New emissions for kit cars consultation
Discussion
Equus said:
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.
Progressively tightening emissions on new cars, sure, its not retropective, they are not hastening the natural wastage of the same engine in the same chassis in another car. Yet!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.
Its not a special case, just the status quo, and if not that, a couple of years grace to finish the thing.
richardab1967 said:
Progressively tightening emissions on new cars, sure, its not retropective, they are not hastening the natural wastage of the same engine in the same chassis in another car. Yet!
Its not a special case, just the status quo, and if not that, a couple of years grace to finish the thing.
They are making sure that when the same engine in the same chassis in another car reaches the end of its life, it is replaced with a more efficient one, not re-installed in what might otherwise be a much cleaner vehicle, to prolong the damage it's doing.Its not a special case, just the status quo, and if not that, a couple of years grace to finish the thing.
There's a lot of embodied energy (apart from the engine) in any new kit car. It makes sense to ensure that embodied energy is invested wisely, in a car whose overall environmental performance is at least acceptable.
I don't have a problem with them providing a 2 year transitional period (maybe whereby you need to register with the IVA test centre that you have a car under construction, to be eligible), but asking for the status quo to be perpetuated indefinitely will ultimately be bad for the industry, since it will merely put it further and further out of step with what is considered to be acceptable, as time goes on.
The industry (what is left of it) must progress, or die.
Equus said:
There's a lot of embodied energy (apart from the engine) in any new kit car. It makes sense to ensure that embodied energy is invested wisely, in a car whose overall environmental performance is at least acceptable..
Most of the embodied energy comes from my own sweat and blood i can assure you! There would be plenty of embodied energy in the full restoration of that same engine in the same chassis if it had stayed under in its original guise.Equus said:
... 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.
60,000 miles? I think I did 200 in mine last year so I think your estimate could be somewhat over egging it slightly. Most kit cars do very little miles and receive a lot of attention from their owners to ensure they stay in fine fettle. They are probably less harmful for the environment than a lot of diesel company hacks that are flogged to death and receive little or no attention. But hey, at least they "meet" emissions standards. (IIRC most modern diesel cars that meet the current emissions standards are actually far dirtier than their predecessors in real world situations.)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.
My previous car was a Westfield XI that recycled the components of an old MG Midget built in 1971. How should it be fair that you could drive an MG Midget but not recycle the parts into an XI? Perhaps you think that anything older than a leased Audi A3 should be consigned to the scrap heap, sacrificed on the great alter of "the environment ".
Why stop there, I mean look at all the veteran cars doing the London to Brighton chuckling out loads of bad stuff. Surely they should be taken straight to the crusher, to protect ikkle fluffy bunnies and children everywhere.
richardab1967 said:
There would be plenty of embodied energy in the full restoration of that same engine in the same chassis if it had stayed under in its original guise.
MKnight702 said:
How should it be fair that you could drive an MG Midget but not recycle the parts into an XI?
...look at all the veteran cars doing the London to Brighton chuckling out loads of bad stuff. Surely they should be taken straight to the crusher, to protect ikkle fluffy bunnies and children everywhere.
The legislation accords special status and value to vehicles of genuine historic/heritage importance, of course, rather than those that are mere Plastic Pastiche....look at all the veteran cars doing the London to Brighton chuckling out loads of bad stuff. Surely they should be taken straight to the crusher, to protect ikkle fluffy bunnies and children everywhere.
It's much the same with buildings:
If you erect a new one, it has to comply with current energy efficiency requirements, period - even if it's a mock-Tudor self-build.
If you substantially modify an older building, it has to be upgraded to at least meet basic levels of efficiency, but there are exemptions for buildings of historic importance (ie. Listed status).
If you tried to take an inefficient old boiler out of a derelict property, refurbish it, and install it in a new-build (even a self-built mock-Tudor one), the Regulations would quite rightly prevent it. I don't know anyone obtuse enough to think that this is a bad idea, or that there should be some sort of exemption especially for them, to allow it.
Equus said:
The legislation accords special status and value to vehicles of genuine historic/heritage importance, of course, rather than those that are mere Plastic Pastiche. .
So a LWB plastic beach buggy complies with this special status and can run its polluting nazi relic motor, but a SWB plastic beach buggy cannot run its original engine. Both have the same embodied energy, both have similar recycling of old parts, both probably do similar negligible mileage, both equally support the kit car industry.In fact the LWB buggy could even be fitted with a new nazi motor and be run for years and years whilst still maintaining its historic/heritage importance.
I’m sorry there are ‘special cases’ all the time, they are not special, its just more complex than black and white.
richardab1967 said:
So a LWB plastic beach buggy complies with this special status and can run its polluting nazi relic motor, but a SWB plastic beach buggy cannot run its original engine. Both have the same embodied energy, both have similar recycling of old parts, both probably do similar negligible mileage, both equally support the kit car industry.
The legislation isn't perfect, but it has to draw the line somewhere. The fact that it's proposed to draw a new line where you want it is just tough. Get over it, petal.
Fastpedeller said:
Note to equus....... Engine of donor in lighter kit car (for same driving cycle) pollutes less! Get your maths around that!
Note to Fastpedeller.... efficient engine pollutes less than an inefficient one, for any given weight of car.richardab1967 said:
Oh I don’t think Equus really cares that much about “living on a planet slowly being poisoned by pollution” as he chooses to drive a polluting car.
You're quite right; it doesn't bother me all that much - I'll be long gone before the situation becomes critical.But I'm not so stupid as to think that the Government can ignore the problem, nor so self-centred that I think they need to frame their legislation to suit me, alone.
Equus said:
You're quite right; it doesn't bother me all that much - I'll be long gone before the situation becomes critical.
Whooa, what happened to every little bit that everybody does counts. You've really come down from your high horse of a page ago!Equus said:
But I'm not so stupid as to think that the Government can ignore the problem, nor so self-centred that I think they need to frame their legislation to suit me, alone.
But the legislation IS framed to suit you, you ARE a special case, you are specific tax class and permitted to drive a polluting vehicle in return for a punitive tax. I will not even be given that option.Equus said:
The legislation isn't perfect, but it has to draw the line somewhere.
The fact that it's proposed to draw a new line where you want it is just tough. Get over it, petal
Its not perfect, its clumsy and amateurish legislation, it wasn't perfect when IVA/SVA was drawn up either and if there had been a pistonheads back then there would have been people like you saying thats the way it has to be and people like me saying no it doesn't. I don't have to 'get over it' quite yet as its still in this farcically short and clandestine consultation period where those that understand the complexities can still comment. The recent 40yr MOT exemption consultation was changed only due to representations made. Those wishing to do so on this consultation should either email to ivs.consult@dft.gsi.gov.uk or fill in smart survey here http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/road-emissions/ (its questions 7,8,9,11 and 15 in the survey that need an answer)The fact that it's proposed to draw a new line where you want it is just tough. Get over it, petal
Equus said:
richardab1967 said:
I will not even be given that option.
That's sooo sad. My heart, it bleeds for you. Poor, sweet little flower. 
The most environmental damage any car does is during manufacture, where per car the pollution is orders of magnitude greater that the pollution caused by it's use - this is well known, therefor if there was really any governmental appetite for reducing global pollution we would be seeing controls placed on new car production, taxes, quotas etc. We are not.
The environmental issue being tackled with restriction on emissions is not saving the planet, but inner city air quality. Seen many kit cars being used regularly in the city?
Your argument seems to be that we should all just accept any legislation the government hands down, meekly & without protest, because that's "getting with the program", another accepted truth is that the use of a car outside a densely populated area causes less pollution than - say owning a large dog or a horse. So if the government proposed an enforced cull domestic pets on environmental grounds, would you get with THAT program? What about travel to football & concerts? With TV coverage no-one needs to travel to watch a sporting event, perhaps we should ban stadiums? What do you think?
The simple fact here is that a democratically elected government is proposing some rule changes that will affect the readers of this forum, for no measurable gain. Those readers are exercising their right to express an opinion to their elected representatives - this is a good thing. If you agree with the proposed changes you are at liberty to write to the above addresses expressing your support. There's really no need to be insulting to fellow enthusiasts.
Fury1630 said:
...if there was really any governmental appetite for reducing global pollution we would be seeing controls placed on new car production, taxes, quotas etc. We are not.[quote]
Really???!!!
Are you having a laugh, or have you been living in a cave for the last 25 years?!
Hell, quite apart from all the type approval emissions testing and tax structure on new cars, all this whining and b
hing is about having to comply with a basic level of emissions that has applied to all mainstream cars for over a decade and a half.
You obviously missed the bit where mainstream manufacturers have been told they need to be entirely LZEV within a few years, too?
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd get if the Government said: "Ok, we'll let you keep your dirty, archaic engines, but you're not allowed to take them into city centres, and you're only allowed to do a maximum of 2000 mile per year".
Which would you prefer, that, or a requirement to comply with basic 'roadyworthness' MOT levels of emissions?
Discouraging unnecessary travel of all sorts, yes, absolutely.
Really???!!!
Are you having a laugh, or have you been living in a cave for the last 25 years?!
Hell, quite apart from all the type approval emissions testing and tax structure on new cars, all this whining and b
hing is about having to comply with a basic level of emissions that has applied to all mainstream cars for over a decade and a half.You obviously missed the bit where mainstream manufacturers have been told they need to be entirely LZEV within a few years, too?
Fury1630 said:
...Seen many kit cars being used regularly in the city?
Unfortunately, like the 'kit cars don't do much mileage' argument, this would be difficult to legislate.Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd get if the Government said: "Ok, we'll let you keep your dirty, archaic engines, but you're not allowed to take them into city centres, and you're only allowed to do a maximum of 2000 mile per year".
Which would you prefer, that, or a requirement to comply with basic 'roadyworthness' MOT levels of emissions?
Fury1630 said:
..
So if the government proposed an enforced cull domestic pets on environmental grounds, would you get with THAT program? What about travel to football & concerts? With TV coverage no-one needs to travel to watch a sporting event, perhaps we should ban stadiums? What do you think?
Pets; not a cull, but I would certainly support greater restrictions and increased taxation on new ownership for a number of reasons, yes. So if the government proposed an enforced cull domestic pets on environmental grounds, would you get with THAT program? What about travel to football & concerts? With TV coverage no-one needs to travel to watch a sporting event, perhaps we should ban stadiums? What do you think?
Discouraging unnecessary travel of all sorts, yes, absolutely.
Equus said:
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.
Road tax isnt the issue. Its the effective ban the emissions requirements will cause.I would happily pay extra road tax on a kit car for the high emissions.
If its money they want then up the tax.
Psycho Warren said:
Road tax isnt the issue. Its the effective ban the emissions requirements will cause.
It's really not an 'effective ban', except for the filthiest and most archaic of engines.
For sure, it will kill off carburettored and uncatalysed Crossflows/Pintos, aircooled Beetle engines and Jaguar XK units, but they now represent a vanishingly tiny part of he market, anyway, and remaining examples are probably best left for the classic cars that need them.
Remember that we're looking at MOT emissions limits that have applied to mainstream cars manufactured since 2002... so that's 16 years ago.
The 1st Generation Ford Ka was quite happily using the pushrod, 8-valve Kent Crossflow engine (renamed the 'Endura') until 2008, and it complies perfectly well, with fuel injection and a Cat.
This is not a difficult or unreasonable standard to achieve.
If the proposals are adopted;
1. Kits that use donors made in the last 25 years will not be affected.
2. Kit cars that are currently registered will not be affected if the proposals are adopted.
3. New car MOT standards as ref in the proposal means BET (basic emission test). To comply a CAT will be needed.
4. The majority of kits manufactured today use post 1995 engines and therefore comply with BET.
5. Kits currently under construction with carbs may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
6. Kits that use engines over 25 years old may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
7. Currently a kit with a post 1995 engine goes through a far more strict test than one with a 60's engine but that may change.
Equus said:
Really???!!!
Are you having a laugh, or have you been living in a cave for the last 25 years?!?
I can't help feeling you're deliberately missing my point, of course governments of all colours have introduced legislation to reduce manufactured car's emissions - that wasn't what I said.Are you having a laugh, or have you been living in a cave for the last 25 years?!?
Using an older car with greater emissions will always be more planet friendly than creating a new one with lower emissions. Some years ago now it was revealed that Leyland / rover / BL produced 200 tons of waste for every car they made. While I'm sure things have improved, there won't be a huge difference now the component parts of cars are made on different continents & transported for assembly. Therefore to reduce OVERALL pollution, reduce the production of cars however "clean" they are. THAT's what I suggested the government are avoiding.
The government would like to clean up the air in cities which are now very polluted because previous governments promoted diesel. Preventing a dozen folk a year doing 1000 miles in their shiny new Chesil with a spotless rebuilt engine really isn't going to achieve that. I wouldn't be surprised if the electricity used in writing & reading this thread has done more damage to the environment than a "traditional" kit. Everything pollutes - even using a computer.
Like I suggested, save some power - use a quill perhaps to write to the address above & state you case - or perhaps you enjoy being argumentative.
Equus said:
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd get if the Government said: "Ok, we'll let you keep your dirty, archaic engines, but you're not allowed to take them into city centres
I believe that is effectively what the London Emissions Zone has done, not a ban as such, but an extra charge based on emissions using ANPR & V5c data, a ban would be easy enough, but perhaps they (like the good folk on this forum) don't believe the small percentage of harm caused is worth the legislation.Equus said:
Discouraging unnecessary travel of all sorts, yes, absolutely.
Who gets to decide what's "unnecessary"??I often commute in the Fury (it does the same MPG as the tin-top so it's a no-cost option - environmental or monetary) I drive the kit out on unnecessary club runs - on the other hand I have no pets & rarely fly anywhere. I would do more damage to the planet if I smoked! While you comments above about the house / boiler are fair, a more relevant analogy would be the creation of new steam engines by enthusiast groups. One new steam engine like "Tornado" does a lot more damage that a crossflow 7, but is allowed because it keeps a bunch of sweaty engineers of the streets & it makes people smile when they see it.
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. I encourage you to make yours heard through the proper channels instead of berating folk who disagree with you on a forum aimed at those who deliberately eschew soulless modern cars.
Stuart Mills said:
If the proposals are adopted;
1. Kits that use donors made in the last 25 years will not be affected.
2. Kit cars that are currently registered will not be affected if the proposals are adopted.
3. New car MOT standards as ref in the proposal means BET (basic emission test). To comply a CAT will be needed.
4. The majority of kits manufactured today use post 1995 engines and therefore comply with BET.
5. Kits currently under construction with carbs may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
6. Kits that use engines over 25 years old may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
7. Currently a kit with a post 1995 engine goes through a far more strict test than one with a 60's engine but that may change.
1. Kits that use donors made in the last 25 years will not be affected.
2. Kit cars that are currently registered will not be affected if the proposals are adopted.
3. New car MOT standards as ref in the proposal means BET (basic emission test). To comply a CAT will be needed.
4. The majority of kits manufactured today use post 1995 engines and therefore comply with BET.
5. Kits currently under construction with carbs may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
6. Kits that use engines over 25 years old may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
7. Currently a kit with a post 1995 engine goes through a far more strict test than one with a 60's engine but that may change.
Hi Stuart Mills,
Ooops sorry for post above, I hit the wrong key.
Can you please explain your Point 2 above.
The consultation document refers to removing the use of 'Engine Dating Certificates'. I have a car which passed its SVA/IVA test in 2010 with an older engine. You seem to be suggesting that this will not be affected. Another contributor to this forum has made the same comment. However, I have spoken to a number of people 'in the know' that can not confirm this will be the outcome.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards.
Ooops sorry for post above, I hit the wrong key.
Can you please explain your Point 2 above.
The consultation document refers to removing the use of 'Engine Dating Certificates'. I have a car which passed its SVA/IVA test in 2010 with an older engine. You seem to be suggesting that this will not be affected. Another contributor to this forum has made the same comment. However, I have spoken to a number of people 'in the know' that can not confirm this will be the outcome.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff