The outcome of the Government's consultation on 'Roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historical interest' is to exempt most vehicles over 40 years old (on a rolling basis) from MoT testing from 20 May 2018. However, a caveat in the proposal states that "those that have been 'substantially changed' will still require yearly testing." and a 'final guidance' on what constitutes 'substantial change' has been published.

In the section of this document headed 'The Criteria for substantial change' appears the following -
"Axles and running gear- alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change"

This has implications for owners of many 'Classics', but is particularly relevant to those of us that have SP250's. Under the present legislation - which makes no reference to 'substantial change' - all SP's built prior to 1960 are already MoT exempt. The new law will, from May next year, exempt all the rest, except presumably, any that have been 'substantially changed'. Many SP's both pre and post 1960 have been converted from the original cam and lever steering to Rack and Pinion - which under above criteria would appear to represent a 'significant change'.

If conversion to R&P steering does constitute a significant change, will this then apply to the cars built before 1960 that have converted to R&P or will we have two camps, (1) Those built before 1960, regardless of whether they have been converted, plus post 1960 cars that haven't been converted being exempt, and (2) Post 1960 cars that have been converted not being exempt?

Of course, with all SP's being at least 54 years old many owners will consider a professional annual examination of the car to be a wise precaution, whether or not it is exempt, but it would be useful to know the exact requirements of the law.

Very interesting. Two additional items to note:

The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into these specific categories:
...
• in respect of axles and running gear changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance;

and vehicles now have to be declared for MOT exemption with details every year:

How to declare a vehicle for the 40 year MOT exemption
...
When declaring an exemption, you will be required to confirm that it has not been substantially changed (as defined in this guidance). This process will be applied to pre-1960 registered vehicles, as well as newer vehicles in the historic vehicle tax class.

R&P would probably be considered acceptable, also wider tyres.

Perhaps members should ask their local testing station for clarification and post answers here. I expect there will be many different interpretations!

It sounds straightforward for already exempt pre 1960 vehicles (probably a tick box to say that the vehicle is a VHI and not substantially modified) when taxing on line. For post 1960 vehicles it sounds as though a V112 declaration form will be required for the first year to establish VHI status and MOT exemption. That's my interpretation anyway.

I very much doubt if your local MOT station tester will know any more than what has been published. There will probably be a sharp intake of breath, a whistle through the teeth and a reply something along the lines of "That counts as a modification mate, you need an MOT" to cover his backside and made without any real knowledge on the question. This is probably a question of detail and there will be many such questions coming up as the scheme unfolds.
Fundamentally, the question will be can you justify the steering replacement/upgrade on the grounds of safety and if so how? Replacing the original cam and lever steering with Rack and Pinion cannot be justified on either efficiency or environmental grounds, therefore safety is the only remaining ground for MOT exemption of an SP250 with Rack and Pinion steering.
So, argue in this thread the replacement on safety grounds. "Because it feels better" is probably not a good enough justification. If you can argue the case here then you probably can argue it if required to anyone who might challenge you.
I look forward to reading your arguments

Chris_R wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:25 pm... Replacing the original cam and lever steering with Rack and Pinion cannot be justified on either efficiency or environmental grounds, therefore safety is the only remaining ground for MOT exemption of an SP250 with Rack and Pinion steering.

I was thinking that R&P is more efficient! I haven't got R&P but many people have and I suppose it's because it makes steering easier, ie more efficient!

I don't think efficiency for the driver is the efficiency that they are thinking of!

It sounds as if you can just self certify when taxing anyway (certainly on the already established pre sixties cars).

Safety justification could be pleaded on the basis of the columb assembly on R&P is collapsible on impact thus making an improvement.

Just a thought, if rack & pinion steering is not more efficient than older steering devices, why is it fitted to many, if not all, modern cars?

Cheers

Geoff

A bit like beta max or VHS Geoff both do the job but pro's and con's either way.
My guess is though that R&P is cheaper to produce.