Forum

[Diesel Dave]

Apologies if this has been covered previously (I did take a look back through the previous posts).

I've been reading through the details of the rolling 40 year 'Historic Vehicle' guidance document - these rules replace the earlier pre-1960 MOT exemption.

If I'm reading this correctly then no Bullet model regardless of year manufactured should be considered MOT exempt; specifically because it falls foul of this little footnote on the guidance document:

See note 1 at the bottom:



I have previously been in contact with the FBHVC regards diesel conversions (covers both my Enfields), but thought this subject important for petrol models.

[Mark M]

Well whatever that says (can't read it I'm afraid,) my Ebay Bullet (1955 350) recently sailed through re-registration with an exemption certificate.

REgards, Mark

[papasmurf]

[Valsp]

Diesel Dave

The exemptions are to existing vehicles that have been modified not manufacturers changing specifications

[stinkwheel]

As above, it's to stop people shoe-horning a modern engine and running gear into a classic chassis and claiming MOT exempt status. Like some of the professionally restored and poked E-type and DB5 rebuilds kicking about.

[stinkwheel]

Ahh, Perhaps Dave is referring to paragraph 1 of the footnote "If the type of vehicle is still in production, it is not exempt from periodic testing.".

That would scupper landrovers too?

[Diesel Dave]

Thanks Papasmurf for sorting the picture.

The system won't stop you from declaring the bike as Historic, for the same reason as it can't check if you have fitted Harley motor, hard-tailed the frame and fitted a set of 6" over springer forks.


The problem will be when a claim is made and the insurance company set their legal team on to finding a way out for them to prevent payout (a good friend of mine was asked previously this year to PROVE his vehicle was roadworthy as it had been declared VHI - luckily he still had a valid MOT at the time or else this would have been impossible).

Put simply if you applied the rules as stated, so long as the Bullet is listed as a current model, then no Bullet regardless of age is exempt from periodic testing.

I don't have an axe to grind here as both my Bullets will be MOT'd annually as it's the cheapest way to document roadworthiness; what I'm attempting to do is to warn other owners that they can fall foul of the changes in exemption rules in thinking that their pre-1960 bike remains exempt from testing.

Just fighting your corner is likely to cost your house and pension.

[Diesel Dave]

Apologies - I marked in blue the section I queried with the FBHVC as regards diesel conversions (I did get a response stating that diesel conversions are not regarded as 'substantially modified'). I was as rightly pointed out referring to the footnote numbered '1'.

[Valsp]

I can't see the problem

The Criteria for substantial change states “The main components for vehicles other than motorcycles are"

None of the items listed below therefore relate to motorcycles except footnote 2 which states that further arrangements maybe introduced for motorcycles

[stinkwheel]

There is absolutely no logic with regard to insurance companies. In an only very vaguely related story. A friend of mine has a very substantially modified motorcycle. An Ural with a 1.9 VW engine in it. It's insured on a Q-plate and he's declared everything about it. He recently changed his normally aspirated engine which he was using as direct drive (no gearbox, shaft attached to the rear of the clutch) for a turbo one from a Passat he got cheap and managed to shoehorn the gearbox into it too.



He duly called the insurance to inform them he had swapped the engine (which involves cutting the bike in half and welding it back together again) for one with a turbo and 70% increase in power, a gearbox was now fitted and the bike was now somewhere in the region of 100kg heavier. Their only question was if the engine capacity had changed. As it hadn't, they were 100% uninterested.