An end to 'modified' cars?

[anonymous-user]

Here are some kittens:-

[m8rky]

Breadvan72 said:

Here are some kittens:-

...that one in the middle looks like he has a bit of stance on those front paws,is this going to be outlawed by the EU ?

[405dogvan]

mat205125 said:

rolymo said:

Reply to 2Woody,
FURTHER APPROVAL: - let me relate my experience of that term in layman’s language: - Suppose you had Triumph TR 6 with a rotted out fuel tank, you find it is no longer available from any known source, so no problem you just nip down to your mate who happens to make aeroplanes and is an A.I.D certified welder, he knocks you one up in aviation quality alloy for a few quid.and you are a happy bunny. Off down to the test station where the inspector looks at you all funny like, well sir we have a problem , you see we consider that a fuel tank is a pressure vessel as this one is not type approved, firstly you will require to get it tested and approved by a TUV appointed pressure testing specialist .
Grab the phone/or PC, Hell, they seem to all be ships boiler makers ,armourment contractors , nuclear power station parts suppliers or university engineering labs and all have one thing in common :- they operate on budgets of millions. Eventually you come across a very small shop that makes much the same type of tank for the military and will supply one to you, only your newly made tank is trash he only certifies his own product, but first you must obtain a proper workshop technical drawing. Hell , here we go again ,find someone that does not want an arm & leg to produce an acceptable drawing , You have to get one for the inspector anyway so hang the cost you have got to have it . Now hold on there!! Because this is a new fitting it will have to comply with the latest emission regs and have an approved vapour breather system and type /app filler cap. OH Hell I could go on with this epistle but you must have got the message by now. The tank cost nearly as much as the car, yes you can get further approval but would you want too. ( this is a real experience no joking )

That's an incredibly worrying scenario, as traditionally I've always fabricated all manner of such components myself.

Except that this legislation SPECIFICALLY excluded classic or historic cars and so you're worrying about nothing.

[anonymous-user]

The other thread is up to 3 pages already, as the Doomsayers are determined to run about and shout "we're alllllllll going to dieeeeeeeeeeee', come what may.

[405dogvan]

Breadvan72 said:

The other thread is up to 3 pages already, as the Doomsayers are determined to run about and shout "we're alllllllll going to dieeeeeeeeeeee', come what may.

One day they will probably make modding cars and running older cars much much harder - but the manufacturers are likely to cause as much trouble long, long before that.

My other half's grandad's car just needed a £1300 part (on a car which cost £5500 new less than 4 years ago) - that sort of st will kill a car long before EU legislation gets in there...

[.Steve.]

m8rky said:

Breadvan72 said:

Here are some kittens:-

...that one in the middle looks like he has a bit of stance on those front paws,is this going to be outlawed by the EU ?

Not outlawed but it would lose its kitten status and be required to take a BIVA test.

Edited by .Steve. on Wednesday 29th August 16:10

[m8rky]

Well probably a good time to take note of this,couple of years old now but still interesting.
With a nice bit of Brian Eno as well,

Project Revival.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3l9FwnWyjM

[Garvin]

E500 TAT said:

LuS1fer said:

The non-crisis has been averted and the children can be safe:
http://pistonheads.co.uk/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&amp...

I can sleep safe now.

Don't be so sure. A word of warning - some years ago the UK and US politicians decided to go for a treaty to make the transfer of 'classified' technology between the two countries easier and quicker. A policy was drafted with principles that UK industry thought enlightened, and gave the thumbs up to, as it had expected the US auhtorities to be very 'anti'. The governments then deployed their respective servants to draft the actual treaty, a treaty that allowed industry to sign up to on a 'preferred' basis which enabled them to take advantage of the treaty. This treaty was passed by the US administration and went into place many months ago. Were government officials killed in the stampede by industry to sign up? Not exactly, to date only one UK industry has signed up to it. Why? Because the useless UK servants were 'taken to the cleaners' by their US counterparts and the wonderful policy and principles has turned into a treaty that is the proverbial crock.

So, the moral of the story is don't believe the good intentions of the UK government departments as, when let out on their own, they are quite capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

As you were.

[bigdavy]

Hi Everyone

sorry i'm late returning, car trouble has kept me off the computer and when i finally got back it decided to completely crash delaying things further. So what did i miss? Looks like a load of bs about some political nuggets. This has been (frustrating) fun so lets not get it locked with some political argument eh?

Back in a mo with some answers I owe people, away to re-read a bit.

[anonymous-user]

Have a look at the other thread, BD. The DfT has cited the Hitchiker's Guide at us.

[anonymous-user]

ttp://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1190529&mid=223288&nmt=RE%3A+Modified+cars+safe%2C+for+now%2E

[bigdavy]

Breadvan72 said:

Or, having already been through a BIVA when modified, to establish the baseline, future testing is done by reference to that baseline.

Worst case scenario: you need one more BIVA. A pain, and an expense, but not Armageddon. Then, periodic routine testing, not a repeat BIVA, absent any additional safety/eco mods.

More plausible, I think: routine testing using the previous BIVA as the baseline.

This is subject to 2woody's argument that BIVA is a bit of a red herring here (my apols, 2woody, if I am crudely caricaturing your position, but I know that you can explain it well).

On tax: the UK presently says no tax pre 1973, so your pre 1960 car is OK, unless the UK changes the tax rules, which is up to the UK, not the EU. The UK can call the tax free class "classic", or "old sheddy", or whatever it likes, to avoid confusion.

Hi BV72,

Saw your reply re other thread, I'm awaiting some information and until I get it I'm not commenting on that thread. Hope you understand.

Back to the above,
Yes I agree it will be one BIVA then subsequently each year tested to check it hasn't been altered from that baseline standard, seems the logical way to go.
Whilst you say it's a pain but not 'armaggedon' What IF i can't get my car through the BIVA? Then its game over to me. IF I only need to change 4 things costing a few hundred quid then yep its a pain instead.

ON tax, yes agree with above. I was trying to say (badly) in previous post a similar point. Either the tax will stay pre 73 only or possibly I think they might take the chance to scrap free tax all together. As i've said before, no way will they extend it to all the 30 year cars.

[bigdavy]

Garvin said:

bigdavy said:

Garvin said:

Forgive my ignorance but does your vehicle require an annual MoT and, if so, what requirements is it currently tested against?

Quick answer as i really need to go.

My car currently goes for standard MOT, With concessions for age of car on certain issues like emissions.
From November under current rules I will be MOT exempt. (however will still take it to test)
If this passes I lose historic status & therefore MOT exemption.

This is one of the huge issues unclear within this document, what will cars taken out of historic status be tested against? No one currently knows, My guess is modified cars will be sent to biva to give them a baseline standard to adhere to.

I'm off now, back later today.

..........and this answers my previous query more fully.

Now I accept that you have a valid concern but do not agree that your assertions are necessarily what will actually happen - a risk yes, but not a certainty. However, I think this gives more power to making some sort of representation to the DfT on all this that includes reinforcing that their current defintion and testing of historic vehicles should remain as is with good reasons why. We should all concentrate on making sure that any representation has clear, concise and cogent arguments in its favour otherwise we may still be debating the doomsday scenario when DfT makes it declaration instead of trying to influence it.

Hi Garvin,

I've never said that this is a certainty. What i've tried to do is point out to people through some interpretation of motoring matters that this is a possible outcome. At various points Breadvan72 has quoted very well the basic legal interpretation of the regs, where i've taken a hypothetical outlook to whats the worst under my interpretation as someone used to dealing with cars & their rules in the uk.
I've said all along, the main point was to get people to get up and take notice of the potential of things being affected and our view that the time to act is now or like you say we'll still be arguing & the thing will be passed.

[anonymous-user]

PH says:-

"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.

Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."

[bigdavy]

rolymo said:

What a lot people fail to realize ,is that propaganda is a very, very effective tool in the hands o f a Government it can very easily change or subvert public opinion to suit its own chosen direction or purpose. A person, party or association can be taken down or up (promoted) in a heart beat if they happen to pose a threat to the establishment. Just bear in mind the Equality & diversity fiasco .When an EU technocrat tells you :- “ don’t worry, everything will be OK in the end , we have it all under control “ what he really means is :- “ just be relaxed , be cool and give us time to get on the statute books then you can scream all you like “( In vain)

Hmmm, Seems you could be right, going by today.

I've deliberately deleted the final part of your comment for obvious reasons.

[bigdavy]

Breadvan72 said:

PH says:-

"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.

Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."

As I said earlier I will comment on this later (probably tomorrow) as i'm awaiting some information. Thanks.

[bigdavy]

prop135 and breadvan72,

regarding my previous comments about braking systems on 2009> cars in the regulation I was wrong. If I can explain I got mixed up a bit the situation is as follows;

The changes to rules for the 2009 onwards cars ISN'T part of the new regulation as it has already been passed as an amendment to the 2009 directive. The document relating to it is here
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?...

without reading it again, it says something about the braking systems complying with their CoC.

I think this is a good point to note, this is a prime example of how they have 'quietly' added another rule into the MOT. I asked today and believe this is part of the MOT from 1st January 2013 as it was passed end 2011.
This is why we all need to make a fuss about this whole proposal so we can at least have a fighting chance.

[Petemate]

bigdavy said:

then subsequently each year tested to check it hasn't been altered from that baseline standard

That reminds me of the time I built my Robin Hood. We had rumours (backed by comments from my SVA tester) that there would be something coming along in the shape of a check to ensure that the car remained as SVA-tested. So I kept all my clever little bits of trim on the car which gave a nice friendly radius on the bits that only a mouse would be struck by - LOL. What followed before this could be introduced was IVA...

[anonymous-user]

The other thread has degenerated into Anti-Semitism (or trollery, I am not sure which). Over here, we only have Nick Griffin to contend with.

Here's a CSB:-

This morning, I took my 1983 Talbot-Matra Murena for an MOT Test. The car has been upgraded by a previous owner to what is called S spec, by the fitting of a Holbay cam and two big carbs. It also has a previous owner's choice of comedy Council House exhaust system, and oversized tyres (they are going, as they knack the handling).

Here it is, outside my mum's bungalow:-



This car does not exist on the VOSA database. The V5 says simple that it is a "Matra".

The car passed the test, and the bloke did not bat an eyelid, although he enthused about the car It ought to fail all tests on the basis of the vile 80s porn knickers upholstery (see below), but, strangely, it didn't.

What will happen if the rules change? Who knows? We are so far off a clear set of new rules, that I shall just carry on enjoying the silliness of the car for a while yet.

[chevy-stu]

Wow.. those seats ...