Gav
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:04 PM |
|
|
Isnt this a bit naughty?
Noticed
Th
is on fleabay, says its basically a RH lightweight but registered as a 1969 Lotus!
perhaps some one being a bit naughty and trying to circumvent SVA'ing a lightweight?
|
|
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:06 PM |
|
|
Just a bit on the naughty side. Changing a cars identity and all that...
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
matt.c
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:10 PM |
|
|
Flak you have U2U
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:12 PM |
|
|
The cheek of trying to call a light weight a "proper" Lotus! Especially if it's not had the chassis modified, that could be damn
dangerous.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:12 PM |
|
|
the clue is here: "...only selling due to me leaving the country..." i.e. "once I've got the cash, tough titty"!
Should this be reported to eBay? I just doublechecked on the DVLA website and it shouldn't be registered as a 1969 Lotus, since it doesn't
have the original chassis, nor even the same type of chassis.
From the DVLA website relating to "Vehicles that have been rebuilt using a mix of new or used parts:
In order to retain the original registration mark
The original unmodified chassis or unaltered bodyshell (i.e. body and chassis as one unit - monocoque); or a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the
same specification as the original supported by evidence from the dealer or manufacturer (e.g. receipt)."
Definitely not the original chassis, and not the same spec as the original as it is now a (sort of) monocoque?
http://direct.gov.uk/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicleArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10014246&chk=VsQ/Fs
[Edited on 14.01.2007 by Humbug]
|
|
|
zoom
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:26 PM |
|
|
This was on the road BEFORE the problems with the lightweight and I,and a few others on thr RH site believed this guy had put the car throught
sva.
Puts a sour taste in your mouth thinking about it as it is also tax exempt!!!!
mycar
mybuildsite
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
Tax exempt, but also illegal. It runs the risk of being scrapped/impounded if recognised/found out.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
Skating close to fraud if someone buys it believing it is legally a 69 lotus. With that on your sheet you won't be emigrating anywhere
you'd want to stay.
|
|
|
stevec
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zoom
This was on the road BEFORE the problems with the lightweight and I,and a few others on thr RH site believed this guy had put the car throught
sva.
Puts a sour taste in your mouth thinking about it as it is also tax exempt!!!!
Warwick?
Steve.
|
|
|
hillbillyracer
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 10:55 PM |
|
|
Just what is 1969 lotus about this car?
New chassis of a different type, New bodywork to suit the different chassis, Engine gearbox & suspension all of a type not in production in 1969,
New wheels & tyres...
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
just a few pieces of paper! 
|
|
|
stevec
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 11:25 PM |
|
|
Warwick who owns this car has just posted this on th Robin hood forum after some hefty criticism from memebers on there.
Hi all
First of all lets just say that I now know why this club is going down the pan, your all speculating what can and cant be done without knowing the
real facts. So below I will give a couple of examples then explain my situation.
Eg1
I see a rusting MGB in a field its full of holes and has been stripped bare of all the major components. MG no longer makes this car so I come across
Bill Bloggs motors who sell MGB shells and panels, I purchase one shell and necessary panels along with any other components. I then scour EBAY and
any other classifieds for engine, gearbox and any other parts I need even lights and glass interior trim. When the car is finished I then take it
along to get it MOTd , I insure the car and get my Road tax. The car is still an MGB its not now called a Bill Blogg special. This car doesn’t need an
SVA as its been on the road already and is already registered.
Eg2
I’m one of the boy racing fraternity, I have a Renault Clio. One day I decide to take my angle grinder to my car and decide to add 6 inch wide arches
all around, I take the back seats out and put a V8 engine in the back. I put gull wing doors on and put a huge vent in the bonnet. This now doesn’t
change from being a Renault Clio I just notify DVLA of the new cc of the engine and the new engine number. Visually it looks like no other Clio on the
road but its still registered as such.
Now my case
I restore classic cars, Minis mostly, as I was searching for my next project I came across a series 2 lotus in very sorry shape. It looked like it had
been used for racing or auto testing sometime in its past. The engine was not original crossflow but was fitted with a pinto and it had a 4-speed box.
As Lotus no longer does the 7 I inquired to caterham. They again couldn’t help only offering me a later chassis, and by the time I’d purchased all
these from caterham we were talking a second mortgage. I found out about the LW and liked the way it was made, the weight saving, speed of build along
with the cost of course made it viable. So this I bought. I didn’t have a donor sierra I bought parts brand new, some from caterham themselves. The
engine came from the original chassis diff I sourced along with the 5-speed box. I completed the car and did what I would do in Eg1.
You may say its not genuine as its not made from lotus parts, but lotus no longer makes the parts, just as in the MG example above it can still be
classed as one as it was originally registered as one.
You might say it doesn’t look exactly like one or the dimensions are a few centimetres out here and there, well take a look again at Eg2 the Renault
doesn’t look like any other car but it doesn’t matter because it has already been registered.
I think a lot of you have got the impression you can just say that your car is a lotus or a Ferrari and that’s it, but its not. I started out with an
original car and have rebuilt it. I used RH to supply me the parts. I could of quite easily made the parts in my garage, if I did would you all like
to see me register it as a Warwick Special, I don’t think so.
The advert on Ebay states exactly what the car is a lotus 7 rebuilt using a lightweight chassis and modern parts. So to all those who say I should
withdraw the advert think again I’ve described it perfectly.
If I was selling my MGB would I have to sell it saying it was made from a Bill Bloggs shell NO.
I suggest you all get back in you garage and do something useful before commenting on something you know nothing about. Not one of you have had the
decency to PM me and ask me direct you all just chit chat amongst yourselves. It’s a sad show when I find this going on.
Hope this clears the situation up, and stop asking me stupid questions on EBAY. Already had 2 people round today and they liked the car, and knew what
they were buying.
|
|
|
Catpuss
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 11:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zoom
This was on the road BEFORE the problems with the lightweight and I,and a few others on thr RH site believed this guy had put the car throught
sva.
Puts a sour taste in your mouth thinking about it as it is also tax exempt!!!!
According to the action he didn't have to put it through the SVA as its just rebuilding an old car.
Errm, what parts of the Lotus are in this build?
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 11:40 PM |
|
|
Even his examples above prove him wrong! With the MG he talks about, it would use pattern parts, to make a "new" mg. It's still an
mg, with the correct parts. Example 2 is just plain stupid and not really related to this, since he's changed the chassis for a mono and just
about every mechanical part on the car. If he had used an original or pattern chassis, all would be fine, that's just called upgrading. However,
what he's built is a RH lightweight, and bears no resemblance to the original in any way, shape or indeed form. It can in no way be called
rebuilding. A classic case of ringing.
[Edited on 14/1/07 by DIY Si]
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
hillbillyracer
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 11:53 PM |
|
|
So he has "rebuilt" the original Lotus with pretty much entirely non standard parts & says it's still the original because the
correct parts aint available. Have I got that right?
Using this theory you could get the identity of any long dead out of production car & then build a replica & call it the original. I've
a lot to learn about registering a kit car but I dont think I'll try this.
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 14/1/07 at 11:55 PM |
|
|
Chassis are available from Arch motors and are suprisingly reasonable. I have a set of plans of that chassis that is still made for the older
caterhams s2 and s3 and these are also on the web. Arch will sell you the correct chassis with mods to rebuild.....
He has just taken a rare and historic car and trashed it. Wally
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 12:02 AM |
|
|
Simple solution really. To put us all in our places and prove that this car is perfectly properly registered a quick request to the cops in Truro to
see the car and clarify. Warwick seems entirely confident that he is 100% correct and the RH forum is full of slanderous trouble makers, much like
locosters
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 12:21 AM |
|
|
Heritage make MGB bodyshells from the original tooling (http://www.bmh-ltd.com/bodyshells2.htm). Therefore it is OEM specification and you
can legally reshell a car and maintain continuity of registration.
What a numpty, it's not as if the law is unclear about this. All the rules are on the DVLA website and written in clear English.
Just wanting reality to be different isn't enough unfortunately.
[Edited on 15/1/07 by iank]
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 12:39 AM |
|
|
somebody should buy it for the lotus chassis number then rebuild that - use the lightweight as a track day car until it falls to pieces .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 01:36 AM |
|
|
Just out of curiosity what were the problems with the lightweight last I heard anything about it is my very old RH catalogue where it was just being
offered.
I mind thinking at the time it looked quite flimsy especially in a crash.
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 01:49 AM |
|
|
never mind I found the RH forum.
Glad I never bought one of those.
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 07:14 AM |
|
|
He's probably technically OK as far as eBay and Trade Descriptions Act, etc. are concerned, because he has described it in the ad... it's
just that the registration is illegal, i.e. a ringer
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 07:54 AM |
|
|
What he says is wrong, and is a poor interpretation of the rules at best. Its a ringer, simple as that. If it were rebuilt using an as orginal chassis
and as many replica parts as necessary (the MG example) then it would be fine. But its not, sounds like the only thing he held on to was the
engine.
Report it to the local plod/DVLA and see what they have to say about it.
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
chockymonster
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 08:04 AM |
|
|
He is definately wrong.
The vehicle is classed as rebuilt. It is not using the original chassis, The engine isn't a problem as long as it was changed on the V5.
I'm sure the other lightweight owners will feel the same as us. For him to put a car on the road, doing exactly the same as we have and not go
through the SVA is just wrong and also dangerous.
He may restore cars but there has been no in depth independant check to see if the car is roadworthy.
It would be a shame if someone spoke to DVLA and asked them the question.
PLEASE NOTE - Responses on Forum Threads may contain Sarcasm and may not be suitable for the hard of Thinking.
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 09:24 AM |
|
|
The stupidity of all this, is that if he took the trouble to build a chassis identical to the original, the car would be worth a good deal more than
it is now.
If the police checked that thing it would be in little doubt that it is a 'ringer'. He would have had to put the original chassis number
on it somewhere. That's where plod would get him! Falsifying the ID.
Has he invited the police to verify his statements and actions?
Cheers,
Syd.
|
|
|
