Plastic Pig

There was a time when the phrase 'motor tricycle equipped with means of reversing' appeared to be the decider of what sort of licence you needed. Reverse gear = car licence, no reverse = motorcycle one. Probably not as simple as that these days, but I don't think I'll ever need to find out. Mind you, the OP probably thought that too ;-)

Ron Robinson

The message from "R.N. Robinson" contains these words:

I also have a faint memory of reverse gear having some significance on trikes but can't recall what. Perhaps taxation class.

I have just had a look at my driving licence. This particular scrap of paper dates from 1978 and in those days group C was "Any motor tricycle (other than an invalid carriage) weighing not more than 410kg unladen".

There is no group for tricycles over the weight limit so I think group C must be there to give group D (Motor Bicycle) licence holders the opportunity to drive light trikes.

If you passed your test before 2002 that you can use a bike or car license provided you have had D1 added to it.

If after the you need a car license to ride a trike and have D1

Robins no longer come under tricycle. Thats why you see so many robin 'trikes' on EBay, they didn't change the log book and now under the new MOT you can't have them as trikes and they need a SVA test

As regards driving licence what Ron said. There were quite a few bubble cars without reverse so they could be driven on a motorcycle licence. Not sure about any Reliant, though, since many used Austin 7 mechanicals. Maybe early ones.

As I understand it, a car license is fine for trikes like the Reliant, but the loophole that a full bike license (before x date?) was alright ONLY for three wheelers was revised so it was for vehicles of a certain weight; hence the 4-wheeled microcars. At some point it was also required that the vehicles lack reverse, IIRC.

One of my mates up here had a full bike licence, used to drive three wheelers, but found a Reliant Kitten just fits in the weight, so got one of those. He got a full car license, so it's not an issue now.

Richard

My dad's Berkely T60 lacked reverse, IIRC; they had blanking plates on many of these vehicles and of course had the reverse gear in the gearbox.

Richard

Some (the Messerschmitt comes to mind but there were probably others) had a facility for running the engine backwards (you can do that with a 2-stroke if you retard the timing enough and spin it backwards). Then you had 4 reverse gears but no forwards!

Jim

Thought the Messerschmitt was a four stroke?

What about the early Reliant trycicle vans which I think had front forks and handlebars (or was it a quadrant shaped tiller)? When I were a lad (about four) our chimney sweep had one of them but I wasn't interested in the mechanical niceties then!

I don't think the Bond Minicar had a reverse, but you could swing the front wheel (and engine) round at least 90 degrees, so it could turn in its own length. Some of the more recent trikes (DRKs, JZRs, Hudson Spirits, etc) don't have reverse so have to be pushed backwards.

I got it running yesterday and had fun zooming up and down the drive. Someone had removed the inspection cover from the side of the transmission tunnel and the exhaust was blowing a bit, so the car filled up with fumes a bit too quickly for comfort.

Photos here:

's the estate version and surprisingly spacious inside.Also just acquired thet Land Rover for about the best twenty-five quid I've ever spent. No engine and needs a bit of easy welding, but miles better than I'd expected and complete with overdrive and free-wheeling hubs.

Yup! Especially on a rough drive with grass growing up the middle! I reckon acceleration would have been quite impressive if it hadn't been spinning its wheels so much on the loose gravel. Oddest thing was trying to figure out which way the steering was pointing when starting off. The steering's so light, I kept over-compensating and veering from side to side manically. Hilarious!

And almost as many "true" stories of people who'd parked their door-on-the-front bubble car (Isetta?), nose hard up against a wall.

"Dave Plowman (News)" realised it was Mon, 03 Jul

2006 08:36:09 +0100 and decided it was time to write:

Nope, definitely a two stroke, judging from the ring-a-dingding sound they produce.

Except for the Tiger, which I think had a Renault engine. Or something else interesting.

Richard

RichardK realised it was Mon, 03 Jul 2006

22:00:23 +0100 and decided it was time to write:

Not quite. It did have twice as many cylinders as the standard KR-200, but there still weren't any valves in them.

See also

and

Wonder what I'm thinking of...

Richard

Refreshing to see this 'group' is still full of 'shit for brains' who don't actually know anything about 'classic' cars, nor anything about the law regarding motor vehicles, be it the two or four wheeled models.

Maybe you should all stop talking s**te and stop complaining about 'top posting'.

Newsgroups are for wankers like you lot, you're all still bickering about s**te like that 'heulin' fuckwad knob Get a life or maybe some form of education, reading the rubbish you spout, you are all too busy pulling your own pud.

You really have 'mates'? Is 'it' the idiot who dyed you stupid unfashionable hair ?

I'd like to give you 'both' a kick in your c*nts...

: It wasn't all good news though. As I didn't have the full V5, just the : tear-off strip, I'd promised to take the car back if there was any : trouble from the DVLA. Turns out there was. It's no longer on DVLA's : database. Most likely explanation I can think of, is that a previous : owner had declared it scrapped. So being an honourable sort of twit, : I'll be getting it back.

Why not just reregister it? Last time I did it (with an old Minor) it was a painless process. I had to get it MOTed, then take it round to the local VLO, let them check the chassis plate and bingo.

Ian