Good comment Ian.

As I have mentioned before- here in Victoria we have had to do without annual vehicle inspections for very many years, so far with no major problems.

I think that an experienced owner/maintainer would be better placed to monitor the mechanical condition of their Austin 7 than a garage mechanic who sees one or two vintage cars per year.

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

To Ruairidh, "Glasshopper, you have much yet to learn" (but probably NOT about Austin 7s!!)

To Tony, I do agree, with the caveat that I have met a few A7 owners whose complete lack of mechanical competence has absolutely amazed me; equally I have met those whose skills have left me totally envious.

In fairness, I have to add that most of the terminally incompetent do recognise their limitations and are prepared to pay money to a "man who can" rather than even attempt their own maintenance. The problem, which I recognise, being that they may well not recognise a problem in time. Thankfully ( for my arguement) these are relatively few and far between.

Ian Mc.

Location: Shropshire

And what of the inexperienced owner/non maintainer?

What of the owner who begrudges every penny of maintenance, cuts every corner, sucks his teeth at increasing prices of parts to keep his "pride and joy" roadworthy and so forgoes it?

I have few concerns of the people you describe Tony, I know many like it and absolutely none of my comments are aimed at them. However, for every one that fits your description, I can name another who fits one (or more) of those listed above and it is these people who continue to concern me. Yes, a year later, but it still concerns me, and it has nothing to do with insecurity, sorry.

Be fair R, how many vintage car owners do you know who actually drive very far, or very often who fall into your first category? Most of that type that I have met rarely use their cars and when they do they don't drive far, and don't drive fast.
In any sector of motor vehicle ownership it is comparatively rare for mechanical failure to be the cause of an accident; usually it is cr*p driving.

Ian Mc.

Location: Shropshire

R,

I have to agree a little, apparently some owner maintainers are totally incompetent, but luckily this does not always lead to the car having an accident.
My Chummy had a long list of very stupid assembly faults happily carried out by the previous 'rebuilder' - almost all fixed now (part of the enjoyment of running an Austin 7 ).
The latest problem was a missfire at speed on acceleration - put in a nice new set of plugs- marginally better, then a brand 'new' old stock proper Bosch 6 volt coil- problem solved. On inspection the original coil, which looked quite sound (don't they all), I found it was marked 12 volt!!! and I had been using this for four years

Can't be many more surprises but I live in hope

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

I'm sure you are correct Ian, you usually are.

Knowing me as you do however, you will be more than aware that I am unlikely to ever think this was a good move and, perhaps ironically, no one will be more delighted than me if my concerns are proved to be unfounded.

Tony,

as an aside, is it still possible to drive vintage cars freely on a day to day basis in Victoria or do some restrictions exist, as is the case in some European countries?

hi ian, with you 100% about the government having to much control.

although I can remember back to when I had to split the business central 7s. because I was skint. and had to go it alone to put more hours in to try and earn a living.

I knew the tyres were worn out on the transit van, but when you have no money. I replaced the tyres when I was forced to "at the M.O.T" two tyres were running on the steel.

my point is, although many of us look after our cars nowadays. there are still to many who hold the ways of sevening being done on the cheap. and you only replace it when it falls off or "the M.O.T man" tells you its time.

also for some who are so tight, putting a car on the road for the first time. why worry if something like tyres are degrading on the side walls when there is "NO M.O.T" to be passed.

without the "M.O.T man" there are some who will leave it until bits fall off. these are the few who will spoil it for all.

tony

R,

On the present Club Permit registration system (presently for vehicles over 20 years old although this may be changed to 30 years) the car has to undergo a onetime 'roadworthy' check for each new Club owner, which should be carried out in compliance with the vehicles construction date (there are a few known preferred garages who are experienced in vintage vehicles) - some roadworthy check details are being reviewed which will give more lattitude to lightly modified pre war vehicles.
Once this has been carried out and the club permit officer signs the form to agree that the owner is a fully paid up club member, an application is made to Vic Roads Motor Registration section for a 45 0r 90 day Club permit. A special series red number plate is issued (only one for pre 1930 vehicles), with a windscreen sticker and log book. The cost is around $130 including compulsory 3rd party insurance for 90 days vs over $700 for full registration and insurance.
The only restriction is that the log book must be signed for each day outing.
Other States have similar schemes although the Victorian one seems the best so far. For interstate travel it is usually best to confirm they will accept the Victorian club registration.

