The elephant in the room thread.

mountai

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

Who the hell do you think you are? I asked about the legislation and you decide to accuse me of placing false identity's on car

I think you are going a bit over the top there Basil. I for one dont read anything in Sams quote that actually accuses you of doing any such thing. The fact that you "Liked " a previous post from, Rugbyman , in which he states he MIGHT see circumstances where "dodgy" practices could be acceptable to some -- which he rightly qualifies by pointing out these actions should not be done -- could give some credence to the belief that YOU dont regard these practices as being unacceptable ???. This is just my take on it and I could be totally wrong. I , in no way, wish to state, that you would be comfortable with the idea of Cloning.

Sam Russell

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

Who the hell do you think you are? I asked about the legislation and you decide to accuse me of placing false identity's on cars?

There is more than specific legislation involved. Fraud is clearly involved if a false identity is used to gain a pecuniary advantage, which is the usual reason this is done. It is clearly illeagal under many statutes to put a false identity on a car. If you think about it, which was the intention of my original post, telling your insurance company exactly what has been done would result in your insurance being cancelled. Telling AGS or the revenue would result on the sky falling on top of you.

I am not accusing you or anyone of anything. All I am pointing out is the absurdity of anyone thinking this practice is smiled on by anyone within official Ireland, and it is merely ignored by them because of their indolence and incompetence.

corktina

you is plural in this case, not singular.... used in place of a more clear "someone".....

macplaxton

"you" is used in that post as an impersonal pronoun, the poster would sound rather poncy if he used "one" instead.

LifeSaabItch

http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/1979-p100-on-vintage-granada-chassie/5737489

delthedriver

LifeSaabItch wrote: »

http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/1979-p100-on-vintage-granada-chassie/5737489

Meh!:rolleyes:

Looks like a sierra pick up?;)

LifeSaabItch

delthedriver wrote: »

Meh!:rolleyes:

Looks like a sierra pick up?;)

Not just any Sierra but a 1979 P100 on Granada Chassis according to the ad title.

carchaeologist

LifeSaabItch wrote: »

http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/1979-p100-on-vintage-granada-chassie/5737489

Yes... Good welder there.

delthedriver

LifeSaabItch wrote: »

Not just any Sierra but a 1979 P100 on Granada Chassis according to the ad title.

Thought the Sierra was launched in 1983?

carchaeologist

delthedriver wrote: »

Thought the Sierra was launched in 1983?

It was, late 1982.
P100s from 1979 had cortina front underpinnings, with bigger wheels, and different (unique) front wings to accommodate them. Rear axle was a transit style setup on a strong chassis.

The car above is a Sierra, and not an early one either, all of which had McPherson strut front suspension as opposed to the Granada and Cortinas double wishbone on a large subframe.

The Mk3 Granda which used a similar suspension set up as the Sierra wasn't introduced until 1986.

Hard to say what's going on with that add!!

Capri

carchaeologist wrote: »

It was, late 1982.
P100s from 1979 had cortina front underpinnings, with bigger wheels, and different (unique) front wings to accommodate them. Rear axle was a transit style setup on a strong chassis.

The car above is a Sierra, and not an early one either, all of which had McPherson strut front suspension as opposed to the Granada and Cortinas double wishbone on a large subframe.

The Mk3 Granda which used a similar suspension set up as the Sierra wasn't introduced until 1986.

Hard to say what's going on with that add!!

Nothing hard at all - he's on the 'vintage chassis swop' wagon. Next we'll be having '2000 S500 Merc on 79 W123 chassis' if this continues :eek: :rolleyes:

I feel there's one almighty train heading for classic car tax rates - the Revenue/Customs/Gardai have sat on this for too long and there's messers out there feckin it up for all concerned, what'll happen is the Govt will abolish Classic tax rates citing 'abuse' of the privilage, all classics will go to the UK and we'll be left with Classic Omafiets
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Omafiets.jpg

delthedriver

Capri wrote: »

Nothing hard at all - he's on the 'vintage chassis swop' wagon. Next we'll be having '2000 S500 Merc on 79 W123 chassis' if this continues :eek: :rolleyes:

I feel there's one almighty train heading for classic car tax rates - the Revenue/Customs/Gardai have sat on this for too long and there's messers out there feckin it up for all concerned, what'll happen is the Govt will abolish Classic tax rates citing 'abuse' of the privilage, all classics will go to the UK and we'll be left with Classic Omafiets
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Omafiets.jpg

In Paddyland there are always the kute hoors out there who are trying to get one over on someone. Unfortunately the genuine enthusiast will suffer. It is up to the enthusiast to report abuses, therefore by being proactive it should help eliminate the messers, before someone decides to take the classic car privilege away.:)
We are all paying the price for the dodgy bankers, I certainly don't want to pay the price for rogues operating in the classic car area. At least this is an area where we can do something. No point in blaming the Government, if there are blatant abuses, they should be reported to the Gardai and Revenue.
Do onto then before we find the genuine classic car enthusiast without a car.;)

delthedriver

carchaeologist wrote: »

It was, late 1982.
P100s from 1979 had cortina front underpinnings, with bigger wheels, and different (unique) front wings to accommodate them. Rear axle was a transit style setup on a strong chassis.

The car above is a Sierra, and not an early one either, all of which had McPherson strut front suspension as opposed to the Granada and Cortinas double wishbone on a large subframe.

The Mk3 Granda which used a similar suspension set up as the Sierra wasn't introduced until 1986.

Hard to say what's going on with that add!!

Think it is a case of Kerry kute hoorism!:rolleyes:

Capri

delthedriver wrote: »

In Paddyland there are always the kute hoors out there who are trying to get one over on someone. Unfortunately the genuine enthusiast will suffer. It is up to the enthusiast to report abuses, therefore by being proactive it should help eliminate the messers, before someone decides to take the classic car privilege away.:)
We are all paying the price for the dodgy bankers, I certainly don't want to pay the price for rogues operating in the classic car area. At least this is an area where we can do something. No point in blaming the Government, if there are blatant abuses, they should be reported to the Gardai and Revenue.
Do onto then before we find the genuine classic car enthusiast without a car.;)

I don't think your ordinary Garda / Customs ossifer would have a clue what to look for :rolleyes:

corktina

surely there is no way you could insure that without lying about what it is (Ie by stating it as a Granada Saloon or estate).

swarlb

Capri wrote: »

I don't think your ordinary Garda / Customs ossifer would have a clue what to look for :rolleyes:

I don't think they are as stupid as you might make them out to be. I've often noticed that the majority of 'classic' or 'vintage' car owners are not that informative either.
The easiest way to solve this problem, is to abolish the 30 year 'rolling' date. Set it to a cut off year similar to the UK, and leave it at that.
Yes, I realize that people will piss and moan that their precious classic is now subject to the same guidelines as any other 'old' car, but so be it.
Take that Sierra car/pickup, would you really use it everyday as a work vehicle (which is what it was designed for), or use it as a means or transport, or a hobby car, or a showcar, it still needs fuel, maintenance, insurance....and all so you can pay 56 Euro a year road tax, and for no other reason, than 'yer sticking it to the man' !!! Its pathetic.
I can perfectly understand the issues with large engines/old cars/cost of tax etc, but tough.
Either that, or lobby your local councilperson to change the rules.

macplaxton

swarlb wrote: »

The easiest way to solve this problem, is to abolish the 30 year 'rolling' date. Set it to a cut off year similar to the UK, and leave it at that.

I somehow think from the UK experience, it wouldn't solve the problem.

Going out and doing some enforcement might.

Sam Russell

This goes on in the Uk. Cars like the Triumph Stag were manufactured across the 1972 date, and a few turn up that are clearly later cars that have had their identity 'adjusted' so that they can be claimed as early cars to avoid road tax.

The solution is for the road tax to taper off from the very high levels for large engines so that the taxes reduce the older the car is. For example, cars over 10 years should have the road tax reduced by €50 as they now have to be NCTd every year. Cars over 20 years should get a 25% reduction, and a further 5% per year until they reach 30 years.

Putting the tax on fuel would cost 50c per litre for petrol and €1 for diesel. It could be done but only gradually over a number of years, and possible a simillar tax change in NI.

Post 1985 cars have a much more robust VIN system, so possibly this might be the ultimate cure.

corktina

but that would encourage the use of older cars whereas the policy is to discourage it in favour of more carbon-friendly (allegedly) modern cars.


Not my policy, not saying I agree with it.

swarlb

Sam Russell wrote: »

This goes on in the Uk. Cars like the Triumph Stag were manufactured across the 1972 date, and a few turn up that are clearly later cars that have had their identity 'adjusted' so that they can be claimed as early cars to avoid road tax.

The solution is for the road tax to taper off from the very high levels for large engines so that the taxes reduce the older the car is. For example, cars over 10 years should have the road tax reduced by €50 as they now have to be NCTd every year. Cars over 20 years should get a 25% reduction, and a further 5% per year until they reach 30 years.

Putting the tax on fuel would cost 50c per litre for petrol and €1 for diesel. It could be done but only gradually over a number of years, and possible a simillar tax change in NI.

Post 1985 cars have a much more robust VIN system, so possibly this might be the ultimate cure.

I agree. Referring to the Triumph Stag example is less of an issue. What we tend to see here is people trying to pass off cars from the 90's as 'vintage'. 'Cloning' a car that is a year or so either side of the UK date is not (to me) such a big deal.
What always impressed me about shows or even race meets in the UK, was that every car was taxed, regardless of year. The next time you're at a show here have a look at the 'vintage' class cars. I guarantee a lot of them wont be taxed, even at the 56 Euro rate. The reason...'Ah shure I hardly ever use it...only on Sundays...when its sunny....wouldn't take her out in the rain'.
We simply HATE having to pay for anything,

delthedriver

swarlb wrote: »

I agree. Referring to the Triumph Stag example is less of an issue. What we tend to see here is people trying to pass off cars from the 90's as 'vintage'. 'Cloning' a car that is a year or so either side of the UK date is not (to me) such a big deal.
What always impressed me about shows or even race meets in the UK, was that every car was taxed, regardless of year. The next time you're at a show here have a look at the 'vintage' class cars. I guarantee a lot of them wont be taxed, even at the 56 Euro rate. The reason...'Ah shure I hardly ever use it...only on Sundays...when its sunny....wouldn't take her out in the rain'.
We simply HATE having to pay for anything,

As I said earlier kute hoorism! Not only may the tax disc be out of date but the insurance disc also! In addition at some shows around the country I have spotted cars which should not be driven , because they would not even pass a straight forward garage report.
My concern is that all the genuine enthusiasts who adhere to the rules will be penalised due to the cowboy behaviour of a few smart A's!
Am I correct in saying that classics in the UK also require a MOT ? Would this help sort the wheat from the chaff?;)

carchaeologist

Pre 1960 in the UK are now, or will be soon be MOT exempt Del.

The pre '80 cut off here has an effect on the cloned cars here too if they overstep that year.
The 'cute hoor' as you say wants to avoid that too.

rugbyman

as I get older, not pensionable yet, but "classic" inyears ,i grow more mellow.
i can go with the flow ,and realise that things that were worth arguing about, may not have been.
but to hear people on here recommending enforcement takes the biscuit.
many moons ago ,my friends and i used roam the roads, and i always recall a few guys finding a stick in the ditch and saying " i `ll take this into the Master and he`ll hit everyone with it but me"

my post of a few days ago was to illustrate that ,restoring "uncle Jims car" or " my dads car" can on occasions be similar to cloning.
swarlb has just said that a year or two does not trouble him(nor me), do the law n`order ones on here disagree. how long is a piece of string?

Regards

Sam Russell

delthedriver wrote: »

As I said earlier kute hoorism! Not only may the tax disc be out of date but the insurance disc also! In addition at some shows around the country I have spotted cars which should not be driven , because they would not even pass a straight forward garage report.
My concern is that all the genuine enthusiasts who adhere to the rules will be penalised due to the cowboy behaviour of a few smart A's!
Am I correct in saying that classics in the UK also require a MOT ? Would this help sort the wheat from the chaff?;)

I think they have changes the rules in the UK re MOT in that cars before 1960 will be exempt from MOT as many of these cars were only driven to the MOT station and back each year. Cars manufactured (as opposed to registered) before 1973 were exempt from road tax (but they had to apply, with MOT). This has been extended to cars built before 1st Jan 1974.

We should have NCT for all cars, with the severity of the test varying depending on the year. This should be based on the statistics of previous test data. According to the NCT data, 25% of cars presented for their first test (at 4 years old) fail.

The requirement for a test at 4 years of age causes many people to trade in their cars. The requirement for an annual test causes the value of older cars to drop significantly. Classic cars should be tested at least on road-safety terms.

John Larkin

Sam Russell wrote: »

We should have NCT for all cars, with the severity of the test varying depending on the year.

I had my 1967 car tested by the NCT and it passed after its headlamp aim was corrected. I believe that any vehicle that is maintained properly will pass the NCT.

swarlb

rugbyman wrote: »

as I get older, not pensionable yet, but "classic" inyears ,i grow more mellow.
i can go with the flow ,and realise that things that were worth arguing about, may not have been.
but to hear people on here recommending enforcement takes the biscuit.
many moons ago ,my friends and i used roam the roads, and i always recall a few guys finding a stick in the ditch and saying " i `ll take this into the Master and he`ll hit everyone with it but me"

my post of a few days ago was to illustrate that ,restoring "uncle Jims car" or " my dads car" can on occasions be similar to cloning.
swarlb has just said that a year or two does not trouble him(nor me), do the law n`order ones on here disagree. how long is a piece of string?

Regards

What I meant about the 'year' was that having a model type that bordered we'll say 1972 and 1976 as regards the UK system. Not trying to import a 90's model and trying to pass it off as something from the early 80's to either avoid NCT or road tax.
I agree that all cars regardless of age should have some kind of check. However I don't think the NCT as it stands could deal with that. How would they test a Model T for example, or even something from the 30's 50/60's.
What would be acceptable would be a simplified check, simply to see if the brakes worked, the chassis was not full of rust or filler, the steering and suspension was in a reasonable condition, with no obvious defects, tyres were serviceable etc. It was not that long ago, where you had to bring your old car for an engineers report. Some garages would refuse to do this, possibly because they did not want to be liable if anything went wrong.
Take a racing car as an example, it needs to pass scrutiny before it can compete. They check the basic safety requirements, so its not that difficult to do.

corktina

swarlb wrote: »

I agree. Referring to the Triumph Stag example is less of an issue. What we tend to see here is people trying to pass off cars from the 90's as 'vintage'. 'Cloning' a car that is a year or so either side of the UK date is not (to me) such a big deal.
What always impressed me about shows or even race meets in the UK, was that every car was taxed, regardless of year. The next time you're at a show here have a look at the 'vintage' class cars. I guarantee a lot of them wont be taxed, even at the 56 Euro rate. The reason...'Ah shure I hardly ever use it...only on Sundays...when its sunny....wouldn't take her out in the rain'.
We simply HATE having to pay for anything,

out of interest I had a look at the windscreens at a recent show and more or less every car was taxed, possibly as a result of the SORD regulations perhaps?

corktina

swarlb wrote: »

What I meant about the 'year' was that having a model type that bordered we'll say 1972 and 1976 as regards the UK system. Not trying to import a 90's model and trying to pass it off as something from the early 80's to either avoid NCT or road tax.
I agree that all cars regardless of age should have some kind of check. However I don't think the NCT as it stands could deal with that. How would they test a Model T for example, or even something from the 30's 50/60's.
What would be acceptable would be a simplified check, simply to see if the brakes worked, the chassis was not full of rust or filler, the steering and suspension was in a reasonable condition, with no obvious defects, tyres were serviceable etc. It was not that long ago, where you had to bring your old car for an engineers report. Some garages would refuse to do this, possibly because they did not want to be liable if anything went wrong.
Take a racing car as an example, it needs to pass scrutiny before it can compete. They check the basic safety requirements, so its not that difficult to do.

Lights Brakes Steering and Tyres....that used to be all they'd test in the UK MoT back in the day.

Markcheese

Will any classic put back on the road and taxed under the new regime have even a basic road worthiness test...
Or just a Garda looking at it to say that it's a car.. ??

mountai

I put an MGA through the NCT last year. I discussed with the examiner (who in fairness had a knowledge of old cars) an approach that I was happy with. Obviously , omissions were not tested. He judged the suspension on the old "Bounce" factor rather than shaking the sh1t out of it on the plates. The chassis and steering components were inspected on the hoist and the brakes on the rollers. When he drove it out, he made sure that she centered herself on the steering as well. I did this test after a complete stripdown and rebuild , and was happy to pay the feeat .Most NCT places have "Senior" mechanics who would treat cars in a respectful manner and I for one think that a bi-annual test for Classics is not unreasonable. I would caution anyone who buys a car that is "Test Exempt" to at least get a competent person to examine such a car. In fact I would avoid a seller who promotes the idea -- "Exempt"-- as a selling point. BTW has anyone contacted Myles ???.