Anyone got a vehicle 40 years or older ?

[signs]

i look after my Zed that i did a complete restoration on 20 odd years ago ..

 

[Lashout_UK]

Oh yea, and assuming that most classic owners take care of their vehicles and know what they're doing? That's dangerous. I've seen some tripe in my time, from people you'd think would know very different.

 

[signs]

Sure, some braking systems and steering play may give them grief - but it shouldn't be hard to work out what's tolerable or not.

Its not a question of knowing how it works for the tester , its a question of does it work

 

[Lashout_UK]

Its not a question of knowing how it works for the tester , its a question of does it work

There's a lot more to it than that - the tester's judgement is essential. The amount of free play in the steering gear of many a classic, for example, would be a failure point for a tester unfamiliar with older cars. Similarly, rod or cable braking systems could easily be failed by a tester expected modern-ish performance.

Case in point: I had a Triumph that was failed by a new tester for excess play in the steering shaft. Because I needed it sorted, I replaced everything - rack, ball joints, coupling, the works. Still had the same amount of play in it after. Other tester passed it immediately.

There is, as is often the case with these types of tests, a degree of common sense that needs to be applied.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

This may be the case, but it's the start of the rot. If it can't be tested properly, how long before it's deemed unsafe to occupy the road with other vehicles on a full-time basis?

I think that's kinda the point of the new MOT rules though, if it can't be tested properly, rather than banning perfectly usuable cars, just let them carry on whilst being fairly confident that 99.9% of 40+ year old classic will be in good condition. Remember, removing the MOT requirement DOES NOT remove the requirement for a car to be road worthy. As you said, it's fairly easy for anyone to judge if a classic is roadworthy, why can that person not be the owner, rather than an MOT tester? Only 0.15% of vehicles registered for road use are 40+ year old classics - it's really not a significant number to be concerned about.

Within a ten-mile radius of me there are at least four garages that are very familiar with classics and capable of testing them, and while younger testers may not be familiar with them I don't think that's a reason to cease testing them. They should be trained. Hell, in most cases an issue with a classic will likely be a basic mechanical problem. Are they not trained to recognise those in the first place?

I get your point and yes, they should be trained, but these decisions are based on cost versus reward. It's like compulsory insurance for cyclists - it would cost a lot of money to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist and the rewards would not me commensurate with the cost.

Sure, some braking systems and steering play may give them grief - but it shouldn't be hard to work out what's tolerable or not.

That's another item they tried failing my Westfield on - said both front wheel bearings had play in them and it was a failure item. They are designed to have a little play in them. I had to dig out a Haynes manual from 1987 to prove this too them!

 

[nutcase]

My Saab is 40 next year. It's not on the road at present but when it is it will be MOT'd regularly (maybe not annually but perhaps 18 month intervals). Wouldn't surprise me if insurance companies starting insisting on it or using unroadworthiness as a get-out.

 

[Orionaut]

That's another item they tried failing my Westfield on - said both front wheel bearings had play in them and it was a failure item. They are designed to have a little play in them. I had to dig out a Haynes manual from 1987 to prove this too them!

That's not funny.

It was some years ago now, but I went through a phase of having several customers with older cars to deal with whose front wheel bearings had seized (We are talking wheels falling off level stuff here)

The thing they had all had in common was that they had recently had MOT tests where they had been failed for excessive play but "Its all right, we tightened them up for you"

This is why they want to scrap MOT tests for "classic" cars. There is much with them that is very different and unless the testers are familiar with the differences, they are likly to end up causing more problems than they might have prevented.

 

[Joe T]

That's not funny.

It was some years ago now, but I went through a phase of having several customers with older cars to deal with whose front wheel bearings had seized (We are talking wheels falling off level stuff here)

The thing they had all had in common was that they had recently had MOT tests where they had been failed for excessive play but "Its all right, we tightened them up for you"

This is why they want to scrap MOT tests for "classic" cars. There is much with them that is very different and unless the testers are familiar with the differences, they are likly to end up causing more problems than they might have prevented.

Would be far better rather than to just give up and admit its too difficult to ensure that your MOT man knows a little bit about older cars.

 

[Lashout_UK]

Would be far better rather than to just give up and admit its too difficult to ensure that your MOT man knows a little bit about older cars.

Yea, how dare someone inspecting cars be required to have some basic understanding of the key principles of their field.

 

[adam cool dude]

In a about 5 years time it will be open to a pleothora of cars that can be driven tax free and mot free.

 

[Lopéz]

I used to get advisories on the Manta for wheel bearing play when it's supposed to have some. Not the end of the world but a fail would have annoyed me.

I also had a failure for play in the steering column knuckle joint. The brand new replacement had more play than the old one! So I hit the original with a lump hammer to pinch it by about 0.5mm, painted it silver and refitted it. Passed....

 

[asim18]

Deeply irresponsible move by the authorities, as far as I'm concerned - but they probably have ulterior motives.

Yep they're just trying to get all cars off roads.

It's a bit like the diesel charade. They make people buy 10,000 diesels and only 25 petrols, then they say "we're going to tax diesels more so sell them now" but there are no petrols to replace them with lol.

 

[nutcase]

I've had all sorts of attempted fails - number plate obscured by bumper (sorry, the car was designed and built before speed cameras were a thing), handbrake lever travel excessive (that's normal - does the handbrake work - yes) etc. The besot one was the handbrake doesn't work at all - did you try the right axle? It's on the front. Oh...

 

[signs]

not long to go now before this comes into force

 

[Akagi]

Dad's 1946 MG had been driving around for ages with unbalanced brakes which pulled heavily to one side and had seals made from old cereal boxes before he bought it, because of the no MOT rule... It was downright dangerous, but perfectly "legal" to drive on the road. Now all sorted (along with various other things), and it will get put in for an MOT.

 

[Nasher]

Yep they're just trying to get all cars off roads.

It's a bit like the diesel charade. They make people buy 10,000 diesels and only 25 petrols, then they say "we're going to tax diesels more so sell them now" but there are no petrols to replace them with lol.

Yes and they were told all along that diesels kicked out clouds of cancer. It like we have idiots making the decisions or something

 

[theone8181]

Yes and they were told all along that diesels kicked out clouds of cancer. It like we have idiots making the decisions or something

Nobody was made to buy a diesel, it was a choice and people went that way just for mpgs, ignoring all the black smoke that comes out of the back of older diesels and now they blame the government.

 

[vanpeebles]

To be fair, there can't be that many diesel charades left on the roads now. Handful?

 

[asim18]

Nobody was made to buy a diesel, it was a choice and people went that way just for mpgs, ignoring all the black smoke that comes out of the back of older diesels and now they blame the government.

Of course people were made to buy diesels. General population is dumb (and is being dumbed down constantly). Most people are motivated by very low level things like greed and cheapness of fuel, certainly not the state of the world's pollution and the health of future generations.

That is why people were certainly made to buy diesels. If they had these extra diesel taxes 10 years ago instead of allowing the promotion of headline MPG figures then people wouldn't have been propagandised.