A W126 Mercedes made in 1976!

hi5

Capri wrote: »

'Sit dormientes canes iacent' - Let sleeping dogs lie

WHO is going to suffer most in the fallout if we keep stirring this pot - WE ARE :eek:

IF Revenue / Gardai / Govt get involved, the few that are chancing their arm will be caught , BUT the rest will have new restrictions imposed which will play into the SIMI ('EVERYBODY needs to buy new cars from SIMI dealers' :mad: ) hands.

A cousin of mine has emigrated 'because it's a police state' - but HE was the first to report somebody passing him in a speed limit area . The Irish love 'freedom' but will inform on their neighbours at a moments notice given half a chance:mad:







I was listening to the Pat Kenny radio show yesterday morning, they were talking about the NCT, anyway someone rang in to complain about the amount of ZV Range rovers and Mercedes going up and down their road spewing out pollution and not a NCT between them. Of course Kenny hadn't a clue what a ZV reg was so that conversation ended quick enough.
So it begs the question, is there a growing resentment against classic cars for whatever reasons by some people, a sort of begrudgery because I don't buy the pollution thing at all.Only 1% of all vehicles are classic and even then they are hardly driven at all ?
We had the Noel Harrington in the Dail thing a couple of weeks ago too, who must have been spurred on by someone.
Jut wondering

mike65

I imagine the people/cowboys who run the NCT are agitating behind the scenes.

unfit2006

That phone all into Pat Kenny is exactly the type of spotlight we do not need on our hobby.
The caller made a perfectly valid point and luckily PK did not run with it, as it could have opened the whole can of worms on the national airwaves.
I can understand how media and political interest can be drawn to the topic. You only have to look at some of the top end stuff been driven around on ZVs to see how it can get up someone's nose.
Ordinary Joe Soap struggling to pay his car tax and insurance must be mightily pissed off when they meet the Guy down the road cruising around in his Merc or Jag or Range Rover on a ZV plate. It Takes very little to lift the phone or drop a line to a journalist or an attention seeking politician about the matter.

Tzar Chasm

unfit2006 wrote: »

That phone all into Pat Kenny is exactly the type of spotlight we do not need on our hobby.
The caller made a perfectly valid point and luckily PK did not run with it, as it could have opened the whole can of worms on the national airwaves.
I can understand how media and political interest can be drawn to the topic. You only have to look at some of the top end stuff been driven around on ZVs to see how it can get up someone's nose.
Ordinary Joe Soap struggling to pay his car tax and insurance must be mightily pissed off when they meet the Guy down the road cruising around in his Merc or Jag or Range Rover on a ZV plate. It Takes very little to lift the phone or drop a line to a journalist or an attention seeking politician about the matter.

so basicly its a petty jealousy thing?

when I see a classic like an old merc or a capri I think good on ya mate, save some small part of our heritage, but I suppose there are **** out there that would begrudge others the right to have nice things because they don't have them

bbsrs

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

so basicly its a petty jealousy thing?

when I see a classic like an old merc or a capri I think good on ya mate, save some small part of our heritage, but I suppose there are **** out there that would begrudge others the right to have nice things because they don't have them

I blame hill walkers and the greens.

Capri

First thing I notice when I'm behind a classic is the SMELL of exhaust fumes - like going into a smoking pub in Europe, you don't notice how clean car exhausts are until you're behind a classic , OR MOTO :mad: But MOTOS aren't regulated and there's more of them polluting EU streets than here too

Plenty of folks using their classics on a daily basis AFIS around town. ( Certain Austin Healy 3000 from this parish had a close call on Dawson St this week with another car/truck moving lanes :eek: )

I've always advocated putting tax / insurance / licences on cyclists - this'd bring in more revenue if the govt wanted it than charging classics more

kasper

Capri wrote: »

First thing I notice when I'm behind a classic is the SMELL of exhaust fumes - like going into a smoking pub in Europe, you don't notice how clean car exhausts are until you're behind a classic , OR MOTO :mad: But MOTOS aren't regulated and there's more of them polluting EU streets than here too

Plenty of folks using their classics on a daily basis AFIS around town. ( Certain Austin Healy 3000 from this parish had a close call on Dawson St this week with another car/truck moving lanes :eek: )

I've always advocated putting tax / insurance / licences on cyclists - this'd bring in more revenue if the govt wanted it than charging classics more

and don't forget the rainbows in the puddles

Zoo4m8

What's a MOTO?

Capri

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

What's a MOTO?

Sorry, I'm being foreign :P Moto is the usual term for motorbike/scooter in a lot of other countries, some being extremely smell 2 stroks ( Oil/Petrol mix ) :cool:

galwaytt

mike65 wrote: »

I imagine the people/cowboys who run the NCT are agitating behind the scenes.

With 12 week lead times why would they ? They have work into infinity ahead of them, and no way of getting through it.

mountai

corktina wrote: »

you can't.It's Illegal, it's called ringing..the car may even be stolen, it will have no valid insurance on it (because the car of that number is the car insured not the car in the picture).etc etc

On the Insurance issue --- Axa Insurance , have made it clear that the cars they insure, under their Kit Car Policy, are indeed covered by Insurance even though the cars are cloned (And they know it) . I assume that the Classic car policies they issue to "Cloned" cars also are valid. Once the details, such as engine Numbers, and Chassis numbers given relate to the car in question. It does not matter to them that the car may be cloned or stolen, as "Legality" is "Not their responsibility"

Tzar Chasm

mountai wrote: »

On the Insurance issue --- Axa Insurance , have made it clear that the cars they insure, under their Kit Car Policy, are indeed covered by Insurance even though the cars are cloned (And they know it) . I assume that the Classic car policies they issue to "Cloned" cars also are valid. Once the details, such as engine Numbers, and Chassis numbers given relate to the car in question. It does not matter to them that the car may be cloned or stolen, as "Legality" is "Not their responsibility"

yeah but a kit car is a bit different to a ringer, if I built an AC cobra kit off a sierra chassis then i'd be insuring it on the sierra chassis number with the engine number of whatever v8 it gets.

if I try to ensure an 89 300se as a 74 200e none of the numbers will match

mountai

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

yeah but a kit car is a bit different to a ringer, if I built an AC cobra kit off a sierra chassis then i'd be insuring it on the sierra chassis number with the engine number of whatever v8 it gets.

if I try to ensure an 89 300se as a 74 200e none of the numbers will match

So if you import your AC cobra kit car and use the reg of, say a 1969 mg midget , thats ok then??

newmug

I can never understand this "ringing" or "cloning" craic - why do people do it? What advantage do they have? I have a green 99 LWB Landcruiser. There's loads of them around. Say someone else with an identical one to mine copies my numberplate some day and sticks it on his own yoke, I can only see 3 possible outcomes -

1. The person who cloned my yoke gets stopped at a checkpoint, doesn't know my name or address, cop susses something's up, yerman gets caught and done for fraud.
2. The person who cloned my yoke is involved in a crash, cops are called, turns out again that he's not the owner of 99 MH xxxxx, he's caught and done for fraud AND having no insurance.
3. The person who cloned my yoke goes by a speed camera. I get the fine. I protest, prove with the CCTV from work that I was elsewhere that day, cops are now aware that there's a ringer out there and yerman draws heat onto himself.

The only possible upside I can see to having a cloned yoke is that you might be able to pass off a stolen vehicle as legit temporarily if you were going to use it as a getaway car or something. Am I being incredibly naïve here?

Sam Russell

galwaytt wrote: »

With 12 week lead times why would they ? They have work into infinity ahead of them, and no way of getting through it.

The whole NCT needs to be overhauled.

!. The restriction that an NCT can only run to the anniversary date of first registration is plain bonkers. It should run for a minimum of 12 months

2. There are three classes of cars as far as NCT is concerned. Cars over 10 years that get a 12 month NCT. Over 4 year old cars that get a two year NCT. Newer cars and those registered before 1980 that do not need an NCT.

3. The inability of the NCT company to give tests on demand, or even in a reasonable time.

I would prefer a system that requires all cars to be tested once per year (except cars over 30 years). The current system affects the second hand car market greatly. I would also require cars to be tested before sale or immediately on sale.

Currently, 25% of cars fail their first NCT at 4 years of age. Annual testing would be normal and would be no more of a chore than regular services are. Tyres, lights and brakes can all be shot within four years from new. Some suspensions can be damaged on our pot-holes within this time as well.

If it about safety, why does it look like a money racket? (VRT, VAT, SIMI, Road tax etc.) A reduction in road tax for cars over 20 years (like 50%) might also be a good idea.

mountai

newmug wrote: »

I can never understand this "ringing" or "cloning" craic - why do people do it? What advantage do they have? I have a green 99 LWB Landcruiser. There's loads of them around. Say someone else with an identical one to mine copies my numberplate some day and sticks it on his own yoke, I can only see 3 possible outcomes -

1. The person who cloned my yoke gets stopped at a checkpoint, doesn't know my name or address, cop susses something's up, yerman gets caught and done for fraud.
2. The person who cloned my yoke is involved in a crash, cops are called, turns out again that he's not the owner of 99 MH xxxxx, he's caught and done for fraud AND having no insurance.
3. The person who cloned my yoke goes by a speed camera. I get the fine. I protest, prove with the CCTV from work that I was elsewhere that day, cops are now aware that there's a ringer out there and yerman draws heat onto himself.

The only possible upside I can see to having a cloned yoke is that you might be able to pass off a stolen vehicle as legit temporarily if you were going to use it as a getaway car or something. Am I being incredibly naïve here?

The reason why most cars are cloned in the Classic and Kit Car fraternity is simply to avoid paying VRT (which could be thousands) and to avail of the classic road tax.

L-M

I would imagine ringing or cloning would mainly apply where the origional car is no long road worthy.

newmug

mountai wrote: »

The reason why most cars are cloned in the Classic and Kit Car fraternity is simply to avoid paying VRT (which could be thousands) and to avail of the classic road tax.

Well as you say, that covers the Classic and Kit Car fraternity. Eventhough its a monumentally stupid risk to take to save a few bob, at least you can see the logic. But for non-classics or kit cars, why do people do it? How does it work? It just doesn't make sense!

Capri

I suppose we could say the OP is a storm in a teacup - evidently the insurance/Gardai don't seem to want to know or do anything so ...... 'if you can't beat them , join them ' ????

Think I'll just make up a Romanian plate and stick it on my €200 banger -bit like those avoiding the congestion charge in London by buying old French registered R5's / Clio's etc :P

w124man

mountai wrote: »

On the Insurance issue --- Axa Insurance , have made it clear that the cars they insure, under their Kit Car Policy, are indeed covered by Insurance even though the cars are cloned (And they know it) . I assume that the Classic car policies they issue to "Cloned" cars also are valid. Once the details, such as engine Numbers, and Chassis numbers given relate to the car in question. It does not matter to them that the car may be cloned or stolen, as "Legality" is "Not their responsibility"

To assume anything about insurance is nothing if not foolhardy

Tzar Chasm

mountai wrote: »

So if you import your AC cobra kit car and use the reg of, say a 1969 mg midget , thats ok then??

is it built on the chassis of a 69 midget ?

if the answer is no, then its fraud, and illegal. simples

corktina

mountai wrote: »

On the Insurance issue --- Axa Insurance , have made it clear that the cars they insure, under their Kit Car Policy, are indeed covered by Insurance even though the cars are cloned (And they know it) . I assume that the Classic car policies they issue to "Cloned" cars also are valid. Once the details, such as engine Numbers, and Chassis numbers given relate to the car in question. It does not matter to them that the car may be cloned or stolen, as "Legality" is "Not their responsibility"

but that's the point...with a cloned classic,the real engine and chassis' have long been scrapped. With a kit cat, you should be using the actual chassis you are insuring.Chalk and Cheeese

Sam Russell

In Ireland, it is the chassis that counts. In the UK they have a complicated scheme involving 'major' components like chassis, engine, gearbox, suspension etc. A car built from a donor vehicle can assume the identity of the donor if enought donor vehicle parts are used. Not so here. So assemble your kit-car in the UK, register it there and then import it here. Simples.

hi5

A 427 big block in a stock 69 midget chassis, that would be interesting:D

Tzar Chasm

hi5 wrote: »

A 427 big block in a stock 69 midget chassis, that would be interesting:D

ballistic teatray

i'd drive it, probably wouldn't be far tho, if the chassis didn't twist and snap I wouldn't fancy my chances stopping it

porsche959

PurvesGrundy wrote: »

Absolutely not. The system is madness and has to change.

People on this forum can be hard to fathom sometimes. They say they are in favour of a tax regime that will be reponsible for making every single interesting car left in this country extinct.

Sorry but that is absolutely not what people are saying. Everyone on this forum would probably agree that tax + VRT are too high. But when the majority are obeying the law, whether their classic is over or under 30 years (an entirely arbitrary number, granted) it sticks in the craw to see a few who are (seemingly) openly scamming the system and run the risk of giving the classic car fraternity a bad name.

PurvesGrundy

porsche959 wrote: »

Sorry but that is absolutely not what people are saying. Everyone on this forum would probably agree that tax + VRT are too high. But when the majority are obeying the law, whether their classic is over or under 30 years (an entirely arbitrary number, granted) it sticks in the craw to see a few who are (seemingly) openly scamming the system and run the risk of giving the classic car fraternity a bad name.

Ringing irritates me as much as the next person, particularly when the chassis plate has been messed and the identity and background of the car affected. I would be all for taking a hard stance against it.

What I do not understand is the cavalier attitude people seem to hold towards a grossly unfair and uneconomically sensible tax system. The last budget increase should have seen motorists taking to the roads in their cars and blocking up Kildare Street.

corktina

what's the alternative? tax something else more? cut services? slash pensions?

surely you wouldn't want that just to keep interesting cars on the road?

Capri

corktina wrote: »

what's the alternative? tax something else more? cut services? slash pensions?

surely you wouldn't want that just to keep interesting cars on the road?

I think the jist of the discussion is a FAIRER system that benefits everyone - IF there were more 15-30 yo cars on the road at a cheaper tax rate (€300/yr ? ) then govt. gets more in taxes, workshops get more repair biz, and everyone, except the looney Greens, is happy
Trouble in this country is that it's either all or nothing, no joined up thinking :mad:
'Sir Humphries' ('Yes Minister ) saying "tax the poor to the hilt", but forgetting that the poor will just sell the car so that tax is ZERO to the govt :p

PurvesGrundy

corktina wrote: »

what's the alternative? tax something else more? cut services? slash pensions?

surely you wouldn't want that just to keep interesting cars on the road?

You have a very black and white way of looking at things, corktina.

If the government reduced the rates of bigger engines you would find that they would in fact take in more revenue. Ask any civil servant in the motor tax offices how many 1809 euro discs they are issuing these days and you will be surprised.

Capri

PurvesGrundy wrote: »

You have a very black and white way of looking at things, corktina.

If the government reduced the rates of bigger engines you would find that they would in fact take in more revenue. Ask any civil servant in the motor tax offices how many 1809 euro discs they are issuing these days and you will be surprised.

That's what i'm sayin' - as things are there's 0 revenue being generated - all 83 - 04 big engined cars are being exported, very easy for DoE to see how much they're losing - BUT also the see how much they could make if there was a reasonable rate of tax applied. ( I think this 'off the road tax' is their FU**ED up way of thinking that they're going to recoup €'s :mad::mad: - I can see some smart foreigners buying up en-masse and exporting - govt get's ZERO :rolleyes: )

RoundyMooney

Arseholes like this are going to screw up classic car ownership for everyone.

There's more yellow plates at any car show you can name, than what you'd see on the M25 at half five on a weekday, just to add to the whole thing-people must think they're invisible or something.

corktina

PurvesGrundy wrote: »

You have a very black and white way of looking at things, corktina.

If the government reduced the rates of bigger engines you would find that they would in fact take in more revenue. Ask any civil servant in the motor tax offices how many 1809 euro discs they are issuing these days and you will be surprised.

classics are a minor issue on the edge of Government Policy to put more tax on big engines//

galwaytt

Capri wrote: »

That's what i'm sayin' - as things are there's 0 revenue being generated - all 83 - 04 big engined cars are being exported, very easy for DoE to see how much they're losing - BUT also the see how much they could make if there was a reasonable rate of tax applied. ( I think this 'off the road tax' is their FU**ED up way of thinking that they're going to recoup €'s :mad::mad: - I can see some smart foreigners buying up en-masse and exporting - govt get's ZERO :rolleyes: )

It's already happening - I got talking to someone who's mate is doing it for a living already - has a yard full of RR Sports and the like, all being prepped for export...........and NCT refund is the great incentive. So not only is the State NOT going to collect tax - it's actually having to REFUND it ! Lose-Lose-Lose all day long.

mountai

"NCT refund" Can you explain please??

kuro2k

mountai wrote: »

"NCT refund" Can you explain please??

VRT refund

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056926803