|
|
Jan 27, 2009 11:57:06 GMT
|
Some very valid points raised here. FWIW, I'd have no problem submitting any car I build for an engineers report to ascertain that it had been built properly. There must be plenty of specialists out there involved with 'our' type of cars who would hold the necessary qualifications to make such an inspection credible in the eyes of the law. I personally wouldn't even mind sacrificing tax exemption on a modified pre'73 vehicle if it means that I can drive it on a regular basis.
But like others have said here, I do object to having to put a car through a test that it was never designed to pass. Bear in mind the SVA covers stuff that the original designers never did. As an example, the front wheel-arch lips on a Mk1 Escort Mexico would fail, as would the roof gutters on lot of cars. Split windscreen? No chance.
The best advice I would give anyone is to either build the car with SVA in mind, or ensure that you keep enough points from the original car to avoid one.
Read the literature, re-read it & then read it again. What's more make sure your serial numbers tally with what's on the V5C.
Yes this make things more difficult for us, but it's all surmountable with a bit of thought.
Edit:- BTW if anyone's thinking of volunteering their car for an SVA test, make sure you do it before March 31st. From 1st April the test gets replaced with the IVA test which costs 3 times as much.
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 12:00:42 GMT by moggyman
1953 Minor (Long term project) PT Cruiser
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 12:01:00 GMT
|
Fair enough to criticise ACE if they were reporting them as 'this is going to happen' but if they are just reporting what proposals are being discussed, what's the problem? The representation isn't fair and balanced and its full of conjecture... If a consultation has 100 responses and 99 of them say "sticking 145/40s on a 12" rim is fine by us" and one says "I'm not so sure about this".. which do you think will get picked up on? It is the very same issue that people on here have with environmental groups. Yet when someone that supposedly represents our interests does it, it is fine apparently. Editorialising these things will create a situation where we can end up discrediting ourselves by being the people that shout about a total non-issue. Possibly to the detriment of actual issues. Like when Greenpeace did an advert about an aeroplane hitting a nuclear reactor... they got torn to shreds over it by those that represent nuclear power. You know it came out of someone in an office going "oh my god what if......." Also my worry is that they build up SVA/IVA bigger and more scary than it need be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 13:17:46 GMT
|
It appears that from April the SVA replacement is over £500! Really. Oh... Who wants to buy some MX5 running gear?
|
|
There is nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 13:20:58 GMT
|
I think thats what you call a deadline change LOL
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 14:07:38 GMT
|
Fair enough to criticise ACE if they were reporting them as 'this is going to happen' but if they are just reporting what proposals are being discussed, what's the problem? The representation isn't fair and balanced and its full of conjecture... If a consultation has 100 responses and 99 of them say "sticking 145/40s on a 12" rim is fine by us" and one says "I'm not so sure about this".. which do you think will get picked up on? And that isn't conjecture? Whilst plenty of magazines, newspapers and forums have done that in the past, & no doubt will continue to report in the manner that you describe, I've seen nothing on the ACE site to suggest that they have in the past or will behave in that way. In In fact, at the head of their articles, the are providing links to the relevant govt / EU document in full and at it's original host, rather than only allowing their readers access to the sections that they wish them to see. Sure, they also have sections of what they say is the areas of interest / relevance to the old car enthusiasts, with their own clearly labelled comment afterwards, but again I see nothing controversial in that. It is the very same issue that people on here have with environmental groups. Yet when someone that supposedly represents our interests does it, it is fine apparently. Editorialising these things will create a situation where we can end up discrediting ourselves by being the people that shout about a total non-issue. Possibly to the detriment of actual issues. Like when Greenpeace did an advert about an aeroplane hitting a nuclear reactor... they got torn to shreds over it by those that represent nuclear power. You know it came out of someone in an office going "oh my god what if......." Maybe they will do that, maybe not. However so far what have they done that has been scaremongering? E.g. is is wrong to point out that the SVA (& it's imminent replacement) are going to affect our hobby - whether that be though new regs, or just the enforcement of existing ones? Also my worry is that they build up SVA/IVA bigger and more scary than it need be. For those used to the time before the SVA, or have a non compliant car that needs an SVA test, then I guess it is quite scary. However as the NRSA thread that Akku posted up points out, it's perfectly possible to work around the regs completely legally. Also, isn't the chap who started that thread also the one who has been working woth ACE and also making representations to the DVLA / VOSA regarding the SVA etc? If so, what he writes in that thread is by no means scaremongering, as he clearly and repeatedly points out that the regs can be worked around legally (in the spirit of the regs as opposed to loopholes) quite easily if some thought is put into the build. Seeing as ACE have done nothing damaging that I've seen, and are the only ones sticking up for modified vehicles (The FBHVC certainly aren't going to fight this battle), I really don't understand why you seem so opposed to them. If you have seen stuff that has been biased, scaremongering, or damaging to our hobby, then please post up links to that material.
