Talk to me about chassis

[Grizzly]

No-one suggested stamping an LR number.

My suggestion above would have BOTH numbers on the sub-frame and I was talking about Lotus Replacement subframes, not Spyder ones.

Your description of DVLA practice, might well be what it is TODAY, but it certainly was not thus back in 1978.

The main problem even now is that though that might well be the proper DVLA practice, you first have to reach someone in the DVLA who knows that. Most of the lower minions do not seem to know about the unusual situations.

Fitting a Spyder subframe would almost certainly prevent you claiming MOT exemption too.

Seriously don't stamp any number into your chassis!! cut the old number out of the bad chassis clean it up and keep it somewhere safe with your documents.

As i said the only time it was accepted by the DVLA to fit a spyder chassis was while the original design was out of production !! if you have a receipt placing your spider chassis in that period then you are golden!! where it becomes very sketchy is when you come to sell your car if you are outside that period or have no receipt, you have an undeclared modification that effectively makes your car a Q plate slashing it's value if done by the book!! By Law, you have to declare that to the next owner or you leave your self open to a claim down the line. Or just fit a standard design chassis in the first place and skip the headache.......

The MOT thing falls under the same category, undeclared then no one will know (assuming it's outside the period the standard chassis was not in production again) but announce it and you automatically go on a Q and require an MOT.

[Grizzly]

It was long ago established by a Lotus official (who alas is no longer alive) that the metal bit under a Lotus Elan or +2 is a subframe not a chassis

I can offer literally hundreds of examples of the manufacturer referring to the lump of metal under the fibreglass body as a chassis. Is there anywhere in the manufacturer’s documentation referring to it as a “subframe”?

Google ‘chassis‘ and ‘subframe’ and see which images look most like our cars.

In the eyes of the DVLA it doesn't matter what you call it, if you remove a standard oem Chassis or subframe and replace it with a space frame (a Chassis or Subframe that is not of original design) by law it should be declared unless the standard item is out of production!! in that case you need to go through the channels to prove they are not available and make your case to the DVLA.

As i said before the problem is not so much you fitting a Spider chassis and keeping it to your self (you can do that and have no issues) it becomes a problem if you sell it and the next owner doesn't fully understand a spider chassis in the eyes of the law should mean the car is on a Q plate and he later finds out and doesn't like it (you would be liable)

[EPC 394J]

If the DVLA don’t care what you call it, then why do folks get so hung up on insisting it’s referred to as a ‘subframe’?

What’s the point?

[Grizzly]

Your description of DVLA practice, might well be what it is TODAY, but it certainly was not thus back in 1978.

The main problem even now is that though that might well be the proper DVLA practice, you first have to reach someone in the DVLA who knows that. Most of the lower minions do not seem to know about the unusual situations.

Fully agree, took me an age to talk to someone there that could tell me the DVLA stance without reading some passage from the rules at me.

You would have to check but i suspect 1978 was inside the period that was covered by the "Standard chassis not in production" agreement making it WAY easier to fit whatever chassis you wanted under your car. It just seems a lot of work finding out the dates the standard chassis was out of production and proving a Spider Chassis was fitted inside that period.

[Grizzly]

If the DVLA don’t care what you call it, then why do folks get so hung up on insisting it’s referred to as a ‘subframe’?

What’s the point?

I don't know...... the DVLA even say Chassis/Subframe when referring to this in their rules. I think it's been confused with the amount of car you can replace after an accident (subframes get less points than Chassis but it still has to be like for like oem parts if they are still in production)

[billwill]

Chris, you keep rabbiting on about Spyder chassis, but nothing I said related to Spyder chassis, except where I said fitting a Spyder replacement would probably prevent claiming MOT exemption, which boils down to pretty much the same thing as you are saying. You & I do not have opposing opinions on this matter.


And the Standard Lotus Replacement 'chassis' minus galvanising, must have been in production in 1978, because I had no problem buying one from London Sports Car Centre in Edgware.

[billwill]

If the DVLA don’t care what you call it, then why do folks get so hung up on insisting it’s referred to as a ‘subframe’?

What’s the point?

The lesser minions at the DVLA get less confused about the matter if you refer to it as a subframe, if you refer to it to the DVLA as a chassis, the lesser minions that deal with it first, will want you to take a Q number registration and you will be involved in many days/phone-calls/letters before you manage to reach a higher minion who knows that chassis & subframe are the same for Lotus Elans.

[Sploder90]

The DVLA had until fairly recently a network of district offices which were staffed with admin and inspectors that would determine what the car was.. consequently the policy may have had local & even individual inconsistencies
It has all now AFAIK been centralised in Swansea accessed via a phone system making it harder to contact the correct person if you need them to make a decision based on anything other than a flow chart.
If you do get a decision get it in writing / email and keep the evidence with the car.
Only other option is someone puts in a FOI request.asking for info related to the Lotus Elan subframe but chances are that will have been made So far back in time there will be no record unless someone at club lotus or similar had a copy and this debate coming up yet again indicates that no one in this side of the fence can actually provide the documentary evidence regarding the agreement it was a subframe..
Someone has tried the same argument with the MX5 power plant frame..

Question: Would you class the body shell of the Elan as a unitary construction / monocoque? If so then the subframe claim could be argued... Like a Mini. If not it is a chassis... Worth more points to DVLA and OK if you swap like for like but it has to be NEW not "previously enjoyed"

Non of this is potentially an issue while you own it and as long as no one questions it...
They employ a points system and are ok with like for like swaps They are also OK with modifications to some original components.. Especially where safety etc is concerned so I wouldn't think they would even query a 26R type for instance.. A space frame is a bit more obvious.

While I love the idea of the zetec spyder space frame as a modern update interpretation I would think it is pushing the envelope on still being classed as a Lotus Elan for identity purposes at least.. My view, others are available is that this in the UK and most of Europe should probably be IVA tested.

If they (DVLA) tell you your car ID is wrong based on a spyder chassis / subframe then I guess you could appeal and eventually after considerable cost on both sides a court would decide once and for all with a ruling... Anyone fancy taking one for the team?

Problem.is there are any number of other classic & specials vehicles in a similar situation

The term hybrid existed with Land Rovers in the UK long before the Prius was thought of.. Stick a series body on a shortened Range Rover chassis.. Just that then people didn't tell the DVLA...
There are also a surprising number of late model defenders that appear to be tax exempt for similar reasons.. they are ringers.

No one as far as I am.aware as ever classed the Land Rover as anything other than A separate chassis vehicle even if you can lift the body off in one piece in A series, defender, discovery or range rover... (Sound familiar?)
There are any number of remanufacturers for original pattern chassis.. Not sure how they get around copyright but they are and have been in business for years. All perfectly acceptable like for like but the hybrid is debatable especially if you are using the original 'tax exempt' series landy as the ID..
Stick A space frame under it such as those from Bowler or PPE and it needs an IVA even with all the other bits from the donor it has lost its identity in the eyes of DVLA. They may want more than to put a Q plate on it.

A Spyder chassis need not necessarily mean a dreaded Q plate as you could potentially IVA the vehicle using and possibly even keep the original VRM but that would lose any MOT and tax exemption... In theory you could build a Brand new car.. Although Lotus might not want you to use their name anywhere.. So a Louts Lane it is then

Now we get to another issue..
The Spyder chassis and using UK tax & MOT exemptions.. The car has been modified..
DVLA are in effect losing revenue granted & doubtful traffic plod or ANPR would flag an issue but I also wonder how many declare the modification to their insurance company which could leave you in a potentially bigger hole should things go horribly wrong..
Thing is with all these things you are generally OK until you are not. In effect you are playing the odds that anyone will spot an anomaly.
Within our own circles the "modification" is well known & regsrded but with the push with classics into originality is king it can and does affect things including significant modification. Anything with a Non original type of chassis is likely to attract a lower premium... Finding an original chassis that as always been In this country may be difficult as so many have been swapped years ago.

DVLA tightened things up in regards consistently applying their policy and in part this was down to Pur Sang Bugatti's claiming to be the real thing. Not entirely aided by the owners club.
But there are so a significant number of Jag SS, C & D type replicas out there that are still register as an XJ or the Cobra replica with the V5 for a Cortina.



There was a bit of trade in plus 2 components and their ID suddenly becoming S3 & S4 in the 80's many of which were then exported ... would be interesting to know how many space frame "subframe" type 50 2 seat short wheelbase cars there are out there.
Japan was a favourite back then for anything even remotely Lotus shaped.. Got a very good price on my pre litigation Westfield from Mr Nakano back in 86 or 87 from.an ad in motorsport news.
Because it looked like a 7 and had a twin cam.. A FIAT twin cam!!

Also watch eBay as there are any number of vin plates and V5 for classic cars.
The DVLA have a a duty to protect the public as well as ensuring the correct revenue is being paid.
Bureaucracy maybe but there are reasons for it... There are some nefarious characters in society.

Climbing back.Off my soapbox now

[Grizzly]

Chris, you keep rabbiting on about Spyder chassis, but nothing I said related to Spyder chassis, except where I said fitting a Spyder replacement would probably prevent claiming MOT exemption, which boils down to pretty much the same thing as you are saying. You & I do not have opposing opinions on this matter.


And the Standard Lotus Replacement 'chassis' minus galvanising, must have been in production in 1978, because I had no problem buying one from London Sports Car Centre in Edgware.

My "Rabbiting" was an atempt to put this right.

Once you have changed it DO NOT TELL THE DVLC that you have a new chassis number or they will probably make you re-register with a Q numberplate which will diminish the value of your car.

