1960 mot

Ultrasonic

marlot wrote: »

Not sure that training mechanics to diagnose issues on 50-100 year old cars is that viable. Even if you trained them, it might be years before they next encountered a pre-1960 car, let alone one with a particular strange quirk that they have to be aware of. It has worked until now, because enough garages have old timers who maybe worked on cars like this early in their career, and just about remember enough. But those people are now retiring.

Fair point. It's obviously not going to happen but your idea of a different (more basic) check for pre 1960 cars does on the face of it seem more sensible than a complete 'no test' policy.

colino

This seems like a useless, political exercise. "Look at the pointless thing we're doing over here", instead of doing something effectual in the economy.
I strongly suspect that insurance companies will demand that owners put cars in for a voluntary MOT to make sure they are being kept up to spec.

Flyboy152

Gloomendoom wrote: »

IIRC Certain vehicles can already be legally driven on public roads without an annual MoT test. Fire engines and breakdown trucks spring to mind.

And these...

j Goods vehicles powered
by electricity

:eek:

So, electric vans don't need an MOT?

Joe_Horner

Flyboy152 wrote: »

:eek:

So, electric vans don't need an MOT?

Starting at £13.5k sounds not too bad for an electric - until you see the compulsory £60 per month batter hire (more if ou do more than 6k miles per year) :eek:

Way to fiddle prices!

Flyboy152

I was more concerned about it possibly being exempt from MOTs

Joe_Horner

Yeah, I know - but I went looking for the performance figures out of interest and happened to see the "buy the van, hire the battery" requirement.

Wouldn't worry too much about the MOTs cos, with that sort of deal, there shouldn't be too many on the roads and the ones that are won't be doing man miles cos the battery hire will go up (4p per mile charge if you exceed your hire allowance!)

Seeing as those are the two main arguments used by people saying the pre-'60 exemption is a good idea, surely the same will apply to these?

Flyboy152

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Yeah, I know - but I went looking for the performance figures out of interest and happened to see the "buy the van, hire the battery" requirement.

Wouldn't worry too much about the MOTs cos, with that sort of deal, there shouldn't be too many on the roads and the ones that are won't be doing man miles cos the battery hire will go up (4p per mile charge if you exceed your hire allowance!)

Seeing as those are the two main arguments used by people saying the pre-'60 exemption is a good idea, surely the same will apply to these?

Then contract hire would be the solution. There was a thread a while back about the costs and it was quite reasonable.

benham3160

I bet this is part of slimming "the manual" down, as the outgoing manual was full of irrelevant nonsense about king-pin play, rod actuated brakes and steering boxes..... No longer seen by the majority of testers, even some who are "time served" won't have come across them often.

I totally agree with a belts/lights/corrosion/brakes test, think it's a brilliant idea.

Regards,
Andy
*Awaits pages of people pointing out xyz has a steering box etc...