Andy Palmer "launched an investigation" re "Works"
Discussion
Regarding modified classics in general, DVLA has published their draft guidance re cars that have substantial changes. Major implications, especially for vehicles modified but not notified to DVLA previously. Literally, every Zagato, DB4 GT, and Volante/Convertible recreation since 1983 created from a standard DB4/5/6 saloon, that has not gone through DVLA process is going to have issues as they have either had 5 inches taken from chassis or have a modified chassis.
Have created an article here that has links to DVLA source and covers, I believe, what is happening. Please share as it looks like within 20 months DVLA will have a good handle on their car database and all classic car owners that have mods need to be aware.
What is most worrying is that the proposal, to be implemented next year, is for car owners to declare yearly that their car has not had "substantial change", I believe within 8 point rule, since 1988. If you lie, then the MOT station may be required to report, I believe, cars not as described.
Loads of Aston Martin cars may be affected by this scenario.
Have created an article here that has links to DVLA source and covers, I believe, what is happening. Please share as it looks like within 20 months DVLA will have a good handle on their car database and all classic car owners that have mods need to be aware.
What is most worrying is that the proposal, to be implemented next year, is for car owners to declare yearly that their car has not had "substantial change", I believe within 8 point rule, since 1988. If you lie, then the MOT station may be required to report, I believe, cars not as described.
Loads of Aston Martin cars may be affected by this scenario.
Right just help me out a bit with this reading it quick.
Basically modified cars such as having 5 inch shortening of the frame, should have a check like a new kit car ( I don't recall the name of the check to get it on the road).
Or major engine upgrade / brakes etc from original spec etc.
is works a kinda tuning / one off changed division of Aston Martian ? And they have been producting cars on standard v5 frame etc and now it's going to be a problem ?
Is this the basics of it all ?
Basically modified cars such as having 5 inch shortening of the frame, should have a check like a new kit car ( I don't recall the name of the check to get it on the road).
Or major engine upgrade / brakes etc from original spec etc.
is works a kinda tuning / one off changed division of Aston Martian ? And they have been producting cars on standard v5 frame etc and now it's going to be a problem ?
Is this the basics of it all ?
It is all here - at present. Will probably get more onerous shortly. Incredibly simple. Since 1983 Q was introduced and there were probably rules before. New info from DVLA covers this grey area. What is required to retain a vehicle ID is compliance with eight point rule of which "5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame". Therefore, every single Zagato, DB4 GT or convertible/Volante recreation from a saloon DB4/5/6 is in trouble unless notified to DVLA and gone through BIVA/IVA procedure. They are all Q at best. My article above explains what happened re DVLA yesterday.
Within 20 months, most of these issues will crystallise and there will be innocent people holding cars that they thought were worth X and are now worth X- Y%. Y will be large. Can imagine a litigation gold mine re all of this. Have found 17 million pounds worth of cars myself without looking too hard.
Within 20 months, most of these issues will crystallise and there will be innocent people holding cars that they thought were worth X and are now worth X- Y%. Y will be large. Can imagine a litigation gold mine re all of this. Have found 17 million pounds worth of cars myself without looking too hard.
Edited by SDB660 on Friday 15th September 01:21
A very interesting scenario to say the least.
In 1979 NCAP started 'assessments' at 30mph frontal crash of many popular cars, various other bodies Worldwide conducted research of crash performance culminating in first crash regs in about 1998. Obviously seatbelts and other compulsory kit was introduced prior to '98, but '98 represents the first tested standard for actual crash, everything prior was safety features (padded dashboards, headrests and the like) to help sell a car on its safety because NCAP only produced a league table of results. Meaning any new legislation such as what's tabled applied to a pre 1998 car is highly debatable?
If you ever looked at a DB5/6 chassis on a ramp, and other crash sensitive design / parts such as the pedal box, the dashboard, the steering wheel and column, the door aperture, and then consider where everything is likely to crumple / crease in any accident above walking pace and impale occupants, you suddenly draw the conclusion its highly likely serious injury is inevitable in an incident and understand / it dawns on you that going for a drive in any older car is quite risky by today's benign car safety standards.
In the case of a chassis which predates a test standard, so in standard guise the chassis is of unknown crash performance, who can say if 1 inch, 2 inch, or 6 inch shortening is significant? It could be the case that reducing the chassis 6 inches moves the crease / crumple point away from the position of standard car crease and crumple and actually saves driver an injury - nobody knows the answer because nothing was ever tested to pass a standard. So whoever wrote the DVLA spec is in effect guessing at the thresholds which cars can be modified up to. Surely given the vintage, a simple single vehicle sign off test to the most basic standard (along the lines of the abolished VIC test) is sufficient and talk of Q plates or worse is utter nonsense?
What's the agenda for the shakeup? Classic cars is minority of cars on the road and only getting smaller as years go by, the changes are unlikely to effect pedestrian crash, so the only party put at potential risk is the person choosing to sit in drivers seat at his / her own risk in a car which predates a test standard.
Madness, the start of a path to get anything but a square box driverless electric vehicle off the road.
In 1979 NCAP started 'assessments' at 30mph frontal crash of many popular cars, various other bodies Worldwide conducted research of crash performance culminating in first crash regs in about 1998. Obviously seatbelts and other compulsory kit was introduced prior to '98, but '98 represents the first tested standard for actual crash, everything prior was safety features (padded dashboards, headrests and the like) to help sell a car on its safety because NCAP only produced a league table of results. Meaning any new legislation such as what's tabled applied to a pre 1998 car is highly debatable?
If you ever looked at a DB5/6 chassis on a ramp, and other crash sensitive design / parts such as the pedal box, the dashboard, the steering wheel and column, the door aperture, and then consider where everything is likely to crumple / crease in any accident above walking pace and impale occupants, you suddenly draw the conclusion its highly likely serious injury is inevitable in an incident and understand / it dawns on you that going for a drive in any older car is quite risky by today's benign car safety standards.
In the case of a chassis which predates a test standard, so in standard guise the chassis is of unknown crash performance, who can say if 1 inch, 2 inch, or 6 inch shortening is significant? It could be the case that reducing the chassis 6 inches moves the crease / crumple point away from the position of standard car crease and crumple and actually saves driver an injury - nobody knows the answer because nothing was ever tested to pass a standard. So whoever wrote the DVLA spec is in effect guessing at the thresholds which cars can be modified up to. Surely given the vintage, a simple single vehicle sign off test to the most basic standard (along the lines of the abolished VIC test) is sufficient and talk of Q plates or worse is utter nonsense?
What's the agenda for the shakeup? Classic cars is minority of cars on the road and only getting smaller as years go by, the changes are unlikely to effect pedestrian crash, so the only party put at potential risk is the person choosing to sit in drivers seat at his / her own risk in a car which predates a test standard.
Madness, the start of a path to get anything but a square box driverless electric vehicle off the road.
Key dates are 1983 when Q came in, 1998 when SVA was introduced and the year following next May.
I do not know why Q came about, but at a guess would say it was to cut down on "cut and shuts". Q rules were put in writing with INF26 in early 1990's, so since at least 1983, it has been the case that if you cut a car in half and join it back together you are in Q territory. Shortening a chassis brings in other issues that make getting a Q more if you will excuse the pun, clear cut.
From May next year, these proposals will come into play with perhaps minor alterations (consultation finished in 2016) and owners of modified cars will have the choice every year to tick a box that says something like substantially altered which will lead to DVLA asking for more information on the car, or lie.
The extra procedures they speak about to catch people would I guess involve MOT time.
I do not know why Q came about, but at a guess would say it was to cut down on "cut and shuts". Q rules were put in writing with INF26 in early 1990's, so since at least 1983, it has been the case that if you cut a car in half and join it back together you are in Q territory. Shortening a chassis brings in other issues that make getting a Q more if you will excuse the pun, clear cut.
From May next year, these proposals will come into play with perhaps minor alterations (consultation finished in 2016) and owners of modified cars will have the choice every year to tick a box that says something like substantially altered which will lead to DVLA asking for more information on the car, or lie.
The extra procedures they speak about to catch people would I guess involve MOT time.
This appears to me to be a proposal for retrospective legislation.
Presumably this would be unusual in the car world, because for example, we can still drive cars without wearing seatbelts, when the vehicle was made before some particular date.
Is this purely UK legislation, or might there be a wiff of Brussels ?
SDB660 said:
Key dates are 1983 when Q came in, 1998 when SVA was introduced and the year following next May.
I do not know why Q came about, but at a guess would say it was to cut down on "cut and shuts".
'Q' registrations were used ages before 1983, and they were applied to vehicles that didn't have an exact year of manufacture. If a vehicle was made from parts of more than one old vehicle, or was imported and the exact age or origin of the vehicle or parts was unknown, it was given a 'Q' suffix.I do not know why Q came about, but at a guess would say it was to cut down on "cut and shuts".
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
SDB660 said:
Key dates are 1983 when Q came in, 1998 when SVA was introduced and the year following next May.
I do not know why Q came about, but at a guess would say it was to cut down on "cut and shuts".
'Q' registrations were used ages before 1983, and they were applied to vehicles that didn't have an exact year of manufacture. If a vehicle was made from parts of more than one old vehicle, or was imported and the exact age or origin of the vehicle or parts was unknown, it was given a 'Q' suffix.I do not know why Q came about, but at a guess would say it was to cut down on "cut and shuts".
"Substantial" is a wonderful word that lawyers can manipulate.
Having a "power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless such a modification took place before 1988".
So in reality a standard DB5/6 four litre puts out around 240 bhp rather than the 285 suggested in the brochures.
!5% of 240 is 36 so a 4.2 litre conversion plus fuel injection/cam/webers may take this well over 300 hp or over 25% increase
Originality seems to be king again! When they really tighten up it will be ZF boxes only, standard brakes, crossply tyres and positive earth!
Having a "power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless such a modification took place before 1988".
So in reality a standard DB5/6 four litre puts out around 240 bhp rather than the 285 suggested in the brochures.
!5% of 240 is 36 so a 4.2 litre conversion plus fuel injection/cam/webers may take this well over 300 hp or over 25% increase
Originality seems to be king again! When they really tighten up it will be ZF boxes only, standard brakes, crossply tyres and positive earth!
Vanin said:
"Substantial" is a wonderful word that lawyers can manipulate.
Having a "power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless such a modification took place before 1988".
So in reality a standard DB5/6 four litre puts out around 240 bhp rather than the 285 suggested in the brochures.
!5% of 240 is 36 so a 4.2 litre conversion plus fuel injection/cam/webers may take this well over 300 hp or over 25% increase
Originality seems to be king again! When they really tighten up it will be ZF boxes only, standard brakes, crossply tyres and positive earth!
Seems so re originality.Having a "power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless such a modification took place before 1988".
So in reality a standard DB5/6 four litre puts out around 240 bhp rather than the 285 suggested in the brochures.
!5% of 240 is 36 so a 4.2 litre conversion plus fuel injection/cam/webers may take this well over 300 hp or over 25% increase
Originality seems to be king again! When they really tighten up it will be ZF boxes only, standard brakes, crossply tyres and positive earth!
Take your point re lawyers, but as well as "substantial" there are other rules. For example, please check out "reconstructed classic vehicles" on DVLA website. This means that every Aston Martin with a retrofitted twin plug head (as in many GT/Racing/Zagato conversions) are facing a Q as just one example from one subset of a low volume manufacturer's back catalogue. Many makes will be facing the similar issues.
RL17 said:
Does announcement re exemption for MOTs for cars over 40 years old next year now take most of these out of the new Q rules?
The announcement carries on the Q rules that have been in place since 1983. There may be slight adjustments, but it is proposed the system is still utilised.Murph7355 said:
MOT exemptions?
Isn't it RFL that's exempted, not the MOT?
Apologies. Just looked it up and it is MOTs. Isn't it RFL that's exempted, not the MOT?
Not having some sort of check seems a backward step to me.
The argument that these cars are usually well maintained and not used often applies to many cars, not just old ones.
I only have a sketchy knowledge of this topic, but the internet is awash with discussions, going back several years.
Seems to be all about modified cars, and the regulations have arrived here from Europe.
Some owners of cars old enough to be exempt from 'road tax' (and possibly also MoT), have received letters from the DVLA requiring proof that almost the whole car is original and unaltered. Changes or lack of proof then involves their points system. Not enough points and they then withdraw the registration mark and issue a Q registration. Not much demand for the car after that.
Is my understanding correct ?
Jon39 said:
Seems to be all about modified cars, and the regulations have arrived here from Europe.
No, it's entirely UK.Jon39 said:
Some owners of cars old enough to be exempt from 'road tax' (and possibly also MoT), have received letters from the DVLA requiring proof that almost the whole car is original and unaltered. Changes or lack of proof then involves their points system. Not enough points and they then withdraw the registration mark and issue a Q registration. Not much demand for the car after that.
A couple of years ago, DVLA cracked down on one particular high-value primarily 1920s marque. The belief was that a number of people had taken a very small proportion of period components, and "recreated" "original" cars from them, and the club/some club officials may have been complicit in that. It is impossible to see how this fits with the very well established "rebuilt" or "reconstruction" rules.https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/reconstruc...
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-ve...
This Aston issue seems very similar. There are very well documented procedures - but they seem to be being ignored wholesale because of very large values. It is impossible to see how chopping 5" out of the middle of a DB4 to create a DB4GT "replica" fits with the long-established 8pt rule.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-...
TooMany2cvs said:
Jon39 said:
Seems to be all about modified cars, and the regulations have arrived here from Europe.
No, it's entirely UK.There is something in this article about an EU plan.
http://www.classicandsportscar.com/news/general-cl...
Is the UK initiative perhaps more to do with some cars having been rebuilt with very little of the original car, or even newly built, and then registered with a period number plate corresponding with the original manufactured date? Do the DVLA now want those cars to always have Q registrations ?
Jon39 said:
There is something in this article about an EU plan.
http://www.classicandsportscar.com/news/general-cl...
That's a very different thing. That's simply how a "historic vehicle" is defined - say, from being liable for the London ULEZ. Right now, there's three main definitions in the UK...http://www.classicandsportscar.com/news/general-cl...
Pre 1960 - MOT currently.
Rolling 40yo - VED.
Rolling 40yo and "substantially original" (to be fully defined) - MOT from next year.
The confusion really starts when you look at things like the Congestion Charge's website - https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/low-emission-zone... - which still shows pre-1973, the old VED definition, but do they really mean rolling 40 now, which is what the ULEZ will use...?
It does make a lot of sense to have a single definition, at least within the same damn country...
Jon39 said:
Is the UK initiative perhaps more to do with some cars having been rebuilt with very little of the original car, or even newly built, and then registered with a period number plate corresponding with the original manufactured date?
Exactly that.Jon39 said:
Do the DVLA now want those cars to always have Q registrations ?
Well, what else, really...? What age IS a car that's built around a whole pile of new bits to 1920s spec, bar a handful of 1920s stuff? That's what Q is for - age indeterminate.The 8pt rules haven't changed for decades. The rebuild/reconstructed rules haven't changed. If people have broken the law when they've "built" a car from some bits, then it's probably not a bad thing that they get cracked down on, is it? Line has to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?
Where? One side frame and a crossmember of an original chassis plus a water pump housing that turned out to be cracked so has since been replaced? A wheelnut?
Thank you for your explanations, Adrian.
Both of my 1960s cars are all original, so hopefully the DVLA won't be feeling my collar.
This topic seems to be about some DB cars built with shorter, non standard chassis mainly for competition use, although in those days, driving on the road to circuits was fairly common, so would have been road registered.
It seems to me, rather extreme for there to be problems arising now, because I think the work in this case, was done by the original manufacturer of the standard car.
There are other short chassis cars. The successful short chassis Audi Quattro rally cars come to mind. They are noticeably shorter than the original car.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff