UK MOTs on classics. Important news

[adw1977]

I don't see much point testing emissions on classics, they're all going to be off the scale compared to a new car and the collective mileage of classics is low enough that they're not going to make much difference to overall air quality. 

I would like all vehicles to at least have a visual check that the tyres have some tread, there's some attempt at lighting and the rust isn't obviously structural. 

[danthecapriman]

5 minutes ago, brownnova said:

This is why I use the same guy for my MoTs each year on the old tat. He been mechanicing for many years and has a Mk1. escort so has old car sympathy… but… he is in his late 60s now, and I dread him retiring. 

They are the people you need. 
Unfortunately though, there aren’t many of them around anymore and those that are still doing it are getting close to retirement.

Whats really needed is for everyone to learn the required skills to keep classics going. This is why I suggested it in the welding thread a few weeks ago. The more we can all learn and then do means the skills won’t die out but also you can be more self sufficient and keep old stuff going.

[horriblemercedes]

9 minutes ago, adw1977 said:

I don't see much point testing emissions on classics, they're all going to be off the scale compared to a new car and the collective mileage of classics is low enough that they're not going to make much difference to overall air quality. 

I would like all vehicles to at least have a visual check that the tyres have some tread, there's some attempt at lighting and the rust isn't obviously structural. 

There's literally no point with cars that didn't have to conform to any emissions standards when new. There's no level to compare to, so there would be no pass or fail 

[Saabnut]

16 minutes ago, adw1977 said:

I would like all vehicles to at least have a visual check that the tyres have some tread, there's some attempt at lighting and the rust isn't obviously structural. 

Surely, that is what the police are for, rather than hiding in vans to make money from people going a little over the speed limit.

I had problems getting my 1930 Morris Cowley MOTed back in the day as the old school tester who did all our classics did not know how a spring loaded ball joint worked. He has now retired so if they brought in a "classic MOT" who would teach all the testers what they need to know? I am sure that the fee would have to be paid despite not getting what you have paid for. Leave things alone, the stats show the lack of MOT tests has had no significant affect, indeed I saw one report that claimed the accident rate per mile for classics had actually decreased, as owners check their cars regularly rather than relying on a yearly inspection.

[Zelandeth]

It pretty regularly even back in the early 00s required me to dig out the guidance notes regarding the acceptable free play in worm and roller steering on my Ladas at MOT time as testers even then hadn't a clue about the differences between that and a rack and pinion setup.  Also had an initial fail on my G plate Saab 900 once because they'd tried to test the emissions as per a cat equipped vehicle.

It seems a lot of testing stations struggle to keep track of the differences with older cars which are still very much in need of an MOT, never mind stuff that's well and truly exempt under the current regs.

I consider myself lucky that the tester I'm currently using does understand older cars and comes under the heading of "strict but fair" which is exactly what you want really.

[Rustybullethole]

5 hours ago, UltraWomble said:

Mostly yes they do, though there are a large number of bikes and cars on the road with dubious identities taking advantage of the "Tax and MOT" exemption that are being used as daily drivers.

I know of several bikes being passed off as classic Honda C90's / C70's that are not except maybe the front forks and a VIN plate, likewise the Land Rover brigade have their fair share of cars of dubious origin ( as do Mini's and Fraud's) 
Im not sure that this basic check will clamp down on vehicles that are clearly being ring a ding dinged, but at the very least will impose some basic safety on a Raleigh Burner fitted with a pit bike engine being passed off as a vintage Honda Plag.

 

EDIT:

Not the best example as this one seems to have had 2x MOT in its current iteration - fuck only knows what the tester thought he had in front of him, clearly not a C90

That's pretty well done to be fair. Puch wheels with drum brakes looking like plastic mag wheels. Would place money on the frame being stronger than many a moped too. A C reg is currently paying tax, requires mot and bummed for emissions. 

My mates '48 chevy is of course mot exempt. With it being heavily modified he keeps it mot'd. 

Am all for the people being given choice and the responsibility. Personally feel this is good for society as a whole. 

[sdkrc]

6 hours ago, danthecapriman said:

Anyway, let’s look at what other countries do and don’t have problems…

 

There absolutely should be a law keeping those hubcaps off of this stunning heap. 

[reb]

Just now, sdkrc said:

There absolutely should be a law keeping those hubcaps off of this stunning heap. 

They're just there to provide some drama during hard cornering. It's not a proper car chase unless at least one hubcap goes flying into the scenery.

[willswitchengage]

I read this article in a Times hard copy this morning. It was a 'consultation' with a very small number of people and was largely rejected. The headline is incredibly sensationalist and detached from what was actually being reported. It's a slow news week and they are clearly desperate for column filler. The Telegraph article is laughably worse with a headline that's plainly just incorrect.

[UltraWomble]

22 minutes ago, Rustybullethole said:

That's pretty well done to be fair. Puch wheels with drum brakes looking like plastic mag wheels. Would place money on the frame being stronger than many a moped too. A C reg is currently paying tax, requires mot and bummed for emissions.  

 

I agree - well made and as I mentioned in the edit that one probably wasnt the best example as its been through at least 2 MOT's like that - however this pair....

 

Quote

"Amazingly these are road registered"

"They are 1981 so T&T Exempt this year (2021)"

 

Neither one MOT'd since 2019 and says "Honda Unknown" - Video dates from 2021. Neither one of these has been MOT'd since but I doubt they have been scrapped, probably on the back of some Dubbers campervan. They are about as "Honda" as my bollocks.

[Rustybullethole]

13 minutes ago, UltraWomble said:

I agree - well made and as I mentioned in the edit that one probably wasnt the best example as its been through at least 2 MOT's like that - however this pair....

 

Neither one MOT'd since 2019 and says "Honda Unknown" - Video dates from 2021. Neither one of these has been MOT'd since but I doubt they have been scrapped, probably on the back of some Dubbers campervan. They are about as "Honda" as my bollocks.

Granted they're a Honda copy engine with a number plate off a Honda. 

For me they fall into the should get an mot to keep the law happy category much like my mates truck. 

Apart from anything else it would be a wise move in the direction of legality since you're riding what is essentially a ringer. 

They look fairly well thought out though exploit the loopholes just a touch. 

If insurance would pay out in the event you plow a bus stop full of kittens is another matter mind. 

Would guess they ain't used much and when they do are ridden like one would nursing home a sick bike. Maybe. 

[lesapandre]

41 minutes ago, willswitchengage said:

I read this article in a Times hard copy this morning. It was a 'consultation' with a very small number of people and was largely rejected. The headline is incredibly sensationalist and detached from what was actually being reported. It's a slow news week and they are clearly desperate for column filler. The Telegraph article is laughably worse with a headline that's plainly just incorrect.

And some indirect 007 content to attract the armchair browsers.

[dave j]

My camper hasn't had an MOT since 2017, but it went straight through the previous 10 MOT's in my ownership. I have taken it to get looked over a couple times since, and will probably pop it it in for another MOT test this summer. 

 

[wuvvum]

4 hours ago, Zelandeth said:

It seems a lot of testing stations struggle to keep track of the differences with older cars which are still very much in need of an MOT, never mind stuff that's well and truly exempt under the current regs.

They don't always even get it right with modern stuff.  I was looking at a mid-2000s car on eBay the other week, it had failed the MOT on various things but had been given a Dangerous fail for an inoperative handbrake - the failure was "Parking (secondary) brake on a single line braking system inoperative" or something very similar.  Single line braking systems haven't been a thing since the mid '70s.

[GeordieInExile]

5 hours ago, horriblemercedes said:

There's literally no point with cars that didn't have to conform to any emissions standards when new. There's no level to compare to, so there would be no pass or fail 

Unless the level is that a modern car would be expected to achieve. Which would be a touch harsh. 

Maybe there should be a light touch MOT with no emissions check for classic cars on the proviso they stay within an annual mileage allowance? Keeps them on the road and enables people to use them to pop to the shops or on a Sunday drive but also takes into account their relative levels of safety and emissions compared with something newer, so they couldn't be used for a daily motorway commute. (Yeah, I know they will also be a lot easier to clock than a modern car...)

[Rust Collector]

2 minutes ago, GeordieInExile said:

Maybe there should be a light touch MOT with no emissions check for classic cars on the proviso they stay within an annual mileage allowance?

How would you enforce that? If it’s on an honesty basis, then it’s just as flawed as the current system, with an added layer of complication. If you have to physically submit the car for the mileage to be inspected then who is picking up the cost of this and the system that would record it, and why would the government implement that rather than just require all exempt cars to be submitted for some form of MOT?

[UltraWomble]

6 minutes ago, Rust Collector said:

How would you enforce that? If it’s on an honesty basis, then it’s just as flawed as the current system, with an added layer of complication. If you have to physically submit the car for the mileage to be inspected then who is picking up the cost of this and the system that would record it, and why would the government implement that rather than just require all exempt cars to be submitted for some form of MOT?

You would be looking at a 2 tier MOT system - one for cars under a certain age and one for cars over, if I recall there are already exceptions within the MOT for cars registered before or after a certain year with regards things like side indicators, smoke emission, seatbelts and so on.

[lisbon_road]

When I get mine checked over, as above, I always ask for an emission test.  It is effectively a tune to check the carb is about correct and we'd adjust it if it was out - which it never has been.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to have followed older cars that are so rich they stink, and whatever the emissions, they shouldn't do that. 

I agree that this would be very difficult to implement as an overall policy; once again, I'm just sharing what I do.

[danthecapriman]

5 minutes ago, UltraWomble said:

You would be looking at a 2 tier MOT system - one for cars under a certain age and one for cars over, if I recall there are already exceptions within the MOT for cars registered before or after a certain year with regards things like side indicators, smoke emission, seatbelts and so on.

I think that was part of the reason for exemption at 40 years old. Basically to try to get rid of all the different test types and nuances that came with cars of different ages. Just on emissions there were various different tests depending on age.

I really don’t think this needs any more government involvement or any other unqualified dick heads middle men getting involved. It’s fine as it is at a rolling 40 years old exemption. It’s been with us a good while now and nothing negative has happened. The last thing any of us car enthusiasts need or want are scumbags like the government and press sticking their dumb arse oar in and essentially fucking it all up. If they do, you can guarantee as sure as shits brown it won’t improve but, like everything else seems to, it’ll get worse and more and more restrictive. 
I’ve said it for ages, but the best thing to do is keep quiet and leave it alone. The more people start making a fuss and drawing attention to things the more chance there is of some utter twat wading in to try and make a name for themselves and ruining things.

[sheffcortinacentre]

6 hours ago, chadders said:

You could just decide on an absolute emissions limit for them all, if they're above it they fail. 

Simple but unfair, whatever that means in this context.

There is one it's called visable smoke, you have to remember the country is broke & all this is to do with money plus the labour government is anti private motorist & deems "hobbies vehicles" as rich boys toys.

Vehicles between 5-15 years old receive little to no maintenance except come MOT time ask any MOT tester garage some of the death traps they come across in this age range.

[comfortablynumb]

Last time I had the range rover of too many wheels motd, the tester wanted to fail it because he could still turn a rear wheel when the handbrake was on, and both were off the ground. I pointed out that it was a transmission handbrake and got ' yes, I know that...'🤦

Well obviously you don't, and the fact that he thought it was 6WD when he was under it at the time and there's no propshaft.....

I came to the conclusion that I know far more about it than he did, and since the guys I used normally have shut up shop, and several people have refused to MOT it because of what it is, I gave up.

Also when my mum's '65 woody mini went into her local garage my dad had been using for years for his merc, they didn't have a clue because they couldn't plug it in.

Unless they're going to sort out proper mechanics, not just fitters, this is just a reason to get old stuff off the road

[lesapandre]

33 minutes ago, UltraWomble said:

You would be looking at a 2 tier MOT system - one for cars under a certain age and one for cars over, if I recall there are already exceptions within the MOT for cars registered before or after a certain year with regards things like side indicators, smoke emission, seatbelts and so on.

The issue would be:

There are 340,000 'historic' exempt vehicles at the moment - though they think at least 10% are SORN - ie not in use at all. 

Which gives a rule of thumb of about 300,000 driving about or being able to be driven about - some may get little use.

There are 23,000 in the main privately run MoT Stations in the UK.

That would give about 13 historic cars visiting each one annually - so just over one per month even under the most optimistic conditions.

To admin a different system on that basis - with training, equipment and everything else including running the IT and back end would not really be worth it - unless the fee went up say. 

But that in turn would impact on classic cars and the classic care 'movement' as a whole.

Anything is possible - but quite a lot of government systems are currently flawed - adding another layer of complexity would I doubt be welcome in government or outside.

As @danthecapriman says best just leave it.

There was surprisingly little feedback on the consultation - and no 'get those dangerous old crocks off the road' lobby emerged.

All this 'they are a danger to society' stuff is tilting at windmills.

The British media is becoming a pestilence with its ridiculous inflation of any minor matter to OMG status.

[lisbon_road]

2 minutes ago, lesapandre said:

The issue would be:

There are 340,000 'historic' exempt vehicles at the moment - though they think at least 10% are SORN - ie not in use at all. 

Which gives a rule of thumb of about 300,000 driving about or being able to be driven about - some may get little use.

There are 23,000 in the main privately run MoT Stations in the UK.

That would give about 13 historic cars visiting each one annually - so just over one per month.

To admin a different system on that basis - with training, equipment and everything else including running the IT and back end would not really be worth it - unless the fee went up say. 

But that in turn would impact on classic cars and the classic care 'movement' as a whole.

Anything is possible - but quite a lot of government systems are currently flawed - adding another layer of complexity would I doubt be welcome in government or outside.

Wow those statistics really make the problem clear. 

[comfortablynumb]

I bet there's a LOT more than 10% sorn

[lesapandre]

Yes you are right I was giving the most optimistic slant. 

Of the 340,000 it is not clear how many are driven about or indeed how many miles are covered annually.

I have several exempt vehicles. They have done - 0 miles this year 😂

Probably true for a lot.

[captain_70s]

5 hours ago, Zelandeth said:

It pretty regularly even back in the early 00s required me to dig out the guidance notes regarding the acceptable free play in worm and roller steering on my Ladas at MOT time as testers even then hadn't a clue about the differences between that and a rack and pinion setup.  Also had an initial fail on my G plate Saab 900 once because they'd tried to test the emissions as per a cat equipped vehicle.

See also having to nip up the wheel bearings on Dolomites to pass an MOT and loosen them back off so they don't melt because the level of "free play" required to fail is discretionary...

Also the garage leaning off the Dolly's mixture so much it pass emissions it couldn't be driven away from the centre.

Then they passed the 1850HL with subframe partially collapsed into the chassis rails and being supported by the steering column...

It's not exactly hard to get a bent MOT if one is really set on cheap motoring and it's not unusual for an old car to get a lenient test anyway. Certainly my old 740 which had been owned by a copper for 25 years hadn't seen a strict test in a long time...

It's not Moggy Minors doing 500 miles a year causing disasters when Baz has his mate MOT his drift slag E36 on cut springs and stretch tyres which gets driven like it's nicked...

[sierraman]

35 minutes ago, sheffcortinacentre said:

There is one it's called visable smoke, you have to remember the country is broke & all this is to do with money plus the labour government is anti private motorist & deems "hobbies vehicles" as rich boys toys.

Vehicles between 5-15 years old receive little to no maintenance except come MOT time ask any MOT tester garage some of the death traps they come across in this age range.

What… that £45 every year doesn’t include a full service? 🤣

[sierraman]

31 minutes ago, comfortablynumb said:

Last time I had the range rover of too many wheels motd, the tester wanted to fail it because he could still turn a rear wheel when the handbrake was on, and both were off the ground. I pointed out that it was a transmission handbrake and got ' yes, I know that...'🤦

Well obviously you don't, and the fact that he thought it was 6WD when he was under it at the time and there's no propshaft.....

I came to the conclusion that I know far more about it than he did, and since the guys I used normally have shut up shop, and several people have refused to MOT it because of what it is, I gave up.

Also when my mum's '65 woody mini went into her local garage my dad had been using for years for his merc, they didn't have a clue because they couldn't plug it in.

Unless they're going to sort out proper mechanics, not just fitters, this is just a reason to get old stuff off the road

It works both ways though, I’ve seen plenty of garages that know a thing or two about Morris Ital timing chains but don’t seem to have the kit to even work on something ten years old. There’s not much point training an apprentice on setting the timing on said Ital, he needs to know how to get an Ecoboost wet belt done in 7 hours - that’s where the money is not twiddling carburettors for folks that come in once in a blue moon and nip you £15 for your trouble. 

[Angrydicky]

As others have said, it’s going to be impossible and impractical to find enough testers who actually know about classic cars, how they work and how to drive them. 
Hopefully they have the common sense enough to ignore the do gooders who want to bring back unnecessary and damaging mots for classic cars. I don’t want another bloke crunching the gears on my car because he doesn’t know how to drive it, and he was around retirement age so no spotty kid.

The only thing I would agree with and the only thing that’s vaguely practical is a basic safety check, lights, tyres and so on. But classic car owners should be more than capable of keeping up with this sort of stuff themselves, or take their cars to someone who does.

Most classics do absolutely sod all mileage and have any been involved in any accidents, caused by lack of maintenance since mot exemption was brought in? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. If there was such a case the do gooders would be jumping up and down about it.

[sheffcortinacentre]

27 minutes ago, sierraman said:

What… that £45 every year doesn’t include a full service? 🤣

I know can you believe that.