Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

NCT on Classics

  • 26-09-2016 9:15pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭ John Dough


    Does the year when the NCT applies currently 1980 move at all as heard it might be changed by the E.U. to pre 40 year old models.:confused:


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭ deckie27


    Doesn't move currently.

    Used to be a rolling 30 years


  • Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭ pachanco


    Did you see this discussion on it from before, when the rsa was accepting submissions on changes, not heard anything lately with regards to changes https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057307173?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭ hi5


    The RSA's recommendations have been sitting on a shelf in the department of transport for over a year now, the usual government efficiency:rolleyes:.


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭ John Dough


    What does Shane Ross actually DO!!!

    Thanks for the info Guyz, at most of the classic shows very few cars seem to have a NCT cert.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭ 80sDiesel


    John Dough wrote: »
    What does Shane Ross actually DO!!!

    Thanks for the info Guyz, at most of the classic shows very few cars seem to have a NCT cert.

    Do they just take a chance when driving to the shows ?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    John Dough wrote: »
    What does Shane Ross actually DO!!!

    Thanks for the info Guyz, at most of the classic shows very few cars seem to have a NCT cert.

    Indeed, although of course most will be exempt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    80sDiesel wrote: »
    Do they just take a chance when driving to the shows ?

    they do but not much risk especially with ZV plates. Never heard of anyone getting a ticket on a classic


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭ John Dough


    Maybe but technically for post 1980s not covered by insurance if NCT not displayed


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    John Dough wrote: »
    Maybe but technically for post 1980s not covered by insurance if NCT not displayed

    still covered third party if a policy is in force which is all the Law demands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭ John Dough


    still covered third party if a policy is in force which is all the Law demands.


    Then why do most policies inc.mine state:



    "You will need to have a valid NCT on your vehicle for on-road cover to be applicable"

    ??:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭ 80sDiesel


    I ask because my 84 has no nct. I always fear running into a garda when taking it for a spin to keep the battery charged.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 58,852 CMod ✭✭✭✭ unkel


    From looking at 80s cars for sale on donedeal over the last few years, I'd say only a small minority has an NCT

    Most cars haven't had an NCT in years, or indeed never had one

    People just don't seem to bother. That's shameful imho. But understandable too when the chance of getting caught and facing a severe punishment is very small...

    "Wind is Ireland's oil" - An Taoiseach, 25/05/2022



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭ 80sDiesel


    Don't think it's shameful. My 84 Toyota is in top form but the NCT showed that the rear shocks needed replacement. They are new shocks but since it is leaf Spring I figured their testing equipment couldn't test it properly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭ selectamatic


    Stereotyping of cars has a big impact on the amount of attention guards will pay to 80's classic cars.
    For example mercs, defenders, jaguars, capris etc tend to slip under the radar
    Where as ae86/5 Corollas, Sierras, e30 bmw's etc tend to be singled out for special attention


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭ 80sDiesel


    Stereotyping of cars has a big impact on the amount of attention guards will pay to 80's classic cars. For example mercs, defenders, jaguars, capris etc tend to slip under the radar Where as ae86/5 Corollas, Sierras, e30 bmw's etc tend to be singled out for special attention


    But at a checkpoint surely every car is treated equally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭ selectamatic


    80sDiesel wrote: »
    But at a checkpoint surely every car is treated equally.

    Not every car is as recognisable as post 1980 though especially if it has a zv reg stuck onto it.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 2,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭ macplaxton


    80sDiesel wrote: »
    but the NCT showed that the rear shocks needed replacement. They are new shocks but since it is leaf Spring I figured their testing equipment couldn't test it properly.

    The NCT test cannot show that the rear shocks [plural] need replacement. It might be of the opinion of the tester, which is another matter.

    All the actual test does is tests for side to side imbalance. If the difference is over a certain percentage, it fails. If the difference is under, then it passes. What that means in practice is the test will show up a one knackered damper, but not a more or less equally knackered pair (that might show if there are both leaking, but if they're both bone dry...)

    I've had a car in the past commented on due to the figures by the tester, but they were more or less the same therefore a pass.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 2,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭ macplaxton


    John Dough wrote: »
    Does the year when the NCT applies currently 1980 move at all as heard it might be changed by the E.U. to pre 40 year old models.:confused:

    It's simple. What you've probably heard is the UK government's preferred option of what they would like to do with their MOT - rolling 40 - in line with their current VED (Motor Tax) exemption. They have their own consultation on it going on just now.

    Nothing has changed here yet and there's been no news for a while, other than indications that they will at least maintain the current position at worst.

    Under the EU testing directive concerned, Member states can do what they like with regards to perodic testing of historic vehicles (those over 30/not altered/modified).

    They can test them all, the same as any other car. They can not test them at all and take a fairly liberal interpretation of what altered/modified is. They can have a fixed date. They could test with a different frequency 2/3/4 whatever years.

    The only thing they need to get a handle on is defining what altered/modified is. The directive doesn't permit a blanket 30 year cut-off. Heavily butchered cars will probably come under scrutiny - at least on paper.

    I'm in favour of rolling 30 for admin purposes: it aligns with Motor Tax and VRT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭ hi5


    The modified/altered thing will probably stay the same as is now, once it has its original chassis then its not altered /modified.
    I can't see them going down the whole 8 point rule road as in the UK...too much bureaucracy.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    Stereotyping of cars has a big impact on the amount of attention guards will pay to 80's classic cars.
    For example mercs, defenders, jaguars, capris etc tend to slip under the radar
    Where as ae86/5 Corollas, Sierras, e30 bmw's etc tend to be singled out for special attention

    This is probably true as many of the drivers of such cars draw undue attention to themselves with their manner of driving, loud exhausts, etc etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭ selectamatic


    Silvera wrote: »
    This is probably true as many of the drivers of such cars draw undue attention to themselves with their manner of driving, loud exhausts, etc etc

    100% true but it's the perception the general public have to the same crime that irks me at times, if Johnny vtec is caught with no test on lets say an ae86 Corolla he'll have the book thrown at him, be branded a danger to other road users and most likely be tweet of the month on the garda twitter page.

    Whereas if Joe bloggs drives a post 1980 landrover defender without test not half as many people will care or be outraged, worse still Mr bloggs will be the more likely of the two to commit the even greater crime of putting a pre 1980 reg on his vehicle and the sad truth is he'll most likely never be caught


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    macplaxton wrote: »
    It's simple. What you've probably heard is the UK government's preferred option of what they would like to do with their MOT - rolling 40 - in line with their current VED (Motor Tax) exemption. They have their own consultation on it going on just now.

    Nothing has changed here yet and there's been no news for a while, other than indications that they will at least maintain the current position at worst.

    Under the EU testing directive concerned, Member states can do what they like with regards to perodic testing of historic vehicles (those over 30/not altered/modified).

    They can test them all, the same as any other car. They can not test them at all and take a fairly liberal interpretation of what altered/modified is. They can have a fixed date. They could test with a different frequency 2/3/4 whatever years.

    The only thing they need to get a handle on is defining what altered/modified is. The directive doesn't permit a blanket 30 year cut-off. Heavily butchered cars will probably come under scrutiny - at least on paper.

    I'm in favour of rolling 30 for admin purposes: it aligns with Motor Tax and VRT.
    I think it is indeed an EU wide consultation looking to standardise. See link post 3


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    John Dough wrote: »
    Then why do most policies inc.mine state:



    "You will need to have a valid NCT on your vehicle for on-road cover to be applicable"

    ??:confused:

    whatever they may say, it is a requirement that a policy must cover third parties which is all the Law demands. If the Ins Co were to pay out a claim in such circumstances, they might come after the Policyholder for repayment, but the policy still must provide that minimum cover.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    80sDiesel wrote: »
    But at a checkpoint surely every car is treated equally.

    many Gards wont know at a glance how old a car is and would tend to wave on any classic particularly with a ZV reg. Bigger fish to fry. If there is a check point that is!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭ Means Of Escape


    many Gards wont know at a glance how old a car is and would tend to wave on any classic particularly with a ZV reg. Bigger fish to fry. If there is a check point that is!

    Traffic corps know all about the vintage and classic cars
    It's very hard to bluff and bs them regarding nct etc and they will fine you and give you points without batting an eyelid


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    Traffic corps know all about the vintage and classic cars
    It's very hard to bluff and bs them regarding nct etc and they will fine you and give you points without batting an eyelid

    I didn't say anything about bluffing them, I said it was very unlikely they would stop you.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 2,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭ macplaxton


    I think it is indeed an EU wide consultation looking to standardise. See link post 3

    I'm just guessing where the OP got the "rolling forty" figure in his ear from at this particular moment in time.

    22nd Sept 2016: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

    Although in amongst all that documentation, all bets are off after Brexit. Indeed, that particular policy position was due out in June originally.

    Any actual news on the Irish position?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭ Means Of Escape


    I didn't say anything about bluffing them, I said it was very unlikely they would stop you.

    They have and they will


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭ 80sDiesel


    I didn't say anything about bluffing them, I said it was very unlikely they would stop you.


    They have to and will. It's the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,304 savagethegoat


    80sDiesel wrote: »
    They have to and will. It's the law.

    eh? so they are breaking the law if they don't stop you?

    Just to add, neither of my Classics require an NCT, just to make that clear.


Advertisement