Galvanised Disco 2 Chassis

[western]

A new Galv D2 chassis is around £3000 to 5000 inc VAT, depending on where its bought from, so a used galv chassis I think around £2000 would be a fair price 

[Simon_CSK]

1 hour ago, western said:

A new Galv D2 chassis is around £3000 to 5000 inc VAT, depending on where its bought from, so a used galv chassis I think around £2000 would be a fair price 

Thanks.

It has been on the car 7 Years but the front top bolts that holdon the bumper have torn out. That is the only damage on it.

[Jon W]

@Simon_CSKCan you send me a msg with more details on this. I would possibly be interested as a whole vehicle. Just waiting to see if I am going to have to get another vehicle to tow a horse box around of if I will be allowed to use a work pickup.

Gave up looking at discos as chassis were a nightmare

Thanks 

 

[Snagger]

On 7/10/2020 at 11:58 PM, Chicken Drumstick said:

I don’t believe this is correct. Else you wouldn’t be able to buy new pattern parts one either. A chassis is not a restricted or licensed product. 

It is correct.  Using a second hand chassis on a road going vehicle ends up needing IVA checks and reregistration, and opens a can of worms on that front if you don’t rebuild it yourself and own it for a subsequent period, as registering a professionally rebuilt vehicle is extremely expensive.

You would be far better off selling the vehicle complete, I think.

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

It is correct.  Using a second hand chassis on a road going vehicle ends up needing IVA checks and reregistration, and opens a can of worms on that front if you don’t rebuild it yourself and own it for a subsequent period, as registering a professionally rebuilt vehicle is extremely expensive.

You would be far better off selling the vehicle complete, I think.

I think there is a lot of scope here. Nothing on the .gov supports this view as ironclad. It would depend on a great many other things. 

[Snagger]

34 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I think there is a lot of scope here. Nothing on the .gov supports this view as ironclad. It would depend on a great many other things. 

I don’t see any scope for alternative interpretation here.

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

I don’t see any scope for alternative interpretation here.

 

It's very simple. And as I posted earlier. How are you interpreting the word "original"? I see you are also referring to the rebuilt regs, not radically altered. But by what process do these or the radically altered ones apply?

for radically altered it says "original" for every item. If this was to mean the physical item from the factory, then a recon engine/gearbox or replacement axle would loose you points. I think clearly this is not the case. So it is logical to assume that in this context "original" means the original type. Therefore as long as you retain an unmodified original type chassis, you are fine. 

It doesn't mention anything at all about allowing or disallowing used items. And for some cars there will be no such thing as a new replacement anyhow.

The vehicle being presented needs to have the correct IDs in place for its age. Therefore presenting a chassis with a different ID on would clearly not work. But none of these pages say you have to have the ID on the chassis. Nor do they say the ID cannot be applied to the chassis. If you buy a brand new chassis you will be faced with pretty much the same thing. Either no chassis number or you'll have to have it added.

Not too mention, if the word 'used' is not allowed. Then chassis companies would not be able to sell display stock or returned items. As they will not be brand new. And again, clearly I'm sure this isn't the case. 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Chicken Drumstick

[Bowie69]

Not sure why this is beaing even argued, here is the radically altered vehicle page:

 

Key phrase here: 

Quote

5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

It's a done deal, you can't misinterpret 'the original or new and unmodified' in any other way.

 

 

 

[Snagger]

Drumstick, your interpretation is plain illegal.  The wording on the DVLA regs is specific - original, as in that which with the vehicle left the factory.  That clearly applies to all assemblies.  The additional caveat allowing a chassis to be replaced with a new one direct from the vendor, unused, is equally clear.  I have no idea what your difficulty in understanding those rules is, but they are there to prevent ringing and their purpose makes their meaning very clear.

[Simon_CSK]

Bowie

The original question was quite simple and has now grown arms and legs

[Chicken Drumstick]

11 minutes ago, Snagger said:

Drumstick, your interpretation is plain illegal.  The wording on the DVLA regs is specific - original, as in that which with the vehicle left the factory.  That clearly applies to all assemblies.  The additional caveat allowing a chassis to be replaced with a new one direct from the vendor, unused, is equally clear.  I have no idea what your difficulty in understanding those rules is, but they are there to prevent ringing and their purpose makes their meaning very clear.

Illegal. Give it a rest ffs....  🤣 

Look at the image I posted above, it is from the .gov site for radically altered vehicles:

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles

 

The word 'original' is used against every item. Not just the chassis. So a common definition of the word must exist and be applied for each use. Else you are just being obtuse for the sake of it.

What you are suggesting is this:

 

Which frankly would be nuts!

[Chicken Drumstick]

31 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Not sure why this is beaing even argued, here is the radically altered vehicle page:

 

Key phrase here: 

It's a done deal, you can't misinterpret 'the original or new and unmodified' in any other way.

 

 

 

So your understanding of 'original' changes from line to line on that page then? Would you really say if you took an R380 to Ashcroft for an exchange unit that you'd expect to loose 2 points because it isn't the original item (easily verifiable as it has a serial number). Or are you going to suddenly do a U turn and say, well it's the same type...

 

Or if you fit Pro Comp shocks instead of OEM ones? Seriously you can't have it both ways, it is either one or the other. Treat the chassis and the phrasing of original the same as the other components listed. the only thing "extra" it says about the chassis, is you can have a new one. Only if it is new, it can't be modified (i.e. altered) from the original design. It does not mention used parts at all. So clearly isn't prohibiting them.

[Snagger]

Drumstick, that’s EXACTLY what it means.  It’s to stop the false registration of a vehicle made entirely of used parts on an old VIN, where an IVA and Q plate are required.  It is crystal clear that your interpretation is illegal, as what you propose is ringing.  If you replace more than a set amount of the vehicle with replacement parts, then the DVLA no longer consider it the original vehicle and it needs IVA.  You might not like it, but that’s the law, and for good reason.

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

Drumstick, that’s EXACTLY what it means.  It’s to stop the false registration of a vehicle made entirely of used parts on an old VIN, where an IVA and Q plate are required.  It is crystal clear that your interpretation is illegal, as what you propose is ringing.  If you replace more than a set amount of the vehicle with replacement parts, then the DVLA no longer consider it the original vehicle and it needs IVA.  You might not like it, but that’s the law, and for good reason.

But that simply is not what it says on the .gov sites referenced above. It might be your personal view. But it is quite clearly written for a topic that is so vague in general.

 

Ringing was more about cutting two monocoque chassis from different cars and badly welding them together. Using an entire ladder chassis that is unmodified and one piece, is somewhat different. Or as referenced here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203716/VIC_leaflet__English_.pdf

 

Quote

One aspect of vehicle crime is car ringing. “ Ringing” is a practice which involves passing off stolen cars as repaired accident damaged cars. One consequence of this is that innocent members of the public can find that they have been sold a car which later turns out to have been stolen. The Vehicle Identity Check (VIC) was introduced on April 7 2003 and makes car “ringing” more difficult.

Interestingly enough, no where in that document does it make any mention to selling and using a 2nd hand ladder chassis.

[Simon_CSK]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

 If you replace more than a set amount of the vehicle with replacement parts, then the DVLA no longer consider it the original vehicle and it needs IVA.  You might not like it, but that’s the law, and for good reason.

Just like the judges hammer that he has had for decades...... 

10 new shafted and 15 new heads but still the original hammer 

[Snagger]

1 hour ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

But that simply is not what it says on the .gov sites referenced above. It might be your personal view. But it is quite clearly written for a topic that is so vague in general.

 

Ringing was more about cutting two monocoque chassis from different cars and badly welding them together. Using an entire ladder chassis that is unmodified and one piece, is somewhat different. Or as referenced here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203716/VIC_leaflet__English_.pdf

 

Interestingly enough, no where in that document does it make any mention to selling and using a 2nd hand ladder chassis.

The DVLA rules clearly state original chassis or a new identical one.  It doesn’t mention cut and shuts, which is not the same as ringing.  Your logic is so far of base that it seems you are deliberately misinterpreting the rules.

[Bowie69]

Snags, forget it, not worth the blood pressure.

[smallfry]

Actually, it does not say a "new and identical" chassis. That would mean that pattern chassis such as Richards and Sheilder etc are not acceptable, as they are NOT identical in construction to the original.

Also,  to me, as is clearly worded, that you CAN have a spanking new coil sprung chassis for a series model from Designa, as it IS "a new and unmodified, direct from the manufacturer" item.

All of this "argument" is down to how we can each interpret rules which SHOULD be clear and concise, but are anything but !

Cut 'n' shut is NOT ringing. When I worked in a bodyshop years ago, we did many, and it was common practice as an economical way to repair damaged vehicles, at a time when used vehicles were worth a lot more than they are nowadays.

Cut 'n' shut got a bad rep because of the way that a lot of them were done.

Ringing is the practice of changing the identity of a stolen vehicle.

As Bowie says, its not worth the blood pressure 😄

  

[Snagger]

5 hours ago, smallfry said:

Actually, it does not say a "new and identical" chassis. That would mean that pattern chassis such as Richards and Sheilder etc are not acceptable, as they are NOT identical in construction to the original.

Also,  to me, as is clearly worded, that you CAN have a spanking new coil sprung chassis for a series model from Designa, as it IS "a new and unmodified, direct from the manufacturer" item.

  

What it does say is “new and of the same specification”.  DVLA are very pragmatic and accept detail changes as long as the overall construction and dimensions stay the same, so brackets are allowed to be added or removed, material thickness and protective coatings are allowed to differ, but wheel base and main structure must remain the same.  A suspension change is not considered the same specification, even though that could be argued as bracketry, as it is most certainly structural

 

[bishbosh]

If you use a second hand chassis then get the vehicle tested. You have no idea as to the history of a second hand chassis (not casting aspersions on Simons chassis!) and it could have been damaged before being sold on to you. What have you got to lose other than a bit of time and some cash? Better off knowing the vehicle is roadworthy than it all going tits up and you end up before the beak for manslaughter.

We all think we know how to modify our vehicles safely and, consciously or otherwise, take a calculated risk as to their roadworthiness. But none of us have changed suspension components and then gone through a rigorous, documented, handling testing regime that mimics the type approval testing that a manufacturer goes through have we? As I said, a calculated risk.

For me, I'd get some written correspondence from your local testing station about the need or otherwise for an IVA for any proposed chassis modifications, including replacement. The written word of the regulations is always going to be up for interpretation (that's why lawyers exist) so at least having something from a reputable source will mean you're starting from the best possible position if things do go wrong.

I mean no offence to those who have contributed to this thread but getting advice regarding the law on an internet forum is inappropriate.

[ThreePointFive]

I dunno Bish, I think the rule is that if you drive by a certain number of police cars and don't get pulled over, you're rock solid legally. Seems to be the legal benchmark set on every car forum ever.

[Chicken Drumstick]

On 7/16/2020 at 5:25 PM, Snagger said:

The DVLA rules clearly state original chassis or a new identical one.  It doesn’t mention cut and shuts, which is not the same as ringing.  Your logic is so far of base that it seems you are deliberately misinterpreting the rules.

I would say the same of you. You are changing the meaning of 'original' from line to line. And not reading how it is actually written. Nobody has suggested a cut and shut, so why even mention it, unless you are clinging at straws to try and justify your position?

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, bishbosh said:

For me, I'd get some written correspondence from your local testing station about the need or otherwise for an IVA for any proposed chassis modifications, including replacement. The written word of the regulations is always going to be up for interpretation (that's why lawyers exist) so at least having something from a reputable source will mean you're starting from the best possible position if things do go wrong.

I doubt you'd be able to get such a thing, unless you know anyone who has? I've never come across it. If you speak to the DVSA they will give you nothing more than that persons opinion. It is not a statement of fact. Nor proof. And when I've asked in the past, there is no way of having a vehicle inspected to see if it needs an IVA or not, nothing official at any rate. All you can do is decide yourself and submit it for an IVA. But even if it doesn't need it, they will still want to process it as if it does from this point onwards.

[Chicken Drumstick]

On 7/17/2020 at 6:21 AM, Snagger said:

What it does say is “new and of the same specification”.  

 

lol, clearly you have a reading problem in regard to this 😛

It most evidently does not say what you have in speech marks above.... as already posted, but posted again just for you

To paraphrase, the devil is in the detail

 

[reb78]

I am not sure I care that much, but in Bowie's link above next to the new chassis bit it does say 'original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)' next to the five points - a secondhand chassis isn't direct from the manufacturer and the use of the clarification around new suggests original means the one it left the factory with in this instance?