N.O.S.

Well done. They've gone to a lot of trouble with all those shell craters. But what happened to all the mud? :cool2:

Tasty! You sure that's not a Boyd Coddington creation?

Richard, I haven't taken a truck to the test centre since 1993 - so from what you say yes things might have changed! On the other hand Adrian's post suggests that they might want the trailer unloaded so they can use the 'load applicator'. I suspect bulk tippers - rigid and trailer - might need to take a load as it may be imnpossible to use the 'applicator' within these bodies? HGV dealer workshops around here certainly used to keep loaded trailers with which to road-test tractor units and take for test - perhaps this was pre- load applicator days?

Thanks Adrian - that explains why tippers usually go for test with a load on board.

Another point re. brake testing: When you present a HGV for testing it should be loaded to at least 50% (?) of its carrying capacity so that the brakes do not lock up when roller testing. This is because the examiner needs to establish how the brakes react under load. Turn up with no load and you'll get turned away. So how on earth do they perform meaningful brakes tests on for example a 1968 6 wheel HGV operating empty with Historic tax? I presume they must assess the brake performance on the unladen condition weight only? Which brings us back to the question of what criteria they are using to test these old vehicles!

This really belongs in "What's in your shed?", but this thread could do with a few pictures :-D

The guy who MOTs my Landcruiser always uses a Tapley Meter, not the rollers. He prefers to avoid the risk of damaging inter axle diffs etc on the brake rollers. So presumably they are permitted to use them at their discretion.

And in case you ever wondered how / who cleaned up the D Day beaches, Mr. Beke Snr started his WW2 mv spares/repair/sales business by being awarded a contract to clear a (1 1/2 mile?) section of Normandy beach of all scrap. He was fortunate to have many vehicles in his allocated section :-D

Agreed, but a pre-1960 vehilcle is a pre-1973 vehicle! To isolate this group from my statement I would have had to write 'pre-1973, post-1960'. But that would have been incorrect....... Imagine how much fun it is trying to get the wording just right in all this legislation - spare a thought for these poor committee members trying hard to get it right for us :-D My use of the term LADEN with regard to locomotives was intended to imply 'pulling a laden trailer'. I've always taken UNLADEN to mean you can't carry around 6 tonnes of cast iron ballast weights in a vehicle which is supposed to be used UNLADEN, whereas if you are operating LADEN you may well need these weights for safe LADEN operation. On the other hand sometimes a bit of extra weight over the rear end is much better - reducing 'bounce' - but presumably even carrying a part-load for this purpose would not be permitted.

Great idea. For example the Heavy Haulage arena at a certain large annual gathering is a most stunning spectacle - but as I stood watching from the side of the incline my thoughts turned to what could happen should a runaway occur. The odd strategically placed tree trunks didn't make me feel much happier. Just a few days work with an excavator and dozer to create a safety ditch (with dug material used to create very shallow viewing bank) all around would create a completely isolated area and remove virtualy all risk to the public, without destroying the wondeful 'close-up' feel.

Would it be helpful (in clearing up some of the confusion) if at this stage we could confirm the requiremnts for using historic vehilces / trailers LADEN? I don't mind starting off with what I think the requirements are - so long as any erors are of course pointed out in a polite and constructive way :whistle: A pre-1973 Vehicle over 3.5t can operate LADEN with Historic Tax disc, so long as the load is not being carried for commercial purposes, provided - a) it is tested, or b) it is of a vehicle type (e.g. locomotive) which currently allows exemption from testing * * If hauled by a test exempt 'locomotive', does the trailer require testing? But are we in a position to define what testing standards are currently imposed on such vehicles? That would help also!

Tony, did you sort that rear spring clip out? Did you find a broken leaf?

Isn't that the old designation for 7.50 x 20s? As fitted to GMC for example. Modern designation is width x rim diameter 34 x 7 defines a 7" high tyre, with overall diameter 34". So take off two heights of tyre (i.e. 14") from 34" gives the rim diameter of 20". A conventional tyre 7.5" wide would have a height of 7" (approx. 90% Aspect ratio?). Aspect ratio is height / width. Example of current conventional profile tyre 8.25 x 16 + 8.25" wide, standard aspect ratio (I think 90%?), on 16" rim Example of current low profile tyre 235/65 x 18 = 235mm wide, height = 65% of width, 18" rim.

There should be no confusion over whether Stalwarts will be caught up in this - they clearly are not based on an HGV chassis, so that issue will be easily resolved for you I am sure. What is not so clear is how these kind of specialist vehicles, Ferret and Saracen included, will be regarded if they are left completely out of any revision, as from what people are saying there seems to be no consist application of a clearly agreed / defined policy for them in terms of testing. Hopefully the committee can be persuaded to look at this situation at the same time. Although given that their task is to sort out the non-tested HGV problem, it might not be possible for them to take the necessary action without a great deal more consultation between departments / bodies etc. For example it sounds simple to create a further vehicle classification or manipulate the MOT testing regime to accomodate our vehicles, but I dread to think of the discussion / consultation process they would have to go through to achieve this for us!

Have you received official confirmation that the V5 description is not important? This has been my view for some time (we had an exchange on here about it a year or so back), but I would be happier to see an official response. But Lee's suggestion could save a lot of hassle should you be required to prove the status of the vehicle. I would go one stage further (as I did back then) and state that it is the Vehicle Excise Duty disc in the window that determines what you can do with the vehicle, and thus what testing requirements, if any, apply. Would you agree with this statement? If you think about it, on the road the first thing an official will look at is the tax disc. It is presumed that you could only obtain the requisite tax disc by demonstrating (or making a legal declaration) that the vehicle C&U or exemption status qualifies it for that tax disc.

Interesting. I too, like OOEC25, backed out if the discssion. Not through being ignored, but having had my post (which was inteneded to help keep us on track) fairly comprehensively ridiculed by HMVF's respected authority on the subject. So nice, though, to discover some time later (thanks Croc – I couldn’t find that bit of legislation wording again) that at least some of it may not be complete cr&p. If nothing else it proves that not one of us on here has all the answers :whistle: But being constructive for a moment, if anyone has an interest in moving closer towards a response on this proposal - It seems to me that before you can create the most effective response to this proposal, you must fully understand (in relation to preserved military vehicles) - 1. what the present Regulation framework is, 2. who enjoys the benefits of this framework, and how, 3. what the proposal is, why it is needed, and how will it be applied, 4. who/which vehicles will be affected, and how. Some of the posts on here have been very useful in this respect by highlighting people’s concerns and experiences. It shows that sometimes taxation / testing regulations are not always clear, nor is the advice sometimes given, and they are open to variations in interpretation. Not surprising then that it can be difficult to work out what sections of legislation apply to both our vehicle and its intended use. But as vehicle operators it is our responsibility to do just that. I have found VOSA / DVLA to be pretty helpful in this respect, and I like to think I understood carefully what I could do with each of my vehicles. The one exeption being my only dabble to date with post 1960 large MVs was a 'special types' vehicle used both commercially and privately, so I was able to survive for long enough in that "grey" area - without needing to resolve out how to tax, test, or claim exemption for an overwidth vehicle. So I do appreciate how difficult it can be to resolve this whole 1960 - 1973 thing :cry: There's another point - it would be very useful if people could post references to parts of the legislation which they believe apply - the wording in Croc's post is the key to understanding pre-1960 stuff. I had researched that when I got started but just could not find it again recently. Nor can I find the various bits relating to operating old vehicles LADEN, which I had only partly researched before deciding I didn't need to go down that route. And there does seem to be a bit of confusion still (at least I know I’m still confused). For example, Stormin - unless you specify how you will use your WLF (unladen or laden) I doubt Mike will be able to give you an accurate answer. You've also raised the question of what parts of the C&U Regs apply in terms of overhanging boom etc. I was under the impression that they didn't apply to an unladen historic pre-1960 mv if it is 'as built' but I'm confused now as well :cheesy: So - with the sole aim of trying to help Mike pull this together and make some progress on a response, here’s my take on it all: Please note all references to ‘vehicle’ below means ‘large motor vehicle’ (i.e. >3.5t) Please also feel at liberty to point out any errors I may have made or question my reasoning, as the aim is to get the basic facts right so Mike can move on to the most difficult stage of his task – the case for keeping exemptions. 1) Present Regulation Framework · any vehicle pre-1973 can enjoy the benefit of Historic (nil) tax (except buses and goods vehicles used commercially), subject to being used unladen · any large vehicle (i.e. >3.5t) pre-1960 and used unladen does not require annual testing (MOT). All vehicles post 1960 require MOT with certain exeptions (see below) · Some vehicles are eligible to be classed in a category which allows them to be exempt from testing regardless of age (e.g. tracklaying), and which in some cases also permits them (e.g. locomotive) to be used laden. · I understand that pre-1973 and pre-1960 vehicles can be used to carry loads either commercially or privately, but I don’t know the specific taxation / testing regulations applying in these cases so will leave that for others to advise. · I’m of the view that it is not necessary to define a pre-1973 / historic taxed vehicle by its type, or body type (e.g. 3 axle rigid, or recovery) on the vehicle registration document (unless it will be used for a purpose allowable under that category i.e. other than Historic unladen use?) So even if your Explorer vrd says ‘Breakdown’ it will still be regarded as a Historic heavy motor vehicle by the authorities if taxed as Historic and used unladen (clarification of this would be very helpful) · (trivia question – why was 1960 chosen as the cut-off for exemption?) 2) Who are ‘we’, and how is this framework enjoyed by us? · ‘We’ are owners / operators of MVs who drive them unladen on the highway, and maybe attend public shows, for our own enjoyment and the enjoyment of others · ‘We’ are like them above, but we are a bit (well actually a lot!) more adventurous and work our MVs hard by carrying loads, even to the extent of fully freighting a Diamond T and Rogers trailer with a Sherman tank to entertain the public · ‘We’ are also the public who enjoy the spectacle of seeing these old vehicles (and their loads) travelling around the roads and working at rallies. Since we will be affected too, we don’t have to own a vehicle to be able to present our own valid case for consideration. 3) What is the proposal all about, and why? · Aims to reduce the number of un-tested HGV-based vehicles, and some other groups, using the roads for commercial purposes by imposing further restrictions on test exemptions currently permitted We do need to acknowledge that documented safety inspections - typically every 6 to 8 weeks -and annual 'Ministry' MOTs are deemed the only practical way to ensure the safe commercial operation of HGVs, and that DVLA have good justification for making these proposals. 4) Who / what MVs will be affected? · Pre-1960 vehicles used unladen: large motor vehicles (>3.5t) operating unladen under Historic tax will not be affected (see * below) · Pre-1960 vehicles used laden: any vehicle operating under one of those classes currently permitting MOT exemption but under threat of withdrawal · 1960 – 1973 vehicles used unladen: Any vehicles which currently are able to claim exemption from MOT by their class category, should that exemption category be removed (e.g. recovery, locomotive). All other vehicles in this age range continue without change to be subject to MOT. Vehicles might legitimately be put in one of these exempt categories because either - a. it is not possible /practical to get them tested (e.g. over width, permanent 4x4, etc) b. The owner wants to use them for carrying loads without the requirement for testing c. The owner is taking advantage of the exemption solely to avoid testing requirement · 1960 – 1973 vehicles used laden: Vehicles currently tested will not be affected. Vehicles currently not tested by virtue of their class exemption will be liable for testing * IMPORTANT! There may be exceptions to this, or at least variations in interpretations by authorities – for example see post 77 by OEC25, Ferrets - clarification required! 5) How to present the case for MV owners/operators I wonder it might make good sense to distinguish between two specific groups of MV likely to be affected – · 1960-1973 Vehicles used UNLADEN (majority of vehicles) · All pre-1973 Vehicles used LADEN (minority of vehicles) Because you may need to put the case for each type in a different way. It would also be a good idea to imagine yourself sitting on the panel deciding this proposal. · Given the changes are intended to only target commercial operstors of HGV-based vehicles, and given the encouraging responses so far to people’s letters, you will hopefully be sympathetic to opportunities to minimise detrimental effects on other vehicle users (like us) · Under what circumstances/conditions would it be reasonable to permit continued exemption for those vehicles currently operating unladen? · Under what circumstances/conditions would it be reasonable to continue to permit fully laden vehicles to operate without formal safety inspections / MOT? To make a case for allowing fully-loaded vehicles to operate without formal safety checks, given the safety implications should anything ‘not go to plan’, is much more difficult than the unladen case, and requires knowledge of such operations. This is where you should be able to come up with some suitable proposals which might be favourably received Mike, as it is your speciality? I'm not sure the panic has died down quite yet, but we must be 1/2 way there :-D

On some heavy axles with big brakes the bronze bushes can squeeze out - rollers will take more load, but for both of you it is a win situation and both will last a lifetime if lubricated. (unless you plan to work the truck 24/7!!) I was thinking of using spring-bush grade nylon if I need bushes (cheaper than bronze and take more load). I can't see heat being a problem - or might it....:undecided:

Yes, Norman, but they are cream. Here's one I picked up on the last visit to Beke's. We found plenty there a few months before - this was the very last one and I thought it would be a great memento of an exciting adventure. Art Deco says it all :-) I believe it was the Series 4 which saw a change to standard military instruments, but I'm very tempted to install this one anyway. The Series 4 dash is a right old hotch potch, with small instruments in ugly adaptor plates bolted into large holes.

Well I'm working on a letter at the moment. It will relate to post 1960 / pre 1973 vehicles, as they are the only ones currently 'at risk'. When I came into this hobby I had no choice but to accept the already established distinction betwen pre 1960, 1960 to 1973, and post 1973 vehicles and the way they were treated in terms of taxation and testing. It seems clear that the government will not move on these fixed dates (e.g. no rolling 25 yr etc.). Your example of 1959 M series trucks is interesting, in that if you take the present situation with 1962 trucks the position is reversed, i.e. the cargo needs an MOT and the wrecker does not (assuming registration document shows 'Recovery')! I would like to see a more consistent (and thus fairer) approach to MOTs. Neither the 1959 trucks example you describe, nor the 1962 example are fair. But then there does not seem to be any consistency in describing vehicles on log books either. My guess is that Explorer registration documents class them variously as either Locomotive, 3 axle Rigid Body, Recovery Vehicle, Mobile Crane, Agricultural Machine and maybe others too! That is also inconsistent, and could potentially affect the way each vehicle is treated for testing. It strikes me that DVLA are content to accept a description that best describes the use a historic vehicle will be put to, rather than a strict interpretation of the body type, especially if it will not be used for anything but that allowed by Historic taxation. To my mind MVs of a similar age group and used in a similar way (e.g. used unladen for recreation) should all be treated the same way for tax and testing. I'm sure that is the intention of DVLA, and once they are made aware of these inconsistencies they might be persuaded to accomodate changes. The ideal way would be a single class of vehicle - perhaps the formal bodies of the hobby should push hard for this, I hope it is not too much to ask for!!

I am replying to this because I am concerned that some folk might get alarmed unnecessarily unless we should be clearly understand what vehicles might be affected. I believe your comments on recovery trucks for example are quite alarmist - you'll be telling me next that my Chevrolet M6 bomb service truck is a recovery vehicle and therefore will need an MOT because it has a crane! Or should it be a light locomotive, because it pulls trailers? Why can't it just be what it says on the log book - a 2 axle rigid body vehicle taxed as historic? If I put a Number 7 set in the back of my gmc does it magically turn from a 3 axle rigid body into a recovery truck? I dont think so! Oh I'm so gullible - it was just another wind-up, wasn't it? :yawn:

I also think it would help greatly if the authorities can be persuaded to define HGV-based vehicles as being those constructed to "current HGV performance standards" (i.e. modern vehicles, which I'm sure is what they intend this to cover) and therefore easily MOTable, and to consider suitable exemption or simplified 'condition testing' for those older vehicles which are not so constructed (which I think they have made reference to in the document for things like tracklayers).

Is this in danger of getting a little out of perspective? Just looking at the attached list of currently exempt Vehicle Types as published in the consultation document (the ones they propose to remove are shown in bold print) - where is the cassification under which the vast majority of post 1960 / pre 1973 military vehicles fall (those taxed as Historic Vehicle and which do not carry a load or tow a loaded trailer)? I'm thinking Beford MK, Reo M35, etc. I was of the view that any large vehicle between 1960 and 1973 can run under Historic Vehicle designation, yet requires some form of MOT. MOT exemption has only been open to pre 1960 vehicles or certain specific classes of vehicle. But Historic Vehicle taxation does not permit you to carry a load or tow a loaded trailer. By taxing a vehicle under some other class e.g. Heavy Locomotive you can use the vehicle loaded (i.e. pulling a loaded trailer) without the need for an MOT. So as far as I can see the only impact on the MV scene will be a requirement for post 1960 / pre 1973 vehicles carrying or towing loads (sometimnes very large loads) to have some form of MOT. Can we have some input from some other owners of post 1960 / pre 1973 mvs as to how this proposal might affect them? Would this proposal have an effect on any vehicle other than those used to pull trailers with loads (e.g. tank or other tracked vehicle, second wheeled military vehicle) or towing multiple trailers? We would need to persuade the authorities that it is unreasonable to impose a test rquirement on a historic vehicle which might be used to the limits of its designed carrying/towing capacity on the public highway, albeit only a few times a year. Hmm, I hope Viscount Attlee enjoys a challenge! I think the greater concern to us would be possible imposition of much more stringent MOT conditions for those vehicles which do not have type approval (e.g. imposing current brake performance criteria on old vehicles which could only achieve this by heavy modification). Please don't read into the above that I have a firm view one way or another on this - but we do need to understand where the enemy is coming from in order to stand any chance of persuading him to tactically withdraw :-D Annex A List of exemptions from roadworthiness testing in Schedule 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 Vehicle type Remove exemption (shown in bold) 1. Dual-purpose vehicles. 2. Mobile cranes. 3. Break-down vehicles. 4. Engineering plant etc. 5. Tarmac Trailers. 6. Tower wagons. 7. Road Construction vehicles. 8. Fire fighting vehicles. 9. Works trucks etc. 10. Electrically propelled motor vehicles. 11. Snow ploughs etc. 12. Lifeboat tractors. 13. Living vans* 14. Medical /educational/display vehicles. 15. Over-run-braked trailers. 16. Limited use vehicles. 17 Agricultural motor vehicles and trailed appliances. 18. Agricultural trailers and agricultural trailed appliance conveyors. 18A. Converter dollies. 19. Public Service Vehicles* 20. Licensed taxis* 21. Vehicles used solely for the purposes of funerals* 22. HGVs for export and visiting forces vehicles. 23. Test HGVs. 24. Visiting HGVs* 25. Northern Ireland registered HGVs* 26. HGVs based in seven Scottish islands. 27. Visiting HGV trailers* 28. ‘Caterpillar-track’ vehicles. 29. Steam propelled vehicles. 30. Pre-1960 HGVs. 31. Specialised narrow-track utility vehicles. 32. Airport ‘handling’ vehicles. 33. Airport ‘service’ vehicles. 34. Police HGVs. 35. HGV tractor units drawing exempt trailers. 36. Play buses* 37. Large American pick-up trucks* * vehicles marked with an asterisk , while exempt from testing of HGVs under the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988, are nevertheless subject to roadworthiness testing under the separate testing regimes applied to cars (MOT), passenger service vehicles, or under legislation in Northern Ireland or their home state.

Art Deco meets UTILITARIAN MINIMALISM - nice!!!! She's found a good home at last. (not a patch on the Series 4 though :whistle:)

Reading it again, the intention is to pull in HGV-based vehicles. Any specials which wouldn't easily be accomodated in HGV test stations and roller brake test units look to be dealt with by either exemption or some form of 'condition test' whatever that may be. I have not been able to find an explanation of 'limited use' exemption - the definition of which might be crucial for post-1960 mvs :sweat:Anyone?

Oh s*d it, I'll take my own pack of biscuits :mad: