Jump to content

Nick Jones

Subscriber!
  • Content count

    7,162
  • Donations

    $50.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About Nick Jones

  • Rank
    Wise beyond his years.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.shadetreegarage.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Has been posted extensively on other motoring sites but not, until now, here. Much of the content is actually quite reasonable and sensible. However, as so often the case, there is a distinct lack of understanding of the possible impacts on amateur car builder and modifiers, and regrettably a lack of understanding of even their own current rules and terminology. It also has the appearance of being done in haste and on the sly...... It will most affect the kit car and hot rod boys as the current proposal is to make it mandatory for the vehicle to be able to pass the MoT emissions standards prevailing at the time of the IVA, rather than those prevailing when the engine was built as is currently the case. This would also imply the same for radically altered vehicles requiring IVA although they don't actually appear to have heard of those and refer instead to something called "reconstructed (restored) classics" - which according to the DVLA wouldn't need an IVA anyway. Consultation, including online response link and email addresses is here https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/road-vehicles-improving-air-quality-and-safety I've just spent a fairly long time ploughing through it and my responses appear below. My general dislike for government and pointless meddling, by people who don't know what they doing, with things that don't need fixing, may show at times....... I did agree with them on some points too - as I said, it's not all daft. I'd urge you all (UK based) to respond to it, online at least, with letters to MP, Transport Minister and Shadow transport minister too if you can bear it Jesse Norman MP, Parliamentary under secretary of State for Roads, Local Transport and Devolution email: jesse.norman@dft.gsi.gov.uk use subject line Transport enquiry" Andy McDonald, Shadow Minister for Transport, email: info@andymcdonaldmp.org Closes Friday 2nd March! 7. Do you agree with the introduction of Euro 6 (heavy duty) emissions standards for buses in both national small series type approval (NSSTA) and individual vehicle approval (IVA) schemes? · Yes · No IVA route could include older vehicles being modified. System should take this into account and allow emissions testing under age related regulations. 8. Do you agree with the introduction of Euro 6 (heavy duty) emissions standards for trucks in both national small series type approval (NSSTA) and individual vehicle approval (IVA) schemes? · Yes · No Your reasons are? IVA route could include older vehicles being modified. System should take this into account and allow emissions testing under age related regulations. 9. Do you support the proposed introduction date of 3 months after these regulations are signed (an expected date of approximately 1 July 2018)? · Yes · No Your reasons are? Absolutely not! Why the unseemly haste? Why is this consultation open for just 4 weeks when government guidelines clearly state a 12 week recommended minimum (unless clear reasons are stated for the need for a short timescale) Do you not want people to comment? Are you afraid of the answers? Are you afraid that Brexit will mean you are no longer able to blame unpopular legislation on the EU? The proposed timescale means that changes could be implemented in law 7 months from first appearance of the consultation. For some of the people affected by this, that is well within the lifetime of a project and could have serious practical and financial consequences. 11. Do you agree with the introduction of WLTP in IVA for light vehicles built after 1 July 2018? · Yes · No Your reasons are? Vehicles come to the IVA test for a number of reasons including: - vehicles built in very low volumes from new parts for specialist purposes by specialist companies. - Kit cars, professional or amateur built from a mixture of new and recycled parts. - Radically altered vehicles (completely unmentioned in this consultation document!), professional or amateur built from a mixture of new and recycled parts. - Reconstructed classics - mentioned only because they are mentioned in the consultation document - they are NOT normally required to be submitted for IVA test under current rules - implying that those writing the consultation document do not understand the current rules! All of the above are VERY limited production - often "one offs" - and may be using recycled parts, including, in the interests of cost and simplicity, engines never designed to meet current emissions regulations. The imposition of WLTP implies that vehicles would have to be submitted for testing of fuel consumption and CO2 testing, which is clearly impractical and prohibitively expensive for very short production runs. It further implies that all vehicles tested would have to meet WLTP emissions standards prevailing at the time of registration including NOx which, where recycled engines have been used in the interests of cost and simplicity, they have not been designed to do. While there may be a case to made for applying prevailing MoT test standards to some of the categories mentioned above, to attempt to apply full WLTP testing to single vehicle approval seems irrational and impractical and to defeat the object of the IVA. 14. What other views do you have on the emission rules for light vehicle converters? Where vehicles being converted are not new, or do not use new engine technology, emissions rules should not be retrospectively applied. Instead, the rules prevailing at the time of the engine's production should be applied. This is what is done now and has been the case for many years. The numbers of vehicles involved are very small and environmental consequences therefore minimal. 