Jump to content

Adam Elsdon

Members
  • Posts

    807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Adam Elsdon

  1. Like this?

     

    cvrttent.jpg

     

    Thats the one, they pack away alot smaller than a 9x9 as you dont have all of the poles, extra ground sheet pole joints etc, so if you are strapping them to the exterior of your vehicle, this would be the better bet.

    The 9x9 and 12x12 are considerably bigger though.

  2. I believe it out of the scope of this topic. If you want to find out and put it elsewhere on the board, okay. But I don't think this subject relates to these proposals, since Stalwart id NOT in a category affected by these changes.

     

    This thread is with respect to removal of MOT exemption from 10 classes of HGV currently exempt. It is not about registering a road vehicle.

     

    Your question and the answer you recieve properly belongs in this thread

    "Registering and taxing aging MVs"

     

    Roger that, will PM

  3. If somebody would like to give me the details on size, weight, width tech spec etc of a Stalwart, i will ask VOSA what the present definition is and how do i get such a vehicle registered for use on the road.

     

    I will then post response here, and then we have the "Fact" from VOSA and how you can apply that fact to the present consultation parameters.

     

    Unless one of the many Alvis Stalwart owners with a vested interest is prepared to do this, preferably before the consultation period is over and done with!!

     

    I like Stalwarts and i think it would be a shame not to find out how to keep these on the road.

  4. The Story so far.

     

    The proposal is to remove exemption from certain categories of HGV.

     

    A large number of Forum members own one or more pre 1960 vehicle. This proposal will not affect them, if they currently use it unladen, and they do not draw a laden trailer. Still to be confirmed but the balance of probability is that a living van does not count as a laden trailer. But it has to have a permanently mounted bed, sink and cooker.

     

    Some members who own mobile cranes of any age will be affected is an much as these will become testable.

     

    So far no one has come forward to say they own a recovery vehicle. Recovery vehicles will become testable, but the definition of what is a recovery vehicle excludes most of the vehicles we view as Recovery vehicles. To be a recovery vehicle, it must have a Recovery vehicle Excise disc, and be used solely for recovery purposes. If there is any element of what you know as “Social, Domestic and Pleasure” use then it is not a recovery vehicle. I therefore, unless I hear otherwise cannot see that removing MOT exemption for this class affects us.

     

    Vehicles Constructed primarily for …..Education, and Display use....(Special Project Vehicles). As yet no forum member has identified that they own a vehicle in this class. Unless I hear otherwise I am assuming that removal of MOT exemption for this class does not affect any Forum member.

     

    No Forum member has come forward indicating that they consider their vehicle to be Engineering Plant. Likewise unless I hear to the contrary I assume no Forum Member is affected by the proposed removal of MOT exemption for this class.

     

    Amongst the Forum membership, undoubtedly the group who are most affected are those who own Motor Tractors, Light Locomotives and Heavy Locomotives. The plan is to remove MOT exemption from this class of vehicle.

     

    I think it is fair to identify three major types of ex military equipment falling under this banner.

     

    Firstly wheeled Armour, AFV,s Scout Cars, Wheeled reconnaissance vehicles,( Fox, Ferret, Saladin, Saracen) APC's (although whether they fall under PSV legislation and are currently requiring testing, I am not totally sure)

     

    Gun tractors, vehicles used by the Armed forces for recovery, but not fitting the definition of recovery vehicle mentioned in the proposal, and Ballast tractors, tank transporters (e.g. Diamond T 980/981) and the like, where these vehicles comply with construction and use regulations in terms of width etc.

     

    Ballast tractors which fall outside Construction and Use Regulations because of width etc. (Antar, Rotinoff etc.) AILV's and the like. Vehicles that already carry an STGO Chassis plate.

     

    I shall be stressing the distance vehicles will have to travel to be tested, the increase in costs for the owners, that will in percentage costs be far higher to private owners, than the figures stated for fleet operators. The slow speed and poor economy of these vehicles.

     

    I shall be stressing the importance of testing vehicles, keeping in mind the original standards to which they were made, and the importance, on historically important vehicles of not having to modify them, to comply with standards and requirements that have been introduced after the vehicles were built.

     

    I shall be stressing the peculiarities of odd-ball designs, and practices which were once commonplace but may well be beyond the experience or knowledge of this generations testers.

     

    I shall be highlighting those vehicles were rolling road testing of brakes is impossible, those too wide to fit through the lanes at an HGV test centre, poor access into armoured cars, the limited usefulness of testing Armour, where much of what a tester may want to see is behind bolt on armour or floor plates.

     

    I shall be emphasising our desire to see, if vehicles do have to be tested, that testers come to the vehicles, not Vice versa, particularly where an owner has a collection of vehicles, or owners in a locality can organise to get several vehicles to a site at the same time.

     

    I will be suggesting, that in much the same way as Steam engine boiler inspectors are independent agents, that limited safety testing of ex military vehicles could be the responsibility of trade organisation or a network of suitably qualified individuals.

     

    I will also be suggesting that, since annual mileage is low, wear and tear cannot be viewed as occurring at the same rate as Commercially operated vehicles, therefore testing could be extended to Bi-annual testing or longer.

     

    I will be highlighting that they have produced no evidence that Ex Military vehicles are in a dis-proportionate amount of accidents, but rather, the best evidence of accident rate comes from insurance data, and the very low rates we are charged shows we are one of the safest groups on the road under present rules.

     

    I have to be seen to support road safety improvements, and I cannot argue that vehicles that it is easy to test should not be tested. I can argue that as a whole, testers are unfamiliar with the technology of our vehicles, and will have problems testing a large number of them.

     

    I will point out that the reason these exemption where granted in the first place was due to the limited amount of use on the roads there was by these classes, and that holds good for Military vehicles only attending a few shows per year.

     

    I will also be stressing the loss in value to the owner, if a vehicle becomes mandatory MOT victim.

     

    If they choose to pull out of the hobby because they cannot bear the extra cost these proposals will put on them, Then there vehicles will also have become less appealing to others, and will fetch a much lower price.

     

     

    I welcome helpful comment, but please if you wish to pull this apart or challenge the basic way I am trying to deal with this please can you tell me your views vis PM's

     

    Thanks Mike

     

    Mike, i think this is a well planned out and relevant response that is within the parameters of the consultation requirement.

     

    My only concern and you have pointed out the ommissions, that people may not be laying down their "Constructive opinion" for there own respective vehicles in the "Proposed MOT Regulation Vehicles List" Thread: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?16901-Proposed-MOT-regulations-VEHICLE-LIST

  5. You could go for a CVRT crew tent or "Crew Shelter Scorpion Fox" as is stencilled on my tent.

     

    They are a lean to type design, and well big enough for two people, i think they sleep 3 they are designed to tie onto a vehicle to support them, but you can tie them to trees, a fenceline or a version i seen, somebody had made a couple of poles so they were freestanding, which worked well.

    They have a built in ground sheet and the doors open at each end. I find mine to be a very good tent, and they resist wind well, compared to other tent types.

    They would also look period correct for a Ferret, and they pack down small compared to a 9x9 and wouldnt look out of placed strapped to the rear deck.

     

    You can generally pick them up between £25 and £150.

     

    I will see if i can find a picture of one!

  6. Glad they got caught ! I have to pay so why not them !:mad:

     

    I'm with you on that one!

     

    Actually thinking about it, one of the shows i attend has on the entry form a requirement to provide proof of insurance (Name of Insurer/Policy No.) or show a copy on registering on the day, which totally gets around the problem of people trying to get in with illegal vehicles.

    Good idea, should maybe advise other organisers to add it into show registration.

  7. Further a new classification for four wheel drive qualification is certainly needed, especially after seeing the lack of ability of drivers of Chelsea tractors in the recent poor weather.

     

     

    Bad driving occurs in or on any type of vehicle regardless of how the transmission puts the drive onto the road.

     

    I drive a "Chelsea Tractor" a big long wheel base, heavy on the juice 3.2 Turbo Diesel 2001 Mitsubishi Shogun, however it doesnt go anywhere near Chelsea, it does pull very large and heavy trailers with ease, in and out of fields and on the road, in the recent adverse weather conditions it has driven through deep flood water and some of the worst snow conditions for years, and that is "Scottish" rural snow conditions, not the dusting seen in news reports from down south. The difference is it wears some proper All Terrain tyres, instead of massive bling alloys with Pirelli elastic bands.

    My Chelsea tractor carries all of our animal feed the dogs, the kids and other kit wherever we need to go, up here 4x4's are an essential tool.

     

    So next time you see a badly driven "Chelsea Tractor" think about the badly driven Taxi, the Scooter and the Cycle courier that previously cut you up, and then think for every "Chelsea" based tractor, there are thousands of other 4x4 drivers who use the vehicles for the purpose they were designed.

     

    So any new legislation aimed at 4x4's would be poorly misjudged, especially just to get back at a few idiots in Chelsea, we have enough rules, regulation and laws foisted upon us without requiring more restrictions.

     

    Where would they stop? Chelsea tractors? i think not, it will be everything, Land Rovers, Jeeps, Champs, Pinzgauers, Ferrets do i need to go on?

     

    Be very careful about which personal liberties you are throwing away.

     

    Getting back to the thread, if you cant see to a decent standard, you shouldnt be driving, so testing is the only way to go for properly assessing drivers eyesight.

  8. we transplanted a 92 year old. It goes on tissue type and general health. A transplant has an expected life of 5 years more if your lucky, has to do with the drugs used. But do agree with your point. I remember the display that the Sunderland Vulcan gave prior to her last landing! The point about MV's is a good one and I don't ask others to pay for the work. Must be where I'm going wrong!!!!LOL

     

    I bunked off school to go see the Vulcan land at Sunderland!, as i remember, the runway was only just long enough to take it, it came in and touched down on the piano keys at the end and was really slamming its anchors on to slow down.

  9. Example of V5 entries

     

    Clearly there is no tie up between body type and taxation class.

     

     

    .

     

    Mike i believe this is a massive point that really complicates what we can and cant do and could very easily catch out an owner who thought they were operating their MV within the law.

     

    For example a 1953 Humber Pig "Special Purpose" 2 axler rigid bodied vehicle MOT exempt under its age and weight, but i believe if its not MOT'd and because of its taxation class then i cant have any load in it, which is a pain if its for a show, and if i pull a trailer, that may be construed as the same empty or loaded, which again is handy for tents etc.

     

    I believe the only way around this is to MOT it, within the current historic taxation class and all the other issues with other "newer" MV's, just you are now catching everything built before 1960 as well, its more of a "what you can use it for" problem than MOT/TAX problem.

     

    It would be far easier and less administration complication and cost to Government if the Historic Vehicle owners had a clearer plain speak system for testing/exemption and taxation, than the present system forced to work with taxation changes.

     

    I realise that this isnt the purpose of the consultation, but i think the whole thing top to bottom could be audited and made more efficient for purpose.

  10. Dont succumb to the "Change it to 12v" brigade, the 24v system is far superior, and with the shielded electrics it is pretty well waterproof, although the ignition parts can be expensive from dealers keep an eye out for bargains on e-bay and buy them when you see them, i have just bought a stack of plugs for mimimal money.

    You usually get loads of bits turn up on ebay that have been taken off of 24v landrovers, so keep an eye out, they arent particularly rare.

     

    Do you have the Military reg of your landrover?

     

    This is my vehicle

    Humber Pig.jpg

  11. That has super fast self righting responses, the sensors must be exceptional and the software writing to take in all circumstances must have been enormous, very impressive.

  12. after reading a post on here about 26 bk 38 my pig , im going to keep it , shes a good bus , rare , and different. if anyone has a pig as heavy as mine ,looks like mine and legally on the road,(running or not) please get in touch , infact this is starting to bore me the mine is better than yours , who cares , ive got one i struggle to keep one , and its mine

     

    It can be difficult, at times its a love hate relationship, but its a rare old girl, if you cant get a lockup, put a heavy tarp over it and rope it on well, out of sight out of mind and all that.

  13. I saw the Vulcan fly at the Leuchars show last September, it started off promising as it went near vertical on take off, and then it flew around gently for a while before landing.

     

    Not at all like the displays of old, ground shaking as they hauled it around shrieking, engines lit vertical on its wing tip, with the bomb bay doors open.

     

    Given that it hasnt any airframe hours left, they could at least send it out with a decent showing before its grounded. There are plenty of other more worthy causes i'd put my money towards.

  14. Interesting thread, i have put a better condition silencer box obtained from Clive onto the Pig, but looking at the old one, i was thinking about using some heavyish plate to make the ends, and some thick steel sheet to roll around them, there are plenty of companies that supply perforated tubing for silencer internals and pre bent tube joints.

    Nice bit of practical restoration work that can be applied to any vehicle.

     

    Nice one CW & Co.

  15. Is there any way that a list/table of vehicle types could be made up here? would be interesting to see just how many vehicles are been affected by the proposals and to make owners aware how it affects them.

     

    For example.

    Pre 1960 Humber Pig over 3500KG 2 axle rigid body heavy car . No change under proposal.

    Pre 1960 Daimler Ferret over 3500kg 2 axle rigid body motor tractor. No change under proposal

    Post 1959 Bedford MJ 2 Axle rigid body 4x4 truck. Requires testing under new proposal.

    Post 1959 Daimler Ferret over 3500kg 2 axle rigid body motor tractor Requires testing under new proposal.

     

    Im not suggesting that the info here is even vaguely correct, it is for illustrative purposes, but you get the idea, like the price guide in Classic Military Vehicle.

  16. www.smithandallan.com

     

    And i can highly recommend:

     

    Protegalac Containergard HS

    A high solids, single pack, modified alkyd one coat primer/finish. You can order it in any colour and it dries to a very nice Satin finish, can be applied by brush or spray, and the coverage is excellent and its exceptionally hard wearing, i painted my Pig with it, and it still looks like the day i put it on.

     

    The paint was very reasonably priced for 5 litres and they post, and they will send you up to six tins for the same postage price.

  17. Reading the proposal, i cant see the STGO exemption been removed, and tracked vehicles are still exempt under what they are proposing. I didnt think that living vans were considered "Laden" i thought they had a seperate definition, i thought that laden would mean for example our purposes, a trailer with another vehicle on the back going to a show.

     

    My problem with the consultation is they are presuming everybody with a truck or something heavy or different must be a commercial operator, and are going to be setting testing and testing fees with that solely in mind. As far as i can see it isnt proposing to change the vehicle construction rules.

     

    I do worry about the type of person that has no HGV driving training, and see the present MOT exemption classes as a way not to bother properly maintaining a vehicle, and jump into potentially a very big rig with unladen trailer and head out onto the Queens highway, my wife and kids could be sharing the same piece of road.

×
×
  • Create New...