latest dvla problem

[antarmike]

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.

 

That to me reads as if there is no secondary braking system. On a hydraulic system a split system, with tandem master cylinders , one half feeding cylinders on front axlkes, one feeding rear axle cylinders. provides the secondary braking system. This is a secondary braking system because if one hydraulic circuit fails, then you have some (though limited) braking from the other circuit.

 

If Stormer has only brakes on one drum or disc each side then the circuit cannot be split and the is no secondary braking system, since if anything out of the master cylinder, any pipe work or the calipers, wheel cylinders were to fail there is no back up sysytem.

 

At this point in time it seems to me the weight of evidence suggests MOD are correct, there is no secondary braking system.

 

If Stormers handbrake is a ratchet handbrake, then brake pressure MAY be able to be applied gradually, but it cannot be released gradually, it can only be "knocked off", A secondary braking system, as I understand it has to be controlable, and proportional, and capable of appliying AND RELEASING the brakes in a controlled manner.

 

It will be a requirement of C and U that the secondary braking system can offer a set percentage of the normal service brakes.

Edited November 22, 2010 by antarmike

[Sidewinder]

The dual circuit brakes makes sense, as you say if one circuit fails you'll still have braking on either the front or rear axle, as found on all modern cars.

 

However, I'm sure I've owned several Series Land Rover's (a long time ago now so the memory might be playing tricks) that only had single circuit brakes. So if you loose a brake line/wheel cylinder the whole lot goes.. surely that means there's quite a few Landy's driving about out there that don't meet C&U regs?

 

Think the best way, as said, is just to get it booked in for a voluntary inspection. I'd want to know one way or another, that it definitely was legal before taking it on the road regardless of whether the DVLA had registered it or not. In this day and age, its just not worth the risk. If somebody got hurt and they later found the vehicle to be non-compliant, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. One of the reasons it makes me angry that even now there is a 432 on eBay for sale as a limo service!

 

James

[Marmite!!]

One of the reasons it makes me angry that even now there is a 432 on eBay for sale as a limo service!

 

James

Anyone now registering one for use as a Limo would first need a PRI..

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/CONT076661.pdf

[sirhc]

So when did the requirement for a secondary braking system get introducted to the C&U regulations, and what type of vehicles does it apply to? Obviously a split system as quoted by Mike is not possible on a tracked vehicle, so how do the other tracked vehicles (such as mini diggers etc) which are road legal get past this?

[Marmite!!]

This link may be of use http://www.rainertech.net/hughes/cur1986.html

[Sidewinder]

so how do the other tracked vehicles (such as mini diggers etc) which are road legal get past this?

 

 

I imagine because they are registered in catergories that make allowances for things like C&U but as a result heavily limit there use, or have other restrictions on the them that would not be appropriate for trying to use a track MV on the road. When you think about it, yes, you do see mini-diggers and other tracked plant by the road side, but they don't actually travel between job sites, perhaps maybe just a few hundred meters around the site itself.

 

James

[N.O.S.]

....., so how do the other tracked vehicles (such as mini diggers etc) which are road legal get past this?

 

Mini diggers are exempt from C&U Regs by virtue of restricted use. That's why you see them in use on road exacvation jobs, but not parked in supermarket car parks while the driver does the weekly shopping.

:cool2:

[robin craig]

I have sat reading you guys discuss and argue this 14 ways to Sunday, kind of like how the old barrack room laywers would pontificate ad nauseum.

 

If it aint within limits it aint going to fly unless you have a Makita cordless vehicle shrinker, get a grip guys and get over it and move on!

 

Battening down the hatches now

 

R

[andym]

You could get VOSA to carry out a Voluntary Brake Test, if it passes then that should be good enough for the DVLA..

 

Can they do that for a tracked vehicle, though?

 

Andy

[Sidewinder]

I think I have to agree Robin.

 

It is looking increasingly likely no more tracked vehicles will be allowed to be registered, and that those that have were done by mistake. I tore up my V55/5 application a long time ago for my 432 without even taking it to the DVLA, yes I'm a bit annoyed, but that's life. Yes, I would have loved to taken it for a spin on the road on a summers afternoon, and no doubt a lot of people do enjoy that pleasure. How their vehicles ended registered, well thats their business, but my intereptation of all my research/reading is that its doubtful that they are legal. Speaking strictly for myself I certainly don't want to be the person who ends up testing the legal system and setting a precident by having an accident in one of these things.

 

 

I think unfortunately low-loaders and private land is looking increasingly like the future, as Withams et al do clearly state!

 

James

[mike65]

This link may be of some use

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/repository/M1%20Inspection%20Manual%20May%2009.pdf

It is the IVA manual for passenger vehicles

Lists the following as covered

 

A vehicle subject to The Basic IVA Requirements is either:

(j) an armoured vehicle as defined in Annex II.A of the 2007 Directive.

 

j. Armoured Vehicle A vehicle intended for the protection of conveyed passengers and/or goods and complying with armour plating anti-bullet requirements. "anti - bullet requirements" shall be interpreted as meaning; the driver and passenger compartment (front, rear and sides including doors and glazing

are capable of withstanding ballistic penetration from small arms fire. e.g. materials to CEN 1029 or an equivalent level of protection.

 

However Armoured vehicle is probably aimed at cars for mafia bosses and not tracked military vehicles.

The document goes onto list exception for special vehicles and give details of the requirements and descriptions.

 

You may find it does not fit into M1 and needs to be under one of the other classes, although it may not fit into those either. Have this funny feeling of de javu

 

M1 passenger vehicles with four or more wheels and not more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat.

Determination of the number of seats in a vehicle is as follows; where a seat has no seat belt fitted each 400mm of seat base shall constitute a seat, where seat belts are fitted each seat space with a belt (providing the maximum anchorage separation requirements are not exceeded) is to constitute a seat and any remaining seat base measured to be 400mm or greater is to constitute a seat. All measurements are taken across the front of the seat cushion.

At the request of the applicant a vehicle with at least 4 seats and a load area not exceeding 40% of the length of the vehicle and a weight limit of 6500kg max mass may be classed as an M1 vehicle for the purpose of this manual

For information on other vehicle categories, the following VOSA IVA inspection manuals should be consulted.

•The Light Goods Vehicle IVA Inspection Manual for vehicle category N1

•The Heavy Goods Vehicle IVA Inspection Manual for vehicle categories N2 and N3

•The Bus and Coach IVA Inspection Manual for vehicle categories M2 and M3

•The Trailer IVA Inspection Manual for categories O1, O2, O3 and O4

 

Hopefully this is of some use.

 

Mike

[xtreme]

I have sat reading you guys discuss and argue this 14 ways to Sunday, kind of like how the old barrack room laywers would pontificate ad nauseum.

 

If it aint within limits it aint going to fly unless you have a Makita cordless vehicle shrinker, get a grip guys and get over it and move on!

 

Battening down the hatches now

 

R

 

 

British and will fight If I think I am Right . some people just like to bow down to authorities and bureaucrats .

 

Called Vosa today . As I thought He Just Laughed . and how do you think we are going to do a break test on a tracked vehicle. lol . Thinking about it you can use a g meter some 4x4'S dont like rolling roads so have to use a G Meter. If thats the case every mot station has a G Meter.

[antarmike]

The dual circuit brakes makes sense, as you say if one circuit fails you'll still have braking on either the front or rear axle, as found on all modern cars.

 

However, I'm sure I've owned several Series Land Rover's (a long time ago now so the memory might be playing tricks) that only had single circuit brakes. So if you loose a brake line/wheel cylinder the whole lot goes.. surely that means there's quite a few Landy's driving about out there that don't meet C&U regs?

 

Think the best way, as said, is just to get it booked in for a voluntary inspection. I'd want to know one way or another, that it definitely was legal before taking it on the road regardless of whether the DVLA had registered it or not. In this day and age, its just not worth the risk. If somebody got hurt and they later found the vehicle to be non-compliant, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. One of the reasons it makes me angry that even now there is a 432 on eBay for sale as a limo service!

 

James

 

What is required depends on when the vehicle was first used. Series Land-Rovers meet the standard laid down for them under the present C and U regs. More modern (and heavier) vehicles are required to have a backup secondary system, not required on early models.

[mike65]

From what I can work out the IVA replaces the C&U for vehicles that fall outside the "norm".

EG: Grey imports, one offs and low production builds.

If the IVA M1 can be applied the following is acceptable

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a service braking system that is completely independent of the control of the parking brake, capable of functioning on all wheels by a single means of operation, which will gradually increase or reduce the braking force through action of the control.

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a split (dual) circuit brake system with each part of the system operating on at least two wheels (one on each side), capable of operating in the event of a failure of the service brake or its power assistance.

Could be a sticking point with tracks or do you have brakes on the front and rear sprockets/axles?

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a secondary system, capable of operating in the event of a failure of the service brake or its power assistance See Note 1

Note 1: The secondary system can be either one half of the split system (following failure of the other half) or secondary can be on the handbrake (Secondary/Park).

So the parking brake could be the secondary system.

 

Basically gives two options for the secondary brake system.

 

Mentions this on parking brakes

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated and released whether the vehicle is stationary or moving.

Makes sense especially if it acts as the secondary system.

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated on all wheels of at least one axle enabling the vehicle to be held on an up or down gradient even in the absence of the driver.

Again quite logical. Might proove interesting if vehicle has a transmission brake on drive shaft (ie: Land Rover)

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated using a control which is independent of the service brake, and once applied capable of being maintained in the ‘on’ position solely by mechanical means.

Again seems quite logical so you need to pull a lever. Could be a problem if you opt for an electonic operated parking brake like on certain VW's and Audi's

 

This is followed by sections on how to test the systems for compliance.This includes operation and inspection.

 

Quite an interesting read as it could be applied to many vehicles that we may have or want to register in the future, where it may not be possible to apply C&U via manufacturers approval at design stage.

 

Mike

[antarmike]

From what I can work out the IVA replaces the C&U for vehicles that fall outside the "norm".

EG: Grey imports, one offs and low production builds.

If the IVA M1 can be applied the following is acceptable

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a service braking system that is completely independent of the control of the parking brake, capable of functioning on all wheels by a single means of operation, which will gradually increase or reduce the braking force through action of the control.

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a split (dual) circuit brake system with each part of the system operating on at least two wheels (one on each side), capable of operating in the event of a failure of the service brake or its power assistance.

Could be a sticking point with tracks or do you have brakes on the front and rear sprockets/axles?

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a secondary system, capable of operating in the event of a failure of the service brake or its power assistance See Note 1

Note 1: The secondary system can be either one half of the split system (following failure of the other half) or secondary can be on the handbrake (Secondary/Park).

So the parking brake could be the secondary system.

 

Basically gives two options for the secondary brake system.

 

Mentions this on parking brakes

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated and released whether the vehicle is stationary or moving.

Makes sense especially if it acts as the secondary system.

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated on all wheels of at least one axle enabling the vehicle to be held on an up or down gradient even in the absence of the driver.

Again quite logical. Might proove interesting if vehicle has a transmission brake on drive shaft (ie: Land Rover)

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated using a control which is independent of the service brake, and once applied capable of being maintained in the ‘on’ position solely by mechanical means.

Again seems quite logical so you need to pull a lever. Could be a problem if you opt for an electonic operated parking brake like on certain VW's and Audi's

 

This is followed by sections on how to test the systems for compliance.This includes operation and inspection.

 

Quite an interesting read as it could be applied to many vehicles that we may have or want to register in the future, where it may not be possible to apply C&U via manufacturers approval at design stage.

 

Mike

 

The big question is whether the secondary brake must be of a design "which will gradually increase or reduce the braking force through action of the control" as must be the service brake.

 

If the secondary brake has to function in the same way (ie interms of being able to be gradually released) as the primary brakes then Stormers ratchete brake does not fit the bill. It can be slowly ratcheted on, but it can only be completely released, all in one sudden action.

 

The almost as big question is whether, unmodified, it can provide enough braking,

 

and lastly can be be used at full speed to pull the vehicle to a halt?

[mike65]

The big question is whether the secondary brake must be of a design "which will gradually increase or reduce the braking force through action of the control" as must be the service brake.

 

If the secondary brake has to function in the same way (ie interms of being able to be gradually released) as the primary brakes then Stormers ratchete brake does not fit the bill. It can be slowly ratcheted on, but it can only be completely released, all in one sudden action.

 

The almost as big question is whether, unmodified, it can provide enough braking,

 

and lastly can be be used at full speed to pull the vehicle to a halt?

 

I suspect that it has to gradually apply and release the brakes to be a compliant system.

I strongly suspect some mods would be needed to get it passed. Brakes are not one of the things armoured cars are exempt from in the test.

The other problem being does a Stormer fit into Clas M or is it one of the others or none.

Mind you if your primary brake system had failled and you had to bring the vehicle to a syop with the secondary system logic would dictate that you would not really want to drive off again. Of course this is lebislation and logic is not always required.

 

Mike

[antarmike]

I suspect that it has to gradually apply and release the brakes to be a compliant system.

I strongly suspect some mods would be needed to get it passed. Brakes are not one of the things armoured cars are exempt from in the test.

The other problem being does a Stormer fit into Clas M or is it one of the others or none.

Mind you if your primary brake system had failled and you had to bring the vehicle to a syop with the secondary system logic would dictate that you would not really want to drive off again. Of course this is lebislation and logic is not always required.

 

Mike

 

Presumably if you have a brake failure and you have a secondary brake, you might be expected to clear the carriageway and get to a safe place. It is presumably safer to get off a motorway at the first exit, than abandon the vehicle on the hard shoulder. This may entail driving a short distance in nose to tail traffic, and this involves matching and maintaining your speed to the flow of traffic, and that means feathering off the braking before you stop, if the traffic in front of you starts to move faster....The secondary braking is a functioning brake system (of admittedly less efficiency,) that allows you to continue to drive in a controlled manner until you reach a safe place....

Edited November 22, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

This link may be of some use

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/repository/M1%20Inspection%20Manual%20May%2009.pdf

It is the IVA manual for passenger vehicles

Lists the following as covered

 

A vehicle subject to The Basic IVA Requirements is either:

(j) an armoured vehicle as defined in Annex II.A of the 2007 Directive.

 

j. Armoured Vehicle A vehicle intended for the protection of conveyed passengers and/or goods and complying with armour plating anti-bullet requirements. "anti - bullet requirements" shall be interpreted as meaning; the driver and passenger compartment (front, rear and sides including doors and glazing

are capable of withstanding ballistic penetration from small arms fire. e.g. materials to CEN 1029 or an equivalent level of protection.

 

However Armoured vehicle is probably aimed at cars for mafia bosses and not tracked military vehicles.

 

Mike

 

If you fancy armoured Jag, Range Rover. Mercedes, Defender, Witham's have just listed a load on Milweb...

Edited November 22, 2010 by antarmike

[ChasSomT.]

safariswing's link to the 'Hughes Guides' starts off:-

 

"Brakes

Braking systems of certain vehicles FIRST USED ON OR AFTER 1st April 1983. . "

 

Surely all 430 series vehicles were first used before that.

When were the first CVR(T)s around? 197?

 

Just thought I'd point that out.

 

Chas.

[sirhc]

safariswing's link to the 'Hughes Guides' starts off:-

 

"Brakes

Braking systems of certain vehicles FIRST USED ON OR AFTER 1st April 1983. . "

 

Surely all 430 series vehicles were first used before that.

When were the first CVR(T)s around? 197?

 

Just thought I'd point that out.

 

Chas.

 

British CVRTs were built between 1972 and 1982.

[antarmike]

Stormer was developed from CVR(T) . It has extra road wheels, some versions are quite late, Stormer 30 was not introduced until 1997, and indeed some website seem to indicate that Stormer is still in production and offered for sale by BAE systems. I don't know whrther this is correct or not. Has Xrtreme given us a date for the particular one discussed onthis thread?

 

Website seem to indicate that the Army did not select Stormer The Starstreak High-Velocity Missile system AKA - SP HVM. until 1986.

Also this was the date Stormer Recon vehicle for the SP HVM. was selected also.

In 1995 the Stormer vehicle was equipped with the US Alliant Techsystems M163 Volcano system and designated the Shielder Anti-Tank Mine dispenser. Its made up of 40 tube launchers, each containing 6 mines. It entered service in 1999.

 

The date of first use, is not the date of first use of the type, but the date of first use of the actual vehicle being considered.

Edited November 22, 2010 by antarmike

[sirhc]

Year is 1996.

 

There is very little on a Stormer which is common to a standard CVR(T). The wheels are the same, as are the axle arms and dampers, but pretty much everything else is different... engine, gearbox, final drives, sprockets, brake discs and calipers, electrical system, etc etc etc.

[ArtistsRifles]

Devils advocate hat on for a moment :

 

A tracked vehicle has in effect 3 braking systems usually - the normal road brakes, the steering brakes and the parking brake.

 

If the primary road brake fails the vehicle can be brought to a halt by a rapid "on- off" application of the steering brake from one side to the other. I say rapid as the braking effect is required, not the turning. Works on my old bus (tried in the arena at W&P first year I had it) - maybe 50% of the effect of the road brakes and a slight "squirreling" motion. Bearing in mind there is a hell of a lot more rolling resistance on a tracked, armoured vehicle than on a wheeled equivalent of equivalent size and weight and they lose speed faster when the power is removed.

 

Could that be argued to be a secondary braking system applied from a single point of control that is applied and release gradually, will stop the vehicle and that works within a % of the main system???

[antar]

Mini diggers are exempt from C&U Regs by virtue of restricted use. That's why you see them in use on road exacvation jobs, but not parked in supermarket car parks while the driver does the weekly shopping.

:cool2:

 

Mini diggers are constructed under the rules of "the machinery directive" not C & U.

 

Trust me I work for JCB.

[sirhc]

CVR(T) Brakes are much better than you might think. I can't see many 7.5 tonne trucks or HGVs stopping like this...

 

 

 

Incidently it's also possible to drive around in one all day, through traffic lights, roundabouts etc etc and not need to use the brakes. The tracks, engine and gearbox are very effective at slowing it down when needed.

 

Chris