Classic Cars - Reshell or Die Petition

[mab01uk]

Classics Monthly wants to see a change in the law:

One law for different vehicle designs
Perception of what is deemed a classic car changes with subsequent generations of enthusiasts. The term is no longer the preserve of chrome-laden icons built before1973.
Vehicle construction methods have long since moved away from separate chassis and bodyshells in response to manufacturing, safety and design influences. Monocoque-body classics (no separate chassis) have been recognised as such for decades but restoring one by reshelling can alter this perception in the eye of current legislation.
I can quite legally build a repro bodyshell from new off-the-shelf pattern panels for a separate chassis classic and the car be easily considered genuine. A similar-aged car of monocoque design would be illegal if I replaced the shell with an identical second-hand shell and tried to keep its original identity to avoid it being re-registered as a Q-plate.
This law is outdated and doesn't reflect the growing popularity of monocoque classics and enthusiasts' desire to preserve them with their original identity.
Gary Stretton, Editor. Classics Monthly

The Classics Monthly proposal:
To retain the original identity and registration of a reshelled vehicle.

1. The recognised legal owner of two similar cars would have permission to create one classic vehicle from both, retaining the original identity of the nominated car.

2. In order to do this they would notify the DVLA of their intention, stating the vehicles concerned.

3. An appointed body (or approved engineer) would inspect both vehicles for a fee payable by the proposer to confirm vehicle identities.

4. Any checks such as HPI and police checks would also be part of the process and would need to be satisfied by the proposer before point 6.

5. The DVLA would then acknowledge the request, stating any legal reasons why this couldn’t happen. For example a powerful variant of a vehicle using a similar donor vehicle without necessary considerations to braking, extra shell strengthening and so on. This information is widely held by owners’ clubs.

6. Upon approval, the owner would then be free to transfer key components, e.g. engine, suspension, brakes, steering and transmission.

7. Once ready, an appointed engineer would inspect, for another fee, both vehicles to ensure the reshelling is both legal and roadworthy.

8. The discarded bodyshell would be recycled (scrapped) and the identity of the donor vehicle associated with the original car's identity by the DVLA.

9. If necessary, a chassis or VIN number could be given an additional suffix or prefix (‘R’, for example) to denote a reshelling has taken place.

This proposal, we believe, meets the legal concerns of the DVLA, keen to stamp out car 'ringing' and the cost of implementing the scheme.
It would safeguard the future of monocoque-bodied classic cars, deter their illegal reshelling and recycle otherwise perfectly good bodyshells.
The survival of such classics will ensure employment within the automotive sector and help maintain the billions of pounds the classic sector creates for the UK economy.
Petition:
If you believe the reshelling of a classic car, retention of its original identity and the preservation of future classics in a legally transparent manner is essential for the future of our hobby, and those employed by it, please sign our petition.
Classics Monthly wants to see a change in the law to reflect the changing perception of what a classic car is and the desire of enthusiasts to preserve them responsibly, safely and legally.
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/42909.html

http://www.classicsmonthly.com/

[mk1]

An interesting proposal. But in my opinion it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being successful!

[wil_h]

I can quite legally build a repro bodyshell from new off-the-shelf pattern panels for a separate chassis classic and the car be easily considered genuine. A similar-aged car of monocoque design would be illegal if I replaced the shell with an identical second-hand shell and tried to keep its original identity to avoid it being re-registered as a Q-plate.

This dosen't make sense? It's not comparing eggs with eggs. If, in fact, you totally rebuilt a monocoque shell with new pattern parts, then it WOULD be legal. If you replace a chassis with an identical second-hand one it would be illigal.

[dhenry]

What happens if somebody has a rotten car or less than a complete car that is considerably more rare and valuable than the donor. For example, if you have an completely rotten Cooper S and you re-shell it with a sound 850 shell is it still worthy of being called a Cooper S or should the donor 850 keep its registration and become a modified 850 with Cooper S mechanicals. I don't think I am always in favour of a re-shell. It just depends where you place the identity of the car. For me the shell and associated vin number attached holds the monocoque vehicles identity in the same way that the chassis bears the identity of a separate chassis/body vehicle. If that monocoque shell rots away and is scrapped then that vehicle no longer exists. In the event of a re-shell I think the identity of the donor should take president. (I think, although I am happy to here other opinions on that).

This is just my opinion but I am keen to see this discussion unfold. I am interested to see what other peoples thoughts on the matter are.

[guru_1071]

there was a long thread on this on 'retro-rides' and the concensus on there was that the guy who is pushing this forwards is doing so in an attempt to alter the law for a specific reason to suit himself.

the guy from 'ace' was able to shoot down the entire thing and pointed out that the law as it stands was quite clear, and all this guy was doing was attempt to muddy the law to make it a much more grey area than it is now.

made interesting reading

[mk1]

I have just re read this thread properly and have to agree with wil, to totally rebuild a monocoque car using all new repro panels or even a brand new shell is already absolutely legal. What isn't legal is transferring identities from 1 previously registered car to another.

There is absolutely no way the DVLA would ever considering making such a practice acceptable.

I'm off to find the thread on retro rides.

[Pete]

It's all complete bollox anyway (if you pardon my parlance) as it's impossible to administer.

[KA2S4]

Hey!!

Let's all have a heated re-shell debate!!, been a while, might be fun!!







On second thoughts, let's not.....

[andy1071]

I'm a bit confused (no change there, then ). The chassis/VIN plate on most pre 70s cars are held on with self-tapping screws or pop rivets, so are jokingly easy to change. If you re-shell with one of similar age and type (maybe this is the point?), as part of a genuine restorarion, how is it different? As long as you are not trying to create duplicates of cars.

I wouldn't want to be restoring a modern car in the future, what with all the crash sensors, specialised steels in the body structure etc; maybe this is the point of the government approach?. How will you restore a modern car in the future? -Will we get to the stage where you take your car for the MOT, and it fails due to body corrosion, and they keep it and automatically scrap it (saying it can't be repaired)??

[mk1]

Will we get to the stage where you take your car for the MOT, and it fails due to body corrosion, and they keep it and automatically scrap it (saying it can't be repaired)

That is very true indeed!

[davidnutland]

i'm not aware of any mini enthusiast who has ever reshelled a car especialy Cooper or S types so it would not apply to this forum and contributors,

[mab01uk]

Update:
DVLA to include Reshell or Die proposal as part of a major review of INF26 legislation.
Following the meeting which took place in late March between the DVLA, FBHVC and club representatives, the DVLA has confirmed that Reshell or Die (ROD) proposal is already being seriously considered by them and will form part of the INF 26 review involving the FBHVC and other club experts,

http://www.classicsmonthly.com/2011/05/ ... al-update/

[618AOG]

I don't have a problem with reshelling a knackered car with another used shell. I don't really have a problem with a log book rebuild either because the end result- if done properly - is exactly the same as an original............and thus another car to be enjoyed.
Of course, an absolutely original car with a traceable history is always better but there aren't many of those about. Bringing a logbook back to life is not cheap if you do it nicely with all the correct bits.

And, if cars actually had a soul, what 850 wouldn't want to be a Cooper S?