antarmike

Yes looks very stable :shake:

There are, just out of shot, two tested and insured lifting beams........Honest...

And not a single health and safety issue in sight!

What is the context of the vehicle display. will it be vehicles only, or as part of a re-enactment. Can I turn up in civvies, if I get a chance to come?

It was in direct reply to post #41 that still remains....

Thread cleaned up AGAIN!! if members continue to bring politics into the thread despite being asked not to then the thread will be locked.

 

If you are not sure what the thread is about then read post 1

 

Thank you.

What the heck was political about the last two posts I made? both have been removed and I fail to see why?

Did the film contract inlude insurance? who is paying for this.? If you have cover, surely this can be fixed and whoever was insuring the Zil will be picking up the tab

The 'limited use' seemed an obvious option as soon as this thread started but I think it would depend on the land in question being registered as agricultural.

not only being registered agricultural, but limited use is for agric machines to go from one piece of agricultural land to another owned by the same person. The House where stormer is kept should be agric as well.

obviously engineering plant, and Agric machine also have restrictions as to use. It would seem that neither of these is appropriate.

Registering as PLG/ PHGV or whatever is the only appropruate way forward. The question is how can that be achieved?

That's what I call Flak damage!

As I said before it was deleted. You'd have been better of registering as plant or agricultural vehicle. There's plenty of tracked plant about on the roads. Don't see much difference between MV's and plant.

If it is only got to go 500 yds up the road to reach your off-road course, "limited use" or "works truck" spring to mind.

Standard cvrt head lights have no markings and are over 400mm from the outside of the vehicle . For road use they have been modified with hella e marked lights that have been placed 350mm from the outer edge of the vehicle . on the rear the lights are less than 400mm from the edge of the vehicle and and e mark however there is no rear fog . a standard e mark fog has be fitted . standard military reflectors have no markings so additional e mark reflectors have been stuck on the rear . C&U lighting regs is a simple conversion for someone wanting to road register a vehicle . Secondary braking is also present by the means of a hand operated lever the operates a totally different set of discs and brakes that the main foot brake .

 

Hope this satisfies dvla and yourself .

Seems good to me, That had never really been explained before, or if it was on the board I missed it. You seem to have covered all bases there. On the basis of this it would seem to me that DVLA are after all probably wrong to refuse to register on the grounds on not meeting Lighting regs. I was under the impression ( I don't know where from) that you were offering an unmodified (apart from removal of stowage bins to reduce width), vehicle for registration.

The work you have done, seems to me to be enough for this vehicle to be registered.

So are you saying that all vehicles fitted with a standard 6 way switch are on the roads illegaly? That's a hell of a lot of vehicles. When you operate the switch the lights go out for a split second. Unless you hold the switch between positions you can't notice this. I think hairs are being split here. Such zealous interpritation of the rules is exactly why this country has been flushed down the toilet.

What pedantic twaddle. The law requires that you park with sidelights on. Anybody who feels that sidelights going off for a fraction of a second before coming back on is illegal should perhaps stay indoors and leave the roads to those who are more pragmatic. :-)

I was asked what I saw as a facetious question about my 101, and I saw no relevance to the thread, I saw it as an attempt to embarrass me, so I thought I would give the daftest answer I could. Namely that the six way switch was the only thing I could think of, that possibly could be considered as non compliant.

Had I not been asked the question, I wouldn't have given such a daft reply.....

Don't tell I, tell he, That's my philosophy, as Johnny "Crowman" Miles so famously sings......

But having brought it up, it does seem relevant to a nit picking VOSA inspection that is on the cards.....Not just for Stormer but maybe for a lot of other vehicles, whose compliance with C and U, and lighting regs could well be questioned next.....

So are you saying that all vehicles fitted with a standard 6 way switch are on the roads illegaly? That's a hell of a lot of vehicles. When you operate the switch the lights go out for a split second. Unless you hold the switch between positions you can't notice this. I think hairs are being split here. Such zealous interpritation of the rules is exactly why this country has been flushed down the toilet.

Yes probably they are. I am not saying it is a problem, or anybody will ever care to do anything about it, but technically it does not agree with the regs. If a vehicle, whose compliance with C and U regs, and Lighting regs is questioned is put in for a voluntary inspection by VOSA ( as recommended elsewhere in this thread) , and it has one of these switches they may or may not choose to ignore it. You can expect in a voluntary test, VOSA, who will know that their decision will be taken as applicable to all similar vehicles ( in effect a test case for type approval) may choose to look at microscopic level. I am only pointing out what they could pick on , should they choose to.

The problem is real however since I have, in the past, had a vehicle fail an MOT. The fail sheet listed this as one of the fail items.

1) Xtreme believes his vehicle is compliant with C&U. DVLA/VOSA have taken advice and disagree. The only way solution is to have it inspected by the relevant authorities. Their decision will be based on the freely available rules and regulations. If the owner disagrees with their findings he has the right to appeal.

 

- MG

Xtreme may believe his vehicle complies with C and U, but does he believe it is compliant with Lighting regs. Would he like to go away and measure the distance from the outside of a headlight, to the extreme of bodywork on that side of the vehicle, and come back and tell us whether it is greater than 400mm or not.

Can he also look at all his other lights and reflectors and confirm all have an approval mark or a British Standards mark.

Then we will have a basis for deciding whether DVLA decision to refuse to register because it does not comply with lighting regs (one of two reasons stated) is a right decision or not.

What's the 6 way switch got to do with anything? They are perfectly legal without modification. You can't have the front lights on their own. It's tail, side and tail, headlight side and tail. Being able to have the tail lights on only comes in handy if you need to pull over in the dark.

The six way lighting switch has aproblem that is not found in cars and the like.

In a car if you turn on the sidelights, then the headlamps, the sidelights remain continuously illuminated. On the Six way military switch, when you change from front side lights to front and rear sidelights or from this position to headlights/ sidelights, the sidelights are switched off when the switch is in an intermediate position.

Maybe it is only a technicality, but unmodified I cannot park legally beside the road at night, since I will have my headlights on. By law I have to turn off my headlights when I park, but I have to keep my sidelights on. I cannot do this with the six way switch, since going from headlights and sidelights to sidelights only turns off the sidelights then turns them back on. That is not legal, and needs a switch change or a modification. The sidelights should be continuously illuminated when I switch of headlights.

What year did you say lights need approval markings? There are a lot of post 1986 (?) vehicles that still have the "Ruby" type light lenses and as far as I can remember these don't have approval marks on them.

 

 

if post 1986 then all lights and retro reflectors need approval mark or BS number.

Withams have already issued a statement (via email to a member of HMVF) that certain vehicles in their opinion are not sold or suitable for road use.. ask before you buy

 

If said member wishes to post a copy of the email then please do, it may make anyone considering buying a vehicle that they may not be able to register a certain type of vehicle think twice..

Do you mean this e-mail.....

Quote"

Good Morning Mike,

Thank you for the e-mail.

That answers the question.

I would not advise a customer to use a (432-9) on the Public roads.

Customers who I have sold to in the past do have their own Land or ground to use the vehicle on.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information or to make an appointment.Our opening hours are 08.30 am to 17.30 pm weekdays,Sat morning 8.30 am to 04.00 pm

Best Regards

Graham Hodson

Senior Sales

Tel:+44(0)1476861361

Fax:+44(0)1476861441

Mobile:+44(0)7955260102

Email: graham.hodson@mod-sales.com

Website: http://www.mod-sales.com

Do either of these countries believe in M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) and does this ideology have any effect on what they might or might not do?

Mike,

 

Have you checked and are you prepared to state that your recently purchased 101 Land Rover is fully compliant with construction and use regs?

As far as I know, it is, If you think it is not please PM me with details and I will see what can be done. At this point in time I am not aware of any issues. As far as I know all the units on the 101, have been used on other civilian vehicles, including the brakes. The I/R relays have been disabled, and the six way light switch has been reworked, so you cannot get just front markers or just rear markers. Convoy light positions are disabled....At 1977 light do not need approval marks....No not aware of any problem areas...

Well they went past that date of 1990. I think the last major operation the 101,s did was in the Balkans.

Did they have Noken winches or Nokken winches when in the Balkans?

Is a 14 year old stormer really Historic?

 

At what age does history begin or need preserving?

 

Does a vehicle need to be on the road to be preserved or for history to be made available to all?

 

If the Army only used tracked armour on the road for training purposes, (in preperation for a war in which they would travel on road) but when it wanted to get tracked armour from A to B it preferred low loading/ Tank Transporter ops., then is being on the road a vital part of keeping history in the public eye? If you could register a piece of wide Russian armour, which side of the road would you drive it on? Never in history has it been driven on the left hand side of a road! So what is so important, in terms of History, getting these vehicles road registered?

 

Is HMS Belfast not serving to keep Naval History alive, even though it no longer sails the seven seas? No one says it is not a valid piece of history because it is permenantly at anchor.

 

Cannot a Stormer be low loaded to shows? Does it NEED to be road registered to take part in the act of preserving History?.

 

I personally think that if a vehicle is non compliant, we should accept that fact, and use it in such a way that rules are not bent or broken. In my opinion that means these vehicles are best on loaders.

 

To take this on step further, what part of history is being re-created by road registering Russian and Eastern bloc Armour and running it around the U.K? There has never been a time during the cold War when Russian tracked Armour was ever seen on a British road, so how can anyone argue that Wide Russian armour, for example, must be allowed to run on British roads in order to preserve History?

RAEME website, some interesting stuff here.

http://www.raeme.info/index.php

http://www.raeme.info/toc.php?cat=rec&item=1&page=p7#article

welding back Towing eye to facilitate recovery!

http://www.raeme.info/toc.php?cat=rec&item=1&page=p9#article

With the greatest respect to all parties - I would suggest that any opinion the MoD express in technical matters isn't worth the breath used to utter it or the paper it is printed on. My dealings with the MoD in years gone by have shown them be a bunch of civil servants who's only interest is in £££'s - not technical/engineering matters.

 

Had that information come from the relevant branch of the Armed Forces then it would be worth listening to and enquiring. Any enquiries of the MoD likely will get a response "Because <insert name> thinks this is the case!"

 

At the risk of "tub thumping" - I reiterate the opinion that it is now time the relevant clubs and societies got hold of the DfT and discussed how these problems can be overcome - some for of exemption based on being ex-Military and for very limited mileage per year out to be a fair and practicable proposition in view of what the State does not have to pay to keep history preserved. Otherwise our hobby will be legislated out of existence........

Would you take on this role if you had the chance?

They actually seem to be having a bit of fun, instead of being deadly serious...

Can we learn anything????

With respect Mike it's a matter of english, Andym corrected me succinctly without any affront, by using the word ridiculous you immediately offend, -ridiculous -def. arousing ridicule-contemptuous laughter;mockery;derision.

 

I'm sure it wasn't your intent but that is the way it came across, so I suggest we both move on and as Lee has said keep it friendly.

 

Steve

according to concise English dictionary ridiculous can mean absurd.

And that is the sense in which I meant it.

And if it was the coked up chap I know down the pub, anything he said should be treated as utter rubbish......or viewed as an out and out lie...