Board logo

Locost Ringer
alfas - 29/12/14 at 03:09 PM

TXTRIPPER 1,400 twin-weeber tax exempt little weapon

avoid!!!

Dick Axtell - 29/12/14 at 03:27 PM

The TX Tripper, which I recall, was based on a Spitfire chassis, (Triumph, not SuperMarine), with an oddly beach-buggy-like g/f body. Somebody living nearby actually built one, using the GT6 engine and g/box.

Maybe the use of an identical model name is purely coincidental? Doubtful, IMHO!

CosKev3 - 29/12/14 at 03:29 PM

What's a txtripper?

Slimy38 - 29/12/14 at 03:38 PM

Is it just me or do the pictures look like they were ripped from a previous auction?

motorcycle_mayhem - 29/12/14 at 03:46 PM

Although it has twinn weebers, there's no mention of awsum breaks, so (of course) I would avoid this car.

This 1147cc tax-exempt (1972) TXTripper will appeal to someone, but it's not my cup of tea.

[Edited on 30/12/14 by motorcycle_mayhem]

ReMan - 29/12/14 at 04:08 PM

Similar to a TX Tripper..............
tripper
tripper

[Edited on 29/12/14 by ReMan]

Dick Axtell - 29/12/14 at 04:24 PM

Yep - that's what I remembered!!

r1_pete - 29/12/14 at 06:17 PM

Will have to send one of those querries, because it looks nothing like a Tripper

Tripper
Tripper

200mph - 29/12/14 at 06:24 PM

Askmid has it listed as 'kitcar'...

loggyboy - 29/12/14 at 06:31 PM

Registered as 1150cc, not 1400
as green not black/silver.
insured simply as 'kit car'

jacko - 29/12/14 at 07:01 PM

Look.s like a Luego kitcar to me

Andybarbet - 29/12/14 at 07:25 PM

Rollbar & front grille look Luego, no bonnet bulge so possibly the Luego locost bodywork.

rusty nuts - 29/12/14 at 07:46 PM

Grill looks like a Luego as does the headlamp mounting bracket, not sure I've ever seen a 1400 cross flow

rick1962uk - 29/12/14 at 08:09 PM

i dont agree with the add but its not a ringer if it is the police should be notified as its stolen sorry to rant but just thinking of the comeback if the owner picks up on the forum

but your right one to be avoided

theduck - 29/12/14 at 08:32 PM

A ringer covers any car being used on the road using the identity of another car in order to seem legitimate/legal

rick1962uk - 29/12/14 at 08:36 PM

but are you 100% it hasnt just had a body swap as i said i dont agree with it but we must be careful

blakep82 - 29/12/14 at 08:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by motorcycle_mayhem
Although it has twinn weebers, there's no mention of awsum breaks, so (of course) this illegal heap is to be avoided.


But it is described at a "weapon" and therefore the owner should be shot.

theduck - 29/12/14 at 08:41 PM

Yes, I am 100% sure, because the car they are claiming it to be uses spitfire chassis and it is clear from the pictures that is not on a spitfire chassis.

alfas - 29/12/14 at 09:48 PM

for me it looks like a locost / haynes roadster chassis

ianhurley20 - 29/12/14 at 10:57 PM

http://avcis.police.uk/portfolio-item/contact-us/

Why not ring them or email and let them know - if its wrong AVCIS will find out - or drop it

rusty nuts - 31/12/14 at 06:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by rick1962uk
but are you 100% it hasnt just had a body swap as i said i dont agree with it but we must be careful


As already pointed out theTX Tripper used a Triumph chassis There is NO WAY that chassis is a Triumph therefore the car is being sold as something it isn't which means it's a RINGER

kj - 1/1/15 at 10:50 AM

Not cheap either, someone would probably buy it too.

mark chandler - 1/1/15 at 12:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by rick1962uk
i dont agree with the add but its not a ringer if it is the police should be notified as its stolen sorry to rant but just thinking of the comeback if the owner picks up on the forum

but your right one to be avoided


I,m with Rick on this, there is no evidence that this is a stolen car wearing another's plates which would be a ringer, it imay be an incorrectly registered car which is a different matter as it also depends upon when it was modified.

The old rules were very lax, as an example if you transferred the majority of the components of a car to another chassis you were allowed to retain the original plates, this explains why you sometimes see historic rally cars, let's say a MkII escort first produced around 1975 wearing earlier plates from a mkI escort, the body's were wreaked so they moved all the parts over to a later shell, DVLA would inspect and you keep your original number.

Another example are kit car cobra's etc wearing triumph plates when the only item carried over were the front uprights, you just registered having rebodied the car, then subsequently an engine change, followed by advising you had upgraded the chassis and brakes ...... Eventually you could morph a car into something else, bending the rules yes but not illegal, they should really be inspected remember when the rules were made cars all had chassis.

If the price reflects the physical value then the owner if concerned should arrange an inspection making allowance for the costs to correctly register if required.

rusty nuts - 1/1/15 at 12:50 PM

If the chassis is as some people suspect is a Luego then I think you will find Luego didn't start producing road chassis's until after the SVA test was introduced. IMHO the SVA and later IVA tests have reduced the number of poorly built and downright dangerous kit cars being produced and road registered (or not as the case may be)
I suspect that in the event of an accident any insurance taken out on this vehicle may well be invalid due to false information being supplied .

Wadders - 1/1/15 at 01:19 PM

Whilst the SVA and IVA might have stopped a few horrors hitting the roads, i think its fair to point out that thousands of perfectly engineered cars were made and modified by men in sheds without loss of life and limb prior to the nanny brigade getting involved.

Live and let live i say...........and buyer beware of course.

SteveWallace - 2/1/15 at 10:49 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Wadders
Whilst the SVA and IVA might have stopped a few horrors hitting the roads, i think its fair to point out that thousands of perfectly engineered cars were made and modified by men in sheds without loss of life and limb prior to the nanny brigade getting involved.

Live and let live i say...........and buyer beware of course.


Whilst I would agree with that sentiment as far as the builder and, potentially, buyer of a kit car are concerned (you shouldn't buy a home built car unless you know what your doing, or you know someone who knows what their doing), the point of the IVA is to protect innocent bystanders as well as builders. I would rather not be taken out by a poorly built car as I am minding my own business walking down the pavement or having fun on a track day.

Wadders - 2/1/15 at 11:34 AM

Thats why we have MOT's Steve, the SVA/IVA is just an unnecessary level of bureaucracy that was never needed.
How many on here condemn the "ringers" then openly admit to altering their cars after the IVA, effectively making a mockery of the test.........don't see many IVA'd kit cars running around with a massive padded steering wheel on do you?
Smacks of hypocrisy to me.





Originally posted by SteveWallace

Whilst I would agree with that sentiment as far as the builder and, potentially, buyer of a kit car are concerned (you shouldn't buy a home built car unless you know what your doing, or you know someone who knows what their doing), the point of the IVA is to protect innocent bystanders as well as builders. I would rather not be taken out by a poorly built car as I am minding my own business walking down the pavement or having fun on a track day.

alfas - 3/1/15 at 04:41 PM

lets see if from a different view:

IMO the SVA, today IVA, was necessary to establish....traffic became faster, traffic became more (incl. bicyles, pedastrians, inline skates etc), safety regulations stricter, modern cars became safer..consequtively it was necessary to establish some "safety" into the kitcar-industry.

the majority in this forum are well educated, have a certain range of tools, enough skills and knowledge for doing things right.

but have a lock in built diaries in the RobinHood Forum:

its not enough that those cars already came from the factroy with severe design weaknesses, a lot of builders are untrained, non-skilled persons, with hardly any tools who think its ok connecting brake-lines with pneumatic plastic couplings .


the results are dangerous kitcars....interestingwise all of them regulary pass the MOT test!!!

theduck - 3/1/15 at 05:17 PM

Rhocar has those who are highly skilled and those that are not, just like this site does, unless as untrained non-skilled Robin Hood builder I, and those like me, are no longer welcome on this site?

[Edited on 3/1/15 by theduck]

theduck - 3/1/15 at 05:33 PM

Oh and those less skilled builders, like me, tend to have build diaries so skilled people can point out where they may har gone wrong in a helpful, friendly manner, not so people can slag their builds off on another forum.

alfas - 4/1/15 at 02:36 PM

if a cheapish, weak and dodgy kit meats a matching builder, the result will be disastrous.

IMO the IVA test is a benefit for safety.

mark chandler - 4/1/15 at 05:45 PM

You do not like Robin Hoods then, so do not buy one!

There is no reason the slag off those that do, who own them or question their competence or financial situation because of their choice.

So what is your point apart from wanting to upset people?

[Edited on 4/1/15 by mark chandler]

theduck - 4/1/15 at 06:15 PM

quote:
Originally posted by alfas
if a cheapish, weak and dodgy kit meats a matching builder, the result will be disastrous.

IMO the IVA test is a benefit for safety.


I agree the IVA is a gteat thing. I'll be sure to let you know how I get on putting my Robin Hood through...