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

R,

Out of interest- I call the 'Club permit' a 'Club registration' which some have picked me up on but The Act states-

"Road Safety (Vehicles) Amendment (Club Permit)
Regulations 2010

S.R. No. 116/2010

153 Club permit is a registration permit

For the purposes of section 7(1) of the Act, a
club permit issued under this Part is a
registration permit."

As well as the required third party registration insurance, I also take out a comprehensive insurance policy with Shannons Motor Vehicle Insurance, A$80 p/a for a nominated vehicle value, own repairer and ownership of the vehicle in case of write off.
I have RACV extended roadside assistance cover which includes breakdown 'towing' to any repairer for all of my vehicles anywhere in Australia.

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

Tony, how much would it cost if you wanted to have the car available all the year round?

It is my belief that not only do we now live in a "golden age" of motoring freedom but that such ages always come to an end sooner or later. I see no need for vintage cars to be restricted at all and the payment of a significant sum of money for a permit to drive for a limited number of days would sour my enjoyment to the point that I would probably throw in the towel.

Location: Derby

Ray,

I must say that in the scheme of things I think that A$130 including 3rd party insurance for 90 days driving per year with no interference or compulsory annual check is very reasonable, together with comprehensive insurance at around A$80 - have you bought a set of tyres recently
Of course you could be really nit picky and say I should include the cost of Club membership

If such a cost is enough to stop owning an Austin 7 - well that is something else - even club membership might stop some.

Of course there are those here who still opt for full registration and insurance at over A$700 a year with comprehensive insurance probably at another large amount.

I have yet to use even half the 90 day allocation on either car - I should change to 45 days at around A$65 p/a.


Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

Much has been opined on this subject, some objective, some subjective but I consider that it comes down to this:

1) The MOT is good on the day it was issued.

2) If you are not happy being without a mandatory MOT, then go and get a voluntary one. You have freedom of choice. Rejoice in it.

I am quite happy to get a voluntary MOT at my local garage in case I may have missed something. I get a warm comforting glow from having the wee car(s) jacked up on a ramp,checked by a discipline expert and given the all clear (on the day of the check that is). Sed quis custediet ipsos custodes.

Whilst it's up on the lift, I also get to check the bits that I can't normally see and which may not form part of an MOT.

Bonus...

Location: I do like to be beside the seaside

Thanks Tony,

I personally would feel quite restricted by red tape such as you describe above but I may well be in the minority.

What are the logistics of getting the book signed for each day of driving, is it pre or post outing and where do you have to go to get it done? Are there penalties if you don't follow procedure?

R,

The owner (not necessarily the driver) is responsible for filling in and signing each day before the car is taken out, the only check on this is the possibility of a randon roadside review by an officer of the law so you can take your chances - I have only once even been even near a check in three years driving and then the policeman on his huge motorbike followed me to the clubroom and had a general discussion with some six other red platers without asking to see our log books. Not a great deal of red tape

He did mention that it would cost A$700 for driving without a signed entry for the day

The alternative of full registration of $700 is not a great idea when most in the club drive their Austin Sevens for much less than 90 days per year.

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

Thanks Tony.

I'm with you there Ruairidh!
Naughty boy putting that photo up, very provocative

Geoff - Lathe Apron to come off again 'bleep' 'bleep'!

Location: South Norfolk - Near Suffolk

Reading some good comments above,nothing mentioned about commercials who have never had to have an Mot for a long time now and i have never heard of any problems with them being exempt and lets face it there would be a bigger bang in an accident than our little cars.
About 20 years ago i had an Austin Somerset which i had tested and passed no problem,3 days later i was out driving i was behind a ready mixed concrete wagon we came to a roundabout and went to change down,i had no brakes and i hit the wagon,obviously not damaging him or my own too much as we were gearing down,when i got home and checked the brake pipe should never have passed an Mot,should have went back you might say,but dont forget the Mot states its only correct at the time of testing and i know a pipe cant corrode in 3 days,when all this came about last year i was reading letters in the Autojumbler and an old time car man wrote,MOT, not worth the paper its written on,it makes you think when it only applies at the MOT station,Ted

For those of us who do use our cars regularly, the Australian system sounds an absolute nightmare! At least an opt-out is available, however.

I'd go along with Vin's earlier comment - the MOT test may reveal something that you hadn't spotted. I consider myself a fairly competant and experienced mechanic, but I know that I sometimes miss things. I can only set brakes up based on finding a quiet stretch of road and fiddling until I pull up in a straight line - the MOT gives me far more information. A couple of years ago the test showed up a knackered shackle pin that I didn't know about. Last year, it was pointed out that I had an illegal number plate light - I'd no idea that it was showing a white light to the rear.

The A30 is currently off the road because of corrosion around a rear spring mounting - it looked within acceptable limits to me. Hopefully I'd have spotted it before it failed, but who knows? The car is now laid up until I can fix it to MOT standards.

I've said before that you don't get something for nothing I'm absolutely convinced that the tax and MOT exemptions are just the first steps in restricting the use of our cars.

Location: Herefordshire (with an "E", not a "T"!)

Martin, I am in agreement with you on this. I also used to run an A30 on a daily basis and although I would also like to think I could spot an M.O.T. failure, like you, I was surprised to learn that my car needed attention to meet the prescribed standard. I do wonder how many 1950's car owners will be tempted to keep on going with sub standard or even dangerous vehicles now that they no longer need to be checked once a year. Bearing in mind that our climate leads to rapid corrosion, perhaps some cars are more at risk than others!

Jim Griffin made a point that unfortunately a lot of owners seem to lack self confidence and need the Government to run their lives. While there may be truth in this, it never occurred to me that the M.O.T. was ever more than a safety check and although I don't really lack confidence, I would consider it as arrogant to assume that I knew more than an experienced inspector. I am the last person to support more Government control over our lives.

Location: Derby

Completely with you Ray.

It may not be possible to do a great deal of damage with an A7, but what about powerful, high-performance cars? I heard somewhere recently of someone caught driving a '50s Jaguar with a working brake on one wheel only (OK because he knew the car and didn't drive very fast!!!). Yes, the MOT is only an annual snapshot, but it only needs one idiot to cut corners, kill someone and b****r everything for the rest of us!

Steam enthusiasts live in fear of "The Big Bang" - the day that a poorly maintained boiler explodes with catastrophic consequences - forcing a halt to preserved railway and traction engine operations. I've never heard anyone suggestion that regular, thorough, independent boiler inspections aren't necessary and desirable.

Location: Herefordshire (with an "E", not a "T"!)

Just enjoying some literary links Geoff, nothing sinister I can assure you.

How many on here get the chance, regularly, to mechanically inspect and work on other people's vintage cars?

I'm just wondering if, perhaps, my concerns lie in the number of dangerous problems I see, sometimes on a weekly basis, and that if I didn't see such faults I might perhaps consider them to be irrelevant?

R, I said in an earlier post "In fairness, I have to add that most of the terminally incompetent do recognise their limitations and are prepared to pay money to a "man who can" rather than even attempt their own maintenance. The problem, which I recognise, being that they may well not recognise a problem in time. Thankfully ( for my arguement) these are relatively few and far between."

Is it not true that you are "a man who can" and therefore see a continuous stream of these cars???

Ian Mc.

Location: Shropshire

You are correct Ian, I used to have a steady stream of vehicles through the workshop for pre-MOT maintanance work, almost all required something to be done to ensure a subsiquent pass.

In the last 12 months however only three people have asked to have their cars checked in this way.

I have to confess, that is worrying but, of course, you are north of the border. Maybe after 18th Sept. 2014 Scottish Parliament will re-introduce compulsory MOTs for vehicles within it's jurisdiction.

Ian Mc.

Location: Shropshire

And I cannot forget the number of one and two year old cars I have come across with tyres worn till cords are hanging out, driving with a brake light off until the other bulb goes, and all sorts of other dangerous faults.

Surely in UK as here the drivers of Austin 7's (and I only consider Austin 7's) are enthusiasts - why else would you drive an 80 year old car with all its problems.

Regarding faulty moderns- the police regularly check vehicles and put them off the road where necessary.

Is it possible that here we are more aware of our responsibilities?

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

An interesting idea Tony but although it is being discussed here, it is not really Austin Seven owners who are likely to drag us all down - we generally are pretty good at looking after our cars; not least because Austin Sevens, like other pre war cars, require more attention to be reliable than say later cars. I have seen some pretty desparate Morris Minors and Austin A30s which could now find their way back onto our roads having failed the M.O.T test at any time in the past. As far as the police stopping un-roadworthy vehicles; most coppers would not know a track rod from a king pin so let's not imagine they will be a good judge of anything more than tyres and lights. As I have said before, the decision was not thought through and the consequences have yet to be revealed.

