New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

Testacalda

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is this consultation about testing historic vehicles intended to actually find out anything that is not known already?

Its probably more to do with gauging reaction than gathering facts

Cleveland Hot Pocket

actually it's about "how can we make money"

kadman

its about creating a few new driving regs for us to break, and then pay an on the spot tax/fine...same thing

Testacalda

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

actually it's about "how can we make money"

do you mean the actual proposal itself so, I'm just talking about the process of consultation

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Testacalda wrote: »

do you mean the actual proposal itself so, I'm just talking about the process of consultation

Proposals, process of consultation , the whole lot of it.

Means Of Escape

galwaytt wrote: »

.....it's unlikely more will appear, unless MB start making old 2nd hand cars..........by the time anything would happen here, they'll all have been scrapped so it'll be too late. And with no-one buying any new ones then there isn't a crop of them to get, into the future. Cars like my 03 911 are a buy now or miss the boat completely.............[/

More would appear having being bought off Donedeal if the motor tax was reasonable
Cars from 88 onwards that are perfectly good but the engine size is the killer.
Honda Legends ,BMW 730,740,750,-Mercedes s320,420,500,600,Lexus Soarer,Granada cosworths,jaguars xjrs etc
The list is endless
As it stands many of these are heading for the dump too as time goes on as the cost to SoRD them will most certainly not be free in the future (more money for the pups )which along with the long wait for vintage tax will send them over the edge.

Sam Russell

They are now making lack of NCT a fixed penalty with 3 points. Now these apply to your driving licence, not your car.

Applus or whoever are advertising to book an NCT test early as they cannot cope.

So, I take my 1970 jobbie down for an NCT test and it fails for some silly item, like loose exhaust fitting, and I have 28 days to fix it. Now if the part is hard to source or has to be made and I am late for the retest, I must book again. With a three month waiting time for an appointment, I will be not long taking up fishing or golf or someother pastime. Who wants that level of grief?

Rolling 30 year NCT is your only man, with a roll-in of vintage tax from 20 years.

corktina

it's a total myth that there is a 3 month waiting list for a test. If you phone them , you will get on the cancellation list and get a test within days.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

it's a total myth that there is a 3 month waiting list for a test. If you phone them , you will get on the cancellation list and get a test within days.

Depends where you live. I had to wait for two months, even phoning them.

They are saying that they are overloaded on the adverts.

The Big Red Fella

corktina wrote: »

it's a total myth that there is a 3 month waiting list for a test. If you phone them , you will get on the cancellation list and get a test within days.

Dont be silly its almost impossible to get a date!

quenching

The Big Red Fella wrote: »

Dont be silly its almost impossible to get a date!

I've NEVER had a problem getting a date within a week or two, if you can't find something suitable on their website (which is very likely) and you ring them and mention that the test must be provided free of charge if not within 28 days (at a time and place agreeable to you) then they will magically find you a date. I've never heard of anyone being provided with a free test due to not being able to get one within 28 days.

macplaxton

I tried phoning them as the online was giving 9 weeks at the local centre.

Put on the priority list, blah, blah, blah.

5 weeks later I ring them up. They don't have me on the list. Said they'd listen back to the call and ring me back. They rung me back and offered me a couple of times at a couple of days notice that weren't suitable. So they said they'd be back in touch with something in a couple of weeks. Said it was a freebie.

Get a text message with a time and date about a week ahead. So I goes to the test. It's not on their list as a freebie, so pay up or no test. Pay up for the test as I don't have time to argue. Get straight on the phone to Customer Services. After 15 minutes fannying around (check back on the calls, etc.) They tell me the test is a freebie, I'll get a cheque in the post.

Cheque in the post arrives 3 weeks later. It was dated about a week after I called and took another 2 weeks to get in the post.

So the call got me an appointment 7 weeks after initially calling instead of 9. But I shouldn't of had to pay for it and wait for a refund.

If they could keep on top of their waiting list I wouldn't be bothered, but their inability to do the simplest of things (actually put me on a list, get me a date inside 4 weeks and make sure I'm not having to pay for it up front) got right on my tits.

I'm quite happy doing MOTs over the water as I have some choice of where I take it and I can sometimes even get an appointment the same morning.

SpitfireIV

I've signed up my form and its ready to be sent back. I've opted for testing on post 1960 vechicles; if only a basic test on the likes of lights, brakes, chassis/structural rust and tyres. Obviously noting too the need for a knowledgable 'sympathetic' staff that understand classic vechicles and the love (or lack there of as may be discovered in testing) of their vechicles.

As well as nice shining, well looked after and well restored vehicles, theres a fair majority of rust boxes on the roads also! Bodge jobs, pulled out of sheds or imported from the UK (where they probably failed their MOT!) and slapped up with filler and put on the road again here, we've all seen them at shows. I'm always in the habit of looking under the cars; no matter how pristine and sweet they look on the outside in a number of cases the underside is a different story! I see one Fiesta owner driving around town here with tyres that you wouldnt tie to the side of a fishing boat!! Bald and baldy cracked, but what matter, the car has a nice 'retro' look, to hell with safety (both his and other road users!) :rolleyes:

I dont see the issue with a test such as I outlined, on the basics, surely it'll give piece of mind! And those that are kicking up a fuss, why so? The fear that your car isnt as road worthy as you believe it to be? That it may require serious work?


Besides, if testing were implimented there'd be many many cheap 'project' cars up for sale very quick!

The Big Red Fella

I dont see the issue with a test such as I outlined, on the basics, surely it'll give piece of mind! And those that are kicking up a fuss, why so? The fear that your car isnt as road worthy as you believe it to be? That it may require serious work?

Not at all mate i built my cars & dont want a monkey who doesnt understand damaging my cars, they are not rotten in fact they are like new with the underneath getting 3 coats of rustbullet & then stone chipped & painted with 2 pack satin black, this process cost over 500 euro & i dont want any unqualified idiot poking looking for something that isnt there, as for brakes cables etc all are new & brake lines are braided stainless calipers new or refurbed all brackets etc are powdercoated & all bolts are either stainless or re zinc coated!
all tyres are new even though i have several sets of alloys all new!!!
my last car cost approx €25k to restore doing most my self except paint,
why would i need anyone to test my cars ever?

SpitfireIV

The Big Red Fella wrote: »

I dont see the issue with a test such as I outlined, on the basics, surely it'll give piece of mind! And those that are kicking up a fuss, why so? The fear that your car isnt as road worthy as you believe it to be? That it may require serious work?

Not at all mate i built my cars & dont want a monkey who doesnt understand damaging my cars, they are not rotten in fact they are like new with the underneath getting 3 coats of rustbullet & then stone chipped & painted with 2 pack satin black, this process cost over 500 euro & i dont want any unqualified idiot poking looking for something that isnt there, as for brakes cables etc all are new & brake lines are braided stainless calipers new or refurbed all brackets etc are powdercoated & all bolts are either stainless or re zinc coated!
all tyres are new even though i have several sets of alloys all new!!!
my last car cost approx €25k to restore doing most my self except paint,
why would i need anyone to test my cars ever?

For the same reason all non vintage cars are tested; for road worthiness, now, I understand that 'vintage' cars are not your everyday runaround, theyre weekend drivers and car shows, but still driven on public roads. Fair enough, you've put in the work and money it seems and you're sure you're satisfied with it, but, if that were the case say with the current NCT most people wouldnt put their cars in, 'sure its grand, nothing wrong with it' mentality.

I do agree that the classics need to be handled sympathetically and with care. But at the same time I dont believe it should be exempt because you believe it to be ok; that provides a get out ticket for those who think there cars are above the system and those who know it'd never get through.

Sam Russell

The main problems I see with the NCT for historic cars are:

1. The NCT is overloaded here in Ireland. Getting a test date is not easy, and the wait is more than the 4 weeks guaranteed by the regulations.

2. NCT certs should have a validity of at least 12 months.

3. The 'anninversary date' idea is cracked. It was introduced to disuade people from postponing their test. When the test lasted two years, there may have been some point, but if it takes two months to get a test, then 28 days for a retest, the NCT may only have a validity of 8 months. Given that parts are not readily available for historic cars, it may miss the retest window and so have to go for a new test, and risk further unrelated failures.

4. The test has damaged cars, and this is more likely with a historic vehicle, as it is generally more delicate.

5. Historic cars are usually well maintained (by the owner usually) and anything required to be done is done. Requiring retest is unnecessary in my opinion.

6. Insurance companies do not look for NCT as there are few (if any) claims that would be avoided by testing. They are not in the business because they are fond of historic cars.

7. If a car fails its NCT it is off the road until retested. Given that it is not often on the road, this would cause many to give up using the cars altogether. Now that NO NCT means three points on a licence, I think many will decide the hobby is not worth the hassle.

I think a thirty rolling exemption is the only sensible option if the hobby is to survive in at meaning level.

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

The main problems I see with the NCT for historic cars are:

1. The NCT is overloaded here in Ireland. Getting a test date is not easy, and the wait is more than the 4 weeks guaranteed by the regulations.

2. NCT certs should have a validity of at least 12 months.

3. The 'anninversary date' idea is cracked. It was introduced to disuade people from postponing their test. When the test lasted two years, there may have been some point, but if it takes two months to get a test, then 28 days for a retest, the NCT may only have a validity of 8 months. Given that parts are not readily available for historic cars, it may miss the retest window and so have to go for a new test, and risk further unrelated failures.

4. The test has damaged cars, and this is more likely with a historic vehicle, as it is generally more delicate.

5. Historic cars are usually well maintained (by the owner usually) and anything required to be done is done. Requiring retest is unnecessary in my opinion.

6. Insurance companies do not look for NCT as there are few (if any) claims that would be avoided by testing. They are not in the business because they are fond of historic cars.

7. If a car fails its NCT it is off the road until retested. Given that it is not often on the road, this would cause many to give up using the cars altogether. Now that NO NCT means three points on a licence, I think many will decide the hobby is not worth the hassle.

I think a thirty rolling exemption is the only sensible option if the hobby is to survive in at meaning level.

1 Not true
2 They have, if you already have one you can apply for a new 12 month one before three months from the due date and you get 12 months.
3 see 2
4 If they aren't fit to take the test ,they hardly should be on the road
5 Nonsense, I've sen some shockers and it's them the test would be aimed at
6 They do generally insist a car is NCTd when it should be and rightly so
7 There are thousands of cars on the road without NCT and the sooner they are weeded out the better. Safe cars are more important than a hobby, Beore no NCT ,meant 5 points and a fine of up to €1500 and a mandatory court appearance, so the penalties have been reduced a lot

Sam Russell

The reason the 'anniversary date' should be dropped is that, since most cars are sold in the first quarter of the year, the NCT centres are overloaded in the first quarter. I beleive this country is the only one in the EU to have such a system. They are actually advertising that they are overloaded.

The 12 month validity should be a minimum. If I want to sell a car in July that has an anniversary date of Jan, it cannot have a 12 month cert even if I retest it.

If the NCT do not damage cars, why insist on a complete waiver - even if it is their fault. Garages do not insist on a waiver.

It would make more sense if all cars were tested annually, from one year old on. I have seen many 'young' cars that are shockers too. The point about historic cars is that they are not driven far, and only in ideal conditions. Annual NCT would help combat clocking - a safety issue for 3 to 5 year old cars. It would also even out the second hand car market.

hi5

I thought the anniversary date was dropped, you can now get a years NCT from whenever you want.

corktina

yeah, I already said that, not that the guy read it.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

yeah, I already said that, not that the guy read it.

I did read it.

What you get is a new anniverary date. Their whole system is built around the anniversary date. All you can do is get a new anniversary date by testing early - but you must test more than 3 months early, so instead of getting up to 15 months, you get 12 months and a new anniversary date.

What I think and mean - is it should be a minimum of 12 months validity, irrespective of when it is tested, or whether there is a valid NCT cert in place at the time of test.

It should be - if you have a vaild NCT, then you get upto 15 months (assuming it is over 10 years old) validity. (The 15 months would apply to any valid NCT that has more than 3 months to run.) If you do not, you get a full 12 months validity - no reference to the anniversary date.

corktina

No way. Then people would be skipping a few months like they did with the tax discs!

Means Of Escape

It beggars belief how many turkeys are voting for Christmas on this forum .
Again if testing for vintage vehicles is introduced the requirements to pass can be changed at a whim .
There is absolutely no reason for this test on vintage cars let alone modern cars as most accidents are driver and not mechanical related.
This is nothing but a revenue gathering exercise set down by the RSA.
If there is a rust blister under a windscreen the tester can argue that the bulkhead is rotten and fail the car under structural failure despite the rust being merely cosmetic
If these cars are so dangerous on the roads then the pro testers should produce evidence to support this .
There aren't apes hammering vintage cars around the back roads
Those who value classic and vintage cars are of an age and experience that sees them driving their cars with care at all times .
Ask a De Lorean owner to burn the tyres off his car and see what he says .
Waste of time, flawed proposal and the money better spent on educating the clowns who drive modern cars and send them into the ditches every weekend of the year.

corktina

I beg to differ. Choose 6 cars at random off Donedeal classic section and go see them and you'll see what piles of rubbish are out there and able to drive on the road with no testing. I'd say 5 out of the 6 would have some defect making them dangerous

carchaeologist

There also seems to be the push to stop the guys using 'vintage' cars as daily drivers.

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

I beg to differ. Choose 6 cars at random off Donedeal classic section and go see them and you'll see what piles of rubbish are out there and able to drive on the road with no testing. I'd say 5 out of the 6 would have some defect making them dangerous


And so many like them before that have caused accidents and fatalities .

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Means Of Escape wrote: »

It beggars belief how many turkeys are voting for Christmas on this forum .
Again if testing for vintage vehicles is introduced the requirements to pass can be changed at a whim .
There is absolutely no reason for this test on vintage cars let alone modern cars as most accidents are driver and not mechanical related.
This is nothing but a revenue gathering exercise set down by the RSA.
If there is a rust blister under a windscreen the tester can argue that the bulkhead is rotten and fail the car under structural failure despite the rust being merely cosmetic
If these cars are so dangerous on the roads then the pro testers should produce evidence to support this .
There aren't apes hammering vintage cars around the back roads
Those who value classic and vintage cars are of an age and experience that sees them driving their cars with care at all times .
Ask a De Lorean owner to burn the tyres off his car and see what he says .
Waste of time, flawed proposal and the money better spent on educating the clowns who drive modern cars and send them into the ditches every weekend of the year.

+1
+1 million actually. Couldnt agree more.

corktina

you only need to prevent one fatality to make it worthwhile.

Bruthal

corktina wrote: »

you only need to prevent one fatality to make it worthwhile.

Ban driving then, and save hundreds of lives a year.

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

you only need to prevent one fatality to make it worthwhile.

one can never show proof that the magic wand NCT will prevent a future fatality.
Only common sense driving will achieve that .