New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

alastair

WDB123 wrote: »

My objection is that in terms of road safety there is not an issue its a revenue maker,another indirect tax,I am sick of all these charges brought in by a greedy overpaid shower above in Dublin who do what they like because we are no good to challange these things

Where do you think any revenue is generated from the proposed changes?

WDB123

?

galwaytt

alastair wrote: »

That's for an import registration inspection though - not for a regular road worthiness inspection - where they don't compare vin plates with chassis.

..they do compare them - VIN check is part of regular NCT.

alastair

galwaytt wrote: »

..they do compare them - VIN check is part of regular NCT.

They check the vin plate, but they don't check that it matches the chassis.

airnwater

alastair wrote: »

How does that work then? The RSA don't get any share of NCT profits.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/road-safety-authority-defends-20m-cash-reserve-1.1838701 ?

jetfiremuck

alastair wrote: »

That's for an import registration inspection though - not for a regular road worthiness inspection - where they don't compare vin plates with chassis.

Prblem is it doent end at initial registration. If an over zealous tester wants to see vin and chassis plate during the test what then if it cant be found or just a random number stamped that the tester has an issue with.......what then....hasssle all the way

whisky_galore

jca wrote: »

A protest rally over what exactly? If these "classic" cars are as cosseted as all the owners would lead us to believe an annual nct shouldn't be a problem. All cars regardless of age are mot'd in the uk and owners just get them done without whining. If owners have nothing to hide etc, but, it's Ireland someone's always hiding something especially with the crocks that are so called "classics"

Going by recent spectacular government/Irish Water stuff-ups, it's no wonder people are cynical and unenthusiastic about anything that comes down from on high, esp. when it leads to one's wallet getting lighter. I don't doubt for a second that there aren't a minority of cowboys in the hobby, part of me thinks it's a good idea but I fear we'll have the usual ham-fisted shambles ruining it for all. Throwing baby out with the bathwater stuff.

hi5

Its an EU directive, the same consultation will be happening in the UK.

http://www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk/news/general/800023295/eu-directive-to-exempt-pre-1984-classics-from-mot-test-is-lunacy/

EU directive is here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0194

The important bit:

2. Member States may exclude the following vehicles registered in their territory from the scope of application of this Directive :
– vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public roads, such as vehicles of historical interest or competition vehicles ;


(7) 'vehicle of historical interest' means any vehicle which is considered to be historical by the Member State of registration or one of its appointed authorising bodies and which fulfils all the following conditions:

– it was manufactured or registered for the first time at least 30 years ago;
– its specific type, as defined in the relevant Union or national law, is no longer in production ;
– it is historically preserved and maintained in its original state and has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components ▌ ;

WDB123

– it was manufactured or registered for the first time at least 30 years ago

they have a choice !!!!!!!

like the VRT ANY SIGN OF US MOVING INTO EUROPE ON THIS OLD TAX

Kenny Logins

alastair wrote: »

How does that work then? The RSA don't get any share of NCT profits.

Funded in part by the NCT.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-11-26a.1545

alastair

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Funded in part by the NCT.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-11-26a.1545

Ah okay. But it wasn't initially. They only started the NCT levy in 2006.

jca

kja1888 wrote: »

I really should know better than to read the moronic posts in this thread. Who do you think tests the vintage stuff already? All the '30s and '40s and '50s and '60s and '70s and '80s Bentleys and Rolls? I'm outta here.

Got it in one. You'll find its the flat cap, car full of filler merchant who's baying the loudest.

galwaytt

alastair wrote: »

They check the vin plate, but they don't check that it matches the chassis.

On the likes of a Scenic, they go to the trouble of checking the VIN under the seat, so something's wrong here.

Means Of Escape

jca wrote: »

Got it in one. You'll find its the flat cap, car full of filler merchant who's baying the loudest.

No it's the people who refuse to bend over every time something is proposed to the public who are baying the loudest .

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Means Of Escape wrote: »

No it's the people who refuse to bend over every time something is proposed to the public who are baying the loudest .

That and people who own post 1980 classics.

ianobrien

Having a '70's classic I've no problem with it being tested.

Under current legislation the NCT don't check for emissions on anything pre '81 as there was no emission legislation then. If I put it through the NCT it should pass as it passed when the car was 29 years old (touch wood). The last NCT for the Escort covered brakes, suspension, lights and body and it passed. Since then its had a full brake rebuild (only the pedal and drum backing plates have survived), suspension rebuild (with every bushing and shock replaced) so I've nothing to fear with the test.

Ive seen quite a few classics that are pure rot boxes and are dangerous. Those should not be on the road, despite owners describing them as "mint". I'm not talking about " rat rods" with this. Its these rot box owners who have a lot to fear from the test.

As for implementation, I think the NCT should designate specific centres for classics with specifically trained testers. There should be at least one per county, with more for large counties (eg Skibb, Youghal and Little Island for Cork county)

Cleveland Hot Pocket

ianobrien wrote: »

Having a '70's classic I've no problem with it being tested.

Under current legislation the NCT don't check for emissions on anything pre '81 as there was no emission legislation then. If I put it through the NCT it should pass as it passed when the car was 29 years old (touch wood). The last NCT for the Escort covered brakes, suspension, lights and body and it passed. Since then its had a full brake rebuild (only the pedal and drum backing plates have survived), suspension rebuild (with every bushing and shock replaced) so I've nothing to fear with the test.

Ive seen quite a few classics that are pure rot boxes and are dangerous. Those should not be on the road, despite owners describing them as "mint". I'm not talking about " rat rods" with this. Its these rot box owners who have a lot to fear from the test.

As for implementation, I think the NCT should designate specific centres for classics with specifically trained testers. There should be at least one per county, with more for large counties (eg Skibb, Youghal and Little Island for Cork county)

This is a great idea IMO, and I would support testing in this way if it was sympathetic to classics and their condition (eg not revved to fcuk like modern cars etc)

Means Of Escape

ianobrien wrote: »

Having a '70's classic I've no problem with it being tested.

Under current legislation the NCT don't check for emissions on anything pre '81 as there was no emission legislation then. If I put it through the NCT it should pass as it passed when the car was 29 years old (touch wood). The last NCT for the Escort covered brakes, suspension, lights and body and it passed. Since then its had a full brake rebuild (only the pedal and drum backing plates have survived), suspension rebuild (with every bushing and shock replaced) so I've nothing to fear with the test.

Ive seen quite a few classics that are pure rot boxes and are dangerous. Those should not be on the road, despite owners describing them as "mint". I'm not talking about " rat rods" with this. Its these rot box owners who have a lot to fear from the test.

As for implementation, I think the NCT should designate specific centres for classics with specifically trained testers. There should be at least one per county, with more for large counties (eg Skibb, Youghal and Little Island for Cork county)

Keep dreaming
There won't be any designated centres or specially trained testers.You will be added to the queue of already back logged centres.
I take it the rot boxes you are talking about have been viewed by you under a lift?
A blistering wheel arch or door skin doesn't mean it's a rot box.Thats a cosmetic issue which will be a fail in the test.
Let's not be too eager to rush out and embrace this proposal.
You may have something to fear in the test when the requirements to pass get stricter down the line .

ianobrien

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Keep dreaming
There won't be any designated centres or specially trained testers.You will be added to the queue of already back logged centres.
I take it the rot boxes you are talking about have been viewed by you under a lift?
A blistering wheel arch or door skin doesn't mean it's a rot box.Thats a cosmetic issue which will be a fail in the test.
Let's not be too eager to rush out and embrace this proposal.
You may have something to fear in the test when the requirements to pass get stricter down the line .

No, I've seen cars described as mint by owners that would have rotten chassis rails, suspension mounts etc. I've driven behind them and watching the rear axle moving sideways from the mounts flexing due to the rot. Structural corrosion is a problem. A bubble or two on an arch is not a rotbox.

Edit. Yes I've both seen them myself (and peeled away hunks of rust) and viewed with panel beater friends of mine.

Testacalda

There are two public meetings on this subject this week, and another for the East to be organised next week

http://www.irishvintagescene.ie/2-meetings-to-discuss-new-rsa-proposals/

I think it is very important to seperate the facts from the stories and opinions here. There are 4 proposals, we will probably end up having to deal with one of them, like it or not.

Some of the proposals aren't actually that bad and seem reasonably fair when you read them (which I dont think every has done :rolleyes:):


Option 1 is quite harsh, and personally I don't think there is any great advantage in it

Option 2 is the same as what we have now, with the addition of an exemption for commercials, but not great in the long term

Option 3 is fair enough all things considered, a bit of an inconvience for the initial 5 years or so, but would be a nice way to have things in the long run

Option 4 is quite lieniant and while it is desireable for classic owners, in the big picture one can see the flaws, so its unlikely that option will go through


Realistically speaking, personally I think Option 3 would be an agreeable compromise for all parties, but obviously would I idealy love to have option 4

Means Of Escape

Option 4
The only choice to keep the hobby alive into the future .

hi5

I'm all for option 4 too (over 30 years exempt), that seems to be what the EU is aiming for anyway.
I'm also for the testing of commercial vehicles used as commercials, as opposed to commercial vehicles not used as commercials which also should be 'over 30 years exempt'.

It looks like since 2011 vintage vehicles are not categorised by the CSO but included as 'other' vehicles.

In 2011 Vintage vehicles (26,343) are only 1.08% of total vehicles (2,419,523)
and km travelled of vintage (95,000,000) is 0.22% of total vehicles (41,681,000,000)
http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=THA11

macplaxton

This consultation has come up as there is an EU directive that wants sorting out by 2018.

First, it's a directive, not a regulation. Plenty of wiggle room for a member state to interpret this and implement as they wish. If it was an EU regulation, we would have been totally humped.

Next up is definition. A member state can decide exactly how they deal with historic vehicles from full testing to no testing.

The current directive has the concession:

Member States may, after consulting the Commission, exclude from the scope of this Directive, or subject to special provisions, certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation.

Article 4(2) of EU Directive 2009/40/EC does not allow vehicles (except motorcycles) manufactured after 1 January 1960 to be exempt. This is why the UK adopted that cut-off date in November 2012 for their exemption. It doesn't explain how Ireland managed to interpret it as halting the rolling thirty they did use back in 2010 and use the fixed date of 1 January 1980.

The new directive 2014/45/EU has to be implemented by 20 May 2018. It repeals 2009/40/EC.

"Member States may exclude the following vehicles registered in their territory from the scope of application of this Directive:
— vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public roads, such as vehicles of historical interest"

"‘vehicle of historical interest’ means any vehicle which is considered to be historical by the Member State of registration or one of its appointed authorising bodies and which fulfils all the following conditions:
— it was manufactured or registered for the first time at least 30 years ago;
— its specific type, as defined in the relevant Union or national law, is no longer in production;
— it is historically preserved and maintained in its original state and has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components;"

The third point there is the one to watch.

The long and short of it is this. The Irish Government have to change the rules by 2018. They cannot make an exemption based on age alone. They can set a fixed date in of 30 years or more, or a rolling date of 30 or more years, but they also have to interpret and define in national law what "substantial" changes means. Changing just an engine, or changing a whole monocoque body / chassis? Substantial changes aren't exempted and will have to be tested.

Testacalda

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Option 4
The only choice to keep the hobby alive into the future .

Why is it that?

Means Of Escape

Testacalda wrote: »

Why is it that?

Because people will dump high cc cars due to high failures on emissions and will see the maintance cost of the cars to pass the nct prohibitive given the low mileage covered and break them.


There was no need for this
This is not a safety initiative .
The rolling 30 year nct exemption needs to be brought back and this is the one chance of getting it if enough clubs and classic car owners vote for it.
Those in favour of ncting their 30 year old cars for extra piece of mind should still vote for option 4

Esel

This:

6
The 1980 exemption date applicable to both private passenger cars and motor caravans was introduced following public consultations carried out by the RSA in 2009 and 2010 respectively. These reviews concluded that both vehicle types registered from 1st January 1980 onwards would have no difficulty being tested using existing methods and test equipment, whereas modifications would be needed to the testing arrangements to cater for testing vehicles registered prior to this date.

____________________________________________________

Not connected to the above:

1. Ireland and Poland seem to be the only countries with pre-1981 exemption?

2. Someone in the RSA (with a non-related degree) is looking to get promoted.

3. Irish Water.

Means Of Escape

Esel wrote: »

This:



____________________________________________________

Not connected to the above:

1. Ireland and Poland seem to be the only countries with pre-81

Let's be the only country with post 80 exemption after 30 years.
Directive not a regulation

Testacalda

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Because people will dump high cc cars due to high failures on emissions

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.

jca

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.

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.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

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.