richyb66

I know, which is why you'd expect them to be in line with one another. Plenty of cars have probably have passed with these seats and harness positions so don't give up hope but if they're tested to the letter of the IVA manual they'd almost certainly fail. The problem (or not, depending on how you look at it) is that different examiners will have different interpretations of the regulations. On my IVA (at Derby) the tester was also training another examiner so I knew I was in for a rough ride and is why I failed on my upper harness mounts and also even sharp edges on my spare wheel (that's on the tread of the tyre - not the actual wheel!). My personal view is that GBS shouldn't provide a chassis with seatbelt mounts that aren't positioned correctly for their own seats and should either leave the mounts off and let the builder fit them, fit the mounts when the builder has told them what seats are being fitted or provide a number of mounting positions to allow some adjustment.

You're unlikely to get a definitive answer on this as it will depend on the tester but it might fail on the sharp edges on the catch that releases the belt from the eye bolt - my belts didn't have the catch and were retained with a hex bolt (with nut cover) through the belt and they still failed on the 'sharp edges' around the metal of the belt. I made 4 small ally covers, covered with foam and vinyl to cover the entire end of the belt. For IVA I'd be more concerned about the belts passing through the holes in the seat back. Under load, the belts look like they will pull tight against the outside of the belt slots - you may need to demonstrate that the seat is strong enough to support this load. Alternatively, see if routing the belt around the headrest part of the seat still allows them to pass over your shoulders when worm. The belts are most effective when then are routed in a straight line before they are under load, kinks in the belt will pull straight under load meaning you move forward.

Thanks for that!

Just ressurecting an older post as I'm having some issues sorting out my tax which is due at the end of the month. My IVA was passed in October 2011 and I put 6 months tax on when it was first registered in November. I've just had my tax reminder through but I can't tax the car because the DVLA say I need an MOT. The DVLA website referred me to the MOT line which I phoned and this turned out to be VOSA, who told me no MOT was due for 3 year after an IVA and said I needed to speak to (you guessed it), the DVLA. I phoned the DVLA who basically said the car was first registered in 1989 so it needed an MOT. Obviously I'm not going to get any sense out of either VOSA or the DVLA so I'm going to try taxing it at the Post Office and use the V112 form (Declaration of Exemption from MOT Testing) and see what happens. I don't have the V5 with me at the moment so I'm not sure if it has any notes on it specifically relating to the MOT dates but if I can get 12 months tax on it at the Post Office, I'll deal withe the DVLA fallout later.

I want to fit some awning rail to my 2B winscreen frame. At the moment I only have a Surrey top but I'm planning on getting some weathergear soon so I want to try and make the rail suitable for both tops. Can someone with awning rail on a 2B measure around the top of the screen frame and let me know how long the rail is for their weathergear and I fit some to that length and modify my Surrey top as necessary. Thanks.

I don't go to many shows either (just Stafford twice in the last 5 years, which frankly isn't much of a show in terms of the exhibitors) as I'm usually up in Wales at the weekends (not many shows in Wales either). However I'm more than happy to pay my membership as I go to as many of the mid-week monthly meets as I can and I'd like to think my membership goes some way towards supporting the upkeep of the website. The information and advice I get here has been invaluable and I think it's the best £15 I've spent on my car. I'm not pointing fingers at any individuals and I won't be drawn into an argument (so if anyone is planning on baiting me then don't bother) but my view is this - the latest club magazine commented on the dwindling membership and my understanding is that the paid members only amount to around 10% of the forum membership. Granted a lot of people will sign up to the forum, visit a few times and then not bother again but there also seem to be good number who are happy to take the free advice or post thinly veiled adverts in non-classified posts. I'd personally like to see the following: The viewing of classified ads restricted to paid up members for maybe a week to give them first dibs before they go on general view (additional incentive to join). Non-paid up members to have their post counts restricted, maybe locked out after 50 posts. Most people would take a while to run up 50 posts - if you're on here that much it wouldn't exactly hurt to join the club. GBSC to pay for a years membership with every new kit they sell - £15 isn't a huge dent in the profit margin on a £5k kit and the club does plenty to promote the GBSC product. New memberships to start from joining date and be available at a reduced price. People buying kits in the latter part of the year won't bother joining if they only get 3 months membership for their £15. Ideally I'd like to raise some of these points at the AGM and if I can get there, I will. The club (and the forum in particular) are a valuable and at times under-rated resource. As long as the upkeep of the forum is financed by the club I think it's important that the link between the two isn't forgotten otherwise we'll be in danger of loosing both.

It was very foggy that day.

I'm laughing at the moment cos my Audi runs on lpg. I wasn't laughing 2 weeks ago though, the lpg near me went up from £0.709 to £0.835 a litre.

There's one or two pictures of mine here: http://www.oldschool...mage=48.jpg.jpg http://www.oldschool...mage=55.jpg.jpg http://www.oldschool...mage=56.jpg.jpg http://www.oldschool...mage=97.jpg.jpg Use thick cardboard as a template and make your mistakes on that first. I just folded over the bottom edge of my panels so they matched the curvature of the lower tube at the back and the front. They don't come anywhere near the tube in the middle so I just riveted them in a couple of places at the bottom where they did meet. I made the cut-out for the track rods nice and big as I wanted to be able to remove the steering rack without taking the infills off. The rack doesn't pass right through, I can move it across through the left hand side and then lift the right hand end up and out of the chassis.

It's at CV7 7HL on the A45 / A45 junction just East of the NEC.

1. Maximum design road speed ( for section 3s on IVA1) 100mph, this is so they can check the speed rating on the tyres. 2. Revs at top speed, not sure thet need this, they need the revs at which the maximum engine power is made (for exhaust noise test). I put 77kW at 5200rpm for a 2 litre Pinto (higher rev figures will make the noise test harder to pass as the engine will be more noisy). 3. See above. 4. Total weight, needed for the brake roller test. I put 450Kg for Axle 1 and 600Kg for Axle 2 in section 3u of IVA 1

No problem, I thought they might be too narrow - which is why they're up on my garage roof and not fitted to my car!

200mm

I've got a pair in Oxford, they're the narrow ones so not wide enough to cover my tyres something I didn't find out until I tried to mount them so they've got small scallops cut out in them and they've been drilled. However, as I've no need for them they're available free if you want them. They're in Tamworth and I'd prefer not to post them due to their shape and because I'm lazy. Could possibly get them taken to Stoneleigh if you're not in a rush. pm me if you're interested.

Last Friday afternoon I was fortunate enough to spend some time at the sprint course at Curborough. It was an event organised by work where we could have a thrash around in a couple of MG6's and we also had the opportunity to give our own cars a run out. I wasn't a track day as such, more an informal driving session and as it was paid for by work, I took a short run over from Tamworth in the 2B. We just did 3 lap sessions of the short course and although I gave the MG6's a good thrashing, I took things a bit more sedately in the 2B including giving a work colleague a run around. It was also a good opportunity for my other half Jackie to have a drive for the first time where there were less things to avoid. Here's a couple of very short videos that were taken:

Vic, according to the NGK chart it's 1mm (0.040") for the Endura E ohv engine (still looks like a Kent though) and on the ohc Duratec it's pre-set on the plugs (so not much help there then). Rich. quick edit - the Duratec plugs should be 1.3mm gap

In an attempt to finally sort out my poor running, I decided to book some time on a rolling road. Basically the car would struggle to rev above 3500 rpm, lacked power towards the upper end of the rev range and seem to be worse under load. The engine is a standard 1982 2.0 Pinto (a replacement engine fitted to the donor), 32/36 DGAV Weber, RH 4 branch and a CBS silencer. The engine was straight out of the donor, just an oil change, a cambelt, a few gaskets and a coat of paint. I suspected ignition problems, mainly because it seemed worse under load and I fitted new leads, dizzy cap, rotor arm and ignition amplifier in an attempt to sort it out. I'd also fitted a new mechanical fuel pump (as a precaution) and tried a different dizzy (which made no difference). Following a recommendation from another area member, I phoned Steve Walford Motorsport on Tuesday and dropped the car over this morning to see if they could sort the problem out. I wasn't that interested in wringing out every last bhp, I just wanted the car to run smoother and be more driveable. I wasn't disappointed - the issue was mostly carb related, running lean so with a few adjustments and a bit of tweaking Steve got it sorted and it runs a dream. It's now running around 95bhp at the wheels which is probably 110/115 at the flywheel which isn't bad when you consider that a standard 2.0 Pinto is only around 100 bhp at the flywheel so all in all, a good result. The driveability is now a big improvement, much smoother tick over and will pull cleanly through the whole rev range and now there's no need to keep dropping down a gear to get it to pull a bit better. I can highly recommend Steve, nice friendly bloke, knows his stuff and very enthusiastic. You can contact him as follows: Steve Walford Motorsport 10 Middlemore Road Northfield Birmingham B31 3UP Tel: 0121 694 0740 Mobile: 07976 731 187 http://stevewalfordmotorsport.homestead.com/index.html

The stuff I suggested from CBS already has a bead of adhesive inside it. You only want to fit it once though, it's not that the adhesive is strong, just that is you remove the trim it tends to pull the adhesive out of the trim and leave it on the panel (easliy removed though).

Just for the benefit of anyone that might not have seen this before: http://www.beardmorebros.co.uk/website%20pages/reliant_kitten.htm

I used this stuff on the edges of my nosecove and mudguards for IVA: http://www.cbsonline.co.uk/product/10_x_8mm_Satin_Black_%27U%27_Channel_Edge_Trim_TRMSBU Not the cheapest stuff around but it's fits very easily, forms round tight radii , stay put and looks good.

Great stuff Bob, car looks brilliant. There's no such thing as cold weather though - just inappropriate clothing!

I don't ever recall seeing on MOT tester measure the pedal effort when he's doing the test and then take measurements at 5 different percentages. That's why I implied theIVA test was more comprehensive.

Commer TS3 had a 3 cylinder, two stroke, supercharged diesel. The Rootes RO34 blowers became popular with rodders for supercharging V6 and V8 petrol engines. About 25 years ago me and a mate used an RO34 on a Essex V6 engine, it made a stonking motor, 2 bar boost and had a brilliant whine from the 2" Fenner belt that drove it. The main disadvantage was how high it made the engine once you'e got a 4 barrel Holley carb and air filter on top if it - made forward vision somewhat limited. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Commer_TS3 and for someting a little larger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

They weigh the car to get the actual weights at the IVA test, the 1050Kg is used as a design gross weight which they use as part of the brake calculations. The actual test is pretty involved including brake pedal effort, so far more comprehensive than an MOT. They take all the readings at the test then stick all the figures in a spreadsheet which decides whether it's a pass or a fail.

The 1050Kg figure quoted by GBS is the figure used for the IVA test to calculate braking efficiency - it's not the actual weight, which is around the 750-800Kg that Tim mentioned. Also the 450Kg figure is for the rear axle, not the front.