Home Events News Affiliates' news

Gallery For sale Archived articles Links

Membership Contact us Club trophies Affiliated clubs

IVVCC  forum

   News      

You are visitor number Hit Counter since 16 November 2010

                                        Updated 10:28   02 January 2012

ANTIFREEZE WARNING!  

Please be aware of the risks associated with antifreeze ---  over the last few years manufacturers have changed from inorganic additive technology (IAT) to organic acid technology (OAT).

 DO NOT use OAT antifreeze in old engines, as it corrodes aluminium and damages gaskets and seals.

  Only use IAT antifreeze labelled as suitable for classic cars.  Ideally the antifreeze should comply with BS 3150 Type A. (Modified 25 May 2011.)

Derek Harris in the UK (www.derekharris.com) has researched this matter and has very kindly given the IVVCC permission to reproduce an article that he has written on this subject.  The article is excellent, and I strongly advise you to read it.  You can find the article here:  Antifreeze

Propylene glycol antifreeze, which is safe for our cars AND for the environment AND which has far fewer health hazards associated with it will be available in the Spring of 2010.  If you are interested in purchasing some in bulk you can learn more at this link:  www.classiccoolant.com   (NOTE: The IVVCC is not endorsing the products you find on this link.)  (Article started 6th January 2010.  Latest update 25 May 2011)

 

Read FIVA Turin Charter draft here: Turin Charter draft

Give your feed back to FIVA here: Feedback

(Added to Home page 17:42  29 March 2011.  Moved to this page 16:53  04 April 2011.  JL)

 

For information about ethanol in petrol click here:-

Ethanol in petrol

(This topic was started in February 2010. JL)

Thanks to Nick Stratta, an IVVCC member, for this information.  (Article added 10:15 17th December 2010)

Beware miracle additives and especially chlorinated paraffins

The article below was written by John Rowland, Derby (industrial chemist). 

Dave Pittuck came across the publicity for a lubricant additive named Bitron, for which some wonderful claims were being made, and he asked me whether it was likely to of benefit to Morgan owners. I told him not to touch it with a bargepole. At about the same time I was contacted by a French acquaintance who had put the additive Mecacyl in the gearbox of his Citroen tintop and subsequently discovered a great deal of internal corrosion.

Both these products are based on chemicals known as chlorinated paraffins. We oil industry types knew all about chlorinated paraffins seventy years ago, and so did the motor industry. Bitron—in common with many other ‘miracle’ additives—is based upon this1930s technology. Chlorinated paraffins have powerful anti-seize properties, so they were used in the early ‘hypoid’ axle oils until less corrosive compounds were synthesised. In the laboratory they give spectacular results in seizure-test machines which look very impressive, but they now only feature in the cutting oils used for the heavy machining of tough steels; there are no automotive applications for them. In particular, they severely corrode copper-based alloys. Those early hypoid gear lubricants which contained chlorinated paraffins could only be used on totally copper-free devices, hence warnings about using them on the bronze wormwheels of Morgans. Chlorinated compounds can also attack iron and steel at high temperatures. (Easily reached around piston rings, for example.)

As EP (extreme pressure) anti-seize agents their mechanism of action is as follows: When two steel surfaces (such as gear teeth) come into contact at high pressure, tiny areas literally weld themselves together. The welded contacts are ripped off the teeth as they move apart; the common name for this process is ‘wear’! Chlorinated compounds decompose due to high temperatures at points of high-pressure contact, generating layers of soft ferric chloride, which prevent welding. The trouble is that ferric chloride in the presence of even tiny amounts of moisture breaks down to produce hydrochloric acid, which eats into the steel to produce more ferric chloride, which . . . etc etc! The stuff attacks copper alloys at a ferocious rate, and the resulting copper salts act as oxidation catalysts which accelerate oil breakdown. Two vicious circles foe the price of one! (Note that the electronics industry uses ferric chloride solution to dissolve copper from printed circuits. Metallurgists use it to etch stainless steel.)

Since around 1960, therefore, the EP agents in gear oils have been safe and non-corrosive sulphur/phosphorus compounds. Chlorinated paraffins have never been used by any responsible manufacturer in engine oils.

The chlorinated paraffins used in industrial cutting oils are fairly stable, and they are always used with an anti-corrosion additive, but they are never used to cut copper alloys, and they are only necessary for difficult jobs. The Health and Safety warnings we have to issue are rather severe, and there are moves to get rid of these compounds altogether. Oddly enough, the correct warnings never appear on ‘magic additives’, and the distributors, when asked if their products contain chlorinated compounds, say ‘no’ or ‘eh?’. One simple way to find out is to pour a drop into water; if is sinks, it’s chlorinated. (Some of the hydrogen atoms in paraffin are replaced by heavy chlorine atoms, so the density almost doubles.) This doesn’t always work if the stuff is diluted with solvents, so try this one: (Perfectly safe for Morgan drivers, skilled in all dark arts, but watch out if you are a muggle.) Heat a bit of thick, clean copper wire to red heat in a gas flame. Contrary to popular belief, the flame will not turn green! Dip it in the suspect fluid, then heat it up again. If chlorine is present, the flame will turn green, due to the formation of copper chloride. (Much cheaper than our infra-red spectrophotometer!)

Incidentally, chlorinated paraffins are also cheap—around £1 per kg in bulk—which means that the purveyors of miracle lubricants are selling the stuff at a mark-up of at least 1000%. The marketers often don’t know what is in the bottle! They are at the bottom of a ‘pyramid’ sales scam, and they can only repeat the nonsense they have been told. Their publicity implies ‘secret’ knowledge that the bona fide lubricants industry is unaware of. Well! What a nerve!

 

Article added 09:52  16th November 2010 (reproduced courtesy of FIVA)

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIALOGUE
Second meeting of the European Parliament Historic Vehicle Group

The second meeting of the European Parliament’s Historic Vehicle Group took place on 19 October in Strasbourg. During the meeting Horst Brüning and Andrew Burt gave a presentation about the definition of a historic vehicle. They explained that a wide range of definitions are currently used in both EU and national laws and that ideally, one common definition would be recognised by decision makers and in law. They then detailed the FIVA definition, explained its rationale and explained the importance of a definition allowing regulatory audiences to understand why historic vehicles should be treated differently to all other vehicles, especially to all other “older” vehicles. Horst Brüning and Andrew Burt explained that the existing variety of definitions has not created any major practical problems to date, but that as legislation with exemptions for HVs increases (which is likely in particular because of the development of Intelligent Transport Systems and LEZs) there will be a heightened need for a common definition to avoid problems/make life simpler for owners, regulators and law enforcers in the future. They therefore urged the MEPs to help FIVA to promote and achieve a common definition for future use in EU legislation. The MEPs expressed their surprise at the current situation and agreed that they would aim to help FIVA in its objective.


Roadworthiness Testing – Commission considered consultation responses
FIVA contributed to the European Commission’s consultation on a possible amendment to the 1996 Roadworthiness Testing Directive in September. The existing Directive allows Member States to treat historic vehicles differently to other vehicles in their national testing regimes. However, the definition of a historic vehicle in the existing Directive is not satisfactory as it is: “certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation”. In its submission FIVA has therefore said that this definition should be changed to reflect the FIVA definition. FIVA also explained that there is likely to be an increasing need for HVs be to treated differently as testing will increasingly rely on highly sensitive automated machines. This lack of human intervention and reliance on equipment designed for modern vehicles may well lead to historic vehicles unfairly and unnecessarily failing tests. Hence the need for historic vehicles – appropriated defined - be allowed to be treated differently to modern vehicles. FIVA also made the point that historic vehicles include all vehicles – i.e. motorcycles and commercial vehicles as well as cars.


FIVA will meet with the European Commission before the end of the year to explain further its views. FIVA hopes that the Commission will recognise the need to maintain the special provisions for historic vehicles and recognise the need to change the definition so that it mirrors the FIVA definition.
 

Article added 28 Sep 2010.

New regulations came into force on the 1st of September 2010 concerning the importation and registration of vehicles.

 S.I. No. 400/2010 — Vehicle Registration and Taxation (Amendment) Regulations 2010.

Click here to open full document on Government website:  SI 400/2010

The IVVCC has examined these regulations and we are satisfied that there is no apparent change in the law governing the importation of older vehicles, although the identification of each vehicle and its importer will now be better verified.  The new regulations enable the checking of imported vehicles to be carried out by an approved private business (the NCT contractor) instead of by Revenue.  NCT test centres have suitable facilities for examining vehicles.  There is a charge for the examination by the NCT, but we understand that this is credited against the VRT due on the imported vehicle.   The IVVCC would be very interested to hear from individuals who have experienced problems importing pre-1985 vehicles under the new arrangement (email jflarkin@eircom.net ).  Below is a summary of how the new regulations affect the private individual as interpreted by the IVVCC webmaster (in other words, not an official legal interpretation).

The importing person must make an appointment for a pre-registration examination with an NCT office not later than 7 days after the arrival in the State of the vehicle, and must register the vehicle to the satisfaction of the Commissioners not later than 30 days after its arrival in the State.

Where the vehicle is being presented by a person other than the person in whose name the vehicle is to be registered, a document is required authorising the importer to register the vehicle on behalf of the other person, and must be signed by that other person, and provide such other particulars relating to that person as the Revenue Commissioners consider necessary for the proper administration of the tax. In respect of the person in whose name the vehicle is to be registered the details required are:- the name of that person as it appears on that person’s passport, driving licence or such other document establishing that person's identity as the Commissioners may specify;  the address of that person as it appears on a recent bank statement, utility bill or such other document establishing that person’s address as the Commissioners may specify;  the PPSN (personal public service number) of that person.

For the purposes of the registration of a vehicle the NCT office shall require the person presenting the vehicle for registration to sign a document confirming the vehicle details, and such document shall be retained by the NCT office.

In respect of the vehicle the following details are required:-  The vehicle identification number;  the make, model and variant;  the number of doors, seats and windows;  the level of CO2 emissions; the vehicle category by reference to the relevant EC type-approval certificate or EC certificate of conformity;  or any other documentation specified by the Commissioners for the purposes of confirming the categorisation of vehicles for the purposes of Chapter IV of Part II of the Finance Act 1992, and such other particulars, if any, relating to vehicles as the Commissioners consider necessary for the proper administration of the tax. 

 

ETHANOL IN PETROL ... something to be concerned about?

Click here for the legislation that mandated ethanol in petrol : Energy Act 2010

***********************************

This article is reprinted courtesy of Zach Merrill of the FOOTHILLS BRITISH CAR CLUB (http://www.fbccsc.org/) and is dated February 2010

Living with a Tipsy Classic

Or

Your LBC and Ethanol

In my youth, my father ran a wrecker service. As a result of my exposure to that sometimes-dreadful business, witnessing other people's hard-learned lessons convinced me that mixing alcohol and automobiles can lead to unfortunate consequences. That  truism has never been more true than it is today. Until recently, it was only the operator who sometimes disastrously opted to imbibe. These days, our legislative officials have seen fit to force alcohol on our machinery as well.

 It is very difficult to avoid being forced to be a consumer of 10% ethanol mixed with 90% gasoline. In ordinary operation in a modern vehicle, other than a slight degradation in fuel economy, the evil brew yields little to complain about. In vintage vehicles, small engines, and marine craft, however, it can be another matter entirely. Modern fuel injected vehicles with high-pressure fuel systems and feedback-loop fuel management can generally burn 10% ethanol and be content. The fuel system samples the O2 output in the exhaust, richens the mixture a sniff and goes on about its day. Use 10% “ethanol enhanced“ gasoline (hereafter referred to as E10) in a carbureted engine with no O2 feedback, and the scenario likely won't play out quite as well. Toss in the additional issue of an atmospherically-ventilated fuel system combined with infrequent use, and you have the making of a very unhappy experience. Even in the best of circumstances, a vintage carbureted engine running on E10 is compromised. If the fuel/air mixture had been optimized for gasoline, it will be a sniff lean on E10. True enough, the mixture can be recalibrated if someone knows how to do it and then actually follows through. Expect to lose about 7%(ish) fuel economy though and expect the engine to have some issues with hot weather driveability, but it will generally run more or less OK.

 There are some real potential issues with attack of rubber polymers and there is a risk of crud being dislodged and causing clogging. Still, most old cars sorta-almost-nearly run OK most of the time on E10 if the engine is operated regularly and the fuel is not allowed to age more than a few weeks. Aging a really bad thing. I am reminded with each look in the mirror, but even I age well compared to E10.

 Ethanol has a major affinity for moisture. Store E10 in a modern vehicle with a sealed (not atmospherically vented) fuel system, and it still only stays fresh about 12 weeks. Put E10 in your vintage classic with its vented fuel system, and within a mere month, the fuel is no longer fresh. Leave the fuel in the tank just a few months, and you are facing disaster. The alcohol absorbs moisture from the air. The fuel experiences phase change. The moisture laden alcohol separates from the gas and settles to the bottom. It becomes highly corrosive. As if that were not bad enough, the remaining gasoline has very poor octane and the whole miserable concoction has a terrible tendency toward oxidation. Good old-fashioned red Sta-bil helps retard the oxidation, but it does not help with the moisture absorption and the phase change issue. For emphasis, let me remind you this moisture absorption happens because the alcohol sucks the moisture right out of the air and this condition occurs readily if the fuel is contained in a vented tank and/or fuel bowl (as is the case with vintage cars, boats built prior to 1977, and most small engines.) Until recently, I did not know of any off-the-shelf product that solves the problem. Today, however, I discovered “Sta-bil Marine Formula” for ethanol fuels. Finally, there is hope! I spoke with a chemist at the company. I have been assured that if “Sta-bil Marine Formula” is added properly to E10, the fuel will remain fresh for 12 months. The chemistry in the blue Sta-bil (not the red Sta-bil) addresses both the oxidation issue and the moisture absorption issue. The red stuff still works fine if the fuel is stored in a sealed container...but such is not the case in the fuel tank of most vintage cars. Be aware and be happy that there is now a solution....but do nothing, and prepare to be sad.

Zach Merrill

Testing fuel for ethanol : The following test can be performed to determine the presence of ethanol in gasoline.

On a test tube or olive bottle, make a permanent line about two inches from the bottom.  Fill with water to this line, then fill the tube to the top with gasoline.

Cover the tube, agitate it then let it stand.

Ethanol mixes with water and the two will separate out together. Therefore, after mixing the water and the gasoline, if the water level appears to have increased, then the fuel contains ethanol and should not be used.

Ethanol fuels can damage the rubber and aluminium components of your vehicle's fuel system. Ethanol increases the volatility of fuel, and hence the possibility of vapour lock also increases.  Ethanol may vent off at altitude, reducing both range and octane.  (Thanks to Petersen Aviation Inc, Minden, Nebraska.)

**************************************

Wikipedia information added 11:12  22 March 2011:-  Fuel system problems.    See also: E85 in standard engines#Risks .    Fuels with more than 10% ethanol are not compatible with non E85-ready fuel system components and may cause corrosion of iron components.[193][194] Ethanol fuel can negatively affect electric fuel pumps by increasing internal wear,[194] cause undesirable spark generation,[195] and is not compatible with capacitance fuel level gauging indicators and may cause erroneous fuel quantity indications in vehicles that employ that system.[196] It is also not always compatible with marine craft, especially those that use fiberglass fuel tanks.[197][198] Ethanol is also not used in aircraft for these same reasons.   Using 100% ethanol fuel decreases fuel-economy by 15-30% over using 100% gasoline; this can be avoided using certain modifications that would, however, render the engine inoperable on regular gasoline without the addition of an adjustable ECU.[199] Tough materials are needed to accommodate a higher compression ratio to make an ethanol engine as efficient as it would be on gasoline; these would be similar to those used in diesel engines which typically run at a CR of 20:1,[200] vs. about 8-12:1 for gasoline engines.[201]   In April 2008 the German environmental minister cancelled a proposed 10% ethanol fuel scheme citing technical problems: too many older cars in Germany are unequipped to handle this fuel. Ethanol levels in fuel will remain at 5%.[202]

 

********************

Added 13:37  22 March 2011

The following was sourced from the website of the Irish Aviation Authority at 13:34 on 22 March 2011:   http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?&1n=93&2n=139&p=141&n=185&a=493

7. Adverse effects of using MOGAS containing alcohol

7.1 - The probability of vapour lock increases when ethanol is mixed with fuel.

7.2 - Ethanol is hygroscopic in nature and therefore it will mix with water.   This can be in the form of water vapour from air or condensation from inside tanks or free water.  Very small amounts of water can be absorbed without significantly affecting combustion, at higher levels the mixture will not be combustible.  In addition, because this incombustible fuel is formed from a mixture of the ethanol in the fuel and the water it can have a large volume - so a small amount of water will result in a much larger amount of incombustible ethanol/water mix.  This can lead to false readings in the fuel tank sumps or exceed the volume of the sump altogether.

7.3 - Ethanol is an Octane booster and can be absorbed by water.  The mixing of fuel and water can effectively wash the ethanol out of the fuel resulting in a significant reduction to the remaining fuel's Octane rating.

7.4 - An engine will use more fuel as the percentage of added alcohol increases.  An approximate figure is that the engine must burn 3% more fuel to give the same power output if the fuel contains 10% ethanol.

7.5 - Ethanol mixed with water is somewhat corrosive and may attack parts of the fuel system. In long-term storage, Ethanol may oxidise with exposure to air.  This process produces a mild acid solution which can attack fuel system fittings.

7.6 - Long term exposure to ethanol damages some types of plastics (elastomers), therefore items such as flexible fuel lines are subject to increased deterioration.  Some of the elastomers used in old aircraft models and which are otherwise compatible with Avgas may deteriorate on contact with ethanol.

8. Carburettor Icing: Carburettor icing is more likely when using MOGAS because it has a higher volatility (and possibly a higher water content) than AVGAS.   

**********************

Added by JL 14:24  22 March 2011.    This is a list of manufacturers whose cars are E10 compatible.  It is clear that E10 compatibility did not really commence until the late 1990s, with many not achieving that status until the mid-2000s.  This seems to exclude all of our cars.

 
Maker Compatibility with E10
BMW All
BMW Mini All
Rolls Royce 2003 onwards
Mercedes Benz 2002 onwards
All fuel-injected vehicles not equipped with three-way catalysts.
Smart All
Alfa Romeo 2005 onwards
Fiat 2000 onwards, with several exceptions
Ford 1992 onwards except for  Mondeo SCI CD 132 until 2006.
Jaguar 1992 onwards
Land Rover 1996 onwards
Opel Information vague.
Porsche 1998 onwards.
Peugeot 2000 onwards.
Renault 1997 onwards with exceptions.
Toyota 1998 onwards with exceptions.
VW 2000 onwards with exceptions.
Audi 1992 onwards with exceptions.
Seat 1999 onwards with exceptions.
Skoda Generally not suitable.
Volvo 1996 onwards, except for S/V40 model with 1.8L engine.
Saab Mid 1980s onwards.
Daihatsu 2008 onwards
Honda Information vague.
Nissan 2000 onwards
Mazda 2002 onwards
Mitsubishi Information vague.
Subaru 1991/1994 onwards
Suzuki Information vague.

*********************

5% ethanol in petrol increases fuel consumption by 2%.  10% ethanol increases fuel consumption by 4%, and 20% ethanol by 9%.   (Ethanol energy content is 26.8MJ/kg.  Petrol energy content is 44.4MJ/kg. Source: Wikipedia).  (JL added 17:19 22 March 2011.)

 

 

ANTIFREEZE WARNING!

Please be aware of the risks associated with antifreeze ---  over the last few years manufacturers have changed from inorganic additive technology (IAT) to organic acid technology (OAT). This later type of antifreeze is generally unsuitable for historic cars, resulting in severe corrosion of aluminium components.   Look for antifreeze that is BS 3150 Type A. (24 December 2009)

 

TYRES --- A WARNING!

The following article is reproduced courtesy of FBHVC (Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs), Newsletter 04-07.   This is is a much-overlooked item of safety --- even by drivers who are fastidious about high standards.  Many are not aware that tyres degrade with time and become unsafe; note the recommendation in red below.  The FBHVC are to be commended for highlighting this issue. (Thanks also to Noel Doyle for bring attention to this article.)


Her Majesty’s Coroner for Manchester wrote to FBHVC just after the last newsletter went to press and many will have seen this topic on our (FBHVC) website - it is an important matter and we urge clubs to pass the warning on to their membership if they have not already done so.

The letter concerned an accident that took place last year in which the driver of an H registered MG B lost his life when a rear tyre burst on the M56. The driver was a skilled mechanic and a careful and experienced driver who was not travelling particularly fast at the time. The car was described by police as being maintained in excellent condition. The surviving passenger said that just before the accident the driver had commented that a ‘tyre wobble’ had developed and he was going to ‘drive through it’. The wobble went briefly, but then the tyre burst, causing the car to spin, clip a kerb and flip over.

Subsequent investigation showed that although hardly used the tyre was 25 years old. It was one of a set of as-new tyres and wheels bought at an autojumble the previous year for use for show purposes (at the time of the incident the car was on its way to an event at Oulton Park).

This note appeared in the Newsletter for December 2003 following a suggestion that tyre dating may become a feature of the MoT: …the Vehicle Standards and Engineering Division at the Department for Transport [has advised us] that although most tyres already carry dates of manufacture in their side-walls, there are no plans to implement regulations to check such dates at the annual MoT test. DfT would, of course, change their mind if tyre failure due to age became a significant cause of accidents.

The British Rubber Manufacturers Association suggests that if a tyre is six years old and remains unused it should not be put into service. It also suggests that in
ideal conditions tyres may have a life expectancy of 10 years.

The moral of the story is not to wait for legislation, but to make sure your own tyres are in good condition, never to use undated or obviously old second hand tyres however good the tread and never to ignore a ‘tyre wobble’.

The webmaster found the following helpful information published by the Vredestein tyre company:-

The sidewall of the tyre carries a code from which the production date can be derived.  Since January 1st 2000 the production date is made up of 4 numerals, for instance

 DOT 9D YE 2406
means that the tyre was made in the 24th week of 2006

From 1990 to 1999 these were 3 numerals with a triangle, for instance    4583

which in this example means that the tyre was made in the 45th week of 1998. If there is no triangle behind the three numerals, the tyres were made prior to 1990.  Please check your tyres and if they are more than six years old you should consider replacing them with new tyres.  Driving on tyres more than ten years old may expose a driver to liability for using unsafe components on his vehicle.

Child restraints -- one person's private opinion versus sloppy legislation.

The webmaster, John Larkin, acting in his private capacity has been in correspondence with the Department of Transport since 2006 concerning seatbelts and child restraints in historic cars.  The correspondence was prompted by the dangers created by the use of child "safety" devices that raised the child above the installed seat level in open-topped cars exposing more of the child's torso above the waist level of the car.  I have copied the Minister's long-awaited reply below.

Bear in mind that you do not need to use child restraints/boosters unless seat belts are installed.

I explained to the Minister for Transport that a responsible and safety-conscious driver could reasonably consider that a child would be more safely transported in an historic car where seatbelts have been retro-fitted while restrained only by the belts and not in conjunction with a booster seat or similar, but that the legislation made it an offence to omit the booster seat.   I asked the Minister to exempt this type of case from the legislation, but he has confirmed that it will remain a requirement, and thus an offence not to comply.

This creates the bizarre situation where if, out of a desire to aim for high standards of safety, you have fitted seatbelts to your historic car which was never required by law to have seatbelts fitted you will be committing an offence by not using child booster seats even if you consider them unsafe in your particular vehicle.  However, if you remove your seatbelts completely from your car and allow your child passengers to be thrown about unrestrained in a collision then that's perfectly OK --- you won't be breaking the law!  I will rely on the prudence and common sense of the courts to assess the reasonableness and sense of my thinking as a caring father and as an informed person if I am ever charged with an offence under this piece of sloppy legislation.  The Minister recognises the sense of using an adult seatbelt to restrain a child without a booster in one circumstance in the main paragraph of his letter, but fails to understand that a responsible, informed and safety-conscious driver should also be permitted to exercise such a discretion without being forced to weigh it up against the prospect of prosecution.

You may also see in the letter that the Minister states that children may only be carried in the rear seats of cars not fitted with seatbelts.  What about two-seater cars?   In 1978 when compulsory wearing of seatbelts was first proposed I was driving a two-seater car (which I still have and use).  I wrote to the Minister at that time and explained that I regularly drove my then ten year-old brother to school lawfully in my two-seater car, but that the proposed legislation would make it illegal to carry him in the front  (and only) passenger seat in my car.  Cheekily I asked the Minister to confirm that I should instead carry him strapped to the car's roof rack in order not to be breaking the law as proposed.  The Minister of the time subsequently, and sensibly, exempted two-seater cars from the particular requirement.  The present Minister appears to have been badly advised by his staff if the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of his letter is meant to be understood as prohibiting children from being carried in the front seat of two-seater cars.   Whither common sense?

These opinions expressed above are not the opinions of the IVVCC; they are the personal opinions of the webmaster John Larkin.  This website is merely the forum on which this matter of public interest has been made known.

 

 

 
 
Refer to the Archived articles page for articles that previously appeared here.
 

PAINT FOR HISTORIC CARS

The following information has been transcribed from the Official Journal of the European Union dated 30th April 2004, pages L 143/88 and 89 as a public information service to all old car enthusiasts:-

DIRECTIVE 2004/42/CE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC.

Recital (11): Member States should be able to grant individual licences for the sale and purchase for specific purposes of products in strictly limited quantities which do not comply with the solvent limit values established by this Directive.

and

Article 3.3: For the purposes of restoration and maintenance of buildings and vintage vehicles designated by competent authorities as being of particular historical and cultural value, Member States may grant individual licences for the sale and purchase in strictly limited quantities of products which do not meet the VOC limit values laid down in Annex II.

 

 
 

 

© IVVCC 2012. All rights reserved.