antarmike

Yes probably not the best choice of word, admittedly.

Year is 1996

All lights, must have an approval mark ( or British Standards mark) at this age. Reflectors must also have an approval mark/ British Standards mark.

Do the lights and reflectors currently fitted carry the approval mark?

DVLA did not go directly to MOD for advice. The MOD's advice seems to have been sought by DfT, and then passed onto DVLA.

It seems that DfT are quite deeply involved in the process.

Who has decided the matter needs looking at in this depth is not clear. The driving force may well be DfT.

The MOD will undoubtedly know under what permissions and dispensations they have been operating Stormers (and all tracked armour).

If I say something is ridiculous, I am suggesting that MOD clearly knows what rules it has to abide by, and what permissions need seeking.

The suggestion that MOD do not know whether a one of their vehicles complies fully with C and U and Lighting regs, or not, is as you say "in my opinion" ridiculous.

I do not intend any personal insult to anyone, I am just asking them to think about what they have said, and asking them to go through the facts as to how C and U, STGO and dircretionary waiving of these rules by the Secretary of State at the request of MOD,"for operational reasons", affect what MOD must know, and what it has to do to comply.

I gave up trying to represent HMVF members in respect of proposed MOT exemption changes for HGV's because I felt certain posts on this forum completely undermined what I was trying to achieve.

There is now the suggestion that DfT has sought advice from MOD regarding particular tracked armour, but they have been fobbed off with an answer from someone in MOD who neither knew what he was talking about, nor cared enough to find out.

The suggestion has been made if you follow this through to a logical conclusion, that representatives in DfT accepted this information, without knowing the authority and accuracy of the source it came from, and passed it on unchecked to DVLA. Another logical conclusion is that DfT do not know how to find the right person to ask in an organisation. This is a slur on their professional competence.

This kind of suggestion does not help build working bridges between HMVF and DfT, and this is precisely the kind of post that, in my opinion makes HMVF less creditable in the eyes of DfT.

Elsewhere in this thread is a suggstion that DVLA said certain info came from MOD when it hadn't. That is surely an accusation of lying? not very helpful either!

C and U regs and lighting regs are readily available. Why does an owner trying to register a vehicle not go through these clause by clause, to find out for himself, whether a vehicle complies or not, before starting the process? Why has there to be so much slagging off of officialdom, who are merely trying to do their job according to the rules?

Surely it is unfair to start slagging of the people we are trying to work with and calling what they decide "Crap".

Even a rudimentary scan through lighting regs would have shown that DVLA had made the correct decision .Disregarding everthing else, On the issue of headlight position alone, DVLA are correct in not registering this vehicle at this time.

for my 2p worth- the MOD is in effect the previous owner -not the manufacturer -therefore they might as well say they got the opinion from "Steve down the pub"

That is ridiculous. The Ministry of Defence have a legal duty to comply with C and U regs or STGO rules. If a vehicle "because of operational requirements" cannot be built within those constaints, then MOD have a legal duty to apply to the Sectretary of State for a certificate for that particular vehicle to be exempted complying with C and U and STGO rules. The MOD will be perfectly aware whether the Stormer fully complies with C and U, whether it complies with STGO rules (which only they can use) or whether such a certificate of exemption (not available to civilians) was sought for this vehicle type.

MOD are in a very good position to offer advice to DVLA. Their advice is it neither complies with C and U or Lighting regs.

Year is 1996 and the width is 2.50M to the millimetre Its nothing to do with the vehicle as he has told me that all tracked MV's were registered incorrectly . so that affects most of Us .

 

Now dont thing that because its registered it dosent affect you because last year there were many stretched limos that had there registrations revoked . All had to be sold abroad.

 

I have a JCB that defo dosent meet c&U yet its registered . As are many tracked plant . My Gut feeling is they have been told not to register MV's do to the current terrorist threats. Current intel is that they are expecting a mombai style attack According the the local Mcr Manpad team.

JCB's and tracked plant will be registered under STGO construction rules and limitations as to use. Privately owned tracked armour cannot generally be run under STGO rules

Doubt whether they think the fact that a tracked vehicle can't be registered will prevent a Terrorist atack, Terrorists break every rule!

Surely the positions of the lights can be altered to enable the vehicle to comply. If the DVLA have used the wrong model or vehicle type as there example of why it can't comply that would be the owners perogative to challenge them. Would the freedom of information act enable Dan to find out where the DVLA have got there info from.

Maybe the lights can be altered, but until they are this is certainly enough reason for DVLA to refuse registration.. Until I know an exact build date and first use date I cannot comment upon what might need changing.

It may be that lights will require to be marked with E mark. I do not know whether standard Military lights of the time comply in terms of having an E mark. It might not be just a question of moving lights, but rather of changing lights to ones correctly marked.

It will be a sad day when the Harriers are finished!

It sounds like they may have confused the Stormer with a 432? 432 does not have seperate steering and braking systems, whereas Stormer and CVRT series vehicles do. I would also be interested to know how it doesn't confom with regards to lighting, since it has everything except fog lights. Maybe it's to do with the height or spacing of headlamps?

 

(Richard beat me to the first bit!)

Headlamps cannot be more than 400mm from outside edge of headlamp to extreme of bodywork(any vehicle built after 1972) , I doubt that stormer complies.

Do we know date of first use of this Stormer? if first use is before 1st April 1986 or build date is before 1st Oct 1985, front marker lights cannot be more than 510mm from edge of body work, or 400mm if built after 1st Oct 1985.

Welcome aboard....Like to see pictures of your vehicles....

Put me down for a squadron or two of the Tornado's

Okay they get to keep Tornado, I'll have a Harrier instead....

As the vehicle in question is a CVR(T), then it does have separate braking systems, hyd main brake, hand operated parking brake and steering brakes on separate system. No modifications this is how they are.

Reading the initial post, DVLA say the vehicles do not comply with C and U regs. They say Ministry of Defence have not provided information as to why they do not comply, just the fact it does not.. The recommendation was made to contact the manufacturers to find out how and why the vehicles do not comply.

There is no definite statement that the description of the braking system came from MOD.

If this part of what DVLA told Xtreme is incorrect, that is unimportant. MOD have said vehicle neither complies with C and U nor Lighting regs.

They say that Stormer was not designed or intended for road use.

Until Xtreme has contacted the manufacturer, or someone goes through C and U and Lighting regs, clause by clause, to ensure vehicle is fully compliant, I think it is reasonable to accept MOD view the vehicle does not comply.

MOD will know whether it does or no tit does comply because if it doesn't they will have applied to Secretary of State for exemption from complyiing with C and U and lighting regs, because of operational requirements.

sorry, but that seems fairly straightforward. If the vehicle does not fully comply with C and U regs and lighting regs, then it should not be registered..

Do you feel that it does fully comply? How has the vehicle been modified to provide two separate braking systems? Because if no mods have been done, then presumably the Army's description of the braking circuits is accurate and DVLA are only applying the rules they have to work by.

The Army says it does not comply with lighting regs. How has the vehicle been modified to ensure that it now complies. If no mods have been carried out, then presumably DVLA are again right to apply the rules they have to work by. They should not be registering non compliant vehicles.

I think i have got story wrong, maybe this is what I was thinking of...... It was a few years ago I saw this.... for those who want more....

http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/book/49/Dambusters_Away/

SORRY FOLKS DEMENTIA SETTING IN....

One of our local showmen, "Wonky" Woodford runs a ride that swings on a Sherman turret ring, I rode it a few years back.....Typical showman's make do and mend!

Just sold an Explorer....Only owned it a few months, Decided I really don't like Explorers.. Design is rubbish in places and Engineering is crap.

There are those who love em, and those who hate them, I hope when you get yours you find it to your liking.....They are not my cup of Tea...

It's possible that the crews intended to arm the weapon on approach to the target, rather than lugging a large armed bomb across the continent.

The bomb had three hydrostatic fuses that were armed on take off. These were intended to detonate the bomb when submerged to a given depth. They are pressure sensitive and would not have detonated a bomb on a crashed aircraft, or a bomb that bounced over the dam.

The self destruct fuse was armed automatically on release, and could not be bypassed by the crew. If a bomb was recovered from bouncing over the dam, this is the device that should have detonated it to prevent the bomb falling into enemy hands. If the bomb remained on the suspensions points when the plane crashed. This would not have been armed, because it require separation of the bomb from the aircraft to arm it.

The second Failsafe was in effect a sensitive trembler switch, which would have detonated the bomb if the bomb was still attached to an aircraft when it was shot down and crashed. The trouble is any violent shaking, hitting a tree, chimney pot, or power line, might have been a survivable event had this failsafe not been fitted, but it was so sensitive, any such incident would have detonated the bomb and killed the crew. It had to be disarmed shortly before the run into the dam, because the shock of hitting the water would have triggered it, destroying the bomb on the first bounce.

Edit THIS is a load of rowlocks.....sorry, disregard this post...

Too much heat will soften the spring that operates the dirt exclusion ball bearing, and the greaser will be open to all foreign bodies.

You might have bronze bushes that have turned in the housing, and the lube hole drilled through it no longer lines up with the greaser. Little can be done apart from stripping down.

Tell us more Mike!

 

I assume it didn't work too well and that's why the Germans were able to obtain a nearly complete bomb.

 

No real mention of why the Germans never went further with their plans for a copy cat attack on the Sheffield dams. Was it just that they were considered too heavily defended afterwards?

The bombs/mines were so secret a device was fitted which was supposed to explode the bomb if the plane crashed, but the device was so sensitive that the crews feared it might detonate when taxiing, taking off or in flight,

The ministry demanded the device was fitted and armed before leaving the dispersals, in the end there was so much disquiet about the detonator , that crews were given permission to take off without arming it, but they had to reach down through a hole on the fuselage to arm it before crossing the enemy coast.

It is suspected that many crews so feared the device they decided not to arm the device, and fly with their own death ticket hanging below them.

The mines that were retrieve, by the Germans, following crashes, might never have been armed either through oversight or deliberate rule breaking, by a crew who felt the device was just to sensitive and dangerous.

Part of the story, and should have got a mention...

The self destruct mechanism to which I refer was one of two, the second device armed automatically on release and was a timer that ran for 90 seconds, before detonation. This was in case all three Hydrostatic fuses failed, or the bomb failed to enter the water, ie bounced over the dam, or bounced onto the banks of the reservoir. The second self destruct is widely talked about.

I have only ever seen one book about the first device, indeed it was the subject of the book, not just a topic within a broader overview of the bomb and the mission. I cannot remember the Author or book title, never read the book either so I hope I have got this right!

Seemed a bit thin on historical revelations, largely seemed to revolve around a series of trips out for Martin Shaw.

 

Although the contributor John Sweetman is always worth listening to. He was modestly described as "Historian" but he was the former head of Defence & International Studies RMA Sandhurst. His research is always meticulous & profound, particularly in the Crimean era. I would recommend his book "War & Administration - the Significance of the Crimean War for the British Army".

Nothing at all about the highly criticised self destruction mechanism, that seldom if ever gets a mention....

Hello all

My name is James stewart, I am a volunteer over at Bruntingthorp Cold War Jet museum where we have an ever growing collection of all things wonderful in military vehicles and is a fantastic Big Boys Playground. I’m in charge of keeping all canopy’s and any other Perspex free from scratches and removing the cloudiness damage. and keeping the collection maintained.

Have you booked a "Flight" in the Victor!!!!!

I'm sure this is a repeat, and I saw it first time around.....

i just want to double check that you can have a matador registered as a agricultural machine if you are useing them for timber work, am i right in thinkng this???

Going back to the original post.

It depends what you call timber work.

Tree Surgery and tree felling of dangerous trees is not Agricultural/ Forestry.

Forestry is commercial growing and felling of timber on managed estates.

"To be Agricultural and Forestry tractor , it has to be constructed or adaptedfor the use off roads for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, and which is primarily used for these purposes. "

The Matador will have to spend the greater part of its time, working off road on timber production and Harvesting, as part of a commercial timber production operation, in order to satisfy the conditions of this taxation class..

79th Armoured Division Crocodile doing housekeeping at Belsen.

Another AVRE Fascine

and an Ark

the last one is a bit of a surprise as I thought they tested the goblin engine on a valentine.

Here is a bit more....

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?17437-Winter-1947