I think the idea is such cars are almost exclusively going to be
exhibited rather that seriously driven.
Bearing in mind there are a myriad of offences that can be committed by
driving an unroadworthy car on a public road - MOT or no MOT.
Up until now, it has been cars built before 1960. Making it 40 years
means about 300,000 more vehicles will be exempt. The argument is that
cars of that age are generally preserved vehicles that are well
maintained and rarely used. However, an additional reason appears to be
that most of the modern MOT isn't applicable to cars that old, which
makes it difficult for garages to test them.
On Wed, 16 May 2018 18:02:27 +0100, "tim..."
Hopefully that'll be our kitcar next year (that we built 30+ years
ago) but I'm not sure we will ever be MOT free because it comes under
the 'modified / re-bodied vehicle' category?
I think the reallocation to 'Historic Vehicle' (or whatever the re
classification is) can apply to our kitcar because it's on the
I'm pretty sure my Electric car was except the MOT at the time I was
using it regularly (again, 30 years ago) because the suggestion was
the MOT stations would know how to deal with it.
That said, from an EV POV it was no more sophisticated than a milk
float and the basic vehicle was a mix of Mini and Reliant parts so
pretty strait forward to test those bits (and lights etc)?
Cheers, T i m
Interesting! Many (many!) years ago I built a Spartan (based on a Mk1
Spitfire that was rotting around me) and an NG TD (based on a rotten
MGB). I wouldn't build another kit car, but I'd love to restore
something interesting - XK120/140, D type, TR3/4, T type ... etc.
In article ,
They're still normally driven to the event. Which can be many miles away.
Plenty 40 year old cars are practical to drive anywhere - unlike perhaps
pre WW2 ones.
And I own one - not quite 40 years old - and think it a nonsense any
vehicle should be allowed on the roads without an annual safety check. Nor
do I see why an old vehicle should be VED exempt either. They make use of
the roads in exactly the same way as any car doing the same sort of annual
No old car could pass modern safety standards. It's how it is. The further you go back the more unsuitable the MOT tests are. Go back far enough and cars don't even pass some of the most basic requirements.
The mentality also changes. Drivers of history pieces are normally well aware of the vehicle's limitations & issues and drive them accordingly, which is a very different approach to the average driver.
Some people think old cars should be as safe as new. It can never happen, nor need it.
I remember them (and used to buy all the Kitcar magazines around at
My mate had his restored (for way more than it was worth at the time),
mainly because it was his Dads.
I'd have to say building our (Rickman Ranger) was fairly easy because:
1) I'd done all the work required on other vehicles over the years.
2) The Ranger was a fairly 'easy to work on' kit (because of the
distance off the road and it's non 'performance spec) and most stuff
included and built on a ladder chassis, so you could get a rolling
chassis ready then drop the body on. ;-)
3) I was very comfortable with vehicle wiring and working with
fibreglass (building fibreglass canoes and making moulds for RC model
boats etc). Also from helping Dad fir out fibreglass dinghies and
cruisers when I was a kid. ;-)
4) The Mrs was very much a part of the whole project, from selling her
Mini to put towards the cost of the kit to building it ... and not
just making the tea but actually manning the spanners, wire brush,
pressure washer and paintbrush. As a treat I let her lap the valves in
(on the kitchen worktop) and she changed the water pump unsupervised
because I was distracted watching some Rallycross on the TV. ;-)
One of the (big) reasons I wanted a kitcar was because I was fed up
(in those days) chasing rust on monocoque's. The Ranger just went
though it's 30th MOT and there has never been a mention of rust in any
of them. Ok, I appreciate many cars are crushed these days that have a
perfectly rust free body (even some older vehicles) so not for rust
but because of some stupidly cheap (to make) piece of electronics has
gone wrong ... but I'm pretty sure the donor MkII Escort wouldn't
still be free of rust at 40 years old. ;-)
The biggest kitcar I ever had to deal with was towing my mates Cobra
home for him on a 4 wheel transporter trailer behind my Sierra Estate.
I'm surprised it didn't pull the back off or push me though a wall.
OOI it took 'us' about 3 months (evenings at weekends) to build the
Ranger and some of that was because we built it in the back yard,
didn't have the luxury of a nice fully equipped workshop and so were
often working in the rain (no so bad if working underneath or inside
Cheers, T i m
In article ,
Who said they should? An annual safety check to make sure everything
safety related works as designed make even more sense on a car which could
be laid up all winter.
Err, do you know when the MOT came in - and what its purpose was?
If you are talking 100 year old cars, maybe.
So perfectly safe to take an old car with bald tyres and faulty brakes on
the road, is it? because it will be driven carefully?
Bit different from saying old drivers should be banned because they drive
Making sure an old car has brakes etc that work as intended, and isn't
going to have the suspension collapse through rust seems eminently
sensible to anyone who isn't trying to win a few votes.
And why when they conducted a straw poll on TV on the subject recently
I believe the majority of said classic car owners said they would put
their cars though the MOT (equivalent) test voluntarily.
That said, I didn't with the electric car because:
1) It only did 30 mph and had a 20 mile range.
2) It had a box section steel chassis that was easily visible /
3) I could (and did) inspect all the other components like steering,
suspension, lighting and brakes.
Cheers, T i m