New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how people think that the NCT is a money-spinner!

It is for the RSA who receive funding from the tests.

Sam Russell

Means Of Escape wrote: »

It is for the RSA who receive funding from the tests.

..... and the 23% VAT.

Means Of Escape

The major risk for the RSA allowing a rolling 30 year would be that an individual can drive a 1984 2.8 Granada as a daily driver at 56 euros a year.
If there was no NCT for these vehicles used regularly then accidents for cars in this category may arise unless the insurance companies put a loading on the premiums,have an age restriction and refuse to insure someone who does not have a policy on another car .
Now that we are moving into a period of vehicles that have lasted and were relatively well built more of the mid 80s cars will appear on the roads on a regular basis .
Sharing the roads with those who don't maintain the vintage 80s cars as they don't have to makes it quite dangerous for all.
Rarely have I seen a pre 80s car used daily.

boardsuser1

Means Of Escape wrote: »

The major risk for the RSA allowing a rolling 30 year would be that an individual can drive a 1984 2.8 Granada as a daily driver at 56 euros a year.
If there was no NCT for these vehicles used regularly then accidents for cars in this category may arise unless the insurance companies put a loading on the premiums,have an age restriction and refuse to insure someone who does not have a policy on another car .
Now that we are moving into a period of vehicles that have lasted and were relatively well built more of the mid 80s cars will appear on the roads on a regular basis .
Sharing the roads with those who don't maintain the vintage 80s cars as they don't have to makes it quite dangerous for all.
Rarely have I seen a pre 80s car used daily.

Seen a 1973 (i think) triumph spitfire earlier, and dear god the condition of the bloody thing was a disgrace

Sam Russell

There is nothing to stop insurance companies putting conditions on their policies to insist on an NCT, or driver age, or primary car insured, or a maximum mileage.

Any or all of these would help solve the problem of vintage tax on a daily driver. We already have Land Rovers appearing with ZV registrations on vehicles that appear to be much more modern.

boardsuser1

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is nothing to stop insurance companies putting conditions on their policies to insist on an NCT, or driver age, or primary car insured, or a maximum mileage.

Any or all of these would help solve the problem of vintage tax on a daily driver. We already have Land Rovers appearing with ZV registrations on vehicles that appear to be much more modern.

Yes,I'm seeing a land rover in every day use on a zv reg with what looks like a 1990's body

digger58

The myth of older cars being the CAUSE of accidents due to mechanical failure is well known by the insurance companies... hence the low premiums for classic vehicles. They may be involved in accidents on a very rare case, because of the numbers actually using the roads. I asked the RSA about this before submitting my response and they admitted they DON'T have any figures in relation to older vehicles involved in accidents nor do they have figures for the number of older vehicles in accidents where a mechanical fault/failure was a cause. As a retired Garda I can truthfully say I went to very few accidents involving cars where ANY mechanical failure/fault was a contributory factor to the accident. I definitely remember one involving a twin steer truck where only 1 of 4 axles had a brake working! Most accidents are due to the driver(s) and nothing else!

Sam Russell

digger58 wrote: »

The myth of older cars being the CAUSE of accidents due to mechanical failure is well known by the insurance companies... hence the low premiums for classic vehicles. They may be involved in accidents on a very rare case, because of the numbers actually using the roads. I asked the RSA about this before submitting my response and they admitted they DON'T have any figures in relation to older vehicles involved in accidents nor do they have figures for the number of older vehicles in accidents where a mechanical fault/failure was a cause. As a retired Garda I can truthfully say I went to very few accidents involving cars where ANY mechanical failure/fault was a contributory factor to the accident. I definitely remember one involving a twin steer truck where only 1 of 4 axles had a brake working! Most accidents are due to the driver(s) and nothing else!

Absolutely.

Not wearing seat belts does not cause accidents - but it can make a bad situation worse.

To justify the NCT, mechanical failures would not only have to contribute to the accident, they would need to be such that an NCT would have found them, and that NCT would have to be conducted after the mechanical fault manifested itself. A lot of 'would haves' to justify the test.

The NCT is designed to drive vehicles off the road and into the scrap yard, to be replaced be shiny new German ones, generating lots of loverly VRT.

swarlb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Absolutely.
The NCT is designed to drive vehicles off the road and into the scrap yard, to be replaced be shiny new German ones, generating lots of loverly VRT.

