The FEHAC has announced that the Upper House has voted in favor of the exemption from the inspection requirement for classics aged 50 and older. It is the result of a process that has been going on for a long time. The Senate gave the green light. The effective date of this new rule is not yet known. The RDW will soon decide whether they will actually apply the new APK exemption.
So there will be an extension of the exemption. All historic vehicles with a Date First Admission DET before 1/1/1960 have been completely exempt from an MOT. The main reason for the APK exemption was that historical vehicles were also enthusiasts at the time. They were generally well maintained and little was driven. Moreover, according to various stakeholders, the APK inspectors generally lacked thorough knowledge of the very old vehicles.
Questionable reasons also starting point now
Those dubious reasons for APK exemption are still standing in 2020. Making few kilometers is not a recommendation for a good state of maintenance. And the fact that many APK inspectors, according to the initiates, had too little knowledge of old vehicles is not a license. There are also plenty of well-qualified judges. It does not hurt to train APK judges in the classic field (if necessary) or to train them consistently.
Safety and maintenance at stake
The RDW keeps track of the problems and defects that arise on the basis of an APK inspection. It always appears that mobile heritage is well maintained and has by far the least number of rejections. In this category, there are also many unjustified rejections and comments, also because old-timers often have different requirements than for more modern vehicles. The danger of the new APK exemption is that maintenance and thus safety can come in the sphere of non-commitment. Broadly speaking, the APK exemption now raises the question of what the above-mentioned findings of the RDW will look like in five years' time, for example if the RDW were to keep a sample. Ten to one that there are more rejection points. But that scenario does not seem to have been taken into account.
Larger population of exempt vehicles: greater risk
According to the RDW and the FEHAC, the inspection of the mobile heritage does not appear to make a significant contribution to road safety. That is also very easy to do, because the mobile heritage is of course not represented to a great extent, and the average number of kilometers driven per classic is negligibly low. In addition, the population of classic vehicles from the 1s is greater than the number of classics from before 1960 January XNUMX. Potentially, the number of classics that will be less well maintained due to the expired inspection obligation will also be greater. Moreover, in contrast to the current regulation, the date is constantly shifting, which means that the number of APK-exempt classics is growing continuously. Finally, every vital part that is replaced as a result of a reject point contributes to the safety of a historic vehicle.
Easy going is lurking
Many expert and specialized classic owners (and luckily there are) do everything in their power to keep their vehicle in tip-top shape. But there is also a category that may lack expertise or have traditionally been a bit more relaxed with classic property. Whether, for example, plans to temporarily own a classic, the so-called trend drivers.
Risk of neglect of maintenance
FEHAC takes the view that maintenance and restoration are not actually cost items, but rather a responsible investment in these vehicles. That is partly true, but as said, it is dependent on the classic and target group. Maintenance is necessary, especially with a low annual mileage and with a higher vehicle age. No matter how well maintained: the older a car becomes, the more vulnerable or more sensitive the vital technology becomes, everyone knows that. In any case, a second opinion by a specialized APK inspector can never hurt, also to exclude any chance in the field of safety.
Job offer for classicists under pressure
Furthermore, the APK exemption for 50+ classics means that there will be pressure on the workload and the associated turnover for classics specialists. When fewer and fewer owners of a 50+ classic decide not to proceed to inspection or to determine the time for this themselves, this has consequences for the annual or biennial maintenance interval. And that can have an effect on maintenance and repair work for specialists, while they are also worth gold for the preservation of and keeping the heritage on the road. Certainly the classic specialists can boast a lot of experience in the field of a certain brands or types, and therefore encounter a greater variety of points for attention. They can thereby supplement the expertise of the owner. And thereby also contribute to safety.
Whether or not there is a Dutch Periodic Vehicle Inspection, I keep my 1300 Morris 1970 in good condition. Even though I drive less than 500 kilometers a year. Furthermore, I think it is a good decision, sometimes parts are not available that quickly, and then the hassle of an expired MOT is at least a thing of the past. Incidentally, the MOT gave me relatively few concerns in the more than 25 years that I have this Morris, the Morris has always passed the MOT without significant problems. The vast majority of cars of this age have been fancier's property for years, do you really think they will neglect maintenance?
