVA  |
| |
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,836
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
Spitfire MX5..?stealthstylz
@stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member 174
|
Nov 23, 2022 19:46:23 GMT
|
So where should the line be drawn? It used to be common for 100" landrovers to be built on tax free docs despite being built on fairly modern range rover coil sprung chassis. Obviously floor pan swaps are at the extreme end but as mentioned earlier with the mini SU sawps, there have been several cars with minor bulk head or transmission tunnel mods to accommodate engine swaps. Should these also be tested? Funnily enough common Land Rover dodgy builds were one of the reasons they clamped down on things. |
| |
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,712
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
Spitfire MX5..?Dez
@dez
Club Retro Rides Member 34
|
Nov 23, 2022 19:48:57 GMT
|
So where should the line be drawn? It used to be common for 100" landrovers to be built on tax free docs despite being built on fairly modern range rover coil sprung chassis. Obviously floor pan swaps are at the extreme end but as mentioned earlier with the mini SU sawps, there have been several cars with minor bulk head or transmission tunnel mods to accommodate engine swaps. Should these also be tested? Funnily enough common Land Rover dodgy builds were one of the reasons they clamped down on things. Land rovers, minis, beetles, and then the high-profile cases of a couple of Aston martins and Bugattis are basically why they pay any attention at all. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2022 18:50:22 GMT
|
|
I wonder how many t25 vans have been hacked into campervans in the last 20 years.
For that matter, how many modern vans have had the same treatment in the last 2 years.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
MOGGY
Part of things
Posts: 272
|
|
Nov 25, 2022 21:46:12 GMT
|
|
I don’t know where the line should be drawn but we all know where it is drawn and many ignore it.
I’ve often straddled the line in ways that are not fraud and not dangerous or stupid.
But my original gripe is these reclothed modern monocoques or chassis that then use the V5 of the panels so as to cheat the rules.
Some are awesome and built beautifully but if you’ve got the structure and full running gear of a modern then it’s obvious you don’t have the right to use the reg number of the few panels you’ve draped on top.
|
| |
Total classic car pervert
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2022 22:37:37 GMT
|
I wonder how many t25 vans have been hacked into campervans in the last 20 years. For that matter, how many modern vans have had the same treatment in the last 2 years. I would imagine they get away with it because most vans are or were also available with windows from the factory. I forsee more of these newer cars being registered as something older popping up with the ulez announcement today and historic vehicles being exempt. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many t25 vans have been hacked into campervans in the last 20 years. For that matter, how many modern vans have had the same treatment in the last 2 years. I would imagine they get away with it because most vans are or were also available with windows from the factory. I forsee more of these newer cars being registered as something older popping up with the ulez announcement today and historic vehicles being exempt. It's not just the windows, or even a poptop. Large holes are cut for vents and access doors/lockers etc. Floors have hatches and holes for tank feeds and battery access. I'm not necessarily against it, but it does highlight how common place unchecked structural alterations can be. |
| |
|
|
