18 replies to this topic

[r.tec]

https://historicdb.f...morris-cooper-s

Amendment:

7/5V

02/03/1968

Wing extension, Wheel

 

[Cooperman]

It looks as though they were homologated in Group 2 from mid-1965 and Group 1 on the Mk.2 cars as shown.

Homologation by the manufacturers confirms that the parts were produced and sold in the required volumes for cars bought and delivered and, thus, used on the roads in a form as designed and made by the manufacturer. 

It is hard to see how a vehicle examiner can argue with the configuration information provided by the type-approval holder in the form of international homologation paperwork when the vehicles were in production.

[MiniCarJack]

It looks as though they were homologated in Group 2 from mid-1965 and Group 1 on the Mk.2 cars as shown.

Homologation by the manufacturers confirms that the parts were produced and sold in the required volumes for cars bought and delivered and, thus, used on the roads in a form as designed and made by the manufacturer. 

It is hard to see how a vehicle examiner can argue with the configuration information provided by the type-approval holder in the form of international homologation paperwork when the vehicles were in production.

 

By my understanding, the rules for even lightly "modifying" cars in New Zealand are becoming stricter and stricter. Even if, for instance, you were to perform an upgrade to factory spec Cooper S discs on a previously drum-braked car, this would legally require an expensive LVV certification which, as the original poster mentioned, costs in the region of $700. By the sounds of it, the WOF tester for in his case is taking this to the next level by questioning whether this particular mini was fitted with arches as standard. So even if arches were homologated well before this car was built, if this one wasn't fitted with arches from new, the tester is arguing that it should be certified as a LVV modification before it can be deemed roadworthy. It's very overkill and quite frankly ridiculous in my opinion, but does often come down to the individual tester and their interpretation of the rules for WOF inspections - the last time I took a classic through a WOF in New Zealand (a 1966 MGB Roadster), it failed on ridiculously silly and trivial things, but the time before that when I took my '65 Mini through the same station but with a different examiner, it sailed through with no advisories whatsoever - all despite the fact that I was being a bit naughty and had fitted a 1275 engine, disk brakes and an RC40 exhaust without having gone through the expensive certification process... basically they either didn't notice or didn't care because the car was otherwise in excellent shape, and perfectly safe for the road.

[Cooperman]

That sounds like a blooming nightmare. If a government tester can't accept the configuration for that type of car as officially specified by the original maker, even when presented with the internationally accepted definition of type-approved parts from the type-approval holder at the time, then it surely is a stupid situation.

Can the owners club not help with this? Or, alternatively, remove the arch extensions, get the car past the tester and then re-fit the extensions.

It does all seem very petty.