Discussion
Sadly my memory is hazy on this but when I was at Lynx I recall taking several newly built D types to the DVLA? offices at Brighton, this would have been mid to late 80s, for inspection. As I recall they were more interested in checking that they were legal and having a good look at a proper car, there was never a problem about exhaust noise or Dunlop R6 tyres. How things have changed. Given that legislation was changed some years back to help small volume manufacturers and kit car makers, why are they now getting so snotty, they will simply kill the industry and deprive themselves of the revenue it generates - own goals in government circles seem to be fashionable these days.
Mike-tf3n0 said:
Given that legislation was changed some years back to help small volume manufacturers and kit car makers, why are they now getting so snotty, they will simply kill the industry and deprive themselves of the revenue it generates - own goals in government circles seem to be fashionable these days.
I think because of where the real crackdown started from and has just carried on from there. I could be wrong but I believe that the serious crackdown started when people tried to register the Pur-Sang "Bugattis" as genuine cars when they didn't have an chassis plate. The DVLA clocked on to the fact that here was someone trying to register a car as a being built in the 20s/30s but absolutely everything was brand new. It's just gone on from there since they can't come down hard on one particular car without doing "due diligence" on others.lowdrag said:
But they were told that there was no need so they didn't re-register the cars. And all the Lynx cars are now theoretically in danger it seems. The Eventers, the C-types, the D-types and the XKSS. They built a twin-turbo S-type saloon as well, plus five low drags but I suppose these are still E-type coupés so exempt if the V5 shows the same. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Could this impact my Spyder?
Firstly, as regards the Por Sang episode, it was rather like the GT40s being built in South Africa having continuation chassis numbers. The BOC were so impressed with the cars that they issued continuation chassis numbers for them. The poo hit the fan when a certain Colonel Blimp, enraged that they were devaluing his own real Type 35, blew the whistle to the DVLA.
As regards the Spider, what does it say on your V5? If it says XJS Convertible then you are clean and green. If a coupé, perhaps not. I say this because a V12 E-type coupé was converted to a roadster and the DVLA made it go the IVA route. But, as I say to everyone, there is no actual crisis at the moment. Just don't post photos of your car on the internet, or, if you do, black out the number plate. Yes, the DVLA are getting difficult, but only if they have reason like in the pur Sang case, and as far as I am informed also with another replica maker too. Just keep your head below the parapet, becaue, being a fool and believing what I was told by the DVLA, I shot myself in the foot.
As regards the Spider, what does it say on your V5? If it says XJS Convertible then you are clean and green. If a coupé, perhaps not. I say this because a V12 E-type coupé was converted to a roadster and the DVLA made it go the IVA route. But, as I say to everyone, there is no actual crisis at the moment. Just don't post photos of your car on the internet, or, if you do, black out the number plate. Yes, the DVLA are getting difficult, but only if they have reason like in the pur Sang case, and as far as I am informed also with another replica maker too. Just keep your head below the parapet, becaue, being a fool and believing what I was told by the DVLA, I shot myself in the foot.
lowdrag said:
Just don't post photos of your car on the internet, or, if you do, black out the number plate.
The problem with the internet, is other people posting photos of it........that's why I know of a few people that are now not taking cars to shows/events (which rather defeats one of the points of having them of course!)
I've never had a kit car so please excuse my naivety but can the "problem", if there is one, be summed up as:-
a) You have a Lynx XKSS or a Ram Cobra and you register it as such on the V5 - you don't have a problem.
b) You have a Lynx XKSS and you register it as a Jaguar XKSS or you have a RAM Cobra and you register it as an AC Cobra and as such you have a problem.
Is the problem not of your own making ????????
a) You have a Lynx XKSS or a Ram Cobra and you register it as such on the V5 - you don't have a problem.
b) You have a Lynx XKSS and you register it as a Jaguar XKSS or you have a RAM Cobra and you register it as an AC Cobra and as such you have a problem.
Is the problem not of your own making ????????
lowdrag said:
Firstly, as regards the Por Sang episode, it was rather like the GT40s being built in South Africa having continuation chassis numbers. The BOC were so impressed with the cars that they issued continuation chassis numbers for them. The poo hit the fan when a certain Colonel Blimp, enraged that they were devaluing his own real Type 35, blew the whistle to the DVLA..
However, I wouldn't blame Colonel Blimp but the fraudsters pretending they have a vintage Bugatti. A.G. said:
As regards my Cobra, In 2018 had sent in copies of sample invoices for some of the major component purchases from 1984-85 and the actual chassis invoice from RAM. I also sent a few build photos which could be easily dated by clues in the background. I sent some photos of the completed car, at shows in the 80s, with the show dates plainly visible I even included copies of old style handwritten 1980s MOT certificates showing the car tested as being an AC Cobra.
But is that not the problem, it's a RAM not an AC? Surely the DVLA are correct and it's the '80s MOTs that are wrong? Or have I missed something? Yes the problem is when the V5 description doesn't match what the vehicle appears to be now, so XJ6 saloon when it's been rebodied into a C type replica, with the rules as they are they apply in different ways depending on how the original vehicle was constructed, have a separate chassis and as long as you don't cut it then you can normally send pictures of the vehicle before and after with the number plate showing and get it re-registered retaining the original VIN and date of manufacture as the chassis is deemed to be the 'vehicle', if you have a monocouque then it's a whole different ball game, cut any part of it without putting standard panels back on and you (could) loose the vehicles identity as the body is considered the vehicle, unless you have proof of it being done before the 'new' rules were introduce (and not enforced) you could loose the V5 until the car Is put through an IVA and is potentially given a new identity and number plate (and as we have all just read sometimes having that proof isn't even enough) There are still companies out there producing cars with modified chassis and bodies then selling them, (including some current manufacturers) if they aren't correctly registered what problems are being stored up for them if a customer looses the cars identity and comes back with a law suit to reclaim their money.
Personally I think there should be an accreditation for organisations to achive that proves the work they produce is to the required standard which then allows them to modify cars to a set criteria whilst still retaining the vehicles original identity
Personally I think there should be an accreditation for organisations to achive that proves the work they produce is to the required standard which then allows them to modify cars to a set criteria whilst still retaining the vehicles original identity
RichB said:
However, I wouldn't blame Colonel Blimp but the fraudsters pretending they have a vintage Bugatti.
A continuation chassis number is a continuation chassis number. Anyone doing their research will know it's not a 'vintage' Bugatti. I do blame Colonel Blimp in this instance. Not because he felt his Bugatti was being devalued, but because of his sour grapes.LordBretSinclair said:
I've never had a kit car so please excuse my naivety but can the "problem", if there is one, be summed up as:-
a) You have a Lynx XKSS or a Ram Cobra and you register it as such on the V5 - you don't have a problem.
b) You have a Lynx XKSS and you register it as a Jaguar XKSS or you have a RAM Cobra and you register it as an AC Cobra and as such you have a problem.
Is the problem not of your own making ????????
No it can't be summed up like that.a) You have a Lynx XKSS or a Ram Cobra and you register it as such on the V5 - you don't have a problem.
b) You have a Lynx XKSS and you register it as a Jaguar XKSS or you have a RAM Cobra and you register it as an AC Cobra and as such you have a problem.
Is the problem not of your own making ????????
The main issue is that numerous replicas and kits have retained their donor car identity e.g a C Type replica may be registered as a Jaguar XJ6.
Very few replicas are registered as the real thing.
Edited by mph on Thursday 25th April 20:11
Doofus said:
RichB said:
However, I wouldn't blame Colonel Blimp but the fraudsters pretending they have a vintage Bugatti.
A continuation chassis number is a continuation chassis number. Anyone doing their research will know it's not a 'vintage' Bugatti. I do blame Colonel Blimp in this instance. Not because he felt his Bugatti was being devalued, but because of his sour grapes.
