Galvanised Disco 2 Chassis

[smallfry]

As I see it, all this is purely academic. I dont see it really has much to do with chassis shortening, lengthening, altering the suspension, having an atomic reactor turbine powerplant etc. What its REALLY all about is tax exemption, or evasion if you like. 

There are many "classic" cars running about which are basically just an old bodyshell on vastly different running gear, modified monocoque and all, which under the rules is illegal. I do not recall EVER seeing one on a Q plate, and I have never heard of anyone being pulled up over it. I cannot offhand think of any other vehicle than a Land Rover that can be so comprehensively altered. The trouble is, is that it is all on show. With other cars it is not so obvious other that maybe the paint job and wheels.

IMO what has caused all this, was/still is Land Rover owners blatantly running much newer (and obviously so) vehicles on tax exempt log books. There is one near me, which according to the reg, is a 1972 Series 3 LWB, but is actually a 2015 Puma with sawtooth? wheels and lots of accessories in shiny black paint, and its been like this for at least three years. I had a sneaky look at the chassis number when it was parked in a supermarket car park, and its proper number is still there.

[western]

It COULD be on a private/cherished reg plate, which is fully legal on a newer vehicle, only thing you cannot do is make the vehicle look younger by having a later reg number, DVLA just won't issue it. 

[missingsid]

IIRC a not named independant made a business out of rebuilding old 90/110 with more modern looking parts (no comment on legality as I don't know the details) and exporting them to the USA where they were scrapped at the dockside for having the wrong components for the year.

[western]

& he was fined & jailed for doing that. 

 

[Gazzar]

 I note that Richards chassis  now offer the option to have P38A steering box mounts fitted to series chassis.

Is this an unmodified chassis?

 

[Bowie69]

Not really, no.

[Jon W]

Just to throw this into the fire and add to the flames, it was suggested to me that a remanufactured defender chassis such as Shielder and Richards  are not strictly legal.... 

Series chassis are legal and fine 

Defender chassis illegal 

Why?? Well a series chassis is constructed as land rover originally did, whereas the defender chassis are not as land rover made them e.g. they are now 4 bits of flat plate welded together and not 2 C sections put together and hence would perform differently in a crash. 

Will see what arguments that brings out. Doesn't bother me either way as I have already put a Richards chassis under mine

Jon 

 

[western]

Quote

Defender chassis illegal 

Why?? Well a series chassis is constructed as land rover originally did, whereas the defender chassis are not as land rover made them e.g. they are now 4 bits of flat plate welded together and not 2 C sections put together and hence would perform differently in a crash. 

Not strickly true, the Defender chassis made/supplied by Marsland were bought in from GKN who made them for LR, & when GKN ceased production, I believe Marsland bought the tooling to continue making them for aftermarket replacement, still using the 2 x C sections welded along the chassis lenght, Mine cetainly is, whereas the Richards Defender chassis are 4 flat plates welded at the corners as in a series chassis.

I don't believe DVSA would question the actual way the chassis is constructed as it would have been built by an approved aftermarket manufacture. so long as it looks 'like for like'  the average dvsa staff wouldn't know any different.

anyway we are straying well off the original questions made by Simon_CSK 

[Bowie69]

The term 'direct replacement' used to be used, which was a good term, i.e. all the mounting points are in the same place, basic dimensions are all the same etc.

The coil sprung series chassis from Designa in this respect would have certainly fallen foul of the rules.

[missingsid]

In this day and age (every point in history is this day and age) it is mad that a government website which has been produced to reomove ambiguity is still completely ambiguous!!

[Daan]

3 hours ago, Gazzar said:

 I note that Richards chassis  now offer the option to have P38A steering box mounts fitted to series chassis.

Is this an unmodified chassis?

 

Yes, I think it is. You have just added something, rather than changed, if that makes sense.

Also, parabolic springs are legal, as it is a direct replacement for standard. Like changing a coil spring for one with a different rate. These are just details that you may worry about if you read the ruling in detail, but the spirit of the rules are less stringent.

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 12:36 PM, smallfry said:

As I see it, all this is purely academic. I dont see it really has much to do with chassis shortening, lengthening, altering the suspension, having an atomic reactor turbine powerplant etc. What its REALLY all about is tax exemption, or evasion if you like. 

There are many "classic" cars running about which are basically just an old bodyshell on vastly different running gear, modified monocoque and all, which under the rules is illegal. I do not recall EVER seeing one on a Q plate, and I have never heard of anyone being pulled up over it. I cannot offhand think of any other vehicle than a Land Rover that can be so comprehensively altered. The trouble is, is that it is all on show. With other cars it is not so obvious other that maybe the paint job and wheels.

IMO what has caused all this, was/still is Land Rover owners blatantly running much newer (and obviously so) vehicles on tax exempt log books. There is one near me, which according to the reg, is a 1972 Series 3 LWB, but is actually a 2015 Puma with sawtooth? wheels and lots of accessories in shiny black paint, and its been like this for at least three years. I had a sneaky look at the chassis number when it was parked in a supermarket car park, and its proper number is still there.

This is indeed the problem. I went to great trouble to get the Q plate to make mine legal, but I have to say that with so many people completely ignoring the rules and getting away with it, why did I bother?

[Nonimouse]

My mate builds replacement Triumph TR chassis. When he spoke to the DVSA about it, all he needed to do was get the chassis approved by an suitably competent structural/mechanical. engineer.

He did this and then also got all his chassis types TUV approved - expensive for 7 different chassis variations - but worth it

[smallfry]

6 hours ago, Daan said:

Yes, I think it is. You have just added something, rather than changed, if that makes sense.

 

 

Up in our top field I have an old series on a coil sprung Designa chassis. It has not been used for 12 years because I stupidly took it for an MOT test at my local VOSA depot at Gillingham in Kent, as my usual tester was on holiday, and it was only a mile from where I lived. I was told then that it needed to be Q plated, and as I would not pay for IVA test, was easier to take it off the road. Its a 79 model, so was NOT tax exempt at the time.

Last year I went in again to have a chat in person about tyres, and the age of them, and as an aside asked about the Series again, and was told that it IS a modified chassis, so would still have to have an IVA and a Q plate.

As the coil converted chassis involves "adding" spring perches and an extra crossmember and holes for a Defender type steering box, it should be OK by your reasoning (and mine), but apparently not. So therefore, under the same rules, adding P38 steering box mounts also constitutes a modified chassis, does it not ?

t IMO 

[smallfry]

7 hours ago, Daan said:

This is indeed the problem. I went to great trouble to get the Q plate to make mine legal, but I have to say that with so many people completely ignoring the rules and getting away with it, why did I bother?

Makes you wonder, doesnt it. There seems to be no consistency either, depending on which official you ask

 

7 minutes ago, smallfry said:

 

I would love to build a 100 inch with either a cut and shut chassis, or possibly a brand new one, but the process bothers me, and I am also concerned about the rate of road tax they might apply

[smallfry]

7 hours ago, Nonimouse said:

My mate builds replacement Triumph TR chassis. When he spoke to the DVSA about it, all he needed to do was get the chassis approved by an suitably competent structural/mechanical. engineer.

He did this and then also got all his chassis types TUV approved - expensive for 7 different chassis variations - but worth it

As he is manufacturing and selling them, surely you would have to do this in any case ?

[Daan]

2 hours ago, smallfry said:

Up in our top field I have an old series on a coil sprung Designa chassis. It has not been used for 12 years because I stupidly took it for an MOT test at my local VOSA depot at Gillingham in Kent, as my usual tester was on holiday, and it was only a mile from where I lived. I was told then that it needed to be Q plated, and as I would not pay for IVA test, was easier to take it off the road. Its a 79 model, so was NOT tax exempt at the time.

Last year I went in again to have a chat in person about tyres, and the age of them, and as an aside asked about the Series again, and was told that it IS a modified chassis, so would still have to have an IVA and a Q plate.

As the coil converted chassis involves "adding" spring perches and an extra crossmember and holes for a Defender type steering box, it should be OK by your reasoning (and mine), but apparently not. So therefore, under the same rules, adding P38 steering box mounts also constitutes a modified chassis, does it not ?

t IMO 

Yes adding coil spring seats should be ok by that rationale, however that is not what a designa chassis is:

Does that look like a series chassis? I can't see any leaf spring mounts. 

But adding a p38 steering mount to a series chassis should be ok.

Daan

[missingsid]

But you will lose points for it (if they are still used?).

[Simon_CSK]

11 hours ago, smallfry said:

Makes you wonder, doesnt it. There seems to be no consistency either, depending on which official you ask

 

I deal with local authorities on a daily basis and regardless of the circumstances every officer I deal with will ask for more information than the last. Even if I have had something past in the last week I can say for certain that it will still need further clarification from someone else. 

These people in "power" need to justify their existence, if they are not refusing things then what is the point of them being there. This is the reason that the public needs professionals who are dealing with the authorities regularly to stand up to them. 

[Simon_CSK]

9 hours ago, Daan said:

Yes adding coil spring seats should be ok by that rationale, however that is not what a designa chassis is:

Does that look like a series chassis? I can't see any leaf spring mounts. 

But adding a p38 steering mount to a series chassis should be ok.

Daan

Daan I hope that chassis is taxed insured and Mot'd 

[Nonimouse]

12 hours ago, smallfry said:

As he is manufacturing and selling them, surely you would have to do this in any case ?

Yes. he builds about 12 a year at the moment, with intention to move up to 20. But he sells primarily to specialist companies

[Snagger]

19 hours ago, smallfry said:

Makes you wonder, doesnt it. There seems to be no consistency either, depending on which official you ask

 

I would love to build a 100 inch with either a cut and shut chassis, or possibly a brand new one, but the process bothers me, and I am also concerned about the rate of road tax they might apply

That’s the big worry - doing an IVA you can stomach, as it’s only once, but if they clobber your with high road tax afterwards, it can make the project unviable in the long run.  I think they’re supposed to base it on the engine and that year of manufacture, so if you have a pre TD5 era vehicle, it’ll be in the £200s, but some TD5s and a lot of TDCIs were double that.  Something you want in writing before you did the work.

[Snagger]

On 7/27/2020 at 12:16 PM, Gazzar said:

 I note that Richards chassis  now offer the option to have P38A steering box mounts fitted to series chassis.

Is this an unmodified chassis?

 

I was told by DVLA that adding brackets is fine, as is moving engine or transmission mounts, exhaust hangers and alike, as brackets are not considered the main structure.  What they don’t accept is changes to cross members (you can probably add some, but they don’t allow removal), change of wheel base or suspension type (perhaps because changing suspension also means mucking about with cross members, but probably just because it’s considered main structure).

That’s another benefit of the P38 pas fit, rather than the Adwest unit, though you could probably fit an opposite side Adwest with a little more work (anti crush tubes and captive bolts in the chassis, rather than a simple bracket).

[Snagger]

On 7/23/2020 at 1:29 PM, Sheffield said:

What you appear to be saying is that the idea of making one good vehicle out of two with problems is no longer permitted. Regardless of the unclear legal situation it seems to me that provided the seller sells the chassis without identity, and tells the DVLA the vehicle is scrapped, and the buyer uses the chassis to rebuild an otherwise good D2, keeping that D2's identity, nothing has been done that is morally wrong. I doubt if officialdom would be interested, even if they realised what had been done.

So, back to the origianl question, I think the chassis does have value under the above circumstances. 

You can do that, but you will need to use the chassis donor’s ID, and to do that, will need three more VIN points from the list of assemblies.  Any two of suspension, both axles together, steering, transmission or engine would be enough.  The chassis can be repaired, but not modified (beyond simple brackets).