DVLA Plans - This is serious

[Steve TTTD]

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.

[jpchenet]

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!

[Steve TTTD]

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.

[Lorry]

.....Imagine you take a 1970 Capri., Fit a Mustang V8 and  8" rear.......

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.

[Steve TTTD]

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.

[Bobblehat]

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).

[Steve TTTD]

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.

[ecurie]

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.

[BigH]

We already have legislation like this in Belgium

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

[Andy Zarse]

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.

[Steve Pyro]

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 TTTD]

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

[jpchenet]

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.

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)

[Steve TTTD]

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 )

[Lorry]

......By the way , the SVA is only to do with perceived safety ......

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.