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 14:09:36 GMT by Paul H
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 14:19:55 GMT
|
Maybe they will do that, maybe not. However so far what have they done that has been scaremongering? E.g. is is wrong to point out that the SVA (& it's imminent replacement) are going to affect our hobby - whether that be though new regs, or just the enforcement of existing ones? No it is very RIGHT to do that... however it is very wrong as far as I'm concerned to then place a whole lot of conjecture on top of it. Word count the "might" and "probably" and "could" on the site and you'll see what my problem is. It is the same as my problem when people tell me banded steels "look" illegal, or stretched tyres are "probably" illegal. "Looks", "Probably", "Might", "Could" are all words that mean nothing. Don't get me wrong I do think it is great that there are people respresenting us during consultation, the same way I am glad there are environmental groups. However I don't always agree with how people like Greenpeace choose to communicate, the same is true for car lobbying bodies. I'm a programmer by trade, so I like logic and facts and numbers to work from, which is probably where it goes wrong for me. The SVA becoming the IVA and costing more is of interest. It is a fact, it is happening. The fact that different parts of the SVA apply to different types of cars going through it is also of interest. Which parts apply to us as the law stands? Is there a list somewhere? Can ACE supply that? Or NSRA? Or someone from here? Or does no one know?? Maybe some kind of organising body should be finding THAT out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 15:38:29 GMT
|
the biva regs havent been finalised yet even tho they come in in april, so if they don't even know - who does !!! gotta luv em aint ya
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 15:46:45 GMT
|
Would you be our "local" Ace rep Bugslug? If so can you find out which parts of the SVA, are applicable to our kind of modified cars, rather than kit cars... maybe post up a list, and we can stick it in the Wiki as useful info. When the situation changes after IVA, we can update. Also it would make it possible to compare if things are going to get better or worse after SVA becomes IVA as we'd have a benchmark to compare against. If you're not a rep for Ace... can someone who is in contact with them ask them. Unless anyone else has this info to hand. Let me just re-iterate I'm not anti ACE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 15:54:37 GMT
|
not me HW, I just think (my opinion only) that having a team like the ace fighting "all" of our corners really cant be a bad thing I also hate the "what ifs, could, maybe's" etc but whos to say, if their not kept checked, what they will turn into I can happily get contact details for one of the ace team for you if you want ? be happy
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 15:55:32 GMT by 71bugslug
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 16:11:55 GMT
|
Head above the parapet time.. I've been lurking and watching this thread as it's gone one. Firstly I'll state again that anything you find on the ACE site will always have backup and reference to the original documentation relating to the posting. There is nothing on there that we cannot back up. As for the wording around the Engine Management chip issue, The European Commission IS shortly to put forward a ruling on the regulation of aftermarket fitting of chips. And this MAY spell the end of that practice.... At present we do not know, neither do VOSA because the EU haven't made the position clear. However, IF they decided to severely restrict things then the implications are clear. I do not consider that comment to be scaremongering. Had we said this WILL spell the end then OK. But we didn't. The same wording can be seen in the RTA piece, The question is asked "Could an exposed engine get you banned" and we go on to explain why. Anyway, putting that one to bed, feel free to contact ACE through the Website or on this or other boards where we will try to answer your questions in an unbiased way. Or, if you want to put faces to names we will be at many shows this year (Possibly starting with the NSRA swapmeet, but certainly at Wheels Day) so come round and see us. Enjoy you vehicle, whatever you drive Steve The Ace Team www.the-ace.org.uk/
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 16:25:12 GMT by 1960zody
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 17:24:34 GMT
|
We'd obviously love to have you at Retro Rides Gathering,.. but I'll send you an email about this Frankly I'd like to get VOSA there too, but I suspect they would be lynched given some of the attitudes floating around... The question I want answered really is the one above, which bits of the SVA apply to our kind of modifications, so if we are all pushed through an SVA or SVA-like process we can at least plan for it. If you don't know (which given the amount of blurryness around a lot of this is entire understandable) who will? Who can we ask and get some definative answers. The thing I see is that these laws and legislations already exist, but are not being enforced, the change is that they are enforcing them, so we should know what they are already? If you see what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Nick
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,483
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 17:30:49 GMT
|
what is to stop somebody SVAing a car with all things in order such as fitting a modern collapsable steering column to some old looking ROD and then once passing the SVA going and changing it for period parts?
surely once you have received your nice shiny set of Q plates or whatever you can go ahead and change whatever you like around?
will it become an illegal car that you can most likely get away with Day to day? or will the super SVA/IVA ranger squad continue to pull everything over which has Q plates/recorded as being SVA/IVA'd and checking that you havent changed anything,
will this give the car a new identity so you wont have to declare all the curse word to insurers as it will be insured on a database as a 1987 redneck turbo GT ?
i'm sure the unscrupiilous folk in the retro or general car modifying world will still exploit the fact that once you are free of the test centre you can still do whatever you like?
my answer is to only buy cars from poland run them on winter steels and everytime i get pulled over, just put on my polish accent and tell pc plod i'm going back to poland as the economy is curse word.
|
|
idea stolen from rattely eddie.
this weeks car count "5"
|
|
rtlkyuubi
Posted a lot
Low and Slow
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 18:48:53 GMT
|
After reading this thread it has made me quite worried. I own a 1964 viva ha, which MAY be getting:
A 2Lite 8valve (out of an astra) A ford type 9 gearbox coilover suspension uprated brakes and a 105e or something rear axle. That will go to 4link at a later date.
Now this will most likley mean that I need an SVA. But then comes the confusion, since this is a car from 1964, will the bumpers, roof channels, lights, ect pass the sva test? Now I would happily send it for an sva test once its done for the sake of £200 I know ive got a legaly sound car, but now when it goes to £500!!!! I'm having second thoughts.
Also what about 'chav' cars with the massive bodykits and mecarno spoilers? surely that would count as radically altered exterior. Or because its removeable it doesnt count? wtf :/
MY OPINION PART With a price and strict rules like that, its gonna make less and less people do sva tests. But I think people will start ignoring sva rules. Drive around in un-sva'd cars till they get stopped. Instead of getting it sva'd (which by the sounds of it is impossible) they will buy another car and transfer all the custom parts over (NOT THE IDENTITY) and carry on. Now I know this will probably be already happening but will happen even more since their enforcing more.
I'm gonna give VOSA an email and see what the reply I get.
Ryan.
EDIT:
Just sent an email to VOSA and waiting for a clear reply if I get one at all!
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 19:25:24 GMT by rtlkyuubi
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 19:26:57 GMT
|
Please think long and hard before mailing and putting your head , and others ,in the noose. Any contact that ACE have with VOSA /DVLA is of a considered nature. VOSA will not be able to help you as the points sytem is adminstered by DVLA . In general reply to Hotwires questions above Why do modified cars have to go through SVA ? The vehicle identity is based a points system and you have to have 8 points to retain the right to that identity . Details on the Directgov site. direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Buy...le/DG_10014199The system is overseen by DVLA. Once you slip below that 8 points the only way to get a fresh registration is to obtain a MAC ( Misnisters Approval Certificate ) which folows from passing the SVA / BIVA test. This is admintered by VOSA The BIVA test confirms that the vehicle meets EUWVTA ( from April 2009) spec for Amatuer built vehicles .The spec is the same across the exclusion classes and is as applied to Kit Cars. VOSA will require proof of amateur build as in photo build up and invoices before accepting it for SVA. What will require changing on an older vehicle to make it pass ? Generally the older the vehicle the more that may need altering to pass. This can only be assessed by looking at the car with BIVA test manual in your hand though ( frowned on ) supposition can be made . Much of what is required would have been built in on most cars from about mid 70's .Certainly most would already have collapsable steering and twin circuits brakes etc. Many would also comply to interior projection criteria. What are the obvious points where they could they fall down ? Tyre /speed load ratings ,possiblity of tyres fouling on arches. Lowering could mean that the headlights and possibly other lighting regs may not be met .Aftermarket steering wheels that have holes or slots in or orginal equipment that is of shatterable construction.Aftermarket wiring extensions that don't meet criteria ie ICE instals. This is just a snapshot of the regs , there is nothing written down to cover all questions and they can only be answered on a car by car basis The vehicle is tested as presented. Any specific requests can be dealt with by enquiring via the ACE site a www.the-ace.org.uk. ACE is not telling anyone how to build their cars, the rules on how to register vehicles , which have been in existence for over 25 years, are laid down by the various Government departments.You may chose to ignore them, and accept any penalties , but please do it on from an informed basis." __________________ An easy read version of SVA regs can be found here www.uk-hotrods.co.uk/v2/rodding_and_the_law/sva.phpAs mentioned BIVA has not been finalised but the current changes are fitting of fenders, horn and headrestraints added into equation. Fuel tank location also clarified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 19:59:49 GMT