A.G. said:
RichB said:
ut is that not the problem, it's a RAM not an AC? Surely the DVLA are correct and it's the '80s MOTs that are wrong? Or have I missed something?
You miss my point. My point in sending them the 1985 to 87 handwritten MOT certificates is that the mot tester in 1985 chose to write AC Cobra because he was obviously not stood in front of a 1977 Rover 3500. This would surely lead to the assuption that the car had been ‘modified’ over 30 years ago. He would not be expected to have known the specific kit manufacturer. It didnt really matter back then as it was purely a test of the roadworthiness of what was submitted for test.aeropilot said:
Interestingly the advertisement is for a "1965 Lynx XKSS". The narrative then goes on to say, "Originally built in 1986 this car was assigned number LO286 and is No.15 or 16 ever produced by the company". So is an example of the issues discussed in this thread? Surely it's either a 1965 MkII Jag (or similar) or a 1986 Lynx, can't be both. I've been involved with Lynx cars for 20 years now and AFAIK this chassis number is not issued by Lynx. The car is LHD and only one of the nine Lynx cars was made in LHD and that car is still, once again AFAIK, in Prague. And it was built in 1999 or perhaps a bit later. I'd like you to look at these photos for a moment:-
These are both Lynx cars, the top one on Czeck built last year and the other an original Lynx. Note the distinct differences in the mouth, the bumpers, and most importantly the shape of the bonnet between the two wings.
Moreover, note the difference in the bonnet humps. A common mistake in replicas, it is symmetrical like an E-type, not assymmetrical as it should be due to the engine being canted 7 degrees.
Without doubt, this is one of the Czech Lynx cars and not Lynx of the last century. Note the glove box lid, Steve McQueen style, and this could well be the car I saw at XK70 last year. The price is extraordinary, since this car could have been bought for £150,000 less at XK70 assuming it is the same one. And I'd like you to look at the angle of the steering column since this car is LHD. To me that looks dangerous, but then I am not an engineer.
All in all, it isn't what it says on the tin. this car is #15 of nine built, or 10 if you include mine.Their reference to 1965 is the identity of the E-type that formed the basis of this car. Lastly, the car is, again AFAIK, not registered in the UK and would need to pass the IVA.
These are both Lynx cars, the top one on Czeck built last year and the other an original Lynx. Note the distinct differences in the mouth, the bumpers, and most importantly the shape of the bonnet between the two wings.
Moreover, note the difference in the bonnet humps. A common mistake in replicas, it is symmetrical like an E-type, not assymmetrical as it should be due to the engine being canted 7 degrees.
Without doubt, this is one of the Czech Lynx cars and not Lynx of the last century. Note the glove box lid, Steve McQueen style, and this could well be the car I saw at XK70 last year. The price is extraordinary, since this car could have been bought for £150,000 less at XK70 assuming it is the same one. And I'd like you to look at the angle of the steering column since this car is LHD. To me that looks dangerous, but then I am not an engineer.
All in all, it isn't what it says on the tin. this car is #15 of nine built, or 10 if you include mine.Their reference to 1965 is the identity of the E-type that formed the basis of this car. Lastly, the car is, again AFAIK, not registered in the UK and would need to pass the IVA.
Edited by lowdrag on Wednesday 8th May 07:00
All very interesting. My memory on this is becoming a bit hazy but I would have said our total production of XKSSs never made double figures so #15 is questionable. Tony you are spot on about the shape of the bonnet, it should be asymmetrical sloping off to the N/S to accommodate the canted engine. I don't remember any XKSS being LHD and I don't recognise this chassis number. Being picky, that looks to be painted in shiny two pack which didn't exist in the 50s, the factory and we always used cellulose except in one or two cases where we were specifically asked to use two pack for it's durability. Cellulose is softer which is why it will not take a high gloss finish, Tony's car looks just right.
Edited by Mike-tf3n0 on Wednesday 8th May 09:27
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff