Wadders
|
| posted on 20/1/11 at 11:45 PM |
|
|
Are you pro SVA /IVA ?
There seems to be a fair few posts on here pointing out incorrectly registered kit cars for sale.
Heres my take on it.
Sadly I'm old enough to remember when it was commonplace to do something along the following lines.......The details might vary but you will get
my gist.....
Stick a big block V8 in a Morris Minor along with a Jag back axle and Viva front suspension, spray the thing black with flames, send the V5 off to
Swansea with the new details, grab an MOT from Fred down the road, stick on a pair of high waistband flares and go burn some rubber...... Ahh those
were the days!..... well apart from the strides.... Now if memory serves me correctly i don't remember anyone coming to serious harm in the
pursuit of automotive individualism, even those who didn't know a spanner from a pair of furry dice, I't didn't matter, cos that was
Freds job, if he didn't like the look of your handy work, you didn't get a ticket.....simples!
Fast Forward a few years and the nanny state, and faceless Brussels beurotwats are in full control, and no way can you trust Fred's 40 years of
automotive experience to decide if you can go for a burn up in your shed built creation, oh no you need an expensive test that takes weeks to
arrange, full of really important stuff like making sure you have no nasty sharp edges, that might give someone a graze when youv'e run them
over.....And making sure your exhaust is so quiet you wont scare the dolphins.
Certain individuals with a distain for authority and a cunning mind will always seek a way round such nonsense, hence all the 'Locost
Duttons' and 'car is registered as a 1969 Triumph Herald' Malarky appearing on Fleabay.
Now I'm in no way condoning duping unsuspecting buyers here, or proper 'Ringing' in the true sense of the word.
But this is usually the point where half a dozen people jump in with righteous indignation at the fact the seller is a naughty chappy that has
'Stuck it to the man' and got away with something , when they took the safe option queued up with all the other sheep, paid their money
and did what they were told...
In short, if youv'e not already guessed i don't give a toss if someone is running round in a Locost Dutton, as long as its taxed
MOt'd and insured as a Locost Dutton then fair play to them. And when it comes to sale time, as long as they disclose whats on the V5, then its
up to the buyer to decide if they want to buy or not.
Will be interested to hear what peoples views are on this, would have done a poll thingy, but couldn't suss out how to do it.
Al.
|
|
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 20/1/11 at 11:52 PM |
|
|
Not sure about the IVA stuff but I always went for hipster flares. High waist stuff was for wussies.
|
|
|
prawnabie
|
| posted on 20/1/11 at 11:54 PM |
|
|
I hope there is enough room on your bandwagon for everyone else to jump on
|
|
|
NigeEss
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 12:01 AM |
|
|
I'm with you Wadders, as long as you are only shafting the beurotwats and not a prospective buyer
then carry on. A thorough MOT will pick up most faults.
The winkers in charge don't give flying fck about shafting us do they ?
[Edited on 21/1/11 by NigeEss]
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.................Douglas Adams.
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 12:02 AM |
|
|
i'm not pro SVA, but i do think that homebuilt cars should be checked ofr basic safety and proper construction.
i don't think they should be checked to the pedantic standards of SVA, but a proper roadworthiness test would be worthwhile since MOTs
don't cover all the points that could arise on a homebuilt car.
i haven't a clue why even SVA was so expensive and can't possibly think of a justification for the price of IVA
if the procedure was easier and cheaper, there'd be no need to 'borrow' other cars' IDs except where the builder did have
something to hide
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 12:39 AM |
|
|
IVA is a load of tosh dreamt up by pen pushers. Just another way to rob the petrol heads! I'm with you Mr. Wadders
|
|
|
Madinventions
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 12:44 AM |
|
|
I'm kind of with you in spirit on this one because I have a very deep-seated hatred for the modern nanny state rubbish.
I agree that the SVA/IVA seem to concentrate on mainly irrelevant details, but it must stop some real bodge-jobs reaching the roads which has to be a
good thing. I have no doubt that it is well within your abilities to create a sensibly roadworthy vehicle, but the end result of some other peoples
efforts are sometimes so dangerous that they're beyond belief (Chop Shop springs to mind...!)
I do agree that the whole process could really do with massive simplifcation, and a suitable drop in price. Don't even get me started on the
DVLA though.... 
[Edited on 21/1/11 by Madinventions]
Mojo build diary: http://www.madinventions.co.uk
Solo music project: Syrrenfor http://www.reverbnation.com/syrrenfor
View my band website:
http://www.shadowlight.org.uk
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk/
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 02:03 AM |
|
|
I'm fine with it, the number of cars on the road has somewhat increased since the days of old, also power and performance has increased
massively. The combination means it makes some sense to ensure that anything on the road is safe, has been designed and made well and is not going to
kill a passenger unaware of the risks of entering, or a pedestrian/other drive who gets in the way of the crashing vehicle.
Back in the day drink driving was accepted and not too many people died from it. You'd not do it now.
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 06:30 AM |
|
|
We need an IVA to prove the safe construction of what we build because we dont have the equipment to know if it is safe, an MOT without IVA first
would have to be a lot more vigorouse and every car owner would suffer.
The eBay buyer beware needs dealing with, I don't want my friends and my kids buying a crock of s4it from some pikey lowlife.
The powers that be, if we did not have IVA would fall back to a default position of demanding the same tests as the major car companies.
In many ways we are better off than a lot of other countries.
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 08:09 AM |
|
|
I did the SVA with my car and it wasn't exactly difficult. I know the IVA is a bit tighter, but I don't think it is a bad thing. There are
plenty MOT testers who haven't got a clue.
Stu
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 08:31 AM |
|
|
As above, many MOT testers, despite "40 years of automotive experience" dont know their arse from their elbow as engineers. That said, nor
do many self build car builders....
I dislike the beurocracy and the pricing and the irrelevant details, but I agree the IVA is necessary. IMO it should be further enforced and applied
to all modified cars as some of the worst safety offenders and modified production cars.
In the good old days you refer to, your v8, and modified car was still at best, slow in real terms, handled poorly and cornered slowly. These days,
given a decent modern engine, some semi slick tyres and a garage it is all too easy to create something very fast and with enough grip to be going far
too fast when you get into trouble. Sadly the bit tying the two together is still the same standard of man in a garage....
Sadly, if enough accidents occur as a result of poor home build/ modification, it will simply be banned, with TUV (or other) approved aftermarket
parts only!
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Daddylonglegs
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 08:49 AM |
|
|
I'm all for safe car builds and I think there does need to be some sort of 'Uber MOT' but whether it is justified to be charging
inordinate amounts of money for what also involves a lot of 'irrelevant' checks such as radiusing on the UNDERSIDE of a reg plate!!?
But I also agree with whitestu, I have had so many different 'opinions' from MOT stations on similar faults/issues. If there is a standard
then it should be just that 'a standard' there is just too much room for interpretation by different testing centres.
JB
It looks like the Midget is winning at the moment......
|
|
|
deezee
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 08:50 AM |
|
|
I'm in two minds about this. The IVA is helping no one when they go overboard on things like interior projections, banning a switch. Its just
not in the spirit of the why the rules were created. But what is important is checking the construction of the vehicle, which isn't an issue
for the MOT. If I bought a kit car, I'd want some confidence it had been assembled to a safe standard. That's what the SVA / IVA means
to me.
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
I don't really mind bar the cost, its nice to know that cars have to be built to a decent standard unlike some of the old ones that had a token
MOT. Its a pain but I just think of it as a necessary evil.
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:16 AM |
|
|
Personally I am all for some kind of safety check on newly built cars but I think IVA is just too OTT. You can imagine the chaos caused by a car that
has inefficient brakes, dodgy fuel lines etc so there has to be a filter to stop these things before they hit the road (literally)
Unfortunately this can't stop the stuff we see on eBay quite often, when the V5 states that it is a 'Ford Escort' when it clearly
isn't, having a fibreglass replica body on a space frame chassis, V8 engine etc. Unfortunately these often go completely unnoticed until an
insurance claim happens as a result of some bad engineering or substandard part breaking.
Sadly, we are going the same way as many other countries and pretty soon we will not be able to modify anything on 'normal' production
cars unless we have sworn statements from the manufacturer with regard to suitability. I am not sure how we can fit these into the MOT system so I can
forsee some kind of inspection being introduced on the lines of IVA in that direction.
Oh, and I always favoured Loon pants back in the day 
[Edited on 21-1-11 by RazMan]
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
My only concern now is, if a kit or tin top is not totally correct and you need to make a insurance claim.
The last acciendent (not my fault) the claim started with the assessor coming round to see my Bike.
The the Very first thing he checked was te tyre tread depth.
I guess if it was not legal, it would have voided my claim, even though it would have had no bearing on the accident.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 06:15 PM |
|
|
I suppose it's like the MOT, last year missus's pug passed despite the back axle having almost fell apart because the guy rubbed off the
tyre that had deposited on the inside of the wheel arch (can't see it, can't fail it) and what's stopping you giving Fred the MOT
man a £20 to "distract" him from the potentially dangerous bits, like the seatbelt being held on by blu tack and a fuel line care of
Maccie's straws?
I guess there's got to be a line somewhere, although it would be nice if the IVA cost, maybe double an MOT?
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
i think its a necessary evil, but (as everyone will agree i'm sure) i can't understand why it costs so much.
an MOT is what, about £50 now? i think the cost of IVA is only worth the work of about 3 MOTs, so should be about £150, for the work involved by
testers.
i do think its needed to make sure home built cars are safe though. remember that matt black car that had pictures everywhere a few years back, the
prop was grinding on the chassis and stuff, i don't think an MOT would have failed it, but the build quality was clearly shite
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
RichardK
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
I didn't think the sva was that hard if you'd spent some time reading the rules and built a safe car without cutting safety related
corners, there has to be some sort of test done before some of these poorly built cars hit the road, to be honest I cant really fault the cost due to
the time it takes a trained technician to complete, not sure what the hourly rate is at a main stealer maybe somebody could do the sum but doubt its
that far away from £70 per hour, my sva took about 4 hours, I also know that the iva is a little more time intensive so this could take slightly
longer. So is IVA about £280 / £350 ish? If it is then its about right, if it more then its expensive but my default stance would be that one has to
be done to ensure the safety of legitimate cars on the road.
People that ring cars to avoid tests like the brake balance etc should have a rethink in my view, however if they have all of the equipment to do all
the tests that are done at IVA is the only way they can justify not having their vehicles safety checked by vosa.
I understand that great cars can be built by builders on here, especially the experienced builders and are most likely to be ok but the safety aspects
at that point is unknown, faulty parts purchased etc so must be tested. I you are an experienced builder and have done a good job then surely
there's nothing that IVA should be of concern?
Just my view
Rich
Gallery updated 11/01/2011
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
^ think (can't find the exact price) its about £450. £90 for the re-test.
£280 would be probably my absolute maximum value on it. of course i'm going to have to bend over and pay it, but i think its a bit too high
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
matt_gsxr
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 07:07 PM |
|
|
SVA/IVA necessary evil. Recent price hike is disproportionate. The private sector could do it cheaper.
Its a price we pay for living in a civilised society. Like paying taxes, its irritating but necessary.
|
|
|
Wadders
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 08:32 PM |
|
|
Interesting views so far, and it would seem most folks are sheep....#cough!# ahem I mean most folks are pro IVA
and that i'm a subversive militant......Long live the revolution!!!
However most of the cars built by members of this forum would be deemed unsafe by the ever so correct ministry chaps, as they don't self centre.
Unless of course you muck about with the steering geometry, tyre pressures, springs in the steering rack etc to cheat the test, which basically makes
the car undriveable in the real world.
Similarly most bike engined cars have not a chance in hell of passing the emmisions test without again cheating the system with fish tank breathers
etc.
We all know the cars are put back to a driveable state after the test, with different exhausts, small steering wheels, padding removed etc etc etc .
So really there are no 'Legitimate' Locosts on the road that have passed SVA, only ones that have 'cheated; to pass SVA.
Therefore it's a bit hypocritical to condemn someone for taking the back door, surely cheating the test is just as bad as avoiding it
completely?
BTW Richard I didn't need any special equipment to assess brake balance, just my right foot and a bit of trail and error!
Infact mine is still adjustable on the fly, which comes in ever so handy on real world race circuits.......Ooooh im such a naughty fellow
Al
,Originally posted by RichardK
I didn't think the sva was that hard if you'd spent some time reading the rules and built a safe car without cutting safety related
corners, there has to be some sort of test done before some of these poorly built cars hit the road, to be honest I cant really fault the cost due to
the time it takes a trained technician to complete, not sure what the hourly rate is at a main stealer maybe somebody could do the sum but doubt its
that far away from £70 per hour, my sva took about 4 hours, I also know that the iva is a little more time intensive so this could take slightly
longer. So is IVA about £280 / £350 ish? If it is then its about right, if it more then its expensive but my default stance would be that one has to
be done to ensure the safety of legitimate cars on the road.
People that ring cars to avoid tests like the brake balance etc should have a rethink in my view, however if they have all of the equipment to do all
the tests that are done at IVA is the only way they can justify not having their vehicles safety checked by vosa.
I understand that great cars can be built by builders on here, especially the experienced builders and are most likely to be ok but the safety aspects
at that point is unknown, faulty parts purchased etc so must be tested. I you are an experienced builder and have done a good job then surely
there's nothing that IVA should be of concern?
Just my view
Rich
|
|
|
RichardK
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wadders
BTW Richard I didn't need any special equipment to assess brake balance, just my right foot and a bit of trail and error!
Infact mine is still adjustable on the fly, which comes in ever so handy on real world race circuits.......Ooooh im such a naughty fellow
Al
Think that's where we'll agree to disagree then Al, you believe its ok for somebody (unknown expertise) assess their own brake balance
with a bit of trial and error presumably on their private road and then take it onto the public highway.
I don't, that's all.
Cheers
R
btw, I already knew you were a naughty fellow, you've still go that bloody clutch!!! Don't need it now so there!!!
[Edited on 21/1/11 by RichardK]
Gallery updated 11/01/2011
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wadders
Interesting views so far, and it would seem most folks are sheep....#cough!# ahem I mean most folks are pro IVA
and that i'm a subversive militant......Long live the revolution!!!
Yes I agree. It has amazed me since joining here the number of members that feel they can't get by without the state directly telling them how
to live and exactly what to do. Further more these same people don't want other "free thinkers" to be able to live there lives
without being subject to all the pointless rules and absurd bureaucracy that they seem to want to follow. No wonder the country has gone to the dogs!
If poll tax was to be introduced now (some of you may be too young to remeber how we kicked Maggies harris back when men still had testicles) I bet
most of you would say it was actually a good thing as you bent over and looked for the soap!
What has happened to you all? Are you really so utterly brainwashed you can't make a single decision for yourselves withour State guidance?
Sorry for any offence caused but WAKE UP ffs and work out why we are the laughing stock of Europe!
I wonder how many government rules/laws the above text is in breach of, not very PC I'm sure! Lol!
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
I'm perfectly happy to assess for myself whether anything I make is safe or not, but I am not happy for other people to do that same,
because there are some compete 'kin idiots out there.
And the brake balance test, they have got a point there, it simply can't be tested on a road or in an MOT station, because neither of those can
check at all the different pedal pressures, which simulate braking on a wet road, for instance. To set brake balance properly would take an expert
with plenty of different surface roads at his disposal where it doidn't matter if he had a spin.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
