Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: mantahatch on 21 May 2012, 15:21:43
-
Good news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326
-
I'm not so sure, TBH. :(
Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?
Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?
Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.
-
Bad news in my opinion.
I also dont see why the need for a reduced priced MOT either.....
-
I also dont see why the need for a reduced priced MOT either.....
Simply because the test requires less labour, and if you run one classic you might well run several more cars, each covering small mileages, so all the £50s contribute considerably to the cost of perhaps taking the car out to a couple of shows for others to enjoy rather than laying it up.
When my kit car gets MOT'd it effectively pays for a nice long fag break for the tester because logging off the job after the 20 minutes (max) it actually takes him to check the car would be "frowned upon", yet he's not allowed to work on another car while he's got my job open. I imagine most pre - 1960's classics are in the same boat, so why not allow a shorter MOT booking and pass the saving on to the customer?
-
So older cars, pre 1960, where things have a higher possibility of failing, are now exempt from MOT's. Well what a shit idea.
-
I think the basic idea is the average MOT tester has no idea how to test this type of car. They are applying modern rules to them and failing them resulting in to many (succesful) appeals.
I mean what will the new shaker rigs do to a 1930s Austin 7 ? probably pull the chassis apart. Personally I could view it as somewhat empowering to the owner, as it states the car still has to be roadworthy. So those who are not confident/able to give the car the necessary checks can still book it into a garage and ask them to check if it is roadworthy.
We ask for more freedoms, small though it is, it is a step in the right direction IMHO.
-
I'm not so sure, TBH. :(
Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?
Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?
Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.
Agreed. Every road going vehicle should be tested in some way. Maybe reduced, maybe not. But they should be tested.
-
If it's, therefore, an issue of tester training then the problem needs to be fixed.
Surely it's not too much to ask for a tester to be familiar with the construction of a car, both old and new, and be able to apply the appropriate standards? They are supposed to be experienced mechanics before they start, after all.
..and new test procedures and standards don't necessarily have to be applied retrospectively to older cars. Most haven't in the past, after all.
-
I'm not so sure, TBH. :(
Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?
Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?
Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.
Indeed. But an MOT doesn't actually prove or certify that a vehicle is safe on the road. This proposal doesn't remove the obligation for a driver to ensure the safety of their vehicle, it just removes the need to carry out an annual test that probably has little bearing on a 50+ year old car that does very few miles anyway.
-
I'm not so sure, TBH. :(
Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?
Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?
Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.
Indeed. But an MOT doesn't actually prove or certify that a vehicle is safe on the road. This proposal doesn't remove the obligation for a driver to ensure the safety of their vehicle, it just removes the need to carry out an annual test that probably has little bearing on a 50+ year old car that does very few miles anyway.
True, but it limits the possible decay in a vehicle from a roadworthy state to one year's worth.
With a classic car, where components wear faster than modern equivalents, and where they are probably starting to get a little "crispy" through tin worm, that's no bad thing, IMHO.
-
good news for me (i think?) thats two i do not need to mot anymore.last year they did 920 miles between them ;D
-
Makes no difference to me. 3 fire engines are MOT exempt and free tax anyway hahahahaha
-
I'm gonna buy a 1959 Omega :y
-
So who checks that "will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road" ?.
I have my old bike in the garage, not used for many many years, so I can now start her up and go for a spin without checking anything. Never mind the brakes are shot, and there's no headlamp, etc, etc.
I favour the reduced appropriate test, eg lights (yes they are on !), brakes, steering, tyres.
Ken
-
So who checks that "will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road" ?.
I have my old bike in the garage, not used for many many years, so I can now start her up and go for a spin without checking anything. Never mind the brakes are shot, and there's no headlamp, etc, etc.
I favour the reduced appropriate test, eg lights (yes they are on !), brakes, steering, tyres.
Ken
You COULD .... but having at least half a functioning brain cell ... you WON'T .. because you value your life, and the bike.
That, I think is the point, the "enthusiast" who has one of these machines, are exactly that.. "enthusiasts" who value the vehicles too much to risk them, themselves, and the general public. The figures quoted show how few incidents these vehicles are involved in.
-
Trouble is sometimes your heart rules your head. If you have just spent several weeks rebuilding an engine, and want to see if it goes as well as you imagine it should, and................ :'( :'( :'(
ken
-
The more I think about it, there is actualy not that much less to test.
And enthusiasts or not, does not mean they are compitent.
You can bet your life its one of the only times they are put on ramp for a good check over.
-
despite what they're saying, I think this is a requirement from the "small print" of the new EU Directive on vehicle testing.
-
The latest MOT test is due to an EU directive, so I'm sure the pre-1960 will be as well.
80% of laws rubber stamped by Parliament are from EU directives. :(
-
I own a 1967 car and have found MOT testers not always au fait with the differences to modern cars. For example my TR4A was failed on trunnion wear - only weeks after all new trunnion kits fitted by me - he said there was too much play. I could have quite easily taken the play out by tightening up the fixing bolts and got the MOT pass, but the trunnions would have seized within 500 miles! After an argument and threats on my part I insisted the MOT station measured the end float in the trunnions (I had to show them how to do it!! - wasn't sure if they understood feeler gauges and thous!!) - and then showed them the specification in the workshop manual - mine were in found to be spec!! - got a pass.
Doing away with MOTs on older cars wont help - better training for MOT testers is the way forward, although I accept the difficulties in knowing all things about all models.
-
It's a very bad idea. As is the first one at 3 years.
Just look at how members here(or any other car group) worry about putting their cars in for an MOT, and the massive round of congratulations that happen when it passes!
It's often the only time that a car gets a qualified, experienced and most of all, independent and dispassionate inspection. The owner who has spent the last 10 years rebuilding it, or owned it for 50 years is the last person who should be making this sort of decision. Plus, any failure has to be rectified, not just ignored or put off.
The only problem is that lots of the general public think their £45 gives them an intensive, critical test that means that the entire car is returned to 100% factory as new specs for the next 12 months. I hear it all the time:"I don't understand why it's broken down, it only passed it's MOT 3 months ago!"
-
I also have doubt's, I have had a few classics over the years, sounds good to me, but there will be, and I have had, at least 1, that should not be on the road for safety reasons....... :-\ :-\ I tend to agree with the comments of it being the only time on a ramp...............also with Geofs comments about his fire engines being mot and tax exempt, there are a lot of misunderstandings around this, in some circumstances, particularly around recovery vehicles..... :) :)
-
If I owned such a vehicle, I think I'd be taking it for an MOT regardless, just to cover myself. If the unthinkable happens and you can't actually demonstrate before the beak that you've been diligent in keeping it in a roadworthy state, guess where the buck will stop?
-
I'm totally against any reduction in MOT's. TBH, I'd rather they were increased to 6 monthly at half the price to make sure that every vehicle on the road is checked at least twice a year. How many people do you know that only ever have the car looked at when it's in for MOT? ;)
Equally, on the older classics (and I mean proper classics) there is actually very little to test. The manual already states that pre-1940(?) cars are only subject to a visual inspection ;) Or did when I was testing. I think pre 1960 is too late (personally) and it should have been earlier than that if they were adamant that it needed doing
-
I'm totally against any reduction in MOT's. TBH, I'd rather they were increased to 6 monthly at half the price to make sure that every vehicle on the road is checked at least twice a year. How many people do you know that only ever have the car looked at when it's in for MOT? ;)
Equally, on the older classics (and I mean proper classics) there is actually very little to test. The manual already states that pre-1940(?) cars are only subject to a visual inspection ;) Or did when I was testing. I think pre 1960 is too late (personally) and it should have been earlier than that if they were adamant that it needed doing
I know that the vintage stuff isn't subject to the shaker plates which is probably a good thing ::)
-
Just think how many old wrecks will be spruced up , taxed and insured and then have their number plates sold for a fortune .....
-
I know that the vintage stuff isn't subject to the shaker plates which is probably a good thing ::)
Considering the conditions that vintage stuff was designed for, I can't imagine how the shaker plates would be much of a problem.
Take Ford's transverse leaf front end: it's only attached to the car at 3 points, and one of those is the steering!
-
If a car survives out potholed roads, I can't see a shaker giving much cause for concern. Of course, prehistoric suspension setups probably won't be capable of passing the test even when in "as-new" condition.
-
The latest MOT test is due to an EU directive, so I'm sure the pre-1960 will be as well.
80% of laws rubber stamped by Parliament are from EU directives. :(
Sadly so - right past the noses of the doe-eyed masses.
-
MOT on my spitfire is critical to me - it prioritises my long welding list! ;D
I can't see the value in getting rid of the MOT because even though I suspect the real enthusiasts will do the right thing and have more knowledge of their car than the tester, there will always be those that think it's a licence to not keep things to a roadworthy standard and get get away with what they can.