Furore has passed German TUV!
Discussion
It did not work out that simple for our use, TUV seem to have a habit of moving the goal-posts to suit the circumstances, SO ! as this kit required a VW beetle Mk1 chassis to complete the assembly they requested a letter from the manufacturer confirming that the engine of choice was compatible with the chassis number that we were going to use, as a result VW Wolfsburg delved around in the archives and came up with an obscure specification for 1600cc (twin port) that had been supplied at some time in history and was still on current records. The next problem arose because we wanted to fit a twin carb setup but VW could not come up with an emission spec suitable therefore we had to revert to a single barrel model in order to get certification. It was suggested that having got the set up approved it would be a very quick and easy bolt-on to go twin carbs by the purchaser at a later date,(of course legality would be questionable) This would drastically reduce the overall power dropping down to about 80bhp but because an engine change can be completed in 15-20 mins with ease it would not be a big deal to keep the big engine for competition use only and not have to worry about emmisions 
In order to make this a cheap and cheerful home built replica we opted for the readily available VW Mk1 chassis which has a very extensive history of being used for the basis of all sorts of Specials,Volk-Rods,Beach-buggies, Sand-Rails and Others but this fact was of no significance with TUV who prohibit "cutting & shutting" or any other major changes to frame members of chassis/monocoque etc. In order to construct the"Spyder RSK " it was necessary to remove 10 inches from the main frame by cutting and rewelding and reset the ride height front and rear which can be arranged without modification to components,simply by adjustment. Unbeknown to TUV a factory approved procedure existed in the archives at VW laying down the exact method and dimensions to be adopted when shortening chassis ( A relic from the hey-day of Buggies). When the car was submitted for inspection this caused much consternation because the procedure cut completely across accepted protocol ,however we were allowed to proceed at that time as it was not considered appropriate for TUV to take -on the might of VW on such a trivial matter. And SO! on to the next hassle ? 
1441 said:
I think that's what I posted, in this case emissions noise everything tested as a 2010 car?
basically yes....but its not as easy as it sounds.additionally our testers are very "inventive" putting obstacles in sb.'s way....they will always find a new regulation or law to make things more complicated..
i need to repeat again: the emission test is not as in UK, putting the probe into the exhaust tailpipe and do a static test...or like a q-plate car: "visual" smoke test.
ask tiger-racing...they tried to homologate their aviator for sale outside UK, with a focus on germany...after a few basic approval tests in UK for getting some certificates proving minimum requirements needed for exporting, they already invested a 5-figure amount for nothing, as they had to invest much more for some major approval tests. finally they stopped everything.
Jim also told me that it would have been also necessary crashing a complete car for some safety-tests.
@rolymo:what you explain is exactly like the TÜV worked in the past....today they might be a bit more relaxed in certain terms, but the laws became more clear and stricter, mostly because of the emission standards in the EU.
Edited by RochdaleGT on Monday 9th February 20:55
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/...
Just test it here then sell it there, would that not be possible?
Just test it here then sell it there, would that not be possible?
TUV Approval :-To say that TUV testers were “Inventive” is putting it mildly or being very diplomatic depending on your experiences over time in that predicament, I would have said :- “bloody-minded” and positively restrictive in their attitude to foreign applicants. The procedure for obtaining TUV approval proves to be not only technical, academic but to a certain extent a cultural adventure with overtones of Deutschland uber Alles and {Made in Stuttgart} stamped all over it . This first became apparent when I was employed by the sole distributor of TVR cars in the mid 70’s and had to achieve homologation and certification for Germany, particularly each time the maker upgraded or introduced a new model. The first edition convertible was an extremely difficult proposition to get tested, it was constantly being referred back on the most spurious grounds and very time we climbed the mountain at considerable wasted time and expense they would discover/invent another waste of time. We were constantly being told “ we would not have constructed it that way in Germany” and England makes s
tty cars that are unreliable and leak oil all over our Autobahns ! We had virtually given up any hope of approval when my boss found a way of obtaining “Waver-Certificates” on certain items which saved the day but looking back retrospectively it would appear we were operating on a knife-edge of legality. But when you consider that lots of lads were driving AC V8 COBRA clones registered on 4door Granada titles and Mini 850 saloons fitted with 1293 S Cooper engines it is no small wonder that TUV has become very much easier too obtain over the resent years . In later years TUV literally collapsed due to it’s inability to provide an acceptable nationwide service causing horrendous waiting times and severe public outcry regarding it’s suitability of purpose which resulted in a major rethink in the way it is now operated . However some of the original hang-ups still persist with reference to cars of none German manufacture like a Sunbeam-Lotus 16 valve twin-cam , refused approval on the grounds that it did not appear on the TUV Data-base although it had been registered in Germany from new .
tty cars that are unreliable and leak oil all over our Autobahns ! We had virtually given up any hope of approval when my boss found a way of obtaining “Waver-Certificates” on certain items which saved the day but looking back retrospectively it would appear we were operating on a knife-edge of legality. But when you consider that lots of lads were driving AC V8 COBRA clones registered on 4door Granada titles and Mini 850 saloons fitted with 1293 S Cooper engines it is no small wonder that TUV has become very much easier too obtain over the resent years . In later years TUV literally collapsed due to it’s inability to provide an acceptable nationwide service causing horrendous waiting times and severe public outcry regarding it’s suitability of purpose which resulted in a major rethink in the way it is now operated . However some of the original hang-ups still persist with reference to cars of none German manufacture like a Sunbeam-Lotus 16 valve twin-cam , refused approval on the grounds that it did not appear on the TUV Data-base although it had been registered in Germany from new . fatjon said:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/...
Just test it here then sell it there, would that not be possible?
NO!!Just test it here then sell it there, would that not be possible?
Why? Genuinely interested, not just being a troll. I thought the whole point of harmonisation of standards was such that what was declared to meet the standards in one EU country was declared to meet the standards in all (even when it patently does not). Without that there is no free movement of goods and any member state that has ever tried to bar the goods of another due to it not meeting standards has been heavily and unequivocally slapped down in the courts.
Fatjon :- Your question Test here, Sell there ? Just does not work. Being a British citizen living in the FRG and operating an automotive business in Frankfurt am Maine I have attempted to perform this in numerous circumstances but there is always some form of obstacle raised by TUV to prevent this course of action being successful . While more people are claiming TUV compliance lately this mainly is due to a greater familiarity with the regulations and a more determined attack by the applicants in planning and financial considerations . The idea of “harmonization of EU standards “ being in your favour is some sort of joke . It should read :- “ there is a law for you and a law for us” in so much that in the UK it is simply a matter of complying with the regs but in Europe one has too also “beat the system” and they definitely are not on your side , often going out of their way to manufacture obstacles which can be ultra expensive to irradiate/comply/ circumvent . The thinking being if they make the project totally none viable ---- you will drop-out . One gets the impression that there is a official policy to discourage all forms none massed produced vehicles.
To give you an example ,here is one of the RSK Spyder problems :- On arrival at TUV we are told that because of the high incidence of fibre-glass cars bursting into flames spontaneously on the Autobahns they have introduced a special proof --testing procedure for FGR/ KIT type vehicles, our car could not be tested until we had a fire retardant test certificated in our possession ,please apply for a retest at that time.
This required submitting a number of fibre-glass panels (test-pieces ) roughly 50 X 50m of the same material that we intended to use and produced by the same method ( hand laminated or chop-gun) . These would be twisted, penetrated, crushed and burnt ( to assess combustibility ) and applied to a TUV standard. Our test failed on ( A ) insufficient fire retardation ( b) Excessive gell coat thickness.
So ! Failed on step one ! Where do we go now ?
To give you an example ,here is one of the RSK Spyder problems :- On arrival at TUV we are told that because of the high incidence of fibre-glass cars bursting into flames spontaneously on the Autobahns they have introduced a special proof --testing procedure for FGR/ KIT type vehicles, our car could not be tested until we had a fire retardant test certificated in our possession ,please apply for a retest at that time.
This required submitting a number of fibre-glass panels (test-pieces ) roughly 50 X 50m of the same material that we intended to use and produced by the same method ( hand laminated or chop-gun) . These would be twisted, penetrated, crushed and burnt ( to assess combustibility ) and applied to a TUV standard. Our test failed on ( A ) insufficient fire retardation ( b) Excessive gell coat thickness.
So ! Failed on step one ! Where do we go now ?
So ! Now I have a car that is all built and ready to go !. But No! without TUV it will be a garden decoration or sleep under a sheet in the garage, A not so treasured dream maybe !. However enquiries show that fibre-glass technology is virtually none existent in Germany for a number EU hazardous material reasons, therefore a trip to England is called for, into the land of :- Lotus, Marcos, Reliant ,Daimler and a myriad of other fibre-glass users none of which remember ever having been exposed to this fire resistance problem. By shear coincidence I used to be involved in the very secret British Space Programme (remember Woomera Aust ) where ballistic missiles with gfr fire-resistant fairings that used a chemical additive to control their rate of destruction by the highly combustible fuel .manufactured by ICI Ltd UK , this aviation industry additive was still on stock and available to order but would add £36 to the cost of every set of panels per car. The question of gell coat thickness was explained by the TUV as a preventative measure to reduce the likelihood of “ Splinters” entering the eyes of occupants in the event of an accident. The GP Products kits were designed to be used straight out of the mould simply by buffing out with a machine polisher thus obviating the cost of painting and making scratches easy to repair at home ,the result was a gell coat at max thickness to allow for workage, plus we anticipated most of the cars would end up being painted Silver metallic which is not suitable for inclusion in the moulding process . The answer was simply to reduce the coat to minimum thickness for the continental market
So ,all I had to do was start all over again, new shell ,strip and rebuild , right ? Oh forgot resubmit the panels for retest ( pay again )
So ,all I had to do was start all over again, new shell ,strip and rebuild , right ? Oh forgot resubmit the panels for retest ( pay again )
Just a slight deviation to show how complicated these TUV inspections can become when a slight alteration is called for to make everyone happy ( and safe) On the original GP Products Spyder ( RHD) the fuel filler was located on the left hand side of the car with a simple flip-top Monza style cap .
Unfortunately when converting to LHD this places the cap directly in front of the driver and the TUV do not like that, plus they feel that a flip-top is not acceptable ,it has to be a lockable version (with a key). So, while concentrating on this feature it is now decided that a vented cap is not allowable in the event that the car should become inverted the fuel could drip out of the vent hole and create a fire in close proximity to the occupants’ . Well , All we have to do now is build a new mould for the reversed bonnet panel and source a lockable vented fuel filler cap
Just by coincidence I used to live just across the block in Aston , Birmingham from the manufacturer of these caps which were used in huge quantities on Daimler (Coventry) public transport buses for many years before they became the world famous “Monza Racing” variety. A quick phone call confirmed they still had plenty in stock (with 2 keys ) . So we were home and dry ! Well not quite ?
Unfortunately when converting to LHD this places the cap directly in front of the driver and the TUV do not like that, plus they feel that a flip-top is not acceptable ,it has to be a lockable version (with a key). So, while concentrating on this feature it is now decided that a vented cap is not allowable in the event that the car should become inverted the fuel could drip out of the vent hole and create a fire in close proximity to the occupants’ . Well , All we have to do now is build a new mould for the reversed bonnet panel and source a lockable vented fuel filler cap
Just by coincidence I used to live just across the block in Aston , Birmingham from the manufacturer of these caps which were used in huge quantities on Daimler (Coventry) public transport buses for many years before they became the world famous “Monza Racing” variety. A quick phone call confirmed they still had plenty in stock (with 2 keys ) . So we were home and dry ! Well not quite ?
rolymo said:
Fatjon :- Your question Test here, Sell there ? Just does not work. Being a British citizen living in the FRG and operating an automotive business in Frankfurt am Maine I have attempted to perform this in numerous circumstances but there is always some form of obstacle raised by TUV to prevent this course of action being successful . While more people are claiming TUV compliance lately this mainly is due to a greater familiarity with the regulations and a more determined attack by the applicants in planning and financial considerations . The idea of “harmonization of EU standards “ being in your favour is some sort of joke . It should read :- “ there is a law for you and a law for us” in so much that in the UK it is simply a matter of complying with the regs but in Europe one has too also “beat the system” and they definitely are not on your side , often going out of their way to manufacture obstacles which can be ultra expensive to irradiate/comply/ circumvent . The thinking being if they make the project totally none viable ---- you will drop-out . One gets the impression that there is a official policy to discourage all forms none massed produced vehicles.
To give you an example ,here is one of the RSK Spyder problems :- On arrival at TUV we are told that because of the high incidence of fibre-glass cars bursting into flames spontaneously on the Autobahns they have introduced a special proof --testing procedure for FGR/ KIT type vehicles, our car could not be tested until we had a fire retardant test certificated in our possession ,please apply for a retest at that time.
This required submitting a number of fibre-glass panels (test-pieces ) roughly 50 X 50m of the same material that we intended to use and produced by the same method ( hand laminated or chop-gun) . These would be twisted, penetrated, crushed and burnt ( to assess combustibility ) and applied to a TUV standard. Our test failed on ( A ) insufficient fire retardation ( b) Excessive gell coat thickness.
So ! Failed on step one ! Where do we go now ?
Thanks for the detailed reply, most enlightening. So the gist is that while it may supposedly be possible the reality is quite different and if you want to fight it you may win but only after litigating yourself into a debtors prison. Had similar problems in my industry with "harmonised" data protection standards. It would be funny were it no so serious.To give you an example ,here is one of the RSK Spyder problems :- On arrival at TUV we are told that because of the high incidence of fibre-glass cars bursting into flames spontaneously on the Autobahns they have introduced a special proof --testing procedure for FGR/ KIT type vehicles, our car could not be tested until we had a fire retardant test certificated in our possession ,please apply for a retest at that time.
This required submitting a number of fibre-glass panels (test-pieces ) roughly 50 X 50m of the same material that we intended to use and produced by the same method ( hand laminated or chop-gun) . These would be twisted, penetrated, crushed and burnt ( to assess combustibility ) and applied to a TUV standard. Our test failed on ( A ) insufficient fire retardation ( b) Excessive gell coat thickness.
So ! Failed on step one ! Where do we go now ?
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff