|
Author |
Message |
RobMorris |
This post is not being displayed .
|
RobMorris Two Stroke Sniffer
Joined: 29 Dec 2014 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 16:03 - 02 Jul 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
SVA rules, if the major structural member is replaced or modified from 'standard' it begs an SVA test.
If you chop the frame rails of a bike, in theory you have modified the main structural member you MUST pout it through SVA.
MOT Man, though might be more pragmatic, and reading the rules; apply 'interpretation' of the main structural member, not as the whole frame, but the bit between the head-stock and rear suspension mounts.
Lopping off the frame rails behind the rear shock mounts then you will probably get away with on MOT, if there's nothing else obviouse for him to gripe about on a 'bobber' like the length of the mudgards, or the integrety of a plywood seat sat on top of flexible unbraced abbreviated top rails....
Pays your money takes your chances.... but go look at the SVA rules, cos depending on how much you mod or alter, you could be in breach of them and beg full SVA rather than simple MOT anyway. ____________________ My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?' |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 17:08 - 02 Jul 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
How long does it take to find and read the actual MOT manual?
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/class12/Section-6-Structure-and-attachments.html
It says nothing about replacement or modification. It says nothing about missing parts. Load bearing sections must be sound, but it explicitly says that they're not load bearing if there's no load to bear. That's deep, man.
The closest thing I can see is that any joining plates or fastenings must be secure. If you're going to lop off the rear subframe, I'd weld or at least securely bolt in a cross-member, rather than just bunging the tubes shut.
The actual MOT manual wrote: |
6.1 Frame and attachments
6.1.1 Frame condition
The main load bearing structure of the frame includes any sidecar frame and its attachment brackets. It doesn't include sections that only support components such as footrests, lamps or mudguards.
You may have to remove panels or raise the seat to be able to fully examine the structure.
If the engine is a stressed member of the frame, the engine mounting brackets should be checked (see Section 6.1.8).
You must visually assess the condition of the frame for corrosion and damage. If you notice corrosion, use finger and thumb pressure to check the extent of the corrosion and, if necessary, carefully scrape or lightly tap the affected areas with the corrosion assessment tool. Take care not to further damage the frame.
Find further guidance on assessing corrosion and methods of repair in Appendix A of this manual.
Defect Category
A main load-bearing structural member fractured or deformed such that:
structural rigidity is significantly reduced Major
steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected Dangerouse
Joining/attachment plates or fastenings
insecure Major
so insecure that structural rigidity is seriously reduced Dangerouse
A main load-bearing structural member corroded to the extent that:
the rigidity of the assembly is significantly reduced Major
steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected Dangerouse
|
____________________ Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
B5234FT |
This post is not being displayed .
|
B5234FT Brolly Dolly
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
RobMorris |
This post is not being displayed .
|
RobMorris Two Stroke Sniffer
Joined: 29 Dec 2014 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 13:21 - 03 Jul 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
B5234FT wrote: | The bigger issue is that any modification to a used frame technically means you need an IVA. |
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-approval/motorcycle-single-vehicle-approval ?
Fair point, https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles does says that any frame modification means a Q plate, which means type approval, which means MSVA.
However, what offence would be committed by not putting the vehicle through one? ____________________ Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
B5234FT |
This post is not being displayed .
|
B5234FT Brolly Dolly
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 Karma :
|
Posted: 11:48 - 09 Jul 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
Well this is the whole can of worms. LOADS of vehicles are built every year which "need" an IVA and dont get one and nothing seems to be done about it.
Traditional kit cars etc, you need one as you dont have a reg document, but the number of highly modified cars and bikes going about on their original reg mean that there are clearly plenty of people who either dont know, or choose to ignore the guidance. (Many people ignore it, as they dont want a Q plate, or wish to maintain tax free status)
As for what specifically youd be charged with, I don't know, but I know that because it's widely midunderstood, it wont be following a VOSA roadside pull that you get a wee court case and a telling off, it will be after a large and nasty accident with rather more riding on the whole situation, so personally I'd choose to avoid it. |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015 Karma :
|
Posted: 16:12 - 10 Jul 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
So if someone mods a chassis/frame but doesn't bother their beaver to have it approved by the authorities and then they have a prang involving a third party the insurers will have fun.
Most likely, they'll pay thrird party costs but the kit-car-bike owner will get hee-haw. And mibby a holiday in the gaol too. 😀
I see no other outcome as the rule is there to stop Heath Robinson Inc. from running Frankentraptions on our roads. We have potholes and vindictive scammeravans we don't need Bodge-it-Bangers too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Heath_Robinson ____________________ Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN. |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
B5234FT |
This post is not being displayed .
|
B5234FT Brolly Dolly
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 5 years, 291 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
|
|
|