important Proposed MOT regulations VEHICLE LIST

[Marmite!!]

Ok if you think your vehicle may be affect by the new proposed regulations then please list it here for Mike. Please don't use this thread for chat, just list you vehicle... any irrelevant info will be edited out for clarity, I'll kick it off.

Main thread here http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?16828-mot-testing-exemptions-consultation

 

ROF Fox CVR(W)

Year 1975

4.2 Petrol

Permanent 4x4

Taxation class: PHGV

Weight 6.5 tons

Body type on V5, Specialist Vehicle

Edited February 2, 2010 by Marmite!!

[antarmike]

Ok if you think your vehicle may be affect by the new proposed regulations then please list it here for Mike. Please don't use this thread for chat, just list you vehicle... any irrelevant info will be edited out for clarity, I'll kick it off.

Main thread here http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?16828-mot-testing-exemptions-consultation

 

ROF Fox CVR(W)

Year 1975

4.2 Petrol

Permanent 4x4

Taxation class: PHGV

Weight 6.5 tons

Body type on V5, Specialist Vehicle

 

I believe this to be Motor Tractor, this will be required to take Mot, Currently exempt by virtue of being Motor tractor.

 

Do you foresee any difficulties in passing an MOT, are there any design features that make you think it may not pass MOT?

[Stormin]

1944 Ward La France M1A1 approx 16 tons.

 

Problems I forsee! The extreme projection of the rear boom. Loose fitted items such as ground anchor props and support legs.

 

Lack of rear mud flaps. The original rear marker lights are obscured by the rear winch frame.

What about the carrying of oxy acetylene bottles empty or not?

[Marmite!!]

I believe this to be Motor Tractor, this will be required to take Mot, Currently exempt by virtue of being Motor tractor.

 

Do you foresee any difficulties in passing an MOT, are there any design features that make you think it may not pass MOT?

 

Brake test, will the examiner be prepared to drive the vehicle using a Tapley meter? will an examiner be familiar with driving this type of vehicle (preselect) will an examiner even be able to get in the Fox (getting out is even harder) a lot try to get in the Fox & find it impossible, will he carry out the brake test with a commander as a lookout??

 

Will the headlights comply? mounted inboard above the bumper & same wattage hi & low beam.

 

No mudflaps.

 

Emission test required?? will it comply?

 

I presume that they will want to have a look around the engine bay... they will have to traverse the turret to do that.

 

Will the Cannon sticking out 3' in front of the vehicle comply??

 

Most of the hard brake lines are hidden under floor plates & covers... do they need to check these?

[antarmike]

Thanks Lee, all good stuff there. Is the point that the vehicle is permnent all wheel drive, and will not go on a rolling road brake tester?

[Marmite!!]

Thanks Lee, all good stuff there. Is the point that the vehicle is permanent all wheel drive, and will not go on a rolling road brake tester?

 

Correct, permanent 4x4... rolling road no-go.

[antarmike]

Who else has a vehicle that will not test on Brake test rollers, either because it in permanent all wheel drive, or has a double drive bogey, and no centre diff. I am already aware that Scammell Pioneer/ Explorer, Martian have walking beams with geared wheels on a single axle and these can't be tested, but as I see it these are pre 1960 vehicles, which if used unladen, not towing a laden trailer are exempt.

 

How many people out there (if any other me?) have a pre 1960 vehicle, they currently use untested vehicles to haul a loaded trailer (currently legally) because they are Motor tractors, or Locomotives, but these vehicles would have difficulty being MOT'd because of their construction?

Edited February 3, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

1944 Ward La France M1A1 approx 16 tons.

 

Problems I forsee! The extreme projection of the rear boom. Loose fitted items such as ground anchor props and support legs.

 

Lack of rear mud flaps. The original rear marker lights are obscured by the rear winch frame.

What about the carrying of oxy acetylene bottles empty or not?

 

I am not sure that Oxy Acetylene is a problem, because the vehicle can be presented for test carrying these but you might be fallling foul of existing safety legislation, requiring you to have orange "compressed gas" and "Inflammable gas" warning notices.

