A major little word of warning re. EV conversions
Discussion
GT6k said:
I may get flamed for this but i think this is the DVLA doing their job. I have done some serious mods over the years (and always added the big brakes with the big engine) but i have also seen some very dangerous ones, one of which killed the owner. I love Minis but they were never overburdened in the structural integrity department and had dubious crash worthiness even by the standards of the 1960s. I would be wanting to ban it for the mere mention of a traction battery in the boot, it makes me think of the Pinto scene in Top Secret.
Minis have their fuel tanks in the boot? Why is it being judged differently from a mini with a non-standard A series? Won't someone think of the children?hidetheelephants said:
Minis have their fuel tanks in the boot? Why is it being judged differently from a mini with a non-standard A series? Won't someone think of the children?
Eh? Of course regulators have to think of the children. Why do you think we have crash regs/ seatbelts/ car seat requirements in the first place.OP, what was it that 'triggered' the inspection in the first place? I'm just embarking on a conversion myself, so this is really relevant to me.
My understanding was that if you do an engine swap (including to electric), that you just notify DVLA of the change and move on with your life. (Which I assumed is what all the conversion shops & youtuber's are doing.)
If however you do something which triggers the Radically Altered Vehicles points thing, then you would need to get an IVA inspection.
In your case it seems that somebody/something has decided that you've fallen foul of the "5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" - just because of a handful of holes.
I'm curious what the somebody/something was in your case?
Out of interest also, why don't you think you could get the car through an IVA? I'm aware of the IVA requirement under 'Electrical Safety' to have "A test report to ECE R100.01". (I've enquired about that test cert, spoke to https://www.horiba-mira.com/ and they advised they can produce it for around £6.5k.)
Is that your issue, or something else?
My understanding was that if you do an engine swap (including to electric), that you just notify DVLA of the change and move on with your life. (Which I assumed is what all the conversion shops & youtuber's are doing.)
If however you do something which triggers the Radically Altered Vehicles points thing, then you would need to get an IVA inspection.
In your case it seems that somebody/something has decided that you've fallen foul of the "5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" - just because of a handful of holes.
I'm curious what the somebody/something was in your case?
Out of interest also, why don't you think you could get the car through an IVA? I'm aware of the IVA requirement under 'Electrical Safety' to have "A test report to ECE R100.01". (I've enquired about that test cert, spoke to https://www.horiba-mira.com/ and they advised they can produce it for around £6.5k.)
Is that your issue, or something else?
bern said:
I wonder how they will get on when they come to register Binky?!
I'm pretty certain Binky will need an IVA. As long as they meet the IVA requirements there's no reason to think it wouldn't pass.For context in this thread; getting an electric vehicle through IVA is all the same rules, however you additionally have to have the test cert for ECE R100.01. There are only a handful of places certified to produce this test report, and it's expensive to obtain.
Binky doesn't need this since it's not electric powered.
walamai said:
I'm pretty certain Binky will need an IVA. As long as they meet the IVA requirements there's no reason to think it wouldn't pass.
For context in this thread; getting an electric vehicle through IVA is all the same rules, however you additionally have to have the test cert for ECE R100.01. There are only a handful of places certified to produce this test report, and it's expensive to obtain.
Binky doesn't need this since it's not electric powered.
For context in this thread; getting an electric vehicle through IVA is all the same rules, however you additionally have to have the test cert for ECE R100.01. There are only a handful of places certified to produce this test report, and it's expensive to obtain.
Binky doesn't need this since it's not electric powered.
How do other EV conversion companies do it? Do they fit to the standard mounting points in the car to avoid the DVLA/IVA inspections or do they just not tell anyone? I would guess as most are sold as being able to return the car to standard they dont need the inspections.
skidskid said:
How do other EV conversion companies do it? Do they fit to the standard mounting points in the car to avoid the DVLA/IVA inspections or do they just not tell anyone? I would guess as most are sold as being able to return the car to standard they dont need the inspections.
Perhaps DVLA have realised that there are a growing number of non-Reg100 compliant conversions out there, and thus are trying to force them down the IVA route to ensure the basic EV safety standards are covered.
hidetheelephants said:
Minis have their fuel tanks in the boot? Why is it being judged differently from a mini with a non-standard A series? Won't someone think of the children?
The regs always have grandfather rights so we accept 1960s risks with 1960s powerplant. If you want a 2020s powerplant then you should have 2020s crashworthiness. From a powerplant point of view it was always a target to get 100bhp out of an A-series and you had to have it screaming to get that whereas a BMW i3 motor will give you 170bhp every time you press the pedal. From a crashworthiness point of view even 1960s petrol tanks will take a degree of crush and if you skewer them they just leak while a battery will go bang. Current EV designs go to great lengths to protect the batteries with mid mounted armoured boxes whereas conversion like this typically have isolated unprotected battery modules to shoe horn them in. skidskid said:
How do other EV conversion companies do it? Do they fit to the standard mounting points in the car to avoid the DVLA/IVA inspections or do they just not tell anyone? I would guess as most are sold as being able to return the car to standard they dont need the inspections.
They cut great big holes on the chassis and welded on brackets to enable fitting of the electric motors and the battery boxes.
walamai said:
OP, what was it that 'triggered' the inspection in the first place? I'm just embarking on a conversion myself, so this is really relevant to me.
My understanding was that if you do an engine swap (including to electric), that you just notify DVLA of the change and move on with your life. (Which I assumed is what all the conversion shops & youtuber's are doing.)
If however you do something which triggers the Radically Altered Vehicles points thing, then you would need to get an IVA inspection.
In your case it seems that somebody/something has decided that you've fallen foul of the "5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" - just because of a handful of holes.
I'm curious what the somebody/something was in your case?
Out of interest also, why don't you think you could get the car through an IVA? I'm aware of the IVA requirement under 'Electrical Safety' to have "A test report to ECE R100.01". (I've enquired about that test cert, spoke to https://www.horiba-mira.com/ and they advised they can produce it for around £6.5k.)
Is that your issue, or something else?
An inspection was flagged as I could not specify the electric motors capacity in cc's.My understanding was that if you do an engine swap (including to electric), that you just notify DVLA of the change and move on with your life. (Which I assumed is what all the conversion shops & youtuber's are doing.)
If however you do something which triggers the Radically Altered Vehicles points thing, then you would need to get an IVA inspection.
In your case it seems that somebody/something has decided that you've fallen foul of the "5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" - just because of a handful of holes.
I'm curious what the somebody/something was in your case?
Out of interest also, why don't you think you could get the car through an IVA? I'm aware of the IVA requirement under 'Electrical Safety' to have "A test report to ECE R100.01". (I've enquired about that test cert, spoke to https://www.horiba-mira.com/ and they advised they can produce it for around £6.5k.)
Is that your issue, or something else?
When we started the conversion we were of the same understanding.
As we couldn't say how many cc's the motor had, it was passed to the Kit cars dept. They didi their totting up and said because I drilled holes in the boot I had majorly modified the monocoque and so although I had max points in all areas (except the engine change -1) the holes too the monocoque from 5 to zero, so it failed.
And finally, to get a mk1 Mini through IVA, I would need to remove the external weld seams, the external hinges, the window catches the bumpers and so on, in a way mainstream manufacturers would. And that is only the projections rule, there are many others. The guy who did the conversion with me worked for Ford developing the electric Transit van for them, and made it super safe.
If they will not accept an appeal, they do have an Ombudsman you can go to https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint/what...
No idea if you are right or wrong OP.
No idea if you are right or wrong OP.
GT6k said:
The regs always have grandfather rights so we accept 1960s risks with 1960s powerplant. If you want a 2020s powerplant then you should have 2020s crashworthiness. From a powerplant point of view it was always a target to get 100bhp out of an A-series and you had to have it screaming to get that whereas a BMW i3 motor will give you 170bhp every time you press the pedal. From a crashworthiness point of view even 1960s petrol tanks will take a degree of crush and if you skewer them they just leak while a battery will go bang. Current EV designs go to great lengths to protect the batteries with mid mounted armoured boxes whereas conversion like this typically have isolated unprotected battery modules to shoe horn them in.
Yep - this is the situation that caught the FAA and Boeing out with the 737MAX. 1960's airframe with 2010s powerplant, grandfathered in. Bodo said:
So, summarised the OP would have (had) a chance to get his converted car registered if he had not damaged the structural part that is the monocoque. The problem is not the (EV) conversion, but the modification of the shell.
.....
Is it not more correct to say that the holes, in conjunction with the total change of power plant mean there is too little original vehicle left?.....
An actual mini with minor mods to the boot floor can keep its identity as a road registered vehicle, a BEV in a mini shell cannot.
sixor8 said:
skidskid said:
How do other EV conversion companies do it? Do they fit to the standard mounting points in the car to avoid the DVLA/IVA inspections or do they just not tell anyone? I would guess as most are sold as being able to return the car to standard they dont need the inspections.
They cut great big holes on the chassis and welded on brackets to enable fitting of the electric motors and the battery boxes.
There's no actual requirement for anything on youtube to be entirely factual. It's entertainment.
There may be some 'small print' that modified cars are for shows or tracks.
OutInTheShed said:
Is it not more correct to say that the holes, in conjunction with the total change of power plant mean there is too little original vehicle left?
An actual mini with minor mods to the boot floor can keep its identity as a road registered vehicle, a BEV in a mini shell cannot.
No, the rules about a modified monocoque have been around for some time. Requesting a fuel type change triggered the inspection. This has happened to other cars when they have significantly changed engine capacity or body typeAn actual mini with minor mods to the boot floor can keep its identity as a road registered vehicle, a BEV in a mini shell cannot.
However if the modification was pre-1998 then it did not matter (so older rods were fine, as were holes for seatbelts)
If you modified a mini firewall to put in a modern engine then it would also need a Biva if an inspection was triggered when you tried to register the engine capacity change
All of the vehicles were seem being driven on the road afterwards and whilst yes, it's entertainment, the customers seemed genuine.
Vintage voltage was on mainstream TV, not youtube, and was filmed at an existing company, not a small pop-up workshop like Wheeler dealers.
The number plates were not covered up (2 were from Ireland I think so I couldn't check) and since it is the business of the company to convert cars to electric, they must have done many cars by now.
Vintage voltage was on mainstream TV, not youtube, and was filmed at an existing company, not a small pop-up workshop like Wheeler dealers.
The number plates were not covered up (2 were from Ireland I think so I couldn't check) and since it is the business of the company to convert cars to electric, they must have done many cars by now.
GT6k said:
The regs always have grandfather rights so we accept 1960s risks with 1960s powerplant. If you want a 2020s powerplant then you should have 2020s crashworthiness. From a powerplant point of view it was always a target to get 100bhp out of an A-series and you had to have it screaming to get that whereas a BMW i3 motor will give you 170bhp every time you press the pedal.
As I understand it, that's not reall the case at all. You can take a 1960 mini, and put a modern bike engine it it, which does whatever bhp you want. Just change the engine serial no and cc to suit. But of letter headed paperwork from a garage saying what you say is true. Sorted. Just like an engine swap in a kitcar, or anything else.
Even IVA has nothing about structural integrity of the design, or suitability of the size of the brakes to the size of the power plant as far as I know.
Point taken about the vulnerability of poorly designed battery packs, but in fairness, it's. It the OPs fault the regulations haven't really caught up with that.
sixor8 said:
All of the vehicles were seem being driven on the road afterwards and whilst yes, it's entertainment, the customers seemed genuine.
Vintage voltage was on mainstream TV, not youtube, and was filmed at an existing company, not a small pop-up workshop like Wheeler dealers.
The number plates were not covered up (2 were from Ireland I think so I couldn't check) and since it is the business of the company to convert cars to electric, they must have done many cars by now.
I once saw a 'mainstream' TV programme about how they'd rebuilt an old boat in a few weeks. In reality, the process took over a year, and that was when we only had 4 channels. Thee days, I wouldn't take much of this stuff at face value.Vintage voltage was on mainstream TV, not youtube, and was filmed at an existing company, not a small pop-up workshop like Wheeler dealers.
The number plates were not covered up (2 were from Ireland I think so I couldn't check) and since it is the business of the company to convert cars to electric, they must have done many cars by now.
However, it wouldn't surprise me if the interpretation of the rules is a bit random or that some people might be taking liberties.
TPTB interpreting the rules in one way for a certain trader would not necessarily create a precedent, and they might not be wrong to interpret the rules differently in another case.
Do you reckon Guy Martin's tank was road legal, as presented on telly?
How big does the hole in the floor have to be to render the car undriveable (at least, technically and legally)? If I drill a tiny hole in my old ICE car boot floor to stop water pooling because it's quicker than fitting new seals around the lights (which I gather is a common enough "mod" for cars whose boots are prone to fill with rainwater thus) am I illegally modifying my car too?
Chromegrill said:
How big does the hole in the floor have to be to render the car undriveable (at least, technically and legally)? If I drill a tiny hole in my old ICE car boot floor to stop water pooling because it's quicker than fitting new seals around the lights (which I gather is a common enough "mod" for cars whose boots are prone to fill with rainwater thus) am I illegally modifying my car too?
No idea if the DVLA or whatever they're called on Fridays would draw the line at that, but it's a dumb idea to let water in, making things rust and making the interior get damp and manky.There's a hole, then there's a hole whose function is to mount something.
Wherever the line is drawn, someone will always be just the wrong side of it.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff