JT7196 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:53 pm Hi John, you are probably right, but nobody asked the question last year?.
It was only when the Road Tax reminder came through last month, I suddenly realised that the Tax was due towards the end of last December2017 , but the MOT expiry date is around the 18th of January this year, !
Normally, one needs a valid MOT with at least around a month left on it , before you can Tax your vehicle . I have already actually “Taxed” my Yamaha , so presumably the Taxation Dept do not seem to bother to ask !
Cheers A’l....."..A confused A’l
Please visit the Club's website https://www.dloc.org.uk/ to join. Visit https://www.dloc.org.uk/adhoc to DONATE towards the cost of the forum.
Please don't post someone's email address to avoid it being harvested by spambots and it's against GDPR regulations.
Always look at "ACTIVE TOPICS" to see all posts in date & time order as they are sometimes moved; or look at "Your Posts".
Please add Reg. nrs. when posting a photo or anything about a car as this will help searches. Don't add punctuation next to nr. as this negates search.
CHANGED YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS since registering?, click your username and check your address in User Control Panel, Profile, Account Settings.
If you want help to register, use "contact us" at page bottom for help.
Please don't post someone's email address to avoid it being harvested by spambots and it's against GDPR regulations.
Always look at "ACTIVE TOPICS" to see all posts in date & time order as they are sometimes moved; or look at "Your Posts".
Please add Reg. nrs. when posting a photo or anything about a car as this will help searches. Don't add punctuation next to nr. as this negates search.
CHANGED YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS since registering?, click your username and check your address in User Control Panel, Profile, Account Settings.
If you want help to register, use "contact us" at page bottom for help.
Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
-
- Helpful Person
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:40 pm
- Location: Cheshire
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
I know of no requirement that there should be at least 1 month's MOT validity to tax a vehicle. The requirement is that the MOT ( and insurance ) shall be valid on the date upon which the tax starts
-
- Extremely Wise Man
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:15 pm
- Location: Aberystwyth Wales
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Very good points Nick puts my argument in doubt and I guess this is only the beginning of this matter.
May will soon be on us and it does leave many of us with a decision.
I suspect that the major problem here is for later car owners who are most likely to have had mods done over the years to brakes steering and suspension that will need a declaration decision one way or another.
According to the SP register a substantial number of owners have opted for R&P steering many have fitted alternative brake callipers and some have fitted servos, all of which I would say are items which are covered under the new regulations.
One wonders where this will all go by May this thread has already run to 5 pages and we are know where near in agreement as to what to do, declare or not to declare, that is the question.
May will soon be on us and it does leave many of us with a decision.
I suspect that the major problem here is for later car owners who are most likely to have had mods done over the years to brakes steering and suspension that will need a declaration decision one way or another.
According to the SP register a substantial number of owners have opted for R&P steering many have fitted alternative brake callipers and some have fitted servos, all of which I would say are items which are covered under the new regulations.
One wonders where this will all go by May this thread has already run to 5 pages and we are know where near in agreement as to what to do, declare or not to declare, that is the question.
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Brake upgrades are not considered a modification.
Substantial modifications are defined thus:
Upgraded brakes are not part of the running gear therefore outside the definitions.
Rack & Pinion steering falls within the definition but is made to improve safety and therefore is acceptable.
Replacing a V8 2.5 with the V8 4.5 is an alternative cubic capacity of the same basic engine.
Replacing leaf springs with coil springs would be a substantial change. Replacing the gearbox (manual or automatic) with a 6-speed Tremec would be a substantial change.
Substantial modifications are defined thus:
Chassis - (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial change) or Monocoque bodyshell including any sub-frames (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial change)
Axles and running gear – alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change
The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into these specific categories:Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines are not considered a substantial change. If the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original, it is likely to be, but not necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment.
changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available
changes of a type, that can be demonstrated to have been made when vehicles of the type were in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production)
I think it is quite clear.in respect of axles and running gear changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance
Upgraded brakes are not part of the running gear therefore outside the definitions.
Rack & Pinion steering falls within the definition but is made to improve safety and therefore is acceptable.
Replacing a V8 2.5 with the V8 4.5 is an alternative cubic capacity of the same basic engine.
Replacing leaf springs with coil springs would be a substantial change. Replacing the gearbox (manual or automatic) with a 6-speed Tremec would be a substantial change.
-
- Helpful Person
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:40 pm
- Location: Cheshire
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
I tend to disagree with Chris R on two points :
1. The 4.5 litre engine was never an alternative engine offered on an SP250 or a 2.5 litre V8 saloon . What the guidance clearly has in mind is e,g, Ford escorts which were offered in pushrod form with 1100,1300 and 1600 engines as standard options
2.I cannot see that a change from automatic transmission to manual is covered by the guidance - like the brakes it is not within the scope
1. The 4.5 litre engine was never an alternative engine offered on an SP250 or a 2.5 litre V8 saloon . What the guidance clearly has in mind is e,g, Ford escorts which were offered in pushrod form with 1100,1300 and 1600 engines as standard options
2.I cannot see that a change from automatic transmission to manual is covered by the guidance - like the brakes it is not within the scope
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Chris, is not the gearbox part of the running gear?
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Christopher S
I tend to agree with Chris R that the 4.5 V8 is arguably an "alternative cubic capacity of the same design of engine"; assuming a different intended interpretation by those who set the standard is open to criticism and indicates very poor framing of the standard. Generally no such flexibility of interpretation is considered valid with regard to MoT standards.
But that discussion is to a great extent irrelevant because the problem with a 4.5 V8 SP is not so much the engine, but the degree of modification of the rest of the car required to make it safe to drive fast by anyone other than a professional, or gifted amateur (I won't name names, although there are a few such members of this forum, not including self) racing driver, and such modification varies from one 4.5 engined SP to another since there was never a standard version of the type.
A further issue relating to the standard 2.5 SP is that it was so poorly developed by the manufacturer that it was barely sufficient to cope with the power of the standard engine in certain well known respects. A better developed SP design would have been an obvious possible recipient for the larger engine as well as the smaller. Jaguar Cars, which possessed more than one potential recipient for the 4.5 in 1960, declined this historic opportunity for regrettably questionable/foolish reasons.
Cheers
Geoff
I tend to agree with Chris R that the 4.5 V8 is arguably an "alternative cubic capacity of the same design of engine"; assuming a different intended interpretation by those who set the standard is open to criticism and indicates very poor framing of the standard. Generally no such flexibility of interpretation is considered valid with regard to MoT standards.
But that discussion is to a great extent irrelevant because the problem with a 4.5 V8 SP is not so much the engine, but the degree of modification of the rest of the car required to make it safe to drive fast by anyone other than a professional, or gifted amateur (I won't name names, although there are a few such members of this forum, not including self) racing driver, and such modification varies from one 4.5 engined SP to another since there was never a standard version of the type.
A further issue relating to the standard 2.5 SP is that it was so poorly developed by the manufacturer that it was barely sufficient to cope with the power of the standard engine in certain well known respects. A better developed SP design would have been an obvious possible recipient for the larger engine as well as the smaller. Jaguar Cars, which possessed more than one potential recipient for the 4.5 in 1960, declined this historic opportunity for regrettably questionable/foolish reasons.
Cheers
Geoff
- theoldman
- Extremely Wise Man
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:39 pm
- Location: Bacton on Sea, Norfolk UK
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
...........plus you'd need to replace the gearbox, Geoff, so you would be stumped .
Normal for Norfolk
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Of course Neil, plus the rear axle, front and rear suspension and brakes, steering, and probably much of the chassis, and the body, as well.
Not much left apart from the shape, the grille, seats and the windscreen!
Cheers
Geoff
Not much left apart from the shape, the grille, seats and the windscreen!
Cheers
Geoff
Re: Forthcoming rolling MoT exemption
Hi
I have decided to have my 4 over 40 year old cars MOT'd as a an independent check on them. This may satisfy the insurance company or at least give them less wriggle room to avoid any claim and should make continental touring easier. The exemptions seem to be too much hassle and too vague.
This would appear to be a business opportunity for a MOT station to offer safety checks on older cars particularly if they are blessed with mechanics that understand older cars.
Regards
Colin
I have decided to have my 4 over 40 year old cars MOT'd as a an independent check on them. This may satisfy the insurance company or at least give them less wriggle room to avoid any claim and should make continental touring easier. The exemptions seem to be too much hassle and too vague.
This would appear to be a business opportunity for a MOT station to offer safety checks on older cars particularly if they are blessed with mechanics that understand older cars.
Regards
Colin