 

Thanks for your post. Certainly crane could be an issue. If 1944 you will not need testing unless you either carry a load other than loose tools and equipment, or you tow a laden trailer. Do either of these apply to you.

 

If they don't I reckon there is no change for you because I guess you are both heavy loco, and pre 1960. You currently have exemption via two route, (a) pre 1960 used unladen, (b) Heavy locomotive.

 

you will loose the right to the privelidges of being a loco, (towing laden trailer) unless you MOT.

[griff66]

1964 ferret >3500 kg ,4.3 petrol, permanent 4 wheel drive, currently motor tractor , brake lines under plates engine etc,will it be tested as a 1964 vehicle. testers familiarity with pre select gearbox, access in and out of vehicle .

Edited February 3, 2010 by griff66

[Ed Batchelor]

Vehicles in our fleet which are likely to be affected: (Although 2 probably would be exempt through pre 1960 route, they would both as per Mikes comment, be used to pull something laden, otherwise why have them!!)

Scammell Pioneer tank transporter tractor unit circa 1941, first registered around 1949. Would be used potentially to pull laden drawbar lowloader. Weight somewhere around 11ton. Front axle unbraked, rear axle features single diff and walking beams so not good for rollers. Has got 2 handbrakes transmission and rear brakes. Top speed of 18mph and at least 8'6" wide (might be closer to 9' cant remember now).

 

AEC Matador circa 1941, first registered around 1971. Taxed as mobile crane currently although was considering changine taxation class to motor tractor/locomotive (weight depndant) to allow trailer to be towed if required. Dont know how bar grip tyres are classified as they dont have "continuous tread" like most conventional tyres?

 

Scammell highwayman ballast box tractor, 1965, used to pull laden trailer/low loader. Weight somewhere between 8 - 9 ton.

[john fox]

my Fox (as per Lee's post) and a 1965 Ferret (as per griff's post - incidentally my 1959 Ferret is identical but, inconsistently, will continue to be exempt)

 

as regards actual testing, then speaking from experience of having my Ferret (voluntarily) tested at a VOSA HGV test station:

- you are expected to drive it, not the examiner,

- securing the tapley meter to the vehicle takes planning, the examiner will not ride in the vehicle

- emissions is based on age, so visual inspection only

- they are not expected to dismantle to inspect, so, if the line's covering is OEM then they can't see it

- lights etc were not an issue (they were amazed it had the hazard warning circiut)

Edited February 3, 2010 by john fox

[antarmike]

Vehicles in our fleet which are likely to be affected: (Although 2 probably would be exempt through pre 1960 route, they would both as per Mikes comment, be used to pull something laden, otherwise why have them!!)

Scammell Pioneer tank transporter tractor unit circa 1941, first registered around 1949. Would be used potentially to pull laden drawbar lowloader. Weight somewhere around 11ton. Front axle unbraked, rear axle features single diff and walking beams so not good for rollers. Has got 2 handbrakes transmission and rear brakes. Top speed of 18mph and at least 8'6" wide (might be closer to 9' cant remember now).

 

AEC Matador circa 1941, first registered around 1971. Taxed as mobile crane currently although was considering changine taxation class to motor tractor/locomotive (weight depndant) to allow trailer to be towed if required. Dont know how bar grip tyres are classified as they dont have "continuous tread" like most conventional tyres?

 

Scammell highwayman ballast box tractor, 1965, used to pull laden trailer/low loader. Weight somewhere between 8 - 9 ton.

 

Scammell highwayman currently Light Loco, Exempt at present but will require testing.

 

Matador is a light Loco, or maybe motor tractor at present. (remember that this is a vehicle definition, not a taxation class, you cannot tax a vehicle as Loco or motor tractor. If you relinquished mobile crane taxation class it would be argued that your correct taxation class is Historic Vehicle.) You can tow loaded trailers on Historic tax provided you have correct HGV driving licence and the goods on the trailer are not being carried in connection with a business.

 

Under propsed changes you cannot tow with a loco/ motor tractor without an MOT.

 

If Scammell still has trailer coupling/ pseudo fifth wheel it cannot be viewed as a locomotive, because although no fifth wheel trailer is connected, the means to couple one exists, so in there the vehicle is designed to carry an imposed load. (ie IT IS itself designed to carry a load). If fifth wheel IS fitted, as pre 1960 vehicle, it currently requires testing to pull a drawbar trailer.

Edited February 3, 2010 by antarmike

[Ed Batchelor]

Scammell highwayman currently Light Loco, Exempt at present but will require testing.

 

Matador is a light Loco, or maybe motor tractor at present. (remember that this is a vehicle definition, not a taxation class, you cannot tax a vehicle as Loco or motor tractor. If you relinquished mobile crane taxation class it would be argued that your correct taxation class is Historic Vehicle.) You can tow loaded trailers on Historic tax provided you have correct HGV driving licence and the goods on the trailer are not being carried in connection with a business.

 

Under propsed changes you cannot tow with a loco/ motor tractor without an MOT.

 

If Scammell still has trailer coupling/ pseudo fifth wheel it cannot be viewed as a locomotive, because although no fifth wheel trailer is connected, the means to couple one exists, so in there the vehicle is designed to carry an imposed load. (ie IT IS itself designed to carry a load). If fifth wheel IS fitted, as pre 1960 vehicle, it currently requires testing to pull a drawbar trailer.

 

Pioneer doesn't have fifth wheel anymore, just a 6LW gardner and 50kW DC generator and around a 1000 litre fuel tank all mounted over the back so dont think it could be classed as an artic. I believe the logbook states locomotive but will have to check.

 

I have wondered about what happens when things drop into "historic" does this limit anything else you can do with the vehicle? I am not worried about needing HGV as I hold full class 1. Mobile crane category is a bit limited and restricts any form of trailer towing, which would no doubt include a broken down vehicle if the need arised.

 

Highwayman is definately going to fall foul of the new regs but should be the easiest to put through a test.

[antarmike]

1944 Ward La France M1A1 approx 16 tons.

 

Problems I forsee! The extreme projection of the rear boom. Loose fitted items such as ground anchor props and support legs.

 

Lack of rear mud flaps. The original rear marker lights are obscured by the rear winch frame.

What about the carrying of oxy acetylene bottles empty or not?

 

Exactly how far does the boom project behind the bodywork?

[martinsaunders06]

american m series 5 ton 816 wrecker as basically in pernament 6 wheel drive due to sprag operation, air over hydraulic single line brakes, all lights, fittings on front bumper like vice etc, general large unforgiving hard metal bits protruding every where??.

[Stormin]

Exactly how far does the boom project behind the bodywork?

 

Bit hard to say at the moment as it's all dismantled. I suspect my boom has been extended in the past as this was quite a common modification.

 

What's the legal maximum projection? I may modifiy the boom to suit.

[andrewroberts.1953]

MOT'ed at the moment, but fulltime 4 wheel drive is the MUNGA. I have had problems even getting this MOT'ed as can't be placed of rooling road, and some testers will not drive.

[paulob1]

stalwarts...can not imagine how they would be tested.

FV432...cant imagine how

Ural375d 1960's to 1990's big truck easy to test but lights out of spec...width on limit...brakes air on, not air off. Handbrake transmission brake only

Star 660....1960 to 1985 all of the above

Zil 131 1960's to 1990's all of the above

Star 266..72 to 95 .more modern but all of the above.

 

We really need a special historic vehicle test that looks at the basics, and does not expect it to be up to modern standards...

[antarmike]

Thanks for those. Will get back to you about 432.

 

Of the Russian vehicles, why do you presently think they are MOT exempt. You knowing them better than me, Are these Motor tractors, Light/Heavy Tractors?

Edited February 5, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

stalwarts...can not imagine how they would be tested.

FV432...cant imagine how

 

For my understanding of where a FV 432 lies and how the proposed changes will affect it see see the thread " MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT" in particular post #181, #182 and #183.

 

My understanding of Stalwart is the same as my understanding as to where Foden drops stands with C and U regs.

 

See "Military Fodens " thread post #346.

 

I believe that Stalwart, Fv432, Foden DRPOS are all vehicles which the Army can use because they are exempt C and U regs by virture of being "special types" category "Operated Military vehicles" exemption, but none of the vehicles complies with C an U maximum vehicle width for "any other motor vehicle" class, ie they all exceed the permitted 2.55 m width.

 

All the vehicles are referred to "Special Types" vehicles. but there is no category of Special types that they can fit into.

 

I believe that these three classes of vehicles cannot legally be used on the road by any operator, other than the Army.

 

With a view to saying how the legislation will affect them if it goes through, I would say they never were exempt MOT, because they never fitted a C and U description that matched an exemption. They remain testable for MOT purposes, but if presented for test they should be refused a certificate because they do not meet C and U regs.

 

This is my understanding but it is only an opinion. I would welcome any arguement for concideration as to why they are currently exempt, and what C and U category these vehicles fit into, or if they do not fit a C and U Category, which (Special types)(general) category they fit into. I am not saying I know categorically that they can't be used on the road, I am saying that at present I cannot see by what route they are allowed MOT exemption, neither can see if they are tested, how than can pass when they do not fit construction and use width regulation 8.

 

To be allowed on the road a motor vehicle has to comply either with Construction and Use regs, or they are regarded as "special Types" which are exempted complying with certain aspects of C and U regs. But to be viewed as "Special types" again they have to fit a category. Stalwart, FV432, Foden Drops do not.

 

I am not trying to be difficultor obstructive, I am not having a go at anyone. We are trying to understand where we stand regarding the use of our vehicles, and whether we currently need to MoT our vehicles and whether will will need to after any proposed changes. I am only saying it as I see it, please if you see it differently please tell me. (likewise if you think this postis a correct understanding of the present and future situation, I would welcome that input also)

Mike

Edited February 5, 2010 by antarmike

[andyroo]

I have the following vehicles, with notes regarding my own personal experiences with the MOT system:-

 

Ferret Mk 1/2 - Weight bridge cert shows 3617 Kgs.

Width is 6 foot 3” (1.905 metres) Well under width.

Year - 1965

This I have MOT’d every year as my interpretation of the regulations makes it not exempt. MOT class 4

 

The MOT is not a problem. There is not much that can be tested. The list is short.

Wheel nuts, tyers, visual emissions, lights, horn, any visible pipes outside of the vehicle, steering free play, wheel bearing wobble, head light alignment, brake test and casual look around to check nothing is falling off or a danger to other road users.

 

I have encounterd two problems when having the MOT done. First was a new,

know-it-all examiner who insisted it went on the rolling road. After a few minutes of trying to explain why it shouldn’t I relented and drove onto said road. The following happened:-

Him – but your handbrake on.

Me – I put on handbrake.

Him – starts rollers, they don’t move. He accuses me of having my foot on the brake.

Me - I assure him I don’t and explain that the hand brake works on all 4 wheels.

Him - tells me to release the handbrake and starts the rollers. Ferret moves forwards and off the rolls. He refuses to do a tapperly test as he dose not want to get in the Ferret and issues me with an MOT.

Next year I find out he was sacked. He’d been giving MOT certs to a lot of vehicles that should have failed.

 

Second problem was electrical. Wire came out in the rats nest that lives by the steering wheel. Took 2 hours to find it and put it back. Test resumed and passed.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Saracen Mk 6 - Weigh bridge certs shows 9764 Kgs.

Width is 8 foot 3” (2.514 meters) Just under width.

Year - 1972

 

I used to have this MOTd. It was done a class 4.

 

As Ferret there is not much to test. HOWEVER, the following could not be tested:-

steering free play, wheel bearing wobble, handbrake test.

 

To test steering freeplay you need to be able to lift the front 4 wheels off the floor. (Its 4 wheel steering) The hydraulic jacks that are used in the pit do not have sufficient travel to lift the vehicle. Ground clearance is 16” plus suspension movement of around 10”. The hydraulic jacks cannot be moved sufficiently width wise to lift on the bottom suspension arms.

To test wheel bearing wobble, agine the vehicle has to be lifted to just be touching the wobble plate.

The handbrake test consisted of driving up a slope, applying the handbrake and the vehicle not moving. The test centre that I used at the time could not conduct this test because the slope had failed a H & S test.

The HGV test centre I used near Derby eventually refused to perform a test because the equipment they have is not suitable for the type of vehicle being tested (see below for reason)

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Saladin Mk 2 – weight unknown but somewhere between 9500 and 12000 Kgs.

Width is 8 foot 4” (2.538 meters) Just under width

Year - 1958

 

MOT was as Saracen above. However the last time it was MOT’d they broke one of the hydraulic jacks in the pit. Refuse now to conduct a test.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

CVR(T) Striker. Tracked and therefore MOT exempt.

 

 

Hope the above information that is helpfull.

[griff66]

intrigued to know , for my own interest why you consider a 65 ferret not mot exempted when vosa do ?

[antarmike]

intrigued to know , for my own interest why you consider a 65 ferret not mot exempted when vosa do ?

 

I think Ferret is Motor tractor and is MOT exempt at present.

 

Class iv vehicles are:-

Cars (up to 8 passenger seats)

Motor caravans

3 wheeled vehicles (over 450 kg unladen weight)

Quads (max unladen weight 400 kg - for goods vehicles 550 Kg and max net power of 15 kw)

Dual purpose vehicles

Private hire and public service vehicles (up to 8 seats)

Ambulances and taxis

Private passenger vehicles and ambulances (9-12 passenger seats)

 

I cannot see a class iv category that suits a Ferret.

Not quad power of a Ferret =92 Kw but quad max power is 15 Kw plus max weight exceeded by by a factor of five

 

not Dual Purpose vehicle DPV max vehicle weight is 2,040 kg, Ferret = 3660 Kgs

 

The weight of ferret excludes it being a motor car whose max is 3050Kgs

 

Likewise Saracen / Saladin cannot be tested as a class iv since it exceeds weight limits for class iv vehicles. being heavier than ferret it is a light locomotive.

 

Both Ferret and Saracen / Saladin family are currently MOT exempt but will require testing.

 

If this anecdote is true it shows the problems, We appear to have MOT testers who are so ingorant of the regulations that they are testing vehicles that are out of scope for the test they are doing and issuing MOT's for a vehicle they may not have the correect facilities to test, nor have they the authority to test the correct class the vehicle should be in. Both of these vehicles, if put through voluntary testing, should be tested at an HGV testing station, under the HGV test regime.

Edited February 5, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Re Saracen/ Saladin

To test steering freeplay you need to be able to lift the front 4 wheels off the floor. (Its 4 wheel steering) The hydraulic jacks that are used in the pit do not have sufficient travel to lift the vehicle. Ground clearance is 16” plus suspension movement of around 10”. The hydraulic jacks cannot be moved sufficiently width wise to lift on the bottom suspension arms.

To test wheel bearing wobble, agine the vehicle has to be lifted to just be touching the wobble plate.

 

 

this is a very valid point and is the sort of example I need to put forward as to the imprcticality /impossibility of testing certain vehicles. Thanks

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[john fox]

Both of these vehicles, if put through voluntary testing, should be tested at an HGV testing station, under the HGV test regime.

 

correct - as I have already said, a ferret is a Motor Tractor and must go HGV route , it is invalid to have a Class 4 test, nor, with the possible exception of a MK1, can you have a Class 7 test. Remember because civilian regulations are being applied to MV (as they have nothing else to use), then strictly speaking a weighbridge ticket is irrelevant, the "correct" weight is that shown in the manual, and is thus the battleweight as this is the nearest equivalent to the gross vehicle mass, since the vehicle is obviously not physically plated - so not whatever your weighbridge ticket says.

Saladin & Saracen are locomotives so also HGV - under the same constraints.

 

BTW the dual purpose category is currently being abolished - this affects such things as a Landrover 101 and as that vehicle was uprated during serivice from approx 3100kg to 3600kg and their physical plates amended to show this.

The 101 club forum has a thread running on what this means to 101 owners as some vehicles retain the original 3100 plate whereas others are now 3600 plates and potentially face HGV testing