Jump to content

432 road legal????


Firetrucker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No cover up, The Driver's name was Kerr Hill, Do you wan't contact details so that you can confirm the incident with him?

Mike. I am not disputing that an incident happened, I was trying to highlight that all in all tracked vehicles are not doing this all the time and it is not a major problem on our roads. It was meant to be light hearted!!

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike. I am not disputing that an incident happened, I was trying to highlight that all in all tracked vehicles are not doing this all the time and it is not a major problem on our roads. It was meant to be light hearted!!

Iain

Okay taken as being light hearted....but my point is that illegal is illegal is illegal, and can any amount of justifying to yourself that

 

a) the vehicle is actually safe

b) the law is an ass

c) the Army does it, therefore I should also be allowed to

 

be a good enough reason to go out and do something you know to be illegal, when doing so puts you at odds with the law, in a very sticky situation in an accident/ fatality, and could have great consequences for the rest of the vintage vehicle movement that tries to stay within the law?

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the biggest problems seems to be the price of 432's ,as they are so cheep now any one can go out and buy one, cheet your way through the H test and hit the rd's, its like winning the lottery at 18 and going out and buying the fastest sports car ever and blasting it down the rds.now i know it would never happen but what would be wrong with some set up in place where you have to be registered and prove to the powers to be that yes i can handle a big tracked wagon and i do know that i have to maintain it etc.this might/could stop any one buying these things and causing any trouble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay taken as being light hearted....but my point is that illegal is illegal is illegal, and can any amount of justifying to yourself that

 

a) the vehicle is actually safe

b) the law is an ass

c) the Army does it, therefore I should also be allowed to

 

can be a good enough reason to go out and do something you know to be illegal, when doing so puts you at odds with the law, in a very sticky situation in an accident/ fatality, and could have great consequences for the rest of the vintage vehicle movement that tries to stay within the law?

 

Absolutely correct, when we can rely on (trust) everyone to do all of the correct things, and be responsible in all their actions, we can disband the police, vosa, and all authorities, but we know that this aint going to happen. If we want our hobby to survive, at least in its present form, we must be perceived to be responsible in our approach to what we do. A good day out could be spoilt by an avoidable "accident" with all of the terrible consequences for all concerned, guilty and the innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true. (and that may make it very sensible not to drive any tracked armour on the road)

<snipped>

 

Make that ANY tracked vehicle - not specifically MV's. Some dozers/earth movers, some cranes, farm tractors etc, are all tracked and would have the same problem as a 432 or any other tracked vehicle in that regard.

 

To date - as far as I am aware - none of these have wiped out houses and families on foot or in cars though.. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

 

I think what is needed is a bit of give and take on both sides - that the DoT and it's siblings accept that the vast majority of MV owners actually maintain them to higher standards than the Forces did and are responsible enough not to take risks that put others in jeopardy.

In return said MV owners have to understand that the requirements for maintenance exist and cannot be skimped on and that they recognize that their vehicles ARE a risk to others if improperly handled. One form of this could be taking the H test on the type of vehicle they intend to drive as opposed to - say- a mini digger.

 

In all honesty though - given the DoT's response in the past to requests for a non-vocational HGV (C, C+E etc equivalent) - I cannot see this ever happening on the official side as they seem congenitally incapable of understanding WHY we want to own and drive such machines and thus the two sides will remain at loggerheads. :(

 

Maybe one day some one in power will understand the whys of what we do and we may then get the needed exemptions to the C&U that appear to be necessary - it's the only way this is ever going to be settled satisfactorily. But I'm not going to hold my breath for it!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what is needed is a bit of give and take on both sides - that the DoT and it's siblings accept that the vast majority of MV owners actually maintain them to higher standards than the Forces did and are responsible enough not to take risks that put others in jeopardy.

 

Really? I don't think with the best will in the world ANY military vehicle enthusiast invests the same amount of time and money to maintain the vehicle to the same standards it was whilst in service. The facilities and resources just can't be compared.

 

Unfortunately lots of military vehicles are bought for a small fraction of their original price and treated as such, just like most old cars, given the minimum of care. The only advantage to maintenance of privately owned vehicles is perhaps they don't quite get the same level of use and abuse as they did in military service.

 

Comparing tracked military vehicles capable of high speeds with tracked plant with typically 5-10mph capability is a bit silly. The likelihood of and accident and resulting severity is greatly reduced with lower speed. Most tracked plant has a good reason to be on the road, a necessary job to do. The majority of this work takes place within a confined site seperated from traffic.

 

One of the few exceptions to this I can think of are Quad Trac agricultural vehicles, but even there they are speed limited compared to say a cvrt and the track is almost entirely rubber, so much like shedding a tyre in terms of effect on drive ability and to surrounding traffic. Braking is also only affected on the relevent corner with the other three able to bring the vehicle to a halt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make that ANY tracked vehicle - not specifically MV's. Some dozers/earth movers, some cranes, farm tractors etc, are all tracked and would have the same problem as a 432 or any other tracked vehicle in that regard.

:(

 

Except most plant contractors are in the financial position that they can move plant on low loaders. The problem is many MV'ers either buy lots of tracked vehicles, or struggle financially to buy just one 432, and have no money left to afford a loader or have spare cash to pay a haulier.

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

The Army's preferred method of moving tracked armour is by Tank Transporter,

 

The Civil engineers preferred method of moving a dozer or excavator is by low loader. Incidentally Civil engineering plant is covered by STGO rules for Engineering plant. The circumstances in which they can be driven on the road is strictly limited and the rules for construction are not the same as for normal vehicles not operating under STGO. FV432 cannot generally be run under STGO rules.

 

There is, around my area at least, an increasing trend for Farmers to move steel tracked equipment around on trailers behind wheeled tractors or Fast-Tracs.

 

Tracked armour owners bleat on about the cost of low loading and saying the only affordable way to own the vehicle is to move them by road.

 

If you can't afford a loader, which is the only legal method of moving wide (by which I mean anything exceeding the legal maximum width of 2.55m) tracked armour or the only legal method of moving tracked armour that cannot meet braking standards, then don't buy such armour in the first place.

 

Fortunately there are people out there who can afford the Armour and their own transport, so we get to see these machines driven round fields and on on open private land, their natural habitat, and where they were designed to operate.

 

Certainly when it comes to tracked agric tractors, not all are the same The Fiat Quad-Trac for example could throw one track and I guess the driver could still stay in control and brake to a safe halt. I am not familiar enough with construction and Use regulations to know how specifications for brakes on Agric machines varies from the specification for other road going vehicles. It would seem logical that seeing as these Agric tractors (Challengers etc) are sold in large numbers, that they comply with the braking standards for that class of vehicles. They therefore are probably road legal in terms of construction and use.

 

432s are not agric machines, they cannot be taxed as such (generally) and as such they are governed by other construction standards, They do not meet those standards and they are illegal.

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the 432 v CVRT argument years ago & as I only had access to a 2 axel beavertail HGV to move it (max load 12ton,I think),went down the lighter CVRT route.Aside from being well under width (1970s CVRT is under 2m wide) and having separate driving & brake systems,does it meet C&U regs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well a short distance yes but given (given the obvious cost of fuel & the more hidden one of track wear,my take on the law is if you damage the highway in a tracked vehicle you pay to have it fixed!) & long dis (on the back of a beavertail HGV).Military vehicles are not known for their MPG (my 50s M55 has a 10L petrol lump & a wastepaper size carb with a grease nipple & does 3mpg!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not a big fan of 432's so not bothered about them one way or another, but I did recently pass my H test on the road, in a CVRT. I didnt pay £500 for the privilege, just £62, but I did take a lot of advice from people, do a lot of off road practice, and spend a lot of time on the brakes and running gear of the vehicle prior to taking it out on the road for the first time. The test was very thorough, and I am pretty sure I would not have passed if I did not have a modicum of control. CVRT is generally regarded as harder to drive than 432 due to the gearbox setup (too high a gear and you cant turn the corner !), but as Chris pointed out earlier vis is much, much better than 432. To be honest whilst I have really enjoyed my few trips out onto the road, I always find it a pretty nerve wracking experience, but then that is probably no bad thing as it doesnt do to be complacent. I am always acutely aware of the responsibility in terms of potential damage to other road users and also to our hobby if something goes wrong. I cannot really see myself being a big road user other than petrol trips and the odd trip out for a summer evening (non alcoholic !) drink - it is just too much like hard work, albeit good fun in short doses. So I intend to save most of my driving for fields and shows.

 

If you want a 432 then go for it maybe you will get it registered maybe you wont, but if you do just make sure it is well maintained and that you drive with the respect that a vehicle like that deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I don't think with the best will in the world

 

ANY military vehicle enthusiast invests the same amount of time and money to maintain the vehicle to the same standards it was whilst in service. The facilities and resources just can't be compared.

<snipped>

 

The comment about ex-MV's being maintained to a higher standard than when in service was made to myself and a few other owners on here by an Army instructor at Pirbright in 2007.

Apart from the few Regimental assigned vehicles a hell of a lot of the Army's kit back in my day (1970's) was parked in Vehicle Depots and withdrawn for a purpose then handed back in afterwards so could spend months sat in the same spot without starting turning either the engine or even a wheel......

 

Except most plant contractors are in the financial position that they can move plant on low loaders. The problem is many MV'ers either buy lots of tracked vehicles, or struggle financially to buy just one 432, and have no money left to afford a loader or have spare cash to pay a haulier.

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

The Army's preferred method of moving tracked armour is by Tank Transporter,

 

The Civil engineers preferred method of moving a dozer or excavator is by low loader. Incidentally Civil engineering plant is covered by STGO rules for Engineering plant. The circumstances in which they can be driven on the road is strictly limited and the rules for construction are not the same as for normal vehicles not operating under STGO. FV432 cannot generally be run under STGO rules.

 

There is, around my area at least, an increasing trend for Farmers to move steel tracked equipment around on trailers behind wheeled tractors or Fast-Tracs.

 

Tracked armour owners bleat on about the cost of low loading and saying the only affordable way to own the vehicle is to move them by road.

 

If you can't afford a loader, which is the only legal method of moving wide (by which I mean anything exceeding the legal maximum width of 2.55m) tracked armour or the only legal method of moving tracked armour that cannot meet braking standards, then don't buy such armour in the first place.

 

Fortunately there are people out there who can afford the Armour and their own transport, so we get to see these machines driven round fields and on on open private land, their natural habitat, and where they were designed to operate.

 

Certainly when it comes to tracked agric tractors, not all are the same The Fiat Quad-Trac for example could throw one track and I guess the driver could still stay in control and brake to a safe halt. I am not familiar enough with construction and Use regulations to know how specifications for brakes on Agric machines varies from the specification for other road going vehicles. It would seem logical that seeing as these Agric tractors (Challengers etc) are sold in large numbers, that they comply with the braking standards for that class of vehicles. They therefore are probably road legal in terms of construction and use.

 

432s are not agric machines, they cannot be taxed as such (generally) and as such they are governed by other construction standards, They do not meet those standards and they are illegal.

 

The preferred military method today might be on transports - in the days the 43x series came in only MBT's had that luxury for every form of transit (although I have memories of a squadron of Cheiftain's rolling on their own tracks on the public road with escort vehicles). Anything else tracked moved under it's own power unless over substantial distances.

 

Speed limits for tracked vehicles are given here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/schedule/6

 

Anything without resilient pads is limited to 5 mph - probably why most of your farmers are moving steel tracked kit on trailers.

Anything else - inc. CVR(T)'s - is limited to 20 mph irrespective of what it can actually do........

 

As for struggling to pay for hauliers - using the word "bleat" is highly offensive and totally uncalled for -when most bought their vehicles the costs weren't so bad. The last year though has seen the prices charged skyrocketing. I suspect if about 1/3 or more of the cost wasn't subsidized by the organizer the tracked attendance at W&P this year would be very low. As with all things there is a break-even point at which using a haulier is more cost effective - derived from the distance and the time taken. Paying over £300 to move less than 10 miles is most certainly not cost effective!

 

The comment:

 

"If you can't afford a loader, which is the only legal method of moving wide (by which I mean anything exceeding the legal maximum width of 2.55m) tracked armour or the only legal method of moving tracked armour that cannot meet braking standards, then don't buy such armour in the first place."

 

is self-righteous and sanctimonious and has no place in a reasoned discussion - it's bad enough having to have these on a public forum - coming out with that crap only does more harm.

 

I, personally, cannot see the cost of transport dropping, only continuing to increase thus forcing more and more owners out of the tracked side of the hobby.

The problem then is what happens to the vehicle. The chances of selling it to another MV owner here in the UK is minimal due to these rising costs so the odds are it will either go to a scrap dealer or leave the country. Either way it is lost to the UK forever.

 

I stand by what I said before - the only way I see the hobby surviving in the UK is if the relevant clubs get together as a united front and campaign strenuously for changes to allow a class to added to the C&U specifically for ex-MV's, enforcing the requirement for maintenance, limiting the distance they can travel to less than, say,20 miles as per agricultural units and perhaps requiring escorts & police notification as per STGO if overwidth. We need to work with the authorities - and vice versa - to ensure that in future years our children's children will still be able to see these old machines and understand why they existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for a reminder...

 

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?517-Forum-RULES-amp-GUIDELINES

 

VOSA/DVLA/DfT & other Government Departments & the Emergency Services

 

Any derogatory/inflammatory remarks made about any of the above or their staff will be removed without notice if we feel that it brings HMVF in to disrepute.

 

Legal Advice.

 

Please note that any legal advice given or implied anywhere on this forum is the poster's (Members & HMVF Staff) own interpretation of the law & not necessarily correct. Proper legal advice should always be taken if in any doubt.

 

Flaming & Foul Language:

Aggressive posts, defamatory/libelous remarks, foul language, or serious harassment of other members will not be accepted (otherwise known as flaming). As these forums are often viewed both at home and in workplaces, family language is encouraged. Please remember this is an open forum & non members can read all the material contained in it, please remember that Women & Children read the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are we really having this 432 discussion again , ive been out in my 432 today, was a lovley day for it :-D

 

Couple of questions

1 do you you mean you have been driving about on public roads ??

2 If so how do you justify in your own mind the legality of this ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents, please, give it a rest.

 

The various sides have made their cases and all can read it all over again now.

 

Drop it, its getting stale and boring now.

 

R

 

Yes, but you invited us to the picnic, I have pulled up my chair and I still have some sandwiches left........and there are still a few names I haven't been called,,,

 

Besides which the original posts where "temporarily removed"a year ago and have not as yet been re-instated so this information isn't still on the Forum and no-one can link back to it as you suggest. The only place for this discussion, in anything like its entirety is here.....

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you invited us to the picnic, I have pulled up my chair and I still have some sandwiches left........and there are still a few names I haven't been called,,,

 

Good on ya......... you flex your muscles. So long has everything is kept friendly and informative, that can only be good for the hobby and everyone involved with it. All of these little nuggets of information make this the great site that it is. :goodidea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good on ya......... You flex your muscles. So long has everything is kept friendly and informative, that can only be good for the hobby and everyone involved with it. All of these little nuggets of information make this the great site that it is. :goodidea:

Spare sandwiches.....food fight!

food-fight-wwwedubuzzorg_.jpg

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Robin...I can understand if this has been dicussed years ago, but some people are new here and may be interested in this dicussion.

 

I for one are an interested party and welcome any critisism as i intend to purchase a 432. I live in the country and have access to farmland to drive it. The odd day out down the road to a fete or show would be a bonus.

