356 replies to this topic

[BoboGib]

So, provided the inner wings are kept intact and un-modified, a flip front should not be classed as a monocoque mod.

So if I replace the parts of the inner wings with the correct repair panels then is it a case of I WILL be ok or SHOULD be ok? Is there any chance of geting copies of said document that you have from the DVLA just incase any of us encounter any problems.

[Pooky]

Can us flip fronted peeps simply replace the bit we've cut out? Or will we need to replace the entire panel back to door hinge? The again there's not a lot we can do to the front panel is there?

Bring on the IVA

[BoboGib]

Pooky, you can buy half inner wings, think its from the shock mount forward. They are only about £35 from M-Machine. i'm just going to replace if rom where i've cut forward. The only problam I can see is the MoT man wants brace bars as there is no front panel, the DVLA want inner wings, how do we combine the 2?

[Ethel]

I think the DVLA proposal is ridiculous. The inner and outer wings form a box section. The inner wing (certainly on the round nose, less so the clubman) is little more than a flat sheet. It also doesn't connect to the front subframe mounting without part of the front panel.

If they want a pragmatic solution, just accept things as they are. There are plenty of Minis with flip fronts and brace bars on the road, MoT testers are as capable of assessing them as an IVA inspector would be. Unless there is a proven history of flip fronts injuring people what reason would there be to interfere?

If they prefer a pedantic approach: what are subframes? They certainly aren't part of the monocoque if the are attached with rubber.


There's no way you could consider the front wings (as an assembly) as critical to the structure - take away the front subframe and they would be totally inadequate. A pre 76 car doesn't need them to support itself, many were driven & passed Mot's without any additional bracing. Post 76 cars will do the same if the mounts (part of the suspension) are swapped for solid ones.

[BoboGib]

I think the DVLA may reagard subframes as the axel on a mini. I know the 2 don't even look remotely similar but if changing from front drums to discs doesn't count as an axel change then I can anly presume the subframe does.

[davejf]

DVLA really need to look at the inner wing before they say stuff like that, there is no structual strength forward of the shock mount with out a front panel, especially on the rad side from The Matt's pictures. Brace bars are 10 times better than the inner wing. I think they will come to realise that and flip front as they are now will probably be ok, we just need to get it down in writing from them.

[Ethel]

If they like to use original manufacturers as an authority a look in a Rover service or parts manual will show how the components are grouped in to major assemblies.


The subframe mountings are considered part of the suspension. there are no axles but there are driveshafts.

[The Matt]

DVLA really need to look at the inner wing before they say stuff like that, there is no structual strength forward of the shock mount with out a front panel, especially on the rad side from The Matt's pictures. Brace bars are 10 times better than the inner wing. I think they will come to realise that and flip front as they are now will probably be ok, we just need to get it down in writing from them.

I agree.

A thought: if someone (for instance an aerospace design engineer) were to compile a structural report/study into flip front fitment, would the DVLA be interested in studying this kind of analysis?

Thing is, the rules seem to focus more on vehicle identity, rather than structural integrity, IMO.

[camp freddy]

weld a couple of lengths of 4x2 box section between the subframes to
join them together and it is no-longer a monocoque chassis, it's a
seperate chassis and body...... SIMPLES!!!!!!

That would allow you to modify the rest of the car as you wish but, unfortunately you now have nno body/chassis monocoque so no 5 points, it's just the same as if you'd modified the shell.

I was joking

[camp freddy]

I was going to draw up an idea I had about inner wing changes. But I did a google search and found a perfect picture of what I was going to draw up anyway.

If the inner wing is modified in any way, is it classed as a modification to the monocoque? Even if people drill holes in there to make cam changes easier? I know a lot of people do that on 998cc engine minis. It saves you taking the engine out to do a cam change. Also, what about modifying the radiator slats in an inner wing to open them up a little? What about opening up the access hole in the bottom for brake pipe and radiator/bottom pulley access? I am assuming it's a "yes" but am still interested in raising the question. IMO, that kind of mod has no more structural bearing than (for example) fitting a full length Webasto sunroof.

I mean, the main structure of the inner wing can remain intact, as per this photo I found on google, you can see the section that has been removed on the floor behind the wing.

I have attached a picture of a normal, unmodified inner wing (N/S) plus the aforementioned modified (O/S) one. You really can see that the lower section of the inner wing has very little structure to it.

I would be interested to see what the interpretation of this proposed modification is, really.

if the wings and front panel are removed then the front of the inner wing isnt
connected to anything any way, so it wouldn't make any difference if it was removed.

[camp freddy]

I'll worry about it if Ratty gets questioned, untill then they a
go and **** ***..

[The Matt]

I was going to draw up an idea I had about inner wing changes. But I did a google search and found a perfect picture of what I was going to draw up anyway.

I have attached a picture of a normal, unmodified inner wing (N/S) plus the aforementioned modified (O/S) one. You really can see that the lower section of the inner wing has very little structure to it.

I would be interested to see what the interpretation of this proposed modification is, really.

if the wings and front panel are removed then the front of the inner wing isnt
connected to anything any way, so it wouldn't make any difference if it was removed.

In my case, I'm not talking of using a flip front. I just want to trim the inner wings back to the bracing on the Allspeed subframe.

[Bungle]

how do you get on with the points system on your mini Mat ?

lets say for now your body mods are ok

* chassis or body shell (body and chassis as one unit - monocoque ie direct replacement from the manufacturer) (original or new) = 5 points
* suspension = 2 points
* axles = 2 points
* transmission = 2 points
* steering assembly = 2 points
* engine = 1 point



5 for the shell
suspension- do you run mini front and rear suspension ?
axels- we don't yet know what counts
transmission- is a 0
steering assembly do you run a mini rack and column ?
engine is a 0

i can see a lot of conversions that run a metro based subframe with metro rack and coil overs will not have enough points to call it a mini still

[The Matt]

This is where I'm unsure.

Body = 5?
Suspension is standard (mainly) = 2?
Steering assembly is totally standard = 2
engine = 0
transmission = 0

I mailed VOSA direct, with a list of all mods. The one that they claimed made the car require the IVA was the "modified monocoque" for the flip front. Hence my trying to clarify how much I can trim from the inner wings, whilst retaining the original steel front.

[GraemeC]

I've just gone back to the team for further clarification and the way it stands is this.

My apologies to Bungle, Ishould have said that the front panel can be included in the flip front.

The inner wing should remain structurally sound as it serves the same purpose as the stay bar but is the ORIGINAL OEM and any holes MAY become an issue due to the structure being considered borderline on strenth by VOSA with the front flipping .

So, provided the inner wings are kept intact and un-modified, a flip front should not be classed as a monocoque mod.

Thanks for you continued help and interaction in this 1960Zody - hopefully it will provide educational to both Mini owners AND the DVLA.

Unfortunately their last response to you shows they do not know the vehicle in question well enough and are clutching at straws. The inner wing does NOT serve the same purpose as a brace bar as it is not connected to the subframe. Once the front panel and outer wings are made into a flip front the inner wing does nothing and is connected to nothing.

(In fact there is an arguement that even the brace bars are a superficial requirement and do not provide any support to the front of the subframe - but that is a discussion for another day!)