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.

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.

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.

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.


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.