New MOT legislation and more...

[KS]

None of our Porsches have a monocoque body, but a unitary or unibody construction, by definition a monocoque relies on the outer skin for its strength with usually light stiffeners to prevent buckling, eg an aircraft fuselage.

This from Wikipedia :-

"Commercial car bodies are never monocoques but instead most cars use a method called variously unibody/unitary construction/unitary body/chassis or body frame integral construction,[15] which uses box sections, bulkheads and tubes providing most of the strength of the vehicle, while the skin adds relatively little strength or stiffness. The term monocoque is frequently misused when referring to unibody cars.[16] "

Therefore it can be reasonably argued that modified wings are not a substantial modification as they do not affect the structural integrity of the unibody shell.

Modifications to box sections, crossmembers, and bulkheads which together form the unibody construction would constitute a change to the original structure.

I raised this with Kev Rooney, the person who has done more for defending the rights of car modifiers, rodders, than anyone through his work with ACE (Association of Car Enthusiasts) and has negociated directly with DVLA during early consultation processes, and it's a similar situation to Ford owners wanting to weld works arches on their Escorts. He was told that if the inner wing panel curves to join the outer skin (rear quarter panel in our case) then that outer panel is deemed to be part of the structure of the car. So, I asked, does this mean that if you cut the wing away to weld in new wider arches, are you considered to be cutting into the main structure of the car and his answer was 'that's what the Escort guys are worried about as well, but from the wording, yes...'.

[911hillclimber]

I do very much hope you are correct in every detail Graham.

From the start of this very important discussion on here and numerous other forums, the rules are you declare the mods to the shell, and if significant, then the car has to go to biva.
I'm not sure who declares what is significant, but, being selfish, my lhd/rhd mod will be deemed significant.
The rules are then the car has to pass the biva at least.

[Bootsy]

The rules are then the car has to pass the biva at least.

Which looking at documented accounts (there's a photographic documentation on Rods and Sods on one) doesn't look too onerous?

[KS]

And BIVA doesn't automatically mean loss of existing reg.

[gridgway]

I guess the question is why we think that the government (for want of a better term) is going to use this legislation to flush out all the currently happily registered 40 year old modified cars and make them be tested?

A genuine question as I have no idea and am asserting in the absence of knowledge that it's speculation!!

Graham

[KS]

Firstly, there is a move by the EU and the UN to standardise regulations not only across Europe, but universally. The stated aim of the UN is to cut road deaths by 50 per cent by 2020, with standardised regulations forming part of this 'plan'. In addition, for the last few years, there has been concern in the UK about cars abusing the historic status, brought to a head by the Pur Sang Bugatti replicas which some unscrupulous owners were trying to register as genuine Bugattis. That set the powers that be off into looking more closely at the whole VHI (vehicle of historic interest) deal, leading to lengthy consultations with interested groups, some of whom only cared about their 1930 Bentleys and whatever, others fighting for the rights for people to be allowed to modify older cars without having to carry out full SVA. The end result was a consultation paper which everyone was encouraged to read and reply to (I did). The consultation period finished a few months ago and this new legislation is the outcome. It is now too late to get the details changed, and what we have to do now is sit back and wait for the finalised version to be published in the new year.

Please don't shoot the messenger, OK?

[904GTS]

I can see where, before the advent of plastic wheel arch liners the inner wheel arch was steel and welded to both the inner bodyshell and the outer wing, this could be considered structural as it effectively forms another box section. I believe this may be the case with the Escort but it's 43 years since I had my Mexico and I can't be arsed to look into it further.

As far as the 356, 911/2 and 914 are concerned the outer wings are flimsy bits of sheet metal which attach to the unibody structure of the car to cover the wheels, they are then a little less flimsy but in no way substantially structural, personally I would be comfortable in declaring a wide arched Porsche as not being substantially modified and defend it from an engineering standpoint.

[sisu]

Outside of the DDK how have other car scenes been taking this?

If you own or want an original car as a time capsule then this would seem like a victory of sorts?
It is odd that the PurSang Bugatti T35b would be the ignition for this as they are exactly the same in terms of engineering and 'safety' as the originals? If anything there are more being used on the road as even those to minted to give a shite have a Pursang because they have a real one?
For me the most vibrant car scenes are the ones where people are using, improving and not afraid of denting them. Much like music if you just have one album or band you like then that should be because of what you experienced at that time in your life with the friends you have. But not all music stopped or started at that point. It was just a reflection of the time.
Oddly Porsche have always been a forward thinking car company, only in recent years has there been a real focus on its history as there has been today. Sometimes with rose tinted glasses on what they were doing

[gridgway]

Please don't shoot the messenger, OK?

Trying not to Keith. Humblest apologies if that is how it feels!

It's interesting then that really the consultation would seem to have been a sham in some (many/all?) regards. This is that the results clearly showed that the people responding didn't want the removal of the MoT, yet the Government said tough, you are getting it.

How does the removal of a safety test further the aims of reducing road-deaths? Counter intuitive at best.
Even forcing the more in-depth testing of non-standard historics isn't going to have any material safety benefit. Whatever the definition of low-hanging fruit is, this is definitely the definition of the converse!

Also as far as I can see, the consultation had nothing to do with abusing historic status, Pur Sangs, being able to modify historic cars without IVA etc. So if the government are going to use this for those agendas, that's what was going to happen and that's that!

As you say, it'll be interesting to see what happens. If my car ends up with a costly and time-draining Q-plate, I'll rest happily in the knowledge that I've contributed almost as much as Berni to the UN's aim of reducing road deaths!

Graham

[Richardab1967]

None of our Porsches have a monocoque body, but a unitary or unibody construction, by definition a monocoque relies on the outer skin for its strength with usually light stiffeners to prevent buckling, eg an aircraft fuselage.

This from Wikipedia :-

"Commercial car bodies are never monocoques but instead most cars use a method called variously unibody/unitary construction/unitary body/chassis or body frame integral construction,[15] which uses box sections, bulkheads and tubes providing most of the strength of the vehicle, while the skin adds relatively little strength or stiffness. The term monocoque is frequently misused when referring to unibody cars.[16] "

Therefore it can be reasonably argued that modified wings are not a substantial modification as they do not affect the structural integrity of the unibody shell.

Modifications to box sections, crossmembers, and bulkheads which together form the unibody construction would constitute a change to the original structure.

I raised this with Kev Rooney, the person who has done more for defending the rights of car modifiers, rodders, than anyone through his work with ACE (Association of Car Enthusiasts) and has negociated directly with DVLA during early consultation processes, and it's a similar situation to Ford owners wanting to weld works arches on their Escorts. He was told that if the inner wing panel curves to join the outer skin (rear quarter panel in our case) then that outer panel is deemed to be part of the structure of the car. So, I asked, does this mean that if you cut the wing away to weld in new wider arches, are you considered to be cutting into the main structure of the car and his answer was 'that's what the Escort guys are worried about as well, but from the wording, yes...'.

Kev Rooney would know!!!. Also the guidance on the 8 point rule expands on the description:
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame

I believe the only exemption that ACE managed to clarify as acceptable was sunroofs in 'unstressed panels'

[Hendrik Moulds]

I have read this thread with great interest, but feel pretty confused. Maybe the knowledgeable ones on here can advise.

When I bought my PreA in 2004 it had a 912 engine in it (not installed before 1988) and came with a 1500 super (installed in the 60s) in bits.
I changed the 912 engine for a 1600 normal (60hp) which is more than 15% more powerful than the original 1300 would have been (44hp) but is more suitable for the car.

So I assume with this change I am going to need to keep MOTing the car or do I need to do anything more?

Also, the 1500 super that was installed in the 60s will eventually be rebuilt and put back in the car. If or when I do this will that mean I don't need an MOT then (I will have one done anyway as I believe it is proof of any vehicles roadworthiness). The spanner in the works for this is I informed DVLA of the engine swap to the 1600 and so am not sure how they will react when I change back, (the original logbook shows the change to the 1500 as proof it was in the car a long time ago).

Any advice gratefully received (I think).

Also, I was going to put the 912 engine in the notchback when it is done but think I may look for a 1600 normal as that is the original engine spec that was in the car when it was new and will save hassle.

You won't have any problem other than you will be required to have an MOT each year. Simple. As for reinstalling the correct engine at a later date, I have been advised that once you go the VHI with an MOT route, you won't be able to go back, but that doesn't really matter in the scheme of things as I assume you get your car MOT'd anyway, or at least keep it in MOT-able condition.

Thanks for the clarification Keith.
Yes I would always get any car I owned MOTD, if god forbid I had an accident it is proof of roadworthiness and continuous maintenance.

[Hendrik Moulds]

Question for Keith.

How about about a stock all original 356 with a 912 engine is that going to be a problem?

Lots of them out there.

Big thanks for all this info Keith.

According to the new proposal, only if the power to weight ratio is increased by over 15 per cent... But to be honest, I doubt it very much.

Sorry, but depending on what was the original engine it will need an MOT according to what you said Keith.
A 1600 normal is 60 hp and 1600 super is 75hp.
So 15% on these leads to 69 hp and 86.25 hp respectively, both below the 90 hp that a 912 engine is. I assume a starting point for any assessment of power will be based on the engine number and original specs relating to that type of engine?

[KS]

I guess so. Nothing has been written in stone yet – we still have to wait for the final version to come out. The 15 per cent deal seems to be the one which most people think is unworkable, and unreasonable. Let's watch this space.

[gridgway]

Presumably, two simple questions...
Is your chassis standard as per original or modified [by modified, we mean...]? and
Is your engine the same type and the same specification with the same spec induction and exhaust as original or modified, especially for gaining greater performance than standard [by modified we mean...]?
Graham

[911hillclimber]

And even simpler, if you say your shell is modified and (someone) agrees, then the engine question is irrelevant as your 5 /8 for the shell have just gone, off to biva for you.

For me, a best outcome is I end up in the biva test station, I pass, I pay £450 and I keep my reg number which is not 1973, but is also not a Q plate.
The MoT exemption will go bad when old classics are in a crunch and have not been tested for years and the car caused a serious issue or death.

There will be a change of heart then in Court..

I really cannot see why a Government would MAKE a classic 40 year old car exempt. The community did not lobby for this, it has been given to them, although it does state that you can volunteer for an MoT.
Can't see a new purchaser buying a classic that has not been MoT'd for 3 years?
Knowing that my car is modified, I would love to take it for a 'pre-biva' test before I have to get it tested. Preparation is everything.