356 replies to this topic

[camp freddy]

I also agree with you on the brace bars! as when the car is accelerating the force produced will be
applied to the front subby rear mount (compression force)...

as you accelerate in a mini the top of the engine moves backwards so i'm guessing the back of the subframe is trying to move down and the front of the subframe up

the brace bars from the front of the subframe to the inner wings form a triangle with whats left of the inner wing and subframe helping stop this twisting force

now i'm not an engineer and others might see this differently but it's just a thought to those that say brace bars are not needed

ooops I belieive you are right, I stand corrected , you can talk sense sometimes LOL...

[Ethel]

I can testify from experience that you don't need brace bars on a solidly mounted subby. The torque reaction, transmitted through the suspension arms will twist the mountings in the opposite direction to the wheels, either way depending on if you're braking or accelerating.


You can't help but wonder if they had a similar carry on with the SVA and that's why it was never pushed.

Classic bureaucracy, dream up some well intentioned but ill thought out rules then try to twist the reality to fit and wonder why it looks like Dr Frankenstein's slop bucket.

I'd be tempted to write to my MP if he wasn't about to get sacked.

[1960Zody]

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.

The DVLA are not interested in the safetly aspect of what is being done, they are only concerned with whether there is enogh 'Original' vehicle in their description to warrant the 'Original' identification applying.
DVLA just make the registration rules and VOSA do the testing.
So, it isn't a question of what an Mot man thinks here, because we're not discussing engineering, we're diuscussing paperwork and we know how much civil servants love their paperwork.. )

[Lukie-J]

agree with zody there; it's mainly not about the safety!
I've done a bit of research and I think my scamp will be fine.
The registration is from a mini pick-up but logbook has been changed to say mini scamp.
So effectively I have a 'private plate' from a pick-up.
I'm pretty sure that little or nothing of the mini pick-up is still on the car, it's had 3 engine swaps in the last year!
But because it's been re-registered as a scamp and the only things changed have been subframes, engine etc I think I'll be fine.
The body hasn't been changed and it's not like there's much documentation about them anyway!

That's the way I read it anyway.

[Ethel]

I agree with the point about the DVLA's interest, but they are sticking their collective toe in to the world engineering (and, god help them, common sense) when the start trying to define things like monocoque structures.

It's quite simple really, all they have to ask is if an IVA will assess the modifications to the car in a way that an MoT won't.

[WiredbyWilson]

It's quite simple really, all they have to ask is if an IVA will assess the modifications to the car in a way that an MoT won't.

I think that is a very good point Ethel - as i understand it the MOT checks the car is safe and roadworthy.

Failing that as someone mentioned previously - are they going to crash test your car to test it?? As you really can't test things based on spreadsheets and paperwork!

[1960Zody]

I agree with the point about the DVLA's interest, but they are sticking their collective toe in to the world engineering (and, god help them, common sense) when the start trying to define things like monocoque structures.

It's quite simple really, all they have to ask is if an IVA will assess the modifications to the car in a way that an MoT won't.

Would that they were,
Unfortunately they are merely saying '"This is what we think constitutes a moddification of the Monocoque, change this and you lose the points, don't change it and you don't"
"If you do change it and lose the points tyhen we'll let the engineers over at VOSA decide whether you car fits in with the relevant legislation that they deal with".

This is why we are trying to clarify things in the way that we are.
Not so that we can start an 'Engionereing' argument at this stage, but merely to establish what, at this point, would cause a vehicle to move into a 'Points Loss' situation and advise on how to avoid it.

Detail stuff is a way down the line yet.

[WiredbyWilson]

Detail stuff is a way down the line yet.

Which would suggest that this idea is in it's infancy as DVLA / VOSA don't seem to talk to each other and that no real guidelines have been set out.

Sadly it appears the DVLA have used a broad brush approach - which isn't straight forward to apply to a mini!

Edited by Wilson1330, 02 March 2010 - 02:20 PM.

[1960Zody]

Detail stuff is a way down the line yet.

Which would suggest that this idea is in it's infancy as DVLA / VOSA don't seem to talk to each other and that no real guidelines have been set out.

Sadly it appears the DVLA have used a broad brush approach - which isn't straight forward to apply to a mini!

The rules are far from being in their infancy, the points system has been there for nearly 30 years.
SVA/BIVA has been around since '97 at least.
The issue is that DVLA are getting tougher with the rule enforcement but they have always said 'Unmodified chassis/bulkhead' in the past, witrhout acyually saying what that was...

[Ethel]

I'm not having a go & I appreciate ranting on a web forum, however cathartic, won't make a difference.

The thing is they are enforcing the regulations now so it's a bit late for them to be thinking about what they mean.

[WiredbyWilson]

Would i be right in thinking that the SVA introduced in 1997 was relating to "written-off" cars being "rung" etc and that this has developed from there?

[Ethel]

Cut 'n shuts, ringers etc were doubtless on their minds as it was a hot topic - thanks to Ester Rantzen, Watchdog etc.

That's really the DVLA's concern not VOSA's and there's no reason why you can't build a legit cut 'n shut.

SVA was really about either stopping kitcars side stepping regulations or allowing them to get on the road in spite of expensive regulation compliance tests depending on your view.

The nub of the problem is the assumption that falling foul of the DVLA rules means the IVA applies. Really they were intended for entirely different purposes.

[1960Zody]

I'm not having a go & I appreciate ranting on a web forum, however cathartic, won't make a difference.

The thing is they are enforcing the regulations now so it's a bit late for them to be thinking about what they mean.

Yup, unfortunately we have had to do the thinking for them, on other forums this has lead to the old "It's your fault at ACE that they even know about all this, if you hadn't mentioned it they wouldn't have come up with it".

Yup, they wouldn't, they'd have stayed with their 'Umodified means what we say it means be we won't tell you what that is " stance

Edited by 1960Zody, 02 March 2010 - 04:54 PM.

[davejf]

Maybe we should be looking more at "advising" them how best to apply this to our Mini's like pointing out that removing the front portion of the inner wing when fitting a flip front etc. isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference as to whether it's still a Mini or not paperwork wise and advising what should and more importantly shouldn't be classed as part of the monocoque.

[1960Zody]

Maybe we should be looking more at "advising" them how best to apply this to our Mini's like pointing out that removing the front portion of the inner wing when fitting a flip front etc. isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference as to whether it's still a Mini or not paperwork wise and advising what should and more importantly shouldn't be classed as part of the monocoque.

We, at ACE would love to be at that stage, however, there are 5 people doing the work over here.
All of which are volunteers with day jobs.
The maunfacturers and the 'industry' don't seem to be particularly bothered about lending any 'weight' to things so, at this point we are focussing on clarifying the rules before thought is given to advising where they should be ammended.
We need to get a baseline established first.
Or more volunteers...

Edited by 1960Zody, 03 March 2010 - 09:15 AM.