As the UK was an EU member, the same rules should apply.
Graham wrote:
a Spitfire would be an example of an ‘orphaned’ type if it were an aircraft.
That could be the reason why you got away with your modifications
@Graham, you should see the reaction when we take German guests to our local US Friday cruise night event. “They are allowed to do this to their cars?” and so on. A Porsche 911 with a late model (Chevy) V8 engine is a remarkably effective thing, it’s no heavier and much more powerful than stock, integrates really well, and that got one guys full attention. 944s with LT1 V8s also work really well.
I’m hoping the event will restart soon, we missed it in 2020. Otherwise it happens every Friday in the summer, hundreds of cars.
One of the advantages of keeping a US registered motorcycle in Europe is no restrictions on approved tire type, exhaust type etc so as it ages spare parts can come from anywhere. There are no periodic inspections of any kind on motorcycles in my state so the bike can remain on state registry indefinitely without any hassles. This is also beneficial locally when you have ten road registered motorcycles, my latest count, otherwise my life would be fully occupied with getting periodic inspections! They are well maintained regardless, mostly in as new condition.
I remember sitting on the front tires of Spitfires to work on them as a kid, when I was making money as an apprentice mechanic. They are a bit fragile (mummy wrap interior 
) but easy to work on and a lot of fun to drive.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That could be the reason why you got away with your modifications
Not at all. I could do the same to a brand new VW Golf if I so desired. I have not ‘got away with’ anything, I have simply maintained and modified my own property as I wish while complying with the roadworthiness requirements in the law. The MoT tester is not required to have any knowledge of makes and models or what is/isn’t ‘normal’ for a particular vehicle. He tests what he finds in front of him, in accordance with the manual. If the test vehicle has a particular feature he tests it, if it doesn’t then he doesn’t.
The ‘orphaned’ statement was tongue-in-cheek. The question of whether a manufacturer or its successor companies are still in business making actual examples of, or parts for, a particular model of motor vehicle is completely irrelevant in all legal and practical aspects of operating a private vehicle on UK roads. If that particular vehicle was once registered for road use you are allowed to use it forever, come what may, so long as it is roadworthy. My operation of a Spitfire implies zero connection to or relationship with any successor company of Standard-Triumph, just as my operation of a Honda CR-V does not depend on Honda ‘supporting the type’ and my girlfriend does not depend on BMW for her ability to drive her 120d. We have no formalised relationship with these companies beyond happening to own an example of their work.
Sometimes I wonder whether certain European cultures can really comprehend the concept of personal responsibility, and whether they are truly reassured by a complex and all-pervading network of regulations and controls reaching into every aspect of their lives.
There is a difference between passing the MOT (which my Scirocco would not if I welded a tow bar to it) and it being illegal with the towbar. I doubt it would be illegal – so long as the usual disclosure was made to the insurer.
I think the concept of Type Approval is a fairly recent thing in the UK, and it would not surprise me (knowing nothing about it) if the UK “filed a difference” to ICAO on it
Peter wrote:
which my Scirocco would not if I welded a tow bar to it
That is between you and your MoT tester. I have just read the rules regarding towbars and there is nothing in there about manufacturer approval, part approval or fitment approval.
If you want one and he won’t pass the vehicle with it, suggest you find a different one who understands the scope and limitations of the role! Fortunately this is not like aircraft maintenance, there are (for practical purposes) an almost infinite number of testers you can try.
This is the entire text on towbars from the MoT testers manual (govt publication):
You must inspect all types of coupling mechanisms and towbars fitted to the rear of a vehicle, including fifth-wheel couplings.
You must also inspect the vehicle structure within 30cm of any towbar mounting point and assess its strength and continuity.
Towbar mounting points are not prescribed areas and the vehicle structure should only be rejected if its strength or continuity is significantly reduced.
You do not need to inspect emergency towing eyes.
You must remove tow ball covers to inspect the tow ball.
If coupling mechanisms are behind access panels in the bumper, bodywork or removable panel, you must remove them to inspect the coupling mechanism unless tools are needed to do this.
When checking coupling mechanisms, you may also need to check inside the luggage compartment and lift loose fitting mats or carpet.
You must test retractable towbars in their ‘in-use’ position. However, if you need tools to do this, you do not need to do it.
If a tow ball or pin is not fitted at the time of test – because it’s detachable, it’s been unbolted or otherwise removed – but the attachment brackets are still in place, the brackets should still be assessed unless they have been deliberately rendered unfit for further use.
There might be movement (‘play’) in some detachable tow balls between the receiver socket and the tapered swan neck fitting, with up to 3mm movement measured at the ball end.
You must reject:
pins, jaws or hooks that have worn by more than 25% of their original thickness
pin locating holes that have been worn or elongated by more than 25% of their original diameter
tow balls that are obviously excessively worn
Many ‘bolt-on’ type tow balls have accessory devices between the tow ball and its mounting flange. You should only reject these if their fitment is clearly likely to adversely affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle and its trailer.
Defect
(a) A towbar component damaged, defective, fractured or corroded
(b) A towbar component:
(i) excessively worn
(ii) so worn it is likely to fail
(c) A towbar attachment:
(i) defective or insecure
(ii) likely to become detached
(d) A towbar safety device damaged or not operating correctly
(e) A towbar coupling indicator not working
(f) Towbar:
(i) obstructing the registration plate or any lamp
(ii) obstructing the registration plate so that it is unreadable
(g) Unsafe modification:
(i) to towbar secondary components
(ii) to towbar primary components
(h) Coupling too weak
(i) The strength or continuity of the load bearing structure within 30cm of any towbar mounting bracket:
(i) is significantly reduced
(ii) is so weakened that the towbar is likely to become detached
Peter wrote:
I think the concept of Type Approval is a fairly recent thing in the UK, and it would not surprise me (knowing nothing about it) if the UK “filed a difference” to ICAO on it
The UK has always had ‘type approval’ (or whatever we might call it) for cars – it is the process via which a manufacturer is allowed to build and sell a particular model in volume without each example having to be individually inspected and declared roadworthy by the relevant government body.
If you or I wanted to design and build a car in our garage and then either use it on the road or sell it for road use, we would have to apply for an SVA – a Single Vehicle Assessment. This is what happens when you build a kit car. Likewise Ford or BMW would have to do this if they didn’t have a ‘type approval’ in place for one of their models (for whatever reason) and wanted to sell it.
The key point is that it’s solely a matter for the manufacturer. The private owner is not required to ‘operate in accordance with a type certificate’ or anything like that, nor does his/her right to use the vehicle on the road depend on the continued existence of a type certificate or support from the manufacturer. Once allowed, always allowed, is how it works.
My wife owns a 1970 Triumph Stag which she has recently had renovated. One thing she wanted done was to have the timing chains and runners replaced. It is still possible to get original sets, however she chose a German set which has been designed and manufactured due to weaknesses in the originals.
She has not had to have the change checked or certified by any regulatory body
The vehicle is registered here as a “voiture de collection” and has a “control technique”(MOT) every 5 years but I’m not sure if it is a regulatory necessity.
There is also a similar system for “avions de collection” which has it’s own category under the DGAC which has similar regulations to experimental and kit build aircraft but with the rules more adapted for aircraft which may well have been for military usage originally or are simply worthy of a place in the history of aviation and if possible, kept flying, even if that means manufacturing parts yourself.
Where car pimping is concerned, IMO the UK has a more relaxed and deregulated system than most countries in Europe.
gallois wrote:
My wife owns a 1970 Triumph Stag which she has recently had renovated.
Does it still have the original Triumph V8 engine? Many were converted to the more reliable Rover V8.
gallois wrote:
Where car pimping is concerned, IMO the UK has a more relaxed and deregulated system than most countries in Europe.
I may have given the wrong impression, but my modifications are not ‘pimping’. It is largely replacing worn-out components with better or more modern equivalents. The car looks 99% stock, it just goes and stops somewhat better than it did when it left the factory.
The guys who ‘pimp’ their cars have ongoing battles with the police who pick them up for being unroadworthy – mostly bodywork issues such as skirts that foul the wheels/road and windows that are too dark.
Silvaire wrote:
A Porsche 911 with a late model (Chevy) V8 engine is a remarkably effective thing, it’s no heavier and much more powerful than stock, integrates really well, and that got one guys full attention.
@Silvaire How do they get the drive out the end of the block, through a gearbox and then out to the wheels pretty much beneath the block? I’d always assumed V8s were happiest when mounted a goodly distance from the driven wheels!
Silvaire wrote:
I remember sitting on the front tires of Spitfires to work on them as a kid, when I was making money as an apprentice mechanic. They are a bit fragile (mummy wrap interior ) but easy to work on and a lot of fun to drive.
Indeed.
It is a shame the models exported to the US had their performance so limited by emissions legislation. A more aggressive camshaft, a little bit of head work, timing adjustments and some good carburettors (I favour twin Dellorto DHLA 40s) and it can get really quite lively. The best engine for tweaking is the 1296cc small-crank from the Mk3.
It’s the original Stag V8 but not the original engine. We constantly worried about the first because it kept showing signs it might overheat in heavy traffic. So we bought a new engine, had it stripped down and all the water channels cleaned off from any excess aluminium.
Then also added a large bore radiator..
I apologise if you thought I was referring to your Spitfire when I wrote about pimping. I was in fact referring to those cars that they race up and down Brighton seafront. I saw a tv show about them. I think members of classic car clubs all over the world will do whatever is necessary to keep the car on the road.
