New emissions for kit cars consultation

[RussBost]

Fastpedeller said:

I agree with what you've said Russ, but we need to be clear (and the proposal document isn't) as to what is meant by 'emissions at test date'
My understanding is that it's the IVA test date, not the MOT test date. As an example, get a car through IVA in 2018, and the MOT levels in place for 2108 will be noted on the V5C, and these will be the levels that the car has to comply with. Maybe I'm wrong? Whatever our interpretation, it is indeed important that we send email or similar response before 2nd March!

My understanding is as you've said above, the "test date" will be the IVA date & MoT regs applicable at that time will be used for the emissions test - as said, fine with a modern donor, but with an old V8 etc you'd be stuffed - but far worse than that, we would be agreeing to meet MoT regs which can change at the drop of a hat.
With regard to future MoT's after 3 years I think it fairly safe to assume that nothing would be applied retrospectively as you couldn't single out kitcars as separate to other road vehicles so whatever limits were tested at IVA would be the same for subsequent MoT. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we would have MoT regs applied that would change how an existing vehicle would be emission tested (other than perhaps to stop manufacturers cheating the system like the VW scandal!)

[Steve Dean]

Hi guys (& gals) ....... I've only just seen this thread on PistonHeads but I have been very busy on another forum with regard to this Consultation. (I'm a GT40 replica owner).
You are all talking about this subject ..... BUT ..... are you responding.

I have spent a lot of time this week on the phone to various people in the 'Kit Car', replica and recreation market and there is a great deal of concern. Why would anyone buy a second hand car (of our type) right now and why would you commit a large chunk of cash to ordering parts of a kit. As the Consultation is currently written there is potential for all our cars to become MOT failures later this year.

I note the comments on this thread that some people have been told that the proposal will not go ahead as currently written. Whilst I absolutely would want this to be true, I can assure you that the people behind these proposals have yet to make any response in this regard.

I could write page after page about the teeny weeny percentage of emissions our cars generate (for you info there are currently 38 Million vehicles on UK roads) BUT I don't want you reading ...... I want you WRITING in response to the consultation and your MP.

Please do not write responses that smack of ranting (although I know how you feel). Point out that our cars represent a tiny percentage of the vehicles on the roads, are typically declared SORN over the winters months and only do a very limited mileage when in use. As an example my GT40 has done less miles in 5 years than my big diesel 4x4 has done in the last 2 months!

[Equus]

Steve Dean said:

Why would anyone buy a second hand car (of our type) right now ...As the Consultation is currently written there is potential for all our cars to become MOT failures later this year.

Erm... why wouldn't they? It's been firmly established that this is not going to be retrospectively applied to existing cars.

And with a few exceptions for particularly archaic, carburettored engines, it's neither difficult or unreasonable to achieve on new registrations.

You're panic-mongering.

[richardab1967]

Equus said:

And with a few exceptions for particularly archaic, carburettored engines, it's neither difficult or unreasonable to achieve on new registrations.

You're panic-mongering.

It is not panic mongering. I'm several years and £20000 into a 356 replica build. My engine was £3500 of that. It will not be finished for July this summer so this consultation directly effects me. It may be possible to get a 50yr old VW engine through current MOT, but I imagine the cost prohibitive.

The few exceptions you talk of include most 356 replicas, beach buggies and vw rails. Plus any aircooled VW deemed under the 8 point rule. It would also include many traditional v8 hotrod/custom cars. Most importantly it might also include you if you were to do a build in a few years and the MOT regs at the time had got stricter (why would they not, they got stricter in 1992, 1995, 2002).

Edited by richardab1967 on Tuesday 20th February 13:51

[Equus]

richardab1967 said:

I'm several years and £20000 into a 356 replica build.

Well, that's a bummer for you, to be sure, but I'm afraid you're just unlucky that you've chosen one of the handful of 'particularly archaic, carburettored engines' that are badly affected. You can't expect national legislation to revolve around a tiny number of individuals for whom it's not convenient.

But Steve Dean's post that I quoted was trying to suggest that it would apply to cars already registered, and that as a result it would also kill the second-hand market for such cars. This is simply nonsense.

[RussBost]

Can we please stop talking rubbish! It has been clearly established that this applies to fresh registrations, there is NO suggestion it is going to be applied to vehicles already registered, if you send in objections based on the wrong information I would imagine they will go straight in the bin!

However re the last post - somewhat harsh don't you think?! There must be plenty of people with Cobra reps with Chevy & Ford V8's (obviously on carbs) sitting in garages waiting to be finished; none of these would have a hope of passing the test without major work/expense (I personally visited a prospective member of our kitcar club this week who's been working on a Kent engined (carb'ed) 7 clone for years, nearly finished, but not IVA ready yet & no way it would pass the new legislation as it stands). As I'd already said "rather depends what vehicles you are talking about - how easy do you think it would be to get a Cobra with a carb'ed V8 thro' the test, or a GT40, Ultima etc. If you want such a vehicle with a modern fuel injected & catalysed engine it can obviously be done, but would it have anything like the same visual or audio effect as the original? I don't think so, same goes for any "traditional" replica, SS100, C or D type etc." you can add to that all the Chesil's etc.

With regards to "You can't expect national legislation to revolve around a tiny number of individuals for whom it's not convenient" - but that is precisely what the current legislation DOES revolve around, it's a very small industry which is already struggling, this would be the final nail in the coffin for many manufacturers of older classic style reps. The legislation is supposedly about "improving air quality & safety" - the changes to kitcars they suggest would have NO measurable effect on either air quality OR safety, so why should we be agreeing with them???

I feel the attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should I care" is pretty p**s poor quite frankly - as it happens I doubt it would have a huge personal effect on me, but I don't see that as a reason to roll over & ignore it.

You have about 9 days left to get your objections heard

STOP whinging about it on public forums & get those objections in writing to them, mine went in long ago, I'm sure Essex Kitcar Club will be adding their name to the group objection going in with Adam Wilkins of Complete Kitcar magazine, make sure as well as your own objections those of clubs & businesses go in too.

Fight it or lose it - please yourself!

[Equus]

RussBost said:

I feel the attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should I care" is pretty p**s poor quite frankly

But it doesaffect me, Russ - I live on a planet that is being slowly poisoned by pollution.

And spare me the st about "the amount of pollution cause by kit cars is negligible": if you break down the figures far enough, any individual source on its own is negligible, so stop whining about how poor little you is somehow a 'special case', and get with the programme.

[richardab1967]

Equus said:

But it doesaffect me, Russ - I live on a planet that is being slowly poisoned by pollution.

And spare me the st about "the amount of pollution cause by kit cars is negligible": if you break down the figures far enough, any individual source on its own is negligible, so stop whining about how poor little you is somehow a 'special case', and get with the programme.

Please be realistic, the effect of these cars is beyond irrelevant. It's also self policing as pre 75 engines (visual emission test only) for use in builds will disappear through natural wastage, no need to speed it up.

Its a giant sledgehammer to crack the tiniest nut. They could tackle the mpg reducing wide low profile wheel/tyre 'options' that people fit to daily drivers rep-mobiles and have a MUCH bigger effect on you being poisoned by pollution.

[Equus]

richardab1967 said:

Please be realistic, the effect of these cars is beyond irrelevant.

As I said, that's the argument that every selfish individual will use, to justify their selfishness.

"It doesn't matter that I don't recycle my waste, because the impact that I have is beyond trivial".

"It doesn't matter that I park in a disabled space, so long as everybody else obeys the rules, because there will always be plenty left over".

It wouldn't be unreasonable to provide for a transition period (although, equally, it wouldn't have been unreasonable for you to have considered the environmental impact you vehicle will have, before committing to power it with a pre-war Nazi relic), but beyond that I think that the proposal is perfectly acceptable and justifiable.

We're not, after all, talking about any particularly stringent testing criteria. We're not talking about the level of emissions that a mainstream modern production car will generate when it's new, or in good condition. We're talking about the level at which a vehicle of comparable registration date would fail an MOT and be prevented from use as being unroadworthy.

[Fastpedeller]

Equus said:

But it doesaffect me, Russ - I live on a planet that is being slowly poisoned by pollution.

And spare me the st about "the amount of pollution cause by kit cars is negligible": if you break down the figures far enough, any individual source on its own is negligible, so stop whining about how poor little you is somehow a 'special case', and get with the programme.

The machining involved in making new parts (in order to get an older engine 'emission good', or indeed make a new engine) far outweigh the emission which would be produced by keeping the existing engine.
Equus - If you are really worried about pollution, I respectfully suggest you ride a pedal bike all the time - If the government were seriously worried about pollution they'd make us all ride bikes - Or at least give a tax incentive eg no VAT on bikes. Oops I digress!

[Equus]

Fastpedeller said:

The machining involved in making new parts (in order to get an older engine 'emission good', or indeed make a new engine) far outweigh the emission which would be produced by keeping the existing engine.

Nonsense. That's completely and utterly made up.

[Fastpedeller]

Equus said:

Fastpedeller said:

The machining involved in making new parts (in order to get an older engine 'emission good', or indeed make a new engine) far outweigh the emission which would be produced by keeping the existing engine.

Nonsense. That's completely and utterly made up.

I haven't any data to back up my assertion, and neither have you to refute it! Anyway, no point in arguing, as Russ has pointed out, a failure to respond may mean even more legislation in future!

[MKnight702]

Equus said:

Nonsense. That's completely and utterly made up.

OK Equus, I'll bite.

Which is better for the environment, recycling old car parts into a new vehicle that will have limited mileage or dumping it at a scrapyard?

[Equus]

Fastpedeller said:

I haven't any data to back up my assertion, and neither have you to refute it!

It doesn't work like that: you are the one presenting information as if it's a statement of fact.

MKnight702 said:

Which is better for the environment, recycling old car parts into a new vehicle that will have limited mileage or dumping it at a scrapyard?

... and in the latter case, the metal will ultimately be recycled, avoiding the need to mine, transport and smelt the ore for an equivalent amount of new metal.

No contest really: you're adding the environmental damage of running a diabolically dirty old engine for perhaps another ~60K miles to the environmental damage caused by mining and processing new metal.

[richardab1967]

Equus said:

As I said, that's the argument that every selfish individual will use, to justify their selfishness.

Over the last 12years I have cycle commuted daily totalling around 40,000 miles, how about you. If you even drive a car, you are that same selfish polluting individual.

[Equus]

richardab1967 said:

Over the last 12years I have cycle commuted daily totalling around 40,000 miles, how about you.

I work from home.


...But seriously, what do you want, a medal? Or special legislation that says all new cars need to meet minimum emissions requirements. Except for Richard's, because Richard cycles to work.

[Psycho Warren]

I guess you're perfect Equus?

A vegan living a green sustainable lifestyle with no polluting excesses?

If not youre just as hypocritical and selfish as the rest of us.



while youre at it why not ban all kit cars? they are leisure vehicles so every mile they cover is uneccesary pollution.

same with motorsport, same with air travel.

In fact ban all non-essential car mileage full stop.




Now lets talk sensible - the emissions of kit cars as a whole is miniscule. the propose changes serve no measurable green benefit other than on paper yet potentially are likely to cost thousands of jobs. Not to mention enjyment of the hobby as a whole that involves hundreds of thousands of people.

[Equus]

Psycho Warren said:

I guess you're perfect Equus?

Not at all; but if I choose to run a polluting car (which I do), I pay the punitive road tax and fuel duty without complaint. I don't expect a special case to be be made for me just because I'm such a delicate little flower.

Psycho Warren said:

while youre at it why not ban all kit cars? they are leisure vehicles so every mile they cover is uneccesary pollution.

same with motorsport, same with air travel.

In fact ban all non-essential car mileage full stop.

That's a fair point. Certainly, it's worth remembering that most of the 'insignificant' mileage covered by kit cars is also (because of their impracticality as everyday transport) actually completely unnecessary.

I wouldn't go so far as suggesting it should be banned, but from an environmental perspective there is every justification for discouraging it rather than encouraging it.

Realistically, those of us with any intelligence realised that the writing was on the wall with the introduction of SVA: it is not in the Government's interest to support kit cars - they're an obstructive anomaly to all sorts of environmental and road safety legislation - but neither do they want to be seen to be so authoritarian as to ban them outright. The solution is to gradually tighten the legislation so that they die what appears to be a natural death.

[richardab1967]

Equus said:

Or special legislation that says all new cars need to meet minimum emissions requirements

But thats kind of the point, its not a new car, the chassis, running gear engine and box exist already, if they were put under a beetle body they would be unaffected by this rule and continue to pollute. As i said before natural wastage will put these polluting nazi relics engines off the road in the end.

[Equus]

richardab1967 said:

As i said before natural wastage will put these polluting nazi relics engines off the road in the end.

But you're asking for a special case to be made in the legislation that prolongs their use?

The whole point of progressively tightened emissions legislation is to hasten the removal by natural wastage of less efficient, more polluting engines, yet you're asking for legislation that is totally and diametrically opposed to that, merely because it is more convenient to you, personally.