To me it seemed to be suggesting that anything which made the car technically different from when it was first manufactured (and in the case of classic cars also visually different) would not be acceptable.

Mines totally standard, just look under the bonnet

Anyway same sham in NZ 15 years ago which meant that you could still mod if you got a special engineers report afterwards to certify it.
It seems to read that as long as is it is certified all is well. So perhaps an additional cost, same as IVA etc.

Im not sure its a show stopper. But might make those 1960's muscle cars more interesting.. Though they seem to suggest they need to be in compliance with the original spec too.

Totally unenforceable.

Imagine a 468 cube stock block with cnc ported stock heads etc.
How is anyone going to detect that? Keep the cam sensible and there is no way to tell.

I think its to stop slow people hanging dice off the rear view mirrors and sticking badges on the sides.
I bet it creates a market in OEM "like" performance parts.

The hotrod guys should be worried though and the kit car types. Not sure they cause any accidents though. They should ban sport hatch's instead.

Basically what it's saying is that the MOT Directive is to be replaced by a roadworthiness Regulation. This Regulation would mandate that the MOT be changed to ensure that a pass can only be awarded if the vehicle is as originally type-approved.

Ergo any modifications away from type-approval would be illegal.

The first point is that as a Regulation, the UK Government has absolutely no say in its implementation. None.

Whilst this all seems quite clear-cut, it would be an absolute sod to enforce. A complete type-approval is an absolutely immense effort, underpinned by tests and a monster approval information document. The problem arises when the car in question doesn't match the approval document, but to test this thoroughly takes a week or so. And what about cars which don't have a full type-approval, like SVA/IVA for instance.

As an example, the approval documentation states the manufacturer of tyre that the vehicle is originally equipped with. An alert manufacturer will quote a couple of alternatives on the approval to avoid backing themselves into a supplier-base corner. Once supplied to a customer, if this new Regulation comes into force, the only permissible tyres will be as type-approved, i.e. the original manufacturer. Same for windscreen, oil filter, spark plugs, bulbs, etc.

There is a portent for this all - the current HiD stance adopted by VOSA. Whilst they've stated that retro-fitting HiDs is illegal (wrongly), they haven't been able to make them illegal - relying on putting a few lines into the MOT. That was basically the same argument, with a false assumption that deviation away from type-approved is illegal. This may all be about to change.

I'm not sure it's being read correctly. The Belgians and French already have draconian legislation, that stops performance modifications. This is why they put so much effort into body kits (to adverse effect IMHO). They don't seem unhappy.

The piece below


[Quote:=Ace]
The Commission proposes to introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. This may prevent most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components and to all types of vehicle).
[/quote]


is no different to what the Germans already have (all aftermarket parts have their own TUV cert for that particular car) and it works fine. When you have your MOT, you produce the TUV papers for the non-standard parts. There's no reason why superchargers, exhausts, suspension etc can't be certified for the car it's intended to be fitted to.

One-off specials will have to be submitted for roadworthyness, before they are allowed out on the road - so basically, if you mod it, then you need to SVA before being allowed back on the road.

If I had a car built, I'd want to be sure it was safe, before I braked for a corner and the extra inspection may be an expense and inconvenience, but if it saves an accident....


I think there's a bit of scare in the story, and this is allowed by the powers that be in this country. When they later say "We have arranged that you won't lose your car, but only have to do X & Y to be legal" then they will look like the good guys.

thats what i was thinking, are they going to do something similar to cali

So basically if you have mini tubed the car your screwed! That would be fun to put back to OEM spec.

Many cars have body mods that are one way.