MOT Requirement

[Robin Powell]

I see that the Government have decided to exempt cars over 40 years old from having an MOT on a rolling basis. Providing they have not been subtatially modified or have more than 15 percent extra power/weight ratio from original spec !!

[RogerH]

Hi Robin,

that is not necessarily a good idea.

 

Roger

[Lebro]

I would go further & say it is a very bad idea, as was exempting cars older than 1960

 

Bob.

[TR5tar]

I see that the Government have decided to exempt cars over 40 years old from having an MOT on a rolling basis. Providing they have not been subtatially modified or have more than 15 percent extra power/weight ratio from original spec !!

 

I thought that this was still being debated. Has the law now been changed?

[Peter Cobbold]

Indeed, a very bad idea. It is open to abuse as it involves self-declaring modifications. And once abuse is inevitably uncovered, modified cars could be legislated off the road. The aim overall, reading between the lines of that consultation document a year or so back, is to get rid of old style MoT and harmonise it with EU plans for testing at specialist centres, to include electrickery such as abs, esp etc.

Ultimately as fatalties caused by un-MoT'd classics accrue, they will all be legislated off the road, modifed or not.

 

Turn the garage into a museum ?

 

Peter

Edited September 14, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[Robin Powell]

Hi Robin,

that is not necessarily a good idea.

 

Roger

Interestingly of the people that filled in the consulation there were more against it (including me) than for it but when does the Government listen?

[Peter Cobbold]

Interestingly of the people that filled in the consulation there were more against it (including me) than for it but when does the Government listen?

Governments have hidden agendas and 'consultations' are mere window dressing to deliver a thin veneer of democracy.

FBHVC are losing the battle.

 

Have you a link to the pronouncement ?

 

Peter

Edited September 14, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[Guest ntc]

When does this become law?

[marki]

Hi Robin.

I couldn't find the 15% extra power bit. Although I'd still get the car MOT'd even if it's just for a peace if mind/value thing. A car with a full complement of mot tests has to be more desirable.

Mark.

[TR5tar]

Here it is Peter, mentioned in another thread in Members Chat ... https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

[Peter Cobbold]

Here's the email from David Pope, for thsoe who did not repsond to the consultation:

===============

 

Dear consultee

 

Thank you for replying to last year’s consultation on proposals to exempt Vehicles of Historical Interest from annual roadworthiness testing.

 

We have today announced the Government’s response to the consultation. This has been published on our website, together with a summary of the submissions we received from the public and a draft guidance note explaining how we propose to define ‘substantially changed’ vehicles. The Department plans to finalise the guidance during November. This link will take you to the page where these documents may be read:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

 

If you have any questions or feedback about it please contact roadworthinesstesting@dft.gsi.gov.uk).

We are introducing legislation in Parliament today to bring the proposed changes into effect.

Yours sincerely

David Pope

Edited September 14, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[Guest ntc]

So the supercharged car is not in the changes ?

[Peter Cobbold]

Only 1% of classic owners responded to the consultation.

That alone gives the governmemt carte blanche.

[Peter Cobbold]

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE DRAFT GUIDANCE:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644962/vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf

 

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

 

8-point rules originally written for kit cars will apply to all mods carried out on/after 1988---see link for details.

 

======

My view:

Declaring a car is MoT-expempt involves a lot of farting around at a Post Office -and a charge no doubt. Getting an MoT may well be the easier option, especially as it exonerates the owner from making a mistaken declaration of exemptiness.

 

 

Rolling roads will start under-reading rather than hyping hp

 

 

Peter

Edited September 14, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[stillp]

Only 1% responded as individuals Peter, but surely most classic owners will have responded via their club or the FBHVC?

 

Pete

[Peter Cobbold]

Only 1% responded as individuals Peter, but surely most classic owners will have responded via their club or the FBHVC?

 

Pete

Pete,

The Club and FBHVC dont vote for MPs.

That's why it was important to stnand up and be counted.

Too late now.

Peter

[ianhoward]

When does this become law?

Hi Neil

 

I believe it's the middle of next year... Bad move whenever...

 

Cheers

Ian

[Peter Cobbold]

Hi Robin.

I couldn't find the 15% extra power bit. Although I'd still get the car MOT'd even if it's just for a peace if mind/value thing. A car with a full complement of mot tests has to be more desirable.

Mark.

Mark,

see post 14

Yes peace of mind, not only for mechanical safety but also we cannot be accused of making a false declaration of exemption.

Peter

[Guest ntc]

Hi Neil

 

I believe it's the middle of next year... Bad move whenever...

 

Cheers

Ian

+1 Ian there is no logic.

[Peter Cobbold]

Nothing forbids all classic owners from getting MoTs. Let's hope Insurers demand MoTs too. Then this whole business becomes a load of Westmonster hot air.

Will the Clubs , FBHVC and the Classic Press prompt us to get MoTs ? In my view they should. Bureaucrats go hang......

Peter

[john.r.davies]

And criterion 2 is that the car is not a 'kit car' or a "reconstructed classic". An MoT station can certify the second, but not the first. Bonanza for rolling roads! The question of whether a TR6 has 130 (100%) or 150bhp (115%) will ride again!

 

John

Edited September 14, 2017 by john.r.davies

[stillp]

Pete,

The Club and FBHVC dont vote for MPs.

That's why it was important to stnand up and be counted.

Too late now.

Peter

Good point Peter, I should have thought of that.

 

Pete

[Rod1883]

I responded, and I've posted some thoughts in the Members Chat area on the MOT exemption thread.

It does seem that whatever views the consultation generated, they were going ahead anyway.

 

There is a link on that thread to the Government docs - it is the last one that quotes the Power to weight criteria.

 

As I posted there I don't know what the 8 point check list for substantially modified is, but I am concerned that my 2, fitted with later TR front disc brakes, rack and pinion steering, could fall foul - despite all those mods being, imho, things that make the car safer/better in current driving conditions.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Rod1883

[john.r.davies]

I think the 8 point check is here: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles

 

John

[Peter Cobbold]

Many TRs have been modified to give more power with a trick cam, balancing and more rpm to make use of it. What's the situation going to be if a rev limiter is fitted to negate the extra 15% over standard ? Can rogue owners legally declare compliance with exemption?

And who is going to check the calibration of rolling roads that "loose" enough hp to bring a car within the 15%. Pump up the tyres rock hard, do the run on hot, rainy day etc.

 

Can of worms........loopholes for the rogues everywhere. So this exemption business is a threat to TRers who are of course honest to a 'T'R.

Peter

Edited September 14, 2017 by Peter Cobbold