Discussion
This may be pie in the sky, but there are that many of us who want a TVR in this country-what about a syndicate of would-be owners prepared to contribute to the pool to have a car crash-tested here -or in Aus or wherever they (ltsa) will accept the data? What would it cost to bang one?(a water-damaged one or some other non-structural right-off? (a chimaeara + a cerbera, say)
Just musing-but it may be a way ahead?
Just musing-but it may be a way ahead?
We need a sponsor if we want to get that sort of thing done I'd say. And a sponsor for the cash up front, and the car I guess. Would be nice for the factory to help but unfortunately its probably more money than its worth to them without a guaranteed twenty-odd sales. However if anyone felt like sending an email to Jeremy Clarkson BEGGING for their help, I'll sign it! Maybe I should get writing...
I'd say the best way would be to get the LTSA to bring their definition of 'low volume' in line with the EU which is 2000 units per year.
This is the sticking point, as TVR falls between the LTSA's current 200 per year, and what is allowed in the EU.
The LTSA people I spoke to admitted that it was more of an administrative mistake than anything else when they came up with that number.
Either that ot the motorsport exemption mentioned earlier in the thread.
This is the sticking point, as TVR falls between the LTSA's current 200 per year, and what is allowed in the EU.
The LTSA people I spoke to admitted that it was more of an administrative mistake than anything else when they came up with that number.
Either that ot the motorsport exemption mentioned earlier in the thread.
simonsparrow said:
I'd say the best way would be to get the LTSA to bring their definition of 'low volume' in line with the EU which is 2000 units per year.
This is the sticking point, as TVR falls between the LTSA's current 200 per year, and what is allowed in the EU.
This is about to be tested in court in Wellington (not by me). However, I discovered a definition in a legal statute of LVV being less than 500. The less than 200 was written into an LTSA rule. Legal statutes overrule government agency written rules (according to legal advice). This is part of an affadavid (sp?) just been put to WLG County Court in a case against the LTSA.
Watch this space.
Richard
Will be interesting if that case is won, as it'll establish a precedent that'll either mean that the floodgates can be opened if you're willing to contest it or that it'll really put the hurry-up on th eLTSA to restructure their LVV specs to fall within the norm for other similar countries.... I'd pick the latter happening, they'll just hurry some legislation through I'd think.... it's not as if it's a big job, just someone has to write a report as to why it needs to be changed and it has to be signed off by someone at the top..... hardly an exercise in mass logistics.
Esprit said:
I'd pick the latter happening, they'll just hurry some legislation through I'd think.... it's not as if it's a big job, just someone has to write a report as to why it needs to be changed and it has to be signed off by someone at the top..... hardly an exercise in mass logistics.
I don't think it's that easy old chap.
Any changes have to submitted to a annual legislation change programe,next one 2005/2006.
They allso have to be an approved deemed to be worthy submission,ie its not automatic.
Thats what I last heard anyway,could be completely wrong?
Gassing Station | New Zealand | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff