Sam_68
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 02:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
As i read the gov document its not Post 92 regs, its current Mot regulations, meaning a CAT test (post 2002)
Yes, apologies - you're quite right.
Still fuel injection and a catalyst still ought to be able to meet the requirements on pretty much any non-prehistoric engine?
|
|
|
|
|
Edwardo
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
erm yes me, if it goes through then I need to scrap the Pinto unit and parts I have bought over the years and spend tons more on an engine
which will pass emissions which will be significantly more expensive.
While I'm not against the proposal I feel it's a bit unfair on those part way through a build. I'd be happy for it to be in force
from 2020
I think everybody agrees that it's the time scale they are proposing that's not fair to us 'mid-builders'. I think we all
agree with the idea going forwards.
It's not the cost of buying a new engine from my point of view - you can pick up an MX5 (purely for example) engine/box very-very cheaply these
days. Whole scrap cars can be bought for less than a coupe of hundred quid.
It's all the extra work at this stage to get it into a chassis that was designed for a Pinto that I object to! And as we all know as kit
builders - it's the ancillary bits that sting you heavily in the wallet - ie hundreds of pounds for a new expensive manifold and silencer
because your exhaust now goes out the other side/hybrid or new propshaft possibly etc etc.
Personally it would involve stripping my car back down to the bare chassis - cutting and re-welding the engine supports and probably gearbox tunnel
tubes/diff mounts etc (my welding is not good enough for important parts like this so it would involve getting a pro in to do it££ - it just
wouldn't be worth it for an old 2B chassis).
I have drafted my objection and will be sending it tomorrow. Fingers crossed they listen and allow us a sensible 'grace' period (although
I don't hold out much hope of that tbh).
Cheers
Tony
|
|
|
softfeet
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 04:42 PM |
|
|
Perhaps I am being a bit cynical or mischievous, but this proposal, if implemented, may cause the value of Pinto engines to plummet and the value of
Dutton V5s to rocket...
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by softfeet
Perhaps I am being a bit cynical or mischievous, but this proposal, if implemented, may cause the value of Pinto engines to plummett...
Oh, I dunno. People will always need good mud anchors. 
Joking aside, Andyace, you wouldn't have to scrap your engine. If it's to a decent spec, just sell it on to one of the Fast Ford
boys, and pick up a more modern, more powerful engine for probably less than you've spent on it?
It would be a pain re-engineering the rest of the car slightly to accept it, but hardly the end of the world?
Certainly agree that a period of grace would be nice, but if we don't get it, life goes on...
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 08:03 PM |
|
|
I think you are all somewhat missing the point, at least to a certain extent - "compliance with the MoT standard at the time of registration
will be required" - is a very "wooly" description & means you are agreeing to have your vehicle tested to whatever standard is
in force at the time of completion of the build - I see plenty of builds on here that have taken 10 years or more, what on earth the MoT regs are
likely to be in 10 years, god only knows.
Also, just because it doesn't affect you personally "I've got my car IVA'd & registered, I'm alright Jack" is
not a reason to allow others to get their plans trashed due to bureaucracy, the guys saying they have Pinto engines or similar - these certainly
could be made to pass current MoT regs, possibly even with carbs, but certainly not without a lot of faffing & tinkering
As I said b4, let's stick together on this & get some letters in to
Robert Lloyd-Smith
Zone 1/33,
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road,
London,
SW1P 4DR
As for "Still fuel injection and a catalyst still ought to be able to meet the requirements on pretty much any non-prehistoric engine?" -
yes, but if you'd just laid out ££££'s for a set of twin webbers or similar, I think you'd have every right to feel a bit miffed.
Also, if you have swapped cams, valves, had head work done then you may have a fair bit of retuning to do to get a car to pass. Remember very few
people run the stock air plenum & management so it's never going to be straightforward
At best we want existing regulations to continue & at worst a 2 or 4 year "breathing space" to allow builds to be finished
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
tims31
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 08:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyace
Ok so preparing for the worst (or best as we save the planet) .... assuming my 2.0 pinto with zx9r bike carbs won't pass emissions, what's
my cheapest option (relative term) to get an engine which does meet current emissions
Assuming I buy a brand new Zetec 2 litre blacktop whats the cheapest option to get it to pass emissions?? Can I use my ZX9r carbs on it and still pass
emissions or do I HAVE to go injection ... I have a type 9 .... would I need a cat ... ? I'm an old school engine person and don't have
the knowledge (yet) of newer engines.
A new zetec will cost me £1100 ish, how much will it cost above this to get the cheapest passable engine ??
Would appreciate some input from my knowledgeable members, thanks
Why buy a New Zetec, an old Mondeo 2.0ltr and you have almost everything you need to fit to your car, Engine, ECU throttle body etc. for a couple of
hundred quid. My zetec cost me £140.
I have detailed mine in my build blog see below
However all though it does not affect me directly at the moment (I'm lucky mine passed last year) I do intend to write a letter and have my
opinion to try and preserve what we do have as an industry here in the UK. The details provided in the Kitcar magazine statement make a good base for
it.
[Edited on 8/2/18 by tims31]
Build: http://www.martinsfurybuild.co.uk/
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 8/2/18 at 08:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...we want existing regulations to continue...
You don't speak for all of us, Russ.
Some of us have seen the writing on the wall. Emissions are going to continue to be driven down on mainstream cars, like it or not. The planet is
dying and governments have got to be seen to at least try to do something about it.
The further out of step individually built vehicles become with mainstream legislation, the sooner they'll be banned outright.
Meeting current MOT standard (whatever that happens to be at the time) isn't all that stringent - it means that cars we're newly
registering are allowed to be as dirty as the worst mainstream production cars of similar age that would be tolerated before being removed from the
roads as being unfit and unroadworthy. It's really not that unreasonable a requirement, when you think about it.
By all means argue for a reasonable transition period, but I have no problem with being asked to comply with minimum levels of roadworthyness for cars
of equivalent age in the longer term.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 07:54 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...we want existing regulations to continue...
You don't speak for all of us, Russ.
Some of us have seen the writing on the wall. Emissions are going to continue to be driven down on mainstream cars, like it or not. The planet is
dying and governments have got to be seen to at least try to do something about it.
The further out of step individually built vehicles become with mainstream legislation, the sooner they'll be banned outright.
Meeting current MOT standard (whatever that happens to be at the time) isn't all that stringent - it means that cars we're newly
registering are allowed to be as dirty as the worst mainstream production cars of similar age that would be tolerated before being removed from the
roads as being unfit and unroadworthy. It's really not that unreasonable a requirement, when you think about it.
By all means argue for a reasonable transition period, but I have no problem with being asked to comply with minimum levels of roadworthyness for cars
of equivalent age in the longer term.
You misunderstand me, "we want existing regulations to continue" is purely a bargaining position, ask for 2 years you might get 1, or just
6 months, ask for 4, you might 2, so why not ask for the continued status quo?
ALL world governments have their head in the sand completely ignoring the elephant in the room of too many people on the planet with the no.
increasing at an exponential rate, (in any other organism, the rate of human increase would be seen as a cancer or similar) ALL governments have their
economic policy based on an expanding economy - how can you continue to infinitely expand on a finite planet, we had better ask Elon Musk to get his
finger out!
ALL the worlds governing bodies are simply fiddling whilst Rome burns, items such as the one in hand are simply paperwork exercises to appear to be
doing something. If you removed the entire human population tomorrow, you would still have acid seas & bleaching corals & you would still have
climate change, there is too much inertia behind it all now & no amount of windfarms & solar panels will fix it with an increasing population.
Whilst I agree we should still try for improvements silly little changes such as this one probably actually have the opposite effect, you do know
everytime you do something on the internet you are generating heat? Well this daft idea will probably generate moire than it will ever save! 
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 08:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
...so why not ask for the continued status quo?
Because "we" don't want it. It's a bad idea, for the long-term health of the industry.
Evolve or die...
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 09:13 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
...so why not ask for the continued status quo?
Because "we" don't want it. It's a bad idea, for the long-term health of the industry.
Evolve or die...
So you don't understand the point of a bargaining position? I actually agree that it is probably a bad idea for the industry in the long term,
but you really do have to question how long a term is left for what's left of "our" industry anyway .............
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
jps
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 09:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
The further out of step individually built vehicles become with mainstream legislation, the sooner they'll be banned outright.
Yeah - Like they've banned traction engines and steam trains and steam cars... Oh no, because they have negligible impact in the grand scheme of
things, they haven't have they!!!
I also have no problem with, long term, bringing things more in line. This is a rather abrupt proposed implementation of a change though - probably
proposed by people who didn't think of the knock on consequences.
|
|
|
SJ
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
Anybody fancy writing a book on how to build one of these for £250?
 
Fred
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 03:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jps
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
The further out of step individually built vehicles become with mainstream legislation, the sooner they'll be banned outright.
Yeah - Like they've banned traction engines and steam trains and steam cars... Oh no, because they have negligible impact in the grand scheme of
things, they haven't have they!!!
Erm... yes, they have, actually, you know.
As per Daviep's post on agricultural machinery, above, you'll find that they have effectively banned traction engines. Steam trains
and steam cars, too. Nobody has noticed, of course, because we voluntarily stopped building them decades ago, because of their ludicrous
inefficiency.
It would be impossible to 'register' new examples any of them, under the relevant legislation for their respective industries, unless you
could prove that their external combustion processes were sufficiently low emissions (obviously steam itself is zero emissions... it's whatever
means of boiling the water that's the problem). You certainly wouldn't get away with one that ran on coal, with an old-fashioned firebox
and tube boiler.
We're not talking (yet) about banning the use or restoration of existing historic vehicles. We're talking about the first
registration of newly-built vehicles.
|
|
|
clive7883
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 06:08 PM |
|
|
Instead of forum members agreeing and disagreeing on various points of the proposed I.V.A changes, if they could put that energy into writing to the
person mentioned in the consultation document, Robert Lloyd-Smith , it may help us all, I have spent the afternoon composing a letter/email,
see it below, some may care to copy it word for word if that is easier for them , others may wish to add or subtract points, But if we all send
something in it may just help. Not only us, but others in the future.
Email; ivs.consult@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Robert Lloyd-Smith
Zone 1/33
Great Minster house
33 Horseferry road
London SW1P 4DR
Date
Ref; Road Vehicles improving air quality and safety consultation.
Dear Sir,
With regards to the above mentioned document, I do understand the need to review, and if necessary, update vehicle
safety and pollution specifications from time to time, however, I must object to question 4.10 regarding kit car emissions.
The proposal, if it were implemented, would have a major impact on a great many individuals who have spent hard earned money and many
hours, in some cases years, constructing vehicles , as yet unfinished, using recycled engines and other components that would otherwise have gone for
scrap, subsequently creating pollution in the process.
It will also have a dramatic impact on the U.K. specialist and kit car manufactures and there suppliers, whilst not a large industry
compared to major motor manufacturers, it is unique to the U.K. keeping a lot of people, a great number of which have specialist skills, fully
employed.
The introduction of the S.V.A. test, then the I.V.A. test has insured all vehicles are built to a safe standard, a fact borne out by the
low insurance premiums these cars command.
On a day to day basis, there are very few kit cars or classic cars used on the roads, most are reserved for days out or weekends, it is
not uncommon for these vehicles to have limited mileage insurance of only 2000 or 3000 miles a year, with the vast majority not covering 1000 a
year.
The emissions impact of such a small number of vehicles, doing very low annual mileage really doesn't warrant the very heavy handed
controls being considered, I strongly request this element of the proposed new legislation be dropped.
Yours Faithfully.
Well there's the letter if you want to copy it,please do, but whatever you do, please, please write something, please don't be
complacent and not do anything, if this legislation goes through, its one more nail in the coffin so to speak, and it will just make it harder and
harder for people to build individual road cars in the future
Thanks.
[Edited on 9/2/18 by clive7883]
[Edited on 9/2/18 by clive7883]
[Edited on 9/2/18 by clive7883]
[Edited on 9/2/18 by clive7883]
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 06:14 PM |
|
|
What Clive said ^^^, let's stop bickering & get some letters sent!
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
PorkChop
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 07:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by craigdiver
quote:
Originally posted by PorkChop
I think this is being blown out of proportion a bit and people are getting confused; the people that really need to worry about this is those fitting
80s or earlier engines. As I said earlier, the DfT seems to have made the assumption that if you have a Euro 1 or later engine, then you have the
hardware to meet the 2002 MOT limits. This is an assumption I can understand, a big enough cat with enough precious metal, enough temperature and not
running rich should be enough to oxidise enough CO and HC to meet the limits.
To put it in perspective, I have a very early, pre Euro 1 MX5 engine (which does have a cat and EFi). I'm not overly concerned about the
proposals, it's just the exhaust line will need a bit of thought.
This is great info PorkChop - just to be crystal clear, you mention the need to meet Euro 1 for MOT, does this also apply to cars going through IVA?
(you need to be able to pass 2002 MOT limits to pass IVA emissions test?)
The key thing to remember about Euro legislation and the MOT is that the test procedures are very different. All Euro tests are conducted on chassis
dynos, following a prescribed speed trace (which was the NEDC, and most recently the WLTP), therefore you are in different gears and engine speeds /
loads. As we know, the MOT emissions tests are conducted on a vehicle at a standstill over a relatively narrow engine speed range in neutral. You are
also required to meet different tailpipe limits.
There seems to be nothing in the proposals that require an engine to be fitted which met any of the Euro standards when fitted to the donor vehicle.
It just has to pass the relevant tailpipe emissions when presented for IVA.
The proposals rule out needing to have NEDC or WLTP testing for a kit car undergoing IVA.
In theory, a Pinto could be made to meet the MOT standards. Don't forget, the A series was fitted with EFi and a catalyst; which allowed it meet
at least Euro 2 (and possibly Euro 3) emissions standard when fitted to the classic Mini.
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
One point that seems to be getting missed here. The mot limits are not set in stone. They can and will only be made more stringent and then we have an
ever moving set of goalposts. This is the big issue. What happens if you spend £xxx getting your engine to meet current standards only for them to
tighten up mot regs and your back to square one.
Send a letter/email. I don't think it will change the dft's mind as they are a complete bureaucratic nightmare devoid of all common
sense.
But we have to try!
|
|
|
PorkChop
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
What Clive said ^^^, let's stop bickering & get some letters sent!
Why? I disagree that it is something that needs objecting to. Bear in mind this directly affects me and my build.
|
|
|
PorkChop
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
One point that seems to be getting missed here. The mot limits are not set in stone. They can and will only be made more stringent and then we have an
ever moving set of goalposts. This is the big issue. What happens if you spend £xxx getting your engine to meet current standards only for them to
tighten up mot regs and your back to square one.
Send a letter/email. I don't think it will change the dft's mind as they are a complete bureaucratic nightmare devoid of all common
sense.
But we have to try!
Quite, they're not set in stone, although it's worth bearing in mind they haven't changed for the last 16 years. That situation is
not going to change until the next raft of MOT proposals come in either, whenever that is. This is when you could have something tangible to object
to, rather than whys and wherefores as you do currently.
And who is to say that if these IVA proposals didn't go through this year, the DfT isn't going to propose the scenario you describe as
'the big issue' further down the line anyway?
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 09:15 PM |
|
|
But by that point your already in with the masses and won't have any say as a collective community.
I can see you have differing views as everyone will. Yes this isn't a massive step now. But this is the thin end of the wedge.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 9/2/18 at 11:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
...this is the thin end of the wedge.
The thin end of the wedge was when we rolled over and accepted SVA without a fight, back in 1998.
We're trying to close the stable door 20 years after the horse has bolted.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 10/2/18 at 10:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PorkChop
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
What Clive said ^^^, let's stop bickering & get some letters sent!
Why? I disagree that it is something that needs objecting to. Bear in mind this directly affects me and my build.
Fine, so don't send a letter! But don't then complain a few years down the line when they introduce NOx limits to the MoT or similar &
someone who's starting a build now will be completely stuffed
I would point out this has no direct effect on me as everything I put in as a manufacturer HAS to pass the CAT test anyway, irrelevant of engine year,
but I don't agree we should just roll over without even commenting on it
"The thin end of the wedge was when we rolled over and accepted SVA without a fight, back in 1998." - Really? Disagree entirely, I thought
pretty much everyone agreed that overall SVA was a good thing, made a LOT of people clean up their act. IVA, however was a different matter, where
else but in a government department could you think that an increase in charges of over 700% for a test that had barely changed could possibly be
reasonable - & unfortunately this is the sort of bludgeoning bureaucracy we have to deal with
& I still say let's stop bickering & either take action or don't as each of us sees fit
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 10/2/18 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
"The thin end of the wedge was when we rolled over and accepted SVA without a fight, back in 1998." - Really? Disagree entirely, I thought
pretty much everyone agreed that overall SVA was a good thing...
Not me - I was writing to the magazines (those being the days before internet was in such commonplace use) saying exactly that it was the thin
end of the wedge, for exactly the reasons that have transpired... that it would give an easy mechanism by which the Regs could be progressively
tightened and made more obstructive, without the ability for effective resistance, to the point where the industry ceased to be viable.
We were sold a dummy, with SVA - the ultimate outcome was inevitable.
To be fair, my concerns were based mainly on the similar system for homebuilt aircraft, where the UK has a delightfully Catch-22 situation that
you're not allowed to build a design unless it has proven successful over so many flight hours, but you're not allowed to fly a prototype
to gain those hours - leaving us only able to pick up designs second-hand from other countries.
I firmly believe that you can't have a progressive and innovative engineering industry without some risk, and there was never any
evidence that kit or self-built cars were particularly dangerous - just the opposite, from the insurance figures; they were always a very good
risk.
Congratulations, though - you've obviously got the system that you wanted: nannied to the point where even the most trivial risk is
removed... including environmental risk.
|
|
|
jester
|
| posted on 10/2/18 at 06:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mattf
Some info. on the Complete Kitcar magazine website here
Nice one
|
|
|
snippy
|
| posted on 11/2/18 at 11:09 PM |
|
|
Done my bit and sent an e-mail with my concerns tonight. It potentially affects me running a 4age on webers. Car is almost finished too 
|
|
|
