This could be the end

[puglove]

Only had a quick scan as im at work. But it dosnt sound good guys


http://www.the-ace.org.uk/2012/08/

[Matt]

That best be bullshit. Stock motors ftl

[puglove]

Its been passed in other countrys hasnt it?


Cant see how they can do it. It will put so many people out of work who make/supply all these parts

---

Not to mention the loss of revinue from shows meets etc

[cpikey316_]

"This may prevent most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components and to all types of vehicle)"

So once a mod has been deemed ok, it is therefore allowed for all? (I am not a legal eagle in anyway!!)

Would an MOT be sufficient to class as approval? So, you lot with your straight through exhausts, if that passes an MOT, could that be classed as approved?

Or will Peugeot have to approve it? What about those of us who own cars which companies no longer exist

[Niall]

No pikey, when a car is first put into production, it has to be approved so what their saying is our cars have to meet this approval.

[cpikey316_]

Doesn't that "without further approval" part mean that modification could be approved?

[Stephen]

No it says that it has to be approved to be the same standard it came out the factory

This is f*cking shit

[samass]

Well, thats gay.

One way to shoot themselves in a foot, anyone remember how much money is spent in the UK alone on modifying cars? A f*cking lot.

[vlj]

I'd hope this would be difficult to push through - as said, the money spent on aftermarket parts and mods must be massive, the government would be resigning themselves to a loss as well as a massive drop in jobs.

[Toms306]

Same standard? Then surely any modified part is allowed as long as its made to the same BS or EU standard as the OEM part? Just meaning no cheap ebay coilovers made of cheese?? Unless I've read that completely wrong.

[C.A.R.]

Parts as you say are already made to a certain 'standard' but bespoke modifications whether carried out by a garage or budding ameteur mechanic are not really 'approved' of, but no legislation currently makes them illegal.

The government will be happier when everyone is driving around in a white, silver or grey car with <99g/km emissions. This way emissions are effectively controlled by the government, by making 'dirty cars' illegal or passing legislation which makes them apparently unsuitable for the roads will eventually filter people like us out, we will be driven into owning these 'appliance cars' forever more, because cars and driving aren't things we should be enthusiastic about, they are merely a means of getting from A to B.

[cpikey316_]

Same standard? Then surely any modified part is allowed as long as its made to the same BS or EU standard as the OEM part? Just meaning no cheap ebay coilovers made of cheese?? Unless I've read that completely wrong.

This is what i'm getting at.

The Saabies seem to agree, one spoke of the TUV in Germany (MOT type thing)

As long as you have TUV approval on your aftermarket parts, they are perfectly legal.

I guess it just means parts will get more expensive as they'll have to go through testing and more thorough quality control.

[Ed Doe]

It really doesn't sound nearly as bad as they're making it out to be...

From what I can see it's almost an extension of what Darren encountered when he tried to insure his new engine build. They wanted proof from a 'competent' person that the installation had been carried out completely and safely.

I don't think it should be such a worry; it seems to me the biggest thing that will be affected is people who make rat-rods and similar; those who significantly modify the body/chassis of the original car...

[Niall]

Tbh they could never out right do away with aftermarket parts. Take for example a set of q drive wishbones. These are in no way a modification as we all know and are lesser than OE quality but technically they were never a approved part. So does this mean I can only go and buy Peugeot wishbones? Does it f*ck! This would end nearly all motor factors in that way and also push a lot of people out of motoring. Peugeot arnt that bad on their pricing for genuine parts but some companies want the world and more for a thermostat!

[Ed Doe]

Right, seeing as my boss isn't in the office at the moment, I took the time to read the document they have linked to from the ACE website; http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadwo...%29380.pdf

I suggest reading it, it's definitely worth it for your own peace of mind, and you may see something I could have missed...

My views on it, complete with relevant extracts of the legislation, are as follows;

Anyone bothering to read this article should start from page 13. The real info starts at page 14, Article 3, Definitions.

The bit I’ve found that appears to be what that ACE website is hanging it’s hat on is the definition of a vehicle of historic interest, and if/how this will be tested;

‘vehicle of historic interest’ means any vehicle which fulfils all the following
conditions :
– It was manufactured at least 30 years ago,
– It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic
components of the vehicle;
– It has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main
components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension and
– It has not been changed in its appearance

As far as I can make out, if a vehicle would otherwise have been classified as a ‘historic vehicle’ is then modified, all that happens is it loses its ‘historic vehicle’ classification, which means it is no longer exempt from the new legislation. As far as I can tell from fairly systematically reading through the proposal linked to from that page, there is NO mention that a vehicle must comply with the manufacturers approved suspension/brakes etc. provided they work as they should (ie the brake efficiency is equal or greater than it should be according to the manufacturer; the suspension should operate (even if it is stiffer than manufacturers specifications; the engine should not fail an emissions test etc)

Here’s more relevant information in the ‘definitons’

‘Roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle
comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of
approval, first registration or entry into service, as well as at the time of retrofitting’

Page 16 is more relevant to us I think;

4. Notwithstanding the date of its last roadworthiness test, the competent authority may
require that a vehicle be subject to a roadworthiness test or additional testing before
the date referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 (in our case annually), in the following cases:
– after an accident with serious damage to the main safety related components of
the vehicle such as wheels, suspension, deformation zones, steering or brakes,
– when the safety and environmental systems and components of the vehicle
have been altered or modified,
– in case of a change of the holder of the registration certificate of a vehicle.

All that means is when you do a suspension modification, you may need to get it mot’d, IF they decide that is what they want to do. It’s fair game in my opinion; it’ll give people who run around with cut springs less of a leg to stand on when they get caught…
For most of us I suspect all it will mean is we have to wait until our mot is due to put all our shiny new suspension mods on, or we have to pay for a subsequent test which wont preserve the annual date of the test on the vehicle… Not really that taxing imo and it will ultimately make for the roads being safer (if they can enforce it with Police force budget cuts etc… that’s another story!!)

Here’s a bit more;

“2. When carrying out a roadworthiness test, the inspector shall attribute to each
deficiency detected a level of severity and classify it into one of the following groups
:
– minor deficiencies having no significant effect on the safety of the vehicle and
other minor non-compliances,
– major deficiencies that may prejudice the safety of the vehicle or put other road
users at risk or other more significant non-compliances,
– dangerous deficiencies that constitute a direct and immediate risk to road safety
such that the vehicle may not be used on the road under any circumstances.”

Sounds an awful lot like they’re homogenising the mot test across Europe by bringing in our legislation and looking to enforce it more, rather than changing it a whole lot…

It does however appear they are really hotting up on Odometer readings, so those who are changing clocks to phase3 ones *cough* Fooby *cough* had better get it done sooner rather than later, particularly when the mileage is roughly matched! Relevant information on this;

“4. For the purposes of checking the odometer reading, and where this information was
not communicated electronically following the previous roadworthiness test, the
inspector shall require the person presenting the vehicle to the test to show the
certificate issued following the previous roadworthiness test.”

And then further on;

“2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the manipulation
or tampering of an odometer is regarded as an offence and is punishable by effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory penalties.”

Even if the new legislation is passed; it may not be enforced for a while yet;

“1. Testing facilities and equipment referred to in Article 11 which do not comply with
the minimum requirements laid down in Annex V on [the date of application of this
Regulation] may be used for carrying out roadworthiness tests for a period of not
more than five years following that date.
2. Member States shall apply the requirements laid down in Annex VII at the latest as
from the fifth year following the date of application of this Regulation.”

[Niall]

Ed with regards to the odometer thing, if I've read that correctly, that is already in force.
Manipulation of mileage is classed as an offence as what other reason would you do it other than to sell on with lower mileage?
However if your dials in the car pack up, you can't be expected to (in our case) spend £450 on a new set and then another £100 to correct the mileage. You can however replace them with a second hand part which In my eyes, isn't manipulation at all providing you state the true mileage when you come to sell it.

[Ed Doe]

Ed with regards to the odometer thing, if I've read that correctly, that is already in force.
Manipulation of mileage is classed as an offence as what other reason would you do it other than to sell on with lower mileage?
However if your dials in the car pack up, you can't be expected to (in our case) spend £450 on a new set and then another £100 to correct the mileage. You can however replace them with a second hand part which In my eyes, isn't manipulation at all providing you state the true mileage when you come to sell it.

Could well be in force; and look how much it has affected us already!!!

Yeah this is my point though; everyone's up in arms about this legislation, but as far as I can see it ONLY relates to how older vehicles are tested! Which in my eyes has probably stemmed from those discussions on the radio a few months ago in regard to whether it was really resonable to expect those old Austin A30's and healy's etc. to have an annual MOT, when they did comparatively almost no mileage, and were invariably kept by enthusiasts with too much Mustachio'd frontal aero drag to cause an accident anyway....

By modifying these vehicles, in my opinon they should then fall under the 'annual testing' regime, as the modifications involved in 'ratting' a vehicle for instance are invariably extensive and can have a massive effect on how the car drives. Which in my opinion means it needs a bloody thorough looking at before being allowed on the road!


Everyone else has to pass an MOT as per usual. IF they deem it appropriate to have a vehicle check after the significant modification of components, although it's a pain, I really cannot see how it's THAT bad... it will hopefully reduce the number of badly modified vehicles, which could reduce the number of accidents involving modified cars, which HOPEFULLY will begin to redress the situation we all find ourselves in with spiralling Insurance costs!

In any case, I believe their definition of 'modified' refers to the use of 'non-oem fit' parts (in line with the sort of thing Ratters do for instance; chassis mods and the like). So things like Coilovers, which fit in the stock hubs and the stock top-mounts (or even eccentric topmounts which fit in th stock holes, before anyone says it!) should technically fall into the same category as Q-parts droplinks; a non-pug item which is an OEM fit to the vehicle; ie. does not require modification of anything to fit.

[Niall]

Your top mounts wouldn't be oem because they don't fit to the oem shock. But none the less I don't really see a huge problem. I have seen a few modified cars where I'm amazed the driver hadn't killed him self. Worst being a 106 with brembos but only the top bolt holding the caliper on because he didn't want to pay for adapters to be made. These people need their licences taking away!

[Ed Doe]

Your top mounts wouldn't be oem because they don't fit to the oem shock. But none the less I don't really see a huge problem. I have seen a few modified cars where I'm amazed the driver hadn't killed him self. Worst being a 106 with brembos but only the top bolt holding the caliper on because he didn't want to pay for adapters to be made. These people need their licences taking away!

Shhh!, if they pass the legislation, garages without the 'new tools' to test under the new regs will have 5years to update themselves; so I'll just have to hunt about for a garage not immediately upgrading! Though tbh I can't see them immediately going out to buy £1000's of new kit when they've got 5 years' grace haha!

And precisely, it's people like the owner of that 106 that they are trying to get off the road, or get them modifying their vehicles safely. IMO it's not a bad thing at all.



And on a serious note, I've spend FOOKIN ages going throgh that text and finding out what it all means, can we friggin get me some rep over here?!?!?!

[Poodle]

See Ed's post for details of my opinion and interpretation lol.

[Ed Doe]

LOL, being economical with words today Poodle?!

[puglove]

Oh i do like to open a can of worms lol


so it isnt as bad as it seems at a glance.

[darrenjlobb]

Oh how typical of the UK.....

Maybe its not as bad as they make out, but its still a piss take....barely a day goes by without something being "changed" / "modified" on my car, so what there saying now is everytime I do something, ive gotta get it inspected / pay for it to be?

Tbh if they go any further id be tempted to just drive on and take the risk, wheres the fun in life if they just wanna make everything so "safe" and "official"..live life stupid government!

[1616six]

This has flared up time & time again, nothing ever happens, would be very difficult to implement it all, I wouldn't lose sleep over it!

[procta]

it wont happen

[InkedMuttley]

A couple of years ago they was planning on bringing something similar into force within the Land Rover/4x4 fraternity as a lot of people were shortening their chassis' to give them a better edge for Winch Challenge trophies and the likes...IIRC, it never came into force

[declantg]

I say all the dt's head over to parliament and bog out in protest...

[Jonny b]

It's all bollox think how much cash modifying cars brings to the economy

[Andy]

Exactly. It just cant happen.

This country would go into meltdown.

Economy would die.

[Jonny b]

The modifying business is a multi million if not billion pound scene just wouldn't be done