Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[norustplease]

I see that the old MOT argument is being dredged up again by weekly magazine, Classic Car Weekly in a somewhat slanted piece, which claimed to represent responses from a representative cross section of classic car users, but actually only presented one side of the argument. This responded to a call from HCVA (whoever they are) who are trying to make a name for themselves as a recently launched organisation who want you to pay up to £600 per annum into a 'non profit making organisation' and have decided that this is a good crusade on which to base their initial 'raison d'etre.'
As far as I am aware, there is zero evidence that removing the need for an MOT has resulted in any serious mishaps, and certainly in this area, I would be hard pressed to find a garage that was interested in, or able to make the concessions necessary in the various standards, to realistically check over an historic car. We will soon be at a point in time whereby very few, if any mechanics in current employment have ever had any involvement with a classic car, and will be totally unfamiliar with a carburettor or distributor, or the amount of allowable play in a steering box.
_________________
1953 Citroen Traction
1964 Volvo PV544
1957 Austin A55 Mk 1
Boring Tucson SUV

[alastairq]

More to the point, testers appear to have to follow a online box-ticking exercise [is it based on the VIN details?]...as to what is checked.
In other words, they check a component, and try to see if what they have found fits any of the boxes they have to fill in online...?

One valid reason the DVSA/VOSA as-was, wanted to extend the MoT exemptions was the nature of the online recording system. It was in danger of becoming far too cumbersome to maintain.

Especially as it needed to be updated as each new technical innovation came to market.

I think they tried to reduce the amount of testers' opinions needed in a test....making the test less arbitrary. [In other words, trying to eliminate the situation where one tester is deemed to be 'harder' on vehicles than another....]

Isn't the HCVA the Historic Commercial Vehicle Association?

Do historic{?} commercial vehicles also benefit from MoT exemption?

Are the HCVA campaigning to remove that exemption from old banger lorries then?

I think a simpler solution ight be to withdraw the two pence piece from circulation, thereby boogering up the opportunities for using them to washer out steering joints??
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.

[norustplease]

HCVA stands for Historic and Classical Vehicle Alliance.
It was floated in May this year and according to its website is a not for profits organisation that it would like us all to pay £90 per annum to join, in return for which it will encourage yet more bureaucracy and expense into our lives, by requiring that we either run the gauntlet of a youthful MOT tester who has never seen the insides of a 50 year old car before, or attend at a 'specialist' who will run some kind of a check over our vehicle for no doubt, a generous sum of money.
Most of its current supporters listed on the website, (who appear to be asked to contribute £600 per annum), are, according to the list on the website, specialist dealers and restorers. I wonder why?
_________________
1953 Citroen Traction
1964 Volvo PV544
1957 Austin A55 Mk 1
Boring Tucson SUV

[Rootes75]

Don't get me started on inexperienced testers trying to run the rule over a vintage vehicle!!

A very good friend who ran the village garage used to MOT my pre-war cars, he gave up as they added so much to the test and the equipment he needed to comply! I recall the brake test on my Hillman being a case of taking her round the block and making sure she stopped. I can hardly see that happening these days,
_________________
Various Rootes Vehicles.

[Ray White]

Many moons ago I had a BMW Isetta 300 bubble car. I remember taking it for an M.O.T. test. The tester simply drove it the length of the fore-court. He accelerated as fast as he could then slammed on the brakes. The rear wheel left the ground and the car almost rolled over front ways!

The tester got out visibly shaken and said in a trembly voice "well it stops O.K. so I 'll pass it....just don't bring it here again!"

[lowdrag]

The forty year rule was introduced because all the evidence garnered from successive MOT's showed that a car of that age and older did, on average, less than 500 miles per annum. I know of many that don't do 100 let alone 500. They used to go to for their MOT, then go back in the garage until next year.

As mentioned, MOT stations are now set up to cope with all the gizmos on modern cars and testers have no idea - and care less - about the idiosyncrasies
of our old cars. So the Government decided to scrap the MOT once a vehicle reached "historic" age. There is no evidence of any increase in the accident rate, although, yes, I have had an accident since it was scrapped. A blonde in her Kia rammed me from behind!

I don't think that despite this embryonic new body (I'll keep my £90 thank you) there is any chance of there being a U-turn on the subject. We don't need it.

[Rootes75]

I keep a mileage log and in the last calender year we have done 90 miles in our big Hillman. We have commercial too and they are all pre 1960 so they arent tested, one of them we only did 56 miles in it on shirt local trips!
_________________
Various Rootes Vehicles.

[Ray White]

[V8 Nutter]

On the subject of testers not understanding unusual cars. It must have been about 40 years ago, a friend of mine owned a 1960's Plymouth. It failed the MOT play in the bottom ball joints. He had the ball joints replaced, and it failed the MOT again. After that he borrowed my trusty Chiltons manual (which he should have done in the first place) that showed .050 up and down and .250 sideways movement was normal. As the years roll on things can only become worse.

[peter scott]

I have religiously MOTed my SS every year since I bought it but missed last years due to covid so just last week I booked it in with the garage that has always done it. I have always sat in on the test and the tester this year was a new young guy so I wondered if he would know about the various concessions but he was very enthusiastic and interested in the old car and knew exactly what was tested and what was not.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[alastairq]

I think, here in the UK, we are quite lucky in regard to MoT exemptions!

If we have been compelled to comply with EU rules [had the glorious vote gone the other way].......then we would have had their 30 year exemption!!!!
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.

[Ray White]

If it wasn't so easy to "clock" an old car I think there would have been a mileage related inspection requirement brought in. There was talk at one time about a 3 year limit on M.O.T. exemptions but in the end it was just simpler and cheaper to go for a general
relaxation of the rules for old cars.

When I think about the great age of most Veteran car owners who are attempting to maintain their cars (with no independent checks) for the London to Brighton Run, it is not a surprise to me that questions are asked about car safety when there is a serious crash.

I would procure an M.O.T. certificate if for no other reason than have something to show that someone more technically qualified than me had recently given the car the thumbs up.

[Crashbox]

I know people in the 2CV club who have had a fail on a non-working handbrake. Turns out the test was done on the rear. Handbrake works on the front brakes

Since Christmas, I've done over 2,800 miles in my 1932 Minor. It gets a thorough going-over every 1,000 miles or less. The only breakdown so far was running out of petrol with the gauge still showing a little under 1//4.
Rule no. 24:- Don't ever believe the fuel gauge. Lesson learnt.
_________________
1989 2CV

1932 Morris Minor S.V. Two-Seater

[petelang]

Ray, where on earth would they find someone more technically qualified than you?
Today's "Technicians" if they can't find the port to plug in the diagnostics, are dumbfounded.
They most certainly wouldn't know how to repair sub components, having been taught to "chuck it away and get a new one"for anything found dud by the PC.
At least you can rebuild a car from a large pile of bits and resolve real engineering problems.
_________________
Daimler Fifteen 1934 (now sold)
Armstrong Siddeley 15 Long 1933
Daimler V8 250 1969

[Ray White]