classic car forum header
Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
How To Register     Posting Photographs     Privacy Policy     F/book facebook.com/oldclassiccar

Seen anything interesting????
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 420, 421, 422 ... 424, 425, 426  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration. Forum Index -> Classic & Vintage Cars - General Chat
Author Message
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1395
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is just that with no M.O.T. requirement I can't help wondering just how safe some of these old cars are?


Probably in a lot better condition, in terms of lawful roadworthiness..than 80% of all moderns this side of 1980?
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Ford Mustang coupe, 1967, 6 cylinder auto.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 3648
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alastairq wrote:
Quote:
It is just that with no M.O.T. requirement I can't help wondering just how safe some of these old cars are?


Probably in a lot better condition, in terms of lawful roadworthiness..than 80% of all moderns this side of 1980?


Quite possibly.

Then again there is no longer an annual check.

As I say I can't help wondering.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck... it probably is a duck. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1395
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Then again there is no longer an annual check.

Which, in itself is pretty worthless?
As the sheer numbers of unroadworthy moderns out there will testify to?
Besides...door droop? How many cars built this century have doors which droop suddenly a bit, when opened?

The danger with rear hinged doors is if they come undone whilst moving?

As long as the door isn't able to do that, what's the issue?
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Ford Mustang coupe, 1967, 6 cylinder auto.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 3648
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It probably isn't an issue. I just know I wouldn't be happy with a badly fitting door. If a car is neglected it tends to show in details like that.

My old Headmaster used to say you can tell a lot from the state of a chap's shoes.

Make of that what you will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1395
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If a car is neglected it tends to show in details like that.


Given that this example is taxed, therefore insured..and likely being used on the road..possibly as a daily driver [or, near enough?]....perhaps the owner is somewhat cash-strapped like me...and needs to attend to jobs in some sort of priority order?
Somehow a drooping door [probably a wood in pillar issue? Or frame issue] which actually does not affect the driving , stopping and roadworthiness of the car overall....as long as it stays closed....may not be high on the list of priority jobs?

The advantage of oily rag, rolling restoration cars is, they get used..and usage makes for a better motor car...plus, there is an opportunity to identify problems long before a garage queen's would show?
I'm not sure even an MoT would highlight such an issue? Is the door secure?Yes/No?
The shoes mean nothing......
Serviceability? Or spit n polish?
We seem to have come away from the idea of serviceability over the decades...
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Ford Mustang coupe, 1967, 6 cylinder auto.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emmerson



Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 1261
Location: South East Wales

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must agree with Ray. That door shows signs of slovenly maintenance, which could give rise to much more serious matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 3648
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't wish to labour the point but I did only say that I wondered about the level of maintenance given the down at heel appearance.

I like a good 'oily rag' car as much as the next person.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
norustplease



Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Posts: 629
Location: Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some people are turned on by the oily rag appearance, and indeed in some areas of the classic car world, great efforts are made to make the car look like this, even though they have actually been repaired to quite a high standard bodily.
Oily rag does little for me, I must admit, but then neither do the trailer queens. I can admire the attention to detail, but it is far too obsessive for me and I much prefer a tidier, but slightly lived in appearance that can be used regularly without excessive fear of a parking ding, or stone chip.
As regards the Ford, if the door is latched shut, then how can it be drooping? More likely to be a poor fitting bonnet, not uncommon with gull wing type bonnet lids.
Regarding MOT's, I think that an occasional inspection is a good thing, in that an additional pair of experienced eyes is always useful. The key is in the word experienced. My local garage had an elderly proprietor, who seemed to enjoy the assortment of old cars that I brought to him when MOT's were compulsory. His son, however, has now taken over, and is clearly less than interested, and indeed, probably lacks the background knowledge that enables him to make informed comments on many aspects of the older car's design.
I think that if you have only rudimentary knowledge of how the car works, then in order to drive a classic car safely, you need to have a relationship with a decent garage, and be prepared to spend money on inspections and repairs. If you are an experienced spanner wielder, and in particular if you restored or rebuilt the car yourself, then I think that you should be trusted to know what condition your car is in, and to know when you are out of your depth and need professional help.
_________________
1953 Citroen Traction
1964 Volvo PV544
1986 Renault 4
1990 Citroen 2CV
Boring Fiat 500X
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 3648
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

norustplease wrote:
Some people are turned on by the oily rag appearance, and indeed in some areas of the classic car world, great efforts are made to make the car look like this, even though they have actually been repaired to quite a high standard bodily.
Oily rag does little for me, I must admit, but then neither do the trailer queens. I can admire the attention to detail, but it is far too obsessive for me and I much prefer a tidier, but slightly lived in appearance that can be used regularly without excessive fear of a parking ding, or stone chip.
As regards the Ford, if the door is latched shut, then how can it be drooping? More likely to be a poor fitting bonnet, not uncommon with gull wing type bonnet lids.
Regarding MOT's, I think that an occasional inspection is a good thing, in that an additional pair of experienced eyes is always useful. The key is in the word experienced. My local garage had an elderly proprietor, who seemed to enjoy the assortment of old cars that I brought to him when MOT's were compulsory. His son, however, has now taken over, and is clearly less than interested, and indeed, probably lacks the background knowledge that enables him to make informed comments on many aspects of the older car's design.
I think that if you have only rudimentary knowledge of how the car works, then in order to drive a classic car safely, you need to have a relationship with a decent garage, and be prepared to spend money on inspections and repairs. If you are an experienced spanner wielder, and in particular if you restored or rebuilt the car yourself, then I think that you should be trusted to know what condition your car is in, and to know when you are out of your depth and need professional help.


My understanding is that you need to pass an exam to get a M.O.T. inspector's license. Most older cars are simpler than their newer counterparts so I would imagine there is little to wrong foot a newly qualified inspector. My guess is that it is the lack of high tech sophistication in our cars that turns off the newby rather than any mechanical issues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1395
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is also the issue that the DVSA wished to clear out it's MoT database.....far more moderns will need an mOt test , than those over 40 ...[there are more of them about?].
No really massive public outcry about the current 6 month postponement for MoT's...which has just run out?
For example, my normal pre-covid daily is a 4trak...whose MoT expired the last week of July....now has an extension until next January.
Nobody has been shouting about that in the media?
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Ford Mustang coupe, 1967, 6 cylinder auto.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
norustplease



Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Posts: 629
Location: Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alastairq wrote:
There is also the issue that the DVSA wished to clear out it's MoT database.....far more moderns will need an mOt test , than those over 40 ...[there are more of them about?].
No really massive public outcry about the current 6 month postponement for MoT's...which has just run out?
For example, my normal pre-covid daily is a 4trak...whose MoT expired the last week of July....now has an extension until next January.
Nobody has been shouting about that in the media?

No, I am in the same position with the 2CV. It has hardly had any use since last Christmas...as soon as it was de-mothballed from its winter sleep, we were locked down, and certainly in the main lockdown, I had little use for wheels at all, since we are within walking distance of all we need. It now needs an MOT on Christmas Day!!!I have only recently started using it again.
I have, however used the downtime to go through all of my cars with a fine tooth comb and have come up with various issues that have now been recitified, most serious of which was the failed seal in the Volvo master cylinder.
_________________
1953 Citroen Traction
1964 Volvo PV544
1986 Renault 4
1990 Citroen 2CV
Boring Fiat 500X
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MikeEdwards



Joined: 25 May 2011
Posts: 1952
Location: South Cheshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ray White wrote:
My understanding is that you need to pass an exam to get a M.O.T. inspector's license. Most older cars are simpler than their newer counterparts so I would imagine there is little to wrong foot a newly qualified inspector.


As I read it, the issue was more that the inspectors are less well-practised in the exceptions that apply to older cars. I have been a "victim" of that, where my car was failed for all sorts of stuff that don't apply to a car from 1976, but the MOT inspector was new and hadn't read up on the exceptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
alanb



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 490
Location: Berkshire.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both my sons are diagnostic technicianís for Mercedes Benz and also qualified MOT testers there is never a problem with my Mercedes everyday car as they keep it well maintained and in tip top condition. They also give my Morris itís annual safety check but insist Iím present because they are not familiar with the technology.
_________________
old tourer


Morris 8 two seater
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray White



Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 3648
Location: Derby

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me that the Tester's exam is not far reaching enough. Not much point in having regulations if those charged with their enforcement are not up to speed.

There again; if the cars in question are no longer required to have an M.O.T test, then all the exemptions etc. are never going to be a priority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1395
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There again; if the cars in question are no longer required to have an M.O.T test, then all the exemptions etc. are never going to be a priority.

This is again, as per my point above. The DVSA have a database of all vehicles, their specifications, etc. That database is followed by the Tester. The database poses certain questions surrounding an item...the tester has to respond....one way or the other.. For example, concerning undershields? There is no database leeway for if a normally-present undershield is actually removed/missing altogether. The 'pass' or 'fail' is down to the computer response, not the opinion of the tester.

The DVSA have already stated that their database would be so big, NASA would look tiny in comparison..if all vehicles from the norman conquest onwards were left in situ. Hence, given the relatively small numbers, vehicles over 40 are now left to the DRIVER's sense of responsibility [not the owners, or the registered keepers]

Let's face it..how many on here carry out even basic before-use checks on their vehicles...each time they use them? Regardless of age?


There is another issue so far only touched upon wahayy back in this forum.

This issue concerns the hiatus between an MoT expiring, and a historic vehicle's date of taxation.
Currently, the vehicle will show up as lacking a current MoT.

But the way things are organised, one cannot claim exemption from MoT[vehicle of historic status]....until the anniversary of the vehicle's tax date.
If one renews the MoT so as not to register as 'lacking one' on ANPR....then come the day of taxation [historic vehicle=zero tax rate]....there will be no questions about whether the vehicle complies with the rules to allow exemption from MoT. Simply because, there is a valid MoT already in place.

This was originally thought to be an issue only when the rules actually changed.

However, if one goes and gets an MoT, for example, to aid in the selling of a vehicle..then the new owner has to start all over again as above.......and so on.

When I asked my tester how much he would charge for a MoT {???} he asked, 'why would I bother??'

To go get an MoT[for whatever reason?] when the vehicle is already registered as being a 'vehicle of Historic status ', which grants an exemption from MoT....means the system for that vehicle is re-set, as it would have been back when the exemptions first came into play.

A lot of folk get confused between the DVLA [tax, etc] and the DVSA[Mots, etc]....especially as the two agencies have combined their declaration system onto the DVLA's website.
So again, I have no issues with someone getting their old vehicle checked over, by another..it is their money, after all.
But I would advise avoiding getting an actual MoT test certificate recorded...to save problems later on?
Unless one's old vehicle suddenly no longer complies withe DVSA rules for a historic exemption? [Like the fitting of a Zetec into an Anglia, for example?]
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Ford Mustang coupe, 1967, 6 cylinder auto.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration. Forum Index -> Classic & Vintage Cars - General Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 420, 421, 422 ... 424, 425, 426  Next
Page 421 of 426

 
Jump to:  
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
Forum T&C


php BB powered © php BB Grp.