|
What will require changing on an older vehicle to make it pass ? Generally the older the vehicle the more that may need altering to pass. This can only be assessed by looking at the car with BIVA test manual in your hand though ( frowned on ) supposition can be made . Much of what is required would have been built in on most cars from about mid 70's .Certainly most would already have collapsable steering and twin circuits brakes etc. Many would also comply to interior projection criteria. What are the obvious points where they could they fall down ? Tyre /speed load ratings ,possiblity of tyres fouling on arches. Lowering could mean that the headlights and possibly other lighting regs may not be met .Aftermarket steering wheels that have holes or slots in or orginal equipment that is of shatterable construction.Aftermarket wiring extensions that don't meet criteria ie ICE instals. Thank you for that. It was the missing piece of the information. Wonder what you can do to rectify the low headlight issue... other than raise the car?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 20:19:20 GMT
|
Headlights :- (ii) Minimum height above the ground- (A) Any vehicle not covered by sub-paragraph (B): 500 mm from www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htmC&U Lighting regs 1989 Adjustable spring platforms shoudl help with this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 20:26:35 GMT
|
Thanks again for that... I have to say this all doesn't look as scary for a lot of the post 70 cars at I thought it would be from all of the "sky is falling" type vibe that mentioning SVA brings up. The £500 for the BIVA I could live without though Seems a touch excessive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 20:38:11 GMT
|
We tried to fight 'our' corner on that .If you check the ACE site you will see that they overrode the fact that most disagreed on the basis that it wasn't a true sample ...oh ,yeah and they were going to do it anyway. www.the-ace.org.uk/results-of-biva-consultation-document.html"Figure 7 shows that 21 responses (22%) supported the proposed NSSTA fees, 35 responses (37%) opposed this proposal and 39 responses (41%) provided no comment" "Figure 8 shows that 24 responses (25%) supported the proposed IVA fees, 36 responses (38%) opposed this proposal and 35 responses (37%) elected not to comment. Many respondents opposed the level of IVA fees. They queried the fairness of the fees in terms of time taken and expertise involved. " Taken from www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/typeapproval/consultationanalysisreport.pdfACE ,knowing that a rise was inevitable , argued that fairer price compared with rates for MOT tests would be £300 ( the test can take up to 6 hours ) Sorry if the ACE links are a bit heavy but it's the only way to show non of this is conjecture and that ACE is trying it's best to look after everyones interests. ( NON sarcastic tone by the way before we lose any rapport that may be occuring )
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 20:49:46 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 21:10:08 GMT
|
ACE ,knowing that a rise was inevitable , argued that fairer price compared with rates for MOT tests would be £300 ( the test can take up to 6 hours ) Sorry if the ACE links are a bit heavy but it's the only way to show non of this is conjecture and that ACE is trying it's best to look after everyones interests. ( NON sarcastic tone by the way before we lose any rapport that may be occuring ) This is where my issue lays with this stuff,.. I read the news (not just on your site) and it is all like "SVA is terrible, you'll never be able to modify your car... The EU want to stop you owning a car,.." etc. etc. and actually the SVA isn't that scary (at least not from our point of view) and the real headline should have been more the cost of the new IVA. Thats what I mean about scary headlines and things,.. people are so busy worrying about getting hit by the big scary lorry, that the cyclist they weren't watching knocks them into a ditch instead. As I said before, I'm glad ACE exists,.. I just would like a few less maybes, mights and perhaps But that is probably just me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 21:38:15 GMT
|
I know a few MOT testers both IRL and online and a couple of them say that someone at VOSA has mentioned that they will be expected to notify DVLA of all cars which seem to be on incorrect registrations (radically modified cars, cut&shut, later cars on tax execmpt log books) Sorry, but I can't see how MOT testers could be expected to police this... I could take my car to tester who's never seen a 100E before, how is he going to know that it should have a sidevalve engine in, not a pre-Xflow (which looks 'period'), or what stock 100E struts or rear axle look like?
|
|
... the only injury I sustained was a bumped head when I let the seatbelt of without realizing the car was upside down and that's not really the car's fault.
|
|
|