If you owned a Royal Enfield where the coil conversion was a simple direct bolt on from an Indian Enfield you would think different. Coil = much greater ease of starting as they have very good sparks at low rpm. Much reduced future cost of maintenance as points and coils are cheap and mag rewinds are dear.
-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
But what is your point, if you want a vehicle of that period with coil ignition buy a Indian Enfield and not a Royal Enfield, how about ripping out the original engine of a MM series Morris Minor and replacing it with a Fiat twin cam and gearbox (not forgetting a disc brake conversion etc.) it will be far easier to drive in modern traffic, parts are still in good supply and it needs less maintenance?... Why buy a 'historic' vehicle if what you really want is a modern one !
The message from "Ian Johnston" contains these words:
Where does routine maintenance (replacing the chassis) on a Lotus Elan come under these rules?
: The message : from "Ian Johnston" contains : these words:
: > If the car already exists you can repair it as you wish. : : Where does routine maintenance (replacing the chassis) on a Lotus Elan : come under these rules?
I have a friend whose Herald has, in stages over twenty years, changed chassis, engine, gearbox, back axle, bonnet, bulkhead and tub. Thank goodness maker's plates are available, eh?
Ian
Like at the moment - repairing with original design parts is ok. Fitting a modified aftermarket chassis might be different.
Just adding my penny worth, but the Herald was already regsitered presumably. Example of how i see this. I could go out tommorrow and buy a bran new Mini shell, fit new parts, new engine etc, everything bran spanking new. I could then either put a new number plate on it as a new car or brake the law and apply a registration to it from another vehicle. In essence, ringing the car with a differant identity. I could sell the car to someone under the impression that the car is such and such a year and such and such a model, whereas it would be a new car, for instance selling the car for historic vehcile purposes ie pre 1972. The document as i see it protects people from vehicle description fraud in buying and selling.
jono
You would have to lie about the chassis number, etc. And come MOT time, you might well have problems.
Actually, since it would be a "home built" car, it would get a nasty Q-plate...
I think with the majority of classics, it's the case of the "grandfather's axe" :-P
It looks like those DVLA rules are mainly aimed at kit-car builders and the like, you know, the kind who put 3 wheelbolts from a Ford Cortina on their kit car and get to keep the plate... kinda thing...
-- Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe 1962 Austin Mini Deluxe 1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe: >Example of how i see this. I could go out tommorrow and buy a bran new Mini : >shell, fit new parts, new engine etc, everything bran spanking new. : >I could then either put a new number plate on it as a new car : : : Actually, since it would be a "home built" car, it would get a nasty : Q-plate...
Unless the rules have changed since I investigated this, it would be quite possible to register it as a new car - thus getting a current registration number and not needing an MOT for 3 years but...
1) All the parts have to be new. As I recall, you aren't allowed to use /anything/ secondhand at all2) You have to keep all the receipts to prove this
3) You are then liable for car tax as per any new carQ-plates are for when the age of the car cannot be determined - in the case of kits cars, because of the mixture of old and new bits.
Ian
Why? I never got around to refitting the chassis number plate on my Vitesse and apart from a raised eyebrow at it's first MOT with the local garage have had no problems. There's a cut off date before which they're not mandatory - 1980 I think.
: Ian Johnston wrote: : : > I have a friend whose Herald has, in stages over twenty years, changed : > chassis, engine, gearbox, back axle, bonnet, bulkhead and tub. Thank : > goodness maker's plates are available, eh? : : Why? I never got around to refitting the chassis number plate on my : Vitesse and apart from a raised eyebrow at it's first MOT with the local : garage have had no problems. There's a cut off date before which they're : not mandatory - 1980 I think.
Oh, OK. My local garage has been keen on checking the VIN when doing MOTs on my older cars, so I assumed they were mandatory.
Ian
My MOT tester never bothers with the commission numbers on my Heralds as he knows it's not necessary. I have started prompting him to record them as I now have 3 Heralds in essentially the same colour scheme. Plenty of scope for dodgy dealings with those, so I'm more than a little paranoid about keeping honest records of MOTs. Cheers, Bill.
I disagree with Peter and agree with Jerry on this one.
A mag rewind will last a goodly while. Rewound with the right number of turns and correct gaugewire and the low speed performance is as good as a coil and with the added bonus of not need a battery. Cost is relative but is £100 +VAT for a basic rewind and service that expensive to keep a bike looking correct? I suppose I better declare an interest here in
As Jerry said why buy a 'historic vehicle' if you want some thing with all modern components. As I say to people who ask if we supply coil conversions. Mr Ford makes a very good Fiesta if you modern ignition. Suppose Mr Honda or Mr Triumph do the same for bikes.
Andy
Because it's not going to be forever easy to get parts for cars as they get ever older. Who's going to carry on making crankshafts, cams, discs, etc for a tiny market, especially if the car isn't something totally exotic and pricey?
Plus a great deal of the currently available parts are reconned. Just how often can you recon something before it's just too worn out for any number of shims, regrinds or whatever?
And then there's safety. A lot of people complain that old cars don't have good enough brakes, are deathraps, etc. So what's wrong with making a car safer by improving the brakes? Then there's the environment factor. Old cars are blamed (rightly or wrongly) for creating vast amounts more pollution than modern cars. So why not use a more modern, cleaner running engine?
I would like to replace the engine in one of my cars with an engine of similar power and weight to the one fitted in the sporty version of what I drive. It would happen to be far more reliable, but also far easier to get parts for, and much more environmentally friendly. It wouldn't greatly change the characteristics of the car compared to the factory spec fast version though. I would like to have better brakes as brakes save lives, or more to the point the standard brakes are poor, and there's probably more to hit nowadays than there was when the car was designed.
I want to be able to keep my car on the road for a long time yet, longer than I can see the affordable supply of original parts lasting, so surely it's better to have a useable classic with a few alterations, than a museum peice that can't be used as the gumble sprocket's been extint for a dozen years? ;)
I was replying to the poster who said "why change bits around" or words to that effect, not about the DVLA stuff.
But there's nothing in the paper that will stop you doing any of that to an _existing_ car. Even if you bring it into the "radically altered" category, the engine is only 1 point of the 8 required if you retain the original transmission, 3 if you don't, and I don't think the brake system is counted at all unless you change the suspension at the same time.
Who makes crankshafts etc. for pre WW1 or WW2 vehicles ?
How do you think people maintain pre WW1 or 2 vehicles ?
Funny, people never complained when the vehicle was current, but then they didn't drive like total nut cases on a death wish.
are deathraps, etc. So what's wrong with making a car
If you want the 'sporty' version why not just buy the 'sporty' version - many people have paid good money thinking that they are buying a genuine Mini Cooper or Lotus Cortina when what they are really buying is a fake produced buy someone like yourself.
That just proves that you don't want to owner / run a Historic / Classic vehicle at all, what you are after is to own and run an old vehicle that you can do as cheaply as possible.
How the hell do you think people who own and run things like Pre WW2 Austin's, Jowett's (sp?), pre war SS cars (Jaguar's to you I expect...), pre WW2 Morris cars etc. ?
I think it's time to RFD a group with a name something like uk.rec.cars.old-jalopies !....
There was nothing to debate, you are wrong, it's as simple as that.
Now kindly stop polluting this group with your crap about modifying historic / classic vehicles.
Lighten up doods, I'm sure most of us approve of some level of modification, it's just the degree where we differ. I use my classic every day, so have fitted: locking petrol cap radial tyres spin-off oil filter conversion extra gauges stainless steel exhaust Kenlowe fan later type steering column with steering lock later type overdrive on home-made mounts Plan to fit electronic ignition. I'll happily fit better seats when I can find some that don't look out of place to my eye. I'd also fit a completely different diff if I could, affordably.
Where do you draw the line? All the above is reversible. The car would probably have been scrapped had I not bought it, which is not reversible!
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember ":::Jerry::::" saying something like:
Why don't YOU just f*ck off?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.