I've got the link somewhere at home. I'll post it when I find it.
teabelly
|
|
|
www.dvla.gov.uk/public/consult/veh_inspec/vi_summa...m
That should be it. Most of it appears sensible apart from suggesting that classics could only have original parts on them. This might infer that only 25 year old brake parts could be put on a 25 year old car rather than being able to update them to something more modern.
teabelly
|
teabelly
Yes, confusing! It seems to lump heavily restored vehicles (those which have apparently dropped out of registration, as it refers to registration on their original mark) with completely 'new' classics produced from old components defined as 'reconstructed' classics. Not a good use of the term 'reconstruction' I believe. These vehicles 'must comprise of all genuine period components, of the same specification, all over 25 years old'. Taking 'all' literally, this is an impossibility. This appears to exclude newly manufactured components which are to original standard, or as you say, safety related upgrades. A badly drafted proposal.
Regards
JS
|
|
|
As I read it all this only refers to totally reconstituted "classics" built from components from a number of cars, not the ordinary process of restoration or repair. At present there is nothing to stop someone upgrading say the brakes on a classic car by using more modern components, and no mechanism other than the MOT for checking that the brakes work. I cannot see anything in this proposal that would stop that.
The wording of "components" needs rather precise definition. They aren't advocating that we have to source original asbestos brake linings are they? Or do coach-painting with traditional leaded paints?
For most major components of a 25+ year old car there would be little option but to use an old component anyway, albeit reconditioned.
The DVLA site elsewhere already concedes that it is the age of the say gearbox casing that counts, not that of the newly-cut gears inside it.
|
Well, they ask:
'Who should bare [sic] the cost of the inspection?'
I sense that they are trying to outwit duty dodgers who claim that the car is pre-1973 when there are plenty of post-1973 parts on board.
But whether we have Cliff's SORNed part out of his garage, or his scrapped part out of his garage, who knows...
|
I've been under the impression that part of this is to try and stop people with more money than sense taking their, (e.g.) little 1.0L 106 and putting a much bigger engine in it, and sticking all the plastic body-parts that Halfords have to offer onto them - so that the finished product has little in common with the original!
Which is fair enough! :-D
|
|
|
I sense that they are trying to outwit duty dodgers who claim that the car is pre-1973 when there are plenty of post-1973 parts on board.
Could be. But there are already rules in place specifying which and how many bits have to be original, with a points system for chassis, engine etc, which has to add up to 8 (I think) to count as original.
But original means original to the car, not just of the right age from another scrap car.
The whole thing is a bit mystifying. Components are not defined, and the vast majority do not have their identification numbers recorded anywhere. So who can tell where the bits came from? Is this door from a 73 or a 74? Was it in 73 that they changed the angle of the heater inlet on the waterpump, or was that the lower locating spigot? Do the DVLA have experts to cover all cars of all ages?
And supposing a 25 year old car had already had a replacement gearbox 15 years ago, or a new bootlid when it was nearly new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
£20,360was £20,490Details
£34,200was £35,100Details
£9,478was £9,584Details
£19,266was £19,599Details
