Re: Will your car be 'Historic' or not?...
You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.
Login |
Free CarKB.com registration |
Whole discussion thread
The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.
Re: Will your car be 'Historic' or not?...
| Peter Hill | 08 Dec 2008 19:03 |
>> The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic >> insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug> > >I suppose that's down to interpretation. Footman James simply insist >that you have the use of another (non classic) car as well. They don't >tell you which one you have to drive to work every day. There's nothing stopping someone having 2 classics and insuring one as regular "daily use" car, just won't get classic discount. Even in Germany could have one insured and taxed as a daily driver but banned from city center and other as limited use classic that is allowed into city centers. If you have to go to the city every day, have more, use a different "classic" every day on a rota and use the "daily use" one at weekends when you don't have to go to the city.
If you live and work in the city WTF do you need a "daily driver" car for anyway?
 Signature Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
|
| Willy Eckerslyke | 08 Dec 2008 09:59 |
> The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic > insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug> I suppose that's down to interpretation. Footman James simply insist that you have the use of another (non classic) car as well. They don't tell you which one you have to drive to work every day.
|
| Adrian | 07 Dec 2008 18:55 |
Chris Bolus <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying to >>define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come down [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>car can't be used as daily transport and preserved- the tow are not >>mutually exclusive!
> Absolutely. I have four Mini variants, all of which are over 30 years > old, and one of which is my daily transport. It's marginally modified - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Some of these people just talk b*ll*cks for I living I think. It's the definition that FIVA agreed with the German authorities last year, for the exemption from urban bans on pre/non-Euro-emission-standard cars.
All they've done is say "Well, this is as good as we're going to get to a standard definition of 'classic'". Does it fit every situation? No. Is it better than "built before 1/1/73"? Very probably.
Are you really suggesting that some bastardised heavy rebuild, wrapping an old shell around modern mechanicals, is "historic"? All those coil- spring series Landies, "split" Beetles, 602/disk "ripple bonnet" 2cvs. They're not. They're taking the piss, and putting the current historic tax class into jeopardy.
I very much doubt that a simple and easily reversible modernisation like an alternator or radial tyres or electronic ignition will make a car fall outside these regs.
The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug>
|
| Chris Bolus | 07 Dec 2008 18:37 |
>Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying >to define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >plus year old car can't be used as daily transport and preserved- the >tow are not mutually exclusive! Absolutely. I have four Mini variants, all of which are over 30 years old, and one of which is my daily transport. It's marginally modified - what Mini isn't? - so why should it not be regarded as historic? My Elf has also done its share of the daily run, and that _is_ as original bar the fitment of an alternator. So should the fact that I drive it to work (last year it was may main vehicle) make it any less historic?
Some of these people just talk b*ll*cks for I living I think.
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
|
| Jerry | 07 Dec 2008 14:28 |
Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying to define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come down to the vehicle being 30 or more years old, maintained in original condition (does that mean period extras or how it would have come off the production line?) and *not* used as the owners main method of motoring. The point of all this is, whilst we might well think otherwise the legislators (such as the EU) that this organisation will have the ear of will make it very important for the future of classic cars. Whilst I welcome any move to stop people taking a classic car and 'modernising' it I'm not so sure that these vehicles should be forced to become all but museum items, there is no reason why a 30 plus year old car can't be used as daily transport and preserved- the tow are not mutually exclusive!
[1] I think that is who they said, I was only browsing a copy
 Signature Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
|
Quick links:
|
|
|