| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bruce Sutherland
United Kingdom
1544 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2017 : 22:48:54
|
Rod,
ARV’s - what a first-rate piece of enlightened common sense.
Dare one ask how your NZ concept proposal was received at the FIVA General Assembly in 2015?
Bruce. (PB0564) |
 |
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2017 : 23:18:25
|
One practical problem if the car is registered as a new vehicle (which it is) is complying with type approval. The requirements of the Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA) are quite onerous covering such things as seat belts, protective steering (collapsible steering column), seat strength, emissions, and so on. The full details can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277534/guide-to-the-iva-scheme.pdf
While an FIA HTP certificate would presumably meet the requirements of defining ARVs, almost by definition such cars couldn't be used on the road and still be classed as an ARV as they would have to incorporate all the requirements of IVA.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Russ Jackson
United Kingdom
102 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 07:13:00
|
| I like the idea of ARV....with regard to Simons point about IVA /SVA if a car is reproduced to the same specification using the same manufacturing methods and materials as say a Pur Sang re-manufactured Alpha Romeo 8C then surely it should be governed by the same DVLA rules and regulations afforded a VSCC car lets be honest if it's built by a recognised re-manufacturer the car will be professionally built with the correct chassis jigs Etc. and be inherently safer than some of the 80 odd year old enthusiast built cars no offence but it's just the way it is |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 08:17:42
|
Wishful thinking, Russ.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
KevinA
New Zealand
668 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 09:19:09
|
I think the biggest problem is we all think of things in black and white, right or wrong etc.
How do we treat a car which is entirely new except for one original item. It is no longer an ARV technically. If we accept this then where do we draw the line? 1 old item, 2 perhaps or maybe 101? Then is an item a bolt or an engine? I must confess that I put a lot of faith in continous history and interpretation but everything is open to abuse. The more prices and values rise the more reason for some to screw the system.
I suppose I'd give an example of an ex works competition car I know of. The owner has most of the parts but not the chassis which has been lost, reputedly destroyed. He has however an identical chassis from a standard version. Does the car become a bitza, retain the works iD, retain the standard car's ID or any other permutation. I suspect many of us would like to use the works ID and continuous history argument, but the DVLA et al would probably take the new (standard car) chassis number as the ID.
That in this example is probably the black and white but then how much of the car needs to exist for the balance to shift the other way. Equally what would be the call if he simply had a brand new replacement chassis built? |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 09:32:23
|
I'm sure rules vary from country to country but the UK DVLA rules state:
A rebuilt vehicle can keep its original registration number if you can prove you’ve used:
the original unmodified chassis or bodyshell (car or light van)
a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original (car or light van)
the original unmodified frame (motorbike)
a new frame of the same specification as the original (motorbike)
You must also have 2 other major components from the original vehicle from the following lists.
For cars or light vans:
suspension (front and back)
steering assembly
axles (both)
transmission
engine
DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number if you don’t meet the conditions for keeping the original registration number.
Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a Q registration number.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 11:05:06
|
So, Simon, if I read this right, an ARV does not meet the DVLA rules for an original (ie marque construction date related) registration number.
However a 'semi-ARV' does if, on a completely brand new chassis there are two of the list of major components, all other parts being new. Then the registration number relating to the major components meets the requirements that it is recognised as the originally registered vehicle.
Just to check, a 'semi-ARV' (ie brand new chassis) with a clearly numbered original engine block and gear box, or alternative necessary components, linked directly to an original car would be considered a valid example of the original car. And that is all it takes?
Perhaps it would take a separate reply to show how this vehicle ties into the guidelines for registration on the MMM listing, or not.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
Edited by - Ian Bowers on 04/11/2017 11:06:12 |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 11:14:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Bowers
Just to check, a 'semi-ARV' (ie brand new chassis) with a clearly numbered original engine block and gear box, or alternative necessary components, linked directly to an original car would be considered a valid example of the original car. And that is all it takes?
Perhaps it would take a separate reply to show how this vehicle ties into the guidelines for registration on the MMM listing, or not.
My reading of the DVLA guidance is that, yes, a car with an original identity in, say, the 1930s, with associated registration number, could have a new replacement chassis and still retain its identity as far as the DVLA is concerned.
On the current - inconsistent - Register guidelines this would not be eligible for a Register number as only an original, unmodified chassis qualifies for a Register number.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 12:29:46
|
Hello all.
If a vehicle qualifies to keep it’s registration number using the ‘two major components from the original vehicle’ criteria as per requirement by DVLA, what then is the position should the original engine or other major component (which formed the qualification) fail for whatever reason thereby rendering them unsuitable for further use on the vehicle in question?
Chris. |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 12:57:14
|
Considering that there is no definition of original, nor any way of proving it in relation to suspension, axles or steering, I can’t see that changing any of these components over time is really going to be an issue. Obviously you could ask the DVLA for a ruling - but would you?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
tonym
United Kingdom
651 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 14:55:39
|
Then what about the case of Heritage shelled Midgets/MGB's etc - where probably the only original part is the V5 !
These quite happily retain the original reg. no. |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 15:06:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by tonym
Then what about the case of Heritage shelled Midgets/MGB's etc - where probably the only original part is the V5 !
These quite happily retain the original reg. no.
Exactly!
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
rodb
New Zealand
260 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2017 : 20:56:20
|
Bruce, thank you for your comments.
The FIVA General assembly accepted the PowerPoint presentation well with some countries requesting a copy of it for their use.
The FIVA Technical Commission were given the task to consider this ARV concept. I am a member of this Commission this year, but as the new online FIVA Identity Card has being under development, all available time has been concentrated on this task. It went online to a small number of countries in October.
Simon, The 4 NZ ARV so far, all have had to comply with new car regulations although some concessions have been prior negotiated. It was not easy but there are ways of complying.
They must have a collapsible steering system, but not restricted to just the column, two speed wipers and windscreen washers that have been cleverly engineered to sit in the chrome bonnet top buttons, and seat belts. Glass has to be laminated. Door locks if fitted have to be cleverly incorporated to comply.
Emission regulation compliance has been relaxed as the Authorities considered that only a small number of these cars will be on the road and providing the vehicles are tuned and tested to be as compliant as possible without determent to the vehicles reliability was acceptable.
These NZ ARV's are road legal.
The Registered make / name in NZ is not what it copies, but it is.
MAKE: LVVTA (it means Low Volume Vehicle)
MODEL: REPLICA 1932 ALFA ROMEO MONZA (describing the car in my flyer)
The make cannot be Alfa as Alfa did not make it. There could be all sorts of other MAKE: descriptions used like reconstruction, recreation etc, or ideally ARV.
In NZ the situation became apparent that if Sir Tom Wheatcroft were to bring his Royal to NZ it could not be used on the road as it did not comply, so we got to work and negotiated a position that would allow this type of new vehicle to comply.
Since this ARV concept has been around since before 2014, and cars built this way since the 1980's or earlier I thought it was appropriate to release it to this forum as vehicles do exist other than the Gregory cars.
In answer to Peter's question as a UK MG Car Club member since the 1970's, I am a Yes and Yes, conditional on careful categorization and separation from original M.G. vehicles.
Below is one page from my presentation.
RodB NZ |
|
|
|
Colin Butchers
United Kingdom
1480 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2017 : 09:46:12
|
Were R Types in production in 1932 ?
Colin B. |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5994 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2017 : 10:20:01
|
Rod,
As you say, the 'make cannot be Alfa as Alfa did not make it' and the same applies to an M.G. copy. So if it wasn't made by M.G. it's not a Triple-M car and has no place on the Register which is a list of surviving Triple-M cars. Should the M.G. Car Club should get involved in 'approving' and 'recording' such vehicles as opposed to simply 'noting' their existence? Personally, I don't think it should. Nice as they are, they're not M.G.s so have no place on the Register.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
