Brutal decision from the DVLA

[rampantrot]

To be clear, the DVLA are not saying it's unroadworthy, but that it needs to be on a Q plate via IVA to be on the road. There's not a great deal of 1960 Mini parts left in this case bar the bodyshell, but there's a comparison to be made with the Cresta/XJR hybrid in this thread I think; different running gear and powertrain with modifications to the bodyshell to suit, no matter how minor - which I think the point scale struggles to take into account, given that "modified" is adding structures per the Mini build thread/drilling holes or near coachbuilding like the Cresta.

People sticking Hayabusa engines into Minis seem to be able to get away with retaining more of the original car, or can get around an IVA requirement by notifying of a change in capacity rather than complete conversion of powertrain, even if you are going to want to uprate brakes/suspension/steering etc. to cope even though their vehicles end up in similar end states comparred to a standard 19XX Mini. (As an aside, have a look at some of the vehicles in that thread and see where you'd draw the line - the Cresta is down as a 1960 Vauxhall).

I don't trust the builder's assertions that the DVLA "could not accept that a motor did not have recognisable cubic capacity. Thus they declared it a kit car", as they absolutely can register electric vehicles/not known/changed or rounded cc values, and the IVA process is not just for kit cars. At this point it's not much different to a modern Citroen Ami wearing a 1960 Mini mask, or those Discoveries ringed as rebodied old Land Rovers, and as such I'm not really sure what the point of keeping it linked to the 1960 Mini ID would be - MOT exemption maybe, but it's a toy that isn't likely to be driven around in an unroadworthy state.

I'm not sure what the point of electric power in a rattly old shell is anyway and the e-classics trade strikes me as pointless, but I'm sure it would be fun to try it once and I'm glad it's not ending up another Minilite'd Union Jack roofed Cooper replica, or still rotting forgotten somewhere.

[LightBulbFun]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/call-for-evidence-launched-on-how-to-future-proof-classic-cars-and-back-drivers

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/registering-historic-classic-rebuilt-vehicles-and-vehicles-converted-to-electric-call-for-evidence

 

well this is an interesting development for sure!

[cort1977]

That's a massive response form. DVLA Call for evidence – Response form (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Is there any mileage in us putting together an Autoshite response?  There's a lot of informed people on here representing quite a range of viewpoints within the enthusiast community.  I think we could give a pretty measured and sensible response overall - much more than Rivet-counter Reg at the Austin Rover polishing club.  (No offence to AR lickers intended)

IF this is a good idea I'm not sure how best to gather and collate responses on here, maybe different threads for each part of the questionnaire?

[lesapandre]

@LightBulbFun and @cort1977 I had seen this too.

I think it would be worth creating a separate thread on the main page for the consultation so it does not get lost in the mix.

I think individuals should respond but there is also an opportunity for group like ours too.

I think the closing date is July?

Anyone who has particular concerns around this could raise it with their MP. There is a Parliamentary Group of car enthusiasts too I think.

This will clearly lead up to a change in legislation or regulations.

[lesapandre]

"IF this is a good idea I'm not sure how best to gather and collate responses on here, maybe different threads for each part of the questionnaire?"

Yes. Good idea.

[Merryck]

Yeah, it's a big one for sure. I'd say there's definitely mileage in a group response, but it'd be worth responding individually as well, as I think sheer numbers will hold more weight. It'll be easy for them to dismiss us as a group.

[Merryck]

A google form? Put one up that mirrors the questionairre they've got, and just collect responses that way?

 

[MrBig]

2 hours ago, cort1977 said:

That's a massive response form. DVLA Call for evidence – Response form (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Is there any mileage in us putting together an Autoshite response?  There's a lot of informed people on here representing quite a range of viewpoints within the enthusiast community.  I think we could give a pretty measured and sensible response overall - much more than Rivet-counter Reg at the Austin Rover polishing club.  (No offence to AR lickers intended)

IF this is a good idea I'm not sure how best to gather and collate responses on here, maybe different threads for each part of the questionnaire?

Given how many people have on this very thread have basically said they have no sympathy because they don't like the colour or that putting an electric motor in a classic makes them a Philistine, I don't see a measured and sensible response coming.

You would think that folks in the classic/retro/shite/alternative car scene(s) would be more accepting and sympathetic towards others being able to build/run the car they want without such a sanctimonious viewpoint. If we can't unite against stupid bureaucratic nonsense, then we will all lose eventually.

[MiniMinorMk3]

This year is an election year. The current party that hold office have always favoured the old car community. To me this is just a feeble attempt at getting votes from the classic car world, many of whom are older people. 

After the election this will all be forgotten as the new holder of office will probably stop the rolling tax/MoT exemption, as they did before, and invent new ways to get more tax from teh motoring population after the success that My Khan has had in that there London. They will also be more concerned about making the UK look more sustainable and carbon neutral, so when it comes to a couple of old bangers being converted to electric, I do not think that it will be high on their agenda.

[Mr Pastry]

I think a co-ordinated Autoshite response would be very difficult to achieve, but it is certainly worth a thread for discussion which could inform our individual responses.

Why are the DVLA (or whoever) doing this?  The old car scene, for want of a better term, is a small part of what they have to deal with.  The current rules aren't too bad.  Many of them are quite reasonable.   Yes there are borderline cases and doubtful decisions, but I would have thought, not enough to warrant a complete overhaul of the system.  So, what is the hidden agenda?     

[bunglebus]

• follows the Plan for Drivers and the biggest ever £8.3 billion investment to resurface local roads across England, as government continues to back drivers

Like fuck they do

[cpjitservices]

1 minute ago, bunglebus said:

• follows the Plan for Drivers and the biggest ever £8.3 billion investment to resurface local roads across England, as government continues to back drivers

Like fuck they do

Ha thats a joke! The Government hate drivers.

[Rust Collector]

1 hour ago, MrBig said:

Given how many people have on this very thread have basically said they have no sympathy because they don't like the colour or that putting an electric motor in a classic makes them a Philistine, I don't see a measured and sensible response coming.

You would think that folks in the classic/retro/shite/alternative car scene(s) would be more accepting and sympathetic towards others being able to build/run the car they want without such a sanctimonious viewpoint. If we can't unite against stupid bureaucratic nonsense, then we will all lose eventually.

You might find that that there is a quieter majority who have a more relaxed view but also didn’t feel inclined to throw their hat in the ring when alternative views were being chucked in.

Without compiling the data we won’t know what the consensus is, or if there even is one.

Well worth putting something together in my opinion, at least to encourage us to think about our own views and put them forward.

[MrBig]

4 minutes ago, Rust Collector said:

You might find that that there is a quieter majority who have a more relaxed view but also didn’t feel inclined to throw their hat in the ring when alternative views were being chucked in.

Without compiling the data we won’t know what the consensus is, or if there even is one.

Well worth putting something together in my opinion, at least to encourage us to think about our own views and put them forward.

Maybe, but people need to be pragmatic and not let their opinions cloud their judgement, whilst considering facts. Unfortunately this country is not very good at that. I have already submitted a response and I reckon it took me well over an hour to go through all the questions, so you will need some dedicated volunteers!

[danthecapriman]

I’m not really sure what this is all in aid of tbh!?

It just seems to me like yet more unwanted and unwelcome involvement from the government in something they don’t really know anything about.
What’s wrong with things as they are!?

 

[Stanky]

 

8 minutes ago, Rust Collector said:

Without compiling the data we won’t know what the consensus is, or if there even is one.

Well worth putting something together in my opinion, at least to encourage us to think about our own views and put them forward.

 

1 minute ago, MrBig said:

Maybe, but people need to be pragmatic and not let their opinions cloud their judgement, whilst considering facts

In order to form consensus, and speaking constructively - I would like to table the motion that "This house believes that all Vauxhalls are shit"

[sierraman]

15 minutes ago, Rust Collector said:

You might find that that there is a quieter majority who have a more relaxed view but also didn’t feel inclined to throw their hat in the ring when alternative views were being chucked in.

Without compiling the data we won’t know what the consensus is, or if there even is one.

Well worth putting something together in my opinion, at least to encourage us to think about our own views and put them forward.

Your views will be took on board… so long as it’s green… 😂

[Dave_Q]

1 hour ago, bunglebus said:

• follows the Plan for Drivers and the biggest ever £8.3 billion investment to resurface local roads across England, as government continues to back drivers

Like fuck they do

Listen one my my mates at work told me he knows of an approximately 1 mile stretch of road near him that has actually been resurfaced (not the glue and gravel method) and therefore isn't like driving on the moon or a rally stage.

That could be the one for our county, which TBF is about as far as you'd get with 8 billion.

[loserone]

39 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

I’m not really sure what this is all in aid of tbh!?

It just seems to me like yet more unwanted and unwelcome involvement from the government in something they don’t really know anything about.
What’s wrong with things as they are!?

 

Ah, not read it then?

 

The government are asking for expert advice.  You could help provide some.

 

One notable problem is where a classic car having a small hole drilled makes it unregister able.  That's the current situation.  They have recognised it isn't right, but need advice on how to make it right 

[danthecapriman]

11 minutes ago, loserone said:

Ah, not read it then?

 

The government are asking for expert advice.  You could help provide some.

 

One notable problem is where a classic car having a small hole drilled makes it unregister able.  That's the current situation.  They have recognised it isn't right, but need advice on how to make it right 

I have read it.

It’s not a simple matter of a classic car having a small hole drilled though. It’s a major alteration to the cars design and propulsion system. 
As I understand it, at the moment a classic car is treated as such for MOT, tax and registration purposes by not being substantially altered from its original form. That’s pretty clear unless an individual wants to start splitting hairs.

If you turn a classic car into an EV then it becomes radically altered. If you put modern engines into a classic car it becomes radically altered. If you start notching out the chassis or whatever else like that… radically altered.

I don’t see what the issue is?

[loserone]

The point was that the major change to the design and propulsion system wasn't the issue with the change, it was a small hole drilled in the shell, which counted as a "modification". 

 

But whatever, there's no problem for you, who cares

[wuvvum]

37 minutes ago, Dave_Q said:

Listen one my my mates at work told me he knows of an approximately 1 mile stretch of road near him that has actually been resurfaced (not the glue and gravel method) and therefore isn't like driving on the moon or a rally stage.

That could be the one for our county, which TBF is about as far as you'd get with 8 billion.

They've been chucking gravel down all over the place round here recently.  Made my evening bike rides fun* for a few days after they first did it.

[danthecapriman]

7 minutes ago, loserone said:

The point was that the major change to the design and propulsion system wasn't the issue with the change, it was a small hole drilled in the shell, which counted as a "modification". 

 

But whatever, there's no problem for you, who cares

Why do you need to be so argumentative and arrogant?

 

Besides that, you’re hearing one side of the issue here. Has the guy involved bothered to get advice before commencing this project? Have they somehow pissed off someone at DVLA who’s now got it in for this case and managed to deal the guy a blow back? There’s all sorts of things that could be going on.

Theres actually companies out there doing this sort of conversion for customers and yet there doesn’t seem to be any issues from them doing it. 
There’s also other people who’ve done similar things and have no problems. 
If they’re managing it’s obviously do-able. So why this one case?

I don’t necessarily agree with their decision on that particular car (assuming nothing else is going on in the background) but there clearly is a way of doing this that works because other people have managed it.

[loserone]

If you think it works so well already, you can reply to the consultation and tell them as such? That way they can be more informed about 

1 hour ago, danthecapriman said:

something they don’t really know anything about.
What’s wrong with things as they are!?

I don't see the problem with engaging with the public, is all.

[loserone]

26 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

Why do you need to be so argumentative and arrogant?

Because I am a cunt.

[danthecapriman]

4 minutes ago, loserone said:

Because I am a cunt.

Then we have something in common!

[MrBig]

48 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

If you turn a classic car into an EV then it becomes radically altered. If you put modern engines into a classic car it becomes radically altered. If you start notching out the chassis or whatever else like that… radically altered.

I don’t see what the issue is?

 

25 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

Why do you need to be so argumentative and arrogant?

Same question could be asked of you. The point is the definition of radically altered needs to be reviewed, as do the processes that go alongside that. The mini in contention, now needs to undergo an IVA test and end up on a Q plate. Why? Q plate implies the vehicles age or identity cannot be confirmed or verified (or words to that affect). Putting an electric motor in place of an engine does not have cause the vehicle to be unidentifiable, therefore the process needs to be updated. If the chassis or monocoque is not altered, why should a change of propulsion mean the car loses it's identity and the owner has to stomach the cost and hassle of an IVA and subsequent Q plate.

[danthecapriman]

Does anyone know what they do in the USA?

Obviously it’s a bit different there because each state sort of operates like it’s own country in some ways, but they have a massive classic & hot rod community and they do some seriously altered vehicles. What’s the process for building, registering and using stuff like that there? 
I bet in many cases the numbers of altered vehicles outnumber the standard ones by now by some margin?

[danthecapriman]

2 minutes ago, MrBig said:

 

Same question could be asked of you. The point is the definition of radically altered needs to be reviewed, as do the processes that go alongside that. The mini in contention, now needs to undergo an IVA test and end up on a Q plate. Why? Q plate implies the vehicles age or identity cannot be confirmed or verified (or words to that affect). Putting an electric motor in place of an engine does not have cause the vehicle to be unidentifiable, therefore the process needs to be updated. If the chassis or monocoque is not altered, why should a change of propulsion mean the car loses it's identity and the owner has to stomach the cost and hassle of an IVA and subsequent Q plate.

Because it’s been substantially altered.

Ok, fine. The bodyshell is from a Mini. The Mini was designed and built to a set of standards with a set of equipment, parts, engines available. Removing those major parts and putting something in their place the original car was never designed to use is creating a one off. It might look like a classic Mini but it’s technically not one anymore. 
Are the remaining parts of the original car still up to the job of dealing with the different propulsion system? Is the frame of the original car able to safely withstand the additional weight and power of whatever has been added?

It’s all that type approval stuff that new cars and all sorts of other stuff has to go through before it gets mass produced and sold. Obviously turning something into a one off changes things, and like a kit car it then needs to be examined.

If you want to make something like that, thats great, but you should do your homework first and see what the legalities are and what process you’re going to have to go through to do it. Never just assume and carry on regardless. 
There is obviously a process now because other people and companies are doing it.

[loserone]

As I understood it, the system used normally is the points system, and using that system, the electric conversion wasn't an issue.

Equally, lots of people have drilled a hole into the boot of a mini, to power a subwoofer or whatever.  

What was presented was this hole being used as an excuse to force an SVA as whoever reviewed it was using the letter of the legislation rather than the spirit of it.