Location: Derby

Ray,

"An interesting idea Tony but although it is being discussed here, it is not really Austin Seven owners who are likely to drag us all down - we generally are pretty good at looking after our cars; not least because Austin Sevens, like other pre war cars, require more attention to be reliable than say later cars."

But the Austin 7 is rather more numerous than other 'early' cars!! and as I said I am only referring to Austin 7's. If later cars are a problem you will have to deal with that separately - don't think much can be achieved here.

You have a very jaundiced view of your police(as do others here seem to have about many UK Austin 7 owners)!!! and my point about regular Victorian police vehicle checks was directed at the comment -

"And I cannot forget the number of one and two year old cars I have come across with tyres worn till cords are hanging out, driving with a brake light off until the other bulb goes, and all sorts of other dangerous faults."

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

Tony, I am not criticising you but I do have an opinion. Everyone is entitled to my opinion!

Location: Derby

Martin

It is probably worth clarifying a few points. It is far from a legal requirement to have boilers inspected.

It is certainly a legal requirement where the boiler is at 'work', that is work in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act. The current Regs are the PSSR Regs 2000.

The law does not require a boiler in hobby use to have an inspection.

Now, in order to go to an event, the boiler needs to be insured, and in order to be insured you need an inspection. This usually follows the principles of PSSR, but it does not follow it precisely. What this means is that probably 98% of the roadgoing 'steam engines' in use in the country are regularly inspected. The remaining 2% are probably in use only on private property and in private.

To give you idea of costs, £5,000,000 of boiler insurance costs only £40 or so a year, the two inspections required every 14 months cost anywhere between £150 to £250 each. You have to have a hydraulic test in addition evert 10 14 month cycles at the same cost. RTA insurance is on top.

However it remains the case that if you were to take such a machine on the open road there is no requirement to have boiler insurance, or that the boiler has been inspected.

It is also worth noting that all roadgoing steam engines in excess of 3500kg (GVW [sic]) are also MOT exempt.

This means amongst my roadworthy toys I have one vehicle exempt from MOT because it is steam, one because it is an agricultural tractor, and one because it is pre 1960 (The 7). In the wash I have another steamer and Austin.

Far from being worried and loosing hair over the MOT exemption, I am affraid I am a little more familiar with what it does and doesn't mean and where the various responcibilities lie. In simple terms I've just got another MOT exempt vehicle.

I let those in power worry about what other people do and do not do, reading the various information all over the web it is clear that a statistical study has been carried out and the result in accidents will be the neck end of bugger all, and has been assessed as acceptable vs the money saved.

Thanks for the info, Hedd.

I'm more familiar with steam on railways and I'm amazed that it's legally possible to take a steamer on the road without a boiler ticket.

Major failures are indeed very, very rare, but awesomely destructive when they happen! I seem to remember that the last big one in Europe was when an East German goods loco went bang in the late seventies, it sent a 100kg chunk of metal through a roof a quarter of a mile away and the remains of the fireman were never found.

Location: Herefordshire (with an "E", not a "T"!)

Ruairidh,
Pull t'other one

Hedd & Martin,
My experience with steam is with much smaller gauges of 3.1/2", 5" & 7.1/4".
4" Little Samson traction the latest - yes I know, the Austin takes priority.

I do remember many many moons ago in SA, a club member giving the brass safety valve on his 5" gge locomotive a tap tap with his shovel, because it wouldn't shut off properly, a regular occurrence for him.
However, on this occasion, the valve parted company with the boiler and disappeared skywards, never to be found.
Brass and steam do nor mix, and that scenario was just waiting to happen.
At the time it just made me think what forces would be released if a boiler that small, under about 80psi, went bang.

I've never heard of a boiler in those scales going bang, as most are made either by hobbiests or qualified people, so they take care in what they are doing. Brass safety valves being the exception.

I do think, hope, that anyone with a passion in what they are doing will take care in achieving an end result that is safe to use.

I do know that the first question I ask myself on completion of something is:

"Will it be safe to use as intended?"

The slightest doubt and I'm either back to the drawing board, or I reinforce the part/s.

Geoff - Three posts in one day, time for a

Location: South Norfolk - Near Suffolk

I have worked very hard to maintain my halo Geoff.

There are of course several types of boiler. In steam cars you either get the 'fire tube' boiler like Stanley used or the 'water tube' which was developed by White (no relation, unfortunately). In the fire tube set up there is the theoretical possibility of an explosion although theses boilers are quite safe in reality as they are encased in wound 'piano' wire. The water tube boiler, however is inherently safe as it uses a 'semi-flash' system where instead of a boiler full of water, only a small amount is heated at anyone time. The White is much more sophisticated and takes much less time to fire up.

The M.O.T. is I believe still required for D.I.Y. replicas such as the Likamobile steamer as it is classed as a kit car.

Not very Austin Seven but (as a member of the Steam Car Club) I find it all very interesting.

Location: Derby

Police in the uk seem to be a rare sight in some areas. And it is not unknown to see a police car with a bulb off. They have a difficult job and probably do it as well as they are able, but they have nowhere near enough staff to check vehicles for faults. I would favour MoT testing of one and two year old cars, rather than the present system in the uk of the first test being after three years. Three years can mean well over a hundred thousand miles.
To me, this seems a much bigger problem than a few pre 1960 cars not being tested.

I think you have a very good point, Andrew. Also, with ever increasing service intervals, owners of moderns have fewer points of contact with those who might advise them of potential dangers. It puts the pre 1960 exemption into stark perspective. I have previously argued for a mileage based system but that has been dismissed because "clocking" could drive a coach and horses through it.

Location: Derby

Ray

I hope you dont mind another clarification.

Steam Cars were not MOT exempt before the pre 1960 exemption. Only Steam vehicles of over 3500kg.

This is why a 'Likamobile' is not MOT exempt now.

Yes Hedd. I expect, like me , you remember that there used to be a lot of confusion about this. During 2007/8 the Steam car club of GB and the FBHVC made extensive enquiries with the DVLA and VOSA who had been at loggerheads but eventually VOSA admitted they had been wrong and steam cars did in fact need an MOT.

Ironic, then that VOSA won the day in the end. Personally, I would have thought that there has never been any need to question the competency of steam engineers at that level.

Location: Derby

Believe me there is still lots of confusion.

Most of these guys who make model steam engines and road register them believe that they are exempt from MOT on the basis they are steam, when they are not (same deal as the steam cars). Only steamers that weigh over 3500kg are.

However some of them are exempt MOT for being a 'Motor Tractor'. However this doesn't cover something like a model steam wagon. It has always concerned me that these road registered model steam vehicles are on a sticky wicket.

All very well but we have an RN saloon first registered 18 January 1982 according to the DVLA. In fact it was first registered 50 years earlier and I still have the tax discs from when I used it in the 1960s.

Dave, have you explored the possibility of legal action?

Often, a Solicitor's letter alone threatening proceedings is sufficient to concentrate the minds of officials.

If that doesn't exact a suitable response, I would enquire with the "no win , no fee" lawyers to see if they could help.

Is there a complaints ombudsman who you could contact?

You may not wish to go to law or cause a fuss but perhaps that is what those responsible are banking on.

Ray.

Location: Derby

Hi Dave. I think you will find it is not the date of first registration but the date of manufacture that is important. My own 1936 Ruby V5C states date of first registration as 01/05/1981, but section 3 ( Special Notes )on the front page states Was registered and/or used. Declared manufactured 1936.

Location: Pembrokeshire.

Thanks Phil, I hadn't spotted section 3 special notes : Was registered or used. Declared manufactured 1932. A rather strange statement especially as they had the original log book which they destroyed.

I have just 'Taxed' two of my Austin 7's that have not been on the road for a total of 106 years.

The process requires that firstly you have a V5C or V5C/2.

Insure the car. You do not need to produce documents.

Download and complete form V112, declaration of exemption from MoT

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333128/V112_150514.pdf

Take V5C or V5C/2 and V112 to your local Post Office where you should be given a white printed receipt for

'DVLA MVL Services'

The licence start will be the 1st of that month and the cost total will show as £0.00

That's it.

You will receive an updated V5C in the post.

If you don't have a V5C or V5C/2 it will be more difficult in degrees depending on what documentation you have.

If you have a V5 (Rev. Jan 76) it will need to be sent to the DVLA with form V62

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360103/V62_220714.pdf

That should produce a V5C.

If you only have an R.F. 60 or VE. 60 Registration Book you will need to apply for a V5C with document V62.

You might be lucky.

Without any of these documents you're buggered.

WOW!

I am pleased to see that your system is so much simpler and better than our Club Permit registration scheme!!!

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.