When will the dual year reg be abolished ?

July Rain

Let's face it, It was only brought in because of "unlucky" 13

Technoprisoner

July Rain wrote: »

Let's face it, It was only brought in because of "unlucky" 13

it had nothing to do with being unlucky 13 and more to do with simi wanting to recreate what happens in the uk where they have an early and late reg.... they thought this would boost car sales...and to be honest has been a bit of a flop

keithsfleet

The current registration system is incredibly handy but I do think the English one is a lot better. Would cut down an awful lot on the reg snobbery.

Silvera

keithsfleet wrote: »

The current registration system is incredibly handy but I do think the English one is a lot better. Would cut down an awful lot on the reg snobbery.

The UK system clearly shows the year on the plate (for half the year anyway).
...and shows '13' on UK plates this year.

bazz26

It had nothing to do with superstition. That was just a convenient way of covering the Government's wilting to the SIMI's lobbying for a new way to stimulate depressed motor sales at certain times of the year.

quietsailor

I've been talking to a few car mad friends about the dual registrations and we reckon it'll make sales worse not better

If you looking at buying a new car now you'll think of hanging on until June if the car is running okay - it's only 6 months after all. If it needs major work then in that period you'll hang onto it again as "it cost me big money"

If it doesn't need work in the 6 month period then you'd be tempted to hang onto it again - it's only for 6 months

Marcusm

There was also the fact that imports of vintage cars from around First World War time (beginning of high production model t etc) might result in confusion!

pa990

Marcusm wrote: »

There was also the fact that imports of vintage cars from around First World War time (beginning of high production model t etc) might result in confusion!

Ehhh.. "ZV" Plates

Guy:Incognito

Marcusm wrote: »

There was also the fact that imports of vintage cars from around First World War time (beginning of high production model t etc) might result in confusion!

I cant imagine much confusion between a model t and a fiesta even if they were both on 14 plates. Numbers would be very low too so they could just start after the amount on 1914 cars that are on the road and not on zv plates.

harryr711

Hopefully soon. We had a good simple system that worked, and they went and ****ed it up. Well done SIMI.

Leonard Hofstadter

pa990 wrote: »

Ehhh.. "ZV" Plates

You don't have to have ZV plates on a car before 1987, you can have 68-D-120xxx if you prefer.

Anyway, now that we have this incredibly stupid system, we might as well stick with it. As stupid and all as it is (and it is), it would be even more stupid to get rid of it just because people were superstitious of having a '13' plate.

The UK system is better in the sense that there are only a maximum of seven characters on the registration plates - otherwise it is identical to the Irish system, in that there is an area code (the first two letters, so BA means Birmingham, MX is Manchester, YN is Sheffield - the Y standing for Yorkshire and Sheffield has the series YM to YU inclusive, YA to YL are Leeds and YW to YZ are Beverly, which is reasonably near to Newcastle), a year and some random characters.

Atlantic Dawn

I think they should extend it to 141, 142, 143 and 144, one for every 3 months of the year, would space it out better, current system leaves it dead for 6 months of the year.

ironclaw

Can't wait til we have a few years of this and people start loading the asking price of their car because its 6 months 'newer' Its the same box, model and make of tin with a different number on the front. Utterly meaningless.

CiniO

ironclaw wrote: »

Can't wait til we have a few years of this and people start loading the asking price of their car because its 6 months 'newer' Its the same box, model and make of tin with a different number on the front. Utterly meaningless.

And rightly, because except from having different number on the plate, car is half a year newer (or at least it should be if number reflected manufacture date - not registration date).

RedorDead

Technoprisoner wrote: »

it had nothing to do with being unlucky 13 and more to do with simi wanting to recreate what happens in the uk where they have an early and late reg.... they thought this would boost car sales...and to be honest has been a bit of a flop

It was nothing to do with this either. It was designed to end the front loading of business for car dealerships into 2/3 months. It is hoped now it will extend it throughout the year more evenly creating less cashflow issues for businesses that sell new cars.

lomb

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I think they should extend it to 141, 142, 143 and 144, one for every 3 months of the year, would space it out better, current system leaves it dead for 6 months of the year.

I think they should extend it to the month ie 141 Jan 142 Feb so on until 1412:D
In fact why stop there? I think the date of registration should be on a seperate plate front and rear. Ie 12/10/2013 .
If you drive a car even a month old therefore you will be a loser:)
The government would turn us all into insects if they could , keeping up with the Jones, bastards!

Guy:Incognito

ironclaw wrote: »

Can't wait til we have a few years of this and people start loading the asking price of their car because its 6 months 'newer' Its the same box, model and make of tin with a different number on the front. Utterly meaningless.

At what stage does it become ok to charge more for a newer car? If a model was available from 2000 to 2006 should 2 cars from either end of the age range cost the same? Sure the car may well be exactly the same box, model and make of tin with a different number on the front.

Cuddlesworth

There are two certainties when dealing with a government.

It's near impossible to have them make a decision about anything.

It's impossible to have them reverse any decision they have made.

pa990

How about a new plate for every 6 weeks
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
140

That'll all make sense. ..... Not

CiniO

pa990 wrote: »

How about a new plate for every 6 weeks
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
140

That'll all make sense. ..... Not

I like the idea.
At least the third character on the numberplate, wouldn't be wasted for only two combinations like now (1 or 2). Except that I would put 140 as first and 149 as last. And possibly instead of changing every 6 weeks, change every 37 days to spread it evenly through the year.
Also making separate sign for each of 24 Dublin districts would shorten the plates.

f.e.
DA = Dublin 1
DB = Dublin 2
...
DK = Dublin 11
etc.

That with new number every 37 days would reduce the maximum consecutive number at the end to 3 digits.

so f.e. 147-DF-762
That would be reg issued between 17th Septemer and 24th October in Dublin 6.

Maximum length would be then 8 characters.

ironclaw

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

At what stage does it become ok to charge more for a newer car? If a model was available from 2000 to 2006 should 2 cars from either end of the age range cost the same? Sure the car may well be exactly the same box, model and make of tin with a different number on the front.

Well, there is quite a difference between a 2000 and 2006 car. The key difference for me being the mileage. Taking the average of 10k miles per year, a 131 and a 132 would have at most a difference of 5k miles, or in other words, peanuts. In the grand scale of a cars lifetime, 5k miles is literally a walk to the shops and back. Granted thats average figures but certainly doesn't add or take any value for me. A 2000 and a 2006 could have upwards of 60,000 in the difference.

If someone attempted to load the price of a car purely based on the reg plate, assuming negligible difference in mileage and identical models, then I'd probably laugh them off. Its snobbery and elitism, nothing more. Mechanically the cars are identical and thats where the value is.

CiniO

ironclaw wrote: »

Well, there is quite a difference between a 2000 and 2006 car. The key difference for me being the mileage. Taking the average of 10k miles per year, a 131 and a 132 would have at most a difference of 5k miles, or in other words, peanuts. In the grand scale of a cars lifetime, 5k miles is literally a walk to the shops and back. Granted thats average figures but certainly doesn't add or take any value for me. A 2000 and a 2006 could have upwards of 60,000 in the difference.

If someone attempted to load the price of a car purely based on the reg plate, assuming negligible difference in mileage and identical models, then I'd probably laugh them off. Its snobbery and elitism, nothing more. Mechanically the cars are identical and thats where the value is.

So you are saying, that car of the same make, model, trip, etc (exactly the same) with the same mileage (f.e. 60k miles), but one from 2000 and other from 2006, should be worth exact the same money?

hoodie6029

I wish those in power would bring in personal plates. There's a killing to be made.
I buy one tomorrow.
I'd put one on a brand new car too. But that is just so i don't want to participate in this 131 nonsense.

Sobanek

hoodie6029 wrote: »

I wish those in power would bring in personal plates. There's a killing to be made.
I buy one tomorrow.
I'd put one on a brand new car too. But that is just so i don't want to participate in this 131 nonsense.

I'd buy one even if I didn't have a car

I'd love a nice OOM-500 plate

mgbgt1978

pa990 wrote: »

Ehhh.. "ZV" Plates

Saw 13 D 1 about 12 years ago.....at the time it looked strange but this year....

wmpdd3

A friend of my parents came into an inheritance and walked in to a garage to buy a new car, but refused to consider a car after 2012 because of the new plate.

I dont like it, its crap, but they will never change it back....unless the EU tell them to!

CiniO

Sobanek wrote: »

I'd buy one even if I didn't have a car

I'd love a nice OOM-500 plate

what does OOM-500 stand for?

CiniO

wmpdd3 wrote: »

A friend of my parents came into an inheritance and walked in to a garage to buy a new car, but refused to consider a car after 2012 because of the new plate.

I dont like it, its crap, but they will never change it back....unless the EU tell them to!

I don't think EU can have anything to do with number plates.

On the other hand - some people must be really stupid to base car purchase on number plates it has.
For me number plate was always bunch of random letter and number which mean nothing.

Sobanek

CiniO wrote: »

what does OOM-500 stand for?

Giorgi Tevzadze's plate on the M5 was OOM-500

CiniO

Sobanek wrote: »

Giorgi Tevzadze's plate on the M5 was OOM-500

Heh...
For some reason it looked familiar but I just couldn't think of where I've seen it.
I know now - nice one
RIP Giorgi.

Sobanek

CiniO wrote: »

Heh...
For some reason it looked familiar but I just couldn't think of where I've seen it.
I know now - nice one
RIP Giorgi.

I thought about getting myself an E34 with a custom plate back home.

W0 OM500

BHP

wmpdd3 wrote: »

A friend of my parents came into an inheritance and walked in to a garage to buy a new car, but refused to consider a car after 2012 because of the new plate.

I dont like it, its crap, but they will never change it back....unless the EU tell them to!

Nonsence. If you're are buying a car you're buying a car. You don't give a crap if the number is greater than 12 unless you're stupid.

AlanS181824

I really hope they go back to the old system. So much easier understand. The English system confuses me, although not as much as it used to but I still much prefer our old one.

BHP

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I really hope they go back to the old system. So much easier understand. The English system confuses me, although not as much as it used to but I still much prefer our old one.

What's difficult to understand? XX1 Jan 1 - Jun 30 and XX2 July 1 - Dec 31. Maybe not as easy to remember a reg but surely not difficult to understand?

Sobanek

What if we get an economy boost and suddenly there's a 100,000 cars to register?

141-D-100394 is too long to fit on the reg plate.

racso1975

Sobanek wrote: »

What if we get an economy boost and suddenly there's a 100,000 cars to register?

141-D-100394 is too long to fit on the reg plate.

Very unlikely that we will get 100,000 in car sales in 6 month timeframe

dumbyearbook

They put '120' automatically on the reg anyway so whether there is 100K sales or not there will be regs that length. Not sure why some cars seem to get the 120 and others don't my own one has I brought from NI and cleared it myself. Is it when non trade imports I think?

CiniO

dumbyearbook wrote: »

They put '120' automatically on the reg anyway so whether there is 100K sales or not there will be regs that length. Not sure why some cars seem to get the 120 and others don't my own one has I brought from NI and cleared it myself. Is it when non trade imports I think?

This 120xxx nonsense thing applied only to cars first registered before 2011.

CiniO

racso1975 wrote: »

Very unlikely that we will get 100,000 in car sales in 6 month timeframe

Indeed this is quite unlikely in nearest future that we will get over 100,000 cars registered in Dublin in half a year.
But there a real chance that we will get over 10,000 cars registered in half a year in one of two letter counties.
Like 142-LK-12345

That makes 10 character plate already, and such amount of letters and number won't fit into legal size plate using legal size font.#

CiniO

BHP wrote: »

What's difficult to understand? XX1 Jan 1 - Jun 30 and XX2 July 1 - Dec 31. Maybe not as easy to remember a reg but surely not difficult to understand?

But main purpose of number plates is to be able to read them quickly and remember.
Not understand.

dumbyearbook

CiniO wrote: »

Indeed this is quite unlikely in nearest future that we will get over 100,000 cars registered in Dublin in half a year.
But there a real chance that we will get over 10,000 cars registered in half a year in one of two letter counties.
Like 142-LK-12345

That makes 10 character plate already, and such amount of letters and number won't fit into legal size plate using legal size font.#

Forgot the 6 months part.

carchaeologist

CiniO wrote: »

Indeed this is quite unlikely in nearest future that we will get over 100,000 cars registered in Dublin in half a year.
But there a real chance that we will get over 10,000 cars registered in half a year in one of two letter counties.
Like 142-LK-12345

That makes 10 character plate already, and such amount of letters and number won't fit into legal size plate using legal size font.#

Yes, but isn't LK, WD, TS and TN disappearing with the councils next year, of so I'm told anyway.

What started out as such a simple system in 1987 has morphed into such an over the top complicated system now.

CiniO

carchaeologist wrote: »

Yes, but isn't LK, WD, TS and TN disappearing with the councils next year, of so I'm told anyway.

What started out as such a simple system in 1987 has morphed into such an over the top complicated system now.

I've seen the regulation recently that showed they are dissappearing on trade plates. I'm not sure if it applies to normal car plates as well.

What are trade plates anyway?


But except from those, most other counties use 2 letter sign anyway.

Leonard Hofstadter

carchaeologist wrote: »

Yes, but isn't LK, WD, TS and TN disappearing with the councils next year, of so I'm told anyway.

What started out as such a simple system in 1987 has morphed into such an over the top complicated system now.

Well it could certainly make sense for them to merge LK with L and just leave L for all of Limerick, and similarly with WD and W for Waterford. For Tipp it would make sense to go for something like TY or just T.

However, it's worth pointing out that despite the fact that Dublin has four local authorities, all vehicles registered in Dublin still get D regs, so what would make sense and what will actually happen could well be two completely different things!

Also, I thought they're getting rid of the stupidly high numbers on imports before 2011 soon? I thought the computer systems have figured out the highest number for cars older than 2011 so they can go back to what they used to do.

Chimaera

RedorDead wrote: »

It was nothing to do with this either. It was designed to end the front loading of business for car dealerships into 2/3 months. It is hoped now it will extend it throughout the year more evenly creating less cashflow issues for businesses that sell new cars.

The dealers themselves are responsible for creating that front loading by creating a second-hand market that places a premium on age above all else. If they were genuinely concerned about this, they should be working to change the market to reduce the influence of vehicle age.

The other thing that's totally ignored in this is that registration year does not necessarily correspond to model year. It's not uncommon for old stock to be dug up and sold off cheaply - the customer thinks it's great because they're getting a brand new car cheap, but it might actually be a year or two old at that point in extreme cases.

Why does this matter? A lot of after-sales stuff these days is based on the registration year so you could end up with a mixup on parts where there was a specification change with the newer model year. But it also means the registration year doesn't reflect the true age of the car either chronologically or in terms of specification.

As an example, my car is a 1999 Passat, manufactured on 26/04/1999 (if you know your VIN you can look up this info online), registered in June 1999. The 1999 model year for Passats closed off in May and the 2000 model year started production then. So my car is a '99 model. A car built a month later is a '00 model even though both will carry a 1999 reg plate here. Now, in this case, most of the spec changes were hidden from buyers (the introduction of CANBUS was the main one I found) but there were probably detail equipment changes too that might make the later car a little more attractive.

The bottom line is most buyers are unaware of such subtleties and focus entirely on the number on the reg plate because the dealer machine tells them that's the important thing. Until that changes, this kind of crap will continue.

CiniO

Chimaera wrote: »

The dealers themselves are responsible for creating that front loading by creating a second-hand market that places a premium on age above all else. If they were genuinely concerned about this, they should be working to change the market to reduce the influence of vehicle age.

But that's how it works everywhere in the world.
Vehicle age is the most important factor relating to price.

The other thing that's totally ignored in this is that registration year does not necessarily correspond to model year. It's not uncommon for old stock to be dug up and sold off cheaply - the customer thinks it's great because they're getting a brand new car cheap, but it might actually be a year or two old at that point in extreme cases.

And that's a serious problem, especially considering that real manufacture date is not really included anywhere in car documents.
I think number on reg. plate should correspond to manufacture year instead of first registration year.

Atlantic Dawn

With the postcodes coming out next year there could potentially be an opportunity to use them instead for the county part, something crazy like 141-D2303-20, real easy to remember in a robbery

Sobanek

County and random letters / digits

That would stop this regplate snobbery nonsense.

Esel

captainspeed wrote: »

You don't can't have to have ZV plates on a car before 1987 1983...

FYP

Edit: Just noticed I am close to 13K posts - must get on to my TD deVore / Dav about that! :eek:

RedorDead

Chimaera wrote: »

The dealers themselves are responsible for creating that front loading by creating a second-hand market that places a premium on age above all else. If they were genuinely concerned about this, they should be working to change the market to reduce the influence of vehicle age.

The other thing that's totally ignored in this is that registration year does not necessarily correspond to model year. It's not uncommon for old stock to be dug up and sold off cheaply - the customer thinks it's great because they're getting a brand new car cheap, but it might actually be a year or two old at that point in extreme cases.

Why does this matter? A lot of after-sales stuff these days is based on the registration year so you could end up with a mixup on parts where there was a specification change with the newer model year. But it also means the registration year doesn't reflect the true age of the car either chronologically or in terms of specification.

As an example, my car is a 1999 Passat, manufactured on 26/04/1999 (if you know your VIN you can look up this info online), registered in June 1999. The 1999 model year for Passats closed off in May and the 2000 model year started production then. So my car is a '99 model. A car built a month later is a '00 model even though both will carry a 1999 reg plate here. Now, in this case, most of the spec changes were hidden from buyers (the introduction of CANBUS was the main one I found) but there were probably detail equipment changes too that might make the later car a little more attractive.

The bottom line is most buyers are unaware of such subtleties and focus entirely on the number on the reg plate because the dealer machine tells them that's the important thing. Until that changes, this kind of crap will continue.

In relation to the bolded points above:

The dealers (through the SIMI) were the main proponents of the change in the plate system that was introduced this year although if it was left to me the registration year identifier should be just removed altogether.

In the vast majority of cases the changes between model years are tiny. Usually it amounts to new colours on offer or new engine availability. In only very rare cases would it actually mean specification upgrades etc and in some cases it can actually mean price increases so having a slightly older model isnt always a bad thing.