Heres a tough question: Can Robin and RRT agree on something.
Whilst mulling that over read what ive found in Classics Monthly.
Classics Monthly launches its campaign for a change in the law to save monocoque-bodied favourites such as the Ford Cortina, Triumph TR7 and Citroen DS.
Perception of what is deemed a classic car changes with subsequent generations of enthusiasts. Vehicle construction methods have long since moved away from separate chassis and bodyshells in response to manufacturing, safety, and design influences.
Monocoque-body classics (no separate chassis) have been recognised as such for decades, but restoring one by reshelling can alter this perception in the eye of current legislation.
“I can quite legally build a repro bodyshell from new off-the-shelf pattern panels for a separate-chassis classic and the car be easily considered genuine. A similar-aged car of monocoque design would be illegal if I replaced the shell with an identical secondhand shell and tried to keep its original identity to avoid it being re-registered as a Q-plate. This law is outdated and doesn’t reflect the growing popularity of monocoque classics and enthusiasts’ desire to preserve them with their original identity.”
Gary Stretton
Editor, Classics Monthly
Please sign the online peition by clicking here. Help spread the word about our campaign by telling fellow enthusiasts, your classic car club – anyone who enjoys classics. Join the debate on our Forum pages by clicking here.
The Classics Monthly proposal
To retain the original identity and registration of a reshelled vehicle.
1. The recognised legal owner of two similar cars would have permission to create one classic vehicle from both, retaining the original identity of the nominated car.
2. In order to do this they would notify the DVLA of their intention, stating the vehicles concerned.
3. An appointed body (or approved engineer) would inspect both vehicles for a fee payable by the proposer to confirm vehicle identities.
4. Any checks such as HPI and police checks would also be part of the process and would need to be satisfied by the proposer before point 6.
5. The DVLA would then acknowledge the request, stating any legal reasons why this couldn’t happen. For example a powerful variant of a vehicle using a similar donor vehicle without necessary considerations to braking, extra shell strengthening and so on. This information is widely held by owners’ clubs.
6. Upon approval, the owner would then be free to transfer key components, e.g. engine, suspension, brakes, steering and transmission.
7. Once ready an appointed engineer would inspect, for another fee, both vehicles to ensure the reshelling is both legal and roadworthy.
8. The original discarded bodyshell would be recycled and the identity of the donor vehicle linked by the DVLA to the nominated vehicle.
9. If necessary, a chassis or VIN number could be given an additional suffix or prefix (‘R’, for example) to denote a reshelling has taken place.
This proposal, we believe, meets the legal concerns of the DVLA and the cost of implementing the scheme.
It would safeguard the future of monocoque-bodied classic cars, deter their illegal reshelling, and recycle otherwise perfectly good bodyshells.
The survival of such classics will ensure employment within the automotive sector and help maintain the billions of pounds the classic sector creates for the UK economy.
And then an update:
DVLA to include Reshell or Die proposal as part of a major review of INF26 legislation.
Following the meeting which took place in late March between the DVLA, FBHVC and club representatives, the DVLA has confirmed that our Reshell or Die (ROD) proposal is already being seriously considered by them and will form part of the INF 26 review involving the FBHVC and other club experts,
The meeting was attended by CM editor, Gary Stretton, who outlined the aims of the ROD proposal which was tabled as one of several questions asked concerning reshelling.
Q. If a vehicle is reshelled with a second-hand hand body that is more than 25 years old, could DVLA consider how the procedures could be modified, so that the original registration number is retained?
A. Gary Baker (DVLA Vehicle Policy) confirmed that this very detailed proposal (ROD) is already being considered by DVLA as part of the review of INF26. FBHVC and other club experts would also have an input.
A delighted Gary Stretton said, “It’s early days for ROD but the recognition our proposal has received underlines how important it is for as many classic cars to survive as possible. Without the legislation to help cars survive according to the varied needs of their owners, there will be a decline in specialists, dwindling club membership and reduced employment and enjoyment that classic cars bring. At a time when the importance of manufacturing skills and output are being hailed in the UK, motoring enthusiasts of all generations should applaud the foresight of the DVLA and the FBHVC for their help in wanting to preserve our classic motoring heritage and industry.”
Classics Monthly understands the review of INF26 legislation is due to begin later in the year with Gary Stretton being part of the committee involved.
Get involved in the debate by posting your comments in the relevant section of our Forum.
Sign the online petition here
Looks like reshelling a Tiger can become legal in the UK. If it becomes legal theres the question of mods that will need to be done. I shall not restate my thoughts on that. If it becomes legal what are your thoughts, that doesnt include you RRT. We know what they will be
It will never just sink in that an Alpine just can't be called a Tiger, legal or not!!. What exactly is wrong with a replica anyway? Some replicas are actually better than the originals in some ways. The proposal to the DVLA just seems very general in my opinion in this early stage. I would say that 60% for the proposal is a majority... What do you call it?