MOT rolling exemption - when
Discussion
I have been hearing comments that the MOT cut-off date of 1960 is going to be changed to a rolling date along with the RFL.
The MOT exemption is now for cars that are over 56 years old and many aspects of the current MOT test do not apply to cars built in the 1960's.
We all know that owners of older cars are more likely to maintain their cars to a very high standard, so the test is hardly necessary or relevant.
Does anyone know what the DVLA are planning?
The MOT exemption is now for cars that are over 56 years old and many aspects of the current MOT test do not apply to cars built in the 1960's.
We all know that owners of older cars are more likely to maintain their cars to a very high standard, so the test is hardly necessary or relevant.
Does anyone know what the DVLA are planning?
Storer said:
Does anyone know what the DVLA are planning?
MOT's nothing to do with DVLA anyway.There are/were MOT historic-exemption changes coming, because of the EU roadworthiness directive, but they were about making the exemption originality-related, not necessarily newer. The only hard line there is "Not less than 30yrs". Brexit...? <shrug>
Yes and the legislaters had quite frightening ideas about total originality which could spell the complete end of motoring in old cars.
Many of us do not want the exemption as we all know somone whose attitude to roadworthiness is downright dangerous and could bring the old car matters into disrepute. Also those of us who work on our own welcome another pair of eyes which may spot what we've not noticed/left undone/etc.
Many of us do not want the exemption as we all know somone whose attitude to roadworthiness is downright dangerous and could bring the old car matters into disrepute. Also those of us who work on our own welcome another pair of eyes which may spot what we've not noticed/left undone/etc.
Allan L said:
Yes and the legislaters had quite frightening ideas about total originality which could spell the complete end of motoring in old cars.
ITYM the rumour-mill did. As usual.But I'm with you on the MOT exemption - so long as the test requirements continue to recognise that older technology might not be capable of meeting modern standards, and that there's space for sympathetic interpretations.
Allan L said:
Yes and the legislaters had quite frightening ideas about total originality which could spell the complete end of motoring in old cars.
Many of us do not want the exemption as we all know somone whose attitude to roadworthiness is downright dangerous and could bring the old car matters into disrepute. Also those of us who work on our own welcome another pair of eyes which may spot what we've not noticed/left undone/etc.
Most of the actual legislation in this case will be unenforceable, Change from points to a 123 distributor? Not original, far more reliable, but invisible if you repaint it black. Change from original brakes to uprated discs? More efficient, visible too, but to a properly trained only. Many of us do not want the exemption as we all know somone whose attitude to roadworthiness is downright dangerous and could bring the old car matters into disrepute. Also those of us who work on our own welcome another pair of eyes which may spot what we've not noticed/left undone/etc.
The change in legislation to 1960 was brought about following a study of MOTs which showed that pre-1960 cars did extremely low mileage. Move on to 1961 and my E-type comes into play. Rather a different kettle of fish to a Ford Anglia 105E launched in 1959. I don't think it will happen. And European law won't count either since here in France for example any car over 25 years old has an MOT every five years.
Storer said:
.......We all know that owners of older cars are more likely to maintain their cars to a very high standard, so the test is hardly necessary or relevant...
That's a massive assumption to be making! - You make it sound as though every single older/classic car is a restoration queen in perfect, better than factory condition.I'd bet that there are plenty of older/classic car owners who proudly polish up their nice shiny cars, totally oblivious to it's true condition, especially when it comes to serious corrosion on the underside of the car, or any bodged repairs that have been carried out (and plenty of owners who have carried out bodged repairs thinking that they are fine and dandy!).
Owning an older/classic car is now quite a trendy thing to do - That doesn't mean that the majority of owners are top class mechanics who spend their weekends happily stripping down and rebuilding their cars!
lowdrag said:
Allan L said:
Yes and the legislaters had quite frightening ideas about total originality which could spell the complete end of motoring in old cars.
Many of us do not want the exemption as we all know somone whose attitude to roadworthiness is downright dangerous and could bring the old car matters into disrepute. Also those of us who work on our own welcome another pair of eyes which may spot what we've not noticed/left undone/etc.
Most of the actual legislation in this case will be unenforceable, Change from points to a 123 distributor? Not original, far more reliable, but invisible if you repaint it black. Change from original brakes to uprated discs? More efficient, visible too, but to a properly trained only.Many of us do not want the exemption as we all know somone whose attitude to roadworthiness is downright dangerous and could bring the old car matters into disrepute. Also those of us who work on our own welcome another pair of eyes which may spot what we've not noticed/left undone/etc.
I strongly suspect that most pre 1960 cars on the road are better maintained than a lot of 10 to 15 year old cars.
Owners of pre 1960 cars do tend to fall in two camps. The DIYers and the cheque book owner. Maybe the cars are not always 100% but how many cars are 100% 6 months after an MOT?
Most old cars are not driven often, hard, long distances or even on motorways. I imagine the insurance claims for these old cars would show the risks to other road users/their drivers are much lower than everyday cars.
This country has a major old car industry, with many people employed in all aspects including a substantial export/foreign currency earning benefit to the economy. You only have to look across the Channel at France to see what their draconian legislation has done to their old car scene.
Comparing a Jaguar XK150 of 1959 with and E Type of the early 60's would be a better match. In terms of relative performance they are not far apart but the 150 needs no MOT.
I see no issue with the MOT exemption date becoming a rolling 55 year age limit. If an issue appears then it can be tweaked to eliminate the issue.
Owners of pre 1960 cars do tend to fall in two camps. The DIYers and the cheque book owner. Maybe the cars are not always 100% but how many cars are 100% 6 months after an MOT?
Most old cars are not driven often, hard, long distances or even on motorways. I imagine the insurance claims for these old cars would show the risks to other road users/their drivers are much lower than everyday cars.
This country has a major old car industry, with many people employed in all aspects including a substantial export/foreign currency earning benefit to the economy. You only have to look across the Channel at France to see what their draconian legislation has done to their old car scene.
Comparing a Jaguar XK150 of 1959 with and E Type of the early 60's would be a better match. In terms of relative performance they are not far apart but the 150 needs no MOT.
I see no issue with the MOT exemption date becoming a rolling 55 year age limit. If an issue appears then it can be tweaked to eliminate the issue.
4rephill said:
Storer said:
.......We all know that owners of older cars are more likely to maintain their cars to a very high standard, so the test is hardly necessary or relevant...
That's a massive assumption to be making! - You make it sound as though every single older/classic car is a restoration queen in perfect, better than factory condition.I'd bet that there are plenty of older/classic car owners who proudly polish up their nice shiny cars, totally oblivious to it's true condition, especially when it comes to serious corrosion on the underside of the car, or any bodged repairs that have been carried out (and plenty of owners who have carried out bodged repairs thinking that they are fine and dandy!).
Owning an older/classic car is now quite a trendy thing to do - That doesn't mean that the majority of owners are top class mechanics who spend their weekends happily stripping down and rebuilding their cars!
So multiply that type of person by thousands and that could be the amount of dodgy cars on the road and since buying it I've met up with quite a few historic car owners that have little or no knowledge of car maintenance and don't get their pre 60 P&Js MOTd, It's quite frightening to think about.
BTW this wasn't brought in for any other reason than to comply with an EU directive.
Storer said:
I strongly suspect that most pre 1960 cars on the road are better maintained than a lot of 10 to 15 year old cars.
With 2cvs, there are big problems with ID swapping, so you've got a "1959" car that's actually a 1980s one with a bonnet swap and some windows filled in. Mix that with a bit of "What do you mean, polish isn't maintenance?", and there are cars which would badly fail the MOT they're not getting.chevy55 said:
BTW this wasn't brought in for any other reason than to comply with an EU directive.
My belief as well. The issue with old cars is the engineering can often be quite different to present day practice. In the days when MOTs were required by all cars, a friend had to dangerously overtighten a steering joint on a vintage Morgan to get a pass, then loosen it again to drive home. The idea that a sprung taper joint needs to have play (spring not fully compressed) never occurred to the tester.Plenty of similar tales in the old car world but for the most part, these cars are either owned by folk who can fix just about anything, or have a mate who can do the bits they can't.
To my mind though, 1960 is too new, I said 1945 in the consultation on the matter some years ago.
Maybe I grew up at a time when you had to take a car's foibles into account. First car was a Mini 1000 on drum brakes which handled quite well, then on to a Triumph GT6 with the rear axle hop. Later a new Golf GTI 1.6 Mk1 where the brakes would fade to nothing if pushed hard..
I have and do drive many types of vehicle, I even have a licence to drive a tank on the road! My current fleet includes a Discovery and an Ultima, which tend to drive rather differently!
If you are only used to modern cars that take no effort to drive and you 'always' have the radio on then maybe an MOT is essential.
I have and do drive many types of vehicle, I even have a licence to drive a tank on the road! My current fleet includes a Discovery and an Ultima, which tend to drive rather differently!
If you are only used to modern cars that take no effort to drive and you 'always' have the radio on then maybe an MOT is essential.
Slidingpillar said:
To my mind though, 1960 is too new, I said 1945 in the consultation on the matter some years ago.
I'd tend to agree 1960 is a little too new, but 1945 is an odd date to pick as you may as well just say pre-WW2, given that there were was virtually no civilian car production during the war in Europe and none in USA from early '42.1950 would be the ideal cut-off date, as the early post war civilian production was pretty much the pre-war stuff put back in production and would also mean that monocoque/unitary body cars with possible hidden corrosion issues would be excluded as these didn't really enter serious production until after 1950.
aeropilot said:
1950 would be the ideal cut-off date, as the early post war civilian production was pretty much the pre-war stuff put back in production and would also mean that monocoque/unitary body cars with possible hidden corrosion issues would be excluded as these didn't really enter serious production until after 1950.
1922, with mainstream mass-production (and fwd) in 1934.aeropilot said:
I'd tend to agree 1960 is a little too new, but 1945 is an odd date to pick as you may as well just say pre-WW2, given that there were was virtually no civilian car production during the war in Europe and none in USA from early '42.
1950 would be the ideal cut-off date, as the early post war civilian production was pretty much the pre-war stuff put back in production and would also mean that monocoque/unitary body cars with possible hidden corrosion issues would be excluded as these didn't really enter serious production until after 1950.
The reason I didn't say 1950 was the fact quite a few new models were now made with new features and more up to date engineering. The cars the industry produced just after the war were the same as were made in 1939, but two years later, progress was being made.1950 would be the ideal cut-off date, as the early post war civilian production was pretty much the pre-war stuff put back in production and would also mean that monocoque/unitary body cars with possible hidden corrosion issues would be excluded as these didn't really enter serious production until after 1950.
My grandfather kept a car in his garage all through the war, and sold it after the war at a profit... He then bought a new car about a year later which he said was a dreadful thing and replaced that quite quickly too. He must have known someone as getting a new car at that time was not usually very easy (or so the books say).
Point being, by 1949 one could buy an Austin Devon which was a mix of both pre and post war technologies and the first of the Morris Minors. That was a bit antiquated in the engine department, but advanced elsewhere. Monocoque too. Many other examples too.
Slidingpillar said:
aeropilot said:
I'd tend to agree 1960 is a little too new, but 1945 is an odd date to pick as you may as well just say pre-WW2, given that there were was virtually no civilian car production during the war in Europe and none in USA from early '42.
1950 would be the ideal cut-off date, as the early post war civilian production was pretty much the pre-war stuff put back in production and would also mean that monocoque/unitary body cars with possible hidden corrosion issues would be excluded as these didn't really enter serious production until after 1950.
The reason I didn't say 1950 was the fact quite a few new models were now made with new features and more up to date engineering. The cars the industry produced just after the war were the same as were made in 1939, but two years later, progress was being made.1950 would be the ideal cut-off date, as the early post war civilian production was pretty much the pre-war stuff put back in production and would also mean that monocoque/unitary body cars with possible hidden corrosion issues would be excluded as these didn't really enter serious production until after 1950.
My grandfather kept a car in his garage all through the war, and sold it after the war at a profit... He then bought a new car about a year later which he said was a dreadful thing and replaced that quite quickly too. He must have known someone as getting a new car at that time was not usually very easy (or so the books say).
Point being, by 1949 one could buy an Austin Devon which was a mix of both pre and post war technologies and the first of the Morris Minors. That was a bit antiquated in the engine department, but advanced elsewhere. Monocoque too. Many other examples too.
TooMany2cvs said:
With 2cvs, there are big problems with ID swapping, so you've got a "1959" car that's actually a 1980s one with a bonnet swap and some windows filled in.
That applies to all makes of car, for sure. And especially to bikes. Retapping engine numbers, swapping chassis plates, all of this was part of everyday life until comparatively recent times. It wasn't in my day to make money for most of us, just to keep on the road. I persoanlly looked at one car a few years back now worth over £10 million and the retapped numbers were so blatant. "Matching numbers game" that. "Plating" as it was called by the scrappies, was done a lot to save and sell registration numbers too. My father owned a Ford main dealership after the war and money was so easy to make then. With a waiting list of several years for a car all he had to do was register the car as his demonstrator and sell it next day for a serious profit.
lowdrag said:
TooMany2cvs said:
With 2cvs, there are big problems with ID swapping, so you've got a "1959" car that's actually a 1980s one with a bonnet swap and some windows filled in.
That applies to all makes of car, for sure.The Beetle, Mini, Landy boys do a lot of swapping-around to get round paying VED, which is what drove it all originally, before it got back to being rolling - but claiming a Defender was a s1, f'rinstance, would be a bit too obvious even for them. So they are at least "60s/early 70s" cars officially.
OTOH, "restoring" a 50s ripple 2cv (12bhp, 425cc, LHD) to RHD/602/30bhp/disk by effectively taking a 1980s car and changing the bonnet, the ID and filling in the rear quarter windows? Rife. There was a photo of a fine example doing the rounds the other day - the last few MOTs were all first-time fails on a whole raft of minor poor-maintenance rubbish, with a list of advisories a mile long. Then there's no MOT at all for the last few years. Any bets on whether the maintenance regime's improved?
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff