IVA dodgers, do you approve or disapprove?

[singlecoil]

I come across this quite often as I read various magazines, forums and adverts- people who have come up with a way to dodge the IVA test which, as most here know, is the statutory test for vehicles that are not type approved.

The most frequent dodge is to use the registration of an existing vehicle, Duttons sometimes giive up their identity so that a more modern kit can sidestep the test, and there have been recent examples of replicas using the registration from cheaper versions of cars from the same manufacturer. For instance, if one was making say a replica of a 30's Blower Bentley, one might buy an old T series Bentley for a couple of thousand, break it, and put the plates on the new replica.

Anyway, I really don't like this sort of behaviour, probably because I spend a good deal of time at work trying to comply with IVA requirements, but I wonder how others feel about it, hence the poll.

[spaximus]

I think it depends. If in the case of the bently the chassis was unaltered and the car was okay then it has bent no rules. Those where they build a completly different car and then claim it to be a Dutton are not. What makes people want to try this way is the ludicros cost of an IVA. with the SVA at £200 when added to the cost of a car it was small, but now if you have a retest, or two you are into £600. That is why people try get around it.

[singlecoil]

spaximus said:

I think it depends. If in the case of the bently the chassis was unaltered and the car was okay then it has bent no rules. Those where they build a completly different car and then claim it to be a Dutton are not. What makes people want to try this way is the ludicros cost of an IVA. with the SVA at £200 when added to the cost of a car it was small, but now if you have a retest, or two you are into £600. That is why people try get around it.

With the Bentley example I meant a completely new car.

I take your point about the cost of the test, but in my experience that isn't the real problem, the real problem is the cost of complying, or, especially in the case of some replicas, the virtual impossibility without so many modifications and additions that it would look distinctly odd. For instance, upper seat belt mountings on a Bugatti 35 replica.

[Sam_68]

Doesn't bother me in the slightest; in fact it should be positively encouraged.

IVA is a bullst, nanny-state piece of legislation.

The increased risk to the public of having a handful of cars running round without bits of rubber to protect their nuts (the cars, not the public's...) is trivial, and I'm a firm believer in allowing people to make their own judgement and take responsibility for their own actions.

[Ferg]

Sam_68 said:

Doesn't bother me in the slightest; in fact it should be positively encouraged.

IVA is a bullst, nanny-state piece of legislation.

The increased risk to the public of having a handful of cars running round without bits of rubber to protect their nuts (the cars, not the public's...) is trivial, and I'm a firm believer in allowing people to make their own judgement and take responsibility for their own actions.

I disagree. Mainly because cars are being unnecessarily scrapped for their identities.

[Paul.B]

Sam_68 said:

Doesn't bother me in the slightest; in fact it should be positively encouraged.

IVA is a bullst, nanny-state piece of legislation.

The increased risk to the public of having a handful of cars running round without bits of rubber to protect their nuts (the cars, not the public's...) is trivial, and I'm a firm believer in allowing people to make their own judgement and take responsibility for their own actions.

I completely and utterly disagree with you there mate. If you were to see some of the build attempts and home engineered solutions that are out there you would positily encourage IVA. SVA/IVA is there to take these death traps - that is what some of them are of the road. A couple of examples .....

Steering column located to the chassis with a 1mm sheet acting as a bracket
Fuel lines running under chassis rails
Brake lines running adjacent to exhaust headers

Yes some of the legislation is over the top but have you ever tried writting this kind of document? Just try and imagine how many different vehicle types it has to encompass. It is not just there for Kit Cars, they are a tiny part of why it is there. And remember, without IVA the EU law would stop the industry overnight. Full type approval would be required and if you thought IVA was strict then full type approval is a whole different league! IVA is our vehicle to build these cars. No other country has an industry like ours.

Also, the cars that are out there without IVA and have adopted another ID. What happens when it all goes tits up? Your left holding the $hitty end of the stick and some other idiot thinks he has pulled a fast one. If it happens too often they will just close the industry down. The beurocrates are just waiting for the excuse.

Anyhow, rant over and lets try to enjoy one of the few remaining thing we can do to have some fun. You want to see the French legislation.

Paul.B

[singlecoil]

Sam_68 said:

Doesn't bother me in the slightest; in fact it should be positively encouraged.

IVA is a bullst, nanny-state piece of legislation.

The increased risk to the public of having a handful of cars running round without bits of rubber to protect their nuts (the cars, not the public's...) is trivial, and I'm a firm believer in allowing people to make their own judgement and take responsibility for their own actions.

The aspect that I disagree with is the idea that people should take responsibility etc. Yes, of course they should take responsibility but there's plenty of people out there who have little or no idea what responsibility is let alone how to take it. Like Paul, I've seen a couple of pretty ropy cars too, often caused by people who are just completely out of their depth and rushing to finish. I've got a car in at the moment where the too short flexible rear brake pipes have been extended with short lengths of copper pipe at the brake end! That's right, 100mm or so of copper pipe coming out of the wheel cylinder and joining mid air with the flexy.

[Sam_68]

Paul.B said:

If you were to see some of the build attempts and home engineered solutions that are out there you would positily encourage IVA. SVA/IVA is there to take these death traps - that is what some of them are of the road.

We have the MOT to deal with such batantly inadequate examples.

One of the things I have against this sort of legislation is that it stifles creativity, and creative engineering used to be one of the things that this country was exceptionally good at...

Do you realise that if you want to build and fly a homebuilt aircraft in this country nowadays, it has to be of a design that has been proven in another country (usually the US, which has far more flexible regulation)? So... guess which country is producing all the clever aeronautical engineers?

Soon the kit car industry will be the same, if we're not careful: you'll only be able to assemble kits strictly in accordance with type-approved designs, which will mean that the opportunities for amateur design and manufacture, and innovation are smothered completely.

Can you imagine the industrial revolution taking place against the sort of cotton-wool legislation we have now: 'Sorry, Mr. Stevenson, we can't possibly let you build a boiler to take more than 5 psi of steam pressure because it might leak and scald somebody'!

Everybody dies sooner or later, so SVA/IVA regulation on the grounds of an infinitely small reduction in risk to the individual or the population as a whole is hugely outweighed by the benefits of encouraging innovation, design and engineering skills that would help claw us back from the brink of being a has-been service economy.

[Sam_68]

singlecoil said:

...there's plenty of people out there who have little or no idea what responsibility is let alone how to take it.

Arguably that's because we've spend the last 20 years legislating society to the point where everyone now takes the attitude that it is someone else's responsibility to protect them from their own stupidity.

People wil only learn about responsibility if you allow then to take it.

I'm old enough to have been involved with kit cars long before the introduction of SVA and IVA, and yet strangely, even before this regulation was introduced, kit cars had a very good accident record, backed up by very low insurance risk/premiums.

SVA/IVA was introduced as a sop to the EU obssession with uniformity of legislation, not because any sort of risk to the public or kit-car owners had been identified.

[Steve_D]

Sam_68 said:

......
We have the MOT to deal with such batantly inadequate examples.

Sorry this is not true. The MOT test has a different set of rules and criteria.
An example I use is...IVA will fail you for using a track rod end from a Mini on your extreme offroad 4x4 because it is not of sufficient strength. The MOT can only fail it if the TRE is worn.

Sam_68 said:

One of the things I have against this sort of legislation is that it stifles creativity, and creative engineering used to be one of the things that this country was exceptionally good at...

With IVA you have every chance to be creative as long as what you create is safe. Almost every other country in the EU will only allow production cars with no chance what so ever of building a kit let alone a scratch build. In most cases you are not even allowed to modify a production car unless the parts are approved by the car manufacturer or in the case of Germany the part must have a TUV approval certificate.

I firmly believe the IVA system works but if people continue to avoid it then EU legislation will force the UK to remove the IVA system and then we will have nothing.

Steve

[Paul.B]

Lets not wander too far from the OP question. You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged. Why? Do you seriously think that Ringing a car is the type of behaviour that is good for the Kit car industry and the right way to go?

Hundreds of builders spend hours to get their build to pass the test and yet you say it is ok to just grab another cars ID and everything will be OK. Does not seem like a good way forward to me. And what about the mine field that is the used car market? The poor guy who puts all his hard earned into his dream and buys a used car. It has a few months Tax and when he comes to renew finds out the car is still down on the V5 as a Sierra. All the builder had done was put the donor plates on the car and told the buyer the V5 is with the DVLA! So he can't use the car until it has an IVA test. Except the car will never pass one as it has been built without any care towards the test. Yes, buyer beware. But does that make it right?

IVA is not perfect but it is a means to an end. Lets not forget that. No IVA = No Kit Car Industry.

Paul.B

[The Black Flash]

Sam_68 said:

...even before this regulation was introduced, kit cars had a very good accident record, backed up by very low insurance risk/premiums.

SVA/IVA was introduced as a sop to the EU obssession with uniformity of legislation, not because any sort of risk to the public or kit-car owners had been identified.

Gotta agree with this.
I can certainly see the benefits in having some sort of roadworthyness test (though the IVA appears to go beyond that, into the absurd at times); but as Sam says, I don't believe for a minute that it was introduced to solve a real problem.

I find this whole attitude of "we must be thankful for IVA" that seems to pervade the kitcar scene rather distasteful to be honest. They will just add more and more restrictive rules and expense over time, it's how they work.
We should not be thankful for the things our "masters" allow us to do; rather we should demand that they justify any and all restrictions with evidence as to why they will be of benefit.