 

Until now I didnt realise this issue existed as I have seen numerous 432 etc on the road....even a couple of "limos". Now, kindly explain how they get round that one, for hire and reward, going round pub to pub in built up areas??.

 

Just out of ignorance [or complicity] I would have just bought one thinking if everbody else does it..whats the problem.

 

As regards the issue of any old tom dick and harry buying one and going on the road after an hour on a mini digger is just a little silly really. I doubt that happens.

 

I have a wealth of experience with heavy haulage/recovery and various other exotic "big rigs" but wouldnt dream of taking a 432 on the road until I have familiarised myself with the vehicle over several days offroad and gained confidence.

 

I also personally reckon if the DVLA give you a tax disc it means...." this vehicle is taxed for legal use on the public highway" ...[no doubt AntarMike will choke on his sandwiches any moment............wait for it.........NOW]

 

Thumping the keyboard and swearing at the monitor is no good for ones blood pressure!!!!!!!

 

Theoretically [ and I do stress theoretically] for a 432, if its on the back of a lowloader or under its own steam whats the width got to do with it [few inches]. I have carried many plant equipment that would make a 432 look like a dinky toy on the road. In my area there is a constant traffic of trucks carrying mobile homes at 12ft wide catching hedges and forcing hgvs over. And lets not mention combine harvestors here. Yes I know regulations...farm vehicles, STGO,plant .....rules etc.... but in theory?

 

What does need stopping is these young lads [16/17] driving huge fast track style tractors with massive overloaded trailors through small villages/back lanes at speed of 40+.

 

Sorry I digress.......need to restock on sandwiches!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents, please, give it a rest.

 

The various sides have made their cases and all can read it all over again now.

 

Drop it, its getting stale and boring now.

 

R

Maybe you're getting bored as you're 1,000's of miles away & it doesn't affect you in anyway :readpaper:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, its your decision... just because other people use them on the roads doesn't make it legal, but I do agree that there are much larger/more inappropriate vehicles out and about on the road, but again that doesn't make a 432 legal either. The reasons why it appears 432's don't comply are pretty clear on this thread and I've made my mind up from that. I think Mike posted letters from Withams and DoT etc.. stating that in their opinion they are not legal. You can't counter that with the argument well I've brought this toy, I should be allowed to play with it because there are bigger vehicles on the roads..

 

Either way, if you want to buy one be careful if you choose to buy an unregistered one, as apparently some people have had problems getting them registered, or that they can't be registered without bending the truth on the forms..

 

I'm sure plenty of people do use them on the road, another local owner was running around my town centre in his the other weekend and got himself in the local paper. Now for the amount of usage most privately owned 432's get, I'm sure statistically the chances of anything happening are probably very small, however, I wouldn't like to be the person that tests the law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this discussion is to move forward in a new direction, perhaps someone with the technical books can give us a full description of the steering and braking. We know that a secondary braking system is required. (this is not necessarily the same as a handbrake.) Some vehicles have a handbrake that isn't a ratchet handbrake, and these can be feathered on and off, so probably count. It is unlikely that a ratchet handbrake would suffice since it is my understanding that the secondary brake has to allow for the driving for short distance on road, in traffic, to a place of safety, following failure of the primary braking system. Although a ratchet brake can be feathered on, they cannot be feathered off. , only sudden total release.

 

We know, if you don't mind looks, resiting the exhaust can bring the vehicle down to under 2.55m (or so I am told) Mk1's apparently being legal width. Not much help to all the other overwidth Armour I know, but a sensible start to lawful use of FV432 on the road.

 

Lets have a sensible technical discussion as to how to set about modifying the brakes to comply. People say it would be possible, let us examine that claim.

 

I see much more chance in converting FV432 to legal standards, than I do persuading the government to re-write C and U regs etc. , so that a few boys can play with their toys.

 

Who wants to kick off with a practical suggestion as to how to modify the brakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...