259 replies to this topic

[1960Zody]

The publishing of the DVLA ‘So-Called’ data on what is on the computer shows how badly documented vehicles are in the computers.
They list things like Allegro Hatchbacks for instance.

It is even worse when a vehicle has been modified.
Strictly speaking, since the introduction of SVA (Now IVA/BIVA) the minute you modify a vehicle so that it falls outside of the DVLA 8-point test you should submit the vehicle for the relevant test as it has now become a ‘Radically Altered’ production vehicle.
If the vehicle has not been through the test and been issued with an MAC (Minister’s Approval Certificate), it is incorrectly registered and cannot be used on the road.

One of the easiest ways to fall foul of this is to modify the shell of a monocoque vehicle.
Now that may bring to mind radical stuff like roof chops of pickup conversions, but it’s simpler than that.
As we know, in the opinion of VOSA, The inner wings of a Mini are considered to be part of the monocoque, put a flip front on and remove them and you have modified the monocoque and lose 5 points.
The problem is that the 8 point rules specify that the 5 points for an unmodified monocoque are mandatory, once those are lost, the points cannot be made up elsewhere and the vehicle is liable for (B)IVA.

DVLA have the right, in these cases, to pull the log book and refuse registration until the vehicle has been through the test.
They have done this with a number of vehicles and recently stepped up the process, leading to a number of cars being caught in the ‘Net’.
The problem with all of this is that DVLA didn’t actually advise people that they should have been submitting modified cars for the test, other than saying that certain modifications were notifiable.

Back in around 2000 DVLA realized that there were a large number of Kit Cars (particularly Cobra replicas that were registered as Sierras or Escorts, which should have been presented for testing, but weren’t and they granted an amnesty for the owners and gave the opportunity to corret the issue without needing to submit the vehicle.

With the mess that the records are in, and bearing in mind that it is mostly not the owner’s fault, this is a perfect opportunity to launch a campaign for a general amnesty for all owners of ‘Incorrectly’ registered vehicles, regardless of modifications to bring their log books up to date.

Edited by 1960Zody, 02 November 2011 - 10:04 AM.

[MiniGazz]

About to fit carbon fiber front end, but am going to leave the inner wings on and bond the carbon fiber front end on. ( bonnet will be as original )

Would you no if this would then fall fowl, as I will not have removed or altered the inner wing?

As you have said 1960Zody ( As we know, in the opinion of VOSA, The inner wings of a Mini are considered to be part of the monocoque )

Thank you for this thread

Gazz

[Ethel]

I'm not sure if it's in this topic, but we have had some replies from VOSA / DVLA copied on to the forum.

Their official line is every vehicle will be assessed on a case by case basis. They did suggest that inner wings would be considered structural, though it was unclear if this was a general view (they certainly are structural on cars that don't have a front subframe like a Mini). The front, front subbie mountings were also suggested as justification, but as all Mini enthusiasts know they don't attach directly to the inner wings either.

It's a call you'll have to make for yourself I'm afraid. The only real worry would be presenting it for a VIC, if that happened you wouldn't have the opportunity to refit a few bits to keep it on the road and avoid a pricey IVA.


Mind you, if the inner wings had been lost before the relevant regulations existed....

[1960Zody]

About to fit carbon fiber front end, but am going to leave the inner wings on and bond the carbon fiber front end on. ( bonnet will be as original )

Would you no if this would then fall fowl, as I will not have removed or altered the inner wing?

As you have said 1960Zody ( As we know, in the opinion of VOSA, The inner wings of a Mini are considered to be part of the monocoque )

Thank you for this thread

Gazz

As Ethel says above, it's a 'Case by Case' basis.
Which basically means that if the inspector either doesn't know the rules fully (which is doubtful), or doesn't choose to enforce them (which has happened in the past, but will get less likely over time) you'll be sent on your way, if he does you'll be invited to go for IVA.

The issue is not one of whether the inners are structural or not, it's that DVLA/VOSA consider them to be part of the monocoque and you can't modify that without losing the mandatory 5 points that contribute to the vehicles identity.

However, that only applies if the inner wings have been removed or modified in a way that is totally obvious.
In your case, since they will still be there it is not an issue.

[Ethel]

It does say on the DVLA website that the purpose of VIC's is in crime prevention. Fair enough, if the vehicle being inspected is a "bitsa" making it hard to determine the original identity of the monocoque. My personal opinion is that it would be a stretch to argue a Mini's identity has been compromised because it's missing its inner wings. Also, removing the outer wings would have at least as much effect on its structural integrity, it would need brace bars. They also said that the vehicle's structure would be as defined by the manufacturer. Does that mean we need an "endorsement" by BL or Rover, be it a positive approval or tacit acceptance of Minis being fitting with flip fronts without inner wings? It's impossible to imagine they weren't aware of all the flip fronted Minis, either on the racetrack or insured for the road.

[1960Zody]

I'm in agreement there Ethel.
The 8 point rules were brought in to try and stop 'Ringing', but they never considered the effects on modified vehicles, hense the whole 'On a case by case basis' thing, which allows DVLA inspectors to interprate the rules as they see fit.

When we contacted DVLA to ask them what the Monocoque was, particularly in terms of the Mini Inner wings as was flagged up on this forum their response was "It is whatever the original manufacturer would have described it as".

That's a fairly typical response from them to 'Difficult Questions'

I sent letters to Heritage Motor Centre and Heritage Motor Bodies to ask if they had any access to original drawings that could confirm what a Mini monocoque was.

Both said that they no longer had access to that kind of information.

There is a review of the INF26 (The 8-point rule document) due soon, which ACE are hoping to be part of where we would be aiming to get some leeway into the rules.

[Ethel]

Good luck with that Zody,

Sometimes the authorities need reminding that it's the intent of the legislation that matters, not the rules themselves.

I doubt Longbridge ever considered what actually made up the monocoque in correlation to a chassis, they just made body shells. If there is a clue it might be in what type approval, crash testing etc. was required for the various revisions to the inner wings - Clubmans, MPI's, big holes for electric fans...

You'd also expect a responsible manufacturer to take an interest if people were openly lopping off the front ends to replace them with fibreglass, selling the GRP mouldings to do it and issuing MoT's and insurance certificates to the converted Min's.

[1960Zody]

The amazing thing is the complete lack of response from manufacturers of equipment, builders and those in the 'trade'.
A couple of years back we sent out some mails about what ACE was, what we were doing and the threats that are out there.
This was before the whole FIVA Charter of Turin thing came up.

These went to just about ebery company and magazine we could pull off the net.

The response we got.....

Absolutely Zip.

Most of the businesses involved in the hobby over here seem to be more concerned with shipping product rather than with anything that my secure their futures.

To see an eaxmple of how it's really done, look at the power and influance that SEMA has in the US.
That started as a small organisation founded by people who could see what was happening and the manufacturers came on board.
Quite a difference.

Edited by 1960Zody, 04 November 2011 - 02:16 PM.

[Ethel]

I can understand the manufacturers not wanting to give an opinion that they could be held to account over, and we all know what it would be if they did, as their overriding concern would be to cover their arses. A more accurate, and honest, assessment is implied because they haven't intervened to try and stop the practice - to protect their brand's reputation, if not out of a sense of public duty.

[Bungle]

interesting read on this topic

http://www.volkszone...ad.php?t=743208

guy amended his V5 and got called in for a vehicle inspection , ended up with his V5 taken away and asked for his IVA certificate before they will issue him with his new Q reg

[SadBoyPro]

Any of you looking for lighting i.e. neons, LEDs, it will be found to be illegal to use the following colours on solid let alone strobing, Blue, Orange, Red. However i have found that you can use White or Green with great success providing they are not strobing as you are driving. I run with mine on a solid glow and it looks pretty jammy they're called Varad Suspension lighting, quite difficult to find yet very versatile and worth the money.

[miniweights]

Sorry guys, am I missing something here?

It clearly states here http://www.businessl...ation_Guide.pdf in paragraph 1.9 When does IVA not apply?

Old vehicles (i.e. passenger cars and light goods vehicles over 10 years old and large goods vehicles over 25 years old).


I understand the 8 point rule, but what I don’t understand is; If an IVA test do not apply to cars 10 years and over, (and this will now apply to all “Original” Minis), then why, and how would the 8 point rule apply, and if it does, who will be testing them?

[Bungle]

i think that section is from the bit about imported cars not modified cars

but asking VOSA/DVLA should confirm this, let us know how you get on

[miniweights]

Hi Bungle, that might explain things then I've sent an email to VOSA anyway, so hopefully they will be able to clarify things.

[Bungle]

the more info the better keep us informed