Jump to content


Photo

What is an 'Historic' vehicle?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 496 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 November 2008 - 13:56

From the Jowett Car Club comes the following link to a FIVA newsletter:

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/news/index.htm

Advertisement

#2 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,175 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2008 - 19:57

The basics seem to be

which is at least 30 years old;
which is preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition;
which is not used as a means of daily transport;
and which is therefore a part of our technical and cultural heritage.

Which to me as nonsense! For example, if a four year old car was used in an event of massive historical importance, it wouldn't count??!! Say, the Lincoln that JFK was in, November 1963 didn't become a historic vehicle until 1993?? That's just palin weird!

Wht should you not use a "historic" vehicle everyday. If I owned say, Moty's Humber staff car, and had nothing else, I'd use it, it doesn't make it less historic surely?

I wonder how long, and much it cost to come to this daft state of affairs?

#3 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 15 November 2008 - 20:59

It'll be a tax and/or insurance thing, Steve
If you want to use Monty's staff car, fine, but you'll be subject to whatever tax and insurance applies to other road cars in whatever country you're in

#4 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,170 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 15 November 2008 - 21:15

Given that we already had in the UK a rolling 25 year cut off for road tax exemption, until the current government stalled it, 30 years seems to be admitting defeat before you have even begun.

#5 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,398 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 15 November 2008 - 21:21

Originally posted by f1steveuk
palin weird!

Agreed absolutely!

(Sorry, Steve, couldn't resist. :blush: )

#6 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 15 November 2008 - 23:13

Originally posted by RS2000
Given that we already had in the UK a rolling 25 year cut off for road tax exemption, until the current government stalled it, 30 years seems to be admitting defeat before you have even begun.

1. I did say insurance as well as tax
2. I did say "whatever country", not just UK

#7 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,170 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 15 November 2008 - 23:58

Yes, no dissention.
It was a comment about the strange FIVA policy, not what anyone else has said. The UK cut off stuck at 1972 actually impacts on modern club sport like hill climbs and sprints, where 70s cars are still competitive in some classes. It may not be a big proportion of overall cost to expensive historic rallying but having to tax a car to run in speed event roadgoing classes does affect the really low budget competitor struggling to keep going and makes some spit blood when others can get free tax for exactly the same car model. One might well ask where is the MSA when FIVA are calling the shots like this.

#8 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,175 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 November 2008 - 08:52

Originally posted by Tim Murray

Agreed absolutely!

(Sorry, Steve, couldn't resist. :blush: )


I really must learn to spoll!

#9 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 16 November 2008 - 08:56

The UK "tax exempt" status, originally for 25+ years old, but changed by the Labour Government to pre-1973, is nice to have, but we all cast worried looks over our shoulder when it was introduced. The conspiracy theory was that it was the first step towards restricting the use of out of date cars on the public roads - you know the sort of thing "since you pay no tax, we will only permit you to use the car on the highway on the fifth Wednesday of the month".

#10 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 16 November 2008 - 08:57

Originally posted by f1steveuk


I really must learn to spoll!

Or employ a poof-reader :lol:

#11 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,175 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 November 2008 - 08:59

What is worse, is that I write for a living :

#12 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 November 2008 - 20:56

If a comment from the Antipodes/colonies is acceptable ....
I have three "historic" vehicles: 2x1909 and 1x1962 (NOT "Moty's" staff car, unfortunately).
In order to use these cars on the road, no matter how infrequently, they must be registered and, at least, 3'rd party (bodily) insured.
My financial position does not, sadly, allow me to pay the full (normal) fees for all of these, as well as that for my normal every-day road car. So .... I am grateful that our state government registration authority allows for a reduced rate for "historic vehicles".
However - bureaucracy being what it is, some definition of "historic" has to be arrived at.
FIVA and the more enlightened governments of the world could obviously do with the expert knowledge possessed by f1steveuk.
I wonder if Steve actually owns a "historic" car - even if it is not (sadly) Moty's staff car?

#13 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:30

What a load of old mince!

debated for years and that's the best they can come up with!

2 things stand out to me:

"which is not used as a means of daily transport"; so my '64 mini is historic as I don't use it every day. But if I do, then it's not??????

"which is preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition"; So because my Mini has better brakes and engine, it isn't historic either?

Who appoints these idiots??????

Oh, and to open a can of worms (with a none to tight lid.......) how does the above statement regarding 'historically correct condition' sit with historic motorsport - modifications do not historic vehicles make.........?

At least we know the future of our hobby is in safe hands. It's just that they don't want us to drive our cars. (are they a government agency?)

I feel a rant coming on :mad:

#14 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 17 November 2008 - 12:14

Some notes on the posts to date.
''where are the MSA? '' Nowhere, this stuff relates entirely to non competition vehicles MSA have no representation on FIVA

There are some European countries which restrict the use use of pre cat cars- you actually cannot use some old cars in some European cities at all-but this definition allows the use of these cars-so for instance I beleive Munich will allow one of these defined vehicles in. Part of the original legislation was fixed by Brussels to stop old smokers from east Europe polluting the atmosphere, and don't forget his legislation refers to trucks and buses as well, now if you are an old bus collector you have access previously denied.
Some countries issue special plates and restrict the annual mileage of ''old'' cars , this definition comes to a common position as the what and which old cars are defined.
Currently old race cars are not well catered for by legislation. I understand that the German circuits have had to sign up for compulsory cats on race cars-to the extent that two or three years ago the DMSB tried to propse that all post 1966 race cars should have cats.
As flagged up the status of a significant race cars from 2008 or earlier is not covered and under this proposal it could well arise that a 10 years old WRC winning car could be banned from road use.
The Road tax waiver in the UK is nothing to do with the legislation reported here.

#15 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2008 - 12:16

Omigawd, another expert.
Maybe Mistron and Steve could make a joint application to join the FIVA board: I'm sure they'll appreciate your combined wisdom.
One of the items in the suggested (for consideration) changes to the guide lines is the allowing of starter motors to historic vehicles.
This, to my way of thinking, is quite reasonable as it will help keep the really old cars on the road as their owners age and find hand cranking too difficult.
This is a little different to fitting disc brakes to a (less) historic vehicle "to make it safer on the road in modern traffic", which is an excuse I've heard not infrequently.

#16 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 17 November 2008 - 12:30

Originally posted by onelung

. . . . fitting disc brakes to a (less) historic vehicle "to make it safer on the road in modern traffic", which is an excuse I've heard not infrequently.


Even applied to one Veteran, despite the VCC's former policy of originality.

#17 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 17 November 2008 - 12:32

[QUOTE]Originally posted by onelung
[B]Omigawd, another expert.

No just some one who is arround the scene with eyes and ears open and radar up-for nearly forty years now.

#18 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,170 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 17 November 2008 - 16:12

Originally posted by Red Socks
Some notes on the posts to date.
''where are the MSA? '' Nowhere, this stuff relates entirely to non competition vehicles MSA have no representation on FIVA


It was a rhetorical, question...
With the UK's most important historic rally having finished a couple of hours ago, it is an appropriate moment to consider why the sport's governing body has delegated or contacted out the making of the technical regulations, not just the enforcement, when threats to historic vehicles on the public road are still live and a non-motorsport orientated UK body seems to be making the running to the EU.

#19 Charles Helps

Charles Helps
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 17 November 2008 - 17:02

I think you will find Colin Francis (see picture on the FIVA website) has a bit of motorsport form both then and now...

Advertisement

#20 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 17 November 2008 - 17:57

Originally posted by Allan Lupton


Even applied to one Veteran, despite the VCC's former policy of originality.


What instead of the dozen or so seen on last weeks London Brighton run??

#21 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 17 November 2008 - 19:32

Originally posted by Red Socks quote:
Originally posted by onelung

. . . . fitting disc brakes to a (less) historic vehicle "to make it safer on the road in modern traffic", which is an excuse I've heard not infrequently.

Originally posted by Allan Lupton

Even applied to one Veteran, despite the VCC's former policy of originality.


What instead of the dozen or so seen on last weeks London Brighton run??


Sorry don't understand - d'you mean you saw disc brakes on a dozen Brighton runners?

#22 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2008 - 21:13

Did I wake everybody up with the disc brake issue?
I was referring to the "go-fast" brigade who can't stop themselves from trying to "improve" their precious classic/historic vehicle. Often done because they can't afford the current model quick car of their dreams.
Veteran cars in Australia: I can't say that I've seen one with discs and in general I am of the belief that if modifications are done to such vehicles here, they are done in such a way as to be discreet - ie not at all obvious.
One of my cars, for example, has had the universal joints replaced with modern types but they are clad in a dust cover and could be changed back to the original type if desired.
We have had a problem here with the "hot rod brigade" trying to take advantage of the concessional registration sceme (road tax to you?) and so threatening to spoil it for the genuine historic fraternity.
The FIVA categories, I believe, are at least a genuine attempt to cater for a maximum number of "historic" cars. It takes no effort to fling muck at an organisation like that yet not make any real contribution to the issue.

#23 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 17 November 2008 - 23:49

:lol: Mistron unfortunately they appoint themselves, most don't even own a car!

#24 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 November 2008 - 00:55

Most Veteran cars do not have front brakes at all,and never hydraulic,so fitting disc brakes on these is not really a consideration.A decent push on the disc brake would either lock the wheel due to it's skinny tyre contact patch on the road,or fairly soon collapse the spokes on the wooden wheels.Nobody would use one as their daily transport anyhow.....hang on we are talking about English eccentrics...

However by say the late 1930s cars were often (not always) to a standard where you can use them every day without any real difficulty and fit say disc brakes or even air conditioning without it being visible as it goes by.A good many people enjoy the daily or weekly historic car modified to their own tastes and a good thing it is.But they should pay full rego and insurance like other road users.

In Australia you can save really only a small amount of money per year with historic rego,but the restrictions that carries are such why would you bother really?

#25 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 November 2008 - 01:26

Originally posted by johnny yuma
In Australia you can save really only a small amount of money per year with historic rego,but the restrictions that carries are such why would you bother really?


Beg to differ here - the saving is significant, particularly when talking about having more than one car: in my case 3 of 'em. Restrictons yes - 90 days use in a year, but the two veterans only go out on club organised runs/events and the '62 "historic" could be used for regular transport (up to the 30 days max.) but why bother - it's an indulgence machine: a "toy". I doubt whether the wear, tear & hassle of modern traffic is worth it just to give the (uncaring?) modern day commuting public a warm and fuzzy on seing a relic of the past out on "their" road.