scootz
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 09:30 AM |
|
|
What Constitutes 'Radical' Chassis Alteration?
How far is too far before a vehicle chassis is 'radically' altered and needs to be declared to DVLA / re-IVA'd?
For example - if you were to take a car-engined, live-axled, classic seven-style chassis, and changed the engine mounts for a bike-engine install,
changed the LA for IRS, and added outriggers to the sides and front so it could take a full-body. Would that be taking the proverbial... ???
Sure, it's not going to physically resemble what it purports to be on the V5 on the outside, but it retains a high percentage of the original
chassis.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 09:36 AM |
|
|
That's not radical at all, wouldn't worry about,just get n with it and enjoy!
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 09:42 AM |
|
|
Would not bother me, it still has the DNA 
Await the queue of dissenters
|
|
|
CosKev3
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 09:47 AM |
|
|
I wouldn't be telling the rip off/fun spoiling wankers about any of that!
What does it say on V5?
If it states 'locost seven sports car' etc the description is still correct 
[Edited on 6/5/15 by CosKev3]
|
|
|
FuryRebuild
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 09:59 AM |
|
|
I'm not declaring the composite tub I'm making for my fury.
I will obviously declare the switch from Pinto to Duratec though.
When all you have is a hammer, everything around you is a nail.
www.furyrebuild.co.uk
|
|
|
CosKev3
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
I've got a feeling the way this country/DVLA etc work they would class any cutting/welding on new parts on a chassis as 'radical' if
you tried to tell them you had converted the rear suspension etc, and would say it needed a IVA because the people dealing with the paperwork
won't undrrstand/have a clue what you've done,it would just be easier for them to say it needs a IVA.
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
http://www.the-ace.org.uk/chassis-and-monocoque-modification/
A few years old now, but I haven't heard of any newer changes?
The reasons why all this has come about is the twonks who either had no idea what they were doing, or were so arrogant thought stuff would be OK.
Everything is fine, until nasty accidents happen. And that is what the DVLA testing is ultimately about, is the car safe to use on the public road.
Ultimately, many on here I have no issues with chopping things about. But we have all seen scary stuff done to cars
|
|
|
CosKev3
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
Good link
So a rear suspension change to IRS would deffo need IVA, so would adding mounts for a full body.
But removing/adding engine/gearbox mounts would not.
|
|
|
wylliezx9r
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 11:23 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CosKev3
Good link
So a rear suspension change to IRS would deffo need IVA, so would adding mounts for a full body.
But removing/adding engine/gearbox mounts would not.
From my interpretation you could add IRS as long as you don't remove the structure that is already there, ie you could add a sub frame or the
like. Personally I wouldn't give a toss and would just do it (FLAME SUIT ON). I get the idea of IVA but it still doesn't stop any old
tosser doing a shite job of repairing/modifying any car once its on the road - I guess that's what MOT is for.
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.
George Best
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 11:23 AM |
|
|
It does seem reasonable that if you are redesigning the back end of a cars suspension/drive it should be checked over in terms of design and
construction. As I said, I have no issues with most people on here. And in reality, most such mods just need that bit checking, sort of a
"component" IVA sort of thing. But it all gets complicated, so we either do not bother, or get loads of grief.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 6/5/15 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
TBH I worry about most people "designing" changes to a functioning design, some of the work I've seen on the internet scares me to
death to think it's on the road but I also suspect most of the IVA testers don't have degrees in chassis and suspension design (or even
mech eng) so the testing is probably not that valid anyway. I'm happy making changes in a vehicle I ride in, I'm not happy even riding in
a design I've not had chance to review end to end and assess the risks. Call me a control freak if you like!
In relation to the original question - I wouldn't re-test it but only because the requirements defining "radical" are not clear and
I know what I'm doing to some extent I would recommend anyone not knowing what they're doing get it re-tested. I can't quantify
the OP's skill so there's ultimately no answer here.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 11/5/15 at 08:32 AM |
|
|
Sent DVLA a detailed breakdown of what I would intend doing (including a notional Form V627/1) and asked for guidance.
Got a reply stating they would only review the changes when the alterations had been made and the documentation submitted.
And they wonder why folk moan about how unhelpful the organisation is!? 
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 11/5/15 at 10:15 AM |
|
|
Play them at there own game, do a bit, tell them, do a bit more, tell them it's then organic development and no single item requires IVA
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 11/5/15 at 11:17 AM |
|
|
That's maybe the way to go!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 11/5/15 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
Just bear in mind they may track it and decide there have been too many minor alterations. I guess this is untested!
|
|
|
