| Author |
 Topic  |
|
John James
United Kingdom
960 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2017 : 20:27:01
|
I was interested in Simon's post regarding rebuilt vehicles and whilst combing through the DVLA's rules and regulations I came across the term 'Radically Altered Vehicles'.
According to the DVLA:
"Radically altered vehicles are vehicles that have been altered from their original specification, but aren’t kit conversions."
Presumably, a K3 Rep built on a modified N chassis is a 'Radically Altered Vehicle'? |
 |
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5998 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2017 : 20:39:04
|
I would agree - the definition of a radically altered vehicle states:
DVLA uses a points system to decide what registration number to give a radically altered vehicle.
Keep the original registration number
Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) 5
Suspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1
Get a ‘Q’ registration number
You won’t be able to keep your vehicle’s original registration number if one of the following applies:
it has fewer than 8 points
it has a second-hand or altered chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame
there’s evidence that 2 vehicles have been welded together to form one (ie ‘cut and shut’)
Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a ‘Q’ prefix registration number.
Of course if a car has a current V5C and the chassis is subsequently modified, who would know, officially that is?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
John James
United Kingdom
960 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2017 : 21:43:53
|
| So, NA0356 (K3 Rep) is not entitled to the registration mark MG 3701. |
|
|
|
Colin McLachlan
United Kingdom
987 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2017 : 11:07:23
|
Whilst I agree with your sentiments at the foot of page 3, Simon, I think there is an argument for "recording" such ARVs by the Register, but not according them MG status by giving them a Register number. Perhaps a separate ARV "list" (not "register", to avoid confusion or misrepresentation), could be considered. Of course, persons building or owning such cars may not be interested in having them so listed, as such a listing immediately defines them as ARVs. This then raises the question, "Do we ask Register members to report such vehicles to the Register?", with the intention of building a list of non-MG Triple-Ms. I can see that this could be controversial  .
Colin
Markinch, Fife.
PA 0613
MG3242
Register No. 2591 |
|
|
|
rodb
New Zealand
260 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2017 : 13:08:47
|
Simon one strong point of the ARV concept is to accommodate and list all other vehicles that are not M.G.s and are not clearly black or white.
One scenario is; Assuming one recognizes that the chassis is the founding component of a vehicle like a human where without a skeleton we have a lot of body parts sitting on the floor where a car without a chassis is also a lot of body / mechanical parts sitting on the floor.
A member finds an old M.G. chassis that has been through a fire after its accident many years ago so it’s now rusted and also bent.
He accumulates all the other new parts to build his chosen M.G. vehicle appropriate to the year of the chassis. Once he starts the build he finds the chassis is not recoverable and ideally discovers there is a new chassis available, so he purchases this and builds a car that looks like, smells like, drives like, and sounds like the equivalent original M.G. he has chosen. He fits the original factory supplied and stamped dumb iron and decides he will not declare he has a new chassis because the club will not accept his car if he does. He destroys the old chassis so there is no trace of it now. One cannot see this dumb iron as it sits behind the front valance. He has an ARV.
But onlookers cannot distinguish it from the real M.G. it is parked next to.
Is this a M.G.? it never left the factory, it does not have the founding component any more but only the original chassis dumb irons. The dumb iron does carry continuous history of the original car.
To move into another grey area where he does not destroy the chassis immediately and his neighbor sees it and asks if he can have it. He is given the chassis and he now perseveres and repairs this chassis. He has no dumb iron so he casts one and fits it to the chassis clearly stamped with wrong font digits different to the factory.
He does exactly the same as his neighbor and build a new car on this original M.G. chassis. He has an M.G.
Because the register will not recognize his car as the number fonts do not agree with the factory fonts he is outside the club acceptability, unless he is able to convince them the chassis is indeed M.G. and his neighbor has the original dumb iron.
Is it not ideal to have both club listed for what they are within the club, both honestly described?
The car that the club will not accept or it may even be both, still exist and are used and possibly stored for some thirty years.
The next generation is gifted them and more years pass. Technology is advanced and a new dumb iron with correct stamped fonts is produced and fitted to the second car with the fire damaged chassis. The car is again presented to the register as a long lost but found M.G. and is accepted by the club as there was no records kept from the past of this car.
The other component to this second car is, the new descendant owner (Great Grandson) has purchased a copy of the chassis files from the register and as so much time has passed he finds a different chassis number appropriate to what his car represents that is not listed and uses this dormant number.
The main point of ARV is to list and categorize all these vehicle that exist and will be built in the future, so separation and honest descriptions follow. If they are outside the clubs we have lost control and anything is likely to happen in the future.
What has happened in the past is they acquire history and licence plates they are not entitled to.
Is it not our responsibility to ensure the future generations are provided with the correct information when they are buyers?
Colin, you seem to have understood the ARV concept as we intended it to follow, and we also identified the associated problems you have listed. We believe the ARV marketplace will develop in time and those problems will eventually evaporate. After all only 33 people can ever own a genuine factory built K3 if all can be found, where as now the quote often heard states that 100 have survived.
No they are not M.G.s but they are so close a copy they can only be recognized for what they are if they are listed within the club that has the expertise and knowledge and as a result are honestly described.
I would not be surprised if the above two examples has not already happened. And some are already listed in the register as real M.G.s
RodB NZ |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2017 : 14:41:52
|
Which, Rod, is where I came in originally!
In my view it is simply not appropriate for the Committee of the MMM Register to be judge and jury and determine what is, and what is not, eligible to be listed as a MMM MG in the Register. Doing so has ended up with the development and application over the years of an increasing number of detailed definitions which are still capable of misinterpretation.
As a listing by the Committee has the potential to add value to the car, it raises the possibility of a fraudulent claim of legitimacy simply for the monetary gain. On the other hand a refusal to list, or removal from listing, indicates that the Committee consider that the car does not meet their standards and is in some way misleading in its claim.
Taking your point that a listing of all cars claiming to be MMM MG's, including ARVs, supported by documentry and/or photographic evidence of the make up of the car would encourage a full listing of all 'varieties'. This would allow users of the listing to reach their own conclusions as the the closeness, or lack of it, to a claim to be an Abingdon manufactured car, containing key and original MMM components.
At the same time the possession of a MMM Register number would lose its potential to increase the value of a car, and reduce the temptation to create a misleading fabrication.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5998 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2017 : 19:23:22
|
Rod,
One could continue with the 'what if' scenarios forever. I think one of the best articles on this subject, albeit slightly (totally?) tongue in cheek, was by the redoubtable D.S.J. in Motor Sport in November 1989 - see http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/november-1989/56/rebuild If you can't accesss it I'll email it to you.
My concern is that if the M.G. Car Club starts to get into the business of authenticating cars (which in my view it has already done to some extent) it runs the risk of embroiling the Club in expensive litigation, not to mention imposing quite arbitrary criteria in deciding what is authentic. The role of the Register is to list the surviving cars. If there are duplicates as a consequence of a cast off chassis being resurrected years later as an apparently genuine (whatever that might mean) car, so be it. You might have noticed in the 'Cars Wanted' section that a potential buyer for a K3 preferred to look for a car with only one chassis number. Caveat emptor and all that.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
mgtommm
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2017 : 21:18:49
|
Most of us have seen these Pur Sang replicas - they are incredible. The fact that they are interested in building a "K3" somewhat verifies what we Triple-M folks have known for years - these cars are as qualified on the world stage as the others they build.
Also, it does get the K3 and (extrapolating here) therefore the entire Triple-M range out to the great unwashed younger generation. There's interest from the younger generation but they need exposure.
We have seen what the new Mini has done to fuel interest to the original Mini range but I doubt the current Chinese econoboxes are generating much love toward our 1930's MG's. To me, anything that creates interest in our cars keeps them alive for future generations.
However, if Pur Sang were to build a "K3" it would certainly not be an MG just like their "8C 2300" isn't an Alfa. Triple-M Register? No. Pur Sang Register - sure.
Interesting hobby, eh?
tommm in Ohio where fall is in full swing |
|
|
|
MG Maverick
United Kingdom
1045 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 07:17:58
|
May I ask a simple question please. My intention is to build my earlier J2 ( J2353 ) as a J4 replica. I have an MMM number for this car but as yet I have not applied for its original registration number as I was advised that the car needs to look like a car and not like a skeleton as at the moment ( no panelling as yet ). Will I be OK with this stategy, the second J2 ( J4129 ) will be at a similar stage as soon as the chassis arrives from Cyprus and I can make a start. This car will be a standard J2 using as many original parts that I have or can source. I have both buff logbooks for these cars. MMM registry wouldn't give J4129 a number as the car is still dismantled. I would be happy just rebuilding the cars, that is what I enjoy, I am not too concearned with fact of what they are worth, only that I enjoy my endeavour on the reconstruction. If my two J2s don't meet the criteria for the MMM registry, then so be it, I intend to drive J4129 on track days eventually so that will be my focus. Thankyou.
CJD
|
Edited by - MG Maverick on 07/11/2017 07:34:23 |
|
|
|
ashley
United Kingdom
261 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 07:33:41
|
Chris
My interpretation and particularly as this thread seems to demonstrate is that the chassis is the car regardless what body etc goes on it. Surely the MMM registery will therefore let you have a number for the car?
I will.send you a pm
Regards
Ashley
Ps the J4 idea sounds great, |
|
|
|
MG Maverick
United Kingdom
1045 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 07:44:27
|
Thankyou Ashley, I have had a spell of ill health after a bad reaction from my flu jab, I will be in touch with a progress update soon, J2353s upgrade to J4 spec. I did not plan this, only obtaining the ENV gearbox from Ron Grants estate altered my plan and I like the idea of restoring a project car that is a little different. As your plans are similar, we will be able to swop notes I'm sure.
CJD
 |
Edited by - MG Maverick on 07/11/2017 07:46:17 |
|
|
|
John James
United Kingdom
960 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 09:45:06
|
Is a J2 upgraded to J4 spec a "Radically altered vehicle"?
|
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 09:49:22
|
Five days, 3,800 reads and not a word on this key subject from any member of the Register Committee, though they have contributed to other threads in this time.
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5998 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 10:14:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by MG Maverick
MMM registry wouldn't give J4129 a number as the car is still dismantled.
I do find this odd as my car was immediately allocated a Register number (which, after all, is really only a way of keeping count and not evidence of its completeness or authenticity) despite looking like this when I bought it.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
ashley
United Kingdom
261 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 10:53:05
|
The topic is proving to be very interesting and other very much associated issues are running alongside.
After repatriating my F2 special, copy etc, replica is a no no word.
I must say that Dick, George and John Hutchinson helped enormously with retrieving the original registration number from the DVLA for me. I when I bought my J2 with Dutch plates went through the very complicated task of obtaining the original regeistration which took a great deal of time and of course I did not have the clout or weight of the MG Car Club. The Registry have given F0707 a MMM register no, me providing photos of car, chassis no, engine no and a few communications from the factory file which showed the registration number.
Moving on from this which again runs alongside the topic closely. I would like to ask members opinions of F0707 by way I mean on what to be done to the car, how they see it, how they would approach it and any views.
I k know which way I am going with it but will leave that till later.
F0707 was an F1 Salonette Reg no GY 3450, purchase date 25th June 1932, supplied by Newnham Motor Company, Hammersmith. Factory file states the engine failed and a new complete engine replaced at Abingdon (I have yet to peer under the bulk head ash frame to see if the is a number). A historic photo shows the car with a J4 type apron but not clear enough to show a carb sticking out, so cant confirm it was supercharged.
The car as it stands, has doors which are not in good condition, door pillars are okay but not the best, S Gilbert suggests new body but no way does it need one, bonnet is an awful diy job as is are the valances.
So put back as Salonette at a vast amount of money, this being not just body but wings, bonnet, tank, windscreen etc etc etc, leave as F2 special/ copy or what else?
With all this in mind what difference is this car to Chris’s J2 which he wants to complete a J4 copy.
Also is my car a genuine MG then as it’s just the chassis, engine, gearbox and running gear which are left after leaving Abingdon?
Also does anyone have any info on the car. Bone Bros sold the car in the 70s and went out to Norway?
All interesting stuff, constructive comments, ideas etc please
Ashley
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
