New EU regs; NO modifications!!!

I can't believe (oh, yes I can) that this has had almost no publicity. There has been a lot on the internet, but on Government sites where your average Joe Public is not likely to find it too easily!

If this goes through, and that looks very likely, then we will all be like Switzerland, where you can't even add spotlights!! The car will have to remain "as it left the factory" unless we go through very long winded and,oh yes, EXPENSIVE inspections and tests.

Great. I said many years ago we should stay out of the flippin' EU and my view on that gets stronger each day now. ( that is just MT view folks)

Can you imagine if this happened in the USA......they got guns.....

Quoting;

Quoting from the DfT document:-
“The Commission proposes to introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the
vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. This may prevent most
modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components
and to all types of vehicle)

The Commission proposes to change the definition of an Historic Vehicle that may be exempt from
periodic testing. This may allow vehicles older than 30 years to be exempt from testing providing the
vehicle has been maintained in its original condition, including its appearance.”[/b]



THE PROPOSAL;



http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadworthiness-package/com%282012%29380.pdf

maadmaan10 wrote:

I said many years ago we should stay out of the flippin' EU and my view on that gets stronger each day now.

I second the motion.

Let me add to this; for many years the EU has been sniping away at the peripheries without challenge.

Unleaded fuel - BULL, its actually got lead in but just in lower quantities, and the replacement synthetic chemicals they use actually cause more harm to the environment than lead, but they conveniently don't measure these emissions.

Bull bars kill - rubbish, every independent test showed that the opposite is true, they couldn't find one case where a bull bar could kill.

Banning of severe off road tyres - apparently for noise, but the noise they emit is only a fraction of normal noises such as engine and transmission noises, or even wind noise, so you can't hear the tyre noise as its drowned out by these other noises. Another case of hitting the 4X4 owner who uses their vehicle for its intended purpose.

Making it compulsory for every new and aftermarket vehicle component to be E marked - what they don't say is that it is law for every new and aftermarket component to carry this mark and that the EU owns the copyright on this mark, so they now have a cartel which is illegal under their own rules, but they conveniently ignore it as it netted the EU £84M in 2011 for EU manufacturers to print this mark on their own components, and much more for vehicles imported for sale into the EU. Nice if you can form your illegal cartel and make such profits from it and not be prosecuted as we would if we used their trademarked logo.

I take it from your rant Assassin that you'll third the motion?

Going by some of the modded 4x4's I have seen on out recent trip it will not go down well in europe either and the only mods I have is better suspension which improved the handling and towing ability of the vehicle and a stronger sump guard to protect the underneath. If one is cynical you could suggest the vehicle companies are behind this so they can charge you for the mods out of the factory

Most certainly Tom, I have been opposed to the EU for many years; as a businessman doing a lot of business in Europe I have seen the bureaucracy and associated costs rise dramatically, and we the nations taxpayers are paying for these idiots dreaming up stupid proposals to justify their very highly paid jobs.

Europe has a sinister side to it also, it is controlled by an unelected minority of people intent on controlling as much of the world as possible, and the way they are doing this is by a multi faceted attack, one is the harmonisation of all EU member states so we all become the same and all lose our own identities, harmonisation is also another form of divide and conquer. By introducing individual legislation into each individual member state a little at a time, they can suddenly roll it out across all member states, therefore we all have the same laws across all states, and this is well underway.

Europe was conceived and sold initially as a way of doing trade across all member states, to reduce costs and other bureaucratic burdons to businesses to make it cheaper and easier to trade, who gave any of its leaders the power and authority to dictate to us and impose their will on us? actually nobody has, the megalomaniacs who run Europe did this all by themselves and were unopposed by individual states leaders who thought they would gain personally from it. Most did as they did as they were told, our own Tony B. Liar was worth over £1Billion when he left office and handed the reins of power to Gay Gordon, so where did this money come from as he didn't earn it or anything nearing such a figure, Europe is the answer as he complied with their demands and shafted British business and the British public.

Europe is nothing more than a very large and lucrative business, they own the trademarks to many logos which people have to legally use, and charge accordingly, so they introduce laws which force all businesses to do certain things and make money from the legislation they introduce, thats a cartel and illegal under their own laws, so why haven't European leaders been in court charged with a criminal offence, any of us would have been if we had formed a cartel.

If we look at another recent case, The City, or one square mile in London which is the financial centre of the UK, Europe have already began (and failing miserably) to dismantle it and are finding mass opposition, but why? The City handles around 85-90% of all Europes financial transactions and we, the UK profit from it and Europe don't like it as while the UK are making money from it, they aren't.

And people wonder why I am opposed to Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Basically Europe and its unelected leaders want one thing, total power and control over every aspect of our lives, and will go to any lengths to get it. This is why people are being prompted into giving out as much personal information as possible, its happening everywhere, register your warranty for goods you purchased online, stores asking for your name and address for a warranty on an item you have purchased from them, and many more exist. I recently went to a local Decathlon store to get my favourite shorts, they even asked me for my postcode!!!! what? you can FU*K OFF, the day I have to provide my postcode to buy a pair of shorts is the day I stop wearing shorts, but its all part of a current plan. Basically its the thin end of the wedge.
This plan is simple, personal information is big business, and the next way to control people is to get as much of it as possible, use a credit card? they already know your spending habits as the card comes back to a person and address, its that easy, E-mail addresses are automatically collected and any online transactions registered to a person and address, you get the point, they will know everything about your personal habits which can be used to control you.Yet people still give out all their information and social chat rooms and mobile phones are a recent example of this; and Europe and the member states are gathering all this information for future use; and have plans in place to gather EVERY ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION AND COMMUNICATION SENT.

ooooohhhh, what have I started?

Just skim read it but seems just like an MOT to me.

Tom Mc wrote:

maadmaan10 wrote:

I said many years ago we should stay out of the flippin' EU and my view on that gets stronger each day now.

I second the motion.

It has been the only thing I ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever voted in that was not to join Europe back in the 70s and lost so never voted again.

OK so in typical forum style you can moan about europe......

Or try and do something about this:

Get a petition started on the no.10 website
Write to your MP/MEP http://www.writetothem.com/

Point out to your mp what damage this could do to the british engineering industry, how many companies will go out of business , jobs lost, skills lost - keeping the recession going (esp. good if you've got a nervous tory mp and they are all nervous at present)

Pass this around 4x4 clubs, classic clubs, modding clubs, vw's, self build campers etc etc

Go see your MP

Publicise this in local papers , write to nationals, press the jobs and skills buttons all the time

or

Moan about it on forums and wait for it to happen............


(PS i quite like my little red passport that allows me to live where i want in lots of countries, there are advantages too)

You're absolutely right of course Rich!

roamingman wrote:

Tom Mc wrote:

maadmaan10 wrote:

I said many years ago we should stay out of the flippin' EU and my view on that gets stronger each day now.

I second the motion.

It has been the only thing I ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever voted in that was not to join Europe back in the 70s and lost so never voted again.

Remember it well. For my sins I voted for going into Europe, as, like millions of others, I thought it would be good for trade, travel and the general future well-being of this country. Just goes to show how wrong one can be. I meant well but ...

Like many others Tom, you were sold a principle which has subsequently become hijacked by egotists, megalomaniacs, and psycopaths, and Europe is now controlled by them.

Iveco: already done, been highlighting the problems for years and tried to get things done but the problem I and others face is peoples apathy, they won't see the implications or think for themselves and by the time it affects them and theirs, its too late as legislation has been passed.

in spain you get your car an ITV same as an mot if you modify your car you have to do a process called homligation where its inspected by a garage and paperwork is issued at a cost of 400 euro,s if your modifacation its not on your log book [bigger tires,winch bar etc] and you are stopped you take a hefty fine so most people dont modify there cars,,,,thats why there is no aftermarket industry in spain , ,,same as trailors,,you have to get them itv and insure them thats why theres no caravan industry in spain,,, ,,,shall i go on,,,,,

Tuggy: all European vehicles have to be homologated to be used in any member state, basically several pre-production vehicles are tested before production, in the UK MIRA do this, they test everything from crashworthiness to how much RFI the electronics emit, to how easily they are broken into, and even how much noise the tyres emit; basically its all about compliance with the standard EU regulations for everything vehicle related.

This is because each market is different, Asian markets generally have little to no exhaust emissions standards but Japan is an exception and has very stringent standards, so each country has its variant of homologation depending upon their laws and requirements; with harmonisation of EU standards it means one test before a vehicle can be sold in the EU member states.

If that's the case then all Camel and G4 vehicles will not be allowed. Neither will my Defender as it was modified by Land Rover Special vehicles which is NOT as it left the factory.

Now some of you that have fitted different seats in your Defender. Well that's already wrong because homologation was in process when I worked at the Ford main dealer in 1979. That's only seats, there are many other things homologated that nobody takes notice of.

I'm all for all trailers being tested AND taxed.
I would also like to see an annual test for ALL vehicles.
Two examples.
There's a Vauxhaul Astra near me that's on a 58 plate. The right stop light hasn't worked since March 7th 2011 !!!
Take a lot of us, small mileages like 10,000 a year being tested every twelve months. Then a company rep in a new motor doing 50/ 60 + ,000 a year. Yes I've seen a Ford Granada three year old that had NEVER been serviced



I can cause trouble in an empty house

mike

I would be very surprised to see it applied to any existing vehicles, when new emission tests were introduced they didn't expect the owner of a 1966 Vauxhall Viva to meet the new std's. Don't worry our government will take their usual stance with the Euro bureaucrats.

"I'm all for all trailers being tested AND taxed.
I would also like to see an annual test for ALL vehicles."


Agree with you there Mike. ( not sure about TAXING trailers though)

Having had quite a few years experience in vehicle rental / leasing, I can say the same.......there are often vehicles out there 6 months old which could be lethal! Good example is the Renault 19 I had a few years back as a company car....went back 3 years old with 198,000 miles on the clock. it then had it's first MOT....it passed only because it had been maintained and NOT abused. Can't say the same for many others.

Only today I saw a land Rover towing a plant trailer on the M3. He was driving along and the NS ramp decided to DROP and trail along the road. I suspect it was due to all the road noise from his LR that it was about half a mile before he slowed to the hard shoulder, after lot's of us flashing lights at him! He then proceeded to retie the bit of string which was holding it up in the first place!

So, YES to ANNUAL testing and YES to some sort of TEST & registration of trailers.

Gemini:

They can currently do this as they have an exemption for the small scale manufacture of customer specified modifications, Land Rover Special Vehicles operates under this exemption, as do many other small scale operations for specialised vehicles from major manufacturers, and specialised aftermarket converters. If this legislation comes into force it will ban this, along with the numerous specialised vehicle converters, and the UK is the largest producer of specialist vehicles and exporter in Europe.

Here lies the problem; it will hit the UK hard in several ways, most of the specialist vehicles are exported so export revenue for the UK, many firms will close or move operations outside the EU zone so we shall lose more jobs and specialised skills, and many major EU vehicle manufacturers are supporting this legislation (FIAT) as it will mean more income for them.

Assassin

Your first sentance is interesting. Some insurance companies have been refusing to insure Defenders from Land Rover Special Vehicles as it's not as left the factory.

I thought most of what is being considered is already in the homologation papers. Or am I the only person to see a set of homologation papers ?

Gemini:

This is an interesting point with insurance, where a base vehicle is used it will be submitted for homologation, it will also be submitted for what they call part homologation if it is a vehicle for modification. To explain this simply I will use a 7.5 tonne truck as an example.

Fiat own Iveco, their truck division, and when they design a new truck they will submit what they call a bare bones vehicle, basically this is the chassis cab of the highest spec they do, with all the options they offer, fitted to the truck, but isolated. Basically it is the longest chassis option, the engine, the cab, and with all the options fitted, they also send along a team of mechanics. If the truck has two engine sizes fitted they submit two trucks, one with each engine fitted.

The chassis cab is tested, they begin with a design test which is a theoretical load simulation taken from the technical specifications, this is even before the truck arrives, once this is done they begin with the truck, they go through it visually like a dose of clap through a brothel, they measure and check every part of the vehicle and its fittings such as chassis marker lights, rear lights, headlights, seats, in fact, everything. Once they have checked and measured everything they begin with the engine, this is run and tested for everything from emissions to noise, to vibrations, and everything else that needs to be tested. If two engines are offered with two power outputs each, the mechanics reprogramme the ECU for the other power output, this is then tested, one truck with one engine and two power outputs, all tested.
They then check all the other systems such as as the electronics, they control the engine, ABS, traction control, airbags, and they check it all, if two seat options are offered, a manually operated seat, and an all electric seat, they will have the electric seat as this, being electrically operated can emit RFI; if the truck has a data tracking system offered it will be fitted and tested as it is a transmitter giving the trucks position for real time tracking. Other options such as sat nav will also be fitted and tested, in fact everything is tested individually, hence the isolation, then once everything has been tested individually the entire trucks electronics are powered up and tested with them all working.

Basically we now have a homologated bare bones truck in which all the crucial and critical systems are tested.

If the truck is offered with a lower payload option, or lower rated such as at 6 tonnes instead of 7.5 tonnes it is automatically homologated as long as it uses all the same components, its just downrated on paper.

Trucks come with many body options, heres where it gets interesting, the most popular options are box van and flatbed, neither of these actually need homologation testing as long as they are mounted on the chassis in the pre drilled mounting holes in the chassis, they just have a structural load design test and are approved as an approved conversion, they merely check that they don't impede homologated systems such as chassis marker lights or rear lights.
If a body such as a freezer body is offered they this will require seperate testing, the body itself will require the load design test, and the freezer unit will need type approval testing, basically a freezer body contains a small diesel engine, an electric motor with usualy two electrical connections, one 110 volt and one 240 volt plug so it can be used in all markets. The freezer unit itself is submitted for testing, it is not fitted to the vehicle, it is load tested under full working load for engine emissions and noise for the diesel engine, and RFI emissions for the electric motor. If it passes these tests id becomes exempt under the exemption regulations and can be fitted as an approved unit.

If this new legislation is passed then all this will go, every individual vehicle will have to be tested, in simple terms:
Every variant will have to be tested, if you offer a SWB chassis with 20 options, then 20 trucks will have to be tested, if you also have a MWB of the same truck, totally identical but with 25 options, then 25 trucks will have to be submitted and tested, if you also have a LWB variant, again totally identical but with 25 options, then 25 trucks will have to be tested, so instead of one truck with all the options fitted being tested you will have to submit every truck with every variant fitted. In this example instead of one truck being tested you will have to submit 70 trucks, then start adding all the body types and configurations, it gets very complicated and costly.

Continued:

Here are where the issues lie, if a Defender is bare bones tested (which they are) all the main systems are already compliant, they are then passed onto LR special operations who convert them. Under the current systems anything fitted must be individually type approved and meet EU regulations and carry the E mark, this means effectively, they are homologated. They have been tested as individual components for type approval, and design tested again for the EU E mark, so can be legally fitted to the vehicle.

This is important for insurance purposes as any factory built stock vehicle will be homologated as a package, it will have total traceability from first order to build, through to the first owner, and any subsequent owners through a variety of computer networks, the LR factory systems for the order, options, and build, and the DVLA for first registration and any subsequent owners. Therefore an insurer can trace the original specification right back, if a vehicle comes with steel wheels and one owner down the chain of owners upgrades them to alloys it gives an insurer the kop out they require, even if the particular model came with steels and alloy wheels as an option. Basically its revenue, if you are in breach of an insurers terms and conditions and fail to notify them of a change to alloys, even though you didn't know it was done by a previous owner, and they are original type approved LR alloys with recommended tyres, the insurer keeps your premium and the Government keeps the tax on this premium. If they had to reimburse you they lose that premium and the Government has to reimburse its proportion of tax paid on the premium, get the picture now, its all money related.

If the Police stop you they will (if the new regulations are passed and enacted) be able to check the full specifications quickly and easily on a roadside visual inspection, and issue fixed penalty notices FPN's with aplomb, more easy revenue for the Government, so more money for the pot; see how it always centres around money.

Here in the UK we only manufacture a small proportion of European manufactured vehicles, so more European manufacturers means more testing in European facilities, so more money and jobs for Europe due to their massive vehicle manufacturing capability, and much less for Britain, so Europe are looking after their own interests over and above our own Government.

You don't do one word answers do you Assassin?