|
|
Dec 22, 2010 12:33:00 GMT
|
Absolutely spot on letter Pablo ,you're a star! Now everyone on here needs to get it sent to MPs and MEPs. Everyone can also help by pointing people this way on other forums they frequent . Give them the precis version I've posted above as an easy way of explaing what's going on as well. If they want to know what to do , copy and paste Pablos post above. This is EXACTLY how we got the SVA /BIVA test in thr first place, as opposed to the TOTAL ban that was about to happen then ( 1976) ...people power. Agree with all of the above, but I also think the letter would also benefit from stating the 'green' credentials of keeping an older car on the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 12:37:17 GMT
|
Couple of quick questions - do you need a BIVA for a Q plate, and if not will a Q plate get around the 'historic' taxation Also if FIVA and FBVHC don't see daily driven 'classics' AS classics, cant we get these 'non' classics classed as non historic and as such we have to pay road tax and actually ENJOY our cars
|
|
1993 Fiat Panda Selecta 2003 Vauxhall Combo 1.7DI van 2006 Mercedes Kompressor Evolution-S AMG SportCoupé
"You think you hate it now, wait til you drive it"
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 12:42:53 GMT
|
Couple of quick questions - do you need a BIVA for a Q plate, and if not will a Q plate get around the 'historic' taxation Also if FIVA and FBVHC don't see daily driven 'classics' AS classics, cant we get these 'non' classics classed as non historic and as such we have to pay road tax and actually ENJOY our cars Yes, you must pass BIVA to be issued a Q plate ( for a modified car ) .It is then registered as 'new' and meeting the Amateur Built requirements. The second point would be the other best way forward longterm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 16:51:25 GMT
|
THIS is utter internet wibblepoo, Kev. Do you KNOW where Jeg's and Summit are headquartered? Um hmm, Ohio. This fool from Kentucky has no idea WTF he's talking about. There is no such law allowing crushing for "possession of racy Looking parts" LOL! Norm At a slight tangent here but an illustration of what can happen if laws are not challenged. The USA is often held up as a glowing example of motoring freedom . This post is from a member of the Rods and sods site in reply to another thead running over there "I'm more on the eastern side of the US. I live in the northern most part of the state of Kentucky. From My back window I see another state. Ohio, Cincinatti Ohio. One that Ohio passed was (no speed equipment on a street driven vehicle) Meaning that if you have anything that looks like it is used for racing the police officer has the right to have your car impounded where it will be then ordered by the court to be crushed and recycled.
|
|
Team Blitz Ford Capri parts worldwide: Restoration, Road, or Race. Used, Repro, and NOS, ranging from scabby to perfect. Itching your Capri jones since 1979! Buy, sell, trade. www.teamblitz.com blitz@teamblitz.com
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 17:59:04 GMT
|
I'd no reason to disbelieve or check him Norm. Discount that one then. What about the amnesty for incorrectly registered cars in California at the end of which after which the offence becomes a felony? From SEMAS own site. Or the once in a lifetime chopper/ bobber restrictions? Dude, you're mistaking me for somebody else if you're trying to paint me as some kind of "Defender of America". That's a sport a lot of Brits like to play with mouthy Yanks like me. But I'm not playing that game, because there's ALL KINDS OF DUMBASS LAWS in America! The People's Demokratic Republik of KauliflowerniUhhh -in particular- is piously overreaching against Internal Cumbustion Motor Vehicles all the time. CARB, there, has greatly exceeded its original brief, claimed credit (like SEMA has) for things they didn't do (like "force" the Big 3 to put on catalytic converters). California was left with massive egg-on-face when it had to abandon its ZLEV vehicle program last decade, wherein it "decreed" that all future motor vehicle manus had to supply a percentage (think it was 10%) of in-state sales with ZERO emissions vehicles. LOL! Yeah, baby, sunflower power! Here's the link to analysis of the Ohio law (I'm your huckleberry in Ohio): www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=128_HB_191&hf=analyses128/h0191-i-128.htmNow, I'll say another thing. You have been maneuvered by people with axes to grind to consider my advice as stupid or poppycock or antagonistic. If you will re-read what I've actually said, as opposed to what people try to stuff in my mouth, I'm a huge supporter of ACE and your activities! The concept that ACE isn't the ENTIRE effective remedy is not in any way a criticism of ACE. You're a player. You have a strategy to do as much as you want to do within your stated confines of comfort level. That doesn't negate other people from taking very PUBLIC action, nice and legal-like, to embarrass, cajole, refute vociferously, build wider citizen support, legally block, and otherwise disrupt the march by world governmental orgs towards the eventual apocalypse (and you and I both know where all this global "vision" is going, and it's doesn't bode well for quiet mouse types).
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2010 18:04:03 GMT by Team Blitz
Team Blitz Ford Capri parts worldwide: Restoration, Road, or Race. Used, Repro, and NOS, ranging from scabby to perfect. Itching your Capri jones since 1979! Buy, sell, trade. www.teamblitz.com blitz@teamblitz.com
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 18:23:43 GMT
|
Agree with all of the above, but I also think the letter would also benefit from stating the 'green' credentials of keeping an older car on the road. I would be very wary of relying on older cars' green credentials without some proper "science" to back it up. Because you know governments and the green lobby will have plenty of science behind their argument. Personally, I've yet to see any really compelling evidence, backed up with figures, to show that older cars are more environmentally friendly. And I'm not saying this to stir arguments, I genuinely would like to see some so I can quote it. But I have seen some compelling evidence, including some from a member on here who is both a car enthusiast and partway through a doctorate in environmental engineering, that shows it's not as clear-cut as we'd all wish. Most people's arguments seem to rest on "I saw on MSN Cars/Top Gear that there was a study that said a ten year old Jeep Cherokee is the car that makes the least environmental impact". I wouldn't make any claims that you can't stand behind with 100% confidence.
|
|
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary.
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 18:38:13 GMT
|
I would be very wary of relying on older cars' green credentials without some proper "science" to back it up. Because you know governments and the green lobby will have plenty of science behind their argument. Personally, I've yet to see any really compelling evidence, backed up with figures, to show that older cars are more environmentally friendly. True, but then no-one's proved to me conclusively either that buying a new car after three years and scrapping one after ten is more environmentally friendly either. It's not the ingredients you have, it's how you cook the meal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 18:51:53 GMT
|
It seems to me that the more clarification is provided to 8 ACE (about what is and isnt legal and what is and isnt historic), the less clear the situation becomes. I think eventually we will realise its unrealistic to expect any government body to draft up some sort of legal framework that 100% clarifes exactly what mods are 'allowed' and what is not and which covers all conceivable possibilities of combinations of old/new/recycled/mixed up car combinations. They have all got better things to do than debate whether bulkhead mods to an Anglia so that a Pinto can be fitted make it into a new vehicle or not. Whatever the rules are, there will be people who are operating near the edges of those rules in the grey area bits and theres absolutley nowt wrong with that as long as those people take a reasonable bit of responsibility for themselves and other motorists.
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2010 18:53:12 GMT by xbo11ox
1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 Mazda 929 Coupé 1986 Mazda 929 Wagon 1979 Mazda 929 Hardtop 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 1989 Subaru 1800 Wagon 1982 Hyundai Pony 1200TL 2-dr 1985 Hyundai Pony 1200 GL 1986 Maserati 425 Biturbo 1992 Rover 214 SEi 5-dr 2000 Rover 45 V6 Club 1994 Peugeot 205 'Junior' Diesel 1988 Volvo 760 Turbodiesel Saloon 1992 Talbot Express Autosleeper Rambler 2003 Renault Laguna SPEARS OR REAPERS
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 18:53:42 GMT
|
Agree with all of the above, but I also think the letter would also benefit from stating the 'green' credentials of keeping an older car on the road. I would be very wary of relying on older cars' green credentials without some proper "science" to back it up. Because you know governments and the green lobby will have plenty of science behind their argument. Personally, I've yet to see any really compelling evidence, backed up with figures, to show that older cars are more environmentally friendly. I agree with what you're saying Richard... in that making these kind of statements need to be carefully considered as to the validity of such a claim BEFORE they are made. I think in Amazo's case he was referring to modified cars that have been re-engined with a power unit taken from a modern car. I remember Johnny 69 putting forward an argument that refutes the case for suggesting that the energy used to construct a new car in addition to that of recycling an old car isn't offset by the fuel economy of the new car over an average working lifespan. Personally.... I wasn't convinced by it but it was backed up with calculations from data that was gathered from what I presume to be reliable sources. The point I'm making is that I agree it is important that all the statements made in support of the case FOR classics and modified cars are carefully considered for both contextual and scientific accuracy before going to print on any of this for obvious reasons. EDIT..... Amazo got back before me and didn't say it was a re-engine he was referring to ..... which goes to prove how important it is that all statements made need clarifying as to the context of the argument they are in support of!!
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2010 19:02:01 GMT by arrocuda
'71 Arrocuda.... '71 Sunbeam Rapier Turbo (The Grim Rapier).... '63 Hymek D7076..... Audi GT5S
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 19:07:36 GMT
|
Without dragging this to far away from what this thread is meant to be about. A local garage scrapped an 8 year old Peugeot the other day because a light switch stopped working. The price of the new one was astronomical and needed coding by the main agents , so a car with much working life in it was scrapped due to the method of OEM manufacture making it beyond economical repair ...greener ?. 40 year old car, take it out and bolt in another and go on for another 20 years .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 19:12:36 GMT
|
Norm, Ifully understand your support and 2 prong attack idea. I think you may be missing out the 'British way' from your calculations . We are generally a pretty apathetic nation who would rather moan than act. I've removed my offending posts as I wouldn't want misinformation in this thread.
HOWEVER, the enthusiasm shown so far here is extremely refreshing. All I hope is that when an action plan is put together ( as isbeing done at the moment) that everyone who agrees will do something and not presume that your one piece of effort won't be missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 19:15:03 GMT
|
About recycling , why do we have scrapyards ( sorry End of Vehicle Life recycling centres) and a Government commitment to recycling if when we fit those parts it could call our vehicles identity into question? One thing at a time though .
As you were....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 19:48:00 GMT
|
About recycling , why do we have scrapyards ( sorry End of Vehicle Life recycling centres) and a Government commitment to recycling if when we fit those parts it could call our vehicles identity into question? Cos government commitments have nothing to do with the real agenda.... they are all about 'soundbites' and being seen to be saying what is generally regarded to be the 'green' thing to do. It is strange though that the general public buy into the 'disposable' car concept whilst claiming to be 'green' at the same time. Must be all the money the car companies spend in advertising that prevents the media from telling the real story.
|
|
'71 Arrocuda.... '71 Sunbeam Rapier Turbo (The Grim Rapier).... '63 Hymek D7076..... Audi GT5S
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 19:54:25 GMT
|
Amazo got back before me and didn't say it was a re-engine he was referring to ..... which goes to prove how important it is that all statements made need clarifying as to the context of the argument they are in support of!! I was actually think about both side of the fence as it were; the original, 'matching numbers' Classics and the modded stuff with say, a more modern engine (a Zetec-engined MKII Escort , fot example). Some reading for your mental microwave, from the Green party's website (a little old and about the Scrappage scheme but apparently still their mindset): www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2009-04-12-budget.html And quoted directly from their website. Don't shoot the messenger. ;D Not a policy that's totally on our side, but it would be interesting to find out where they acquired their data from.
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2010 20:58:05 GMT by e21meister
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 20:27:27 GMT
|
That is also excellent info, maybe we should be joing forces with the Greens , there's something I'd didn't think I'd ever say. The info is good and regardless of it's source it's on their website so MUST be true ;D
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2010 20:28:30 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 20:52:24 GMT
|
If that's not an argument in support of refitting old cars with modern equipment (or modifying) as it has occasionally been referred to on here ..... I'll vote Green at the next election!! ;D Nice one Amazo!!
|
|
'71 Arrocuda.... '71 Sunbeam Rapier Turbo (The Grim Rapier).... '63 Hymek D7076..... Audi GT5S
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 20:55:22 GMT
|
I thought everyone knew about that little titbit, I've banged on about it to all & sundry for ages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 21:13:14 GMT
|
I thought everyone knew about that little titbit, I've banged on about it to all & sundry for ages. Me too, I thought it would be obvious! If I buy 2 cars, drive one for 20 years, but lock one away in a container. The one that never turned a wheel has still damaged the environment, by being manufactured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 21:44:34 GMT
|
That is a good point about recycling, and it sounds persuasive to me, but sadly I think in cases like this numbers and statistics can often speak more loudly than, you know, sense I would just urge caution before rushing out to run a campaign on the back of green claims without something really solid: " some years ago, a study showed..." is a bit wooly. Basically, don't go printing any stickers just yet. (I voted Green in the last election. In a seat that's been Conservative for the last 27 years... Well, my vote will make more of a difference when the LibDems bring through the electoral reforms they promised before the election...)About recycling , why do we have scrapyards ( sorry End of Vehicle Life recycling centres) and a Government commitment to recycling if when we fit those parts it could call our vehicles identity into question? One thing at a time though . As you were.... While I can't stand most political buzzwords, the one that I think hits the mark is "joined-up thinking". Governments seem to be particularly bad at it. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can give it a go through a raft of half-baked contradictory policies... [/politics]
|
|
1989 Peugeot 205. You know, the one that was parked in a ditch on the campsite at RRG'17... the glass is always full. but the ratio of air to water may vary.
|
|
fogey
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,614
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 22:21:31 GMT
|
Why don't the magazines do more about publicising all of this? I'll tell you why. The more people who know about this the more difficult it will be for the mags to get cars to feature. Let's face it, if you were running a modified car that technically wasn't legal would you want it splashed across 4 pages of a magazine with comments such as 'a new shell was used', 'the car was made out of three scrappers' or 'the bulkhead and floorpan had to be cut to make room for the engine and gearbox'? Magazines may be staffed by enthusiasts, but in most cases they are only a means for a publisher to attract advertising in order to make money for the shareholders so it simply isn't in their interests to scare everyone away. Really? As Deputy Editor of a fairly successful car magazine I'd be more than happy to cover this as a news story. It's important to the readers because a magazine may be their only exposure to this proposal, and the biggest thing we need is, without any doubt, exposure. After all not everyone (believe it or not) uses the Internet. Plus it's important as a matter or self preservation too, because if/when it comes into force our readers will only feel let down and neglected if we have said nothing throughout the whole process. To suggest magazines would keep this quiet is insane! So we'd keep schtum so we could mention a modified bulkhead? Urm, no. We're journalists, we'll adapt our style and features to suit the scene's landscape. I've been reading this whole thread with interest and as such I can tell you that I will be looking to give this some decent coverage as soon as the information becomes more solid. I don't want to panic the readers with speculation, that is my only consideration. As a journalist AND an enthusiast I can honestly say that I would rather tell the readers now and be part of a solution, a sentiment I'm sure other people in my line of work will no-doubt echo. And for what it's worth, the Unity titles (PBMW, RF, PF, PVW, Banzai and of course, Retro Cars) don't bend over for shareholders. The magazines belong to the staff, we have the ultimate say on what goes in them. Chris Chris, that's good to hear, and I do hope you are able give this some publicity in your pages. However Unity Media, like most of the large magazine publishers, is a plc with shareholders who want a return on their investment and is not 'owned' by its staff. As a retired freelance contributor to car mags myself I am only too aware of the restraints put on editors by their publishers because of the need for profit. By all means let's get the mags involved as much as we can - but I am worried that there may be limits to which their publishers will allow them to go.
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2010 22:23:56 GMT by fogey
|
|
|