The Future of Car Modification

[stealthstylz]

Cross posting this poll from RodsnSods. We need as much feedback as possible.

What would you prefer for the future of car modifying:

1. Leave it as it is and make the most of the grey-areas, loop holes and slack enforcement of existing legislation while we can.
2. Have a "build manual" clearly stating what you can & can't do without having to go through BIVA and what you can expect and how to achieve a pass with BIVA.
3. Don't care because we'll always be alright/its someone elses responsibility.

Don't go into the ins & outs of legislation and let it spiral into the usual arguements, thats been done to death. Don't say what you think others want to hear, say what YOU really think. Use the poll facility to keep it annonymous if you like.

[scaryoldcortina]

I'd love to see proper rules, properly applied. Problem is, that isn't how DVLA or VOSA works.

[cairyhunt]

I'd love to see a proper build manual published, with proper rules.

But, to be honest (brutally honest) I'm half considering getting out of the retro modified game, what with all these new rules being proposed, massive changes in regs and seemingly being represented be people and organisations that I don't want (meaning the fivba or what ever it is, not ace, I'm pro ace) and being faced with the prospect of maybe, just maybe, having my car deemed illegal to use on the road. It's stress I don't need! And play with old cars as my hobby, do it for R&R. But now, when I look at me Merc, 85% of my brain goes "yeah!" and 15% goes "jump ship now, while you can"

The possibility of some of these new rules coming into force is worrying and gives me stressful thoughts.

[stealthstylz]

Basically the idea behind the build manual is to list the things that you can do before you'll need further testing on a vehicle (i.e to pass an 8 points test), and what you need to do if further testing is required (pass an IVA).

We think that clarifying grey areas can only be a good thing for the future of the hobby. Recently an ACE member clarified with the DfT that fitting telescopic shock absorbers inplace of lever arm shock absorbers on an axle will not affect the originality of the suspension (from a 8 points test perspective), and I have opened a discussion with the DfT with regards to the originality of standard strut bodies being converted to ajustable spring platforms and upgraded inserts.

Matt

[Copey]

i think we should be able to do anything we want to our cars as long as its safe, i do agree there should be standards to maintain and extreme mods should be checked over, but we shouldnt have to pay silly amounts to have a car tested, i am all for doing things safely, but i am also all for individuality, i don't think people creativeness should be censored

i guess i would go with the 2nd option, provided it doesnt go as far as "you cant do such and such full stop" it would be nice to know what can be done without a test and what would need a test, because then you could design your build or manage your budget/time frame to suit

[Dez]

2 is the obvious answer.
things ARE going to change, so its best we can stick our collective oars in now and let in be known what we want to be doing, not what were told we can do.

problem is, there's just loads of knobheads everywhere(including on this board) who don't give a curse word about the rules, or get told about them and then still continue to ignore them/flout them. they're usually of a certian age (35-55) and usually drive fairly dubiously titled 'hot rods'. thing is, I'm younger than them, and will be around and still doing this when they're either too decrepid to still do it, or dead, and i don't want to be legislated off the road due to their selfish actions.
i used to turn a blind eye. trouble is they now drag us down to their level and make us all look like criminals in the eyes of the authorities. so now i just send an email with their car details in to the relevant people.
theyll probably all hate me for it, but i don't give a f-k. i work damn hard to build within the rules, and be able to prove i do, so if they don't, they can expect to get shafted for it.

[cairyhunt]

Yes I understand all that, but there has been a history of "the people" wanting and asking for one thing, but "the man" saying no, we're not listening, you can have it like this, or you and lump it!

Also, to take my own situation into example, what if the new build manual states, for example, the suspension spring type must remain as per manufacture. I.e, leaf spring must stay as leaf, coil as coil ect? Where does that leave me with an airbagged Merc?

Even a build manual could tell me that I can't use my car :$

[stealthstylz]

The build manual would allow owners to pick and choose which parts of a car to modify and still retain their original registration if they either volunteer or are summoned for inspection.

Dez - I agree that there will always be people who will not follow the rules. The days of dubiously titled hot rods are numbered. The reason we think a build manual will work is that owners that WANT their car to be registered correctly will be able to do this much easier. For example if we can say (this is entirely fabricated and i'm just using it to show what could be done)

"Your suspension will retain it's originality (2 pts) if you:
- Convert the standard shock absorber units to ajustable spring platforms
- Convert lever arm type shock absorbers to telescopic type shock absorbers.
- Fit aftermarket uprated shock absorbers and springs

Your suspension will lose it's originality (0pts) if you:
- Fit a different type of suspension system than was used in original fitment (i.e IFS on a beam axle car)
- Fit a suspension component that is not produced using the same methods as original fitment (i.e. fabricated tubular wishbones instead of stamped standard wishbones)

Owners would then be able to plan the modifications they want to do before they start building the car, then go through the manual and tot up how many points they have retained. If their plans mean they would fall below the 8 points needed they can either re-think the build, use an IVA test to re-register the car, or build the car anyway and hope that they don't get caught.

cairyhunt the 8 points test means you can modify different areas of a car aslong as others are left original. Your Merc should fly through one as iirc it has the original engine and gearbox, and the shell hasn't been cut. You have your 8 points needed there straight away.

Matt

[10mpg]

This country is so pee poor at enforcing anything reliably or consistently I'm gonna stick with building my cars and my customers cars as I or they want providing they are safe and properly engineered and nuts to the supposed 'rules'...

If a well thought out system does become proper ENFORCIBLE law then I’ll of course abide by it and probably learn it cover to cover until then they can all take a running jump, 99% of what is punted round the forums these days about proposed rules and regs is all so much bottom gravy anyway..

I have built several vintage specials and vintage 'bitsas' over the years and there's no real way of checking weather any of the components are original fitments or not, only I know how original some of the cars are, if they're not date stamped and there's no strict build specification ect as 99.9% of vintage stuff isnt who's to know? That said I would NEVER pass off a car a something it isn’t just pointing out that the current rules are as slack as a politicians morals.

With the variation and almost limitless scope for changes over the entire history of the automobile i cant ever see any truly enforcible or generic rulebook ever being successfully introduced..

I personally hope it all goes to hell in handcart

[stealthstylz]

Also to add for those that don't know - The current definitions for the originality of a component are "the parts that the vehicle left the factory with". Obviously this definition is unworkable, as some of the parts needed as part of the test would be replaced due to wear and tear.

We would try to clarify how far you can go and still keep the originality. In an ideal world it would be nice if it was "The suspension type must be the same used as original fitment" (i.e a mac strut car would keep its 2 points for suspension aslong as it still had mac struts fitted) or "The axles must be the same type as original fitment" (a live axle is retained even if it is from a different vehicle etc).

[cairyhunt]

Matt, cheers dude, just reminding of the points system has cheered me up. I think I just get peeved off at all the bureaucracy in this country.

Why not put it to a public vote? Anyone with a car over "X" years old registered in their name is eligible to vote. Seems simple too me. Everyone gets a say.

[Dez]

Jul 1, 2011 0:30:31 GMT stealthstylz said:

The build manual would allow owners to pick and choose which parts of a car to modify and still retain their original registration if they either volunteer or are summoned for inspection.

Dez - I agree that there will always be people who will not follow the rules. The days of dubiously titled hot rods are numbered. The reason we think a build manual will work is that owners that WANT their car to be registered correctly will be able to do this much easier. For example if we can say (this is entirely fabricated and i'm just using it to show what could be done)

"Your suspension will retain it's originality (2 pts) if you:
- Convert the standard shock absorber units to ajustable spring platforms
- Convert lever arm type shock absorbers to telescopic type shock absorbers.
- Fit aftermarket uprated shock absorbers and springs

Your suspension will lose it's originality (-2pts) if you:
- Fit a different type of suspension system than was used in original fitment (i.e IFS on a beam axle car)
- Fit a suspension component that is not produced using the same methods as original fitment (i.e. fabricated tubular wishbones instead of stamped standard wishbones)

Owners would then be able to plan the modifications they want to do before they start building the car, then go through the manual and tot up how many points they have retained. If their plans mean they would fall below the 8 points needed they can either re-think the build, use an IVA test to re-register the car, or build the car anyway and hope that they don't get caught.

cairyhunt the 8 points test means you can modify different areas of a car aslong as others are left original. Your Merc should fly through one as iirc it has the original engine and gearbox, and the shell hasn't been cut. You have your 8 points needed there straight away.

Matt

exactly as it should be.
australia leads the way in this type of legislation imho. the way they do it should be held up as an example.

their rules can be quite strict on certain things, but at least they're upfront about what the rules are-
www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb_ncop.aspx

[Team Blitz]

Jul 1, 2011 0:01:45 GMT Dez said:

...so now I just send an email with their car details in to the relevant people.
theyll probably all hate me for it, but I don't give a f-k. I work damn hard to build within the rules, and be able to prove I do, so if they don't, they can expect to get shafted for it.

Wow. I really wish you wouldn't do that sort of vigilantism, narc-ing on fellow hobbyists. Will you call in a guy at a cafe who does a burn-out on the street? Or doesn't have a hi-viz in the boot? Or...? C'mon, Dez. I think you're just saying that in anger. I don't believe you really turn other modifiers in who you suspect of dodging a Beaver Test.

[prey]

I'm sorry, but while having a build manual initially sounds like a lot of sense - is anyone actually convinced that it won't get stupid and we would end up like other countries, struggling even to do an engine swap within the rules. If you think it would be great and brilliant and they would let us all do sensible modifications within our abilities etc etc don't be naive. Don't give the powers that be more paperwork - they will only make our lives more difficult for doing it.

[moggyman]

I've gone with option 2. The way I see it, I wouldn't want to build a car and assume it fits the 8-point criteria, only to get the car flagged up at some point in the future and sent for BIVA.
Cost aside, the stumbling block is glass. Although ACE have managed to buy us some time on that, it's not a permanent exemption. As it stands, if a car gets sent for BIVA in 3 years time, the glass will need to conform to the E-marked standard. With some cars this will not be an option, as new glass is unavailable.
I'd also like to see an acknowledgement from VOSA/DVLA that some mechanical parts are consumables, e.g. springs, and also recon parts should be acceptable points-wise .

[TurboDieselWeasel]

Jun 30, 2011 23:57:23 GMT Copey said:

I think we should be able to do anything we want to our cars as long as its safe, I do agree there should be standards to maintain and extreme mods should be checked over

See - and that's the problem. What someones deems as safe is another ones nightmare. What authorities may regards a 'extreme' is Kindergeburtstag for many of us etc. etc.

I voted for fast rules. But they must be written such that no doubt is left - and that's not easy I guess. That's why I'm actually inbetween n°1 und n°2; fast, written rules - and explore all the grey areas.

I thin you all know the situation with the TÜV in germany. As much as I hate it, I see the reason behind. Peoples conception of save motoring varies too much. A 'neutral' institution monitors motoring to make it safe for all. And as much as I regard that as terrorisation and undermining of my freedom - it's got a good right to exist.

And I hope you guys don't get anything that's even close to our TÜV...

[joe90]

I'd go for option 2 of the build manual, but the problem with the manual is it's still down to interpritation, think of an mot and what the manual says, if you give the same car to a couple of different testers, some will fail things the others don't, interpritation, i think it would be hard to achieve the required goal with a manual, but i would think the 8 point system gives you enough info to plan build legally.

[Deleted]

The way i see it is we have a major problem in that the rules are being set out by people who have no clue how stiff works and are only interested in generating monster so what ever we think we will never be in a winning situation. If the rules were that you could do whatever within certain paramiters as long as it were to remain safe then i don't see it being a problem ie any mods are ok as long as they tech inspected for safety ect. But we all know rank well that will never happen in the land blanket banning unless it earns revanue

[Copey]

Jul 1, 2011 8:36:23 GMT TurboDieselWeasel said:

Jun 30, 2011 23:57:23 GMT Copey said:

I think we should be able to do anything we want to our cars as long as its safe, I do agree there should be standards to maintain and extreme mods should be checked over

See - and that's the problem. What someones deems as safe is another ones nightmare. What authorities may regards a 'extreme' is Kindergeburtstag for many of us etc. etc.

if they actually had a brain (which i know is a BIG BIG if) they would actually do research on what is required of mods etc they could get it fairly right, i would class extreme mods as a roof chop, converting to convertable, converting to pick up, space frameing, all are things that done right are 100% safe but if they are not done properly they can be very dangerous so should really be tested imo

[akku]

I'd love for the system to allow any mods, keep original ID, and include a valid safety inspection. But I'd also love for Kate Beckinsale, Eva Longoria, Maja Keuc and Liv Tyler to be mud wrestling in a giant vat of seedless raspberry jam right here in my living room for the grand prize of, well, you can guess. I'm on the sidelines with the Mother's Pride sliced white loaf and Anchor slightly salted butter...

We can all have our fantasies.

The Aussies have a build manual AFAIK. If its put together by people who know what they are talking about then its a good thing. Some of the continental build rules sound too restrictive.

Grey areas, I can see the point in them, the "each case is judged on its merits" and all, because as soon as there is a written specification someone will try twist it and push beyond it. Meh. The problem with the "each case is judged on its merits" means inconsistent application of the rules and here I am spending time and money and effort on a build I don't know is going to pass the rules!

Service replacement parts HAVE to be documented as acceptable in retaining original ID though, that's got to be written into this. Leaving that "grey" is really stupid.