Is the SVA test a good thing????
Discussion
I was wondering what fellow kit car enthusiasts thought about the dreaded SVA test?
Obviously, nobody in their right mind would want anyone to be let loose on a public road in a death trap, BUT is the test over strict?, with builders at the mercy of some testers who are over zealous in their interpretation of the regulations, AND has the test put off would be builders from even starting a kit, due to the hassle involved??
Views please....
Obviously, nobody in their right mind would want anyone to be let loose on a public road in a death trap, BUT is the test over strict?, with builders at the mercy of some testers who are over zealous in their interpretation of the regulations, AND has the test put off would be builders from even starting a kit, due to the hassle involved??
Views please....
It's a typical beaurocrat(?) related nightmare. In the weeks leading up to my Libra test I was constantly talking to the factory and other owners who's cars had been through to iron out the latest thing the inspectors had decided to fail cars on. GTM designed the car to pass SVA, why would they do anything else? But the manual, at my inspector's own admission, is not black and white. Three days before the test a Factory built car failed on a radius edge that was identical to the 50-60 approx. cars which have passed the test previously. My car was presented for test with the most temporary looking bit of rubber glued over the offending edge and passed, even though the inspector must surely have known I was going to take it off.
I bet if an early car went back to be SVAd again it would return with a big FAIL list, and that's without allowing for the fact that so many cars have accessories fitted post-SVA which don't comply!!
However, that can't be any worse than 4X4 owners fitting pedestrian-maiming bull bars to their type approved cars.
I bet if an early car went back to be SVAd again it would return with a big FAIL list, and that's without allowing for the fact that so many cars have accessories fitted post-SVA which don't comply!!
However, that can't be any worse than 4X4 owners fitting pedestrian-maiming bull bars to their type approved cars.
A lot of the stuff they look at has zip to do with safety (although some of it is quite good). The most amusing is the rule on radii of all edges on exterior and interior - if the football sized "head" can contact anything, it must have the 5mm radius. I had to change a few hex bolts inside the Ultima front scoop for dome heads due to this - pointed out that if a pedestrian got his head in there, a couple of bolts protruding should be the least of his worries. Tester agreed but rules are rules. But as far as real safety goes, I don't think the SVA adds much to an MOT.
I believe the SVA has brought mixed blessings
.
It has ushered in additional safety checks, which are clearly in everybody’s interest. The best in my opinion is that seatbelt anchorage positions are checked
.
On the other hand there are some rather daft ramifications of an over-enthusiastic and pedantic interpretation of the projections/edges rules. This IMHO leads to a stifling of design for the wrong reasons and sometimes to extra unnecessary work and expense.
However, let us not forget that the SVA was not introduced for the benefits alluded to above (or any other benefits) but was a simple legislative instrument
to prevent grey imports flooding the market. In the same way, Q plates had nothing to do with kit cars, but car crime. Unfortunately, us little guys have been caught in the crossfire again.
Having said all this, I reckon we would have faced legislative control sooner or later and SVA IMHO is infinitely preferable to the LVTA (low volume type approval) that was being discussed before grey imports came along.
The SVA has therefore saved the kit car industry, I reckon. I can therefore forgive some of its petty problems. So I’ll drink to living with it, even to being thankful for it.
Den
. It has ushered in additional safety checks, which are clearly in everybody’s interest. The best in my opinion is that seatbelt anchorage positions are checked
. On the other hand there are some rather daft ramifications of an over-enthusiastic and pedantic interpretation of the projections/edges rules. This IMHO leads to a stifling of design for the wrong reasons and sometimes to extra unnecessary work and expense. However, let us not forget that the SVA was not introduced for the benefits alluded to above (or any other benefits) but was a simple legislative instrument
to prevent grey imports flooding the market. In the same way, Q plates had nothing to do with kit cars, but car crime. Unfortunately, us little guys have been caught in the crossfire again. Having said all this, I reckon we would have faced legislative control sooner or later and SVA IMHO is infinitely preferable to the LVTA (low volume type approval) that was being discussed before grey imports came along
. The SVA has therefore saved the kit car industry, I reckon. I can therefore forgive some of its petty problems. So I’ll drink to living with it, even to being thankful for it.
Den
OK SVA experts 
Can I drive my Dax Rush to a garage, to a pre-arranged appointment, to have work done that will enable the car to pass the SVA test ?
Work like suspension set-up to make it self-centre, remap for emissions, Dax in Harlow for nut covers to be fitted etc etc
Some kit car people say no, the Police say no, but page 13 of the SVA4 booklet, revised Feb 2003 says:
"You will be allowed to travel (within the United Kingdom) to and from the test station (including . . . . ESVA test) without the vehicle having been registered and licensed, and, if necessary, to and from a garage or other place where modifications are done to enable compliance with the requirements." (Goes on to talk about insurance, lights, etc which we all know you have to have in place anyway.)
I take this to read that as long as I'm going to a garage or a place where work is being done that will enable the vehicle to pass the SVA test then I can drive it there. (I have lights, insurance, seat belts etc)
WOuld be good to get a definitive answer as the Police initially said I couldn't drive it on the road at all . . .
Can I drive my Dax Rush to a garage, to a pre-arranged appointment, to have work done that will enable the car to pass the SVA test ?
Work like suspension set-up to make it self-centre, remap for emissions, Dax in Harlow for nut covers to be fitted etc etc
Some kit car people say no, the Police say no, but page 13 of the SVA4 booklet, revised Feb 2003 says:
"You will be allowed to travel (within the United Kingdom) to and from the test station (including . . . . ESVA test) without the vehicle having been registered and licensed, and, if necessary, to and from a garage or other place where modifications are done to enable compliance with the requirements." (Goes on to talk about insurance, lights, etc which we all know you have to have in place anyway.)
I take this to read that as long as I'm going to a garage or a place where work is being done that will enable the vehicle to pass the SVA test then I can drive it there. (I have lights, insurance, seat belts etc)
WOuld be good to get a definitive answer as the Police initially said I couldn't drive it on the road at all . . .
We've done this very recently. I think the thread was called "SVA to book". In my opinion, you CAN. Obviously there's a fine line between what is essential work to make it pass an SVA and what would be deemed non-essential. The law actually says the same as the SVA booklet but I think some common sense is called for. It would not be unreasonable of a magistrate to assume that someone who had the facilities to build a car himself should have relatively few reasons to go out to get things done. IMHO you'd be OK going to an MOT garage to get your emissions checked or your headlamps aligned but if they caught you on the way to the paint shop they'd throw the key away!
Also, for what it's worth, my take on SVA is as follows:
In 1996, the UK government (along with the other governments in the EC) signed up to the EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval scheme. This meant major manufacturers could do one set of tests and then sell unlimited numbers of cars in any EC Member State without further testing. The same bit of legislation also included the requirement that NOBODY should sell a car unless it was covered by this (or a lower level of National type approval). At the time the UK only had Low Volume Type Approval which only the largest kit car manufacturers could aspire to. They then conceived SVA as a way of trying to allow the existing kit car industry to continue to exist. I therefore have to agree with Kitcarman on this one - those "nasty" governmental types were actually very much on our side when it was introduced! Without it, I don't think there would be a kit car industry today!
Now I agree some of the requirements are a bit silly but they are all based on watered-down versions of the EC requirements. You simply have to draw the line somewhere and the edge radius requirements are a typical example. It's also true that SVA is subject to a lot of "interpretation" by the examiners. On occasions I've complained to VOSA about the degree of subjectivity in the assessments but their answer is always the same -"either you put up with it or we'll have to introduce some more "black-and-white" requirements (like a proper destructive test!)" This normally shuts me up!
Also, for what it's worth, my take on SVA is as follows:
In 1996, the UK government (along with the other governments in the EC) signed up to the EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval scheme. This meant major manufacturers could do one set of tests and then sell unlimited numbers of cars in any EC Member State without further testing. The same bit of legislation also included the requirement that NOBODY should sell a car unless it was covered by this (or a lower level of National type approval). At the time the UK only had Low Volume Type Approval which only the largest kit car manufacturers could aspire to. They then conceived SVA as a way of trying to allow the existing kit car industry to continue to exist. I therefore have to agree with Kitcarman on this one - those "nasty" governmental types were actually very much on our side when it was introduced! Without it, I don't think there would be a kit car industry today!
Now I agree some of the requirements are a bit silly but they are all based on watered-down versions of the EC requirements. You simply have to draw the line somewhere and the edge radius requirements are a typical example. It's also true that SVA is subject to a lot of "interpretation" by the examiners. On occasions I've complained to VOSA about the degree of subjectivity in the assessments but their answer is always the same -"either you put up with it or we'll have to introduce some more "black-and-white" requirements (like a proper destructive test!)" This normally shuts me up!
I absolutely agree with Avocet in everything he’s said
to Busa Rush.
I’d specifically agree that taking your car on the road for anything beyond set-up that you couldn’t reasonably do yourself, or for doing testing you’re not qualified or equipped to do yourself, is dicey. A definite no no IMHO
Having said this, if you were to travel to DAX to have your nuts seen to
and were caught . I’d say that the average BIB wouldn’t argue PROVIDED you had with you the book containing the reference you pointed out. The police, IMHO and experience, will not get involved in arguments over the meaning of words – they haven’t the time.
However, the least of your problem
is with the BIB. If your car was involved in an accident you’d then be involved in a 3 way argument with your insurers goading the police into making a definitive decision.
In this circumstance, I’d ask myself if there were less risky ways of covering my nuts?
I think everybody understands the sprit of this law, and I’d advise abiding by it for a cosy life
.
Den
to Busa Rush. I’d specifically agree that taking your car on the road for anything beyond set-up that you couldn’t reasonably do yourself, or for doing testing you’re not qualified or equipped to do yourself, is dicey. A definite no no IMHO
Having said this, if you were to travel to DAX to have your nuts seen to
and were caught . I’d say that the average BIB wouldn’t argue PROVIDED you had with you the book containing the reference you pointed out. The police, IMHO and experience, will not get involved in arguments over the meaning of words – they haven’t the time. However, the least of your problem
is with the BIB. If your car was involved in an accident you’d then be involved in a 3 way argument with your insurers goading the police into making a definitive decision. In this circumstance, I’d ask myself if there were less risky ways of covering my nuts? I think everybody understands the sprit of this law, and I’d advise abiding by it for a cosy life. Den
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff