FridgeFreezer

It's not so much about EU Approval, it's about whose tread pattern they're copying to make the tyres and if they'll end up in court. It's often missed but tyres don't have to be E-marked for road use if they are approved to an equivalent standard in another country, the most popular one being american DOT markings. This has been the source of some debate in the 4x4 world, but of course no-one ever bothers to actually read the rule book :-D

Simex don't seem to have any problem selling in the UK for the 4x4 market, their UK distro being Devon4x4: http://simextyres.co.uk/ Perhaps it's an issue over the EU rights of making tyres from other people's moulds.

Paul, you mean one like this at Hirst's? I believe it's for sale complete:

Fake: http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

If one wished to cause trouble, one could register an official complaint regarding those who had previously, and apparrently incorrectly, told you to get stuffed. Of course the problem is that it can have the effect of either sorting the problem out, or them deciding never to help anyone ever again.

I've not got anything off a Q plate but I have re-registered several scrap vehicles (albeit modern non-military ones), my understanding was, subject to a VIC to confirm it is what you say it is & was made when you say it was, you get issued an age-related plate. Nothing to stop you doing the "new" registration before you "scrap" the Q plate, in fact it is almost desirable to keep the Q plate as SORN so that if there is ever a problem over identity etc. you can put the Q back on the road and avoid SVA type hassle. Of course, all of that would be against the rules so I'm just being hypotheitcal here.

Is it possible "surge discharge lamp" could also be a fuse of some sort? Not sure why you'd paint a lamp black. They have the look of old style fuses in holders. The boss suggested they may be mercury fuses, but if you're sure they're radioactive then maybe not.

Interesting stuff - their 101 (01 SP 17) looks like a prototype to me, so quite rare. The front end is different and I'm sure I remember reading that the prototypes suffered from dented panels under the windscreen when airlifted, due to the lifting strops from under the front bumper, so the shape of the production ones was changed. Jeez I know some useless trivia :nut:

I doubt Merlins care overly much about having to blow bubbles either, it's unlikely to knock many hundreds of HP off

Thankfully the one that donated its axles to my Landy was well beyond saving :-X although we do know people looking for bits from the top half, if anyone knows of a surplus one going for scrap I'm sure a home could be found. They are awesomely capable trucks, if I was doing it again I'd just buy a C303/4/6 rather than modify a Land Rover.

Apologies if this is not considered suitable, but a friend of ours in the Ukraine is organising an off-road trophy which includes routes through some historic countryside. The "tourism" class should be doable in anything 4x4 and under 3.5t with low risk of damage (dependent on your driving of course!) In the Tourism track, we have Skythian monuments, Stalin command bunkers and various defense installations; amazing beautiful forests & swamps, old villages (and I mean OLD OLD), and the city of Kiev nearby for all your sightseeing. We can meet you at the border and assist with all formalities if need be. Website (English button is top right of the screen) http://www.ukraine-trophy.com

Anyone know if there's a way to watch the parade online (other than waiting for it to appear on YouTube from someone's camera phone)?

No problem - I agree it's not going to make things any less rusty but it will soak in nicely to a rough rusty surface and hopefully help preserve them for when you next lift the tarp in another 15 years. It's also quite good for lighting the wood burner, mind your eyebrows though!

Just dug this up as this thing was parked at Gunwharf Quays (the ex-dockyards-now-shopping-village) last weekend, certainly looked very good, I'd have it over one of those Sunseeker thingys any day. If I had half a million quid spare. And had bought all the other toys on my list. :-D

I can't help but feel the spares pile may benefit from a spray of coccoon metal protectant, a friend introduced me to it, it's used to stop steel stock & parts from rusting in the yard at factories. It's a sort of spray-on wax.

The body type on the V5 is kind of independant of the taxation class as that'smore based on usage than anything. I'd say your best bet is to put it down as ambulance (because it's an ambulance) but MOT/tax it as a normal PLG vehicle because you're not ferrying casualties with it.

NOS, points taken - as I stated I was not intending to offend or incite, and I certainly would not want to discourage discussion & debate. My aim was to make the point that in these matters, there is a definitive source of information (no matter how flaky that source may be) and, as is true of all internet forums, everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, but presenting it as fact and arguing the toss in a discussion such as this often just clouds the waters and serves to dilute the usefulness of the efforts of those such as AntarMike. As you yourself said - a new comer reading this thread could not be blamed for giving up hope at about page 20 and buying a Jeep instead, which would be a great shame. Your "summing up" is exactly the sort of thing that's needed when a picture emerges, preferably cut-and-pasted into a sticky so that people seeking an answer can find it and benefit from it without having to read about how it was reached or what people think of it. I have spent a fair bit of my life on matters of communication of information, specifically on websites, and therefore it is something of a bugbear of mine when valuable information is effectively buried. Not only is it a loss to the community, but it is doing a disservice to those who put so much effort into finding the answer in the first place.

I've just read through this whole thread and have to stick my 2p's worth in. First off, top score to Mike for his sterling effort, remaining focused and level-headed and presenting a good face to the chaps in suits is no easy task. Second, not so many marks out of ten to a lot of people for the blind panic that this thread descended into. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to stir trouble but if this thread had been restricted to posts stating facts and asking relevant questions it would be about 30 pages shorter. I really can't fathom why we had to have 20 different opinions from people on what various bits of legislation do or don't mean, what you can or can't do, etc. etc. when VOSA and the DVLA have telephones and e-mail addresses and are quite happy to answer queries which can be had in writing and effectively carved in stone, as much as anything can be these days. The endless stream of "I drive X but only for Y, it's registered as Z but we only drive it when there's an R in the month...." posts just seems fruitless to me, what would be more productive is if owners of said vehicles were to get in touch with VOSA, present a few different cases (laden, unladen, NFHoR, etc.) and obtain definitive written answers from them that could then be posted on this forum for the benefit of all. I find it even more amazing that no-one has a definitive answer to what constitutes laden or unladen. I am also unsure why people seem so down about the results of this meeting - OK some people may need to test their vehicles if they're using them on the road but that's hardly unreasonable (as has been pointed out, we have it pretty good over here in many ways) and what I would consider the main point of concern has been brushed aside - vehicles will be tested to criteria based on their age, the same as it is for cars. That means no modifications to comply with new legislation, and ultimately a pretty lenient MOT for most. I realise there may be hassle involved in testing some vehicles but perhaps people need to be a bit more assertive about this whole thing - it's clear that this was never intended to target HMV's, in fact it's clear the bods in suits never even considered HMV's, so if the bods in suits say you have to put an MOT on your tank, drive the thing to the VOSA station and park it there until they write you a certificate! (and take them to court if they don't) You can bet it won't take many people doing that before word is passed up the chain that something needs clarifying or changing. As I said, I'm not stirring here, I'm trying to encourage people to think about productive ways to approach this sort of problem such that everyone on the forum can have an easier life.

A Q plate is not a major hassle, most specialist insurers will treat them much the same as anything else which is modified / specialist. In the olden days Q plates were dished out for all sorts - kit cars, stolen recovered, imported, re-registered, etc. with not much more than an MOT certificate to prove what was what. These days there is a bit more to a Q plate, it is used where age cannot be proven or the vehicle is made from a combination of bits of various ages. You can build a kit-car, SVA it and have it on a new age-related plate (EG 2010 reg) IF you use enough NEW parts (engine, gearbox, axles, etc.) but you then let yourself in for it being MOT'd as any other car of that year which means emissions are much stricter, tax bands change at the whim of the government, etc. etc. Most imports now have to be checked by VOSA and end up on an age-related plate, as do write-offs etc. so Q's are reserved for "proper" kit cars and other bitsas / rebuilds where age is hard to prove or not particularly relevant. I have had two write-offs re-registered and both came back on age-related plates as they had a VIN number that proved the vehicle's age. Most insurers should be happy enough that your vehicle is not dodgy and would insure it agreed value (my 109 is with Adrian Flux, loadsa modifications and even agreed value they're very reasonable).

I've seen a couple of these in various states of disrepair - the chassis is very crude box section and if memory serves it's bl**dy heavy for what it is, and from what I remember I wasn't overly convinced by the construction of the thing or the concept as a whole when compared to chassis on other 4x4's. They were Ford based, Cortina/Sierra I don't think there's much difference between the two in running gear anyway.

I believe the official tool, if no mop is available, is a dead cat on a stick. And IMHO Land Rovers with shiny paint & straight panels never look right. The story above reminds me of the Series 1 club stand at Billing, amongst all the rare and carefully restored S1's was a beautiful unrestored one:

I believe they supplied a lot of the scrap, not sure it's where they film but they certainly have a few of the old props about the place - makes for a very bizarre browsing experience!

I came across this tour of London and thought some on here may find some interesting vehicles and other sights in the film, there's no sound so do not adjust your internet televisor: Something went wrong...

Someone posted this on LR4x4 so I thought I'd share in case anyone on here may recognise/know the chap: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8343697.stm The description sounds like it could be a military landy.

I've seen a Freebie tow a Land Rover 101 on a trailer, a Jeep should be fine.