Bugatti Owners Club - DVLA - Crackdown on old cars
Discussion
I can't actually see the government not adopting the "grandfathering" principles though. There are so many replicas out there, and what will happen to the famous aero-engined cars of the 1930/40 era? Are all modified cars to be consigned to the history books, from Austin 7s through to Jaguars and Bentleys that started life as saloons and are now Le Mans clones?? I cannot believe that such a broad brush attitude will be implemented.
lowdrag said:
I can't actually see the government not adopting the "grandfathering" principles though. There are so many replicas out there, and what will happen to the famous aero-engined cars of the 1930/40 era? Are all modified cars to be consigned to the history books, from Austin 7s through to Jaguars and Bentleys that started life as saloons and are now Le Mans clones?? I cannot believe that such a broad brush attitude will be implemented.
When you consider how many people in Whitehall and the City own classic cars that to all intents and purposes are an original chassis plate being transported around on a new car then I suspect that so long as this matter is defined within the current government then common sense should prevail. Several factors come into play - like the age of the newest component - if in the example of an aero creation and it is a Curtiss OX engine it makes no real difference - they are well inside the threshold for age related and will be fine.
Bentleys with a body change will still have enough points from their engine, axles, gearbox and most importantly chassis to be fine if the rest is as original spec.
A brand new 'pur sang' is not going to get any points and will effectively be off the road.
There has been no element of grandfathering mentioned in the review.
Bentleys with a body change will still have enough points from their engine, axles, gearbox and most importantly chassis to be fine if the rest is as original spec.
A brand new 'pur sang' is not going to get any points and will effectively be off the road.
There has been no element of grandfathering mentioned in the review.
There is an awful lot of mis-understanding on this thread. The DVLA aren't making up new laws they are just going to use the ones that already exist and actually implement them as they should.
This only applies to "built up" cars, ie those where you have a pile of bits but NO registration documents and want to build that up as a car and register it as a historic vehicle. To do this you need to use all old components and not new ones. (There is some confusion as to what components these are, clearly using 90 year old tyres isn't a good idea.)
The problem is that people have been building "old" cars from new bits, ie a Bugatti made in South America which is then registered as made in 1930, gets an historic plate. It shouldn't, it's a new car.
This only applies to "built up" cars, ie those where you have a pile of bits but NO registration documents and want to build that up as a car and register it as a historic vehicle. To do this you need to use all old components and not new ones. (There is some confusion as to what components these are, clearly using 90 year old tyres isn't a good idea.)
The problem is that people have been building "old" cars from new bits, ie a Bugatti made in South America which is then registered as made in 1930, gets an historic plate. It shouldn't, it's a new car.
austin said:
There is an awful lot of mis-understanding on this thread. The DVLA aren't making up new laws they are just going to use the ones that already exist and actually implement them as they should.
This only applies to "built up" cars, ie those where you have a pile of bits but NO registration documents and want to build that up as a car and register it as a historic vehicle. To do this you need to use all old components and not new ones. (There is some confusion as to what components these are, clearly using 90 year old tyres isn't a good idea.)
The problem is that people have been building "old" cars from new bits, ie a Bugatti made in South America which is then registered as made in 1930, gets an historic plate. It shouldn't, it's a new car.
This has been my understanding and in general I agree with it. The auction houses are full of 'classics' which simply aren't, they are fakes but the ever burgeoning asset bubble serves to encourage more and more such behaviour from building a new car and registering it as an old one to completely fabricating 'barn finds'. This only applies to "built up" cars, ie those where you have a pile of bits but NO registration documents and want to build that up as a car and register it as a historic vehicle. To do this you need to use all old components and not new ones. (There is some confusion as to what components these are, clearly using 90 year old tyres isn't a good idea.)
The problem is that people have been building "old" cars from new bits, ie a Bugatti made in South America which is then registered as made in 1930, gets an historic plate. It shouldn't, it's a new car.
But I did get the distinct impression in this thread and others that there was an intent to re-verify/classify existing vehicles with V5s? But such action would lead to vast numbers of cars being moved to jurisdictions where there is not this risk of losing the history that is currently assigned, rightly or wrongly?
I can't see why this crackdown isn't been welcomed by all classic car enthusiasts.
The proposal is to stop, or at least make it much more difficult for people to try and claim that their cars are something they are not. I think it's great that the Bugatti guys are able to produce a car using bits from various old ones and drive it and enjoy it, but they shouldn't be allowed to then claim that its a 1930's original by claiming the title to some long lost chassis plate. That's the sort of dishonest misrepresentation that the DVLA should be stopping.
The car should be registered for what it is, a replica. Just as Lowdrag does for his Jaguars.
The problem isn't historic cars with a long continuous history, it's the new ones which appear from nowhere claiming to be something they clear aren't or the 'restoration projects' that are nothing but scrap with a chassis plate.
For example, I was at the auction at the Classic Car Restoration show at the NEC earlier in the year. They had some fire-damaged Rolls Royce Chassis for sale which were rotten, twisted, and covered in the remains of melted metal parts. In my view these were scrap, and the identification of those chassis should be consigned to the history books. The DVLA / EU directive will help to ensure that a tool-room copy doesn't appear in 5 years time pretending to be one of those original Rolls Royces. Alternatively, if the chassis is straightened and used as the basis for some Rolls Royce areo-engined special, it should be registered as such.
The proposal is to stop, or at least make it much more difficult for people to try and claim that their cars are something they are not. I think it's great that the Bugatti guys are able to produce a car using bits from various old ones and drive it and enjoy it, but they shouldn't be allowed to then claim that its a 1930's original by claiming the title to some long lost chassis plate. That's the sort of dishonest misrepresentation that the DVLA should be stopping.
The car should be registered for what it is, a replica. Just as Lowdrag does for his Jaguars.
The problem isn't historic cars with a long continuous history, it's the new ones which appear from nowhere claiming to be something they clear aren't or the 'restoration projects' that are nothing but scrap with a chassis plate.
For example, I was at the auction at the Classic Car Restoration show at the NEC earlier in the year. They had some fire-damaged Rolls Royce Chassis for sale which were rotten, twisted, and covered in the remains of melted metal parts. In my view these were scrap, and the identification of those chassis should be consigned to the history books. The DVLA / EU directive will help to ensure that a tool-room copy doesn't appear in 5 years time pretending to be one of those original Rolls Royces. Alternatively, if the chassis is straightened and used as the basis for some Rolls Royce areo-engined special, it should be registered as such.
austin said:
This only applies to "built up" cars, ie those where you have a pile of bits but NO registration documents and want to build that up as a car and register it as a historic vehicle. To do this you need to use all old components and not new ones. (There is some confusion as to what components these are, clearly using 90 year old tyres isn't a good idea.).
Wrong - it applies also to people who had a V5 for (as an example) an old Mk2 Jag and probably some running gear and made a C Type which bears that reg using a brand new shell. Cobras would be another obvious one.There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
Willhire89 said:
Wrong - it applies also to people who had a V5 for (as an example) an old Mk2 Jag and probably some running gear and made a C Type which bears that reg using a brand new shell. Cobras would be another obvious one.
There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
I'm being dumb, can you explain that further as I don't understand. There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
If a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
DonkeyApple said:
I'm being dumb, can you explain that further as I don't understand.
If a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
The mismatched age kicks in and is taken on the newest component - if the shell was built in 1995 or 2015 that is the DVLA age of the vehicle - at the very least it then can't have a '63 reg/free VEDIf a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
Willhire89 said:
DonkeyApple said:
I'm being dumb, can you explain that further as I don't understand.
If a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
The mismatched age kicks in and is taken on the newest component - if the shell was built in 1995 or 2015 that is the DVLA age of the vehicle - at the very least it then can't have a '63 reg/free VEDIf a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
My understanding is that a single replica/new main component overrules the points.....and let's be honest here it isn't really a Mark 2 it is a far newer car based on Jaguar running gear using the V5.
As an example I reviewed a very early car the other day which has had a replica gearbox built since that part of the jigsaw was missing - not eligible for age related mark and needs an IVA. Owner now has to find a correct period gearbox to register the car.
As an example I reviewed a very early car the other day which has had a replica gearbox built since that part of the jigsaw was missing - not eligible for age related mark and needs an IVA. Owner now has to find a correct period gearbox to register the car.
willhire89 said:
My understanding is that a single replica/new main component overrules the points.....and let's be honest here it isn't really a Mark 2 it is a far newer car based on Jaguar running gear using the V5.
As an example I reviewed a very early car the other day which has had a replica gearbox built since that part of the jigsaw was missing - not eligible for age related mark and needs an IVA. Owner now has to find a correct period gearbox to register the car.
That makes sense as I think in reality a body change would also be accompanied by some drivetrain changes meaning a score less than 8. But what I don't get is that if all else remains constant then a body change shouldn't be triggering any change in documentation/ID etc. If the new car is basically just the chassis and plate of the MKII then it's hard to argue against the DVLA's current system that it is no longer a MKII but a new vehicle which happens to have a second hand chassis. As an example I reviewed a very early car the other day which has had a replica gearbox built since that part of the jigsaw was missing - not eligible for age related mark and needs an IVA. Owner now has to find a correct period gearbox to register the car.
I have vague memories of the law suit I've old No 1 and recall being at dinner with one of the people who was called for a professional comment on the case. His view was that the car wasn't remotely original and had hardly any credible link to the original and that the chap who restored it owned the only truly original Bentley from that era as it was a replica made up purely of original parts.
willhire89 said:
Body changes can I think be differentiated where the chassis remains - like removing a saloon body from an A7 and fitting an Ulster - quite different to a change of monocoque as in the Mk2 scenario.
That's probably the point I've been missing. I'm busy restoring three classic Rangies at the moment and I've been picturing essentially the concept of sticking a Disco shell on top of a Rangie chassis and drivetrain in my mind. DonkeyApple said:
Willhire89 said:
Wrong - it applies also to people who had a V5 for (as an example) an old Mk2 Jag and probably some running gear and made a C Type which bears that reg using a brand new shell. Cobras would be another obvious one.
There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
I'm being dumb, can you explain that further as I don't understand. There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
If a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
DVLA Website said:
Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.
So a Mk2 has a monocoque bodyshell and a C-Type replica based on a Mk2 doesn't have an "original or new and unmodified" monocoque bodyshell so can't be pass this rule, so the other 8 points it manages to get don't matter. The whole 8 points thing seems to be misleading, it isn't really a total of 8 points, it's a requirement to have an "the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" plus 3 points from the listSuspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1
Willhire89 said:
austin said:
This only applies to "built up" cars, ie those where you have a pile of bits but NO registration documents and want to build that up as a car and register it as a historic vehicle. To do this you need to use all old components and not new ones. (There is some confusion as to what components these are, clearly using 90 year old tyres isn't a good idea.).
Wrong - it applies also to people who had a V5 for (as an example) an old Mk2 Jag and probably some running gear and made a C Type which bears that reg using a brand new shell. Cobras would be another obvious one.There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
As far as I can see the cases you mention with a V5 are one step away from fraud / ringing. The identity in the case of the Jag belongs to the body shell surely? If you take that away it's a different car IMHO.
a8hex said:
DonkeyApple said:
Willhire89 said:
Wrong - it applies also to people who had a V5 for (as an example) an old Mk2 Jag and probably some running gear and made a C Type which bears that reg using a brand new shell. Cobras would be another obvious one.
There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
I'm being dumb, can you explain that further as I don't understand. There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.
I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules
If a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?
Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?
DVLA Website said:
Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.
So a Mk2 has a monocoque bodyshell and a C-Type replica based on a Mk2 doesn't have an "original or new and unmodified" monocoque bodyshell so can't be pass this rule, so the other 8 points it manages to get don't matter. The whole 8 points thing seems to be misleading, it isn't really a total of 8 points, it's a requirement to have an "the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" plus 3 points from the listSuspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1
If you go out and buy a new shell/monocoque and then source second hand parts for the drivetrain etc then I don't really see how you can claim it is anything other than a new car with secondhand running gear? Even if all those parts came from one doner.
However, I assume it isn't as clear cut as this and in fact these replica kits and builds do use some part of the original metalwork, assuming for example the metalwork with the ID tags, and that this has been sufficient to retain the ID?
DonkeyApple said:
Thanks. It was definitely my not appreciating that the MKII was monocoque that was causing the issue.
If you go out and buy a new shell/monocoque and then source second hand parts for the drivetrain etc then I don't really see how you can claim it is anything other than a new car with secondhand running gear? Even if all those parts came from one doner.
However, I assume it isn't as clear cut as this and in fact these replica kits and builds do use some part of the original metalwork, assuming for example the metalwork with the ID tags, and that this has been sufficient to retain the ID?
If you buy a new shell/monocoque which is basically a Mk2 monocoque then as I read the rules you're OK. The bit I quoted said "original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame". That would count as a repair. Although they don't seem to forgiving when it comes to engines/gearboxes etc... perhaps because the webpage I quoted from is titled "8. Radically altered vehicles" If you go out and buy a new shell/monocoque and then source second hand parts for the drivetrain etc then I don't really see how you can claim it is anything other than a new car with secondhand running gear? Even if all those parts came from one doner.
However, I assume it isn't as clear cut as this and in fact these replica kits and builds do use some part of the original metalwork, assuming for example the metalwork with the ID tags, and that this has been sufficient to retain the ID?
The problem is that for many many years people have been allowed to take Mk2s or old XJs or even say an E-Type and use them to build up a replica of a C or D type. A whole industry was built on the back of this. Cars like Lynxes have become collectable in their own right even when no owner with a brain would claim they were original 50s race cars.
So where are cars like this left now? What about businesses like Suffolk Sportscars with their SS100 and C-Type reps. How much room for manoeuvre have owners of classic cars got now when it comes to replacing parts? My XK150 is mostly original, it has the chassis and body it's warn for ever, at least as well as anyone knows. The engine though is not, it's a 4.2L engine from an XJ so still an "XK". The gearbox is a modern 5 speed unit made especially as a replacement for the XK. I've still got the engine and gear box, but even there the head the car wore when I bought her isn't the one it left Browns Lane with in 1958, I don't know when it was replaced but it was before 1979. Axles, well the stub axles are basically consumables as far as I can see. The rest is more or less original as is the main parts of the suspension, what about shocks? are these counted consumables? The tyres aren't original obviously. If the powers that be wanted to be useful (they clearly don't) they draft legislation limiting the life tyres can be kept for since they age. Currently the tyres aren't of a type similar to the originals, since the car currently has radials fitted. I wouldn't lose any sleep if I was forced to switch back to cross plies, but I think the car is safer (if less interesting) on radial tyres.
aeropilot said:
Hmmmmmm.......there's a fair few fibreglass bodied hot rods/street rods on repro frame rails running new crate motors etc that will fall foul of this is if it happens...... 
You mean they are not actually real Model B's? ! 
There has to be a good few who see this as long overdue and a good thing - probably not though if you're one of those who have invested tens of thousands into a car using another's identity or purchased a brand new 'vintage' GP car.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff