acra
Newbie
Posts: 16
|
Post by acra on Oct 9, 2011 10:26:19 GMT
I don't think cost should be a factor as to whether or not you IVA the car... The MX5 is a monocoque structure, which means the chassis is integrated with the body. No body, no chassis - end of argument. People who keep trying to get around the system are the reason insurance prices are so high, and why the IVA had to be introduced as a more stringent version of the SVA, so to honest people it is frustrating when people attempt to bend or break the law to save a few quid! Anyway, sorry to hear about the OP's friend, I just want to chuck my two pennies in since there are so many people here who seem to think that a couple of subframe bits and an extra frame designed to make the car handle better to be a chassis! People arent trying to get 'around the system', people are looking for possible alternatives. Theres been a lot of talk about wether or not an IVA is needed (legally more than anyhting) with no difinitive answers. Add to that Paultyres thread and it just makes things more confusing, his insurance company is happy as well as the plod. As for you theory about high insurance prices i hardly think registering the exocet as a rebodied mx5 or an exocet affects anyone else's premium at all, infact im confident a rebodied mx5 costs more to insure than an exocet so its not going to be done to save a few quid on insurance. I'd suggest that insurance companies who accept the Exocet as being 'a heavily modified MX5' haven't been told the entire truth about the nature of the car... There's no denying that the Exocet uses a completely new chassis, body and all external components (within reason) and therefore it is a kit car by definition that uses the MX5 as a donor vehicle. Otherwise we could suggest that ANY single-donor kit is simply a 'heavily modified' version of the donor! It has also been suggested here that declaring the car as modified on the insurance is the cheaper option than an IVA, so I'd suggest that people are trying to get around the system for that fact. I'm surprised the police are happy with the car being a 'rebodied MX5', and would suggest that perhaps people with that experience have dealt with friendly officers (for example I used to drive with blue tinted headlights in my younger days, and never once got in trouble with it despite the illegality I now realise it was!). As for my theory on insurance premiums - sure, it's not the main or only reason premiums are so high, but if an insurance company decides you are not properly insured after an accident, the other party insurance has to pay out, and they are recouping costs by charging everybody extra - exactly the same as when a snotty saxo with a bodykit crashes without the kit being declared - but that's another argument  I agree though, there does need to be greater clarification as to what vehicles need an IVA and which doesn't! EDIT: I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just don't think people should be advising builders to avoid the IVA when (IMO) it is a legal requirement! Maybe the staff at MEV should clarify this point with VOSA/DVLA to ensure people aren't inadvertently breaking the law! |
|
|
|
Post by manxman on Oct 10, 2011 11:21:17 GMT
I have just ordered my Exocet kit and I think that MEV's position is quite clear. In the terms and conditions on the reverse of the order form there is a categoric statement that MEV considers that an IVA is required. I haven't got it in front of me so can't quote exactly but I am in no doubt that MEV state that a test is required.
With regard to insurance, when I enquired about a quote, the specialist insurers were cheaper for an Exocet than a standard MX5, albeit on a limited mileage basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by paultyre on Oct 11, 2011 7:27:04 GMT
The thing is that i have always felt that the car should be iva,d however when i built the car my insurance man regularly visited to see progress and he said he was happy to insure it on my bus sines policy and gave it to me in writing that he had seen it and was happy i then spoke to a lady called Clair at dvla and she said she couldn't see a problem with me using it so i have been using it with the full in tension of putting it through an iva this winter . I just felt like telling you what the police have said although i don't completely agree with them .
|
|
acra
Newbie
Posts: 16
|
Post by acra on Oct 11, 2011 7:54:11 GMT
The thing is that i have always felt that the car should be iva,d however when i built the car my insurance man regularly visited to see progress and he said he was happy to insure it on my bus sines policy and gave it to me in writing that he had seen it and was happy i then spoke to a lady called Clair at dvla and she said she couldn't see a problem with me using it so i have been using it with the full in tension of putting it through an iva this winter . I just felt like telling you what the police have said although i don't completely agree with them . It's very interesting to hear that insurance companies, the DVLA and police don't really care about the rules  Definitely thanks for letting us know at any rate, I just believe that the IVA is in place for a good reason - hell there's no doubt your car is perfectly safe, it's just I like things to be by the book |
|
iddo
Newbie
Posts: 4
|
Post by iddo on Nov 6, 2011 2:20:53 GMT
Hello
Newbie here. I don't know whether this is the same type of thing but it seems it to me. The thing is I have a friend who has a beach buggy. It is made from a VW Beetle (long wheel base). When he first finished it I asked him about the IVA or SVA as it was then and he said he didn't need to bother having it done, it just needed an M.O.T. He said he had looked into it and because he hadn't cut the wheel base down like a lot do, he could insure it under a modified Beetle as the base and engine were original and had not been changed.
This to me seems the same with the Exocet as the engine, suspension and base of the car are the same as a standard MX5 and as far as safety goes, surely the M.O.T would establish whether the car was safe or not?
|
|
iddo
Newbie
Posts: 4
|
Post by iddo on Nov 6, 2011 2:50:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Patey on Nov 6, 2011 9:27:43 GMT
Sad to hear the news the IVA isnt hard to do it is part ov the fun it is for yor safety and you dont want a Q reg the' value will be lower so go for the IVA Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Nov 6, 2011 19:07:42 GMT
I agree. The IVA shouldn't be seen as an expensive punishment for building a kit, it should be seen as a thorough check over the car to make sure you've done everything correctly, making sure the car is safe to be on the road.
I'd much rather spend a few hundred quid getting someone to confirm I can build a car at the end of it, than try and sneak it under the radar and me miss something and cause an accident or worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by sspogman on Nov 6, 2011 20:57:23 GMT
I agree. The IVA shouldn't be seen as an expensive punishment for building a kit, it should be seen as a thorough check over the car to make sure you've done everything correctly, making sure the car is safe to be on the road. I'd much rather spend a few hundred quid getting someone to confirm I can build a car at the end of it, than try and sneak it under the radar and me miss something and cause an accident or worse. Totally agree with the sentiment of what you describe, but £450 (+£90 per re-test) still seems like a lot of money to me for what is effectively a couple of hours work for one engineer... |
|
iddo
Newbie
Posts: 4
|
Post by iddo on Nov 6, 2011 22:06:56 GMT
I agree. The IVA shouldn't be seen as an expensive punishment for building a kit, it should be seen as a thorough check over the car to make sure you've done everything correctly, making sure the car is safe to be on the road. I'd much rather spend a few hundred quid getting someone to confirm I can build a car at the end of it, than try and sneak it under the radar and me miss something and cause an accident or worse. Totally agree with the sentiment of what you describe, but £450 (+£90 per re-test) still seems like a lot of money to me for what is effectively a couple of hours work for one engineer... Agree. Yes we all want these types of cars to be safe on the road for ourselves and for other people but that's what an MOT is for. £50 for an MOT or £450 for the IVA + £90 re-test, plus registration costs, form filling, hassle of taking it here there and everywhere. People at the DVLA wanting to inspect it and expecting you to pay for them to inspect it. This all mounts up and before you know it, you can stick an extra £1000 onto the cost of the build.  I'm looking at MX5's at the moment and want to build an Exocet but there is no doubt that the extra £1000 on top of the price of a kit and donor vehicle is making me think hard, especially as I'll probably only get 2-3 months use out of the car a year due to the weather. |
|
|
|
Post by mathew on Nov 7, 2011 6:55:31 GMT
Another way of looking at it (which makes the IVA seem financially worth it) is that if you go the IVA route then the insurance will be cheaper (a saving of over £400 a year for me between an Exocet and heavily modified mx5!) and no cost of mot'ing it each year for the first 3 so another few hundred quid saved there.
|
|
Andy888
Full
Exocet Builder
Posts: 212
|
Post by Andy888 on Nov 7, 2011 21:20:23 GMT
It's not an extra £1000 on the cost though. Make sure you read the manual and comply. You can drive the car to the iva, or at worst it's £30 to rent a trailer for a day....
|
|
|
|
Post by Stiggy on Nov 7, 2011 23:11:14 GMT
The IVA should be seen as a government service to ensure your car is safe whilst also ensuring the value of the car increases once it's passed. Use the service to your advantage and your kit will be worth more than it cost you to build provide that it is properly registered as a MEV EXOCET.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Nov 7, 2011 23:14:05 GMT
Agree. Yes we all want these types of cars to be safe on the road for ourselves and for other people but that's what an MOT is for. £50 for an MOT or £450 for the IVA + £90 re-test, plus registration costs, form filling, hassle of taking it here there and everywhere. People at the DVLA wanting to inspect it and expecting you to pay for them to inspect it. This all mounts up and before you know it, you can stick an extra £1000 onto the cost of the build. I'm looking at MX5's at the moment and want to build an Exocet but there is no doubt that the extra £1000 on top of the price of a kit and donor vehicle is making me think hard, especially as I'll probably only get 2-3 months use out of the car a year due to the weather. But the MOT doesn't cover anywhere near as much detail as the IVA does. The MOT makes a lot of assumptions based on the car type you're testing. Things like panels being bolted on in the correct fashion with protruding parts covered. So yes, it's another £400 on top of an MOT, but by the end of it you know you've got a fully road worthy car, which is going to be worth more when you come to sell it as the buyer will have a lot more confidence in it. It's easily going to add £400 on the resale value. Put it this way, if you were spending £10k on a kit car, would you pick the one for £10,000 with a full IVA, or the one parked next to it for £9,500 with just an MOT and no paperwork? |
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Nov 7, 2011 23:15:19 GMT
The IVA should be seen as a government service to ensure your car is safe whilst also ensuring the value of the car increases once it's passed. Use the service to your advantage and your kit will be worth more than it cost you to build provide that it is properly registered as a MEV EXOCET. ;D that's what I was getting at but took 3 minutes longer to type it |
|
