Runflat

There's a picture of an IHC half-track in the latest edition of Classic & Sportscar magazine (March 2010) - taken at Bastogne last year. Looks like it is on non-UK registration plates.

Just for clarity, the definition of 'living van' is at paragraph 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988. The 1991 Regs amend Schedule 2 of the 1988 Regs as described above, but not the definition of 'living van'.

The Regulations can be found here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/stat.htm

The 1988 and subsequent amending Regs (that I'm aware of) are as follows:

1988/1478

1989/320 & 1693

1990/448

1991/252 & 454

1992/564 & 2447

1993/2048 & 3013

1994/328

1995/1456

1997/82 & 263

1998/1671 & 3113

2000/1433

2001/307 & 1650

2002/487

2003/1816

2004/1873

2005/2343

2007/503

2008/1460

2009/799

Most deal with changes in fees, rather than anything of substance for this string. But some do!

I can't help but feel there should be some for 1996, 1999 & 2006!

Not that I'm aware of. Just to recap, this of issue for those claiming a test exemption under Class 30 in Schedule 2 to the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1478), i.e. "Motor vehicles first used before 1st January 1960, used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer, and trailers manufactured before 1st January 1960 and used unladen."

Paragraph 3 to the Regs has interpretative provisions, but does not include 'unladen'.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/uksi_19881478_en_1

What exactly defines "laden". Some say it is OK for me to carry some personal belongings in my pre-1960 truck, others say I cannot carry anything in the back of it. If the latter is true then my plans to go camping with it are scubbered.

I totally agree there is uncertainty here - see my post #105.

In the absence of a definition of 'unladen' Courts would normally fall back on the ordinary meaning of the word - it simply means not laden. And 'laden' means "heavily loaded" (Oxford English Dictionary). So 'unladen' means "not heavily loaded". On that basis, 'unladen' can include something that is lightly loaded, which means it is ok to carry some tools and a bit of camping gear. But I suspect the legislation is intended to mean 'empty' as in "unladen weight" meaning weight when not loaded with goods.

So, there you go. Not at all clear.

I don't know whether standard equipment (e.g. tools carried by a wrecker) get included as part of unladen weight or not.

...have to confess i didn't even know the Daimler had 4 wheel steering :red:

I doesn't - two steering wheels though. Watch again.

You can certainly see it on Google Maps - find Stevenage station and go due west about 3 Km.

If you can recognise make and model of anything then you are doing better than me.

And if your maths is up to it, have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_joint

It has just struck me that there must be Thousands of presently exempted vehicles owned by us who take part in this 'hobby'.

There are. The FBHVC will have global figures of numbers and the details of the contribution the hobby makes to the economy (i.e. what will be foregone should the measure take vehicles off the road). The MVT also holds a (private) listing of member's vehicles. So they should be able to do some sort of analysis of numbers owned by type of vehicle, age and so on.

I've read this string many times and will confess to being confused at times by the key points and arguments. This is my summary, which I invite to be pulled apart:

• There's the 'it's all about raising cash' argument. Frankly, that's tosh. The aims are plain from the introduction to the Consultation Document. This is a well meaning consultation designed to tease out concerns of stakeholders. Unfortunately consideration hasn’t been given to those with preserved vehicles, so officials and ministers need to be persuaded there is a justifiable case to be made to continue providing an exemption.
  

• There is the 'no evidence of a lack of safety' argument. That may well be true (I don't know). Certainly if a Member of Parliament could ask a suitably worded (sadly, these things often aren't) "written parliamentary question" the answer would be an interesting contribution to the debate.
  

• There's the 'it'll cost me money to adapt/upgrade my vehicle to pass the test' argument. I've not seen any justification for this point of view. As I mentioned before, the Consultation Document doesn't believe there are one off costs for owners. Clearly this needs clarification.
  

• There's the 'the test centre can't accommodate my vehicle' argument. I see the Consultation Document intends to keep exemption for genuinely specialised bits of kit. One to watch I guess.
  

• There's the 'it'll cost me £££ to get a test each year when I only use my vehicle once in a blue moon' argument and the ‘I don’t mind being tested as long as the test takes into consideration the age of the vehicle’ plea.
  

On this last bullet, and to some extent the third, Article 4 of Directive 2009/40/EC makes for interesting reading (here):

DIRECTIVE 2009/40/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers

CHAPTER II

EXCEPTIONS

Article 4

1. Member States shall have the right to exclude from the scope of this Directive vehicles belonging to the armed forces, the forces of law and order and the fire service.

2. Member States may, after consulting the Commission, exclude from the scope of this Directive, or subject to special provisions, certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation.

3. Member States may, after consulting the Commission, set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historic interest.

In other words there is the ability to have exceptions for any pre 1960 manufactured vehicle; and any post 1959 vehicle that is used sparingly on the road. Furthermore, appropriate testing standards can be applied to reflect the historic nature of the vehicle (this doesn’t appear to be restricted to pre 1960 vehicles).

My own preference would be for exemption to be on the basis that the vehicle isn’t used for hire or reward, rather than used unladen (it’s never been clear to me what ‘unladen’ means – is it ok to carry some tools and camping gear?).

So what happens next? Obviously anyone can make their own representations. I hope that Mike/HMVF work via the FBHVC who have much experience campaigning on behalf of the historic vehicle movement, but clearly they have to make their own decisions. Either way I applaud them for making a stand.

I would then expect officials to consider any reasonable representations before the next step. This is most likely to be the exposure of draft legislation, which is then subject to another round of consultation. This should be accompanied by an explanation of why arguments made to that point have been rejected.

I don't object to having a vehicle tested but it's going to prove too expensive to bring these vehicles up to standard (side impact bars, rear bumpers etc)...

Page 37 of the Consultation Document says there will be no one off costs. Clearly, if different standards will suddenly apply (I don't understand why they should) then this needs to be brought to their attention.

SD = Shelvoke & Drewry. They made a lot of municipal vehicles. I guess these people would like to know about it: http://www.shelvoke-drewry.co.uk/

I see their war output included:

30-ton Tank Recovery Trailers.

The only sources I've found are a side view in "Half-Tracks" by Bart H Vanderveen (published by Olyslager) and the same view in "Kraftfahrzeuge und Panzer" by Werner Oswald (published Motorbuch Verlag).

Neither say much of substance with Oswald saying it was powerd by a 45 HP four-cylinder engine.

The EU system of VAT operates to common rules (although member states have discretion to do some things on their own). But only businesses charge VAT. So you won't be charged VAT if you buy from a private person.

Different rules operate depending on whether you are buying a new item or a secondhand one; whether you are purchasing across borders; and whether you are purchasing for use in a business.

This tells you when you need form VAT414: http://search2.hmrc.gov.uk/kbroker/hmrc/forms/viewform.jsp?formId=1012

You are probably thinking of this thread: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?15530-Morris-Engine

The engine - a six cylinder, type 'OH' - is the same as found in the CS8 15cwt and PU 8cwt.

The gearbox is type 'GJ'. The CS8 had type 'GH' or 'GN'. They are quite different. In particular the CDSW box had 5 gears and a worm drive to the rear of the gearbox to drive the winch gear mounted transversely across the chassis.

Don't even think about what was fitted to C8 quads - you're likely to go wrong.

I see from the latest edition of Supply Line that four of the Boston Duck Tours' DUKWs are for sale. $15,000 to $25,000 - prices are negotiable.

More details from Tony: tcerulle@bostonducktours.com

Lots more on DUKW tours here: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?12336-DUKW-Sightseeing-Tours

I've finally found a couple of decent pictures of the CDSW bofors tractor that's seen on the UK circuit. It has a replica body (although the top boxes are original - the previous owner had stored them in his shed!). If you count rivits, then you could criticise it, but the owner gets enjoyment from it, which is the main thing.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2767342540103094308zSXadN

http://ccmv.fotopic.net/p56892373.html

A WOT2 here: http://www.mvt.org.uk/members_files/pages/legg_d.html

Anyone have better pictures?

You need 16" split rims for the CDSW. They were fitted on late C8 quads but with 10.50-16 boots. The CDSW would have had 9.00-16 tyres.

Ever the optimist, it looks more than a parts vehicle... and the bofors tractor seen regularly on the circuit has a replica body scaled up from period photos; as does this one I believe: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sakini-cz/2695647984/

So it's all been done before.

A bit of inspiration here: http://miliblog.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/original-british-ww2-vehicles/morris-cdsw-bofers-gun-tractor.jpg

This is certainly the Crompton half track at Beltring 2009. But it isn't a Famo; it's an SdKfz 7.

The Wheatcroft Famo has been there in earlier years. To see his, have a look in the inventory here: http://www.wheatcroftcollection.com/home.html

Clearly a six wheeler CDSW, and with that full piece windscreen an ex-bofors tractor. The wrong wheels should be easily solvable. I can't see how complete the mechanicals are. No body though ... so a brave project.

After realsing the photos have been posted in reverse order, I agree.

What's interesting is a lot of the loop holes appear to be nothing of the sort - just painted holes. So ignoring the differences in the pattern of 'holes' the main difference appears to be the position of the horizontal ribs on the boiler.

I think the chassis are actually Milne-Daimlers.

In 1963 it hung around until March ........and the sea froze in North Kent.

Memories... aah. Before my time though.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=42926

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=42959

It was widely reported last year that one of Hitler's Mercs was for sale - for example here: http://www.mercedesheritage.com/2009/presumed-hitler-mercedes-770k-to-be-sold/

I see that one of the classic car mags is saying that the "Russian oligarch" purchaser also bought seven other ex-Nazi staff cars including the Merc owned by foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.

The Port en Bessin DD Sherman appears to be up for sale ($595,000): http://armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm