A major little word of warning re. EV conversions

[bitsilly]

Oilchange said:

Have to say if I were to try this with a classic car I'd be reading and abiding by the requirements of the DVLA to the letter, I'd want to be squeaky clean!

I know anyone who has read my posts will know this but as the thread is so long, and as the moderators refuse to close this thread so as to allow me to post it on Classic cars, I will repeat a few things.
I have put a car through IVA before. Anyone who wants to argue that I should just get one and accept the q-plate should have a look at the rules or read the article on IVA in this months kit car mag.
I was following all the rules at the time, but they changed during the conversion.
The conversion was designed to be 100% reversible in case I could find a different better way of infuriating bigots.

I really have to try and cut through the chaff here, the DVLA took an immaculate, safe, well engineered car off the road because I drilled a hole or holes in the original battery box in the boot and hence majorly modified the car and they will not allow that hole or holes to be welded up and have refused all appeals. Simples, I'm afraid.

ps thank you for all the supportive mail I have had and the signatures on that which cannot be mentioned. I'm afraid the DVLA have won this one but it may help a few people dodge the landmines in the future.

Over and out.

[bitsilly]

The fundamental point is a 'radically altered vehicle' needs an IVA.

My fundamental point is that drilled holes in a superfluous part of the boot do not radically modify anything.
I am all for a set of rules to govern electrification and keep folk safe, but an IVA is not the answer when the car is a classic,
New rules are needed, not twisted old rules made to fit a new problem.
I have done what I can to get a set of rules published,

[bitsilly]

robemcdonald said:

would it be acceptable if a bespoke framework for the electrical gubbins was made that only used existing mounting points?

Theoretically any conversion that makes no changes will be OK.
But also theoretically, any conversion that does not have drilled holes is obviously unsafe.
It is up to you if you trust them not to slightly shift the goalposts during your conversion.
If you do not drill safe mounting points into a solid base then the conversion is unsafe.
If you do drill safe mounting points then you have radically modified the chassis (even when you obviously haven't).
Also, as they require these mounting points to be solid and safe without drilling, ensure the glue you use is approved by the Kits and radically modified cars dept.
They know all the rules available to them to obstruct or support this kind of thing but if you can get them on side then he could make all the difference. I'd advise you do this before paying anything out.
My conversion repurposed existing holes and did not by any means have to have those drilled holes as there is the enormous rotisserie hole in the back seat upright and another behind the speedo, but as I have said, we had no idea a drilled hole would attain this sort of importance to a small person sat at a desk with a log on his shoulder.

Edited by bitsilly on Tuesday 15th November 19:33

Moderator edit: no personal details please

Edited by jeremyc on Tuesday 15th November 20:21

[bitsilly]

The ethos behind my electrification was for it to be 100% reversible.
The only information the DVLA were obliged to give me was that they had discovered drilled holes.
They do not have to tell me which holes they are talking about or where they are .
I cannot see how the conversion in the article can be any different, especially if behind closed doors a bureaucrat can point at a hole in a report photo and claim it is new.
They have refused to show me the report, have refused my MP, and are currently arguing with the IC office over it.
They are untouchable and I for one will not believe any hype ever again.