|
|
Jan 27, 2009 21:46:21 GMT
|
The problem is that you have to be involved 'in depth ' to realise what BIVA MAY have meant ( there's that word again, sorry ). Initially it would have been a lot harder but fortunately VOSA themselves got involved to fight off some of the more onerous stuff. There was a proposal that ABS would be mandatory ( this is from ths horses mouth again ). The reason this whole deal is difficult to get a handle on is that SVA is a piece of British Legislation. EUWVTA is an EC law that is being imposed on us. Whilst they allow a country a individual vehicle test very few , if any , have taken it up as it's not something they have been used to. The EC have always hated SVA ,in part due to the way it had been abused by their own countrymen.So to the point , BIVA is in fact a list of EXCLUSIONS requested from a new law rather than legislation in its own right and is still open to changes until BIVA is finalised. It is so close to SVA because VOSA used that manual to write the BIVA manual but including the things that were insisted on.
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 21:47:53 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 21:58:43 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? I knew this would arise. Currently there is no need during the test ,or procedure to report anything like that. However should this ever come to be there is already a procedure in place. Simply the testers doesn't need to know , he just flags it up as a 'possible' with DVLA. Their inspector comes out to look, some know what they are looking at ,some don't. If in doubt they will request a report from an owners club on the authorised V765 list , as they are restorers and have their members interests to look after .... There have been cases of over zealous testers writing notes in the advise section or even reporting suspect vehicles direct. The next quote wil be " but I've a friendly MOT tester " . Well, since the computerised MOT came into being every MOT, who did it, what it failed or was advised on is recorded on a central computer. VOSA can sit ( unknown ) outside a premises whilst monitoring the MOT and walk in as soon as the test is signed off. This is not conjecture or scaremongering, FACT and I have 2 first hand reports of this happening.
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2009 22:42:42 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009 23:01:42 GMT
|
VOSA can sit ( unknown ) outside a premises whilst monitoring the MOT and walk in as soon as the test is signed off. This is not conjecture or scaremongering, FACT and I have 2 first hand reports of this happening. It is true.
|
|
|
|
miaspa
Part of things
Posts: 829
|
|
|
There was a rumour floating a while back that the older than 10 year SVA or IVA exemption would go on grey imports, although can't find any specific that relates to being the case in any recent publications or anything to say its still there.
Is a record of the modifcations done when a car is SVA(IVA)'ed? So if you car was flagged at an MOT, would they check the system see its been previously SVA and take no further action or would they have a list to see if it conformed to the previous SVA(IVA)?
Edited to add the missing words.
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 0:12:24 GMT by miaspa
Found my flashing Pao again.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't heard anything to the effect re 10 year old exemption being dropped? There are some pre-existing safeguards for cars built over here before that time that have a provable history and ACE has ben working on confirming and fighting individual cases based on old DVLA law.
To the best of my knowledge there is no confirmation of what condition anything is presented in. There is however a type approval number that would be added to any cars that passed logbook ,taken from the MAC mentioned earlier. This is available to view using the DVLA 'make a vehicle enquiry ' section on line.
I'd just like to thanks everyone for listening while we've tried to clarify some of the general background to the whys and wherefores.
Don't worry , we are not going to be here preaching to you , we'll slide back into the shadows and should any of you have specific queries feel free to contact us via the ACE site. Also if you want updates as they arise please join the subscribers list .
Hopefully look forward to getting to Retrorides event and speaking direct to some of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely with all the concerns and worries that this subject raises an open forum like this one is NOT the place to declare all your modifications because you never know whos reading! ;D ;D I don't mind, My insurance company know everything down to the dustcaps. I don't have a build thread for it yet but basicly 1988 Mk2 Fiesta with mk1 xr2 engine (some snazy internals) and matching cooling system, Exhaust, Battery etc etc Re-build toughened 1100 4 speed 'box XR2 brakes G-max suspension kit Interior stripped replaced with basic door cars and RST Recaro seats and harnesses. Strut braces, Some nice alloys (13 inch) and steelies for winter months (xr2) Various simple and reversable mods, Clear indicators up front, Ghia bumpers, momo steering wheel, odd stickers, badges etc Lots of new pannels But the way this other chap was talking he was making out i'd virtually got a whole new car and needed a SVA! One last thing before I go ( said in best Columbo voice ) nothing there in the spec you've given to be worried about at all ( now that is scaremongering on his behalf with no idea of the rules applied ). Hell if replacement panels come into it then virtually every 10 year old car would lose it's identity. The G max kit may cause problems if DVLA were to get as anal as the guy in the PPC article but I'm sure the owners club would see it as coeval modifications ( in a style that would have been performed within 10 years of build ) .
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 0:55:22 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
|
VOSA can sit ( unknown ) outside a premises whilst monitoring the MOT and walk in as soon as the test is signed off. This is not conjecture or scaremongering, FACT and I have 2 first hand reports of this happening. You say this like its a bad thing,.. if a car should be SVA'd it should be SVA's,.. if a car should be Taxed it should be Taxed,.. if a car should be MOT'd it should be MOT'd ... THAT is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me. "They are going to get you to do this thing,.. and CHECK! That is it being done..." GOOD! because if they are checking up on me, they are also checking up on the people who will be desperately trying to avoid it because they've built shoddy cars. That aside, thank you very much for clearing it up, I think most people on here have little to fear if their car ends up SVA'd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if you read it that way. What I meant is there is ALWAYS someone looking for the scam ,for the "but" , for the 'easy' answer rather than just dealing with it and was providing them with the facts to make them think twice about not doing it correctly.
I WANT a pukka MOT , though I am happy with the quality of my work and service my motors to a high stanadard, it's good to have another pair of eyes looking over your car as it is easy to miss something even with constant checking.
Likewise I have a rod friendly MOT station, that doesn't mean he is lax in any way shape or form, it means he knows what rules apply to what vehicles and I don't spend forever explaining and arguing .However he would not, nor would I ever ask him, to put his entire businesss on the line because I didn't want to play the game correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if you read it that way. It was the use of (unknown) that turned it from a sentance stating a fact to something that has implied scariness ... The fundamental problem in all this and a lot of the other constructions and use regulations is that they are open to interpitation, which suchs if you are trying to build to a set of rules, as they aren't rules, just guidelines and one places view on them may different to others.. so it makes our life needlessly hard. I'm curious how our European members feel about some of this stuff, are their rules more or less strict?
|
|
|
|
rtlkyuubi
Posted a lot
Low and Slow
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 10:53:33 GMT
|
Its not just the people who cant make a good car. Take Nobody's mini build. You can see the engineering and the quality (which is curse word amazing) in every weld! But yet it could fail on the headlights not being in the correct place, or the radius of the bumpers, or the wiper speed. Now stuff like the bumpers and wipers can be fixed easily but what about the headlights?
This is a question to who ever knows the correct laws:
Ive got a 1964 vauxhall viva that will get: coilover suspension 2lite astra engine ford type 9 gear box capri back axles and upgraded brakes.