That is a pointless argument. What exactly is it that you'd like to see ? roads full of 20/30/40 year old well maintained cars, just to prove something to the world that we Irish don't want to fall into the 'trap' of being conned into buying 'shiny new German cars', and by doing so 'sticking it to the man' by avoiding paying VRT.
Where exactly did all the old cars come from ?? And were they VRT exempt ?
The NCT is a car road worthiness test, nothing more, nothing less, it is not some part of a 'vile conspiracy theory' to drive cars off the road, and/or 'con' the poor put upon motorist to pay more tax.
Not everyone who owns/drives an old car looks after it, the same way that not everyone who has a 'new' car does the same.
We were buying, selling and scrapping cars long before the internet, cheap rates of road tax, 'classic' insurance policies came along, and certainly long before the NCT was devised.
The problem is, like almost everything to do with the Irish, we casually ignored anything to do with car testing till we were forced into doing it, and then all we do is piss and moan about it as though it was a plague from Hell.

alastair

Sam Russell wrote: »

...Any or all of these would help solve the problem of vintage tax on a daily driver.

What, precisely is the 'problem' of daily driver classics?

Sam Russell wrote: »

We already have Land Rovers appearing with ZV registrations on vehicles that appear to be much more modern.

That's not a problem of daily driver classics though, that's a symptom of the legislation regarding measuring the age of a car by the age of it's chassis. if there's a loophole there, it's rather strange to define daily driving of a classic as an abuse of the system, rather than whole body transplants.

Silvera

KC161 wrote: »

Next they'll start testing cars from 1 year old instead of the current 4 years(taxi's currently undergo this obviously) ,taxed to the hilt we are.

Could be worse...in New Zealand it's every 6 months! :pac:

macplaxton

^^^^ Ahh, the Kiwi WoF!

mattroche

Has anyone heard the RUMOR, 35 Years Rolling, for N.C.T. ?

macplaxton

No...but you've started it now!

boardsuser1

Silvera wrote: »

Could be worse...in New Zealand it's every 6 months! :pac:

Oh christ, let's hope the government don't see this thread

corktina

i'm hoping for 30 yrs....but then I drive a 1987 and have to CVRT it, so you can see a bit of self interest there!

boardsuser1

corktina wrote: »

i'm hoping for 30 yrs....but then I drive a 1987 and have to CVRT it, so you can see a bit of self interest there!

A 1987 truck???

Sam Russell

swarlb wrote: »

That is a pointless argument. What exactly is it that you'd like to see ? roads full of 20/30/40 year old well maintained cars, just to prove something to the world that we Irish don't want to fall into the 'trap' of being conned into buying 'shiny new German cars', and by doing so 'sticking it to the man' by avoiding paying VRT.

The NCT has, in its Irish manifestation, several elements that are not best practice.

1. The two year cycle, starting at 4 years old. This together with the anniversary date, predisposes certain ages when disposing of a car is better than another date. If I buy an oldish car in the UK, it usually comes with 'a fresh MOT' which will be valid for a year. In the Irish context, the NCT is valid for a period until the car was originally registered, and that could be for as little as 4 months or as much as 27 months.

The effect of this is to make certain ages more acceptable to get the best out of the car. Particularly, a three year old car that has just come off finance is a perfect target for the car salesman to trade it in against a shiny new German one.

Where exactly did all the old cars come from ?? And were they VRT exempt ?
The NCT is a car road worthiness test, nothing more, nothing less, it is not some part of a 'vile conspiracy theory' to drive cars off the road, and/or 'con' the poor put upon motorist to pay more tax.

The test is a lot more than a road worthiness test. The emissions has nothing to do with road worthiness or safety. Tyre age per se is not a safety issue, but tyre condition is. A new cheap Chinese tyre with zero wet grip is OK but a seven year old OE tyre that has spent its life in the boot earns an advisory, and next time a fail. There are plenty of example where the test strays from purely safety. One car of mine failed on an oils spill decrribed as an oil leak.

Not everyone who owns/drives an old car looks after it, the same way that not everyone who has a 'new' car does the same.
We were buying, selling and scrapping cars long before the internet, cheap rates of road tax, 'classic' insurance policies came along, and certainly long before the NCT was devised.

Agreed, but it is the particular rules of our NCT that is devised to drive cars off the road. See above.

The problem is, like almost everything to do with the Irish, we casually ignored anything to do with car testing till we were forced into doing it, and then all we do is piss and moan about it as though it was a plague from Hell.

There are better ways of doing this than the way chosen. The suspicion is there that the test centres work on a quota system. [The same was suspected about driving test.] Perhaps there is but there is evidence that vehicles that fail and are represented with no work then miraculously pass.

I am not against the NCT but do consider that the anniversary date idea should be scrapped, and that the minimum validity should be one year. Also any car should be able to be presented at any time and get the appropriate validity, so cars can be sold with a 'fresh' NCT.

The second hand car market is significantly affected by the vagaries of the NCT system.

Silvera

macplaxton wrote: »

^^^^ Ahh, the Kiwi WoF!

Correct. I had a 1988 Nissan Bluebird auto when I was there in 2004...I bought it with it's 6 month WoF (Warrant of Fitness) in place, and sold it 3 months later (for a small profit to a UK backpacker) with 3 months WoF left to go!

corktina

KC161 wrote: »

A 1987 truck???

mk2 transit camper

Cleveland Hot Pocket

The 30/40/rolling exemptions apply to NCT only, no?
Currently all CVRT eligible vehicles must be CVRT'd every year, even a 1979 commercial. AFAIK.

corktina

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

The 30/40/rolling exemptions apply to NCT only, no?
Currently all CVRT eligible vehicles must be CVRT'd every year, even a 1979 commercial. AFAIK.

ah but I'm hoping to get it reclassified as a Vintage vehicle once it's 30 years old and pay Classic Tax. That's the plan anyway. Once it's described as Vintage rather than a Camper.... you follow my thoughts?

shineon23

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

The 30/40/rolling exemptions apply to NCT only, no?
Currently all CVRT eligible vehicles must be CVRT'd every year, even a 1979 commercial. AFAIK.

I heard that any age of commercial had to be tested IF they were being used for commercial purposes?
If vintage commercial was only used for shows/runs and classified and taxed vintage, it would be test exempt.

Another grey area really as it's an NCT exemption prior to first registration of 1/1/1980, not DOE/CVRT exemption so cannot say for sure

Cleveland Hot Pocket

shineon23 wrote: »

I heard that any age of commercial had to be tested IF they were being used for commercial purposes?
If vintage commercial was only used for shows/runs and classified and taxed vintage, it would be test exempt.

Another grey area really as it's an NCT exemption prior to first registration of 1/1/1980, not DOE/CVRT exemption so cannot say for sure

As you said, there is no DOE/CVRT exemption for vintage commercials currently, so all commercial vehicles need a test regardless of age/

Hopefully the new rules will change that.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

corktina wrote: »

ah but I'm hoping to get it reclassified as a Vintage vehicle once it's 30 years old and pay Classic Tax. That's the plan anyway. Once it's described as Vintage rather than a Camper.... you follow my thoughts?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it should be CVRT'd anyway, regardless of taxation class. If you were to tax it privately as based on CC and not as a camper, you would legally still need a DOE/CVRT.
This is as the legislation currently applies, there is no CVRT exemption. Only an exemption from NCT (which a camper, regardless of age, is not).

shagman

From the CVRT site.... http://www.cvrt.ie/en/Certificate-of-Roadworthiness/Pages/FAQ.aspx

1. Are there any changes to test anniversary dates / validity period of a CRW for vehicles? The current legal obligation for commercial vehicles to be tested annually, on the anniversary of the date of their first registration remains.Motor caravans must be tested on the fourth anniversary of first registration and thereafter every two years until the vehicle is ten years old, after which annual testing applies. Motor Caravans registered prior to 1st January 1980 are exempt from testing.

I also asked at the last time I brought the work van in for DOE, and they confirmed my '79 camper was exempt but could be voluntarily tested at normal fees.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

shagman wrote: »

From the CVRT site.... http://www.cvrt.ie/en/Certificate-of-Roadworthiness/Pages/FAQ.aspx

1. Are there any changes to test anniversary dates / validity period of a CRW for vehicles? The current legal obligation for commercial vehicles to be tested annually, on the anniversary of the date of their first registration remains.Motor caravans must be tested on the fourth anniversary of first registration and thereafter every two years until the vehicle is ten years old, after which annual testing applies. Motor Caravans registered prior to 1st January 1980 are exempt from testing.

I also asked at the last time I brought the work van in for DOE, and they confirmed my '79 camper was exempt but could be voluntarily tested at normal fees.

Ah, ok thanks
So the pre '80 applies to NCT and then specifically to CVRT for campers but not other vintage commercials.

Typical Irish.

boardsuser1

corktina wrote: »

mk2 transit camper

Nice

corktina

not so nice at present. awaiting entry to bodyshop for repairs. will be solid when done though

corktina

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Ah, ok thanks
So the pre '80 applies to NCT and then specifically to CVRT for campers but not other vintage commercials.

Typical Irish.

so i think if NCT becomes under 30 then CVRT will have to too for campers. I imagine it is becasue campers couldn't be NCTd and had to be added to the CVRT test but get special treatment akin to vintage cars (rightly so)... Commercials used solely as vintage should get this too really.