Revenue weight - problem at MOT time

glencoyne wrote:

> VOSA really don't have a clue, do they? I give up.

That pretty much sums up everything that the Government touches - and
it's getting worse by the day.

On 21 Dec 2005 02:20:10 -0800, "glencoyne" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>VOSA really don't have a clue, do they? I give up.

I bet if you rang them again a spoke to someone else youd get
completely different answers off them.

I've seen so many different VOSA answers to the same question that
i've given up with them too. Its also good when they refer you to
someone else who then refers you back to where you started!

On 21 Dec 2005 01:17:00 -0800, "glencoyne" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I now have (I think) a definitive answer from VOSA. If a vehicle has
>four wheel drive, an unladen weight of 2040kg or less, and is able to
>carry passengers, it is classed as a dual purpose vehicle for MOT
>purposes and subject to class 4. 'Carrying passengers' includes the
>front seats, so you do not need to have seats in the back for the
>vehicle to be dual purpose. Nor do you need a hard top, side windows
>etc.

Yes this is what I think, tough as pointed out 4wd is apparently not
mentioned in the tester's manual
>
>'Dual purpose' has different meanings for different purposes -
>tachograph rules, SVA tests, Customs & Excise etc all have their own
>definitions. Very confusing.
>
>I still wonder about Forward Controls though - are they less than
>2040kg unladen?

My 101 came in at about 1800kg, much the same as the hardtop 110 and
less than a discovery I think. Mind I made sure it was clean, no spare
and little fuel just in case.

The MOT station wouldn't believe either were dual purpose without the
letter from DVLA and also required the weight ticket, overall probably
cheaper to go for the class 7 test.

AJH

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:51 +0100, AJH wrote:

> My 101 came in at about 1800kg, much the same as the hardtop 110 and
> less than a discovery I think. Mind I made sure it was clean, no
> spare and little fuel just in case.

Quite, my thinking is take it to, preferably a VOSA, weigh bridge, in
<cough> "light weight mode" and get the damn thing weighed. Get an
official record of the weight and wave that about. Always assuming
it's the right side of correct of course. B-)

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:51 +0100, AJH <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes this is what I think, tough as pointed out 4wd is apparently not
>mentioned in the tester's manual

I just dug out a page from the 2002 MOT testing guide, section A page
6:

"Dual purpose vehicles
3, A Dual purpose vehicle is one that

is constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passenger(s) and
goods or
burden of any description; and

has an unladen weight (ULW) not exceeding 2,040 kg; and

which either:

a. Is so constructed or adapted so that the driving power of the
engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or

b. satisfies the following conditions as to construction:

(i) is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a
sliding panel......<snipped other requirements for non 4wd>".

AJH

On or around Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:36:28 +0100, AJH <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:51 +0100, AJH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yes this is what I think, tough as pointed out 4wd is apparently not
>>mentioned in the tester's manual
>
>I just dug out a page from the 2002 MOT testing guide, section A page
>6:
>
>"Dual purpose vehicles
>3, A Dual purpose vehicle is one that
>
>is constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passenger(s) and
>goods or
>burden of any description; and
>
>has an unladen weight (ULW) not exceeding 2,040 kg; and
>
>which either:
>
>a. Is so constructed or adapted so that the driving power of the
>engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
>transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
>
>b. satisfies the following conditions as to construction:
>
>(i) is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a
>sliding panel......<snipped other requirements for non 4wd>".

so ragtop series doesn't qualify, unless it's got seats?

>
>
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:38:05 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:36:28 +0100, AJH <[email protected]>
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:51 +0100, AJH <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes this is what I think, tough as pointed out 4wd is apparently not
>>>mentioned in the tester's manual
>>
>>I just dug out a page from the 2002 MOT testing guide, section A page
>>6:
>>
>>"Dual purpose vehicles
>>3, A Dual purpose vehicle is one that
>>
>>is constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passenger(s) and
>>goods or
>>burden of any description; and
>>
>>has an unladen weight (ULW) not exceeding 2,040 kg; and
>>
>>which either:
>>
>>a. Is so constructed or adapted so that the driving power of the
>>engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
>>transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
>>
>>b. satisfies the following conditions as to construction:
>>
>>(i) is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a
>>sliding panel......<snipped other requirements for non 4wd>".
>
>so ragtop series doesn't qualify, unless it's got seats?

Not if it is not constructed so that the

" driving power of the
engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle"

Which I believe all LR products can be.

AJH

AJH wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:38:05 +0000, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On or around Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:36:28 +0100, AJH <[email protected]>
>>enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:51 +0100, AJH <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes this is what I think, tough as pointed out 4wd is apparently not
>>>>mentioned in the tester's manual
>>>
>>>I just dug out a page from the 2002 MOT testing guide, section A page
>>>6:
>>>
>>>"Dual purpose vehicles
>>>3, A Dual purpose vehicle is one that
>>>
>>>is constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passenger(s) and
>>>goods or
>>>burden of any description; and
>>>
>>>has an unladen weight (ULW) not exceeding 2,040 kg; and
>>>
>>>which either:
>>>
>>>a. Is so constructed or adapted so that the driving power of the
>>>engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
>>>transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
>>>
>>>b. satisfies the following conditions as to construction:
>>>
>>>(i) is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a
>>>sliding panel......<snipped other requirements for non 4wd>".
>>
>>so ragtop series doesn't qualify, unless it's got seats?
>
> Not if it is not constructed so that the
>
> " driving power of the
> engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
> transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle"
>
> Which I believe all LR products can be.
>

Not quite - there are the "Special Order" 2x4 series motors that the
utilities used to run.

P.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:55:42 +0000, "Paul S. Brown"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Not quite - there are the "Special Order" 2x4 series motors that the
>utilities used to run.

A sheep in wolf's clothing?

AJH

On or around Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:53:29 +0100, AJH <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:
>>>a. Is so constructed or adapted so that the driving power of the
>>>engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
>>>transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
>>>
>>>b. satisfies the following conditions as to construction:
>>>
>>>(i) is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a
>>>sliding panel......<snipped other requirements for non 4wd>".
>>
>>so ragtop series doesn't qualify, unless it's got seats?
>
>Not if it is not constructed so that the
>
>" driving power of the
>engine, is, or by the use of the appropriate controls can be,
>transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle"


ah, right, misread it.

there are one or two 2-WD only LRs about. Series I i think.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:49:58 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>there are one or two 2-WD only LRs about. Series I i think.

Paul's reply made me realise there are quite a few of the 6 wheel
variants that don't qualify.

AJH

In message <[email protected]>
AJH <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:49:58 +0000, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >there are one or two 2-WD only LRs about. Series I i think.

And some Series II - the Belgian Police had a batch.

>
> Paul's reply made me realise there are quite a few of the 6 wheel
> variants that don't qualify.
>
> AJH
>

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

"glencoyne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Copy of message I have already posted on S2 club forum:
>
> I just took a 1963 2A 109 petrol to my local MOT station. They now
> have the new computerised testing system which they did not have last
> time. They input the chassis number into the system and then informed
> me that they could not carry out the MOT.
>
> Reason given was that the vehicle has a revenue weight of 3499kg gross,
> and must therefore undergo a class 7 MOT test (commercial vehicles 3000
> - 3499kg GRW) which most MOT stations are not equipped for. I was
> given a computerised printout which showed the reason for rejection as
> 'Vehicle details entered incorrectly at test registration - wrong class
> vehicle'.
>
> Sure enough, the V5 states revenue weight of 3499kg gross. I thought
> this might be a one-off error: with a 2A weighing about 1800kg empty,
> if you load it up to 3499kg the chassis will probably bend in the
> middle. But then I checked the V5s for other commercial bodied Land
> Rovers that I have at the moment, and found revenue weights on the V5s
> as follows:
>
> 1971 2a 109: 3499kg
> 1964 2a 88: 2465kg
> 1959 S2 88: 3499kg
> 1980 S3 Lightweight: 3499kg
> 1983 S3 88: 3499kg
> 1958 S2 109: 2465kg
> 1987 90 hardtop: 3499kg
>
> Houston, we have a problem. It looks as though DVLA have been using
> 3499kg as the default revenue weight on Land Rover V5s for a very long
> time. Apart from the shortage of class 7 testing stations, the test
> costs more than a class 4 test. I don't know if it is any tougher.
>
> So I rang DVLA and was told that to change the revenue weight, all you
> need to do is enter the new weight on the V5C, sign it and send it back
> to them. I will do this today, but first:
>
> Does anyone know what the correct revenue weight (gross laden weight)
> is for the various models of Land Rover? The only ones I have found so
> far (from a Series 3 handbook) are:
>
> Series 3 88 inch (all) 2120kg
> Series 3 109 inch 4 and 6 cyl (exc. 1 Ton) 2710kg
>
> I guess these apply equally to Series 2 and 2A equivalents, but it
> would be nice to have this confirmed.
>
> Richard
>

Does the term revenue weight mean that this onlty applies to commercials or
does it apply to PLG as well. Mine is a Defender CSW with 12 seats and I had
a nightmare problem when I first got it new in 1998. No one could tell me
when the MoT was due as it had 12 seats it was treated as amini bus and
neede one after 12 months not 3 years.
I checked my V5 and the revenue weight section is blank ??

John H