Bill.P. Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Having put my lawyers hat back on temporarily to read the new DVLA guidelines on what, after the 18th May, will constitute a "Historic Vehicle" exempt from MOT if over 40 years old, it seems to me that there will be a problem for all sidescreen TRs fitted with rack and pinion steering......has anyone else thought of this? The guidelines quite specifically say that "alteration of the type or method of steering DOES constitute a material change", ie one that will prevent the TR so modified from claiming MOT exemption....but worse than that, pre 1960 TRs with rack and pinion that were formerly MOT exempt WILL now need one !!! HMMM....law of unintended consequences anyone? There are two potential "get-outs" to this problem....one if it can be shown that this type of modification was being done within 10 years of the vehicle type ceasing production, ie 1972 in this case....well, it wasn't-I was there and I know of no case where anyone did this at that time, nor were any kits available for at least another 15 years. Two-- if the mod can be shown, in respect of "axles and running gear" (does that include steering? it doesn't say) to have improved "efficiency, safety or environmental performance".....well, in my view, that is very subjective and arguable.....there's nothing wrong with the original steering in my view, and you could argue that cars with steering deviating from the manufacturer's spec are LESS safe inherently, and less efficient in that the steering lock on rack and pinion cars is in my experience always rubbish compared to original steering TRs.... So looks like ALL sidescreen TRs modified with rack and pinion steering might always need MOTs.....I can see the value of those old RHD steering boxes/columns propped in the corner of the garage rising exponentially..... What fun, eh? Bill Piggott Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Hi Bill, I've been waiting for someone to bring this one up . . . well done ! There are other potential minefields in terms of 'substantial' change that may not be regarded as 'acceptable' . . . . . telescopic shocker conversions, for one example, uprated driveshafts for another, replacement of IRS diffs by those of other manufacturers (eg BMW), fitment of 5 speed gearboxes from BMW, Ford, Toyota or whoever. Originality might well command an increasing premium in the resale market ? Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ian Vincent Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 The simple solution is to get the vehicle MOT'd. Rgds Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Hi Bill, thinking about this sideways There is a direct lineage from TS2 to the last TR6 (ref Triggers broom) There were no out and out changes until you get to the TR7 So could it be argued that a TR6 is simply an updated TR2 Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 The simple solution is to get the vehicle MOT'd. Rgds Ian Exactly. This stops all arguments and besides that why would you not. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 The option of getting the vehicle MoT'd does not, in itself, remove the future possibility of classic vehicles being compulsorily re-registered onto a Q-plate as a result of not meeting the new standards for historic eligibility . . . . . Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Bill - although a number of the R&P conversions do increase the (already large) turning circle of the sidescreen cars, I know of one from a very well-known supplier which does not - and there may be others of which I am unaware. I have always advised purchasers of R&P conversions to ask of the supplier, "what will be the turning circle after conversion?" Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fireman049 Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 If I ever return my 3A back on the road she will always have an annual MoT. Then the Insurance Companies cannot use the excuse of no MoT not to pay out! Tom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lebro Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 As I see it, the MOT is not (or should not be) an issue, we should all have one anyway, but as noted above, the possibility of loosing the original registration, & of course having to start paying for the road fund licence again. Bob. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fireman049 Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Road Fund Licence? Our street is so full of potholes that a film company will be using it to recreate the Battle of the Somme! Our useless Council have just wasted thousands of pounds creating a bloody cycle path! Tom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fireman049 Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Hi Ian Cornish ~ Which Company supplies the R & P conversion with the bast turning circle? You may PM me your reply if you so wish. Tom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Den T Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Somebody told you about this a while back, they do not give in one hand without taking it back, tears if you did not see it coming. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rod1883 Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) I posted this question, amongst other "improvement" mods when this all came up in these forums some while back. I think the latest guidance on significant change suggests that it is not as bad as feared. I will of course continue to get the TR2 MOT tested annually, but it was the right to the registration that was my earlier concern too. Edit - I found that thread from last year: www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/63529-mot-requirement/ Sorry I don't seem to be able to copy and paste links to other threads anymore? Edited February 19, 2018 by Rod1883 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Tom: a young(er than me) fellow in Middlezoy. Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mike ellis Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 These guidelines are for 'Vehicles of Historic Interest' rather than Historic Vehicle as there is a significant difference. VHI is an MoT exemption class and has nothing to do (although never say never) with registration and tax whereas HV is a taxation class. So it will be possible to have a Historic Vehicle which is not a Vehicle of Historic Interest. What will happen from May is that on renewing your tax (free) for a 40 year old vehicle you will have to declare that the vehicle is a VHI (and hence MoT exempt) by reference to the guidelines. If in any doubt you are directed to the vehicle club although how they will have any more knowledge is beyond me. There are no further checks planned. I would be concerned that if the DVLA decide at some stage to check up on a vehicle for whatever reason and then decide that the vehicle does not qualify where does that leave the owner and for that matter the club if they have advised the owner. It just shows how different governments implement EU directives as Sweden is making all 40 year old vehicles MoT exempt for easier administration, something that our DfT will not countenance (no tangents regarding leaving the EU please). Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mike ellis Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 Latest information from FBHVC on Roadworthiness Testing can be found in pages 8-10 of their newsletter Issue 1 2018 - http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/members-pages/newsletter-archive/ As a reminder the Substantial Change Guidance is here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/670431/vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) There are two potential "get-outs" to this problem....one if it can be shown that this type of modification was being done within 10 years of the vehicle type ceasing production, ie 1972 in this case....well, it wasn't-I was there and I know of no case where anyone did this at that time, nor were any kits available for at least another 15 years. .... Hi Bill I note your comment re no such mods happening within 10yrs of manufacture........I know of one TR2 that was converted in the very early 60's.......will this help? If so let me know. Iain Edited February 22, 2018 by iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cjstoodley Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 The VHI Substantial Change Guidance document states that a change is NOT substantial when made. . . . . " in respect of axles and running gear changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance; " Surely rack and pinion steering must represent a change to running gear which improves both efficiency and safety, thereby making the vehicle (in this respect) exempt from requiring an MOT ???? Or am I showing my naivety of legalese ?? Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 Chris I would agree with the sentiment but to quote "Axles and running gear – alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change;" I think that is pretty explicit, hence the need to prove it if we can, that R and P was a conversion in the period allowed. Iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cjstoodley Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 Yes Iain, I agree that proving R and P steering conversion was a modification which was allowed within the specified period would allow exemption, but the point I am making is the exact opposite of Bill's original argument that the conversion did not improve safety or efficiency (which in themselves would grant MOT exemption). If this is true, then WHY would the conversion be made in the first place - to decrease safety and reliability ?? If you were to ask the majority of owners who have converted to R and P why they bothered (and it seems a very popular modification these days) then I'm sure 99% would argue it was a safer and more efficient mechanical set-up. I suspect Bill is playing Devil's Avocado here ! Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
greasemonkey Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 The TR3 BETA was, I believe, built with R & P steering although not production cars but could be regarded as a modification in period (to improve safety & efficiency!!??) Just checked and Bill's 'Original' book confirms BETA was so fitted. Anyway, the TR4 certainly had R & P and it's nothing more than a rebodied 3A really!! I don't think they replaced the old worm & peg box to save money - so why did they? Could be because it's better. Cheers, Phil. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fireman049 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 I believe that Triumph were under contract for the worm and peg steering arrangement and to cancel this would have incurred severe penalties. Tom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 24, 2018 Report Share Posted February 24, 2018 The TR4's chassis was a TR3A chassis with box sections added to widen the front track, and the outriggers extended to support the wider body. No change was necessary to the mountings of the rear axle - the axle itself was widened, but the mountings to the springs and dampers remained in the same position as on the TR3A. Throughout TR4 production, this remained the arrangement. Could one argue that this demonstrates an improvement engineered on the TR3A chassis & steering, introduced in 1961? Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anotheralan Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 There are three 'Criteria' when considering eligibility for 'Exemption from MOT', namely: 'Components' considered when determining eligibility on the basis of substantial change, excepting 'Categories' of acceptable (i.e. not substantial) changes and 'Types of vehicle' (such as Q plates, kit cars) which are deemed to have been substantially changed and will not be exempt from MOT testing. The second of the three Components, i.e. Axles and running gear , is clearly defined to include steering. It follows that any use of this Component title can be interpreted as including steering. Changes to steering (e.g. R&P conversion) therefore puts eligibility for exemption at risk - but subject to application of the second Criterion of 'acceptable (i.e. not substantial) changes'. I changed my steering to R&P when restoring my then basket case TR3. I was prompted to do this because the column had been bent as a result of the previous owner having forgotten to unbolt the column from the dash before attempting to lift off the body! Leaving aside whether or not one thinks having an MOT is a good idea regardless of exemption, and yes a well maintained original steering is fine too, I would argue that R&P is an acceptable change under the following Categories as a replacement original steering column is not 'readily' available, and secondly there are good efficiency and safety benefits. The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into these specific categories: • changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available; Bill Piggott's comment on the effect of demand exceeding supply on the price of an original column supports this view. As for the other Category • in respect of axles and running gear changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance; Efficiency - the ratio of the useful work done by a machine, engine, device, etc, to the energy supplied to it. Well it sure is easier to turn the wheel. Safety - having a split column is potentially a good thing in a head on collision isn't it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Larnder Posted April 10, 2018 Report Share Posted April 10, 2018 Hi Guys Could one argue that The conversion to R&P was for medical reasons, e.g. it is easier to turn the steering for somebody with a problem in their arms. ( old age may not be an answer, that lets me out!) Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.