Unfortunately, the focus of car companies is not on our beloved oldtimers, immersing them in the oldtimers costs more for the companies than it yields. In order not to get penalty points for a possible random check, salt is put on each snail. The knowledge of old-timers is also sometimes no longer optimally available at the RDW random inspectors. It is unfortunate that a ball wheel bearing from the 60s, which due to its construction has a little more play than a more modern roller wheel bearing, is rejected and must be replaced by a new ball wheel bearing with the same amount of play. On paper the rigid regulations. In practice, your oldtimer would rather have maintenance by someone who has often had such a ball bearing in hand, mounted it, knows how it feels. I think it's a shame that AMK sees this differently from the FEHAC. MOT inspection is not mandatory for motorcycles. There are motorcycles that travel more than 50000 km per year. Few motorcycle accidents happen because the motorcycles are poorly maintained. How useful is the APK inspection in relation to the technical maintenance of the engine? You can prevent many more accidents by training the drivers well. Also for old-timers money that you are not going to drive a car that is not in order?
Much appreciation for your magazine, but I am also very happy if the APK exemption for 50 years and older is introduced. My Beetle will not be any worse maintained by that. In fact, I do most of the maintenance in the year that it does not need to be inspected. Then I have no time pressure and can immediately perform preventive maintenance and refurbishment work during my inspection. I also no longer have to get my parts from the VW dealer because we are “no longer interesting” for the dealer and you are referred to the internet. During the inspection that I carry out for the inspection, I only look and usually do not have to do anything. That has gone very well so far. And do not forget: every car on the public road must be traffic safe. Regardless of whether it has been approved.
Best.,
I read Erik's story with full amazement. I have two cars that are over 50 years old and are well maintained. I drive few kilometers with both cars. So I think the abolition of the MOT for these cars is a good decision. What the AMK is doing now makes me consider canceling my subscription.
Has not been fought over for years by the now suddenly “opponents”, it may be that I do not understand, these disadvantages have been known for years and now it is almost complete.
If the industry suddenly sees a business model disappear (have been working on this for 45 years), that the younger guard inspectors should read the rules for older cars is not wrong, but also the sample inspectors.
First carry out a test sample check, there are enough foils 50+ who want to work with this, then we know whether it is useful
always whine in the Netherlands. you are not going to train APK inspectors on cars of the past. eg Delage, gogomobile etc.
they must be educated for the future. Teslas, hybrids, etc. technology is advancing. In spite of everything, garages / dealers are going to receive fewer cars in their service points. modern cars only get out of turn in the 35.000 km.
I have two old ones myself Triumph's. I do the maintenance myself. I am not a mechanic, so after a restoration has taken place I let the garage look a few houses further on. after all, I am not a professional.
a dealer / garage does not want to service old cars at all. only hassle. mechanics do not know what dots are and putting a car on time they have never heard of. it is just like the lockdown: own responsibility. If things get out of hand, we always have the traffic police who routinely check whether samples are carried out on weapons, for example. they can also see if a wheel is swinging.
Dear Mr. Schilthuizen,
Thanks for your response.
As long as there are still many classics, we do not think it can hurt, if necessary. Because there are plenty of good MOT inspectors. And good specialized judges / classic specialists are important.
However, it happens across the board that an owner or a universal garage may overlook something, which is why we see the use of a second check with inspection, despite our own responsibility. But then you have to be able to handle it 100%. That is why we have nothing against the inspection, to be carried out by a specialist. It is preventive, rather than reactive.
Finally, we wish you a lot of fun with your Triumph'S.
Who is the legislator here? The first chamber approves the bill, then it becomes the new law. And then the RDW will consider whether they will introduce that rule? It really shouldn't get any crazier!
Look, that's where the monkey comes out of the sleeve. The MOT as an income guarantee for garage owners. So I am not in favor of that. I think it's OK to have such a car inspected every so often, but having a (apparently insufficiently trained) garage mechanic force me to often unnecessary repairs is something else. How many ducks were rejected at the time because of supposedly too much space on the king pin while they were still fine is unbelievable. So a periodic MOT with advice points, yes, reject, no ...
Thanks for the reply.
The APK is not put here as an income guarantee. Moreover, there are plenty of specialists with a good customer base. This is therefore largely not about it. The APK duty is an extra invitation to visit a really good brand specialist. There are also enough of them and they know what to pay extra attention to. Also because they maintain multiple vehicles of a brand or type. That is an extra contribution for quality and safety. And added value for the owner. Various classic drivers also consciously choose this, as well as a voluntary inspection. It is important for various classic owners that these companies continue to exist and that the knowledge is retained. Something that FEHAC also advocates. You do not find this expertise everywhere, as you rightly say. Many APK inspectors apparently need to be retrained. The 2CV kingpin story is a recognizable example. Finally: only going to the inspection for advice points will for some be a license not to do that at all.
Time repeats
Where the Dutch Periodic Vehicle Inspection at the time removed all the 70s of barrels, those now still dormant barrels can be put back on the road!
It seems no one has asked for this. As so often, it is that endless drive for differentiation from the government. That nonsense that you have to make a separate inspection agreement for a license for an old-timer at the RDW makes no sense. "That requires special knowledge"? How much simpler do you want that technique to be? What nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with regularly testing every car that is used on the road. Why now another exception?
However you look at it, what's wrong with having someone check the technical condition of your oldtimer for a few tens every two years.
At least I have nothing against it.
Greetings and enjoy the weather and your classic car, Eli
Fear of nothing. Most classic car owners take good care of their car (s). What matters: will it really become dangerous on the road? I don't think that the individual who is going to make a mess of it would have done so, and even then it is not certain whether he will be involved in an accident. Yes, it may be a pity for some garage owners, but most of them still do the maintenance.
Gentlemen, if you feel that way, I no longer want a subscription from you. I am happy that the MOT will expire for 50 years and older. Because people often talk about small things that have nothing to do with safety.
Such as taillights where the left is slightly brighter than the right, because the glass is a bit more worn. If only it burns, I would say. Or a wheel bearing that does not rotate completely silently. That wheel really does not fall off immediately etc. Bearing parts must of course be perfect !!
Agree.
Strange that AMK is not happy with this arrangement.
Despite the fact that there are some points that you can argue about, I did not expect such an APK plea in AMK.
Because if Mr. van Putten is really so concerned about this possible relaxation, I would recommend him as a writer auto MOTOR klassiek, rather a plea for a mandatory MOT for motorcycles.
Thanks for the response. This contribution stems precisely from the Senate vote and the current affairs resulting from it with regard to the category to be exempted. And it was written by the undersigned from a concern about the safety and future condition of a group of classic vehicles. The piece is partly based on various signals from the owners and the industry. Also in relation to excellently maintained historical vehicles. Again: the exemption has its drawbacks, even though the expertise is not available to every judge. Hence the passage about continuing education.
Maybe it is me, but a car from 2020 50 years or older, I believe, was made before January 1, 1970.
Exactly. That category will therefore also be exempted. The exemption already applies to historic vehicles with a DET until 1/1/1960.
Ah okay. Thanks!
to avoid thunder with insurance and the like, it is advisable to have your old holy cow inspected, there are plenty of MOT inspectors who can approach and inspect such a rolling piece of history with another institution.
for your own good feeling it is also nice to cross the ardennes or the eifel with a fresh MOT ...
Whether or not a MOT inspection is mandatory, I continue to service the maintenance schedule of my old Benz from March 1960 every year. Even though I drive barely 1000 km in a year, when valuing for insurance I always take all invoices and maintenance history with me and believe me, it gives the appraiser an image that the car is well taken care of.