Jump to content


Photo

Cutting Out Back Seats And Body Shell?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#31 tiger99

tiger99

    Crazy About Mini's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,584 posts
  • Location: Hemel Hempstead

Posted 25 August 2012 - 11:00 PM

In any case, it seems that the EU is about to make almsot all modifications illegal, so this will never legally be on the road.

#32 mini93

mini93

    He's just too casual!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,615 posts
  • Location: Warwick
  • Local Club: Medievil minis of Warwickshire

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:21 AM

In any case, it seems that the EU is about to make almsot all modifications illegal, so this will never legally be on the road.


yes it will... im already on a Q plate... tell me in one sentence how you can give an already Q plated car which doesnt have an identy a different identity

stop being such a damn nay-sayer... everything i see from you is so damn negative and tbf, im sick of it.... CHEER UP!!!

#33 tiger99

tiger99

    Crazy About Mini's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,584 posts
  • Location: Hemel Hempstead

Posted 26 August 2012 - 02:41 PM

Well, there is an interesting question there. How did you get the Q plate? Was it via an IVA test?

The rules are not clear about what happens, or should happen, if you subsequently modify something that passed IVA, but I would be surprised if the vehicle did not immediately lose its approval if any of the tested items was changed. That is why, for instance, brake balance adjusters used to have to be permanently fixed, but now need a notice stating that the vehicle is no longer approved if they are tampered with.

If it has not passed IVA, the Q plate makes no difference whatsoever to what you can and can not do to the vehicle.

#34 Shifty

Shifty

    Sponsored by Fosters (tm)

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,144 posts
  • Name: Sean
  • Location: Shropshire(sunny)
  • Local Club: TMF

Posted 26 August 2012 - 02:53 PM

Taken from http://www2.mgcars.o....08220836597002


Quote:
This is alarmist reporting and is nothing like as bad as it seems. The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs lobbies in the European Parliament on all of our behalf, and the MGCC representative is Chris Hunt Cooke. Here is what he wrote on the V8 Register web site this morning:

I am afraid that that this is alarmist nonsense from ACE written by someone who does not know how the EU works. This is simply the first draft of a proposed directive, issued for comment. The DfT have circulated a paper picking out some of the items and requested the reactions of a few organisations. They are not set up at this stage to receive individual comments, and flooding them with individual comments will not be in the least helpful.

What the Commission have done is more or less take the German model of testing, where one of the criteria is whether the vehicle conforms to the original type approval, and what FBHVC will be doing is urging that the UK model is maintained, under which the vehicle as presented is tested for safety related items. The proposal as drafted is wholly impracticable in any event, requiring detailed specifications of every vehicle ever built to be available to the tester, in order to determine whether it has been modified, because a modified vehicle could not be a historic vehicle and therefore exempt, whatever its age.



Its quite interesting to see how other forums are responding to the 'new law'.

As far I know once a car is on a 'q' then thats how its stays, its superceedes all previous requirement, A q plate can't be tax exempt for example.

#35 mini-luke

mini-luke

    Postman Pat

  • Traders
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,362 posts
  • Location: Hereford

Posted 26 August 2012 - 04:22 PM

That's an interesting and more realistic approach, I did wonder why no mainstream media had picked it up seeing as it was the end of the world as we know it and we'd all be driving bog standard Kia's within the year.

Edited by mini-luke, 26 August 2012 - 04:22 PM.


#36 BlackHowl

BlackHowl

    Learner Driver

  • Noobies
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Location: Cardiff

Posted 20 May 2013 - 09:54 PM

It's quite clear that the consensus is not to cut out the rear seat panel as it would compromise structural integrity, but I was wondering how structurally crucial the actual bench section is? It may actually suit my purposes to keep it in, but I'm just weighing up all my options. How bad an idea would it be to chop out the seat bench?


Edited by BlackHowl, 20 May 2013 - 09:54 PM.


#37 Dan

Dan

    On Sabbatical

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,354 posts

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:06 PM

Well apart from the front 5" or so that overhangs, the rest of it is there to keep the road on the outside of the car.  It is the boot floor panel and very, very structural.



#38 BlackHowl

BlackHowl

    Learner Driver

  • Noobies
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Location: Cardiff

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:26 PM

It was the overhanging bit that I was refering to.



#39 mini=love

mini=love

    Mini Mad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
  • Location: Canterbury, Kent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:49 PM

how many of you have cut the rear seat out? Iv done it before and the shell definitely doesnt go floppy as alot of you are saying, as soon as you start cutting the boot floor out on the other hand thats when it goes floppy.



#40 smev

smev

    Mini Mad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Location: Southampton
  • Local Club: P&S MOC

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:26 PM

Depends what you cut out, I would imagine taking the seat back out would be ok as you say, just that part anyway, any more and if you want to hollow it out completely and I think you'd need to look at adding strength across the gap. Plus for peace of mind it's better to have something between the cabin and the fuel tank!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users