Club Arnage

Not sure if anybody here closely follows the current regulations and DVLA process, but there is a new juggernaut of legislation being processed as we speak that will in due course make it almost impossible to modify vehicles, swap engines, modify chassis/body shell etc, without going through some very tough re-registation processes. Of course, these very regulations have actually been in place for several years now, but the DVLA is starting to get real serious, and wants to basically close all the loopholes up pretty soon.

It's pretty heavy reading, but if you want to see exactly what they have planned have a look here. It's linked to the NSRA (National Street Rod Association) site but is on the main DVLA site if you can find it:

http://www.nsra.org.uk/downloads/Summary%20of%20Inspection%20Review%20-%20DVLA%20Sept%202005.pdf

The NSRA are in heavy discussion with DVLA to try and agree on some more lenient rules for 'proper' car modifiers, as most of the rules are supposedly being brought in to stop car thefts and 'ringing' of stolen cars. Sure looks like Big Brother just wants to stop anyone having fun though.

Basically speaking, no more chassis or bodyshell mods, no axle swapping. No re-engineering of old sports cars into modern, well handling, well performing rocket ships.
No more Cobra replicas and, at it's extreme, no more restored old cars either.

Hmmm. I think I may have either read a differnet article to you Steve or read it with a different perception.

The way I read it, you can still do any of the things you've mentioned as long as you do it properly and have it checked.

So, car thieves beware; legitimate restorers/kit car builders, keep doing it properly!

Take this line from the consultation paper JP

28. There were varied responses from government departments. It was suggested; that where the original chassis was retained but the appearance changed to a different specification from the original, the vehicle should be subject to SVA, that since the introduction of the INF 26 guidelines, manufacturing processes have changed and the point system is no longer as relevant as it was, that applicants should be required to present an engineer/garage report, that a check at MoT testing would identify vehicles which had been modified but DVLA had not been notified.

Imagine you take a 1970 Capri., Fit a Mustang V8 and  8" rear.
It ceases to be 'the original vehicle, therefore it becomes liable to SVA .
Which it would not pass in a month of Sundays, without major mods elsewhere.
They are talking about making this retrospective, so ALL modified cars would be liable to SVA. Most wouldn't pass.
The way the regs are written it means that, if you put anything on your car that is not 'period' and OEM your car is liable to be re-registered, on a Q plate and is therefore SVA'able.

This could be a deathtrap.  BUT I'm not aware of any car like it that is, but there must have been one somewhere.  SVA won't help, how can the examiner tell if the chassis will take the power, even if it has been strenghtened?  More mad legislation.

There are quite a number of club rally cars that fit into this category, a front wheel drive Escort, with a 300bhp Cosworth motor driving the rear wheels comes to mind, and they have to be road legal.  Whats worse, is that most rally cars are modified to the state that they'd need SVA & a Q plate.

This is the point Lorry.
I'm not suggesting that modified cars should not be tested for safety, but it's the whole thing about 'caese to be the original vehicle'.
That leads down the path to SVA and things like the clubman's Rally car wouldn't pass SVA because it doesn't have all of the demisters and rounded corners to the dashboard switches and that kind of thing that are required.
Ask anyone who has SVA'd a Cobra replica what's required to get it through.
You can have a car that has passed it's MOT for 20 years. running it's original number like my V8 Zodiac that would be required to take SVA and would fail because that kind of stuff was never thought of whan Ford built it. Therefore it's off the road.
You couldn't build a streetrod using a 1956 Pop body and a new chassis with modern components because that would lose it's ID and have to be SVA'd.

JP, it's not quite as simple as
The way I read it, you can still do any of the things you've mentioned as long as you do it properly and have it checked..

You couldn't rechassis or rebody your crashed genuine Cobra, since it would, under the proposals, lose it's ID because you've not used standard components and have to be SVA'd and a genuine 1960's Cobra would fail.

Steve.Wont the SVA work as the MOT does today. If your edwardian car was not fitted with front brakes when it was built, it does not need them for the MOT today.
So if a wreaked Cobra is rebuilt to the same standards as it was in 60's - lets face it will more than likley be better (re) built with more modern materials than the original - the SVA could work with the rules that were contempery to that car at the time of manifacture, if no seat belts and they were not maditory, then no seat belts will be required on the SVA.
If that is not the case then just about every car I know will be illegel (will it also meen that all WRC cars are illegle too).

Bobblehat,
That's how it stands now...
MOt based on the year of manufacture.
The point with the new rules is that they can retrospectively take away the registration mark of the vehicle because it no longe represents the original vehicle and then make said vehicle take SVA as a new car therefore all 2005 requirements would apply.

New builds wouldn't be affected, unless they use an old body, in which case they would come into the SVA field.

The Edwardian car, if it used a remanufactured chassis is no longer the original vehicle.

We already have legislation like this in Belgium. You really can't touch the vehicle or it will not pass it's technical control (our MOT).

Even when improving the car from it's original spec (like installing disc brakes instead of drums on a Mini) and having an engineering report on the conversion is not enough.
You see plenty of cars with tiny wheels to pass the test, only to put their wide alloys back on when home. Result : the tester has no idea what condition those wide wheels & tyres are in.

My car failed because it had Aeroquip brake hoses and Polybush suspension.
So I went home, put back on the old hoses and bushes (they were in poor condition) and passed !

Kit cars are almost impossible to register, even when professionally build.

It's a stupid legislation that you should beware of.

Well, I'm not surprised the Belgians are keen on this sort of frippery, but surely it can't happen here in the UK. It's one thing having Jean-Claude and his clipboard insisting on having his box ticked, but surely old Wally down at the Surbiton Blow Torch and Lump Hammer 5-Star MOT Centre won't fall for this? Not with a monkey on offer anyway.
It'll never happen, Princess Michael of Kent would never allow it. I suspect there's a lot of things she would allow though, in fact, I think we've discussed them before.
H

Indeed we have H, and I seem to think they involved a lime green nightie and a watery eye pressed to the closet keyhole.

These proposals are madness. Actually, this sort of madness rears it's ugly head from time to time. All the classic car, kit car and general motoring lobbies hound the Dept of Transport, Health and the Regions or whatever it's called these days. Then the big knobs in the Air Ministry turn round and say oh sorry, this isn't what we meant... For example, there were proposals to stop the fitting of pattern parts a couple of years ago. The original manu's were rubbing their hands with glee. What happened to that scare?

Look at SORN too. It was suppose to herald the death of the classic car industry. IMO, the SORN thing has worked very well and it means my old knacker gets it's road tax free to boot. I'd be surprised if these proposals go through as has been described, in fact, I'll eat my diamond tiara and Princess Michael wig if they do.

I think this has been exagerated somewhat.  The Single Vehicle Approval test, or SVA, has existied, in it's current form, for over 5 years now.

Generally, concerning the world of kit cars, all cars built either by amateurs or professional assemblers now need to be SVA tested.
Moreover, there is latitude within both the SVA and Construction and Use Regulations for most cars to pass this test.
Cobra and Seven replicas are passing all the time, with no major problems apart from the builders misinterpretation of the rules - or incompetance.

The test covers many things including the safe installation, fabrication and assembly of critical items such as brake components, chassis construction and wiring, amongst others.

If a steel chassied, fibreglass bodied, V8 engined, 1960's inspired open car can pass SVA, I would expect most cars to.

Steve, if your hypothetical 1970 Ford Capri, with a Mustang V8 and  8" rear end is sensibly, correctly and safety assembled, with thought given to the adequacy of the brakes, suspension and structural components (given the increase in engine horsepower), then I'm sure the SVA would be a breeze.

As to Q plates, my cobra is a Q - but that doesn't mean I have leprosy as well.

Steve,
The SVA also covers a lot of points that aren't first line safety critical.
For instance the Capri may well fail on the cigarette lighter . the radius
on the switchgear or  the parcel shelf brackets not having the correct
radius. It is unlikely that a lot of the badges or integral brightwork would
pass because it was never designed to in the first place. The lights would
not be E marked, it would not  be fitted with side repeaters , spring back
mirrors,  I could go on.  I actually have , and have read, the SVA manual
not someone elses take on it.
Cobras pass do they ? I suppose you have watched a Car is Born ? Watch it
again  and see the difference between the tested and DRIVEN product. Same
goes for most 7's but I won't give away anything on here . The SVA is a
travesty. Grey import Subura Imprezzas being tested as caravanettes as they
won't pass any other way ???

By the way , the SVA is only to do with perceived safety ,you should
actually see some of the abominations that get through. Would you like to
drive a trike with a propshaft 2 inches from the family jewels with no prop
guard and the axle held in with exhaust u bolts ? Yup, FOR REAL !!
How about a 7 type car using a track rod end as the full load bearing bottom
joint ?But as long as the bonnet badge radius is correct it'll pass. We are
not objecting to testing ,just that make the test relevent to the cars.
. Chassis construction does not come into it ( as long as no bits are
loose )or suspension design, if the wheels turn in the corresponding
direction to the wheel it will pass.Mind you for some OEM it's just as well

I've never rebuilt a car or built a kit car or replica, but surely some sort of testing should be required.

Your example above Steve is a prime example IMHO. Surely a Capri chassis was never built with the intention of putting a Mustang V8 or 8" rear (whatever that may be!!) on it, so why should it be assumed that is is safe to do so and why should it be deemed as still being the original vehicle (when IMO it obviously is not) Presumably under your arguement I could put a V12 engine in a Kia Pride and it should be assumed that it is safe and not require any testing???

If anything, I think more stringent tests are required (your other examples in your other reply seem to support this)

Jp,
It's not a case of not having stringent tests, we are all for testing...
It's a case of having the tests relevant to the vehicle that's being tested.
The Capri example I used could have a full tube chassis and F1 brakes and suspension and still fail because the radius of the dashboard knobs are not within SVA regs.

A 1955 Ford Pop, fully restored could fail because the lights are not E marked.

I'm not saying that dangerous vehichles should be allowed on the road, though god knows you see enough of those every day. What I'm talking about is rules that, if enacted, would make it impossible to legally modify your vehicle in any way.

Oh and by the way, a properly built 1970 Capri is perfectly fine with a V8 in it, come over to Tertre Rouge next year and I'll take you out in my 4.7 Litre V8 1960 Zodiac. (With an 8" rear :D)

Exactly - putting rubber covers on my track rod end nuts or a rolled end on the tailpipe isn't going to save anybody's life or reduce injuries.  And most kit car manufacturers lend out a "Get you through the SVA" kit of various bits of rubber padding

This legislation is another example of Tony's nanny state.  Nobody benefits and many suffer.

You were making sense up till then!

It makes perfect sense to me...
It'll make even more sense when the 5.8 litre supercharged Chevrolet engine is in it... ;D ;D

Yes JP, It will be built to cope... Tube Chassis, new brakes and suspension all round and a lot of Drag Racing knowledge going int the build...

But, under the proposals it would fail because it have the original dashboard switches and lots of other stuff that the SVa doesn't like...

Pleased to hear that Steve.... not so sure about discovering i might have been belting round the track wrapped in nothing more than a handful of mismatched nuts n bolts inside a fibreglass shell tho!  :o - thank heavens for the sticky back on the iguana....

Just kidding ya of course - tis a thing of wondrous beauty and mechanical excellence  :)

P.S.  glad to see you didnt source a pic of a leper for this one

Surely such changes would require a government / parliment agreement ?

I like the idea, if its as simple as JP origionally put, but would too but upset to see old classics un-restorable, but i think that maybe a little harsh.

Only time will tell.

There's the point Robbo, at the moment they are DVLA plans, which move to a green paper, then a white paper, then, with government approval become law.
That's why the major campaign is going on now to get them changed to allow the practice of modifying you own car to continue. Which was the purpose of my first posting, to alert people who may not have been aware of the proposals.

Unfortunately we can't 'wait and see what happens', if we do we lose...

They are using Statutory Instruments to pass a lot of legislation these days. It circumvents the need for "proper" discussion and enables legislation to be passed virtually "on the nod".

Or at least that's what I read some time ago somewhere...

God, are you all lawyers (clearly not defamation experts)

I've spoken to my Rallying friends who have no fear of the SVA:

1  Their Escort Mk 2s are Jersey registered and hence do not even need an MOT.  These are not sheds and probably worth £20k each.
2  Prodrive base their rally cars on an official grey import.  They are immediately SVAed and when converted are SVAed again, presumably as most get sold.  They have one rear fog light which the move from car to car whilst the inspector watches.

Lorry,
So what you appear to be saying is that all road rally cars are Jersey registered?
How long before that loophole is closed?

No.  A lucky few have relatives/homes in Jersey, where the law is different, and can register there cars there and avoid the MOT & SVA etc, probably Gatso fines too.  The rest of us will have to comply with the law.

I wonder how long it will take for someone to set up some sort of dodge based on this.

The 'dodges' are rapidly being closed off.
The proposed law, as it's framed makes it incrediblly hard to pass SVA with anything that wasn't built afeter SVA was thought of.

Are you seriously suggesting that legislation will be passed that will wipe out this countries classic car industry overnight?
You've got to be joking, half of the people that run the country also run classics as well as the restoration industry providing jobs in their constituencies.
Absolutely no chance.

Got it in one

If we're going to march on London in protest, I'm already there. And its illegal to protest within 1 mile of the commons - another bit of legislation that we missed.

 I'm not suggesting that the restoration industry would be wiped out overnight.
 The restoration industry would continue as normal, Providing that the restorations are not re-shelled, or use a new body on an old chassis or
vice versa, and are restored with parts current at the time of manufacture, and are not updated in any way with modern parts, (Engines, drivetrain, axles
etc)

 A 1965 Lotus Elan, restored using refurbished or NOS parts is OK
 A 1965 Lotus Elan restored using one of the new chassis available, which uses a Ford Zetec engine and a five speed gearbox from the factory would
lose it's identity and therefore it's reg and be liable to SVA, see my previous posts about why it would fail.

An MG (One of the most commonly restored cars )with a BMH Heritage shell would also be in danger of being SVA'd

Steve,
I bet you fifty quid I'll get an MOT on my car next June with no SVA strings attached.
H

Your car is what H?

A pimp Mobile from the 60's.

True Gangster is H

A latter day Inspector Morse to boot!

Steve, it's an early sixties model with halogen headlamps, polybush suspension bushes and Koni dampers, modern brake calipers, stainless steel exhaust, electronic ignition, electronic fuel pump, a heated rear screen and a CD player. There's also a Snickers stuck behind one of the seats, and I can't get it out. All done in the best possible taste but not OEM. I'm not sure how modifications that do not include the actual changing of parts fit in with this new wheeze either, things like lightened flywheels, gas flowed heads etc.

Pretty much like it's owner really, teeth have been re-bored and lead loaded, ears uprated, bollocks replaced with a carbon chain material synthesised under license by a sheep farmer in Merthyr Tydfil and my poor old a*se has been the victim of far too many 'extras' down at the Tadge Mahal. Does this mean that when I next visit my GP he'll tamper with my SVA's and send me packing with a Q-plate?
H

Oi Robbo, less of the pimp, we're talking sixties, so for me at least it was more 'pimply'....
H

It also has quite a thirst for premium petroleum spirits.

This depends on how they define "major components" etc for the cars identity.  We don't know yet.  Something like a recon gearbox with a new casing might cause problems.  I hope they'll ignore lights brakes dampers pump etc, but quite a lot of this classic is new isn't it.  However, the snickers bar is an MOT fail.  Reminds me of the "Pimp" with the live rat in the dashboard.  Has it gone hairy yet

I suspect that this is also a dodge to make people pay road tax, as an exempt 63 car could become a 2005 kit car. 

OK...
A little test, under the proposals, which of these would not lose their identity and have to undergo SVA?

