New emissions for kit cars consultation

New emissions for kit cars consultation

Author
Discussion

Fastpedeller

2,130 posts

77 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
I'm convinced we are being trolled!

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
So all cars should be eco city boxes? No ifs no buts?
How do you arrive at that?

'Optimum acheivable' does not mean 'maximum'.


alfaspecial

342 posts

71 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Fastpedeller said:
I'm convinced we are being trolled!
Think you are right.


So Equus, I repeat my question:
Might I ask, out of interest and in order to see if you practice what you preach, just what car do you drive?

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
So Equus, I repeat my question:
Might I ask, out of interest and in order to see if you practice what you preach, just what car do you drive?
I preach nothing more than compliance with the law.

I drive a Range Rover and an LPG Saab Estate.

Both are vastly less polluting than any engine that would fall foul of the minimum standards being discussed here.

I do agree with you that it is less polluting (up to a point) to maintain an older vehicle than to build a new one, but we are not discussing that: we're discussing the standards that are to be applied to NEW vehicles at first registration.

My next vehicle will almost certainly be another Range Rover... which would be my third.

The first had CO2 emissions of 398g/km.
My current one has CO2 emissions of 299g/km.
In all probability, my next will have CO2 emissions of 64g/km.

That's called progress... it's what you are so desperate to resist, it seems.

And to make it clear just how minimal a standard we are discussing, even the dirtiest, my old P38 4.6 V8 would have no problem whatsoever passing the emissions requirement being postulated here.

alfaspecial

342 posts

71 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
I preach nothing more than compliance with the law.

I drive a Range Rover and an LPG Saab Estate.

Both are vastly less polluting than any engine that would fall foul of the minimum standards being discussed here.

I do agree with you that it is less polluting (up to a point) to maintain an older vehicle than to build a new one, but we are not discussing that: we're discussing the standards that are to be applied to NEW vehicles at first registration.

My next vehicle will almost certainly be another Range Rover... which would be my third.

The first had CO2 emissions of 977g/km.
My current one has CO2 emissions of 299g/km.
In all probability, my next will have CO2 emissions of 64g/km.

That's called progress... it's what you are so desperate to resist, it seems.

And to make it clear just how minimal a standard we are discussing, even the dirtiest, my old P38 4.6 V8 would have no problem whatsoever passing the emissions requirement being postulated here.
By my definition a kit car is not a new vehicle. It is a recycled vehicle. Some parts (body usually) are new, some parts eg engine drivetrain are secondhand.
If a car is to be classified as 'new' then the whole car (all components) must be 'new' and comply with current legislation with regard to the environment. Fair point.

It is interesting that you drive a Range Rover - a pretty environmentally harmful vehicle (over it's whole life, not just emissions) - but are quite happy to impose onerous environmental standards on kit car fans.




Only joking!



Advertisement

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
alfaspecial said:
By my definition a kit car is not a new vehicle. It is a recycled vehicle.
Well, there the Government, IVA legislation and myself beg to differ with you.

How much of a kit car is 'recycled' varies, of course - an increasing part of the market is for complete kits of new components.

...But as I've said repeatedly, even if you accept the 'recycling' argument, there's no reason that you shouldn't 'recycle' more modern engines. They are not only hugely more efficient, they're cheaper, more readily available, even more powerful.

Fastdruid

5,433 posts

83 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
alfaspecial said:
By my definition a kit car is not a new vehicle. It is a recycled vehicle.
Well, there the Government, IVA legislation and myself beg to differ with you.

How much of a kit car is 'recycled' varies, of course - an increasing part of the market is for complete kits of new components.

...But as I've said repeatedly, even if you accept the 'recycling' argument, there's no reason that you shouldn't 'recycle' more modern engines. They are not only hugely more efficient, they're cheaper, more readily available, even more powerful.
Locked down to prevent any modification. Harder to get working without the resources of a manufacturer and more expensive to get running even if they are cheaper to buy. Not to mention that if you're after a replica that more modern stuff is utterly different in character. Not to mention even the current trend of turbocharging and downsizing.

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Fastdruid said:
Locked down to prevent any modification. Harder to get working without the resources of a manufacturer and more expensive to get running even if they are cheaper to buy.
I think you're exaggerating the level of sophistication required.

As I've said (repeatedly), we're talking about a standard that an old, pushrod Rover V8 can comply with, with ease. There really is NO excuse for sticking with something that's dirtier and more primitive than that.

It means fitting something with fuel injection and a catalyst, but surely that's nothing to be scared of? If it is, then you probably shouldn't be building something that's going to be let loose on public roads, in the first place...

Serious question, but do you think that adding 'character' to what will never be more than a pastiche at best is a valid, morally responsible reason to increase pollution?

Fastdruid

5,433 posts

83 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
Fastdruid said:
Locked down to prevent any modification. Harder to get working without the resources of a manufacturer and more expensive to get running even if they are cheaper to buy.
I think you're exaggerating the level of sophistication required.

As I've said (repeatedly), we're talking about a standard that an old, pushrod Rover V8 can comply with, with ease. There really is NO excuse for sticking with something that's dirtier and more primitive than that.

It means fitting something with fuel injection and a catalyst, but surely that's nothing to be scared of? If it is, then you probably shouldn't be building something that's going to be let loose on public roads, in the first place...

Serious question, but do you think that adding 'character' to what will never be more than a pastiche at best is a valid, morally responsible reason to increase pollution?
There will be more pollution out of a "clean" diesel 3-series.

Because the kit cars invariable do a staggeringly low mileage while the common cars do 12k+ a year *and* the numbers we're talking about are infinitesimal.

For the record the issue for me was less the *limits* and more that there was *no* provision for people who were in the middle of builds. It would have been very expensive for some to have to throw out their engine choice or massively modify what they had to comply.

As for "just" adding fuel injection and a catalyst, you're talking about adding thousands onto the cost of a build.

CrutyRammers

8,933 posts

129 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
But Democracy is quite simply rule by the majority. Minority rights are only there if the majority wish them to be so... which is the whole point in this instance.
But we don't have a "democracy". We have "representative democracy", one of the purposes of which is to prevent the oppression of minorities by avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".

Equus said:
  • 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.
Quite wrong. The law does apply to everybody. That's not the same as saying that there can't be different rules for different circumstances. Take VED: it applies to everybody, but EV owners have to pay zero, while I have to pay 230 pounds or more for my kit. No different in principle to classics (or kits) being exempt from modern emissions legislation.

CrutyRammers

8,933 posts

129 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Equus said:
alfaspecial said:
By my definition a kit car is not a new vehicle. It is a recycled vehicle.
Well, there the Government, IVA legislation and myself beg to differ with you.
In government speak, a car which includes recycled parts is a "kit conversion". A "kit car" is a car which is built new from a supplied kit of new parts"

gtmdriver

307 posts

104 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
Some interesting point (and some spurious ones too).

This is essentially a repeat of the discussion which took place when motorcycles were included in the emission control regulations. The argument then was the same. Motorcycles were in a very small minority group so should be exempt from the regulations.

I felt uncomfortable with that argument then and I still do now.

If you are in your car sitting stationary at traffic lights or any other traffic hold up for 2 or 3 minutes then people passing by or in vehicles nearby will be breathing in YOUR harmful exhaust fumes. It does not matter that all the rest of the cars around you are not producing harmful emissions. The damage is still being done. It does not matter that the people exposed to your exhaust emissions may not come across your car ever again. They have still been exposed to the toxins.

It is not impossible to make older engines pass the Basic Emissions Test that was being proposed. I have a 1972 aircooled VW Beetle engine running on a Megasquirt ECU and this engine will meet the required standards with no problem. It also performs a great deal better than it did with the standard induction system fitted. The cost of the conversion was less than the cost of a set of downdraft carburettors, manifolds, linkages, filters etc.

In reality all these arguments are moot now as the decision has been made. Whether it turns out to be the saviour of the industry or the death knell remains to be seen.

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Thursday 3rd May
quotequote all
gtmdriver said:
In reality all these arguments are moot now as the decision has been made. Whether it turns out to be the saviour of the industry or the death knell remains to be seen.
Very true!

Steve Dean

16 posts

5 months

Friday 4th May
quotequote all
There's a lot being said on here, some of which is like watching cats fighting ....... however, and more importantly, has anyone actually seen a written response to the Consultation from the DoT ??????

I've been flowing this topic on another forum and everyone is jumping for joy BUT no-one has actually seen a written statement. There has been magazine and Club statements but I can't find an official statement. If you can provide a link to an official statement, then please do so asap. We all need to read the small print on ALL aspects of the consultation outcome before we get too excited.




RussBost

55 posts

38 months

Wednesday 16th May
quotequote all
I can't believe this argument is still going on!

I pointed out on Feb 22nd That Sam (aka Equus) is well known for trolling & is perfect beyond belief, only his opinion can ever be the right one, despite any minor details such as overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The statement issued by CKC (reproduced below for those who've not seen it) would seem unlikely to be reneged on, all a bit too public, plus, from the LCB site, some people have had emails confirming the decision

Can we really find nothing more interesting or positive to talk about than this - how about discussing epoxy glued ali honeycomb structures for a single seat old school F1 stylee car - Equus? Any takers (not really, not trying to derail the thread any further!)

"We've just received a call from the Department for Transport confirming that they will not proceed with the part of the emissions regulation proposals that affected kit cars. There were over 2000 responses to the consultation.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said:

“The UK’s specialist vehicle industry is thriving – it creates jobs and gives enjoyment to many, with products exported all over the world.

“We are grateful to the over 2000 kit and replica car enthusiasts, manufacturers and suppliers who took part in this consultation. Following their responses, we have decided that there will be no changes to the current MOT–style testing of kit car emissions.”"

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Wednesday 16th May
quotequote all
RussBost said:
I can't believe this argument is still going on!
It wasn't. Nobody had posted for the best part of a fortnight.

What was that you were saying about trolls? hehe

RussBost

55 posts

38 months

Thursday 7th June
quotequote all
Confirmation of the "Air quality consultation" - hopefully this should allay any remaining fears that it could be reneged on! A great outcome, well done to everyone that responded! smile

The Governments response to their recent Road Vehicles Improving air quality and safety consultation has been published today

“Our proposal to implement stricter emissions rules for kit cars was a minor part of the package. But it raised serious concerns among kit car enthusiasts, and attracted the vast majority of the 2340 responses received. There were numerous objections, pointing out among other things the importance and value of the UK’s specialist vehicle industry. We have reflected on these concerns and have decided not to proceed with this aspect of the proposal.

The Department is keen to ensure the continuing viability of smaller specialist manufacturers, such as companies converting vehicles for wheelchair users. Their input to the consultation was a useful reminder of the importance of this sector and we will continue to respond to their concerns. I have instructed the DfT Agencies to continue their good work in this area.

Emissions approval - kit cars (Basic IVA) (Q16)

In response to the strong opposition to our proposal to tighten the rules for kit car emissions, the Department will not implement this aspect of the proposal.
We have taken this decision after reflecting on the evidence and noting that kit cars are a small proportion of the fleet, cover a low annual mileage and are rarely used in town centres where air quality issues exist.
Therefore kit cars submitted for IVA will continue to be subject to an MOT-style emissions test, using the current criteria in the IVA manual around engine build/first use date.”

Steve Dean

16 posts

5 months

Tuesday 12th June
quotequote all
Thank you for your post ....... do you have a link to where this statement was issued.

I have been pursuing the outcome of the consultation on various forums and so far no-one has responded.

Many thanks.

RussBost

55 posts

38 months

Thursday 14th June
quotequote all
Not 100% sure that the statement is within this document, can't be bothered to read the whole lot, but very obvious what the conclusion would have to be

Link

Equus

3,872 posts

32 months

Thursday 14th June
quotequote all
Interesting that there was also strong response in favour of maintaining EU alignment (q42).

To which:
the Government response said:
The information provided by respondents has been noted. It will be evaluated further and taken into account when formulating policy. Stakeholders were of the view that the technical requirements in the Regulations are appropriate and of a high standard...
It will be interesting to see how this one pans out, given that there will now be fundamental conflict between our IVA and EU requirements.

Who do we think will win Nissan, Toyota, JLR, et al, or kit car builders?