Welcome to the Austin Seven Friends web site and forum

As announced earlier, this forum with it's respective web address will go offline within the next days!
Please follow the link to our new forum

http://www.austinsevenfriends.co.uk/forum

and make sure, you readjust your link button to the new address!

Welcome Austin seven Friends
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

I'm certainly not picking an argument but I would just observe the following...

The reasons for allowing exemption from MOT for pre-1960 vehicles were clearly set out by Government. It was all about 'risk' and 'proportionality', which is what much of legislation is about.

The facts were that older vehicles are fewer in number on the roads, are driven relatively infrequently and for short distances, and if I recall correctly their failure rate at MOT test was relatively low, reflecting the care that most owners take with the maintenance of their vehicles.

The days of youthful exuberance in buying a knackered old banger and thrashing it into the ground without much care as to its mechanical soundness are long, long gone. So older vehicles tend to now be in the hands of enthusiasts.

We have not had the MOT for older cars for some time now yet, unless I have missed it, the pages of the Mail or Express have not been filled with lurid tales of ghastly accidents caused by reckless old car owners failing to maintain their vehicles.

I venture that the MOT test for pre 1960 vehicles should not, and will not, be re-introduced because based on fact there is no reason for it to be.

p.s. From what Rekkers says it seems that for once the EU made a sensible and proportionate decision in respect of older vehicles.

Location: North Herts

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

From the latest FBHVC newsletter, to manage our expectations.

Along with my board colleague Paul Chasney I attended a meeting with DfT in London to discuss progress on the United Kingdom implementation of the latest EU Directive on Roadworthiness Testing. DfT has, it would appear, encountered significant difficulty in finalising its recommendations to ministers following its consultation and at the time of writing had still failed to do so. This means it did not meet the 31 January deadline for a reply to the consultation.

The DfT people emphasised that, once announced, their recommendations to ministers would not be the subject of any further consultation. But it does appear that the DfT intends to proceed with its preferred option, a right to exemption from MoT testing for Vehicles of Historic Interest (VHI) over 40 years old. It remains clear that DfT considers it is legally bound by the terms of the EU Directive to create a new class of VHI including a requirement that VHIs have not been ‘substantially modified’.

The Federation had stated in our response to the consultation that the ‘8 point rule’ (intended originally to decide if enough of a radically altered vehicle remained to retain authenticity), was unsuitable particularly for complete vehicles which had not been disassembled recently or indeed at all. It was unclear whether DfT were still proposing to make use of the 8 point rule or whether the definition of a suitable criterion for inclusion as a VHI was one of their outstanding problems. DfT did advise that the definition has been the subject of some discussion between DVSA, within whose bailiwick this falls, and DVLA.

It will be of interest to any reader involved in the Historic Vehicles Working Group, which DfT itself initiated but which met only once on 2 July 2014, that DfT have made clear they have no intention of reviving that group. We thus appealed again for no final decision to be made on the criteria for inclusion in the VHI category until at least the Federation had been given a chance to contribute.

DfT are still seriously considering some sort of mileage limit. We did attempt to persuade them of the administrative difficulties of doing this and the lack of evidence of any real benefit, from the point of view of road safety or otherwise,
from imposition of a limit.

It was not clear to us whether the issues, not raised in the consultation but possibly arising since, of a sunset clause to ensure the difficult parts of any legislation would not unnecessarily survive Brexit, when we will presumable no longer have to comply precisely with EU Directives, were being considered. We pressed the point that it ought to be.

Perhaps most seriously, we now know that the Government in Sweden, a Member State of the EU with no intention of leaving, has decided that a classification such as is implied by the Directive definitions is simply administratively unacceptable and has decided instead to grant exemptions from testing based purely on dates. The DfT representatives seemed unwilling even to consider the Swedish approach, believing their legal advice simply precludes that course of action.

The Federation remains very concerned at the possible consequences in the future for the testing of currently historic vehicles which nevertheless do not prove acceptable as VHIs particularly, as seems possible, if the category of VHI is
extended to all vehicles, including those currently generally exempted by reason simply of being built before 1960. We will be progressing with our pressures on the Government through the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group and things may have moved on by the time you read this. We will continue to keep up the pressure on behalf of our members.

If you can understand what all of this may mean, then best to see your doctor ASAP.

As I see it the big issues are.

How are they going to define VHI's, and what will the process be to make sure that vehicles comply?

Will the process take into account vehicles which have been modified long enough to be considered historic in their modified form?

If a vehicle is of age, but is deemed not to comply what does that mean for the vehicle?

If a vehicle is eligible can the owner chose not apply for VHI classing thus paying tax and having MOT's as a car outside of the scheme would? (It seems that France do this already)

If a mileage limit is imposed how will this be monitored?

It seems the FBHVC is putting some of this forward and as they are the only people that DfT, DVLA and DVSA will consider negotiating with we can only keep our fingers firmly crossed. That a modicum of sense prevails. Personally I think it all being optional with those who prefer to remain unrestricted, paying tax and having an MOT as normal could be our best hope.

Location: New Forest

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

If you can understand what all of this may mean, then best to see your doctor ASAP.

Personally I think it all being optional with those who prefer to remain unrestricted, paying tax and having an MOT as normal could be our best hope.[/quote]

Hi Timothy,

I don't usually read all this legal stuff, I don't have the attension span for it.

However I've got through this one.

If I've understood it, there are plenty of questions, NO 100% yes or no answers. only maybe if some in orthoritie listens.

Just the result that stops me reading in the first place.

Although a vehicles outside VHI paying tax and being MOT'd would be a good result. Sooner rather than latter though.

People I've spoken to are happy to pay for tax etc, rather than loosing the use of there old car.

Tony.

Location: Huncote on the pig

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Nick,

Whilst all of what you say seems to make sense as to the current situation, unfortunately it appears that thing aren't staying the same. The consultation asked opinions on extending the exemptions with 40 years old down to only 20 years old being suggested. This has a lot of cars in the cheap banger to thrash into the ground without much care category, with the added factor being they are generally a lot faster, heavier, and thus more dangerous to those outside of the car if they are not roadworthy and cause an accident. There were details given somewhere on percentage of cars from a given decade failed their MOT each year. I believe the numbers up to 1960 were still considerable enough as to rationalise requiring continued MOT's, but from '60 onward numbers grew massively. So those that MfT are intending on including with their preferred 40 years old to meet the EU directives includes up to 1977, and is going to put a lot more cars on the road that would otherwise be MOT failures. If one of these cars has an accident the chance that all 'old cars' won't be tarred with the same brush seems slim.

As long as the test is suitable for the cars age, I can't see a good reason that every car shouldn't have someone else check it over to make sure that their owner hasn't missed a safety issue.

Tony,

I agree seems a lot of these publications are made to be hard work to put people off of reading. As you say, knowing that we are unlikely to have any effect on the end result does make it seem that the time is better spent getting on with those jobs that need doing, or going for a drive, rather than worrying about things we have no power over.

People I've spoken to are happy to pay for tax etc, rather than loosing the use of there old car.


100% agree with that, and I really hope that it will be an option.

Happy Fettling

Location: New Forest

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Hi
I cannot follow all the ins and outs of this 'official' process - and the optimum solution seems to depend on what we want to do in the future with our cars, so opinions will differ? But in general, it would help if any implemented regime helps owners to preserve the population of historic cars whilst enjoying them, without incurring unacceptable risk to themselves or others.

My original fear with the removal of the MOT requirement for pre-1960 cars was the likelihood of a gradual reduction in the roadworthiness of our historic vehicles. The MOT forced owners to meet or exceed the requirements year on year. I think the effect over time of the MOT checks not being done is that more and more cars will go off the road as owners realise that they now need serious work or they breakdown. Whilst there are safety arguments (which the Govt statistics showed to be small), most failures that might occur would just lead to the vehicle not being usable, until fixed, which by then might be a big job.

When I restored my car twenty years ago from a garden, and was new to pre-war cars, the MOT check was the key bench mark that I used to ensure that the car was fit for the road. The skills required to assess what was acceptable - play, wear etc. - came later with experience. Without the guidance available then, it is surely harder today for those starting out acquire the necessary knowledge? However, a formal or informal MOT is still available to anyone now so the only thing that has really changed is whether or not owners see the benefit.

Just a thought: How much are clubs doing at a local level to help those coming in new to old cars to acquire the necessary practical maintenance skills. Perhaps they could offer more?

To me, the most important matter is being able to drive the car where I decide, when I decide - no red tape. In practice, this does not mean it is doing 10,000 a year in rush-hour traffic - but that it can be enjoyed when appropriate without having to plan ahead. And that is worth a lot.