1) A Land Rover body on a shortened Range Rover chassis
2) A Mk 1 Escort with World Cup X member and Capri struts , 5 link Capri 3 litre rear axle and a Cosworth engine,
3)  VW Beetle with narrowed and dropped front beam,
upgraded rear suspension and transaxle and non OEM engine specification.
4) Morris Minor with Marina brake upgrades and Marina
axles running a K series engine

Probably all of them.
The bike world is not happy about these rules either, as it would cause problems with restorations, and specials.

Yup, they would all fall under the new rules, all need SVA and ALL probably fail...
It's nice to see that people are wakingup to this issue and taking their heads out of the sane.
As the title says "This is serious"... >:(

Well then, are you going to tickle my fifty quid or not?
H

H...
Decide for yourself...
This is the proposed regs as worded

A. Vehicles that have been rebuilt using a mix of new/used parts.
In order to retain the original registration mark:

Cars and Car-Derived Vans must use:

The original unmodified chassis or unaltered bodyshell (i.e. body and chassis as one unit - monocoque); or

A new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original supported by evidence from the dealer/manufacturer (e.g. receipt)

And two other major components from the original vehicle - see list below

Suspension (front & back)
Axles (both)
Transmission

Steering Assembly
Engine

Touch nothing else on your's and you'd be OK, but don't make any other changes, or uprate anything else...

Again Steve, from my perspective IMHO all four of your examples should need to be tested! Why should someone be allowed to take half of one car, half of another car, put them together themself and (a) It be deemed safe and (b) keep the original registration when it is obviously not the original car.

Restoration is a different issue. But then most restoration projects (that I have seen or been aware of) use mostly original parts. Therefore would be OK to keep the original reg. However, I believe that once it is restored, a vehicle should again have to undergo some sort of test as well.

JP, I'm not saying that they should not be tested...
What I'm saying is that they should be tested for what they are i.e. one off 'specials' which may include components that would not pass SVA, but have nothing to do with the cafetly and construction of the vehicle.

As I gave in a previous example I can pass SVA with an axle held in with U-Bolts so lind as the radius of my dash swithches is within spec.

The bike world will fall under even worse regs...
The DVLA say "Unmodified, original frame"

So far as B goes H.
I, personally have no problem with a Q plate if that is what it takes, my problem is with a Q plate and requiring SVA which is a totally inappropriate test, because it would be impossible to pass with anything built before 1998 because nothing that early is designed to get through.
Side repeaters, fold back mirrors, etc.

The restoration issue is even more complicated, see my previous post about a Lotus Elan. The new chassis and engine would improve the car and make it safer, but it would not pass SVA, therefore it would never hit the road..
And what happens when the supply of NOS parts dry up?
Remanufactured parts make the Identity of the car suspect and therefore the risk of SVA comes up again.

This is not the time to bury your head in the sand and say "Everything should be tested", Everything is tested, It's called the MOT.
But this is a test that pre 1998 stuff cannot pass, therefore it will never get to an MOT.

I'll accept an Engineer's report on my Zodiac any day, Done by someone who knows what he's looking at and can tell the difference between a well enginered car that is built to RACMSA specs, which allows it to run 13 seconds on the strip, and a car that doesn't have  fold back mirrors,  side repeaters and nicely shaped headlamp dip switches.

I don't fancy the engineers job.  If you certify a car as roadworthy, and a year later its totalled in a fatal accident, they'll be blaming the engineer, amongst others.  So they'll introduce a "tick the box" system, which like the SVA will be pretty worthless.

Lorry,
It works in Australia and in certain states in the US, where the cars are inspected by registered people who are cretified by the Hot Rod organisations (NSRA, ASRA).
There are guidebooks that show how a car 'should' be built.
These guys are experienced car builders who know what they are looking at and know what to look for.

It's not about not testing the cars as has been suggested by others, it's about knowing what you are testing and testing appropriately.

My Zody is certified down to 10 seconds on the strip and passes it's MOT each year with no problems.

It would never pass an SVA test though, because the SVA tests based on 'current' safety legislation.

Not in terms of how well the car is built, but how 'pedestrian and occupant safe' it is.

A standard 1960 Zody wouldn't pass, so why should a modified one even have to try and pass?

Yes, but the issue is that they won't xray the welds, do stress analysis etc, they have to take a view and to give guidelines for this you end up with a test that is like the SVA - it can comply with the rules, but is still unsafe.

I don't think that you can let anything out on the road, but you can't legislate for it.

Is the Zodiac still column change? (4 on the floor was a period modification - did they miss that)

The Zodiac has a C4 auto box...
At the moment I am hoping that we can get the rules changed, if not shelved, with enough pressure.

People have been modifying cars, safely for a very long time now, the trouble is that they are trying to pass impossible laws that will outlaw it all without knowing what they are dealing with.

How many of the people who are formulating these proposals even know what a Hot Rod is???

Could it even be that this is their actual plan, that they don't see a place for Hot Rods on the road??

I used to know a Hot Rod who hung around, quite literally, on the Kings Road and hired himself out to the ladies. His claims to fame were a passing resemblance to Rod Stewart and a todger like a weekend special from the Dynorod warehouse.
In the end I think he went overboard with drink and drugs. What's the betting he's on a Q plate now?
H

If you don't understand it, ban it.  Those that have a clue don't want 400bhp running through 50 year old spotwelds, and they all feel the need to tell us what to do.  I still can't see the problem they're trying to fix.  I think the health and safety hats have been put on, and cars are dangerous, so the more dangerous cars deserve their attention.  Sorry, but its the drivers that are dangerous ninety nine times out of a hundred.

You've hit the nail square on the head there Lorry.
It's Health and Safety gone crazy, masterminded by people who haven't got a clue.
If you read the responses to the consultation document, the police are concerned with spotting ringers and getting them off the road.
But here's a thought.
You could easily go out and buy a crashed 2 year old Mondeo, take running gear and interior out of it, bolt it all into a new shell and put it back on the road.
You take it to the MOT station and the guy looks at it, tests it and, because it is not modified, it goes back on sale no questions asked...... No SVA.

Of course that doesn't mean it's a dangerous wreck does it?it's safe because it's not been 'modified'

Or you could take a completely rebuilt 1960 Zodiac, with a full cage, race derived suspension, race derived brakes, built by 'say' Andy Robinson. (For those who don't know, one of the top chassis and racecar builders in the UK) to the same station.
It would be reported to VOSA as modified, subject to SVA and would fail.

Of course it's not safe is it, because it doesn't have reversing lights, foglamps and the switchgear has the wrong radius..

The level of incompetence of these people amazes me, and see the Trail Riders message too.

There was a chap locally who bought write offs, straightened then out with hydraulics, plus some wings & a bit of paint etc and sold them.  I only found out as a friend was after a fuel pump, and this chaps latest "restoration" had started to fold back up, so he had to scrap it.  The insurers register write offs, so you can find out, but some poor slob could have bought this only to find out its history at 80 in the fast lane.

So how does this legislation help here - the car is still original (unfortunately)

And forget foglamps, what if your classic has trafficators or whatever those things were called.

This is the response document that has been sent to the DVLA as part of the campaign.
For those who think we are just trying to get overpowered, under engineedrd vehicle on the road it should prove enlightening reading.
For those who understand the issues at hand it shows what's being done.

http://www.nsra.org.uk/editorial13.htm

H' something for you to think about with your 'A home built car with a big engine should be tested stance'

If I decided to put a 500bhp Supercharged and Nitrous Injected Chevy engine in my Rover P5b, but kept everything else standard (Chassis, Brakes, Gearbox, Suspension etc) the car would NOT require any kind of SVA test on what would be a potential deathtrap of a car?
Yet if I put in a 305TPI, 700R4, Uprated the brakes, suspension, handling etc (making a very safe, practical vehicle) it WOULD be subject to testing.

This is the stupidity of the proposed legislation

Steve , have you thought about getting support from the Police on the matter.
If it means un-safe vehicles can potentially get through, and safer vehciles stopped, they maybe intersted. Write to your local traffic base and go for someone at Inspector level ( lowest ) or a Superintendant.

Thanks Robbo,
I'll get a letter off to them and see what they say...

Just written a letter about other items titled " Safer Roads " a government idea to reduce road casulaties.

The matter is being assisted by the police and will help 2 wheel people.