Just found this . Its been talked about alot on the OMOC.
last thing you want to do is build this and them someone says you can't use it
It'll all a bit grey and even VOSA don't quite know what the hell they are talking about
Sorry if you already know all of this but if not it might be an idea to make a few calls
There was a debate starting to take shape on a thread about one of our projects, so I thought I'd move it to a relevant section...
Basically it started on the question of whether you can reshell a car with a used shell and retain the original reg or indeed the reg from the used shell.
Technically the answer is no, but of course most people wouldn't think twice about it as long as they own both shells and officially scrap the one that is no longer used.
The real debate is caused when you take this a step down, and consider that according to the DVLA any modification of a monocoque bodyshell from it's original specification would neccessitate an IVA test. Virtually no older car of any type would pass an IVA test even if standard (as the radius edge restrictions would be a major issue - as an example philips head screws holding trim or lights on will fail).
The Accosiation of Car Enthusiasts have been in correspondance with the DVLA and VOSA to try and clarify these rules and the responses are comical!
Quote
Q) Why does cutting into a monococque affect the vehicle identity if it retains the same shape /profile as before.
A) Cutting is considered to be modifying the vehicle from its original specification. Any modification to the chassis/monocoque body is considered to render the vehicle no longer original specification or of original identity.
Q) Is it acceptable to modify a vehicle bulkhead and/or transmission tunnel when performing an engine change or fitting another make?
A) No, Assuming this is in relation to a monocoque structure. This would be considered a modification to the structure.
They then saught more clarification...
Quote
Q) It is the monococque rules that need the most clarification.
Your reply states that any cutting of the monococque" is considered to render the vehicle identity no longer original specification or of original identity ". This would suggest that any crash repairs necessitating cutting and removal of panels or chassis sections, or restoration work would call the vehicle's identity into question?
We presume that the point should really be that any cutting... other than in factory designed joining areas...would be the actual criteria?
A) In this respect it is necessary to differentiate between modification and repair. Any repair process that is in line with manufacturer's recommendations and that returns the structure to its original specification would not be considered to be a modification.
Q) Would the modification of wings to allow clearance for larger wheels fall foul of the regulations?
We presume not as the common fitment of sunroofs does not create issues as this is a non stressed item of the monococque, the same as wings?"
A) When considering a monocoque structure, it is necessary to consider what constitutes cosmetic panels that do not significantly add to the structural strength and which panels provide structural integrity. In general front wings modified in this way would not constitute a modification to the monocoque structure.
With reference to the further query, VOSA have advised that they would prefer the following statement:
What constitutes a monocoque is that of how an OEM manufacturer would view it. The chassis or `cage` assembly and all components that form it, less any cosmetic panels or infills that make no structural consideration to the monocoque or its component parts.
However, we must emphasis that this information is given for general guidance and each case will be judged on its merits.
Essentially the rules mean that anyone carrying out any sort of patch repairs, or any metalwork to a shell other than replacing entire panels to the manufacturers spec is technically modifying the shell and causing it to be liable for an IVA test, which it won't pass!
However, in my view the rules are so open to interpretation that they are rendered meaningless, hence I (and most others) choose to ignore them!
Author
Topic: ute update 6/2/10 (Read 3152 times)