Colin

Location: Cheshire

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Its worth noting that 3 or 4 years ago, during the era of the con/lib dem governemnt a consultation was to be had with respect to HGV MOT exemptions etc.

The government chose to ignore the advice of the dft and did preciseley nothing

Location: not north wales any more

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

hedd jones
Its worth noting that 3 or 4 years ago, during the era of the con/lib dem governemnt a consultation was to be had with respect to HGV MOT exemptions etc.

The government chose to ignore the advice of the dft and did preciseley nothing


I thought pre-1960 HGV's had been exempt from MoT testing for many years.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

They have. Many years

Location: not north wales any more

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Before very long the MOT will become irrelevant to our sort of car. It is, and rightly, aimed at modern cars. As cars become more reliable mechanically and bodily the things needed to be tested will change. Before very long I'd expect test features to be loaded towards electronic systems rather than mechanical wear or corrosion. So what is the point of subjecting pre'60 cars to a test like that. I'd have no objection to a relevant test, but what precisely is the point of giving 50quid to a local garage to look at a car they no longer understand and test items it doesn't have?
As an automotive engineer of quite a few years standing I don't have much faith in the MOT process. I'd set more store by an up to date service record. And that's what I think we should have, not voluntarily, but a legal requirement.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Alan

I'd have no objection to a relevant test, but what precisely is the point of giving 50quid to a local garage to look at a car they no longer understand and test items it doesn't have?

As an automotive engineer of quite a few years standing I don't have much faith in the MOT process. I'd set more store by an up to date service record. And that's what I think we should have, not voluntarily, but a legal requirement.


I'm afraid this is far too sensible. Somebody might take note of it and put several consultants and committees out of highly lucrative work.

Location: Ripon

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

I might be cynical about this but don't recall any ones opinions being taken into account when it comes to a government inspired survey.
I do personally think that removing the MOT requirement is possibly a bad step regarding the old car movement.
It is 5 years since I have had a UK MOT,even then the garage I used was having its MOT bay updated for a "jiggle ramp"? where the suspension joints are checked by this.Am I right?
Do mechanics,sorry motor vehicle technicians, now have the abilities/equipment to test older vehicles?
My dad used own a garage in the 1960's -70's and did MOT's,He used to say it was as important to test the car on the road (Tapley meter then) as checking it on the ramp.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.


As an automotive engineer of quite a few years standing I don't have much faith in the MOT process. I'd set more store by an up to date service record. And that's what I think we should have, not voluntarily, but a legal requirement.


Thay would be the worse possible thing.

You may be an engineer (as am I). But you will be hard pressed to find one in a 'garage'. Even less likely to find one at a main dealer.

Parts changers is what you find.

I sent my 11year old mondeo to the garage as it had started to smoke like a Gardner. They were happy to suggest spending the best part of 1500quid on a car Id paid 1800quid for 6 months earlier suggesting I needed 'new injectors'

20mins cleaning the EGR valve and a £20 intercooler hose later I have a car that goes like stink without a hint of smoke.

I wouldt trust morons like that to stamp a service history for a pedal car, let alone a real one.

Location: not north wales any more

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Alan
Before very long the MOT will become irrelevant to our sort of car. It is, and rightly, aimed at modern cars. As cars become more reliable mechanically and bodily the things needed to be tested will change. Before very long I'd expect test features to be loaded towards electronic systems rather than mechanical wear or corrosion. So what is the point of subjecting pre'60 cars to a test like that. I'd have no objection to a relevant test, but what precisely is the point of giving 50quid to a local garage to look at a car they no longer understand and test items it doesn't have?
As an automotive engineer of quite a few years standing I don't have much faith in the MOT process. I'd set more store by an up to date service record. And that's what I think we should have, not voluntarily, but a legal requirement.


For many years I drove a Citroen DS23 EFI BVH. Apart from rust the MOT man admitted that he really didn't know what he was looking at or for. Over time I explained the details of the car and he would ask me what to look for. I worried that if I were ever to move, or him retire, I would have to go through the whole thing again. Madness.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

But I have had a totally different experience with MOTs - the tester (recommended by others who run prewar cars in the Warrington area) who looked at my car each year knew exactly what he was looking at and could make the necessary judgements and remember relevant points from year to year. He is under fifty and not a professional engineer, in the sense that he hasn't a degree and/or isn't chartered, but he takes an interest and knows what he is looking at - he checks vehicles all day and has built up massive knowledge and experience. Also, he is training up a couple of young apprentices who are picking up on his skills and would now be competent to give the Seven a once over. So perhaps it depends where you go - he can't be unique? If we end up having to have some sort of roadworthiness check, then he will be ideal for this. There is no doubt that the formal side of the MOT was becoming less relevant over the years and it was beginning to get in the way of a sensible check being done in a sensible time.

Colin

Location: Cheshire

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

I think some of the remarked on garages and mechanics is getting a little unfair.

Yes on modern cars, most mechanics don't need to be much more than a parts replacement service.

But there must be plenty of small garages around the country like our own in Huncote.

Main Street garage has a good mumber of classic and vintage cars come in. As well as moderns. So they keep a good knowledge on older car.

So much so, that a few years ago when wheatcroft, at donnington museum. Brought there £10m Bugatti royal to the Huncote garage for its first MOT.

The previous owner of Huncote garage, now works at a garage near by at earl Shelton. In his youth he raced MG midgets. And knows more about mechanics. Than 98% on this forum.

If you want garages to check your car properly, they are out there. But you have to open your eyes a little bit more than just shoving it into the first big corporate garage you pass.

Tony

Location: Huncote on the pig

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Not knowing what they are looking at (or for) is nothing new. I had a Citroën DS21 in the 1970s and took it for an MOT to a garage across the road from where I worked. The car was about 5 years old at the time so reasonably current although just out of production.

When I finished my shift I went back to pick it up and the bloke said "It's failed". Being fairly sure from the preparatory work I had done on the car, my own observations and expertise that it was OK, I asked him to show me why he'd failed it. He put it up on the ramp and said "That brake pipe there - it's corroded". After pointing out to him that it was a metal tube that carried a cable from the rear anti-roll bar to the outer pair of headlamps self levelling arrangement he admitted his mistake and passed the car. On top of that, it wasn't "corroded" it had a little surface rust.

Just goes to show that no-one is perfect.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Corroded brake pipes seems to be a reguĺar fail in Shropshire. Yet if you plaster them in waxoyl and re present they pass. Seemingly your not allowed rusty brake pipes.

Location: not north wales any more

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.


For many years I drove a Citroen DS23 EFI BVH. Apart from rust the MOT man admitted that he really didn't know what he was looking at or for. Over time I explained the details of the car and he would ask me what to look for. I worried that if I were ever to move, or him retire, I would have to go through the whole thing again. Madness.[/quote]

I still drive one…… well a 1971 DS 21 5 speed manual not BVH……. this week I was told that it would fail it's MoT as there was no working handbrake….. it was gently pointed out to the MoT 'technician' that it has a foot operated parking brake so there is no hand lever ……. so then he put the rear wheels on the rollers and worked the parking brake………… but it works on the front wheels …….. hey ho ……...

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Some people will just never master the art of walking & whistling at the same time.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

For everyone with a bad experience story, there will be someone with a good experience story, the problem I find is that those with the bad experiences seem to shout about it the loudest!

Location: NZ

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Location: Huncote on the pig

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Ian Williams
For everyone with a bad experience story, there will be someone with a good experience story, the problem I find is that those with the bad experiences seem to shout about it the loudest!


I wasn't shouting…… I was laughing !

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

My comment was a generalisation and not specifically directed at you Mike, I think you inference came across.

Location: NZ

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

Hi TONY.
SPOT ON.
Any one on this Forum only has to Ask for recommendations Re garages or Machine Shops and they will be pointed in the right direction.
and as you say how many Owners Know what they are looking at.

Location: TINOPAI NZ

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

The FBHVC has a list of recommended MoT test stations that understand the special requirements of historic vehicles.

Re: Roadworthyness Testing.

I have an excellent local garage near Melrose who is listed on FBHVC site and I wanted him to do a test on my 1929 car.
Regrettably the Austin is too narrow to fit over his MoT approved pit so he was unable to do it. He was very disappointed as he wanted his MoT man to gain the experience of an early unconventional car.
He let me use his rolling road brake tester and was amazed at the braking it registered. Very useful to assess the left-right balance.
Rolling road testers flatter the Austin Seven as the don't move the front axle back as happens on the road.