40+ year-old cars no longer need a MOT

[The Other Mike]

So you'd not permit a traction engine on the road then with what are essentially slicks?

[The Other Mike]

But is the 'official' definition of vintage and veteran something actually enshrined in UK legislation, or just some words in a dictionary, or something thought up on the spot many years ago by a veteran and / or vintage car club?

[Max Demian]

My Mk1 Escort had non-assisted drum brakes all round. They were all right as the hydraulics were designed so that it required a much greater pedal travel between the brakes biting and fully on, and there was no difficulty applying enough force. Puddles and even heavy rain go into them, so I would stab at them to test - either it would pull to one side or not slow down at all, so I would go along with my left foot on the brake pedal until they were dry.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Does or did a traction engine ever require an MOT? Oddly, I've never seen one at my local garage being tested. I doubt the rolling road would take the weight...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Dunno. Just terms the definition of such is accepted by those who understand such things. Unlike classic. Classic is used for any old car which doesn't fit another category. A car certainly doesn't have to be a 'classic' in the meaning of the word to be called one. Merely in the eye of the owner.

[The Other Mike]

Well it was you that said "There is no offical definition of a classic car. Unlike vintage and veteran."

The terms vintage and veteran appear almost unique to the UK, other countries have other terms with sometimes different cutoff points and the term classic might even apply to everything post veteran.

The UK specialist motoring press classed some 10 -20 year old cars as classics in the early 1980's, those like a friend of mine with a

1930's MG's and another with a 1930's Rolls-Royce were appalled but those early 60's and 70's cars are certainly deemed classics now but would the same apply today?

Would a 2008 Toyota Prius never used as a minicab ever meet the grade?

[The Other Mike]

HGV's are tested, a different class, never seen a traction engine on one but seen plenty of traction engines with bald tyres and only a brake band operating on the outside of a drum on the rear axle. All with a licence plate and at some stage they would have been paying VED.

Then we have Steam wagons, huge heavy things, although some of them have pneumatic tyres.

[tabbypurr]

no :)

NT

[tabbypurr]

that is a basic necessary driving skill. If you can't manage it, you're going to be a right nuisance to others as well as yourself. And let's face it, it's hardly a struggle to learn.

NT

[tabbypurr]

I expect the King Midget didn't

NT

[tabbypurr]

2 wheel cable brakes pass a modern brake test? That I'd like to see.

NT

[NY]

It's a necessary skill, but many people in real life avoid using the manoeuvre because of the disruption it causes once you've started and traffic then appears which wasn't there when you checked that it was safe to begin. Even if you are skilled and can make use of the vehicle's full left and right lock to minimise the number of movements, it still takes a while. Easier to do a U turn in the mouth of a side road or reverse into the side road from the main road.

Maybe "anachronism" is too strong a word. Perhaps "mostly an irrelevance" would be better. Teaching hand signals would be an anachronism, though it hasn't actually been done for a long time (when did it stop?).

What is the law when there is a no-U-turns sign (eg on a dual carriageway) about turning across the carriageway (assuming there is a gap to allow you to do this) into a side road, turning round there and then rejoining the opposite carriageway. I've often done this manoeuvre, but I heard someone say that it's still classed as doing a U turn, even though you are not turning in the road which has the restriction.

Consider

- assuming I am in the right hand line with the right arrow, indicating to turn right. When there is a gap in the oncoming traffic I pull into the left hand side of the flared mouth of the side road opposite, do a U turn wholly within the side road and end up facing in the same direction as the oncoming traffic (ie facing to the right in this photo), waiting in the mouth of the side road to join the main road when there is a gap. Assume I've checked that there isn't traffic coming towards me on the side road or traffic on the main road that is indicating to turn left into the side road.

When it comes to reversing around a corner into a side road, what would you do if this happened to you on your test... You stop on the main road just ahead of the junction and wait until you cannot see any traffic either coming from behind you or coming along the side road. Once it's clear you start to reverse. When you are half way round, blocking both half the road that you were on and half the one that you are reversing into, a car approaches on the main road and is a good 200 yards away when you first see it. Do you a) stop dead and make the other car go onto the wrong side of the road to overtake you, b) carry on with the manoeuvre to complete it before the car reaches you, or c) stop until the car approaches you and stops to let you go ahead, and then start reversing again.

I opted for c) as being better than b), dismissing a) as absurd. My examiner said I should have stopped half-way round and not proceeded *even if the car had clearly stopped to let me continue*. Only when it had (reluctantly) overtaken me and the road was again clear should I carry on. My instructor said I'd done exactly what he would have done, and that the examiner (whom he knew well by repute) would fail you no matter which option you chose because he was that way inclined :-( (This is the examiner who reputedly told my next door neighbour "I am sorry to tell you that I cannot find any grounds on which I am allowed to fail you, so against my better judgement I must reluctantly pass you" - talk about doing it with ill grace ;-)

[Mark]

HGV test 1970s you had to engage 1st crawler gear from 2nd whist vehicle was moving. if you missed it or stoped you would fail And on a Dennis fire engine 1st was a dogleg a long way to the left you had to almost get out of the seat to engage it not that difficult once you had got your head around speed, only just moving double de-clutch time, blink of an eye or the above stops happening and engine revs

-

[T i m]

It happened to me once over 3 MM over several years. I managed to apply a temporary repair (using my tow-rope as a Spanish Windlass) was able to get it home.

Trunnion.

I doubt it, you would probably have to disconnect it from the damper arm (at least) and see how stiff / slack it was or to inspect it properly, unscrew it completely and clean and inspect both components.

Similar brake pipe where it sits in the chassis along with the master cylinder where you can't see if it's corroded and predict if it will let go the day after the MOT. ;-(

I wonder how many dangerous points are missed because the MOT testers aren't allowed to remove covers etc to see what horrors lay behind?

Cheers, T i m

[tabbypurr]

It is. I 3 point turned today. Often do.

I can't imagine how any driver could cope without 3 point turns. Or why they'd try.

At 200 yds I'd be well out of the way before it arrived

NT

[Vir Campestris]

My wife's new car says in the book you should park it in gear, and won't let you start the engine unless the clutch is down.

I habitually pull the handbrake on hard enough that she can't get it off again, and have to think about it when I driver her car!

Andy

[NY]

I think our new car insists on the clutch being down before letting the starter motor work, which is fine for making sure you don't lurch forward when starting. However it still doesn't guard against the problem when parking: you pull up to the wall or car ahead of you, pressing the clutch to the floor as you brake to a halt, and then it is all to easy to forget that you are still in gear and let the clutch up. Hence the waggle before letting the clutch up - I've caught several cases where something has distracted me from my normal routine and I would lurched into the car in front.

The one problem with enforcing clutch-down when starting is that it foils the last-ditch escape if you stall on a level crossing and the engine won't restart: put the car in first or reverse and use the starter motor to crank the car clear. Only if that fails or you judge that there's no time to do it, do you bail out and run like bloody hell - if possible, it's better to get the car clear as well as yourself, to avoid derailing the train. Mind you, I try to make sure that I always approach a level crossing fast enough that if the engine should happen to die at that precise moment (sod's law working overtime!) I will have enough momentum to carry me off the crossing, with the clutch down if necessary. Too many people edge over them at less than walking pace (and don't leave a good gap from the car ahead) so if the engine does die, the car will be stuck on the crossing.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Not much hope for your handbrake, then?

[tabbypurr]

whoosh

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Again, I'd ask about any 40 year old car which was fitted with only two cable operated wheel brakes.

If you do actually want to have a sensible discussion about the topic.

I'd say many are well aware there are 100 year old cars around which need special allowances at MOT time. But very unlikely to be used in the same way as a 40 year old can be.