Now would this mean that I would need an SVA?? And all the work will be done correct would the rest of the standard features on the car (door handles, roof channels) pass the SVA? Or will I have to change it all to pass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 11:25:56 GMT
|
Not sure on the European situation, but the Australians seem to have it buttoned down quite well. Here's a link to their National Codes of Practice for Vehicle Construction and Modification. NCOPFairly comprehensive I'd say. I also understand in most states, any proposed modifications have to be approved by a specialist engineer before you start. Sure the NCOP may limit some creativity, but at least the engineering is validated......and without ambiguity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 12:16:32 GMT
|
Much of the work involed in bringing about the NCOP was done by the Australian Street Rod Federation. (ASRF). Sterling work by them, but one of the things they had was support from all areas of the 'Enthusiast' community and the nous to face up to the fact that legislation was comimng, it could not be stipped but it could be adjusted and worked with provided those who were framing the legislation were aware that there were people who did not use 'Modern, Standard' cars, but thesae people also wanted to be 'Legal'. The battle continues in Australia. www.asrf.org.au/tac/
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 12:17:45 GMT by 1960zody
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 13:32:37 GMT
|
Its not just the people who cant make a good car. Take Nobody's mini build. You can see the engineering and the quality (which is blasted amazing) in every weld! But yet it could fail on the headlights not being in the correct place, or the radius of the bumpers, or the wiper speed. Now stuff like the bumpers and wipers can be fixed easily but what about the headlights? This is a question to who ever knows the correct laws: Ive got a 1964 vauxhall viva that will get: coilover suspension 2lite astra engine ford type 9 gear box capri back axles and upgraded brakes. Now would this mean that I would need an SVA?? And all the work will be done correct would the rest of the standard features on the car (door handles, roof channels) pass the SVA? Or will I have to change it all to pass? The points system is explained clearly here direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014199The backbone of 8 points is an original UNMODIFIED monocoque, we know of cars with roof chops being sent for SVA, whether or not they would accept any floorpan cutting to fit an alternative gearbox is down to whoever inspects ability to spot and/or interpretation. Suspension ,both carries 2 points NOT 1 per axle and the same goes for suspension. From reading your plans you will only have unaltered monococque (5) and steering gear (2) so only 7 points. A slight change to your build plans and the car will remain legal. Without actually looking at the car I cannot say what else would fail. However, based on my memory of the HA the original steering wheel would fail, I don't remember it having a collapable column and the switch gear would also fail. No of this is insurmountable if you are building to pass though. As an aside ,if you are using coilovers on the front in place of the original shocks both the arms and upper mount will need re- inforcing as they are not designed to cope with suspension loads. In fact when these suspensions are transplated into rod sthey also need additional bracing ( as the inner wing does this in a HA , to prevent the turrets buckling even under shocker alone loads). I would recommned that everyone checks direct to the link that ACE give,it takes you straight to the horses mouth. If you don't understand then ask us for clarification, or anyone else that actually understands and has used them rather than a mate down the pub. I'm sure that Hotwire ,if he wishes ,will be able to add some of the pertinent links in this post to a sticky for constant reference ?
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 13:42:49 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 14:06:47 GMT
|
I'm sure that Hotwire ,if he wishes ,will be able to add some of the pertinent links in this post to a sticky for constant reference ? Yup,.. thread will go in useful threads archive,.. some of the content will migrate to the wiki
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 14:46:50 GMT
|
Not sure on the European situation, but the Australians seem to have it buttoned down quite well. Here's a link to their National Codes of Practice for Vehicle Construction and Modification. NCOPFairly comprehensive I'd say. I also understand in most states, any proposed modifications have to be approved by a specialist engineer before you start. Sure the NCOP may limit some creativity, but at least the engineering is validated......and without ambiguity. I have a friend who emigrated to Oz and took a car he built here with him, turned out impossible to get registered over there and he had to buy an oz version, get it legal for the road and then and "transfer all the parts over to it" afterwards.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 14:55:52 GMT
|
I can't help thinking this is all scare mongering and rumour spreading on the part of the DVLA, to keep us all in fear of putting a foot wrong and altering a car so that it will need an SVA. Why you ask? To make their life easier, and to make sure their records are straight so that cars don't get off with being tax free (which they wouldn't be if they were Q plate). It's all about money, and not about road safety. you don't understand how government agencies work. Make it more complex means you get more budget and a BIGGAH EMPIRE TO RULE. Its not about money. Theres no money involved. Its about the DVLA meeting some targets on accuracy of the vehicle register. BUT, if meeting those targets means by a happy accident some vehicles will then no longer be tax exempt (as they are suddenly obliged to have a Q plate) and then have to pay road tax, they have made more money. Money is always at the end of it......
|
|
|
|
Tim
Posted a lot
Posts: 3,340
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 15:03:00 GMT
|
you don't understand how government agencies work. Make it more complex means you get more budget and a BIGGAH EMPIRE TO RULE. Its not about money. Theres no money involved. Its about the DVLA meeting some targets on accuracy of the vehicle register. BUT, if meeting those targets means by a happy accident some vehicles will then no longer be tax exempt (as they are suddenly obliged to have a Q plate) and then have to pay road tax, they have made more money. Money is always at the end of it...... /opens kettle of fish Probably not a bad thing - never really supported tax-free exemption anyway, not under the current taxation system anyway. /forces cod back into kettle, closes lid.
|
|
|
|
rtlkyuubi
Posted a lot
Low and Slow
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 17:24:07 GMT
|
Its not just the people who cant make a good car. Take Nobody's mini build. You can see the engineering and the quality (which is blasted amazing) in every weld! But yet it could fail on the headlights not being in the correct place, or the radius of the bumpers, or the wiper speed. Now stuff like the bumpers and wipers can be fixed easily but what about the headlights? This is a question to who ever knows the correct laws: Ive got a 1964 vauxhall viva that will get: coilover suspension 2lite astra engine ford type 9 gear box capri back axles and upgraded brakes. Now would this mean that I would need an SVA?? And all the work will be done correct would the rest of the standard features on the car (door handles, roof channels) pass the SVA? Or will I have to change it all to pass? The points system is explained clearly here direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014199The backbone of 8 points is an original UNMODIFIED monocoque, we know of cars with roof chops being sent for SVA, whether or not they would accept any floorpan cutting to fit an alternative gearbox is down to whoever inspects ability to spot and/or interpretation. Suspension ,both carries 2 points NOT 1 per axle and the same goes for suspension. From reading your plans you will only have unaltered monococque (5) and steering gear (2) so only 7 points. A slight change to your build plans and the car will remain legal. Without actually looking at the car I cannot say what else would fail. However, based on my memory of the HA the original steering wheel would fail, I don't remember it having a collapable column and the switch gear would also fail. No of this is insurmountable if you are building to pass though. As an aside ,if you are using coilovers on the front in place of the original shocks both the arms and upper mount will need re- inforcing as they are not designed to cope with suspension loads. In fact when these suspensions are transplated into rod sthey also need additional bracing ( as the inner wing does this in a HA , to prevent the turrets buckling even under shocker alone loads). I would recommned that everyone checks direct to the link that ACE give,it takes you straight to the horses mouth. If you don't understand then ask us for clarification, or anyone else that actually understands and has used them rather than a mate down the pub. I'm sure that Hotwire ,if he wishes ,will be able to add some of the pertinent links in this post to a sticky for constant reference ? Thanks for the infomation so far ;D its been a great help so far, but I'm slightly confused still (I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw ) So that means classics cars will have to have modern features rendering them undateable and a q plate? Also would using viva HB brakes (HA drums up front) (HB disc up front) on my car would make me loose points? Thanks for keeping patient answering my questions ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 17:34:35 GMT
|
BUT, if meeting those targets means by a happy accident some vehicles will then no longer be tax exempt (as they are suddenly obliged to have a Q plate) and then have to pay road tax, they have made more money. Money is always at the end of it...... /opens kettle of fish Probably not a bad thing - never really supported tax-free exemption anyway, not under the current taxation system anyway. /forces cod back into kettle, closes lid. Have you got anything tax exempt? Nothing better than having that free disc in your windscreen. I wouldn't mind if all the potential snooping about modifications was about road safety, but it's not, it's about money, just like speed cameras..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 18:19:59 GMT
|
Just for info, the SVA manual says about amateur built cars:
A vehicle constructed for the personal use of an individual and
-the construction/assembly or a substantial part of it was carried out by the individual and/or other persons acting on his behalf, and
-the individual/other persons acting on his behalf during the period of construction/assembly did not have a business in which motor vehicle are normally constructed/assembled.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|