[singlecoil]

Paul.B said:

Lets not wander too far from the OP question. You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged. Why? Do you seriously think that Ringing a car is the type of behaviour that is good for the Kit car industry and the right way to go?

Well, I'm the OP and I'm not sure what you are getting at there. When you say "You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged" are you saying that that is what I suggested? I hope not, I take an extremely dim view of IVA dodging.

Would I change the test if I could? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately there's no way that I can think of to do that. The radiused edges for instance. Either cars are allowed sharp edges or they are not. As long as they are not then inspectors will have no choice but to go over everything with those spheres looking for them.

My setting this poll was prompted by an article in the August Kit Car Magazine which describes an interesting and attractive (and expensive) replica. The IVA has been dodged on this one by transferring the identity of a (now) cheap saloon from the manufacturer that made the car that is being replicated. I haven't reported it because there is not, as far as I know, an established mechanism for doing this (I have looked in the past).

[Steve_D]

The Black Flash said:

......I find this whole attitude of "we must be thankful for IVA" that seems to pervade the kitcar scene rather distasteful to be honest. They will just add more and more restrictive rules and expense over time, it's how they work.
We should not be thankful for the things our "masters" allow us to do; rather we should demand that they justify any and all restrictions with evidence as to why they will be of benefit.

You, and others, are still missing the vital point.....the more restrictive rules are in place and called Full European Type Approval. Our "Master", the UK Government, have allowed sections of industry to avoid having to comply with those regulations and put in place a far less restrictive system called IVA.
We should quite rightly be thankful as the alternative would make kitcars non-existent.

Steve

[thescamper]

singlecoil said:

My setting this poll was prompted by an article in the August Kit Car Magazine which describes an interesting and attractive (and expensive) replica. The IVA has been dodged on this one by transferring the identity of a (now) cheap saloon from the manufacturer that made the car that is being replicated. I haven't reported it because there is not, as far as I know, an established mechanism for doing this (I have looked in the past).

Got a link?

[singlecoil]

thescamper said:

singlecoil said:

My setting this poll was prompted by an article in the August Kit Car Magazine which describes an interesting and attractive (and expensive) replica. The IVA has been dodged on this one by transferring the identity of a (now) cheap saloon from the manufacturer that made the car that is being replicated. I haven't reported it because there is not, as far as I know, an established mechanism for doing this (I have looked in the past).

Got a link?

It's in the magazine, there isn't an on-line version that I know of. In any case, I would fall foul of the N&S rule if I was any more specific.

[Sam_68]

Paul.B said:

You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged. Why?

Quite simply because I believe it is the duty of every citizen to obstruct and frustrate bad or excessively intrusive legislation at every opportunity.

Steve_D said:

We should quite rightly be thankful as the alternative would make kitcars non-existent.

If you read the history books, you'll find that quite a lot of Jews were thankful when they were concentrated into ghettos, as they felt the ghettos would offer them both protection and economic value...

[FlossyThePig]

Sam_68 said:

Paul.B said:

You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged. Why?

Quite simply because I believe it is the duty of every citizen to obstruct and frustrate bad or excessively intrusive legislation at every opportunity.

So who determines whether the legislation is excessively intrusive?

Let's replace the IVA with the testing process similar to that used for home built planes.
First register the build before you start, then at set stages in the build you have to stop until the standard of you work is inspected and approved.

[singlecoil]

Sam_68 said:

Paul.B said:

You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged. Why?

Quite simply because I believe it is the duty of every citizen to obstruct and frustrate bad or excessively intrusive legislation at every opportunity.

Steve_D said:

We should quite rightly be thankful as the alternative would make kitcars non-existent.

If you read the history books, you'll find that quite a lot of Jews were thankful when they were concentrated into ghettos, as they felt the ghettos would offer them both protection and economic value...

Seems to me that you are taking this discussion in a political direction, where I think we should be dealing with the practicalities of keeping some kind of check on the 'exuberance' of some people who like building cars, and are little concerned with their own safety or the safety of others. I like to think that I am fairly familiar with the IVA requirements and although it contains aspects which may strike some people as silly or tedious any competent builder of cars should have no real problem with it.


One aspect of all this which people can forget is that once a car is built and on the road it can be sold, quite possibly to someone who doesn't know what a bias bar is and who might like to experiment with some different settings.....

[Paul.B]

singlecoil said:

Paul.B said:

Lets not wander too far from the OP question. You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged. Why? Do you seriously think that Ringing a car is the type of behaviour that is good for the Kit car industry and the right way to go?

Well, I'm the OP and I'm not sure what you are getting at there. When you say "You say dodging the IVA should be positivly encouraged" are you saying that that is what I suggested? I hope not, I take an extremely dim view of IVA dodging.

It was directed at Sam. He says in one of his posts that he "positivly encouraged" the dodging of the IVA test. I was trying to keep the tread on topic.

Paul.B