Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
|
Author |
Message |
Rick Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 22442 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:00 pm Post subject: Converted vehicles |
|
|
Hi all,
I found the following two photos in an album this afternoon, and I'd forgotten that these pictures even existed. They show a Morris Minor that dad owned quite a few years ago. Made into a pickup, it started life as a Traveller. Therefore it didn't have a separate chassis as the factory vans and pickups do, but it was still a handy little vehicle and looked better than many of these pickup conversions do (IMO).
I wonder where FMB 427G is now?? It shows as being on SORN, and painted blue, so maybe it's still around somewhere.
Have you ever owned a "classic" vehicle that has undergone a significant conversion, either to its bodywork and/or running gear?
RJ _________________ Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1950 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://fbhvc.co.uk/members-pages/newsletter-archive/
Above is a linky to FBHVC's latest newsletters.....inside is a n article from DVLA, concerning 'radically-altered vehicles'.....especially those where a monocoque-type construction has been altered. Current advice is , 'don't do it'....
Look at issue 3....plenty on VHI declarations, which ought to sort out any lack of knowledge on here...?
sorry, off-topic, but I thought it might fit in well with the OP topic? For now, that is? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 22442 Location: UK
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1950 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to divert...but..it seems DVLA will apply this rule retrospectively. In other words [their words?] vehicles that have been so modified in the past, will have their registrations revoked, and be re-issued with Q-plates...
However, I am assured that my Ford sidevalve chassis [with V5c] can be married with my Ashley 1172 bodyshell without too much issue [on their part]...as a re-body of a chassied vehicle [retaining the chassis, running gear,etc]...seems to raise no eyebrows.
I would hope so..however, worst case scenario, an MoT is no hassle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bitumen Boy
Joined: 26 Jan 2012 Posts: 1735 Location: Above the snow line in old Monmouthshire
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alastairq wrote: | Sorry to divert...but..it seems DVLA will apply this rule retrospectively. In other words [their words?] vehicles that have been so modified in the past, will have their registrations revoked, and be re-issued with Q-plates...
However, I am assured that my Ford sidevalve chassis [with V5c] can be married with my Ashley 1172 bodyshell without too much issue [on their part]...as a re-body of a chassied vehicle [retaining the chassis, running gear,etc]...seems to raise no eyebrows.
I would hope so..however, worst case scenario, an MoT is no hassle. |
I wonder how they're planning to find all these past modified vehicles to give them Q plates? I wouldn't worry too much just yet, at one point the scaremongers were predicting that practically any running classic was going to be Q plated. The number of possible Q plates is, of course, finite - meaning the gloomiest predictions would have been impossible. Play it by ear and don't volunteer any information... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ukdave2002
Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 4104 Location: South Cheshire
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bitumen Boy wrote: | alastairq wrote: | Sorry to divert...but..it seems DVLA will apply this rule retrospectively. In other words [their words?] vehicles that have been so modified in the past, will have their registrations revoked, and be re-issued with Q-plates...
However, I am assured that my Ford sidevalve chassis [with V5c] can be married with my Ashley 1172 bodyshell without too much issue [on their part]...as a re-body of a chassied vehicle [retaining the chassis, running gear,etc]...seems to raise no eyebrows.
I would hope so..however, worst case scenario, an MoT is no hassle. |
I wonder how they're planning to find all these past modified vehicles to give them Q plates? I wouldn't worry too much just yet, at one point the scaremongers were predicting that practically any running classic was going to be Q plated. The number of possible Q plates is, of course, finite - meaning the gloomiest predictions would have been impossible. Play it by ear and don't volunteer any information... | All this kicked off because Bugatti owners were building new cars around nothing more than an old chassis number, and the Bugatti owners club supported it!
If you follow the DVLA originality points system, bodywork doesn't really count if the vehicle has a separate chassis.
As for Q plates there is about 12 million combinations, so I wouldn't get too complacent about the DVLA running out of them!
Dave |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1950 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a Q-plater...made up out of mostly WW2 era running gear....a Cannon Trials special.
The chassis number issued was nearly a foot long..I had a problem finding enough clear chassis tube space to attach it to!!
The issue was, it has a Ford [Y-type] front axle, an Austin [8 or 10] rear axle [or, did have...replaced by a Suzuki van axle].....a BMC [Midget] A-series engine [but mounts for a Ford 8 or 10]...similar matching gearbox, etc....Inspecting Hossifer was at a loss to see which make of car it had most of.
I would have been better off simply obtaining a kernackered old kit car of sorts.....and swapping the identities. In reality, no one would have known..or cared...
Bugattis? What about Frazer Nashes? [Allegedly?] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mikeC
Joined: 31 Jul 2009 Posts: 1774 Location: Market Warsop, Nottinghamshire
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surely a Cannon qualifies as a make in its own right? _________________ in the garage: 1938 Talbot Ten Airline
Recently departed: 1953 Lancia Appia, 1931 Austin Seven, 1967 Singer Chamois, 1914 Saxon, 1930 Morris Cowley, 1936 BSA Scout, 1958 Lancia Appia coupe, 1922 Star 11.9 ... the list goes on! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1950 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mikeC wrote: | Surely a Cannon qualifies as a make in its own right? |
Sadly not!
Cannon never made any road going cars......all those with registrations, were sorted by their owners. Pre-1960-ish, one simply registered the vehicle...regardless of whether the footbrake worked 2, or 4, wheel brakes.
Later on, many Cannons which are on the road, had their chassis re-built...along with suspensions, etc.
Mine was registered for road use in the 1990's..so has to comply with the C&U regs prevailing at the time.
I have tried to keep the car as original as possible [with a special??]....suspension, drive train, etc...but brakes were modified [in their operation]....steering was limited in lock as well......when I got the car/wreck, the front wheels were capable of almost 80 degrees of lock!
They were almost all made for sporting trials. [some went grasstracking]....and the construction reflects that.
It is registered as a Cannon [on a q-plate, one does have a choice as to what it's called]...
All done very much on-the-cheap! Aside from the chassis, and running gear....the car was put together using whatever was to hand....including the Bus Company depot sign! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
llllmikellll
Joined: 03 Dec 2007 Posts: 48 Location: Heatherton, SE of Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
alastairq wrote: | mikeC wrote: | Surely a Cannon qualifies as a make in its own right? |
Sadly not!
Cannon never made any road going cars......all those with registrations, were sorted by their owners. Pre-1960-ish, one simply registered the vehicle...regardless of whether the footbrake worked 2, or 4, wheel brakes.
Later on, many Cannons which are on the road, had their chassis re-built...along with suspensions, etc.
Mine was registered for road use in the 1990's..so has to comply with the C&U regs prevailing at the time.
I have tried to keep the car as original as possible [with a special??]....suspension, drive train, etc...but brakes were modified [in their operation]....steering was limited in lock as well......when I got the car/wreck, the front wheels were capable of almost 80 degrees of lock!
They were almost all made for sporting trials. [some went grasstracking]....and the construction reflects that.
It is registered as a Cannon [on a q-plate, one does have a choice as to what it's called]...
All done very much on-the-cheap! Aside from the chassis, and running gear....the car was put together using whatever was to hand....including the Bus Company depot sign! |
What you have done is really no different from what any car maker does; collect components from various suppliers, then assemble a car. When Morris did it, he called his product a Morris car. It is a fundamental principal that any object made by humans carries the name of its maker. Always has and always will.
As for rego, it would make sense to use the name of the chassis/space frame maker, since that is the single item that brings all the major components together to form vehicle.
Somewhere I saw the makers name hyphenated with the OEM name for the purpose of rego.
So make a nice badge with your name and wear it proudly on the front. It is correct and proper.
Mike |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1950 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most road-going [legal] Cannons are listed as 'Ford', or something similar....but they also carry registration plates hoicked from a 'donor' Ford...{Might have been bits of Escort engine & gearbox, maybe even axle? All ''joined together'' in/on a Cannon chassis..which may, or may not, consist of the original tubes used by Mike Cannon himself?}
Which leads me to think of a conundrum....if one replaces damaged or rotted tubes or steelwork on what was once a 'manufacturers' chassis.....at what point do we think the frame has ceased to be from that manufacturer? In other words, is it right to maintain the identity, if the chassis has become rather like the sailor's knife? {6 new blades, 4 new handles, but it's the ''same knife'']
Or should I not poke wasps' nests? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lowdrag
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 Posts: 1585 Location: Le Mans
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And I thought we had put all this nonsense to bed (groan)
The position of modified cars is quite clear.
1. If the modification was carried out over thirty years ago and the donor car is over 40 years old then the car will be MOT free for life.
2. If the car is already registered but the conversion was carried out less than 30 years ago the car will require an MOT until the 30 years is up. But if the donor car was first registered over forty years ago the car will qualify as a historic vehicle and be eligible for £0 VED.
3. The FBHVC article about the definition of a VHI was published last year and is basically the basis of the current position. The IVA applies to any new build based around a conversion of an historic car, and rule 2 will apply except that I am not sure if VED will be payable.
4. The Bugatti club were caught in a trap. The cars that we are talking about here were made by Pur Sang in Argentina, and so impressed the Bugatti club that they issued continuation chassis numbers to the owners, of whom I am led to believe there were three in the UK. Now a certain Colonel Blimp was enraged that his original Type 35 Bugatti was considered equal to the new cars so he fired off a vitriolic letter to the DVLA and the three cars had their registrations revoked. The problem was that, and in pure innocence, the cars got registered as 1931 cars as continuations. Ford GT40s make continuations with sequential chassis numbers too.
Alastair seems to keep harping on about Q plates and such. If the history of the vehicle and the conversion is clear none of this need apply. I have made previous mention of the original Rolls and Bentleys where the manufacturer sold the car in chassis form and the owner then had a body made by Barkers or whoever. These cars are not in question, and nor are all cars that were built in the time. An Austin 7 hill climb special is another example, as would be the two XK150 estate cars and so on.
My case is, as previously explained, a clear example of a converted car that qualifies under the new regulations. A 1967 Jaguar E-type 2+2 converted into a D-type with proof that the conversion was done more than 30 years ago. I had a long chat with the DVLA the week of the changeover, and she confirmed that I neither needed an MOT nor further proof to declare it eligible under the new rules. I went on line, ticked the box to confirm that the car had been converted over 30 years ago, and the car was taxed. No requirement for a V112 nor any other documentation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1950 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nobody is questioning the issue, Lowdrag.....the thread got a bit sidetracked, that's all. Nothing really to do with proof or whatever of when a modification was conducted. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
llllmikellll
Joined: 03 Dec 2007 Posts: 48 Location: Heatherton, SE of Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
alastairq wrote: | Most road-going [legal] Cannons are listed as 'Ford', or something similar....but they also carry registration plates hoicked from a 'donor' Ford...{Might have been bits of Escort engine & gearbox, maybe even axle? All ''joined together'' in/on a Cannon chassis..which may, or may not, consist of the original tubes used by Mike Cannon himself?}
Which leads me to think of a conundrum....if one replaces damaged or rotted tubes or steelwork on what was once a 'manufacturers' chassis.....at what point do we think the frame has ceased to be from that manufacturer? In other words, is it right to maintain the identity, if the chassis has become rather like the sailor's knife? {6 new blades, 4 new handles, but it's the ''same knife'']
Or should I not poke wasps' nests? |
Yes, if the engineering specification remains the same.
Just need to decide if its a repair/rebuild or a re-design/new design. In a repair or re-build (you retain all but the rust and damaged), the engineering specification will remain the same. If the engineering specification is changed from that of the OEM to that of another entity, then that entity is the constructor of a new vehicle, and the OEM of the original vehicle becomes a component supplier to that constructor. The resulting object (car or anything else) will be known by the name of its constructor, not by the name of a component supplier.
If a completely new object is constructed to the engineering specification of an OEMs item (a direct copy), it will be known by its constructor, not by the name of the OEM, but may be stated as 'constructors name - object' replica of 'OEMs name - object'. In this case the OEMs name is being used as a descriptor of the item made by constructor, and therefore there is no deception. If the constructor of the new object were to state 'OEMs name' - 'constructors object', it is clearly deception and potentially fraud.
Mike |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
php BB powered © php BB Grp.
|