New emissions for kit cars consultation

New emissions for kit cars consultation

Author
Discussion

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Wednesday 2nd May
quotequote all
Mistrale said:
We are NOT talking about NEW vehicles. We are talking about recycled old vehicles.
Utter nonsense; a completely spurious argument.

If they were old vehicles, they wouldn't need an IVA.

Even if you choose to recycle an engine, there is no excuse for using one that is so dirty - there are plenty of options available from newer engines. The irony is that they're actually cheaper too...

Mistrale

178 posts

76 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
How?

If I build a Tiger let’s say, using a Sierra donor.

I use the front uprights, hubs, rear axle,rear hubs, brakes, steering - almost every component comes from the donor. If that’s not recycling then I don’t know what is!

Oh, and don’t forget the engine and gearbox. Even given a full recondition it will be cheaper than a £3000+ new ford engine.

So, we’ve established that just about every point that you put forward Equus is factually incorrect. You have a right to your belief about the Kit Car Industry -seemingly that it is doomed and we should all go home now. So let’s do that and leave this thread to those who wish to discuss the actual future of the industry rather than your distopian projection. In the long run you may me right, however I will be at Stoneleigh this weekend shopping for my next project. Long live the kit car industry and the folks that allow us to express our automotive individuality!


Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Mistrale said:
If I build a Tiger let’s say, using a Sierra donor.
Then you wouldn't be worried about meeting these emissions requirements, because an injected Sierra can do it with ease...

The reality is that's not where the market is at any longer, though. The days of Sierra-based, single donor kits are long gone, for the simple reason that so are most of the Sierras. Tiger don't even offer that model any more.

Mistrale

178 posts

76 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
And therein lies the rub.

Whilst people still want to build cars using old Sierras, VWs, Triumphs or whatever, and the manufacturers still offer them for sale as legacy models, then that is where at least part of the market is.

Over time, market forces may cause these to fade away gracefully. But that will be through consumer choice rather than heavy handed overbearing government legislation!

I’m off to work now to emit 100 years worth of kit car emissions in an hour. But it is ‘traded’ so it doesn’t count....

Johnny5hoods

291 posts

52 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
I can't help wondering if someone on this thread might have a vested interest in seeing the redefinition of kit car emissions and the demise of old school engines. If that were to serve a particular person's business interests , then that would explain some of the above comments. Otherwise, I find some of the stroppy and divisive above remarks, on these kit car pages, inexplicable.
Advertisement

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Mistrale said:
...and the manufacturers still offer them for sale as legacy models, then that is where at least part of the market is.

Over time, market forces may cause these to fade away gracefully.
They don't, and they have. If you extracted your head from whatever dark place you have it hidden, you'd have noticed that. The number of kits still available that would have been unavoidably affected by this legislation are tiny, even in the context of an industry that has almost ceased to exist.

The vast majority of people who are still building kits with these archaic, dirty engines do so precisely for the reason that the legislation is necessary: they are using it as a dodge, to allow them to evade emissions testing at both IVA and MOT. How often have we seen the virtues of the Q-plate defended on this forum, because '.. you only have to pass a visual smoke test'?

They're not the cheapest option, they're not the most easily available option and they set a bad example for the industry that is difficult to defend against people who would rather see what's left of it destroyed. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Johnny5hoods said:
I can't help wondering if someone on this thread might have a vested interest in seeing the redefinition of kit car emissions and the demise of old school engines.
Wonder no more: I have no such vested interest.

I do have a (very) long standing interest in the industry in general, and would like to see it survive, but I'm bright enough to recognise that in order to do so, it will need to evolve and move forward to keep pace with the mainstream.

MKnight702

1,844 posts

147 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
Mistrale said:
We are NOT talking about NEW vehicles. We are talking about recycled old vehicles.
Utter nonsense; a completely spurious argument.

If they were old vehicles, they wouldn't need an IVA.

Even if you choose to recycle an engine, there is no excuse for using one that is so dirty - there are plenty of options available from newer engines. The irony is that they're actually cheaper too...
Hi Equus, just so I'm clear. If I wish to build a replica of a C Type Jaguar from the 1950's then I can just swap the original XK3.4 engine for something modern and clean and presumably quiet with no detriment?

Why not go the whole hog and suggest that I should have to use an electric motor and restyle the body to make it more efficient. Oh and whilst we are restyling the exterior we should do the interior too to remove all those nasty projections and bolt in some flat screen technology, sat nav and the like. If I wanted a Tesla I would buy one. If I want to build a C Type replica by recycling a beyond saving MKII Jag then that should be good too, thank goodness the authorities have seen the light.

Just so I'm clear, Equus, your argument has more holes than a sieve and holds slightly less water.

alfaspecial

398 posts

73 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Mistrale said:
Surely democracy is about protection of the rights of the minorities?

There are around 31 million cars on the road in the UK. Critically, any non-cat engine that will be used in a kit car is already one of those 31 million, so there is actually no increase in emissions as a result of this.

How many of the 31 million are kit cars? Assume 31,000 to keep the maths simple. That’s 0.001% of the total cars on the road. Let’s say half of those don’t have Cats. So at the very worst, 0.0005% of UK car emissions are from non-Cat kit cars. Then factor in the fact an average kit car does 10% of the miles of a normal car, we are at 0.00005%.

Transport as a whole currently contributes 124.4 million tonnes CO2 per year. If that is entirely cars, then non-Cat kit cars contribute 622 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Given an average HGV emits 2.68 kg CO2 per km, then then entire emissions of non Cat kit cars are emitted by a single HGV in 232km (150 miles)

(Emissions figures from HMG 2016 greenhouse emission statistics and Exeter University)
(Please check my maths as there is every chance I am a factor of 10 out!!!!!)

So, please explain Equus why you feel this is so significant?
I am not going to check your maths ......... my calculator probably doesn't have enough digits! But I get your point. And I too would be interested in Equus's reply.


When the authorities introduced the 2009 car scrappage scheme the stated 'intentions' were to stimulate demand and improve average vehicle emissions. The problem was unintended consequences - perfectly 'good' vehicles (10 plus years old), who's owners were doing very small annual mileages replaced them with brand new cars. The net result was more damage to the environment - simply because all the other forms of pollution arising from the manufacture of a new vehicle far far far outweighed the tailpipe emissions of the scrapped older vehicle, given miles driven.
And many of those 'scrappage' car buyers, used to buying older (secondhand) cars (or keeping brand new cars on the road for longer), have developed environmentally damaging car buying patterns. Hence the rise of PCP; brand new cars manufactured every couple of years. And the promotion of (illegal) 'dieselgate' vehicles. Both of these (environmentally damaging) consequences arose as a result of a (supposedly) well intentioned Government legislation. Unfortunately us kit car / replica enthusiasts have been caught up in the fallout.

As you (Mistrale) say just what is the environmental damage our our hobby? Frankly insignificant (in global terms). I honestly can't believe that the total environmental damage of (even) a V8 Cobra replica (built using recycled parts) being driven just a couple of thousand miles per year outweighs the total environmental damage of a brand new car, one that is owned from new for a couple of years and then scrapped after (say) 8 years when it becomes uneconomical to keep on the road - don't believe me. Check out Pistonheads' Friday "SHED OF THE WEEK" to see just how unviable even fairly young cars become.

It's my belief that in the post Brexit world the UK must encourage small scale manufacture. I think the kit car industry is a way into this industrial strategy. Lotus / TVR and the like started as small kit car manufactures and, had they continued with their niche product - rather than try to grow (having to compete with mainstream products) they may(?) have prospered.

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
MKnight702 said:
If I wish to build a replica of a C Type Jaguar from the 1950's then I can just swap the original XK3.4 engine for something modern and clean and presumably quiet with no detriment?
If you wish to pretend that your plastic Jag is somehow 'authentic', then you can delude yourself just as effectively with a modern engine under the bonnet, I'm sure.

You managed perfectly well with an asthmatic cast iron, siamesed-port pushrod engine in your Westfield XI, instead of the original's much more sophisticated all-alloy OHC, as I recall?

You seem to be assuming that you have a God-given right to build an 'authentic' replica of anything, though, which simply isn't the case.

Gemaeden

101 posts

48 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Mistrale said:
Surely democracy is about protection of the rights of the minorities?

There are around 31 million cars on the road in the UK. Critically, any non-cat engine that will be used in a kit car is already one of those 31 million, so there is actually no increase in emissions as a result of this.

How many of the 31 million are kit cars? Assume 31,000 to keep the maths simple. That’s 0.001% of the total cars on the road. Let’s say half of those don’t have Cats. So at the very worst, 0.0005% of UK car emissions are from non-Cat kit cars. Then factor in the fact an average kit car does 10% of the miles of a normal car, we are at 0.00005%.

Transport as a whole currently contributes 124.4 million tonnes CO2 per year. If that is entirely cars, then non-Cat kit cars contribute 622 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Given an average HGV emits 2.68 kg CO2 per km, then then entire emissions of non Cat kit cars are emitted by a single HGV in 232km (150 miles)

(Emissions figures from HMG 2016 greenhouse emission statistics and Exeter University)
(Please check my maths as there is every chance I am a factor of 10 out!!!!!)

So, please explain Equus why you feel this is so significant?
Sorry to say, but it seems that you are a factor of 100 out.

0.001% is 1/100000 not 1/1000. 0.001% of 31 million is only 310, but your point is still largely valid.

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
And I too would be interested in Equus's reply..
I've replied to this point several times already. It's never going to sink in with the people who have their heads too far up their own arse to listen, but I'll repeat it just one more time:

  • Emissions legislation is about cumulative effect.
  • In a democracy, legislation (and taxation) has to be fair to maintain the respect of the population who must abide by it. That means that what applies to the one, applies to everybody. By corollary, it means that what applies to everybody, must apply to the one.
  • You might think that kit cars are somehow a 'special case', but there's no logical reason that this should be so. Society doesn't owe you anything to pander to your personal whims and eccentricities, I'm afraid.

alfaspecial

398 posts

73 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
alfaspecial said:
And I too would be interested in Equus's reply..
I've replied to this point several times already. It's never going to sink in with the people who have their heads too far up their own arse to listen, but I'll repeat it just one more time:

  • Emissions legislation is about cumulative effect.
  • In a democracy, legislation (and taxation) has to be fair to maintain the respect of the population who must abide by it. That means that what applies to the one, applies to everybody. By corollary, it means that what applies to everybody, must apply to the one.
  • You might think that kit cars are somehow a 'special case', but there's no logical reason that this should be so. Society doesn't owe you anything to pander to your personal whims and eccentricities, I'm afraid.
The point I was trying to make was that emissions are just one aspect of the environmental damage resulting from cars. Manufacturing externalities / resource waste / not to mention deaths / injuries are just as 'important' as what comes out of an exhaust pipe.

If you take your points to the logical conclusion then ( and I'd not suggest you say this on PH!) the State should set emission targets in stone. Very simply design an engine with the only design criteria being to minimise emissions (at the expense of power and or driveability) and legislate so that every car manufacturer has to use this engine. (or at least an engine that has less pollution)
Lets say a 700cc 3 cylinder engine producing 60hp. Maximum car weight of 500kg, no aircon, no 'entertainment'
A car would then be just a 'device for transporting 1 or more persons on an essential journey'. (And why not make it Illegal to use for any distance that the user could walk or cycle!)


If I might re-quote you - your last paragraph -
QUOTE * You might think that kit cars are somehow a 'special case', but there's no logical reason that this should be so. Society doesn't owe you anything to pander to your personal whims and eccentricities, I'm afraid. END QUOTE
Surely this should apply to all vehicles; no more 4WD's, no BMW's, no Rolls Royces, no Ferraris.

The future you describe isn't green: it's beige!


Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
The point I was trying to make was that emissions are just one aspect of the environmental damage resulting from cars.
Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't dispute that.

But setting aside the point that kit cars are almost always entirely frivolous, so their construction doesn't need to take place anyway (which also makes Mistrale's complicated - and incorrect - calculations a nonsense; HGV's are doing a job of work, delivering food and all sorts of other essential supplies... kit cars just bimble around polluting unnecessarily), if you're going to build one, there's no good reason you can't at least use a reasonably clean, efficient and modern engine to power it. As I've said previously, the sorts of engines that fall foul of the very minimal emissions standards being discussed here are actually harder to find, and more expensive, these days, than those that are easily compliant.

alfaspecial said:
If you take your points to the logical conclusion then (and I'd not suggest you say this on PH!) the State should set emission targets in stone.
Erm.... have you been living somewhere else for the last 25 years, perhaps? I hate to break this to you...

alfaspecial

398 posts

73 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
Erm.... have you been living somewhere else for the last 25 years, perhaps? I hate to break this to you...
Unless I'm living somewhere different to yourself we don't have emission targets set in stone. We have a range of targets. Fairly simple to set ONE target. ie ALL CARS MUST ACHIEVE THIS TARGET
A simple Google brings this up:
http://www.nextgreencar.com/emissions/low-emission...
For example the SUZUKI Celerio 1.0 SZ3 Dualjet
Emissions: breakdown of total emissions into tailpipe emissions at point-of-use (CO2: 2.01 tonnes, NOx+PMs: 0.43 kilograms),



So legislate so that all cars must achieve these targets. No ifs no buts.

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
Unless I'm living somewhere different to yourself we don't have emission targets set in stone. We have a range of targets.
We have a single, overall target for all emissions (not just cars and transport), set in stone in the Climate Change Act, underpinned by the Kyoto Agreement.

It really is as simple as that.

alfaspecial said:
So legislate so that all cars must achieve these targets. No ifs no buts.
I agree.

alfaspecial

398 posts

73 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
alfaspecial said:
Unless I'm living somewhere different to yourself we don't have emission targets set in stone. We have a range of targets.
We have a single, overall target for all emissions (not just cars and transport), set in stone in the Climate Change ACt, underpinned by the Kypto Agreement.

It really is as simple as that.

alfaspecial said:
So legislate so that all cars must achieve these targets. No ifs no buts.
I agree.
So you are saying that you believe it is right that ALL cars must achieve the optimum achievable minimum environmental impact. And surely that means no choice (ie all cars must be to a set design, no 4WDs, no sportscars), nothing other than a mode of transport.
You do know that you are posting on a car forum?


Toltec

5,406 posts

156 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
But as I've repeatedly pointed out on this thread, anyone with an ounce of common sense recognises that it's about cumulative effect.

...and in an alleged democracy, legislation has to be seen to be fair and equitable for all. It's no good saying that the law applies to everybody except this small group of people, because inevitably, and quite rightly, everyone else will say 'if they don't need to do anything, why should I be expected to?'.

We're getting there with the electricity, by the way: last year saw the first 'coal free' day in the UK, and the first day where renewables produced the majority of the country's power. This year has seen 3 days running without coal, and the first day when 2/3rds of the country's power was by renewables.

Time to get with the programme, folks...
The three days are great, however as an analogy it is just like being able to roll down a long steep hill in a car with overrun fuel shutoff, great while it lasts, however you still need to fire up the engine again eventually. If you decide to chuck the engine away while going down one particularly steep hill you will end up stuck at the bottom. You can of course start digging to creat a new hill, but that gets harder and harder the deeper you go.

On the other hand I am looking forwards to what electric motors can offer in cars, the reduction in complexity and the traits that can make high acceleration available up to the sorts of speeds that are useable on the road are quite exciting. All that is really needed is an energy store somewhere between existing batteries and chemical fuel available at a reasonable price.

OK, the latter is a bit of a sticking point, but when it happens EVs will be brilliant.

Equus

4,184 posts

34 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
So you are saying that you believe it is right that ALL cars must achieve the optimum achievable minimum environmental impact.
All new cars, certainly.

And the definition of 'optimum achievable' is set by current legislation (note that 'optimum' does not mean 'maximum').

This is something that is already happening. It's not news, to most of us. smile

alfaspecial

398 posts

73 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
All new cars, certainly.

And the definition of 'optimum achievable' is defined by current legislation.

This is something that is already happening. It's not news, to most of us. smile
So all cars should be eco city boxes? No ifs no buts?

For the record I don't think that EV cars are the solution at least until battery storage is improved or we develop charge as you go (like a tram)
In the meantime all those Teslas are net are hugely environmentally damaging. Constructing a brand new vehicle uses far more resources than maintaining an old one.

Might I ask, out of interest and in order to see if you practice what you preach, just what car do you drive?