Club 80-90 Forums

New rules the DVLA are trying to bring in.

It was reported in Classic Car Weekly (17th Feb issue):

"Every year thousands of classic car enthusiasts modify their vehicles to seek improved reliability, performance or comfort.
But now, many of their activities could make their cars subject to a £450 safety examination under a 27 year old regulation supervised by the DVLA.
The rigorous test known as the BIVA (Basic Individual vehicle approval) takes between 6 & 8 hours to conduct and is only held at 21 test centres in the UK. Unlike MOT tests, vehicles cannot be driven to the BIVA appointment – they have to be transported there.
Popular modifications among classic car owners include engine, gearbox and carb swaps, many of which could make the car subject to BIVA if the work involves cutting the vehicles monocoque chassis.
Even if a car with a modified monocoque passes the BIVA test, it will be stripped of its original registration no. and issued with a Q plate – a system originally devised for kit cars.
And pre ’73 cars could lose their cherished Historic Vehicle exemption from tax.
The DVLA could decide that an owner who cuts into a Ford Escorts transmission tunnel to fit a 5-speed box has modified the monocoque.
Similarly, working on a Mini’s bulkhead to fit a Weber carb or add a larger engine could also count as modification.
Many owners now fit 5 speed boxes to classics and may not even be aware that what they are doing could be judged illegal.
If a discrepancy shows up at the MOT, your car can be called for inspection and if the DVLA officials don’t like your work, they can cancel your V5 and order the car off the road.
These specific rules only apply to cars with a monocoque chassis, and does not affect body modifications to older cars with separate chassis.
A DVLA spokesperson said ”the guideline issued by the DVLA for the registration of rebuilt, radically altered or kit cars are set out in the INF26 information leaflet and are also available online from http://www.direct.gov.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

as long as mot man doesn't spot the spacers and modified wheel arches we should be ok, major changed vehicles that Russel does are SVA'd anyway
after the prat in the badly modified landie killed his kids the mot men were told to be on the lookout for mods, my guy was cool though, even though I didn't paint the spacers to make them disappear into the chassis, but the all new bushes and balljoints and nuts and washers and springs and dampers and shiney suspension components probably dazzled
mind my guy doesn't even bother with an emmisions test, just does a smoke test cos of the age of the vehicle, which meant I didn't get a print out to show what it was actually producing

Eh.. emissions should be done... its not a dweezil......

but it's on gas, no smoke at any revs, he knows it'll pass so he doesn't bother and obviously the computer doesn't require a particular input
they seem to spend a lot more time on the suspension and steering now with the clever thing that shakes it all about rather than a bloke in the cab turning the steering wheel and bloke underneath pulling on things, and the tyres get a real close inspection too

Could you argue that the T25 has a chassis in view of this.....http://www.karmann-coachbuilts.com/chas ... uction.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Dont think so..
Did they add any strengthening to that before the body went on? or is there a sturdy frame in the body?
I cant see how the chassis rails and floor would be that strong... but you never know.. (we'll soon find out though eh Aidan?)

From the bits and pieces I read about the Karman Gipsy/Cheetah there's no addtional strengthening and the actual body appears to be an aluminium clad wooden frame, have a look at this.....http://www.karmann-coachbuilts.com/rest ... esty77.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thats not all they've been up to , looks like they've been digging deep trying to see where they can drag in some more revenue , and may affect a few of us with older vehicle collections that include post 1960 vehicles that are MOT exempt , like recovery trucks ,some Military vehicles , agricultural vehicles what might the tester think of things like unguarded front PTO's ,a unimog with split gearbox prop shaft tube gaiters ,a military vehicle that the tester can't get into or be able to jack it up because they don,t have the equipment to do so lots of discussions on this mater on historic vehicle forums ,see the link , not sure if its been mentioned on here before ,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/...ingexemptions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I havew herd a romour of someone getting interest from VOSA when he changed the engine number and fuel type of an engine in a Land-Rover. Its a bit stupid really as they'll alow you to weld plates in the chassis to replace corossion but if you chop off an engine mount and weld it back in a different place they are now surgesting its a modified chassis that needs Q plating. I can see where they are comming from for some radical chassis mods but an engine mount that was welded on anyway or adding an extra body tab seems silly. That'll mean any Land-Rover with a roll cage should be Q plated as you are ment to weld brackets to the chassis to fit them (sandwiching the chassis with bolted plates is bad as it would crush it). COuld the same be said for drilling holes in chassis/monococks?

On the plus side I suspect they won't be experts on all vehicles so if you are very tidy so it looks OEM they won't notice (though taking 8 hours maybe they do measure stuff, though they won't have the measurements of 40 year old cars). I agree with the theroy of there being alot of sub standard modified vehicles out there but it just seems a little over the top to me. Especally when you consider the rediculously poor quality pattern parts avalable out there which are at least as likely to fail on a standard car than someones mods (though the engineering in some off the shelf "mods" for certain brands think is apauling).

Glen I don't think it will affect your Land Rover to the same extent as this has a separate chassis and it appears you can add chassis strength ie roll cages.
The page below is worth a read, it has some questions answered by VOSA, but its not good news for those used to hacking their cars to bits then modifying them.
But then when SVA was introduced there was panic that it would stop kit cars being built. What actually happened was it caused them to be better built. The downside is obviously the cost.
There have been arguments here about EPAS for example and whether it is safe to retro fit, because there is no requirment for it to be inspected. The world is moving faster and becoming more safety and litigation aware. These regulations were inevitable unfortunately. What I think is unfair is if it will be applied retrospectively to modifications made before it was dreamt up.

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/Chassis-and-M ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On reading up on subaru conversions, it requires a 80 x 50mm piece cut from engine firewall.
Would this, in theory, be affected?

monocoque chassis.

T25 is not a monocoque its a far cry from the pair of girders that run the length of a T25 that give it its strength.

Hacksawbob wrote: T25 is not a monocoque

Is it not?

KarlT wrote:On reading up on subaru conversions, it requires a 80 x 50mm piece cut from engine firewall.
Would this, in theory, be affected?

Not if your clever I didnt cut a bit out of mine !

we had a gypsey on the ramp the other day and you can see bar thats been added from the bottom of the rear angled section where you would bolt the rock and roll to which travels behind the cut away sliding door runner(made from panel vans) and same on other side,cheers mcgill