The UK licensing and vehicle registration authority, the DVLA, has requested comments and suggestions concerning the registration of classic vehicles:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-...ed-to-electric

The UK Federation of British Historic Vehicle Cubs, FBHC, has prepared a response on which they also request suggestions and comments:

https://evidence.fbhvc.co.uk/

The existing DVLA rules are

https://assets.publishing.service.go...139.1559037120

and

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...anges-criteria

I’ve given the links but don’t feel obliged to read it all unless you decide to send in some responses.

I should say that I am an over qualified engineer and have some experience with standards and codes of practice as I’ve written a large part of the ISO standards for the design and analysis of offshore oil and gas installations.

There are a few points that I would say are wrong in the DVLA’s existing rules and not all of those have been suitably addressed in the response from FBHC. I’ve completed the FBHC response form, but I’m just one voice; more responses to them and they are more likely to adjust their view.

There are a lot of details that need work, but here I’ll list a few major points:

First, the rules have to be self-consistent. At present, they aren’t and FBHVC haven’t done anything to change that. In particular, statements implying that no changes to a vehicle monocoque are permitted and that vehicles should be completely original essentially rule out all restoration work on a car and the smallest modification (such as making a hole in a bulkhead for a tube or cable). Elsewhere in the documents, such repairs are listed as acceptable.

Second, FBHVC state that a historic vehicle is not a daily driver. It isn’t, but that is not the business of the DVLA.

Third is the old question of what modifications and changes are acceptable before a vehicle is classed as radically altered and requires a completely different registration process that no classic would pass. At present, DVLA have a list of components, out of which a car has to score 8 points to avoid being classed as ‘radically altered’. As it stands, for me the list doesn’t make much sense. One item it refers to is the vehicles ‘axles’. That means something for an Austin 7, but little for a Jaguar E type. The DVLA also require all the components to be original to the individual car. My proposal is that they should replicate parts from the vehicle or related models from the original manufacturer. My list is:

Chassis or body shell from the original vehicle or a largely new replacement to the same major dimensions and silhouette as the original (same wheelbase and same length and width) … 5 points

Suspension front ………………….…… 2 points

Suspension rear ………………….…….. 1 point

Transmission …………………………….. 2 points

Steering assembly …………………..… 2 points

Engine …………………………………………2 points

Apart from either the chassis or body, there should be no requirement on the component coming from the original vehicle, but (to score points) they should replicate parts from the vehicle or from related models from the same original manufacturer. As before the maximum possible points is 14 and the required number to keep the original registration would be 8 points.

Finally, the exclusion of vehicles for drilling, cutting, or welding of the chassis or monocoque is ridiculous. I would suggest some simple guidance on what is automatically allowed and where there’s doubt the owner or restorer should obtain some approval from a chartered engineer, club technical advisor, or other acceptably qualified person.

In my suggestions, I’ve kept in mind old Jaguars and what I know of MG, Lotus and classic Mini.

If you want to throw in your thoughts, I’d suggest giving them to your car club, fill in the FBHVC form (link above) and the UK DVLA form.

 

Peter more emphasis should be put on what we know as the drive train. If you have the monocoque that has been fully repaired with the original brakes and running gear but then the drive train is changed from the standard engine to a 1000bhp V8 with twin turbos and a two speed power glide transmission it, at the moment, can still be classed as historic. With these modifications the car is no longer safe but as an historic vehicle does not require Tax or MOT.
This is a prime example. 1966 S Type Jaguar fitted with a 4ltr super charged engine from an XJR. According to DVLA this is still a 3442 cc 1966 S Type Jaguar classed as an Historic vehicle. Throw in the facts that the steering has been changed along with the suspension and I hope he has upgraded the brakes and this thing should be on a Q plate classed as a radically altered vehicle.

 

Rob - One of the better suggestions of the FBHVC is that every restoration (or any time after a car has been off the the road for an extended period) should be followed by a safety inspection. I'd support that and make it at two levels: one more MoT type to check that everything works, another at a more general engineering level to approve or block the sort of changes that you've described above. It's a nice way to go in principle, but the DVLA/DVSA/MoT system doesn't have the means or competence to do it and probably will not want anyone outside their shop doing it. I'd like to see a lot of the decision making taken out of the state system and given to approved technical experts in clubs and professional engineers. Hopefully, it would both reduce the number of potentially dangerous machines and some of the stupid rejections of cars over minor modifications.

 

Peter I agree with a test of some sort after the restoration.

The after restoration should be a safety check on the work carried out. Welding, brakes, suspension, electricals and so on, even the fuel system for leaks. A more in depth check perhaps than a standard MOT. After this check though I don't know. One of the reasons why I don't submit my car for an MOT is I got sick of the MOT tester failing the car for something really minor such as a bulb out or the washers not working. Never take my car out in the dark and it is cleaned every other day. If I see something worn it is replaced before it breaks and it only does 500 to 1000 miles a year as I tend not to go on long journeys with it but a car owned by someone who is not service/mechanically savvy?

My mate has just bought a 1927 Humber to add to his collection. He is an engineer. It is mostly original, never been restored. Been off the road for twenty years plus. He has spent a month sorting out the engine, sprucing up the interior and checking the brakes which are virtually none existent anyway. Insured it having re registered it with DVLA and he is now driving it on the road. This is so old (96 years old) that it has a central accelerator pedal and a brake on the right. The hand brake is a lever which pulls a wooden block against the rear wheel. Would this go through an MOT these days?

 

We have to go through the full roadworthy regime here.

 

The best way to MoT an older car is to take it to a good mechanic who both understands that type of car and has a regular arrangement with an MoT centre. The MoT tester has to be honest with him or they lose his custom. If they don't understand something they can ask him and between them they will correct anything minor without a load of fuss. It also stops the list of stupid advisories that some testers feel obliged to list for old cars.

I heard of someone who had an advisory for surface rust on a forged steel suspension wishbone! How stupid can it get?