New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

digger58

John Larkin wrote: »

I put my exempt 1967 car through the NCT each year and it passes. I find the NCT to be reasonable to deal with.

WHY?

John Larkin

digger58 wrote: »

WHY?

I believe that all vehicles used in a public place should undergo roadworthiness testing.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

John Larkin wrote: »

I believe that all vehicles used in a public place should undergo roadworthiness testing.

The county name in irish over the numberplate and other BS like that has nothing to do with roadworthiness though.

And the test is sometimes carried out by idiot "mechanics". I've seen photos of an NCT tester just after ripping a bonnet off a car.

Dades

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

It's only natural to expect fear of emissions test in a prospective NCT
These cars are going from no emissions test to a prospective emissions test that we don't know what the benchmarks are.

We do know that the benchmarks for pre-87 cars are reasonable. They set a fairly low bar to achieve.

But ultimately again whether any changes are going to be a disaster or a mere inconvenience will completely depend on the implementation. Once the RSA has made its recommendation the lobby groups need to keep the pressure on so that whatever new tests certain cars will be subjected to will be tailored to those cars, and not just thrown into the NCT queue with the same pre-87 emissions standards.

mewaldo

Whatever the outcome, will this test cert mean i wont need an engineers report to insure a classic if i have an nct on it.

Or do we pay for two test to say the same thing?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I've no problem with modern classics being put through an NCT.
The likes of my 300ZX for instance. 1989 3.0 v6 twin turbo. That shouldn't have a problem with an NCT.

Providing adequate allowances are made which by all accounts they are.

However cars from the '60s were not tested for emissions. Certainly not the likes of a big block double carburetted american sedan. My '68 chrysler hasn't a hope of passing any emissions test for instance. There were no emissions standards when it was released and does probably less than 1000 miles per year. Why should we impose emissions standards on cars when they were not there to begin with?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

mewaldo wrote: »

Whatever the outcome, will this test cert mean i wont need an engineers report to insure a classic if i have an nct on it.

Or do we pay for two test to say the same thing?

Don't need that anyway with most companies.
Only one that asked me for an engineers report was first ireland who were also the most expensive two years running.

jetfiremuck

My crib is not emissions. It's the rules that will be applied as part of the test. To think a 73 cortina or a more complicated car of that era Lancia or Jag is going to pass a shock test, sideslip test on bias ply tyres, to modern standards is dreaming( what they are going to be lax on steering slop or front drum brake efficiency due to older bushings. Etc..come on) or the biggest issue I see chasing around looking for chassis numbers where they may or May not exist where a nfail is is likely until resolved. I'm speaking from a mechanics type approach and not the T cut bunch.

carchaeologist

jca wrote: »

I don't think there's any point talking to the posters here. It's been said over and over again that these cars won't be expected to pass modern emission levels.... I'm hitting the unfollow button.

This is hitting the spot. There is a world of morons harping on about this, but il bet very few have actually read the proposals in detail.

I would guess that a 40 year rolling exemption will be the favoured one when this is finally implemented. It's fairly middle of the road and should keep all parties happy. Plus, and the most important point, if this (or any)option is implemented it won't be until May 2018. Which leaves a year and 8 months of cars that will be in the NCT loop that are not right now, and within that same year and 8 months they will be back out if that loop again.

As macplaxton has previously pointed out, it's the definition of a classic car that needs looking at more so than the NCT dates.
A car that's true to it's original build spec and is preserved as such should get the reduced rate of tax.
A car that's been built and/or is modified with more powerful running gear is an entirely different thing altogether.
Plenty of rally cars and the like out there on the reduced tax rate that if the book definition of a vintage vehicle is read in it's true meaning shouldn't have it.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

carchaeologist wrote: »

This is hitting the spot. There is a world of morons harping on about this, but il bet very few have actually read the proposals in detail.

I would guess that a 40 year rolling exemption will be the favoured one when this is finally implemented. It's fairly middle of the road and should keep all parties happy. Plus, and the most important point, if this (or any)option is implemented it won't be until May 2018. Which leaves a year and 8 months of cars that will be in the NCT loop that are not right now, and within that same year and 8 months they will be back out if that loop again.

As macplaxton has previously pointed out, it's the definition of a classic car that needs looking at more so than the NCT dates.
A car that's true to it's original build spec and is preserved as such should get the reduced rate of tax.
A car that's been built and/or is modified with more powerful running gear is an entirely different thing altogether.
Plenty of rally cars and the like out there on the reduced tax rate that if the book definition of a vintage vehicle is read in it's true meaning shouldn't have it.

+1
I have said all along that that is the most fair outcome. IMO of course but I think it balances the need for tests to the need of classic owners to avoid harsh tests on cars not designed for it

carchaeologist

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

+1
I have said all along that that is the most fair outcome. IMO of course but I think it balances the need for tests to the need of classic owners to avoid harsh tests on cars not designed for it

As the years roll on older cars will become exempt and natural wastage plus 40 years if testing will take care of the rubbish.
The main fear of the RSA that I get from reading the proposal is people using more modern classics as daily drivers and the possible dangers of cars that are not up to scratch mechanically.

And let's face it, there are many 1980s cars that are perfect for daily use.

Means Of Escape

John Larkin wrote: »

I believe that all vehicles used in a public place should undergo roadworthiness testing.[/


That was your decision but most would disagree with the need for it being tested. .
No evidence to prove otherwise
It only takes a number of people to take your stance on testing and it screws it up for the majority who don't .
In fact your bloody action probably brought it to their attention!!

Means Of Escape

Dades wrote: »

We do know that the benchmarks for pre-87 cars are reasonable. They set a fairly low bar to achieve.

But ultimately again whether any changes are going to be a disaster or a mere inconvenience will completely depend on the implementation. Once the RSA has made its recommendation the lobby groups need to keep the pressure on so that whatever new tests certain cars will be subjected to will be tailored to those cars, and not just thrown into the NCT queue with the same pre-87 emissions standards.

There won't be any tailoring

Cleveland Hot Pocket

carchaeologist wrote: »

As the years roll on older cars will become exempt and natural wastage plus 40 years if testing will take care of the rubbish.
The main fear of the RSA that I get from reading the proposal is people using more modern classics as daily drivers and the possible dangers of cars that are not up to scratch mechanically.

And let's face it, there are many 1980s cars that are perfect for daily use.

Yes, which is why there is no need to alter the 1980 breakpoint imo.
Many '80s cars would be suitable for dailies but not so many '70s

alastair

carchaeologist wrote: »

The main fear of the RSA that I get from reading the proposal is people using more modern classics as daily drivers and the possible dangers of cars that are not up to scratch mechanically.

And let's face it, there are many 1980s cars that are perfect for daily use.

I used an '80's car as a daily driver up until a couple of years ago, with a removed catalytic converter, and a Weber carb (the fuel injection system died and was unobtanium). It managed to pass the NCT emissions test regardless.

John Larkin

Means Of Escape wrote: »

John Larkin wrote: »

I believe that all vehicles used in a public place should undergo roadworthiness testing.[/


That was your decision but most would disagree with the need for it being tested. .
No evidence to prove otherwise
It only takes a number of people to take your stance on testing and it screws it up for the majority who don't .
In fact your bloody action probably brought it to their attention!!

You can find the reasons for the RSA review of the NCT in parliamentary questions and answers. But will you look?

alastair

John Larkin wrote: »

You can find the reasons for the RSA review of the NCT in parliamentary questions and answers. But will you look?

The RSA decided that there was no road safety justification for roadworthiness testing of motorbikes. Likewise there's no requirement to test tractors. So the merits of testing classic cars - with a record of far fewer RTA's than either of those vehicles, are rather obscure. Voluntary testing is, of course, entirely the owner's own business, but enforced testing really should have some demonstrable social benefit.

(For what it's worth, my car is in the 'older than 40 years' camp, so unlikely to fall into the NCT net).

Means Of Escape

Testacalda wrote: »

I'm not sure about that bit above. They only test vehicles to the standards in place when they were new, that has always been the case. For example if you tested a mid eighties petrol car with a carb, against modern standards, it would probably fail, but thats not what they do.

If you tested a mid 70s or 80s high cc car with injection units and the car is running way too rich despite all efforts ,once you price a set of new injectors or an ECU you will be breaking the car .and this wouldn't be to modern emissions expectations.
Smokey because of worn rings then the car will be dumped.
Nct sent perfectly good cars to the scrap yard since it's inception.
Most of these types of high cc cars are gone due to the ridiculous road taxation applied to them
Those that have survived should not be sent the same way but a sure way of this happening would be through an nct.
Rolling 30 year exemption fairest for all.
Reversal of the 1980 cut off should be sought.



It's not the car ,it's the monkey who is driving it .

Testacalda

There is a 3rd public meeting being held on this matter, next Thursday, 30th October, in the Spawell in Templeogue at 8pm, just for anywone on the east side that might want to go

Kenny Logins

Testacalda wrote: »

There is a 3rd public meeting being held on this matter, next Thursday, 30th October, in the Spawell in Templeogue at 8pm, just for anywone on the east side that might want to go

Do you know who is organising it? So I can share the details on teh Twitter and Factbook.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Great thanks
Will be there!

Any link to an event page?

Testacalda

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Do you know who is organising it? So I can share the details on teh Twitter and Factbook.

I saw it on Thomas Heavey's (of irish Vintage Scene magazine) facebook page. No details of the 3rd meeting were posted by Irish Vintage Scene yet though. Heard there was 300 people at the one in Cork on Tuesday

Edit: Also here now that I looked:

https://www.facebook.com/shamrockcarandmachineryclub/posts/780068172053047

Means Of Escape

Testacalda wrote: »

I saw it on Thomas Heavey's (of irish Vintage Scene magazine) facebook page. No details of the 3rd meeting were posted by Irish Vintage Scene yet though. Heard there was 300 people at the one in Cork on Tuesday

Edit: Also here now that I looked:

https://www.facebook.com/shamrockcarandmachineryclub/posts/780068172053047

Tom Heavey most certainly has his finger on the pulse and has to be acknowledged.
Only for this guy ,attention to his farcical proposal wouldn't have gone nationwide.

mattroche

The Dept, of Transport in the U.K. are having a similar consultation, and appear to be suggestion 30 years rolling, I would not be surprised if the same was not done here, hopefully!

MrFoxman360

mattroche wrote: »

The Dept, of Transport in the U.K. are having a similar consultation, and appear to be suggestion 30 years rolling, I would not be surprised if the same was not done here, hopefully!

Hopefully. 30 rolling exemption would be a brilliant outcome, but a 40 year rolling exemption would do either. Either way a rolling exemption will be the best in the long term, (even if the 40 year one was a bit of a balls for the first few years) Having a fixed date is restrictive as time goes on

digger58

30 years would also tie in nicely with the road tax regime. I am not convinced that the RSA have thought about the constant addition of vehicles to the classic/vintage pool, what is new today could very well be classic in 30 years time and so proportionally a percentage of today's young drivers will own classics. As a retired Garda, 4 years spent in Forensic collision investigation, the number of accidents due to mechanical failure is negligible, in my 30 years I can only recall 1 and that was on a very badly maintained lorry. The insurance companies endorse this as well hence the premiums for classic vehicles. Incidentally I am still waiting for the RSA to supply me with figures of accidents involving classic/vintage involved in collisions where the condition of the vehicle was the cause.

Means Of Escape

Golden years for classic car status probably ended mid 90s
Can't see modern cars with plastic dashboards , electronic gizmos ,Eco Diesel engines and bland features ever hitting classic status overall
Exceptions would be m3 and m5 bmws of the 00s and a few other marques but never as many as the calibre of collectible cars of the 70s 80s and early 90s when petrol and style were king.
VW Corrado g60,Lancia integrale etc so there would be a reduction rather than an increase in cars falling under classic status in the future.
They don't make them like they used to .

airnwater

RSA / NCT information evening in Limerick , SAVE OUR CLASSICS !


Limerick Classic & Vintage Car Club

Where : Kilmurry Lodge Hotel , Limerick

When ; 8pm Tuesday 28th October

Who ; Anyone !

Cost ; FREE

The government are considering introducing a compulsory NCT for ALL post 1960 vintage / historic vehicles

We want to fight this.

You have until NOVEMBER 14th 2014 to fill out the RSA NCT consultation response form.

There will be a slide presentation with suggested responses for this form.

We will help you fill out your response form & submit / post it to the RSA for you

Remember EVERY form counts !

whisky_galore

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Golden years for classic car status probably ended mid 90s
Can't see modern cars with plastic dashboards , electronic gizmos ,Eco Diesel engines and bland features ever hitting classic status overall
Exceptions would be m3 and m5 bmws of the 00s and a few other marques but never as many as the calibre of collectible cars of the 70s 80s and early 90s when petrol and style were king.
VW Corrado g60,Lancia integrale etc so there would be a reduction rather than an increase in cars falling under classic status in the future.
They don't make them like they used to .

People probably said the very same thing about anything post 1960's not so long ago.

Kenny Logins

whisky_galore wrote: »

People probably said the very same thing about anything post 1960's not so long ago.

Probably not.