It's only none OE designed chassis that are a problem!! (hence why i keep bringing up Syder chassis) and those non OE chassis are only a problem outside the agreement made by Mr Graham with the DVLA back when the OE chassis was unavailable (but it's a headache to prove the OE chassis wasn't available at the time and when i asked there was no written record of what was agreed by Mr Graham so we don't know exactly what the terms were). The "Don't tell the DVLA" thing was a blanket statement to help Spyder chassis cars keep their value, if you have a OE designed stress skin chassis you don't need to worry about this even if you are changed it more than once.

The DVLA are not mind readers, so if you fit a Spaceframe chassis it only becomes an issue when you sell the car and don't get something in writing that the buyer knows the story and fully understands what it potentially means.

I assume you think ALL replacement chassis risk a Q plate?? thats just not the case......... i thought i had explained this in my first post but hey ho.....

[Sploder90]

Chris, you keep rabbiting on about Spyder chassis, but nothing I said related to Spyder chassis, except where I said fitting a Spyder replacement would probably prevent claiming MOT exemption, which boils down to pretty much the same thing as you are saying. You & I do not have opposing opinions on this matter.


And the Standard Lotus Replacement 'chassis' minus galvanising, must have been in production in 1978, because I had no problem buying one from London Sports Car Centre in Edgware.

My "Rabbiting" was an atempt to put this right.

Once you have changed it DO NOT TELL THE DVLC that you have a new chassis number or they will probably make you re-register with a Q numberplate which will diminish the value of your car.

It's only none OE designed chassis that are a problem!! (hence why i keep bringing up Syder chassis) and those non OE chassis are only a problem outside the agreement made by Mr Graham with the DVLA back when the OE chassis was unavailable (but it's a headache to prove the OE chassis wasn't available at the time and when i asked there was no written record of what was agreed by Mr Graham so we don't know exactly what the terms were). The "Don't tell the DVLA" thing was a blanket thing to help Spyder chassis cars keep their value, if you have a OE designed stress skin chassis you don't need to worry about this even if you are changed it more than once.

The DVLA are not mind readers so all this only becomes an issue when you sell the car.

I assume you think ALL replacement chassis risk a Q plate?? thats just not the case......... i thought i had explained this in my first post but hey ho.....

Think you may be arguing the same basic point as Billwill which looks to align with my experience.

OE / like for like swap is ok anything other is at your own risk

Or you have to try the triggers broom aproach...

[EPC 394J]

On a similar theme. Quick question if I may? It’s only just occurred to me.

How are the Spydercars +2 zetecs tax exempt? What’s original on them?

[Sploder90]

On a similar theme. Quick question if I may? It’s only just occurred to me.

How are the Spydercars +2 zetecs tax exempt? What’s original on them?

In effect not a lot.. and their exemption status I think is probably debatable.

But it is a case of being caught... ANPR / traffic officer & even MOT testers probably would not query it.
MOT or Tax exemption is done via a declaration. Which is a legal undertaking you enter into... The subsequent owners in effect gain the hand over of that status as from memory I don't think you have to 're declare when you register it in your name so they may be unaware they are potentially committing an offence.

Unfortunately in law ignorance of the facts is not a defence.

[wotsisname]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... le-changes

were Spyder space frames available in 1984 ? if so they do not count as a substantial change.

Does using an alternative to the twisted galvanised chassis of the 80s and 90s fulfill the not reasonably available criteria ?

I don't see why you wouldn't declare any change of chassis type/manufacturer, engine mods, any other changes away from OE spec to your insurance company... You would want your insurance to be valid.

[Sploder90]

Think it is even more muddied now that OE spec are available AND they were probably an option in 1984 plus the Zetec didn't exist back then.
Again open to interpretation and the decision would ultimately lie with the courts but I think all with a Non OE spec bearing in mind the lack of anything historical to back up prior claims could potentially be queried.

Anything done in the last 30 years with regards the MOT element would in my view not be covered as OE stuff was available so not like for like and the engine swap is also not of the same type. Tax seems to be based on assumption of no substantial changes..

I have seen at least one Zetec 5 speed spyder "sprint" that also had a brand new body..and interior Brand new quaife LSD diff CV axles, updated discs / calipers all round ... at a pinch maybe the gauges were original..
But it was still registered as and in effect still claiming to be a 1970's Elan.
Triggers broom...

[alan.barker]

Think it is even more muddied now that OE spec are available AND they were probably an option in 1984 plus the Zetec didn't exist back then.
Again open to interpretation and the decision would ultimately lie with the courts but I think all with a Non OE spec bearing in mind the lack of anything historical to back up prior claims could potentially be queried.

I have seen at least one Zetec 5 speed spyder "sprint" that also had a brand new body..and interior Brand new quaife LSD diff CV axles, updated discs / calipers all round ... at a pinch maybe the gauges were original..
But it was still registered as and in effect still claiming to be a 1970's Elan.
Triggers broom...

Imho that makes it just a Modern ringed special with no Classic driving fun Yuk.
Alan