GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: The Mighty Elvi on 21 May 2012, 13:57
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326
Good news for Beetle owners.
:smiley:
-
Rubbish IMO.
The amount of death traps that now won't need an MOT........
-
Rubbish IMO.
The amount of death traps that now won't need an MOT........
The vehicles make up about 0.6% of the total number of licensed vehicles in Britain but are involved in just 0.03% of road casualties and accident
Stupid boy.
-
Don't get me wrong, it's a 'nice' gesture, but...
Having to have an annual MoT test for a vehicle which may only travel a few hundred miles in a year was costly and absurd
If they maintain the cars to such a high standard they probably spend hundreds or thousands a year, a £30-£50 MOT bill and 1 hour of their time isn't that costly. Alternatively they could have made it a free test if taken to a council run MOT station.
-
Good old bbc, half a story :lipsrsealed:
-
if anything older cars shuold have more frequent mot's
-
Don't get me wrong, it's a 'nice' gesture, but...
Having to have an annual MoT test for a vehicle which may only travel a few hundred miles in a year was costly and absurd
If they maintain the cars to such a high standard they probably spend hundreds or thousands a year, a £30-£50 MOT bill and 1 hour of their time isn't that costly. Alternatively they could have made it a free test if taken to a council run MOT station.
I know a few people with pre 60 cars and the MOT is such a ball ache as many parts fitted don't meet current MOT standards (Brakes are no t good enough, tolerances on bearings were very different in the 40's and 50's etc etc). One guy had to spend 3 days arguing with an MOT station that his scooter didn't need a brake light as it never had one fitted. Ended up goign to VOSA who then told the MOT station to pass it.
Most pre 60 vehicles are int eh hands of enthusiasts who will look after them better than joe bloggs maintains his 06 plate focus. Besides, the vehicle still has to be kept in a roadworthy condition as that is still an offence if it's not.
Nick
-
I think possibly the biggest oversight on this programme is that they don't appear to have thought of all the Beetle owners out there. :grin:
-
Rubbish IMO.
The amount of death traps that now won't need an MOT........
The vehicles make up about 0.6% of the total number of licensed vehicles in Britain but are involved in just 0.03% of road casualties and accident
Stupid boy.
What a load of crap. So if a young kid gets hit by a pre-1960 car where the brakes aren't working, that's fine is it? Just because it's only one casualty.
They should have a different test. Probably cheaper as there isn't as much to test. Speaking from experiance at a garage, we had about 9 old classic cars that we had to MOT. Couple of them every year having to play with the rear brakes as one was locked on too much and one not at all. If you braked hard they'd both go sideways. They were only doing a few miles a year so the owners never wanted them fixed properly as that cost money. :rolleyes:
The others admittedly were better maintained.
Total sh!te IMO. Free test/cheaper test yeah fine, less to test etc. Having no test will just have loads of rusty sh!te bought back.
-
I think possibly the biggest oversight on this programme is that they don't appear to have thought of all the Beetle owners out there. :grin:
This. Many many road legal fred flinstone cars out there now.
Also the maniacal masses who will be buying said rusty cheap cars as they will be tax exempt, MOT exempt and Qualify for classic insurance.
Although 50's beetles tend to be so heavily priced the eedjeets wouldn't be able to afford to buy them.
It would make more sense to bring a lighter test which just ensured things worked and bits like bushes aren't excessively worn.
NOW
Where can I get a 50's logbook for mine from :tongue:
-
I own a Beetle (late 60's so this doesn't apply to me) but I think the new rules are a tad daft. While it's true that most, if not all will be owned by 'enthusiasts' I don't see why having a second pair of eyes glance over your work every year is a bad thing. I know there have been things I have overlooked before picked up on during an MOT test.
A set of MOT guidelines tailored to older cars that accept certain tolerances are needed for a vehicle of that age would surely be better.
-
Great news :cool: :laugh:
-
I own a Beetle (late 60's so this doesn't apply to me) but I think the new rules are a tad daft. While it's true that most, if not all will be owned by 'enthusiasts' I don't see why having a second pair of eyes glance over your work every year is a bad thing. I know there have been things I have overlooked before picked up on during an MOT test.
A set of MOT guidelines tailored to older cars that accept certain tolerances are needed for a vehicle of that age would surely be better.
Completely agree. 98% of a pre 60's car are going to be collectors/enthusiasts and will look after their car, but that minority might overlook a brake line about to break, or a top mount about to give way.
-
I own a Beetle (late 60's so this doesn't apply to me) but I think the new rules are a tad daft. While it's true that most, if not all will be owned by 'enthusiasts' I don't see why having a second pair of eyes glance over your work every year is a bad thing. I know there have been things I have overlooked before picked up on during an MOT test.
A set of MOT guidelines tailored to older cars that accept certain tolerances are needed for a vehicle of that age would surely be better.
Completely agree. 98% of a pre 60's car are going to be collectors/enthusiasts and will look after their car, but that minority might overlook a brake line about to break, or a top mount about to give way.
True balljoints on old cars fail all the time and could be overlooked and cause a nasty accident.
-
A set of MOT guidelines tailored to older cars that accept certain tolerances are needed for a vehicle of that age would surely be better.
This would be a better solution to accommodate older cars and would solve the problems for you friends Nick :cool:
-
they might not NEED one, but try getting INSURED without one :lipsrsealed:
as said, half a story :smiley:
-
I think its a good idea as old cars just don't measure up to current mot regulations. I think any owner of a classic car who was not mechanically minded wouldn't be silly enough to not get it at least checked over by a garage once a year. They need heavy maintenance as it is so its unlikely anything that may be deemed dangerous will go unmissed. I would say most pre 60's cars these days will be owned by enthusiasts that will keep on top of things. I think setting out new seperate mot regulations for pre 60's cars would be a waste of time considering the small percentage and the limited mileage most of them run. Most of them were death traps when they were new so they ain't going to get any better. Anyone who has tried to stop reletively quickly in a car with no servo and drum brakes all round will understand.
-
The new ruling is a good thing, self assessment, and self policing by responsible owners will not cause a problem. High end stuff, the likes of Jaguar, Aston Martin, Ferrari etc, are generally wrapped in cotton wool, and want for absolutely nothing. Low end stuff the likes of Minors, Beetles, Ford 100E's and earlier examples are dead simple to work on, and parts are readily available for next to nothing, so its not a money thing... Nearly ALL pre 60's cars run on drum brakes, so would need constant maintenance anyway, regardless of an MOT inspection.
Nearly all pre 60's cars run a separate chassis... so do not suffer the same rust problems a Monocoque would suffer! If its made it over the last 50 years, then its likely to last a whole lot longer
Lighting on ALL pre 60's cars is appalling, so N/A
All Pre 60's cars will run 2 or 3 fixed point seat belts, (If any at all!) so faulty inertias will not be a problem
Pre 60's cars have THE most basic suspension, that is pretty much agricultural with only the Trunnions on front suspension giving any cause for concern... regularly greased, they are fine for many years/miles, and there are clear warning signs long before they fail.
Fuel pipes, generally copper or brass, right up to the carburetor, with only a short piece of rubber hose to keep an eye on.
These cars are people pride and joy, and want them to last another 50 60 70+years
Cant see a problem myself
Thom
-
Cant see a problem myself
Yes well you're not a 21 year old moron. WTF would you know, eh?
-
:grin:
-
All cars should be inspected new or old. Older cars should have an easier test.
MOT's aren't without faults, but generally are a good thing.
-
C 1, and C 2, 80llox you aint that far behind :tongue:
If you can maintain a pushbike, you can maintain a pre 60's car, unless its a 21 :lipsrsealed:
And not to forget that the MOT used to be once every 3 years, it only changed when cars started to use not so robust parts, and poorly built... in general that is.
Thom
-
That was in the days that cars were probably as fast as push bikes :grin:
The reason all cars should be tested is it only takes one to be poorly maintained...
-
saves me haveing to find a set of pistons for a rover IOE engine for when the ld mans landrover gets put together :smiley:
-
hmmm the old mans Vauxhall Victor is around this age...
-
seems abit daft. i mean even if you do look after your car you could miss a rust brake pipe or somthing that a tester might see
-
seems abit daft. i mean even if you do look after your car you could miss a rust brake pipe or somthing that a tester might see
I think this maybe the whole point! Testers are looking at this tiny minority of cars, and they are sailing right through the test because of the simple construction of the cars, and the Ministry of Transport are now clearly happy for pre 60's car to be MOT exempt...
Thom