356 replies to this topic

[maggies_minder]

what is a Q plate? and whats the problem/s with them??
i aint got a clue
sorry

[Ethel]

Q plates were introduced to stop people scamming soft buyers by passing off old cars as newer ones - imports and reregestered write offs etc.
They just mean the year of manufacture can't be verified, but it can effect insurance and value. On the plus side you get an easier emissions test.

[Bungle]

So when this planned world doom supposed to be happening?

27 years ago

[Bungle]

From reading through this, it seems like pretty much every modded car will end up in IVA territory and on Q plates.

My understanding of a Q plate is if it is deemed significantly different to original and / or made of various cars - -e.g. kit cars.

BUT! The guy that owns a bodyshop near me has a westfield running a 2.2 ecotec on a granny gearbox - this passed IVA and has a 56 plate on it.

So I think the Q plate automatically being slapped on is a bit hefty - I for one will argue to the death to keep my original reg even though I have a weber box.

if you build a car with new parts and 1 recon part you can have a new registration, i think there are a few Zcar minis with a new reg number

[Bungle]

So if you have an engine conversion where the bulkhead has been modified you then have to have an IVA test. To pass this test i have heard that you have to have a collapsable steering column. Is this true and if it is what other changed have to be made to pass this test?

there are Zcar minis that have gone through an IVA test and they should be able to tell you whats needed

[BoboGib]

What I want to know is what constitutes the monococque on a mini. Is it from the front end rearwards or the front crossmember/bulkhead rearwards. As the wings, inners and front panel, strictly speaking, are not structural as you can remove them with no effect on the way the car behaves.

[Bungle]

why not ask ACE

http://www.the-ace.o...contact-us.html

and post the answers up on here
all i can find is

Monococque.

Q) What is the definition of a monococque ?

A) A design in which body and chassis are all one unit.

Q) Why does cutting into a monococque affect the vehicle identity if it retains the same shape /profile as before.

A) Cutting is considered to be modifying the vehicle from its original specification. Any modification to the chassis/monocoque body is considered to render the vehicle no longer original specification or of original identity.

Q) Is it acceptable to modify a vehicle bulkhead and/or transmission tunnel when performing an engine change or fitting another make?

A) No, Assuming this is in relation to a monocoque structure. This would be considered a modification to the structure.

Q) Is it acceptable to fully weld sections that are spot-welded as part of the original construction methods, to increase the strength of the body?

A) Yes, providing the original structure is retained.

ACE felt that further clarification was needed from VOSA so we sent more questions.

The following responses are from the VOSA Press Office:-

The answers to our chassied vehicle rules queries seem mainly straightforward, However, we have further questions based on the answers supplied.

Q) As chassis strengthening is allowed, are we correct in assuming that additional crossmembers would also be allowed?

A) It is important that the original chassis structure is retained unmodified, and while it is acceptable to strengthen areas and include additional brackets or crossmembers, It would be limited to additions within the existing chassis frame structure. Additional chassis structures, i.e. extending the outward parameters of the original chassis structure would be considered a modification.

Q) It is the monococque rules that need the most clarification.
Your reply states that any cutting of the monococque" is considered to render the vehicle identity no longer original specification or of original identity ". This would suggest that any crash repairs necessitating cutting and removal of panels or chassis sections, or restoration work would call the vehicle's identity into question?

We presume that the point should really be that any cutting... other than in factory designed joining areas...would be the actual criteria?

A) In this respect it is necessary to differentiate between modification and repair. Any repair process that is in line with manufacturer's recommendations and that returns the structure to its original specification would not be considered to be a modification.

Q) Would the modification of wings to allow clearance for larger wheels fall foul of the regulations?

We presume not as the common fitment of sunroofs does not create issues as this is a non stressed item of the monococque, the same as wings?"

A) When considering a monocoque structure, it is necessary to consider what constitutes cosmetic panels that do not significantly add to the structural strength and which panels provide structural integrity. In general front wings modified in this way would not constitute a modification to the monocoque structure.

With reference to the further query, VOSA have advised that they would prefer the following statement:

What constitutes a monocoque is that of how an OEM manufacturer would view it. The chassis or `cage` assembly and all components that form it, less any cosmetic panels or infills that make no structural consideration to the monocoque or its component parts.
However, we must emphasis that this information is given for general guidance and each case will be judged on its merits.

Whilst none of this is definitive, and it contains the usual 'Judged on it's own merits' criteria, it does answer a lot of questions where the modifier has only been able to speculate in the past.

It means we are aware of what we can or cannot do and still retain the 5 points from the start of any modification process

Monococques

It is NOT acceptable for the bulkhead, or transmission tunnel area, to be modified.

The specification for a monococque will vary with each manufacturer and the decision on what are acceptable modifications will be based on those criteria for each vehicle.

It is acceptable for additional seam welding to be carried out.

Should there be any further questions relating the above information on specific vehicles ACE would be willing to assist in further clarification on an individual basis.

The above information relates to only 5 points (awarded for original unmodified chassis / monococque) of the 8 points system for retaining vehicle identity and we will be clarifying other sections in the future.

[The Matt]

What I want to know is what constitutes the monococque on a mini. Is it from the front end rearwards or the front crossmember/bulkhead rearwards. As the wings, inners and front panel, strictly speaking, are not structural as you can remove them with no effect on the way the car behaves.

Well, what about the front subframe mounts? Are they not structural, where the bolts are in the front panel.

I'm sure if you tried to drive a mini with a flip front and no brace bars you'd feel a difference in the way the car behaves, or at least the way it performs in a crash.

I think the monocoque is classed as the shell as a whole. Obviously there are some mods that won't be seen as structural, like drilling a hole somewhere for a cable, or to re-route a wiring loom. But I don't think that cutting a pair of inner wings, a pair of outer wings and a front panel off a car could ever be classed as a non-structural modification.

[BoboGib]

Yes there is the point about the crash protection but the mini was never designed with a crumple zone as such as there is simply not enough roon under the bonnett. When I removed my front to put my flip front on there was vertually nothing left of the teardrop mounts at the front and I felt no adverse effect on the handling.

[Trail of Dead]

*Slaps forehead and sighs* Man.....I hate to sound like a whiner about this but I think this has got to be one of the craziest things I have ever heard. I know some of you are saying "I'm all for it if they inspect my car to ensure it is safe to drive" but I counter that statement by saying only do the work on your car if you know what your doing! If you don't or are unsure then have a professional do it! I feel like finishing Dexter the way I want him then declaring him SORN for the next two years to avoid a potential IVA. I spent $3000 on Dexter and am likely going to be putting another $2500 into him in parts...I'd hate to have it all deemed a waste if I got slapped with a Q plate. Some of the rules DVLA/VOSA put out are just dumb. I heard the scenario "If I had a 1959 Mini put in a Time capsule along with it's paperwork, and left it in there till this year then when I go to register it DVLA would give it a plate reflecting the year it was registered". Isn't this in effect saying a 1959 car is brand new and is no longer a 1959?

If my car got a Q plate in 2012 then it would be 30 year old but it would no longer be recognized as 30 years old due to the Q plate. Does this Q plate reverse the effects of rust? If they can't verify the age of the vehicle what would DVLA say to a carbon dating session? How can they look at a bona fide OLD car and say "we can't verify the year". I am SO confused by the implications of this bone headed move. Frankly it sickens me. I just hope and pray I can get Dexter away from the evil clutches of these lunatics and on to safer shores.

[mini93]

Q plates were introduced to stop people scamming soft buyers by passing off old cars as newer ones - imports and reregestered write offs etc.
They just mean the year of manufacture can't be verified, but it can effect insurance and value. On the plus side you get an easier emissions test.

aaaand cars built from a shell..like mine.
i have all the benifits of a newer mini but alot of the MOT test is based as a 72...so my emissions are visual, i dont need a load of bits either

[Pauly]

Didn't we have a thread on this a few months back about the same thing, ended up being a massive thread and then people being found wrong when minimag emailed VOSA?

[Bungle]

yes i posted the ACE site in the links section

this topic was started as i had a reply to a email i sent ACE about mods often carried on on minis, namely the cutting of bulkhead for webber and turbo installs

[Guess-Works.com]

We can all give opinions, but the only way you'll know for sure is you are collared and told you need an IVA.

The ERA's were sold by Rover dealers and built out of Rover production cars so they can hardly claim they weren't approved by Rover. The production run was probably small enough to avoid any major type approval regulations, I'd think they would each have needed an SVA if their modifications justified it.

Metro Turbo was launched at the end of 1982, Q plates date back to 1983, the SVA was introduced in 1998.

As far as ERAs are concerned...
I still have (somewhere) a couple of letters from ERA dated around August/September 1989, one apologising for the delay in delivery because they were awaiting "Type Approval" and another a few weeks later advising the Type Approval had been gained and production was moving forward, so I'm not worried.

That's interesting, looks like they never sold enough in the UK to warrant the expense - oops

Does it have any Rover identity? Vin number etc?

Yes, It has the normal Rover black and silver vin plate riveted in the same place as a normal mini and on the V5, the make is "Rover" and model " ERA Mini Turbo"

The story as I know it is that ERA originally planned to make 1000 in total but with the number of orders that came in during the first few weeks decided to get tooled up to make a few thousand. This is probably why they went for type approval.
Unfortunately it was 1989 and everything went pear shaped economy wise and no more orders came and so they ultimately went bellyup, just managing to complete about 500 (roughly, 400 export, 100 uk)

I concur, the ERA is in all essence a Rover model, it's covered in the Rover workshop manuals, the Rover Fiche and was serviced @ rover dealerships... It's more of a Rover than the JCG conversions...

[Ethel]

We did do it a bit back 'n there's a pinned FAQ thingy

I'm sure it'll come up again too, which won't hurt as there is a potential to get caught out big time if you're not aware.

The truth is no one really knows how the rules will be applied until someone has some first hand experience. As Bungle says, the name may be new but similar regulations have been around a long time. In fact the DVLA bit on establishing vehicle identity hasn't changed at all and that's what could force you in to applying for IVA.

From what I remember from last time, this isn't down to VOSA, or even the DVLA trying to catch anyone out*. IVA is really about complying with EU regulations, the alternative could have been having all our cars banned from EU roads. I had forgotten about the 10 year bit, which means most Minis will be exempt, unless they are modified enough to be regarded as a new build.

* though you can bet they wouldn't mind getting to grips with the tax exempt oldies that aren't actually as old as there vin numbers