New emissions for kit cars consultation
Discussion
Fury1630 said:
But all this is still missing the point - which is that the good people of this forum are being encouraged to get involved in politics & have their voices heard - that's all.
Which is all well and good... but the last few posts have demonstrated quite clearly that there are many people who misunderstand the proposed legislation at a very basic and fundamental level. They are presenting hysterical and entirely misleading statements about the impact that the changes will have.The changes are being presented by some individuals as everything from an assault on their personal liberty to the death knell of the industry (with the ability to drive existing kit cars off the road, along the way).
IT IS NONE OF THESE THINGS
It is a simplification and rationalisation of the existing regulations that will almost certainly do more GOOD than harm, in the long term.
It will clarify and simplify the IVA process (how many times have we seen on these forums questions relating to the proofs needed for engine age?) and it will make the industry more socially acceptable and defensible.
Equus said:
Fastpedeller said:
I did more miles on my pedal bikes than I did in my kit cars - do I get "Carbon Credits"?
What for?You cause traffic to slow down, then speed up once they manage to get past you. You're increasing the carbon emissions of many thousands of other road users.
- I can get to the Cafe 27 miles away without anything overtaking me! I'm not joking - I've done it.The analogy to building regulations is an interesting one.
I have a 20 odd year old oil fired system. The boiler is reasonably efficient but I have to have hot water and heating on at the same time. According to the regs, if I change the system, it has to all comply with the latest regulations. For me, that means new tank, more thermostatic valves, moving the oil tank.... it would take more 30 years of the predicted savings for this to become cost effective so I choose to do nothing.
The analogy is, I guess, when you build a kit car, You must bring it up to current MOT emissions (whatever they may be at the time). The difference is scale - there are rather more houses in the country that kit cars. And effect. The building regulations affect no one - there aren’t any companies out there that make classic heating systems for older houses that are put out of business by this and no one makes a hobby out of it!! This legislation will put companies like Chesil out of existence amongst others, all for an immeasurably small alteration in whatever is the emissions demon of the day.
Equus seems to say it is an easy thing to adopt an engine with the latest emissions. Well, they take up space -my build doesn’t have that. And they are expensive. And they are complex -no one really understands what all the gubbins and black boxes do. Will the programming designed to control emissions in a 1500 kg tin top still do the same give the new parameters it operates in within a 500kg kit?
Ok, so the rules might be seen to be out of step, perhaps slightly archaic. If you ignore the scale of the industry, I can understand the logic of aligning to the latest rules. However, I can say with almost absolute certainty that not one penguin or polar bear is harmed by kit cars (barring unfortunate zoo related road traffic accidents). Sea levels will not rise, no one will get asthma.
The impact of kit cars on the nations emissions is tiny - immeasurably smalll - and in no way justifies a single minute of government or civil service time producing legislation to supposedly make it cleaner.
The kit car industry may be a slightly archaic and almost uniquely British thing, but that is why we should be legislating to preserve its diversity rather than tying it up on progressively tighter homologatiom requirements.....just Imagine what the next changes will be...
I have a 20 odd year old oil fired system. The boiler is reasonably efficient but I have to have hot water and heating on at the same time. According to the regs, if I change the system, it has to all comply with the latest regulations. For me, that means new tank, more thermostatic valves, moving the oil tank.... it would take more 30 years of the predicted savings for this to become cost effective so I choose to do nothing.
The analogy is, I guess, when you build a kit car, You must bring it up to current MOT emissions (whatever they may be at the time). The difference is scale - there are rather more houses in the country that kit cars. And effect. The building regulations affect no one - there aren’t any companies out there that make classic heating systems for older houses that are put out of business by this and no one makes a hobby out of it!! This legislation will put companies like Chesil out of existence amongst others, all for an immeasurably small alteration in whatever is the emissions demon of the day.
Equus seems to say it is an easy thing to adopt an engine with the latest emissions. Well, they take up space -my build doesn’t have that. And they are expensive. And they are complex -no one really understands what all the gubbins and black boxes do. Will the programming designed to control emissions in a 1500 kg tin top still do the same give the new parameters it operates in within a 500kg kit?
Ok, so the rules might be seen to be out of step, perhaps slightly archaic. If you ignore the scale of the industry, I can understand the logic of aligning to the latest rules. However, I can say with almost absolute certainty that not one penguin or polar bear is harmed by kit cars (barring unfortunate zoo related road traffic accidents). Sea levels will not rise, no one will get asthma.
The impact of kit cars on the nations emissions is tiny - immeasurably smalll - and in no way justifies a single minute of government or civil service time producing legislation to supposedly make it cleaner.