15. Do you agree with requiring kit cars submitted for IVA to meet the latest MOT standards, thereby removing the rule that kit cars are IVA tested to MOT standards according to engine age? · Yes · No Your reasons are? The definition of "kit car" is unclear and as with other terminology used, does not match DVLA definitions. - It could include professionally manufactured, very small production volume vehicles made from new components. In this case, testing to prevailing MoT standards would be reasonable. - It could mean amateur build vehicles using a mixture of new and recycled parts, including, in the interests of cost and simplicity, older engines not designed to pass those standards. It should be recognised that in many cases the builders are not seeking to "subvert" emissions rules but just to keep their projects within their financial and technical means. It should also be recognised that while 90s engine management technology is relatively easy to re-purpose, from the early 2000s onwards, the complexity of these systems and their integration with other vehicle systems makes re-purposing very much harder, if not impossible. Therefore to blandly state "The majority of the fleet is now vehicles up to 25 years old whose engines are fitted with catalytic converters, providing plenty of choice to the kit car builder." demonstrates a lack of understanding of the reality. - It could mean "radically altered vehicles" though not mentioned as such in the consultation document, unless this is what is meant by "reconstructed (restored) classics" (which by DVLA terminology are not subject to IVA). Remarks made under amateur build also apply here. - Reconstructed (restored) Classic. Not sure what is meant by this terminology as vehicles so defined by the DVLA are not current required to undergo IVA unless sufficiently modified to count as "radically altered". It should be understood that, with the exception of professionally built kit cars, these vehicles will be "one-offs" and even if all the above suggested groupings are taken together, total numbers registered per year will be very small. These vehicles also tend to cover very low annual mileages so any environmental benefit gained from these measures will be minimal. Against this, the effects on peoples leisure pursuits/hobbies and, in some cases, livelihoods will be profound and destructive. The UK has a long history of reasonably "light touch" regulation allowing a thriving culture of car enthusiasts building and modifying their own cars. As well as providing a leisure pursuit for tens of thousands of people, it also helps support many small and medium size businesses adding up to a considerable annual turnover and thus government tax revenue. Some elements of the proposed legislation amount to an effective ban on some parts of this and will cause serious damage - with minimal environmental gains to justify it. A further concern is that the writers of the consultation document do not appear to fully understand current regulations or terminology relating to these groups of vehicles, let alone the potential consequences of their proposals. 43. Any other comments on anything in this consultation or relevant to national approval schemes? Why the unseemly haste? Why is this consultation open for just 4 weeks when government guidelines clearly state a 12 week recommended minimum (unless clear reasons are stated for the need for a short timescale) Do you not want people to comment? Are you afraid of the answers? Are you afraid that Brexit will mean you are no longer able to blame unpopular legislation on the EU? The proposed timescale means that changes could be implemented in law 7 months from first appearance of the consultation. For some of the people affected by this, that is well within the lifetime of a project and could have serious practical and financial consequences. It is a concern is that the writers of the consultation document do not appear to fully understand current regulations or DVLA terminology relating to kit cars, radically modified vehicles and reconstructed (restored) classics, let alone the potential consequences of their proposals on the amateur enthusiast and the businesses that support them. The UK has a long history of reasonably "light touch" regulation allowing a thriving culture of car enthusiasts building and modifying their own cars. As well as providing a leisure pursuit for tens of thousands of people, it also helps support many small and medium size businesses adding up to a considerable annual turnover and thus government tax revenue. Some elements of the proposed legislation amount to an effective ban on some parts of this and will cause serious damage - with minimal environmental gains to justify it. Further, there appears to have been no attempt to notify clubs and business associations who would be seriously affected by these proposals. Together with the short consultation period, this looks at worst, like deliberate intent to exclude, or at best, shoddy government. Britain deserves better.
  2. Vitessesteve

    Hi Steve, Welcome Your document sharing/hosting has been appreciated by many, for many years now - myself included! Welcome indeed Nick
  3. Trigger Wheel Mounting Vitesse

    As far as I could discover most VR sensors have the same electrical characteristics and variations are mostly in the overall shape, mounting arrangements and socket type. Pretty sure the sensor I use is from a Ford that doesn't actually have EDIS. 3 wire sensors will be Hall effect and won't work. The real Ford sensors are very tough and long-lived. The aftermarket ones, not so much. Good idea to carry a spare as they are show-stoppers. Nick
  4. Wanted Triumph 2000/2.5

    Euugggh! My concern on that car is not what can be seen...... (which is scary enough) but what will be found when given a proper poking-at........ Might not be left with much! Nick
  5. Wanted Triumph 2000/2.5

    Think the vendor needs a reality check. It is a nice basis for a light resto to sort the iffy bits of bodywork properly (not "MoT standard" plates & pigeon poo welding) - then £ 7k. It's a late car and lowish spec - the only thing it's really got going for it is the "low mileage", if verifiable, and all that probably means is it's done the miles the hard way - in 5 mile bursts, with the choke out. Try to use it daily and you'll spend 6 to 9 months getting the bugs out and they won't all be minor either. Nick
  6. Wanted Triumph 2000/2.5

    when you look at this beauty https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C941642 at "just" £ 6,750 ........ The brown one on the IOW looks nicer too and less money. https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C963219 Nick
  7. Wanted Triumph 2000/2.5

    £ 7k does seem like alot. 26k miles..... with full documented service history supporting it? Without that it's just a number on the dash. Looks like a pretty decent starting point, but there will be plenty of welding needed when you go digging. I'd have thought 4 - 5K tops. My very straight and well sorted PI EFI (with no chassis welding ever) fetched £ 5K in 2014...... I know prices have gone up a bit since then but even so..... Nick
  8. Spitfire 1500 - on Mikuni Carbs

    It's been done. More often in the USA. PRI (Prirace) used to sell kits (vastly expensive). Bogg Brothers are well known for this sort of thing but any half decent fabricator should be able to do it. I'm in the process of doing similar for bike throttle bodies. Nick
  9. Item: Binny

    Yes, they even have a sensible diff ratio (3.27:1) and thus a more relaxed cruise than the Sprint (3.45:1). My Sprint was soooo much better after converting to Man/OD. Nick
  10. Item: Binny

    I do like a bigger engined Dolly. 1850 auto works much better than a Sprint auto. Nick
  11. What's happening over on CT?

    I understand most of the words...... but the sentences are a problem..... Nick
  12. What's happening over on CT?

    We are indeed most fortunate to have a volunteer professional (HotRod Nerd!) as our webmaster ............. I won't embarrass with the "worshipping" smiley - unless you'd like me to? TSSC website is ok now, I think? Probably benefiting from the CT situation. It was a mess for ages after an "upgrade", which nearly killed it off. Really hope the CT one won't suffer the same way..... Needs to be a status report on it advising the state of play and what happens next. In some ways it might have been better to have stayed down until finished, which would have made Keith's job a bit easier I expect. Triumph Experience should survive........ Nick
  13. Rover 100 Axle Length

    Hubs from MGF, Rover 100 ("new" Metro), Maestro & Montego are all the same. The critical point is the fairly unusual 95.5 wheel nut pcd. If you don't care about that then the world opens right out, though matching bearing dimensions may vary. Nick
  14. 1966 Vespa 150 Super

    All the way to the ground......... You'll likely get fed up with it before then though - or receive an ultimatum from Senior Management. If I grew that much fur I'd be out on my ear...... Gasket..... looks like it damn well ought to work. Choice of gasket goo and curing time is likely critical. You need some of that stuff Triumph used - the one stuff that needs a hammer and sharp chisel to scrape off..... Wellseal? Another thought..... does that casing actually see positive internal pressure? @Cause I'd have thought it was actually vacuum - and the casing has a ledge to support the gasket in that direction......... Vacuum test better? Nick
×