They haven’t been “granted” VHI though - they’ve self declared and so far I don’t think there’s been any checks by the authorities? Changing a 2 seater convertible sports car into a 2 seater convertible sports car isn’t exactly “changing the general appearance of the vehicle” much though.

I don’t have any problem with people claiming VHI - I haven’t MOT’d my 1970 Scimitar, Colin has MOT’d the Agent Thor - it’s just an interesting discussion to me.

Agreed, I believe whatever you do, above all it needs to be safe and an MOT is a good way to ensure that.

If I'm honest Agent Thor owes me around £5k, plus a whole bunch of time.
I have tried me best to interpret the rules and apply them to my build. I recon it would 'stand up in court' but you know what, if didn't, I had a blast building & driving it.

Fantastic drive from Weston Super Mud to Shelsley Walsh for the RR Gathering.
Really enjoyed a quick blast up the hill!
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/foru...1&d=1566284367
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/foru...1&d=1566284367
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/foru...1&d=1566284367
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/foru...1&d=1566284367

A truly wondrous thing. I love the fact that it does comply with the rules even if it is a little different from your average Beetle. But the rules say a Bumble Bee can't fly.

Just awesome. I absolutely love it.

It's brilliant
& amazing but it doesn't not in the form seen on the road in those pictures, but you can't take that away from it.

Why not? Mudguards and lights are not tested as part of the MOT (provided they are not fitted).

Of course, you do require them if it is wet or dark in order for your vehicle to be roadworthy.

It looks pretty dry and light in the pictures so all seems legal to me. Is there something else I have missed?

I guess you can quibble about a windscreen wiper...

My removable guards are in the passengers footwall and as long as I'm home by bedtime, lights are not required.

Said it before, just as a Chatterham 7, VW Split screen or early Austin, I can drive with the screen (dome) open a therefore see under it and not need wipers.

Although, interestingly you are then required to wear protective eyewear!

I was on the understanding potentially incorrect that you cannot have uncovered wheels on a vehicle, there is an exemption for some pre 1940's vehicles or something like that, but I may have dreamed that.
I'm not knocking the car I think it's awesome & I would drive it exactly as you have, but I have a nagging doubt over it's legality for having open wheels, however the chances of being pulled for it are so remote.

Stole this from the NSRA website:
C&U: The C&U regulations are open to interpretation, as they refer to creating spray or kicking up mud in wet conditions.
Some choose to interpret that as meaning fenders are not required in dry conditions.
Police officers may or may not agree with this interpretation.

So this is still a grey area, people's opinions and experiences differ. From forum posts we know that:

- Some rodders have driven fenderless for years with no problems.

- Some Prohibition Notices have been issued, cars 4 wheel lifted away, and fines handed out.

- One court case was successfully contested, on the basis that the fenders are there to catch any water/mud, so on a dry day there cannot be an offence.

- A member was fined for running fenderless. £50 plus costs (£35 police to take to court & £15 Victim support surcharge)
However this is not an endorsable offence, so no points on the license.


If you choose to run fenderless, a set of attachable fenders carried in the boot could help to avoid the worst, if conditions become wet, or if you are stopped.

And to comply with this, my front 'lights' (Lucas Flamethrower fog lights) have:

• NO bulbs in them
• NO wiring going to them
• NO Switch

Not sure why you guys come in and question the legality

Plenty of hotrods riding around in the same state

It’s like rules in F1 there are loopholes that allow us to be different and until they are closed make hay and enjoy

Saw the pics on retrorides the guys like it on there

Plenty of people running around with no VED or Insurance on their cars either but it doesn't make it right.

Oh before you get snotty I wasn't comparing what @Colin HD has done with those morons.

I love the car but I do have some concerns over the legal aspect of running without headlamps.

I can't find any exemption in the lighting regulations that would apply to Agent Thor Or pretty much anything else that we might build) that would allow it to legally run without the obligatory front and rear position lamps, dipped and main beam headlamps and brake light(s).

I pulled the occasional classic and hot-rod over the years and never felt the need to give a single one a ticket. I did, however, have to advise quite a few that if one or two aspects of their vehicle weren't addressed, some of my more zealous colleagues wouldn't be quite so understanding about the novel interpretation of the regulations that the owners were adhering to.

The MOT tester's manual is also clear that such obligatory lighting must be present and functioning or the vehicle has a major fault.

Bit of light reading below (pun fully intended):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...chedule/1/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/made

https://www.mot-testing.service.gov....ml#section_4.1

Again, the 'open' wheels look really cool but I do have my doubts about their legal status, even if you have a set on board to fit if it rains. Oh, and what do you do if you're being followed along a B road by plod and you come round a bend to find mud all over the road, slam the brakes on?

The construction and use regs say this -

Wings
63.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (4), this regulation applies to—

(a)invalid carriages;
(b)heavy motor cars, motor cars and motor cycles, not being agricultural motor vehicles or pedestrian-controlled vehicles;
(c)agricultural motor vehicles driven at more than 20 mph; and
(d)trailers.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (5), every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks.

All the exemptions are listed in paragraph 4 -

(4) Those requirements do not apply in respect of—

(a)a works truck;
(b)a living van;
(c)a water cart;
(d)an agricultural trailer drawn by a motor vehicle which is not driven at a speed in excess of 20 mph;
(e)an agricultural trailed appliance;
(f)an agricultural trailed appliance conveyor;
(g)a broken down vehicle;
(h)a heavy motor car, motor car or trailer in an unfinished condition which is proceeding to a workshop for completion;
(i)a trailer used for or in connection with the carriage of round timber and the rear wheels of any heavy motor car or motor car drawing a semi-trailer so used; or
(j)a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle the maximum speed of which is restricted to 20 mph or less under Schedule 6 to the 1984 Act

So again, much as I love the car, I can't find anything in the regulations that say Agent Thor can legally run on the road with open wheels.

As I'm genuinely hoping that Agent Thor is running on the road in total compliance with the relevant legislation, I'll be delighted if anyone can direct me to the actual schedule reference where the 'daytime hours only' vehicle exemption from obligatory lamps and optional fit mudguards can be found rather than the usual 'someone on rods and sods said it's fine' argument.

day time MOT,

lots of people run them..if they aren't fitted cant be tested...

lots of motorbikes use this loophole

unofficially call the Daytime MOT:

Under the section 1.1 of the class 3,4,5 and 7 mots (which are cars/vans) titled "Front and Rear Position lamps and Registration Plate Lamps"

This inspection applies to
all vehicles, except those which either have no front or rear positionlamps or have such lamps permanentlydisconnected, painted over or masked that are:

• only used during daylight hours, and

• not used at times of seriously reduced visibility.

If this situation occurs, the vehicle presenter should be issued with a VT32 (advisory notice) recording he above.

I have no intention to break rules/law, but the daytime MOT exists!

As for the open wheels, I take onboard the country lane scenario.
To date, I am aware of at least four Court cases where these have been overturned, based on the dry day/no rain and therefor no requirement for guards.

Once saw one of these Police TV reality shows quite a number of years ago before they all got popular an officer pulled over a motorcyclist for having no lights. The rider argued he didn't need them so the officer radioed in for clarification. The Sergeant on duty advised that he would have to send over a traffic officer to inspect the motorcycle, which he duly did & once the officer was there after further discussion it was agreed that the said motorcycle was in fact legal. Unfortunately this whole process took quite a long time & by the time it was agreed it was legal it had passed the point where it would no longer be legal to continue to ride it, he therefore had to push it the last 2 miles home. Now whether this was real, a setup or not i have no idea, but I have often wondered exactly what happened, me I'd have told them somebody was coming to pick me up, wait 15 minutes & ride home

http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/foru...1&d=1566382515

This is the way I see it as a 'daytime MOT'
Not really sure its 'breaking the rules' just using a 'loophole' that exists!

Agreed the 'open wheel' thing is an interpretation of the rules, but several precedents have been set.