Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
rs1952 said:
Having thought about this a little more, cars from the 60s were originally specified to run on crossply tyres.
I don't know about you, but I rather prefer driving on tyres that don't tramline on a ball hair...
No one is compelling anyone to use crossply tyres.I don't know about you, but I rather prefer driving on tyres that don't tramline on a ball hair...
But also giving an example of why zealous adherence to original spec would sometimes be a remarkably bad idea.
Another example might be brake shoes and discs containing asbestos
Breadvan72 said:
I would prefer there to be an MoT-lite for pre 1960 vehicles, with basic checks of structure and brakes and lights, but not all the other stuff that is hard to test on old jalopes.
You would prefer? No one cares. I haven't read the rest of the thread. Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 22 September 19:33
There's less stuff to check on an older car, no seat belts, hazard warning, rear fog lamp, measured emissions, ABS, ESP, SRS warning lights, steering lock and a few other things. You need to know whether the cars got single or dual line brakes as single line brakes require a higher parking brake efficiency.
So a MOT on an older car should be easier, provided that the vehicle presenter isn't trying to pull the wool over the testers eyes by using non approved repair methods on the vehicles structure.
So a MOT on an older car should be easier, provided that the vehicle presenter isn't trying to pull the wool over the testers eyes by using non approved repair methods on the vehicles structure.
Breadvan72 said:
What the 2014 Directive actually does is permit the UK to exempt certain vehicles from testing.
One of the criteria for this is that the vehicle "has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components".
The only difference in my engine is in the valvegear. From the cylinder head gasket down, identical and as the power is the same, I'd say the car has has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components and probably so would the man on the Clapham omnibus. But will officialdom, and who says anyway? Not sure even my favoured MOT tester knows that kind of detail. One of the criteria for this is that the vehicle "has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components".
Like quite a few people in the three wheeler world I'm not too happy with the FBHVC as they completely missed the effect of the third European directive on tricycles, and trumpet loudly the fact we adopted the derogation for 21 year old car drivers as being largely a result of their work. Well they can believe that if they like, but I personally had more to do with its adoption than they did. And it's neither big nor clever as that bit has no justification whatsoever. (Not going to happen soon, but we are keeping the iron hot for a fourth directive).
mygoldfishbowl said:
Breadvan72 said:
I would prefer there to be an MoT-lite for pre 1960 vehicles, with basic checks of structure and brakes and lights, but not all the other stuff that is hard to test on old jalopes.
You would prefer? No one cares. I haven't read the rest of the thread. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff