Vehicles over 40 years old are to be exempted from MOT
Discussion
The Government has just concluded the consultation on exempting vehicle over 40 years old (on a rolling basis) from MOT requirements.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadwo...
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadwo...
MrHappy said:
Some conditions attached. One of them is that the power to weight ratio must not be more than 15% higher than original, unless the mod was made pre 1988 
I'll be well stuffed then. Still £45 a year for a safety check and a natter with my friendly tester isn't a big issue. We both enjoy it :-)When it was brought in for pre 1960 cars a few years ago, many points were raised about safety etc but for cars only 40 y.o. and rolling forward, that's some half decent cars. TVR 3000 series for example.
There was an initial rise in values of pre 1960 cars but insurance companies will want one for 'agreed value' on classic cover. Its the only way to assess it's value. Most potential buyers would want a car to have an MoT test too as an assessment of its condition.
There was an initial rise in values of pre 1960 cars but insurance companies will want one for 'agreed value' on classic cover. Its the only way to assess it's value. Most potential buyers would want a car to have an MoT test too as an assessment of its condition.
TVRMs said:
MrHappy said:
Some conditions attached. One of them is that the power to weight ratio must not be more than 15% higher than original, unless the mod was made pre 1988
That's us stuffed with close to 275% change. Not sure how they police that though?That's lucky as I have a copy of November 1988 Sprint magazine where my Vixen is advertised for sale with it's "stage 3 modified 1760cc crossflow" engine. Should be OK for qualify. It will be interesting to see if the MSA allow us to hillclimb next year without a valid MOT though?
Moto
Moto
Moto said:
That's lucky as I have a copy of November 1988 Sprint magazine where my Vixen is advertised for sale with it's "stage 3 modified 1760cc crossflow" engine. Should be OK for qualify. It will be interesting to see if the MSA allow us to hillclimb next year without a valid MOT though?
Moto
How do they handle the pre-60s cars that are currently MOT exempt?Moto
Lots of mildly tuned TVRs will be caught if folk are honest
3000cc N/A car 165 bhp is the threshold
1600cc car 99 bhp is the threshold
For the not so silly states of tune it will be hard to police, but not a good place to be in the event of a issue with the car when insurance loss adjusters get involved and you've been a little dishonest...
3000cc N/A car 165 bhp is the threshold
1600cc car 99 bhp is the threshold
For the not so silly states of tune it will be hard to police, but not a good place to be in the event of a issue with the car when insurance loss adjusters get involved and you've been a little dishonest...
TVRMs said:
Lots of mildly tuned TVRs will be caught if folk are honest
3000cc N/A car 165 bhp is the threshold
1600cc car 99 bhp is the threshold
For the not so silly states of tune it will be hard to police, but not a good place to be in the event of a issue with the car when insurance loss adjusters get involved and you've been a little dishonest...
or just keep taking the car for an MOT ??3000cc N/A car 165 bhp is the threshold
1600cc car 99 bhp is the threshold
For the not so silly states of tune it will be hard to police, but not a good place to be in the event of a issue with the car when insurance loss adjusters get involved and you've been a little dishonest...
This is the problem with the rule makers today..They are talkers and not dooo-ers and as such in abolishing something they make a load of issues for a classic owner that just wasn't an issue beforehand... The problems will start to arise when the MOT test becomes totally unwieldy for an old car.
N.
sybaseian said:
Moto said:
That's lucky as I have a copy of November 1988 Sprint magazine where my Vixen is advertised for sale with it's "stage 3 modified 1760cc crossflow" engine. Should be OK for qualify. It will be interesting to see if the MSA allow us to hillclimb next year without a valid MOT though?
Moto
How do they handle the pre-60s cars that are currently MOT exempt?Moto
Moto
Who in their right mind can object to another pair of eyes checking over their car, particularly from a safety point of view?
I know that there are MoT testers and MoT testers, but you can choose who you go to...
I think this decision, like the one before it, was made on the misguided belief that people with old cars cherish them and wouldn't dream of driving them unless they were 100%; I believe that ALL vehicles that share the road with me and my loved ones should have a meaningful annual safety certification... including trailers. caravans, bicycles.... horses (actually, their carriages
)
There are other random exemptions too... recovery trucks! wtf is that about?! No, this is a retrograde step.
I know that there are MoT testers and MoT testers, but you can choose who you go to...
I think this decision, like the one before it, was made on the misguided belief that people with old cars cherish them and wouldn't dream of driving them unless they were 100%; I believe that ALL vehicles that share the road with me and my loved ones should have a meaningful annual safety certification... including trailers. caravans, bicycles.... horses (actually, their carriages
)There are other random exemptions too... recovery trucks! wtf is that about?! No, this is a retrograde step.
They obviously have there reasons i wonder is the MOT Changing to a point where Classics will just not be testable who knows .I dont see how they can police the percentage increase unless they use the Cubic Capacity ie a 1600 taken to 1700 or a 2989 taken to 3200 etc they can only base increase in power by what there records show on the system.
The DVLA only has engine size not BHP in order to check.
Plus the same engine in one model gave a different output in another model under different tuning and set up.
Maybe i have got the wrong end of the stick but seems more logical for there system.
I would always want a check from time to time we all make mistakes and miss things MOTs sometimes spot the silly things that are easily missed
Andrew
The DVLA only has engine size not BHP in order to check.
Plus the same engine in one model gave a different output in another model under different tuning and set up.
Maybe i have got the wrong end of the stick but seems more logical for there system.
I would always want a check from time to time we all make mistakes and miss things MOTs sometimes spot the silly things that are easily missed
Andrew
Moto said:
how Scrutineering see it.
Can't see there will be an issue, as you say the MSA have already had to deal with the issue. Your eligibility scrutes may have to think a bit.I do the odd VSCC day time navigation rally, previously a MOT certificate had to be produced. No certificate, no start, the online version saved a few blushes when it was introduced. When the MOT was first made optional, the scrutes almost did a full MOT on the lights, which apart from visible smoke and brakes is an MOT on an old car. Since then it has become more a case of self certification on the entry form. Of course the scrutes can always fall back on "standard of presentation". Secondary Throttle return springs, petrol leaks, fire extinguishers, spill kits, battery fastening and wire wheel spokes can be checked; depending on the event, or perhaps the MSA rules that year.
On the hill climbs, the VSCC classes typically divide between touring and racing, touring (road going) cars to have lights and mudguards. Although I hear there is a MSA log book scheme for non road registered racing cars. I think one year they did do the scrutinising for the Pom at Towcester to "ensure" road legal entrants, although I think it was unpopular and not repeated.
Perhaps Shelsley signing-on could be down the road, where the cars were weighed 100 years ago.
Although there could be an issue with race numbers on the public road, the CofC has hauled people up for crossing road at Prescott to the camping field.I'm with Twinkam on this. Why wouldn't you want a second check by someone who probably knows what to look for better than most of us and has better kit to carry out a thorough inspection (ie a 4 post lift, headlight beam height testers etc etc ). And for just £50 - a no brainer for me.
However, this won't actually be an official MOT as I understand it, so will it have recognition by other parties, or is of it any value to potential purchasers as to the state of vehicle they are thinking of buying? I'd also worry that my Insurer could get difficult if something failed and caused an accident. They'll often find a way out of paying if they can.
Moto
However, this won't actually be an official MOT as I understand it, so will it have recognition by other parties, or is of it any value to potential purchasers as to the state of vehicle they are thinking of buying? I'd also worry that my Insurer could get difficult if something failed and caused an accident. They'll often find a way out of paying if they can.
Moto
I can see both sides to this discussion. I have a 1959 Healey which I do not have mot'd and which I am presently on my way back from Italy having covered 2000 miles in the last 2 weeks. It does not need an mot for an agreed valuation. I have a Taimar which is coming up to 40yrs old and I would be happy to run without an mot. I have a 400se which when I last had it mot'd the tester said "there is a small amount of play in the steering rack, but you would know that anyway" and I did. I guess that they would have done a statistical analysis of accidents invoving 40 yr old cars before making the decision.
TwinKam said:
Who in their right mind can object to another pair of eyes checking over their car, particularly from a safety point of view?
I know that there are MoT testers and MoT testers, but you can choose who you go to...
I think this decision, like the one before it, was made on the misguided belief that people with old cars cherish them and wouldn't dream of driving them unless they were 100%; I believe that ALL vehicles that share the road with me and my loved ones should have a meaningful annual safety certification... including trailers. caravans, bicycles.... horses (actually, their carriages )
There are other random exemptions too... recovery trucks! wtf is that about?! No, this is a retrograde step.
How do you feel about the drivers or operators of the vehicles you list being checked at least once beyond eyesight between passing their test and passing away?I know that there are MoT testers and MoT testers, but you can choose who you go to...
I think this decision, like the one before it, was made on the misguided belief that people with old cars cherish them and wouldn't dream of driving them unless they were 100%; I believe that ALL vehicles that share the road with me and my loved ones should have a meaningful annual safety certification... including trailers. caravans, bicycles.... horses (actually, their carriages
)There are other random exemptions too... recovery trucks! wtf is that about?! No, this is a retrograde step.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 30th September 21:40
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff