antarmike

Or how about the figure "2" on this one

No, no need to rewire vehicle, plug beacon it into a trailer socket, connected to the sidelight pin, and just pull out the plug when you don't want to flash it.

No that is just Vodka at work.....

Driving with hazards on is an offence. The use of Hazards on as moving vehicle is when they are turned on briefly on Motorway or dual Carriageway to warn vehicles behind you are stopping or slowing down because of queueing traffic ahead. Equally hazards should not be used when towing or being towed.

The was also a Heinkel Bubble car on the Normandy beaches....someone was exhibiting it at Bloxham one year, complete with Bridge plate.....

Or have the BBC got it wrong again because many feel that this jet is the oldest flying jet in the world... http://www.goldenappleoperations.org/aircraft.aspx Question is "Britain's oldest flying jet" the same as "The world's oldest jet, flying in Britain"? Do they mean the Oldest flying British jet? That isn't what they have said though?

No, I don't think it is the worst, This is how the Army did my Eager Beaver although that is the worst on the E.B. the others aren't too special Certainly shows the recent topic about "how to apply stencils" so you get a crisp edge without paint running under the stencil is showing a concern for the finished item, the army never had!

and not putting in extra ones either.....

All my vehicles are a bit tatty, but they are not distressed...quite frankly they don't give a shyte how they look and are relaxed about the whole situation......

We are talking about construction and USE regulations. It is the manufacturer's responsibility for the construction but the driver's responsibility for the use. I can take a legally constructed vehicle and use it an illegal manner. That is down to me. FV432 actually complies in terms of construction, with several STGO categories such as "wide Tracked Vehicle," Engineering Plant" "Agricultural machine, "operated Military vehicle" However the use that M.V. owners put the FV432 to does not allow them to be operated OR USED in any of these Special Types categories FV432 is not technically overwidth and can be allowed on the road in some circumstances. How a vehicle is used is entirely down to the Keeper or Driver. When used for Social, Domestic and pleasure and/ or to attend Military vehicle meets FV432 cannot be operated under STGO. The user chooses to operate a vehicle, that in some circumstances is legal in terms of its width, in a way that means his Use of the vehicle has made it illegally wide. You cannot get round the fact that it is the responsibility of the owner to USE his vehicles in accordance with Construction and USE regulations. If he can't do this he should remove the vehicle from the road.

You dig em up, and I'll print a certificate of authenticity.... Got the printer switched on ready............

The only possible way forward is to apply for an SVA to get permission to use an overwidth vehicle I can see no other way of dealing with the width issue. If you get turned down for the VSO then clearly you should not be on the road. Oh and to sort out secondary braking. VSO discussed here

However we are going off track. The question is "is FV432 legal?" To determine that we need to look at the current rules. Past history, what VOSA has said or done in the past doesn't come into it, here and now, does an FV432 comply with C and U regs? Whether DVLA registered some and not others does not matter. Whether they are still prepared to register one now does not matter. People make mistakes, get over it. Making a mistake means what you did is wrong. Because someone in the past has made a certain decision does not make that decision correct. Does FV432 comply with C and U regs? This is a yes or no question to which there can only be one answer. The courts are the final arbiters. but if you read my post #4 you will see that it is the Dept of Transports clear view that FV432 series "does not comply with C and U regs" It is their clear view that in general, for most operators FV432 is not suitable to considered as a Special Types vehicle. DfT may just be wrong, I know, but I consider this unlikely. It is their view that there can be no exceptions, all vehicles have to comply with C and U. It matters not whose responsibility it is to work out whether it complies or not, we all now know that it looks most likely that does not. The yes or no answer to this question is, according to Dept of Transport, No FV432 is not legal to use on British roads.

I suppose a few FV432 owners may still be unaware of the law, but this problem is widely known, and some people on here clearly know but just flout the law. There is a private 432 forum for members only and anyone anti 432 can't join. They have a recent thread on registering 432 for road use. I am sure width issues must be widely discussed on there. It is clear that some are deliberately choosing to run 432 when they know it exceeds legal width. There is no harm in arguing in public, The authorities have been aware of the width issue for years.. I cannot see any relevance in CAA approval. With virtually no exceptions Those using 432 know the vehicle is too wide but continue to use them. It is the owner of a vehicle to ensure it complies with C and U, and when the vehicle has never been through type approval, it is most definitely down to them.

Form to apply HERE(form V888) but note Quote "Overview If you want to find out information about a vehicle and its owner, you can apply to request this information from the DVLA. However, information will only be released if you are entitled to receive it, for example if you can show 'reasonable cause' to require it."

I thought that through DVLA you can apply for details of any vehicle. Its free if you are the owner, but you have to pay if you are not (Correct me if I am wrong someone)

Rivet counting is not a hobby, it is a way of life......Once you take a pop you just can't stop....

never say never....

Yes I agree THEY are rare aren't they....

??? http://www.museumoftechnology.org.uk/military.php?cab=weapons Quote"The Madsen was a light machine gun developed by Julius A. Rasmussen and Theodor Schoubue and proposed for adoption by Captain Vilhelm Herman Oluf Madsen, the Danish Minister of War and adopted by the Danish Army in 1902. It was one of the first true light machine guns produced in quantity and sold to over 34 different countries worldwide, seeing extensive combat use in various conflicts around the globe for over 80 years The Madsen was produced by Compagnie Madsen A/S (later operating as Dansk Rekyl Riffel Syndikat A/S and then Dansk Industri Syndikat A/S). The Madsen continued to be used by the Military Police of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, with 7.62 calibre. Although some of the Brazilian guns were captured from drug traffickers and pressed into service (mostly old weapons originating from the Argentine Army as well as some stolen from museums, the majority of Madsens used by the Brazilian police were donated by the Brazilian Army. Those guns were .30 cal weapons converted to fit 7.62 mm calibre. Official sources state that the Brazilian army retired the Madsen machine gun in 1996. The Brazilian police guns are, from 2008, being substituted by more modern guns with faster rates of fire. It was reported that the last Madsen guns were finally retired in April 2008. However, photos taken during clashes between Brazilian police and drug traffickers on October 19, 2009 clearly show the Madsen gun still in use by the Brazilian police This one is marked with Portuguese Crest and RP."

Re modifications to braking. Are the track drive sprockets relatively easy to unbolt. (by which I mean are the side plates with the teeth separate from the hub?) If the inner of the two sprockets was copied as a laser cut profile in a hard material such as EN8 etc, omitting the row of lightening holes just inside the teeth, Would the flat face, created, just inside the teeth be wide enough to run brake pads against, using a modified disc brake calliper system? This would give secondary Hydraulic disc brakes that would stop the vehicle in a straight line. These brakes would only be used in event of failure of the steering brakes. As I read the rules no back up secondary system is required for the steering, just for stopping. The disc so created would not be vented so would get hot quickly, but what we want is a safe way of stopping the vehicle, and not much more. Using the drive sprocket as disc brake would mean that externally the looks had been modified (but using th inner sprocket it wouldn't be too noticeable,) but it totally overcomes problems with internal drive shaft failure that, if it were to happen would mean neither inboards discs nor an electric retarder on the Pack/ steering box shaft would work. May not work if there is final drive reduction between Steering Unit and Track drive sprockets, because torque required to effect stopping would thereby be increased.

Rivet counters also start their conversation with, "I expect you already know..." or "you must have a reason why you did it like that..." or " interesting, but...."

I am sorry but I am not going through all this again, re-read my post #4 where I go as deep as I can into why Fv432 cannot fit any STGO category. I think you will find all the suggestions just made are covered and ruled out in that post.

They can only be on the road to travel to a casualty, travel on the road to remove a casualty to a place of safety, or return to base following such an operation.

There is no such category. There is however Special types road recovery vehicle" these I understand have to be specially designed and constructed for the recovery of disabled road vehicles, or be permanently adapted for this purpose. They must be fitted with a crane , winch or other lifting system especially designed for recovering another vehicle. (FV432 isn't) They cannot be used for any other purpose than recovery, or taking a broken down vehicle to a place of repair. They must be registered recovery and hold a Recovery VED. They must also be wheeled vehicles. If you fit a winch you could argue it was STGO Engineering plant, but Engineering plant has restrictions "Engineering plant" has as I understand it to be specially designed and constructed for the purpose of engineering operations which could not be carried out by a vehicle complying fully with C and U regs and goods vehicle type approval regs. Plenty of winch vehicles can do what Winch equipped FV432 can do and remain within C and U regs. The vehicle must not be constructed to carry any load apart from that allowed. namely its own nescessary gear and equipment, nor can it carry any other goods or burden except materials that have been excavated by the plant or goods that it is designed to process on the plant.