British-Cars.org

Welcome to the DMR Site for British Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG Midget and Sprite General - Hisoric Vehicle MOT Discussion Document

As well as being a Midget owner I am very interested in Historic Commercial Vehicles. During my HCV browsing I came across this government consultation document that may be of interest to early, frogeye, Sprite owners. I have not seen any other reference to it in my browsing of "old car" sites.

Link http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/

PS you need to scrool down the list to find the paper
Ray Rowsell

Interesting proposals and alternatives ideas suggested.

Also interesting (worrying perhaps?) to see that their definition of Historic Vehicle as pre- 1960 differs from DVLA's one of pre 1973. Will the next move be to bring these in line so we lose the tax exemption on post 1960/ pre 1973 cars?
Guy

Ray,
it's of interest to all road users and pedestrians

it has been discussed on here on another thread but is well worth bring up again

I’ve sent my reply in, I think it will be of public record so I hope I got my spelling and grammar better than usual – I’m against the proposal, I try to encourage regular fully and proper servicing, maintenance and repairs and even that gets resistance let alone a once a year panic to get a car through a minimum test that just one person’s opinion at one point of time only but is better than the nothing that’s being proposed

plus who knows what future restrictions will be put on these vehicles that don’t go in for annual MoT inspections

ETA: Guy posted whilst I was typing but has suggested a possible fututre outcome
Nigel Atkins

I think it makes a lot of sense. Unless there really is a hidden threat to the tax exemption! But as regards the MOT most older vehicles are well cared for and do low annual mileages. The report says that MOT failure rates are about 1/3rd that of later cars, and many of those failures will be minor issues rather than significant safety concerns. I am all for reducing government bureaucracy wherever possible, which is the stated intention in the consultation document.
Guy

Guy,

I am very cynical when it comes to governmental activity e.g. the recent consultation on FITs when fitting solar panels. However, this does seem to be the tidying up of legislation to bring the requirements for "all" road vehicles into line. Currently there is no requirement for motor cycle MOTs and pre 1960, that's where the date comes from, Heavy Commercials are exempted. Therefore, I think it's a good idea.
Ray Rowsell

>>But as regards the MOT most older vehicles are well cared for and do low annual mileages.<<

even if we accept that most older cars are well cared for (in the correct areas?) then that leaves those that are not and the low annual mileage to my mind leads to complacency

if a car only ever goes on the road once in ever 10 years it still needs to be in (a minimum) at least roadworthy condition (but preferably more in my mind)

threads I read here and on other sites suggest to me that some might try to get away with a minimum standard as the car gets so little use, take away that minimum for some and what would they bother with

all just my opinion of course and my opinion of my 20 years of experience of various makes models and clubs

I expect there are many more unlicensed drivers and uninsured and untaxed vehicles of all ages at anytime on our roads to worry about
Nigel Atkins

I agree with Nigel.

Whilst I also agree that old cars generally have enthusiastic owners, some owners are more knowledgable than others with regard to maintenance - as evidenced by some of the posts on this BBS.
Dave O'Neill2

Actually I would be more concerned that it would be another nail in the coffin of the dwindling number of garages that understand and can do work on these cars. If they do MOTs then loss of that trade could be critical.
Maybe the 1960 date is too "new". They do suggest alternatives. 1945 might be better
Guy

I had a shock at MOT time when a friendly chap pointed out some tinworm in a sensitive place seen only from below and at the back of my car.

Restorative work undertaken before the MOT resulted in a clean pass but there is a possibility that we might miss something dangerous if we complacently just roll along thinking we are doing enough.

I would far rather buy a new MOT every year even if it does cost a few bob, than risk missing something.
Bill1

Bill,

Good point. Here in our State, as an option, an Antique tag can be issued for a vehicle 25 years old, or older without much restriction. After proof of proper insurance, 'passing' a one-time inspection, including emmission testing for vehicle 1965 and newer we pay but one fee. A special tag is required to be displayed on the vehicle, and an 'excempt' sticker is then issued every two years there after(by post). No additional inspections, or cost is required as long as you own the vehicle. All safety inspections are the responsability of the owner.

Regards,

Larry C.
Larry C '69 Midget

I think eventually a mandatory safety inspection to allow licence plate renewal will come to Ontario (read a new tax on vehicles!). We already have emissions testing but it doesn't apply to vehicles aged 20 years or older as only some 3% of all vehicles on the roads meet that criteria.

A safety inspection is only required if one buys the car as used. It has to pass the safety inspection prior to the new registration plates being issued. Otherwise, in theory, a car can be bought new and eventually go to the scrapyard many years later and never ever be inspected to see if it was still safe for the roads.
Clive Reddin

Living and working in Queensland where there is NO annual inspection for any vehicle (until it changes ownership), I can assure you, older vehicles are NOT looked after as would be hoped or expected.. (I can't express the NOT in that sentence strongly enough...!). The cars I see through the workshop www.classiccarclinic.com.au may look nice and shiny on top but get underneath and the real dangers become very evident. Rust is not prevalent here, but we find it, brake pipes and hoses are often very suspect along with suspension bushes and joints.....

The MOT Test MUST continue in the UK for all vehicles for everyones safety...!

Mark.
M T Boldry

personally I think all vehicles of any age that go on to public roads should have an annual test and that include new vehicles
Nigel Atkins

hi all, low mileage doesnt mean good condition , 1 thing that spings to mind ( that are quite important on a car i think ) brakes ! Brakes left dorment are more prone to problems then regularly used ones , and thats before you start on the tyre problems , nope an mot once a year is ok by me , worse case senario , papper headlines " UNSAFE CLASSIC CAR KILLS PEDESTRIAN " the pc bregade call for the banning of cars pre 1960 un mot ed cars to be band as there all deamed unsafe etc etc etc , bit extreame ? if you got a diesel camper van over ten years old and you live bassicly inside the m25 your now buggered unless you pay a 100 pound a day to use it , who would of guessed that 10/15 years ago ?
Darren 2litre frogeye

"if you got a diesel camper van over ten years old and you live bassicly inside the m25 your now buggered unless you pay a 100 pound a day to use it "

What's the problem with them then Darren?
Lawrence Slater

Lawrence they now fall under the LEZ low emissions zone legislation which is progressively covering smaller and smaller vehicles having been brought in ostensibly only to cover artics and lorries.
David Smith

I'd have thought you could have worked that out for yourself Lawrence without instuction :) hahahahaha :)
Nigel Atkins

they wont be meeting the london low emisions zon ( L e z ) as from the 3rd of jan smaller vans ( like transits size or even escort/fiesta size )that are over 10 years old wont be meeting the requied emisions , so will require a 100 pound a day charge to use them , or some serious money to make them compliant , ie cats etc etc , and in the tightening of the size of vehicle the wording states "and specialist vehicle " which includes campervans , and even ( and ill stand corrected on this ) landrover defenders , two people i know , one owns an imaculate P100 cortina based pick up , used for shows etc , and yep he s been notified it falls fowl , and another guy i know who lives jus 2.5 miles inside zone that owns a very nice camper thats a 99 year model AND ! only ever drives it away from london ( i mean who goes camping in london ? lol ) and yep hes got too spend money on it to use for 2.5 miles going out and 2.5 miles to come back in to the zone ,
Darren 2litre frogeye

I remember when certain posters on this site used to blame Ken for all these rules. Well Ken was replaced some years ago by the present idiot and it is still the same. Where are they now?

It is a shame, London has major problems that do require addressing, however the powers that be o not seem to be able to specify rules that actually resolve the problem without causing grief for genuine residents.
Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

I didn't know that. I guess it wont be long then before old cars like ours are effectively banned from london too then. And other cities?
Lawrence Slater

Lawrence, spot-on, they already are prohibited from certain cities in mainland Europe which have imposed blanket emissions limits..
David Smith

So what are our options? Electric conversion? :(
Lawrence Slater

Looks like I'd better hold on to the 'smog' kit for my MGB.
Dave O'Neill2

No wonder then the road tax is free, we won't be able to drive them soon. :-
Lawrence Slater

>>No wonder then the road tax is free<<

post '73 aint :(

the local college converted a Spridget to electric from the rear it looked like it had a massive fuel tank
Nigel Atkins

Back to the original topic.

I agree with it. Except I do think 1960 is too new. 1940 or even mid thirties would be better.

I am involved with a club that looks after a 1926 Morris T type truck and a 1916 N type dennis fire engine and a 1902 Boeranges car... every year we go along for our mandatory MOT... every year they pass... every year we pay £55 for the privalige of some mechanic who has no clue how these vehciles work or what their original specification was, to okay them.

The point is, to pass and MOT, the car needs to comply with its original specification - very few mechancics can tell me how "good" the 2 wheel drum brakes on my truck were when new... or what the required stopping distance was for the vechile.

As it happens... we look after the vehciles very well and they are better than when new.

Therefore there is no need for these vehicles to be MOTd. They require servicing every time you leave the garage (something Nigel would approve of)

What makes no sense (and the point is valid for tax also) is the arbitrary year.

Why would a 1959 Jag e type not require an MOT and a 1961 would? - You need to take it back to a sensible year.

As for the tax, this needs to be addressed as a rolling exemption - so that people are encouraged to own cars made in the mid 70's and 80's, which is the reason it was introduced in the first place. To preserve motoring history.

I don't think they will ban midgets from London any time soon, Larwrence, my parking permit is based on emissions for cars which have an emissions rating on the V5 or on engine size for those that don't... there are so few old cars that they don't care about this sort of thing and it would be impossible to monitor.

Its the new vechiles with large emissions that they can monitor easily, these are what will and are being prohibited.
C L Carter

you don't mean E-Type jag :)

same point with a 1939 and 1941 or 1934 and 1936 or 1919 and 1921 if you have a line then some will be before and some after

as for tax I miss out by 4 months of my present Midget, 1 day!!! on my last car and the rolling ceased when I had my first '74 car and was well stuck by the time I got my second '74 car - that's life
Nigel Atkins

Okay e- type was a bad example cos they didn't start making them till 61... but the point stands.

I think it is less important the further back you go... so prewar cars are very few and far between... therefore you're not affecting many people... also, standardisation wasn't brilliant back then, so actually there was little to compare to anyway - rendering an MOT less useful

Whereas if a mechanic can give an mot to a 60's car... he can also give one to a 59 car... that doesn't work quite the same for a prewar vehicle... of which few were made.

C L Carter

The MOT was introduced in 1960, and applied to cars older than ten years... presumably thats why they've suggested 1960.

C L Carter

The discussion paper does suggest other possible dates, not just 1960, although this seems to be first proposal. They include 1931, although I am not sure why, and 1945 which makes a lot of sense because of the virtual absence of registrations during the previous 6 years, so a natural break
Guy

Christian, I take it you are at C&G or Imperial; the 1902 car is a James and Browne, Boanerges (sp) is its nickname only. It's a small world - there's been at least two people on here in recent years who also looked after it whilst studying there, my father-in-law was also involved with it back in 1937-38 and we rode on it at the Centenary at Gaydon some ten years ago.
David Smith

Nigel

<<"as for tax I miss out by 4 months of my present Midget">>
You do know it is production date, not first registration don't you? If you have been going by the registration date you might have been missing out. Do you have a Heritage certificate?
Guy

The fire engine used to be a regular visitor to the Ace Cafe when Matt used to help to look after it.
Gary & Gaps

in that case the logic would be to have the line at 1950

perhaps your earlier vehicles deserve a lower price to their MoT and I take your point than the average MoT station would not understand them so perhaps they need to be taken to a specialist which would mean greater cost and expense for their MoTs

I think a mechanic would know if they were that bad they were suspect to be road worthy

problem is when you start to exclude vehicles there has to be a finish line to it and then those that don't require an MoT would they then attract enhanced insurance premiums be cause they've not been MoTed or perhaps the insurer would want a yearly certificate from a specalist that would cost a lot more than an MoT

I don't agree with the idea that because these are 1960 or much older that the vehicles wont be on the road much and all will be very well looked after - that means any dodgy old vehicle can be driven on the road from sale, storeage or part restoration rather than being trailered

we can all only give the government our responses and see what happens

ETA: thanks Guy, yes I know and my last car missed by 1 day - built 8th Jan '73!
Nigel Atkins

Yes folks am from Imperial - small world.

Gary, Matt was my flatmate! I didn't know he took it the Ace Cafe though! I was incharge last year - but have since graduated.

Nigel, I aggree with your last point... But the point I'm trying to make is that for prewar cars, the owners themselves wouldn't take them out if they weren't roadworthy... they are simply too precious! And, the owners opinion on roadworthiness will beat most garages - unless as you say there is a specialist MOT... now theres a job I would enjoy!
C L Carter

Are we talking about the same Matt. He has a twin brother.
It hasn't been to the Ace for at least two years as far as I can remember.
Gary & Gaps

Christian,
I'm sure the people you know and their vehicles are top drawer unfortunately the good majority always suffer because of the rotten minority

and anyway you could see your preference become law
Nigel Atkins

Nigel there really aren't enough "poor" owners of prewar cars to worry about... besides... a car can be dangerous even with an MOT...

its also easy to illegally get an MOT for an old car anyway - which is what these idiots would do...

so who is the MOT for old cars benefitting? not the good owners... not the road users...

C L Carter

Gary - must be the same Matt, he was chairman 2 years ago - he had a younger brother, an electrician... but wasn't a twin. It hasn't been anywhere much in the last couple of years... its big end bearings have kept going!
C L Carter

Christian,
I take your points and personally always say that an MoT is just one person's opinion and one point in time to a ninimum standard but it's better than nothing

and I know about MoTs through the post and over the phone

I know anyone that owns/runs a car isn't really poor but I don't think all pre-war car owners are well wedged, not that it matters because some of the weatlhy are the very ones to cut corners and ignore rules and regulations plus the more vehicles increase in value the more dodgy things happen to them

we'll just have to agree to disagree on this

if you're ever unlucky enough to run across some of the rouges I have in the car industry you might edge towards a more cautious approach a little more
Nigel Atkins

This thread was discussed between 29/12/2011 and 04/01/2012

MG Midget and Sprite General index

This thread is from the archives. Join this live forum now