I would like to chip in on Stuarts point about the lights. I heard quite a few people got a similar ticket. Apparantly they were checking if both rear lights were visible from a certain angle. Which means one of them was not obstructed by the spare wheel carrier when looked at from angle. Anyone know any more?
Michael
Yes. The problem has been kicking-around for several years but this year's Exeter was the first time that the MCC had raised it officially. I've tried to find the relevant diagram on the internet, without success, but I'm pretty certain that I have it in an old copy of the Marlin Owners Club magazine 'Pitstop' - someone wrote an article to assist those applying for the SVA test. When I find it, I'll scan it and post it somewhere, but this won't be until this coming weekend at the earliest. In principle, it sets out angles along which the offside set of lights (or maybe indicators only, I can't remember) have to be viewable from the nearside, and vice versa. It actually applies front and back but all cars should comply at the front without a problem, it's the projecting spare wheel carriers that create the problem at the back. Andrew
ReplyDeleteI had this problem when turning my old Cannon into a road-legal car. This was done in 1996....and I had to position the rear lights (and indicators...they were trailer lights) some 6 inches behind the rear bodywork..so as to be visible from...cant remember what.....angles to the rear and sides......with a built-in double spare wheel carrier. will endeavour to find the article from Kit car mag which gave the info...so helpful! surprised its taken so long to cotton on to the construction and use regs!
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested I have a copy of the SVA
ReplyDeleteManual with all the relevant angles and positions of all front and rear
lights and can copy and send them to anyone who wants them.
This is all quite interesting as the SVA Test does
not apply to vehicles already correctly registered. Where it may affect some is
when a kit built vehicle is not described in its Log Book correctly. My Midge
(which I do not trial) was registered after build as a Triumph Vitesse Sports,
the Sports bit being added by DVLA not me. It is now strictly speaking not
correctly described and I COULD be denied an MOT and I would have to get it
SVA'd. Not on your life. They wouldnt have a fail form long enough for all the
sharp edges.
Consequently if you were buying, say, a Marlin for
conversion to a trialling machine and went to get it MOT'd at your favorite
garage, if it is not correctly described they may turn you away.
Give me a call on 01228
530555.
The requirement comes from the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989. The full text can be found at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htm When totally confused see Alan Foster's guide attached. I think this is the sheet Andrew recalls, it was produced by Alan back in 1992 when a similar purge took place resulting in the Marlins of the time installing extra lights mine included. Pete
ReplyDeleteSecond attempt with file attached. Pete
ReplyDeleteAnyone who really wants chapter-and-verse on this issue, albeit with the inevitable Marlin bias, can read the new Technical Topics page on my website at http://www.wheelspin.org.uk/marlins/sbmarlinsttopics06.htm Note the question mark over vehicles first registered before 1st January 1971 - which may cover most, if not all, of the Trolls. Andrew
ReplyDelete