Vehicle & Technical > Series Land Rovers
Tax Exempt?
Rambler-Dents:
Steve, that's not right. Original and unmodified is just that. These DVLA proposals are causing havoc in hot-rodding circles. If the regulations are interpreted as worded - something that the VOSA inspectors are likely to do - then something as obvious as different spring mountings will cause you all sorts of problems. The wise people amongst us are now playing by the rules when it comes to modifying. Even to the extent of keeping original engine mountings and working off those to adapt a different engine. The full weight of all this hasn't been felt yet, so things don't look or feel too bad. Days are numbered though.
I happen to know that the Land Rover scene is receiving a lot of attention from the authorities, but not as much as the hot-rodding scene. Things over there are very nervous at the moment.
It may be worth noting that the reason why people have been getting away with these modifications for years is that it was difficult for the DVLA to keep an eye on what was going on. Now things are changing. New inspectors are being trained and procedures are now being standardized across the board. Gone are the days of lenient local VROs.
All these changes are intended to counter vehicle crime, but it's just unfortunate that the vehicle modifiers are getting caught up in it.
At this moment in time I would interpret the regulations as-worded. If the latest DVLA proposals are implemented in full, then it's going to be disastrous for a lot of people. A lot of work is being done behind the scenes by various organizations (mostly hot-rodding related) to counter the DVLA proposals, but the current situation is that a response from them is being awaited.
Mike
datalas:
I believe the caveat is that they tend to play the game of interpreting what is, or what isn't a "radical modification". An engine mount is potentially not considered a "radical" modification, if only because there are numerous different ones welded to the chassis (or in some cases bolted to it) by the manufacturers, and, if we were honest it failing would probably cause you to stop fairly quickly, but it might not be all that dangerous.
I would imagine they'd view moving, replacing, re-engineering the suspension mounts in a different light. Well, perhaps not moving them, but certainly [1] re-engineering them.
basically, if the intention is to circumvent the taxation laws, well, we all know ways of doing that, but if you try claiming that a tax exempt discovery [2] was perfectly legal after you've just run down a bus load of nuns, I think you might be bang out of luck :)
[1] that originally came out as cretinly, which wasn't the intended statement, but as typos go it was at least semi humourous.
[2] I have seen one, no, it wasn't a range rover, it was a 1968 discovery, now I don't think any amount of "incremental" upgrades quite makes it a series 2.
Rambler-Dents:
Datalas, the scenario you describe is the 'old' way, and based on half-hearted interpretations and local 'customs'. It is no longer wise to base predictions on belief or imagination. Game-playing and leniency is not part of the new proposals.
What I am trying to get across is that this is all going to end. The severity in which it ends all depends on how much the DVLA will compromise with their proposals as a result of all the counter-proposals from the modified car organizations fighting it all.
The fact that a lot of the proposals are a complete and utter nonsense when taken as-worded doesn't matter a damn to the authorities. All they will be concerned with is that they have some rules there that they can apply. The more literal they are the easier it will be for them.
Mike
datalas:
I was half heartedly agreeing, in my own verbose and around the houses kinda way.
the only real trouble comes when you do *something* that requires modification to the chassis, the issue is, was, and I guess always will be what that actually entails. For example if you stick a range rover axle on an early 90 you can either modify the axle to take the shock mount on the other side, or the chassis to ...
which is safest? a valid question, which does VOSA think is safest .. probably a different question :D
Rambler-Dents:
Hello :D
Unfortunately the only safe way is to aviod any chassis modifications at all. There are obviously things that you could do that would look standard and not attract any attention, such as shock mounts in a different position etc. Then there are things like axles that can be changed but still look standard (speaking generally - not just with Land Rovers). At the moment, until the proposals are implemented in full, it's a good idea not to go too far down any particular route of modification that will leave you at the mercy of the inspectors.
One of the favourite things for them to look out for on Land Rovers is the coil-sprung suspension on a pre-coil sprung age registration. I think the biggest trouble is going to come when these people are given free reign to be clever and pick fault with people's cars. Anything that looks modified is going to attract attention. You can bet your life that there will be lots of Little Hilter busy-bodies trying to be clever picking fault with cars.
The most ridiculous part of all this is, as you refer to, the safety situation. You can build yourself a dangerous car by changing things to avoid modifying the chassis and too many components, therefore avoiding trouble with the regulations. Or you could do it properly, upgrading drivetrain, steering and suspension, then end up with a Q-plate or worse.
It is intended for MOT testers to be instructed to look out for undelcared changes to a vehicle at MOT time, so we've got that to look forward to as well.
Mike
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version