The kit car industry may be a slightly archaic and almost uniquely British thing, but that is why we should be legislating to preserve its diversity rather than tying it up on progressively tighter homologatiom requirements.....just Imagine what the next changes will be...
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME THIS DOES NOT AFFECT VEHICLES THAT ARE ALREADY REGISTERED!!!!! THIS HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES!!!
Equus is clearly Sam-68 on the LCB site & is perfect beyond belief, also a good 'ole English pedant - he loves a bit of trolling, tho' appears to have given up on the LCB thread - too much educated opposition there Sam? Whatever you say he will make personal & obnoxious attacks unless you agree with him!
There is absolutely NO reason for anyone to argue about this, if you feel it needs no action, then don't write in or respond to the air quality consultation.
However, if you feel it is unreasonable to drop a bombshell such as this with no notice (worth talking about) then write in , write to your MP, respond online, ask to have your club/company added to CKC joint response, do whatever, but do something. But please respond in an intelligible fashion & do NOT make objections based on vehicles already registered as that is NOT what the consultation is about
Equus is clearly Sam-68 on the LCB site & is perfect beyond belief, also a good 'ole English pedant - he loves a bit of trolling, tho' appears to have given up on the LCB thread - too much educated opposition there Sam? Whatever you say he will make personal & obnoxious attacks unless you agree with him!
There is absolutely NO reason for anyone to argue about this, if you feel it needs no action, then don't write in or respond to the air quality consultation.
However, if you feel it is unreasonable to drop a bombshell such as this with no notice (worth talking about) then write in , write to your MP, respond online, ask to have your club/company added to CKC joint response, do whatever, but do something. But please respond in an intelligible fashion & do NOT make objections based on vehicles already registered as that is NOT what the consultation is about
Mistrale said:
Equus seems to say it is an easy thing to adopt an engine with the latest emissions. Well, they take up space -my build doesn’t have that. And they are expensive. And they are complex -no one really understands what all the gubbins and black boxes do. Will the programming designed to control emissions in a 1500 kg tin top still do the same give the new parameters it operates in within a 500kg kit?...
Like others, you seem to be overinflating the severity of the regulations to be met.The proposal is not that vehicles will have to meet type approval levels of emissions - nothing even remotely close.
They will have to pass an MOT emissions test at 2002 levels, that's all. it really isn't difficult.
A TVR Griffith, with an old Rover V8 tuned to produce (if you're daft enough to believe TVR) 340bhp will pass, with a very basic fuel injection system and a cat.
Mistrale said:
I can say with almost absolute certainty that not one penguin or polar bear is harmed by kit cars (barring unfortunate zoo related road traffic accidents). Sea levels will not rise, no one will get asthma.
You may be "almost" absolutely certain, but you'd be wrong.The impact of any single vehicle, whether a kit car or not, is infinitesimally small, but it's there, and it's cumulative with every other vehicle, so there really isn't any excuse not to apply the most basic modern levels of emissions performance to a newly registered vehicle.
I could understand all the panic and bleating if we'd just been told (like the mainstream motor industry) that our cars all had to be LZEV within a few years, but there is no such reason for panic, and no justification for making a 'special case', for such a basic level of requirement.
If you're unable to produce a vehicle capable of meeting the basic, MOT levels of roadworthyness, you really ought not to be building your own car in the first place.
As someone who has invested a not insignificant amount of money into building a car that is nearing completion this does have me a little concerned, while I’m sure the issue could be over come (in my instance) by installing EFI and cats it’s a cost I had not factored in to be honest can’t bloody afford at this stage...
It does seem like it is really looking to solve a problem that that does not exist but I can see the logic behind it.
I’m currently doing everything thing I can to push for IVA in May and hopefully avoid any extra expense but we shall see, I’ve no idea how they or when they will bring this in (and I think they will) but I’m hoping maybe it will be based upon chassis number and only affect those cars with chassis numbers dated after the date of change so as to help the hundreds of people like me mid way through a build, and builds that often take many years to complete, but maybe that’s just wishful thinking
It does seem like it is really looking to solve a problem that that does not exist but I can see the logic behind it.
I’m currently doing everything thing I can to push for IVA in May and hopefully avoid any extra expense but we shall see, I’ve no idea how they or when they will bring this in (and I think they will) but I’m hoping maybe it will be based upon chassis number and only affect those cars with chassis numbers dated after the date of change so as to help the hundreds of people like me mid way through a build, and builds that often take many years to complete, but maybe that’s just wishful thinking
In this world of ever tightening control of green house gas emissions I am not at all surprised that changes are proposed.
MOT emissions are changing on 20th May.
The new rules will allow kit cars based on donors up to 25 years old to pass.
Those with older engines or carbs will need a CAT and then they may pass.
The levels are quoted below from the new MOT manual.
"The emissions limits to be met are specified for both the fast and normal idle tests.
At fast idle, CO must be at or less than 0.2%, HC at or less than 200 parts per million
(ppm), and the lambda value(1) must be between 0.97 and 1.03. At normal idle, CO
must be at or less than 0.3%."
MOT emissions are changing on 20th May.
The new rules will allow kit cars based on donors up to 25 years old to pass.
Those with older engines or carbs will need a CAT and then they may pass.
The levels are quoted below from the new MOT manual.
"The emissions limits to be met are specified for both the fast and normal idle tests.
At fast idle, CO must be at or less than 0.2%, HC at or less than 200 parts per million
(ppm), and the lambda value(1) must be between 0.97 and 1.03. At normal idle, CO
must be at or less than 0.3%."
I'd given up on the XI long ago, unfortunately. Much as I love them. all it would take would be a clampdown on blatantly temporary dodges to get through IVA and you'd be stuffed, so I didn't fancy risking it.
If I had gone for one, it'd have been with a dry-sumped 1400 K-series, though, not something that was primitive even compared to the engines in the originals, so emissions wouldn't have bothered me.
If I had gone for one, it'd have been with a dry-sumped 1400 K-series, though, not something that was primitive even compared to the engines in the originals, so emissions wouldn't have bothered me.
Equus said:
They will have to pass an MOT emissions test at 2002 levels, that's all. it really isn't difficult.
Not correct. The cars will have to pass the emissions test in force at the time of the IVA Test. May 2016 brings in new rules - including covering modifications to DPF etc. There is also a blank cheque - whenever MOT rules change, kit cars will have to comply, unlike the current system which at least gives stability.Equus said:
The impact of any single vehicle, whether a kit car or not, is infinitesimally small, but it's there, and it's cumulative with every other vehicle, so there really isn't any excuse not to apply the most basic modern levels of emissions performance to a newly registered vehicle.
But the point is, does the end justify the means? The effort expended, and the jobs cost for, by your own admission, an infinitesimally small effect? What about the emissions caused extracting the precious metals to make the Cat? Or to melt down the cast iron in that old Pinto block and turn it into nails? Or the emissions making the new engine to replace the Pinto? We teach our kids the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra - this will force just the opposite!Equus said:
If you're unable to produce a vehicle capable of meeting the basic, MOT levels of roadworthyness, you really ought not to be building your own car in the first place.
Emissions are nothing to do with roadworthiness (sic) in my opinion - they are a political gesture aimed at whatever is the chosen target of the day. Lets not forget Cats were bought in to reduce CO, which was poisonous, by ironically producing CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.....then its NO2 they target, or is it particulates - whatever makes good press!
If you all took the same effort to respond to the consultation as you have endlessly going round in circles on this forum thread we would have a bigger voice and possibly make a difference.
One of the key issues is those who are building (or want to build a replica) will not be able to meet the new regs
The second and arguably more pressing issue is the consultations date of change to emissions requirement.
This will hugely disadvantage those currently building and at the very least we want more time to complete our builds before having to comply.
As you seem to like analogies it is like a person building their own home who is out of the ground and halfway up the walls to be told building regulations have changed and his foundations (footings) need to be ½ a meter deeper next week.
Now stop pontificating and write that response.
I have
One of the key issues is those who are building (or want to build a replica) will not be able to meet the new regs
The second and arguably more pressing issue is the consultations date of change to emissions requirement.
This will hugely disadvantage those currently building and at the very least we want more time to complete our builds before having to comply.
As you seem to like analogies it is like a person building their own home who is out of the ground and halfway up the walls to be told building regulations have changed and his foundations (footings) need to be ½ a meter deeper next week.
Now stop pontificating and write that response.
I have
Mistrale said:
May 2016 brings in new rules
Indeed, and I linked to the emissions limits included in those rules back on page 2 of this thread. The level to be met is the same level that any car built after 1st July 2002 has to meet. The proposal says nothing about how the emissions level has to be achieved - I see nothing in there that says because an engine was fitted with an EGR originally, it needs to be fitted with an EGR in the kit car to which is it donated. Conversely, if you choose to use a carburettored, uncatalysed Crossflow, it will need a modern mapped fuel injection system and a catalyst fitting, to stand a realistic chance of passing.
Mistrale said:
But the point is, does the end justify the means?
That's debatable, but the justification is quite clear: as it says in the consultation document, the current system has the effect of encouraging kit car manufacturers and builders to use older engines as a 'dodge' to make compliance with IVA easier. This change removes that encouragement.Mistrale said:
Emissions are nothing to do with roadworthiness (sic) in my opinion
Unfortunately, the MOT test says differently, so your opinion is worth doodly squat.Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff