Lotus Elan

MOT exemption - recent UK Gov Consultation

PostPost by: alan.barker » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:29 pm

I thought it was morrie minor and a moggy is a Morgan :)
Alan
Alan.b Brittany 1972 elan sprint fhc Lagoon Blue 0460E
alan.barker
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 789
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Location: BRITTANY FRANCE

PostPost by: Bigbaldybloke » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:26 pm

I'm in the process of completely rebuilding my Plus 2 after 30 years off the road, even if I don't need an mot I'll take it for a second independent opinion as I may have missed something - you never see your own mistakes, you tend to see what you want to see. A good example of what could get missed is in the attached photo of my seat belt mounting point reinforcing plate, it looked fine until I took it off and banged off the under seal and rust, the new one beside it shows just how bad it was.
Attachments
img_0227.jpg and
Bigbaldybloke
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 16 May 2017
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPost by: theelanman » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:29 am

erm.....not sure about that........
Im fairly sure that they'd never look at your seat belt mounting plate anyway.....
all they do is pull on the belt a bit.........and then plug it in.........
:shock:
User avatar
theelanman
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Location: Peak District

PostPost by: theelanman » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:31 am

Ive seen +2's without the sill members getting MoT's without problems........
not only are these the jacking points but also the seat belt mounting points......
User avatar
theelanman
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Location: Peak District

PostPost by: Elanintheforest » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:14 pm

This is the working daft (or draft) definition of 'substantial change'.
Attachments
vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf
(241.71 KiB) Downloaded 26 times
User avatar
Elanintheforest
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Forest Of Dean, Gloucestershire

PostPost by: Spyder fan » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:18 pm

Elanintheforest wrote:This is the working daft (or draft) definition of 'substantial change'.


Mark,
There is nothing onerous in that draft as far as I am concerned. It simply means that anyone who has increased the power out put of a twincam above 120bhp when they had 105 to start with will be required to self certify that they will need a compulsory MOT.

A Sprint with 128 BHP to start with must not increase its engine power beyond 140 or it will need a compulsory MOT.

Use the same maths for SE engines.

Of course if you can prove that the "modification " was historic and done before 1988 like your BDA +2 then good luck and well done, but I can't see why this should be?
Kindest regards

Alan Thomas
User avatar
Spyder fan
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Location: Kent country & Sussex seaside UK

PostPost by: Elanintheforest » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:18 pm

It's not the MOT that's bothers folks Alan. It's the statements around there having to be 'Q' plates on a car that is defined as radically altered. A car is defined as radically altered if it fails the 8 point system or fails the power increase done since the 1980s test. That's the one that DVLA seem to be in a bit of a flap about, answering different people in different ways.

It has yet to be defined properly!
User avatar
Elanintheforest
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Forest Of Dean, Gloucestershire

PostPost by: Spyder fan » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:47 pm

Elanintheforest wrote:It's not the MOT that's bothers folks Alan. It's the statements around there having to be 'Q' plates on a car that is defined as radically altered. A car is defined as radically altered if it fails the 8 point system or fails the power increase done since the 1980s test. That's the one that DVLA seem to be in a bit of a flap about, answering different people in different ways.

It has yet to be defined properly!


Yes Mark,
I get that point, no doubt we will get clarification in due course.

The way that I read it is as follows
"Those vehicles that have failed the 8 point test and are registered with a Q plate will continue to require an MOT, in addition vehicles that have the power to weight increase as specified will also continue to require an MOT.

I am concerned about the future modification of vehicles and whether this will be regulated to the same point as the German/European system, but I am not concerned about those vehicles already registered correctly under the current rules, it will be a first in U.K. automotive history for new rules on vehicle technical details to be applied retrospectively, it won't happen.

I merely highlighted the obvious point that anyone with a 140bhp+ QED or similar engine will have to seriously question whether they can tick the box that says their car is not radically altered if the 15% rule is adopted as a benchmark for radical alteration.
Kindest regards

Alan Thomas
User avatar
Spyder fan
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Location: Kent country & Sussex seaside UK

PostPost by: Elanintheforest » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:40 pm

A pair of cams and a bit of re-jetting will sort out the tuned Twincam engine!
User avatar
Elanintheforest
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Forest Of Dean, Gloucestershire

PostPost by: john.p.clegg » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:40 am

"1980s test."

Criterion 1
If a vehicle has a power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original
design, unless such a modification took place before 1988.

How would anyone know when the modification took place ?

John :wink:
User avatar
john.p.clegg
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 5228
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Location: Manchester

PostPost by: Spyder fan » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:56 am

And 2 clicks on my laptop will sort out my modern stuff. But who will bother and who will check?
Kindest regards

Alan Thomas
User avatar
Spyder fan
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Location: Kent country & Sussex seaside UK

PostPost by: Elanintheforest » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:50 am

An insurance company will check if there’s a claim and they can find any way out of paying up! The guys at DVSA (what was the old VOSA) are not dummies, with many time-served car engineers and ex-police car inspectors in their staff. DVLA also have contracted a company (currently) to check out cars being registered for the first time in a long time (barn finds) and cars being imported. It’s just taken a friend 7 months to get a bog-standard Cortina GT/E, imported from South Africa, to get it registered over here. That’s despite two club inspectors certifying it is an original car, and the DVLA inspectors pouring over it for 2 days.

None of this is wanted by the DVLA or the DVSA. The MOT and new ‘radically altered’ ruling is being done under the new European Roadworthiness Directive, where practice in the UK is being aligned with that in Europe. This is being driven by the French and German governments, who of course, know best. Try and get a modified car registered in either France or Germany!

The bottom line for me is twofold.

First, historic cars are being grouped together, seemingly with the benefit of having to pay no VED and no MOT fee. VED is growing all the time with modern cars, now based on emissions, and it seems very likely that as more low or zero emissions cars are put on the road, then VED and petrol prices will increase to pay for the charging infrastructure required for the clean cars. It’s pretty easy to see the time when historic cars can will only be allowed on the road occasionally because they are not ‘paying their way’ and their emissions are off the scale compared with modern cars, especially in built up areas. 25 years ago it was quite normal to smoke in a pub. If anybody dared to do that now they would be lynched! Public opinion, especially when fed with the propaganda that their children are dying from car emissions, can be swayed very quickly.

Second, modified cars are all being lumped together, and some believe, made recognisable by the ‘Q’ plate system,. Again, differentiating non-standard cars allows the above to happen, but without the zero-cost VED, and possibly attracting a punitive VED instead in years to come. Germany and France don’t understand why we should allow such cars on the road, and again, public opinion could easily be swayed.

The writing is certainly on the wall, but for many it won’t make a lot of difference. Many pre-war cars get put on a trailer to go to events, and increasingly this is happening to the 1960s classics, especially when restored to show condition. Those who use their cars on the road average less than 1000 miles a year, according to the insurance companies, with many of those in the low 100s. With an average age of 1960s classic car owners being somewhere in their 60s, then any punitive changes in 10 or 20 years time probably won’t have much of an impact, other than a potential financial hit for whoever owns the cars when the music stops.

My final thought is that Jaguar have just made an electric E Type. What the hell is the point of that? !!
User avatar
Elanintheforest
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Forest Of Dean, Gloucestershire

PostPost by: Chancer » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:24 am

" anyone who has increased the power out put of a twincam above 120bhp when they had 105 to start with will be required to self certify that they will need a compulsory MOT."

And there is the out................................................ - Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies.

Now if the requirement was that every year an owner has to make a signed statement that their vehicle has not been modified to "benefit" from the no MOT and zero VED régime then that would be altogether different.

Give it time however.........................................

I think Alans reading of the situation is spot on.
Chancer
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Location: Northern France/ Sussex UK

PostPost by: elanfan1 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:38 am

Roll on Brexit! Maybe we can make our own rules rather than be lead by the nose?
Steve

Silence is Guildern; Duct Tape is Silver
User avatar
elanfan1
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Location: Cardiff in Welsh Wales

PostPost by: bob_rich » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:26 pm

Hi

I have just had the +2 MOT for what ,it appears, may be the last time ( It passed !) . I have used this garage since we moved out to Essex in 1976 and they have MOT my Lotus 7 since 1980, and more recently the +2. I think the elimination of the MOT test on historic vehicles is not a good idea and I like the fact that a garage I trust can give the car a good sensible look over and over the years have tightened the odd bolt for me . They let me look under the car when it is on the ramp ( so much easier when you can stand and look and not crawl about on the ground! ), I have taken photos for reference when it has proven useful and the mechanic frequently make suggestions on what to keep an eye on.

I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that historic vehicles are 40+ years old lumps of metal and plastic and in the case of Lotus models can bat along nicely at 70MPH (+) (ish!). I for one feel confident in having to prepare the car each year and then get it looked at by an experienced mechanic for the MOT.

Apparently one can still have an MOT on older historic and some of the customers at this garage still take their pre 1960 cars in and have a full MOT done even though in the UK this is not required. This is what I will do with mine.

Though not an MOT issue In a recent post on coolant leakage I could not find the source of a very small leak. However under the car on their ramp with it was spotted and found to be the underside of the coolant pipe between the heater and the lower RH side engine block at the engine block end. They topped up the water allowed me to tighten up the hose enough to get home ( have since replace the offending hose).

I for one will keep having the test done. Should anything happen that involves an insurance issue at least it will show a degree of "due diliagence" on my part

Bob
bob_rich
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 519
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
PreviousNext

Total Online:

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests