Brutal decision from the DVLA

[loserone]

10 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

There is obviously a process now because other people and companies are doing it

I think there's speculation that some of these companies are keeping very quiet as they have done the same / similar things, and don't want to be caught out.

[yes oui si]

The RAV regs have been in place for 35-odd years. Why are they only an issue now? 

[MrBig]

32 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

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.

But if you put a 1380cc in the mini, or supercharge the original A series then an IVA isn't required. Where do you draw the line? I could buy a 69 Charger which has appalling brakes from the factory and drop in a 700bhp hemi and only have to tell the DVLA of a change in capacity and the engine number. The questions you ask are just as valid in that situation, but no Q plate will be enforced upon the owner. We probably should have a way of determining the modifications are safe like the TUV system in Germany, but then we're getting into type approving parts and I seriously doubt we have the resources in the UK for that. All of that aside, it's still the same car, so why should it have to be put on a Q plate? It might have had changes, but the identity is no different.

The point is that there is an opportunity here to have a say on how these things are done. I suspect,as usual, most folks will whinge and moan about it all and not bother to put an hour in to give some feedback.

[danthecapriman]

13 minutes ago, loserone said:

I think there's speculation that some of these companies are keeping very quiet as they have done the same / similar things, and don't want to be caught out.

That wouldn’t surprise me tbh.

Regarding the hole. That is ridiculous. 
But I’m not sure this particular case is just down to the one hole. I’m sure there’s a lot more going on here than is being told. My own take on it is that something has gone on or been said/done and it’s become some sort of dispute between both the owner and DVLA. That has ultimately come down to DVLA finding any reason to shut the owner down. The given reason was the hole, but in reality it’s the whole situation that’s done it. Of course I can’t prove that’s the case but it does smell of more than what’s being said.

It’s one of those situations where you need to draw a line somewhere. Do they use that (outdated?) points system to tot up a total and if your below the mark you get one outcome and over you get another outcome. 
You could take my Capri for an engineers report now it’s restored and came back with ‘one door is a non genuine skin’ ‘the floor pan isn’t genuine Ford’ etc etc. where do you stop?

Or do we do as (I suspect) they seem to do in the USA and just do it and not need any sort of engineers exam or whatever else. Build what you want and just use it seems to be the way from what I’ve seen. But, if you get pulled over by the law and they find defects and dangerous things then your for it!

 

Im not against modifying classics or turning them into EV’s or making hot rods, but there’s just got to be a line somewhere. I think at the moment it’s neither too strict or too loose. No matter what happens someone’s not going to like it. 
Im also not convinced more government involvement is a good thing tbh. I’m always sceptical there’s an alternative motive…

[MiniMinorMk3]

On 11/01/2023 at 12:46, MiniMinorMk3 said:

If anyone wants to see the build of the Red electric Mini, and how much the shell has not been altered from standard, and how the front subframe has only had additions for brackets, and no subtractions for the fit of the motor, then click on the link. You will need to sign up to the Mk1 Performance Forum to read the thread and see all the pictures of the car during the build.

mk1-forum.net - Login

Shell before 

Standard restored shell before any electrical mods

Subframe with additional engine mounting and battery mounting brackets. No cut have been made into the original frame, it has just had additions.

No modification near suspension or brake fittings.

No modification to fire wall and body cross member

Additional brackets for battery mounting

More battery mount brackets and the suspect wiring holes in boot floor. Also not cooling pump in original battery box.

Battery mounting tray in boot.

 

The DVLA have got this so wrong. This car has only had an engine/power train swap, it has not been substantially altered, especially in the subframe and body shell areas. It is fitted with original BMC/BL suspension and braking components with upgrades to shock and disc braking at the front. All these additions were part of what a factory built car could have had fitted.

 

36 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

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.

The only thing that has changed on the car is the motor and an uprating of the front brake system. The drive is through a diff that uses original Mini drive shafts, cv joint hub, spindles etc etc. The only alterations to the original front subframe are additional brackets. The rear subframe and rear suspension is standard Mini. 

The car was inspected by an approved DVLA inspector who said the build was excellent and there should not be a problem with the car retaining it's original identity as it qualifies through the existing point system. However when some one in Swansea read that a hole had been drilled in the rear area for electrical cables they decided that the monocoque had bee modified, and said that once this has been done a repair can not be made to put this back.

Unfortunately it appears that you can not argue with stupid, as stupid does not listen to any argument that is put forward and just does what stupid does. 

