End of Modding?
I've been digging around, seeing which various cars can be modified (not just the S) while looking for a new project.
I came across this interesting link: The Association of Car Enthusiasts (ACE). It's an association of various car groups and individuals who are concerned that the British small car industry could be well and tryly stuffed...
Basically, ACE appears to have been set up to address issues regarding changes in the Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) tests following a recent DVLA consultation. And in a few years, that might be a moot point anyway, because we'll be under the iron fist of a German-like, T
I came across this interesting link: The Association of Car Enthusiasts (ACE). It's an association of various car groups and individuals who are concerned that the British small car industry could be well and tryly stuffed...
Basically, ACE appears to have been set up to address issues regarding changes in the Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) tests following a recent DVLA consultation. And in a few years, that might be a moot point anyway, because we'll be under the iron fist of a German-like, T
[QUOTE=Useful,Mar 26 2008, 12:13 AM] I've been digging around, seeing which various cars can be modified (not just the S) while looking for a new project.
I came across this interesting link: The Association of Car Enthusiasts (ACE). It's an association of various car groups and individuals who are concerned that the British small car industry could be well and tryly stuffed...
Basically, ACE appears to have been set up to address issues regarding changes in the Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) tests following a recent DVLA consultation. And in a few years, that might be a moot point anyway, because we'll be under the iron fist of a German-like, T
I came across this interesting link: The Association of Car Enthusiasts (ACE). It's an association of various car groups and individuals who are concerned that the British small car industry could be well and tryly stuffed...
Basically, ACE appears to have been set up to address issues regarding changes in the Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) tests following a recent DVLA consultation. And in a few years, that might be a moot point anyway, because we'll be under the iron fist of a German-like, T
one of the reasons I never put my car on Belgium plates when I lived there...
due to the issue of compliance at the test centres..
and it's not even always just checking the changes...for example, my friend had merc that had been lowered by fitting a factory option when he bought it.. was rejected come MOT time, because that specific merc lowering kit hadn't been through their full approval process.. had to buy new suspension to get his MOT ticket.
In the end, you can still do mods, but requires a lot more effort.
due to the issue of compliance at the test centres..
and it's not even always just checking the changes...for example, my friend had merc that had been lowered by fitting a factory option when he bought it.. was rejected come MOT time, because that specific merc lowering kit hadn't been through their full approval process.. had to buy new suspension to get his MOT ticket.
In the end, you can still do mods, but requires a lot more effort.
The TUV is a double edged sword. It's why we have alpina, manthey, RUF, hartge etc. These are companies that build cars and get them TUV approved.
The advantage of this, is for people like myself, you can get a ready built package to your own spec.
But for people like MB and eSeM it's much harder to do a home job
The advantage of this, is for people like myself, you can get a ready built package to your own spec.
But for people like MB and eSeM it's much harder to do a home job
It's also a way of making sure that some of the flimsy tat that the Barry Boys stick on their cars never sees the light of day, as TuV ensures it has to pass safety tests before it's allowed to be sold. In that respect any change like this is a good one.
But the proposal means in essence that without crash testing the car as a whole, you wouldn't be able to change any part of it. As Useful says, change one element of the car so it deviates from what was crash tested and you could be liable to prosecution (and no doubt a hefty fine).
Also, specialist builders who currently don't officially crash test, but have had numerous 'racing incidents' prove the integrity of their chassis won't be able to sell their cars as road cars. I'm talking here about companies like Caterhan, Westfield and all the other small volume manufacturers, for whom a crash test on each model will be prohibitive, and so could have to reduce their ranges to a single model.
Just how dangerous are these cars anyway? How many people die each year because their car wasn't crash tested?
But the proposal means in essence that without crash testing the car as a whole, you wouldn't be able to change any part of it. As Useful says, change one element of the car so it deviates from what was crash tested and you could be liable to prosecution (and no doubt a hefty fine).
Also, specialist builders who currently don't officially crash test, but have had numerous 'racing incidents' prove the integrity of their chassis won't be able to sell their cars as road cars. I'm talking here about companies like Caterhan, Westfield and all the other small volume manufacturers, for whom a crash test on each model will be prohibitive, and so could have to reduce their ranges to a single model.
Just how dangerous are these cars anyway? How many people die each year because their car wasn't crash tested?
Following on from Mark's comment,
surely we should be allowed to buy a car that's dangerous to the driver? That's our own risk. It's like willingly buying a 2* NCAP car. You're aware of what that means.
Stopping the Barryboys tat is a Very Good Thing. But we should be allowed to choose a car that's dangerous to ourselves in an accident. But things that would cause an accident, like badly specced parts, should be banned.
A car should by law have to be roadworthy. But I don't see why a car should have to be safe for the occupants in a crash.
One thing that's going to cause problems is the pedestrian crash laws though.
surely we should be allowed to buy a car that's dangerous to the driver? That's our own risk. It's like willingly buying a 2* NCAP car. You're aware of what that means.
Stopping the Barryboys tat is a Very Good Thing. But we should be allowed to choose a car that's dangerous to ourselves in an accident. But things that would cause an accident, like badly specced parts, should be banned.
A car should by law have to be roadworthy. But I don't see why a car should have to be safe for the occupants in a crash.
One thing that's going to cause problems is the pedestrian crash laws though.
Trending Topics
There was a german ITR stopped for speeding outside The Ring last weekend. He had a roll cage, brakes, wheels, bucket seats etc., all non-TUV, and the police were obviously going over the whole car. Apparently as well as a big fine, he's going to have to put it all back to standard and get it inspected. Ouch.
Maybe what we should have is a rule about any car that's modded has to be re-MOT'd immediately. That would satisfy the road safety camp, and allow those of us that do things in a resposible way to continue.
Maybe what we should have is a rule about any car that's modded has to be re-MOT'd immediately. That would satisfy the road safety camp, and allow those of us that do things in a resposible way to continue.
It's really not that bad; it just makes kits more expensive, since they must be TuV approved. The Mugens & Spoons will adapt.
It stops morons putting the wrong wheels, etc on their cars, for example.
It's a bigger shame for the kit car industry, though. They'll all disappear, or become TVR & disppear.
It stops morons putting the wrong wheels, etc on their cars, for example.
It's a bigger shame for the kit car industry, though. They'll all disappear, or become TVR & disppear.


