Govt consultation on Classic & historic vehicles - Important!

[richardw]

There is an important government consultation under way on the future status of Classic and historic vehicles to which we should all reply if we wish not to be driving around on Q plates. The FBHVC has published a useful guide to responding to this consultation and I’d recommend that we review this and respond individually:

https://fbhvc.co.uk/news/article/dvla-c ... difference

[TonyL]

Thanks, Richard. I’ll take a look.

The current systems for dealing with older vehicles don’t cause me any problems & I don’t know of any group of people that suffers due to the current systems, or will suffer in future. I wonder why the government is devoting so much resource to this.

There are so many huge problems in this country that could be alleviated if the government would deploy its resources wisely. They should focus on solving these big problems & in doing so improve the lives of millions of people. Then they can come back to making trouble for those of us who enjoy driving old cars when everything else is working properly.

[shaunw]

Thanks, Richard. I’ll take a look.

The current systems for dealing with older vehicles don’t cause me any problems & I don’t know of any group of people that suffers due to the current systems, or will suffer in future. I wonder why the government is devoting so much resource to this.

There are so many huge problems in this country that could be alleviated if the government would deploy its resources wisely. They should focus on solving these big problems & in doing so improve the lives of millions of people. Then they can come back to making trouble for those of us who enjoy driving old cars when everything else is working properly.

Absolutely spot on!

[richardw]

The net zero future they intend for us all doesn’t particularly include classic vehicles, or indeed private cars at all. Look at UN Agenda 2030. This consultation is part of an administrative process to gradually wear us down. It is important to resist, even if they end up not taking much notice - it makes things more difficult for them.

ATB Richard

[bash]

Classic cars are dead if this goes ahead, if you put a screw in the wrong place a Q plate could be issued, and I know of someone who has had a run in with them already on this. I have a suspicion that this is something that has been (still is) in the pipeline from the EU mandarins. This is also going to kill off the replica parts business as non standard parts fall into this abyss, new door frames sir, well done have a Q plate, its that serious. New sills sir, not original parts, well done.......etc etc.
Virtually no one has a perfect, as it left the factory, classic car.
I have to say the fhbcc proforma is a bit prescriptive and ducks alot of issues but they are a coverall organisation for classic cars.

Bash

[rbgosling]

I suspect this has all been prompted by the fairly recent emergence of the electrified classic car, particularly now there are a number of businesses (even a TV show - Vintage Voltage - which is quite watchable) devoted to this. With the question arising as to whether an electrified classic can retain its original registration, that's opened the can of worms about other cars and how heavily modified they can be. Without the electrified classics issue, I doubt anyone would have bothered questioning the current situation on all the other variations.

My instinct is to be pretty liberal on this - after all, one of our own here has dropped a Corvette engine into an Excel, which is neither original nor a period-correct option, and did some non-insignificant chassis modification to fit it in and create the forward-hinged clamshell bonnet. I'd still want that car to carry its original registration, there's enough of the donor car left. And if it's OK for that powertrain, why would it be any different if the powertrain was electric? Not just a hypothetical question, as an old university mate of mine has bought a knackered Excel and is planning to EV it, although I don't think he's actually made any meaningful progress yet...

However, where cars have been "re-shelled" - e.g. MGBs or Minis using a Heritage body shell - that does feel to me like a new car that no longer possesses the "soul" of the original. And, in another direction, there have been cases where famous wrecked historic racing cars have been "rebuilt" using mostly re-made parts with a few scraps of the original car included, they don't seem authentic to me.

Reading the FBHVCs answers, to me they still seem a little too proscriptive. I'll fill in the consultation for myself, but I'll use the FBHVC position as guidance to help me form my own opinions.

There are still some areas where I don't know what seems appropriate. For instance, pre-war cars, where the manufacturer would manufacture a chassis and engine but you could buy a body from a number of different coach builders, there is no "correct" body, so is it OK to build a new body on the car? What if the body isn't near-identical to any you could buy at the time? Anyone who reads Practical Classics may have read about the Austin Seven Special being built by Matt Tomkins, the body is totally bespoke, not based on any specific period body but still looks reminiscent of the era; what's left of the original chassis seems to be a few metal beams. Is it still the same car? Doesn't feel like it to me. Is it even an Austin Seven any more? I don't really know. It probably contains way fewer original parts than plenty of the MX-5 based kits cars that would qualify for a Q-plate. Does the rebuilt engine and the remnants of chassis still make this a 1938 (or whatever) car, or is it a new car? I guess these situations are uncommon enough that you can easily say that it doesn't really matter, there are more important things to worry about, but some sort of process has to exist and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Lotus-e-Clan]

Just completed the FBHCVBFHCVH or whatever !!! survey. Disagreed with some of their less detailed responses. I was also concerned by some of their arrogant or dismissive responses. The question / response that really concerned me was about the potential adoption of best practice from other countries (FBHVCFHBCCVH didn't have a view).
My view is; country-specific attitudes to historic vehicles, political of otherwise, shape their own best practice. The only best practice the UK should adopt is the best practice shaped by the knowledge-base and practices drawn from UK historic / classic car clubs and associated industries.

[dancroft1984]

I've done the linked form, but think I'll reply directly if I can. The FBHVC seem intent to keep old vehicles time-capsuled, ignoring the fact that the custom/restomod community (whether you would want to do it to your own vehicle or not) keep a lot of the hobby and industry alive. Especially in the realm of motorcycles.

[AndrewWebber]

I have a personal quandary here if I'm honest. My profession (now only a few days a month) is vehicle homogulation (Type Approval Regulation Compliance) and I do sit on some DfT working groups representing the vehicle conversion and small series (volume) builders industries. I mainly work for companies in the area of converting brand new unregistered vehicles e.g. 3.5T vans with some very specialized kit, and, brand new 'no donor GT40' lookalikes. Meanwhile away from all that my hobbies include anything from classic car maintenance to my 'v8turbo Europa' which is really a rebodied S3 Esprit with an RV8 which is all 'periodish', but the recent fitment of an Audi transmission is not. The current system has (by me cunningly informing the DVLA of a number of the changes in a number of 3+ yearly steps) enabled me to get it 'on the road' with a V5 from a 1975 (kit built), 1976 registered Europa which I'm delighted with as that then enabled me to get an FIA 'passport' etc for competition in 'historic mod sports'. So 'I'm alright Jack'... but professionally I don't think that is enough control!!!! So there has to be line somewhere that insists on something like an IVA, but I'd say to the standards that were in place at the homogulation date of the newest major component that has been fitted???? In my case that would have stopped me fitting the 2003 Audi trans as my dipped headlights are positioned too low for that date..... that would put be back to the Citroen box or some other ancient road car transaxel which would mean dropping the boost hence slow it down a bit, which back to where I started, is probably sensible but not as much fun!

[bash]

Ive just watched wheelerdealers 2cv that I recorded whilst on holiday and they thought about changing the 425 cc engine with a later 650cc (cannot remember actual numbers) but were told it wasnt allowed on french classics. They also didnt use a later carb but resorted to just changing the jets. If it gets like this here its a bit scary. EU manderins ?
Ive been doing a bit more reading and it would appear that a few things have triggered this. A campaign to lower the 40 year tax break, electric conversions, and complaints about knobs with stupid poppy exhausts ( did I mention they are knobs?). That is a trend I really dont understand because its usually been done to some very boring looking cars, has no performance advantages, it has to be programmed in and therefore costs money and, oh yes, makes them look like a knob. Also, it only happens off throttle, what's cool about that ?

Bash

[Lotus-e-Clan]

Also, it only happens off throttle, what's cool about that ?

Hahaha You're right there. We (SEs) can make that happen on the cheap by disconnecting the vac advance. It retards the ignition by 20 odd degrees on the overrun. Those that have 2 switchable maps on their 123 igitions can map one to retard the ignition off throttle.
And yes, it's blindly following other countries STDs and attitudes to cars that winds me up too.

[AndrewWebber]

So, like it not, as expected, I'm involved 'professionally'...

Circulation: Specialist Vehicle Builders Group
Bus Coach Minibus Technical Committee
Car and Light CV Technical Committee
Heavy CV Technical Committee
Policy Co-Ordination Committee
Low Volume Manufacturers Working Group
Electric Vehicle Technical Working Group
EV Supply Chain Group
Commercial Vehicle Section/Committee
Type Approval Working Group

Action Required: For action ASAP if relevant

Click here to view the circular and any associated attachments: TEC/2024/007280

Dear Member,
Meeting invite - DVLA CfE on registering historic - classic - rebuilt - EV
Following TEC/2024/007193 on the DVLA Call for Evidence on Registering historic, classic, rebuilt vehicles and vehicles converted to electric, SMMT would like to host a virtual meeting for all interested members to develop our input into this Call for Evidence.

As well as responding to the questions posed in the Call for Evidence, we also plan to use this as an opportunity to provide input into other registration issues, for converted vehicles in particular.

The proposed meeting time is 11:30 to 13:00 on Monday 17 June 2024.

Some of you have already contacted us voicing an interest in this Call for Evidence, but please let the undersigned know if you or a colleague wish to join this call.

Apologies for mailing so many groups, but we are aware of members in each of these groups who may have an interest in one or more of the topics being considered. Please disregard if not relevant to your business.

The output from the meeting will obviously be a draft SMMT response which will be circulated to members for comment.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Anna Lindt
Director of Vehicle Regulation
Public Policy and Vehicle Legislation
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited
Tel: (020) 7344 1602 Mob: +44 (0) 7557 433603
Web: www.smmt.co.uk