 

[danthecapriman]

2 minutes ago, MrBig said:

But if you put a 1380cc in the mini, or supercharge the original A series then an IVA isn't required. Where do you draw the line? I could buy a 69 Charger which has appalling brakes from the factory and drop in a 700bhp hemi and only have to tell the DVLA of a change in capacity and the engine number. The questions you ask are just as valid in that situation, but no Q plate will be enforced upon the owner. We probably should have a way of determining the modifications are safe like the TUV system in Germany, but then we're getting into type approving parts and I seriously doubt we have the resources in the UK for that. All of that aside, it's still the same car, so why should it have to be put on a Q plate? It might have had changes, but the identity is no different.

The point is that there is an opportunity here to have a say on how these things are done. I suspect,as usual, most folks will whinge and moan about it all and not bother to put an hour in to give some feedback.

I agree with you to a point. But like you said, there has to be line somewhere. Unfortunately that’s where the line was. DVLA seem to have decided for whatever reason the line was crossed and they’ve decided it now needs an IVA.

No matter where the line is someone won’t be happy with it.

I can’t really think of any other way this could be done, which is why I don’t find the current system too bad. 

[MiniMinorMk3]

PS Recharged Heritage seem to be doing fine with putting electric motors in Minis and them keeping their original identities.

Recharged Heritage | Facebook

And looking at the cabling that goes from front to back I bet they've had to drill some holes to make the connections to the battery

[danthecapriman]

6 minutes ago, MiniMinorMk3 said:

 

The only thing that has changed on the car is the motor and an uprating of the front brake system. The drive is through a diff that uses original Mini drive shafts, cv joint hub, spindles etc etc. The only alterations to the original front subframe are additional brackets. The rear subframe and rear suspension is standard Mini. 

The car was inspected by an approved DVLA inspector who said the build was excellent and there should not be a problem with the car retaining it's original identity as it qualifies through the existing point system. However when some one in Swansea read that a hole had been drilled in the rear area for electrical cables they decided that the monocoque had bee modified, and said that once this has been done a repair can not be made to put this back.

Unfortunately it appears that you can not argue with stupid, as stupid does not listen to any argument that is put forward and just does what stupid does. 

 

If that’s the case then yes, as we all probably know, it is stupid. But, I’m still sure there’s more backstory here than what’s being told.

If not, then it’s a case of someone at DVLA doing a job they’re clearly not qualified to do, as seems to be the way now in this part of the world! But if an approved inspector has made the checks and a decision made by them then it’s bizarre for some clerk in an office to sign off to the contrary thinking they know better. What’s the point bothering with an approved inspector!? 
Maybe that’s part of the answer… stop employing people who don’t know anything about the job they’re doing? Instead DVLA should employ a team of qualified vehicle engineers/mechanics who do know these things. They carry out an inspection on a submitted vehicle and they are the ones who have that decision. They then write up a report and sign off the vehicle is safe, and the vehicle can keep its original identity. Or if not they don’t, and give the owner a list of points to rectify (if applicable) so they can make the modifications and keep the identity or if it’s decided that the vehicle is so far beyond what it was originally it can not keep its original identity. 
But, I’m not convinced DVLA will pay for all that!

[danthecapriman]

4 minutes ago, MiniMinorMk3 said:

PS Recharged Heritage seem to be doing fine with putting electric motors in Minis and them keeping their original identities.

Recharged Heritage | Facebook

There’s another place that do VW EV conversions on Beetles and buses. Quite successfully too. And I’m fairly sure there’s another company doing high end stuff, like Astons, Jensen’s etc. 

They don’t seem to be having this problem.

Its almost like an MOT I remember years ago a mate of mine carried out. 
We got the car in to start the test, and sat clear to see on the passenger front seat was a copy of the MOT manual. It was obvious why it was conveniently left there like that. 
So my mate said, if he knows the MOT so well we best be extra thorough… of course it failed! Without saying too much, maybe the fail could have been a pass and advise if the owner wasn’t being such an arse.

Could it be something similar going on with that Mini? The owner could have been giving the DVLA people a load of grief and being an arse so they’ve turned around and done things by the letter and screwed him. 

[sheffcortinacentre]

If all this is also supposed to be about being green saving the single parent lesbian whales.

Then any mods that keep an old vehicle on the road & more economical, practical ,etc, then it should be encouraged not restricted  as it's better than replacing them every few years, but then this doesn't keep the wheels of commerce piled.

[dave j]

I had a read and have submitted my responses, it took a while though! 

There is a part that says to retain 5 points for the chassis or monocoque it has to be original and not drilled, cut or welded. Just fitting an alarm or stereo can mean having to drill holes, my Beetle is 53 years old and I have no idea what holes are factory or have been added by previous owners! Beetle is a slightly different case as it's a separate chassis but that's definitely been welded too! 

 

[lesapandre]

57 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

There’s another place that do VW EV conversions on Beetles and buses. Quite successfully too. And I’m fairly sure there’s another company doing high end stuff, like Astons, Jensen’s etc. 

They don’t seem to be having this problem.

Its almost like an MOT I remember years ago a mate of mine carried out. 
We got the car in to start the test, and sat clear to see on the passenger front seat was a copy of the MOT manual. It was obvious why it was conveniently left there like that. 
So my mate said, if he knows the MOT so well we best be extra thorough… of course it failed! Without saying too much, maybe the fail could have been a pass and advise if the owner wasn’t being such an arse.

Could it be something similar going on with that Mini? The owner could have been giving the DVLA people a load of grief and being an arse so they’ve turned around and done things by the letter and screwed him. 

"There’s another place that do VW EV conversions on Beetles and buses. Quite successfully too. And I’m fairly sure there’s another company doing high end stuff, like Astons, Jensen’s etc."

Great news! I'm very happy to take away the discarded engines free of charge. 😂

[Tayne]

6 hours 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.

 

Yeah, you're pissing in the wind here.

There's a good number of people on here who've been upset at being judged for driving an older car but most are waiting for the Mini-converter's address to become public so they can go and burn his house down for daring to mess with the electrons. If he'd put in a (Honda) K-series, Rover V8 or a even a Rolls Royce Merlin there wouldn't be this level of pushback.

Maybe I'm missing the point but if someone offered to convert one of my classics for free I'd gladly tell them to FRO!

 

 

 

ECC are at pains to point out that all their stuff is bolt in and reversible, they've recently put a video up about this but were saying the same thing when @dollywobbler drove their Beetle back in 2016.

Most of their stuff is in need of restoration or mechanical work (I don't think anyone is converting a mint, last-one-left, significant car) and they won't sell kits to the general public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxxXU2rGR4A&t=531s

 

And the BMW...

It was a replica that had been off the road for 20years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDl03BKRsc

 

 

 

[Tayne]

On 10/01/2023 at 17:18, lesapandre said:

Having driven loads of classics IMHO you'd lose the essence of many old cars by robbing them of their IC engine.

 

Remove that and you lose so much.

 

Someone is electrifying old Rolls from the 40's 50's and 60's. Taking the Rolls engine out seems a big pity. 

There is probably too much money about being sprayed around. But each to his own. 

 

 

What?

Rolls Royce, the company that have spent the last 120 years marketing their cars on the basis of their silence and mechancial refinement?

You think replacing the drivetrain with a high-torque, near silent electric motor that doesn't require gearshifts would be a pity? 

I'd welcome the EV Rolls Royce as the electric car is perfectly noiseless and clean. There is no smell or vibration, and they should become very useful when fixed charging stations can be arranged, not my words Carol, those of Charles Stewart Rolls. 

He's the one in the driver's seat in the image below, that's Henry Royce next to him.

 

 

 

 

[andrew e]

Why don't they just put it in for an IVA?

[Tayne]

I’m not sure a standard Mini would pass an IVA. 

[loserone]

A brief look on mini forums confirms that one would need to be deseamed and various changes and trim modifications at least.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

I wonder why he can't drill out the spot welds and just install a new undrilled battery box. Run the cables somewhere else 'temporarily' or whatever.

Defo sounds like a barney with one of the DVLAs pen pushers that's got out of control.

[Dave_Q]

The problem here is the only way to fix it is to allow a DVLA bod with some sense (if they can find/recruit one) to exercise their judgement as to whether a modification to the monocoque is safe or major or whatever you want to call it.

They won't do that, what they'll do is give a blanket exemption for any electric retrofits to have holes but keep their ID and it will lead to absolute abominations like a 50s/60s classic tack welded onto the bottom half of a Leaf out on the roads.

We already have an incredibly generous system for modifying cars with minimal safety checks, the only outcome I can see from this is they will let even worse things on the road in order to win votes and generate a headline.

[captain_70s]

41 minutes ago, loserone said:

A brief look on mini forums confirms that one would need to be deseamed and various changes and trim modifications at least.

Dolomites can't pass an IVA because to pass an IVA you need E marked glass, which original glass isn't, they're older BS standards. So if you modified a Dolomite monocoque and wanted it to pass an IVA you'd also have to have custom glass made.

I suspect this isn't as big an issue for Minis as I imagine you can get brand new screens off the shelf but for a lot of older cars getting an IVA pass isn't a practical proposition as you have to build them to standards far higher than they had to achieve when new.

31 minutes ago, Mr_Bo11ox said:

I wonder why he can't drill out the spot welds and just install a new undrilled battery box. Run the cables somewhere else 'temporarily' or whatever.

Defo sounds like a barney with one of the DVLAs pen pushers that's got out of control.

In kicking up a fuss it seems he's made himself an enemy of the DVLA and they've said that any attempt to rectify the hole isn't good enough. It's now been modified, logged as such, and can't be reversed. Arguably any car that has had welding repairs could be considered to have a modified monocoque, you can't prove the steel is the exact same shape and thickness as it was when it left the factory, even repo panels are generally "close enough" to original bits rather than exact copies.

 

I wonder if the sudden bringing up of this issue is that since the points system came in for retaining a historic reg people haven't stopped modifying cars. They're just less likely to declare it than ever before. Add to that the return to rolling "historic" status and you end up with a glut of modified cars, potentially built entirely by DIYers or complete idiots which will never even see an MOT.

[lesapandre]

Government is currently consulting on this - see thread here on main page:

Government Consultation on Classic and Modified Cars

[danthecapriman]

Anyone else think a part of this is motivated by tax?

It’s no secret that there’s going to be a shortfall in tax/duty whatever you want to call it because of EV exemptions, low emission vehicle tax rates, classic cars getting tax exemption etc etc. 

Assuming they start checking and legislating more they might end up starting to claw back a bit more money by taking away exemptions from vehicles they say don’t meet XYZ criteria. 
The next step is heavy limitations on the use of anything left that still qualifies as exempt, so limited days/times of use. To/from shows & events only etc etc.

Maybe any potential gains would just be pissing in the wind??

[loserone]

3 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

Anyone else think a part of this is motivated by tax?

No, because 

3 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

It’s no secret that there’s going to be a shortfall in tax/duty whatever you want to call it because of EV exemptions, low emission vehicle tax rates,

After next year us EV owners will be paying the same as everyone else.

[lesapandre]

17 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

Anyone else think a part of this is motivated by tax?

It’s no secret that there’s going to be a shortfall in tax/duty whatever you want to call it because of EV exemptions, low emission vehicle tax rates, classic cars getting tax exemption etc etc. 

Assuming they start checking and legislating more they might end up starting to claw back a bit more money by taking away exemptions from vehicles they say don’t meet XYZ criteria. 
The next step is heavy limitations on the use of anything left that still qualifies as exempt, so limited days/times of use. To/from shows & events only etc etc.

Maybe any potential gains would just be pissing in the wind??

Do raise all that as part of the consultation. 

In France 'classic cars' now have their own separate registration class. These are vehicles 30+yo.

This means:

Exemption from low emission zones.

MoT every 5 years.

Classic black plates.

There is no restriction on use - and no prospect of that. Like the UK the French classic car industry and movement is considered an important strand of the economy. It's important socially - there are car events right across the country each year.

Classic cars pay no road tax - but neither does anybody else have to.

Taxes/fees payable on change of ownership remain as the same for everyday cars - an important difference to the UK system where fees or tax are currently not paid to the DVLA for change of ownership in normal circumstances.

[danthecapriman]

I will print this off tomorrow and fill it in I think. 
There’s a video from FuriousDriving on YouTube about this that’s just popped up so I might watch that in a min.

[DodgeRover]

4 hours ago, loserone said:

I think there's speculation that some of these companies are keeping very quiet as they have done the same / similar things, and don't want to be caught out.

I asked one of them on Facebook as they seemed keen on spamming my feed about how they were going on getting them registered correctly and they got all shitty, firstly denying the was ever any problem, then when I posted links to the well known cases I got blocked...

[captain_70s]

33 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

Maybe any potential gains would just be pissing in the wind??

Pretty much this. Given the relatively low number of historic cars in terms of overall vehicles and how many of them are only taxed for 6 months a year, if it all, I can't imagine it being much of a money spinner.

[sheffcortinacentre]

That won't stop them governments don't do logical things.