I presume this is not the Mini being discussed but if you look up the one that was done on the Vintage Voltage programme using the reg no. that appeared on the show (OBJ 460E) it comes up "vehicle not found". I guess that has the same problem
Thanks John, interesting read in Autocar today. Bob saying exactly what he told me at Beaulieu a few weeks ago. Here's an excerpt from the article...
For what its worth, I think CC do need a brand new EV car that will take them into the future. But to get there I also think they need the Seven EV that Bob also talks about. The company is known for the Seven and the Seven shape. A new car shape is a big risk and puts them into a group of car makers with very similar looking cars. Their version needs to offer something different - the current attributes of lightness etc will be a start. BUT, IMHO they also need the Seven to be an EV so that people can buy the classic shape they are known for - even if its a transitionary car taking them to their new shape EV.
John
John Martin
Caterham 420R SV, lowered floors and some creature comforts.
Also, just coming back to the points about DVSA and the mini experience. As those of you that joined the EV-SIG call the other day will know, I categorize the layouts for a sEVen in two configurations - broadly being motor-up-front and motor-in-the-rear. I'd originally thought I'd do the motor-up-front for a conversion but then got wooed by the weight benefits of motor-in-the-rear. I'm now leaning back to plan A again more. The packaging of a rear motor is looking like a lot more time and cost... and would result in chassis changes. The latter being something that will cause more problems if DVSA gets wind of the alterations. The motor-up-front can almost certainly be achieved by supporting the motor and any batteries off the existing engine and gearbox mounting points... removing the need for chassis changes. Though one of the consequences of the motor-up-front configuration is either reduced battery space (i.e. range and/or power) or a more complicated split battery setup - something you often see done on Vintage Voltage for instance, so not the end of the world but again more complexity. There are a zillion trade-offs to consider with a sEVen :-)
PS. I'm on holiday in Cornwall at the moment which both emphasises the fun of driving an EV around here (ID.3) and the frustration with the lack of charging points. Fortunately, I think the charging situation will get fixed (for instance both Exeter and Cornwall Services have installed more rapid chargers since we came here last, the Cornwall Services chargers even have canopies!) and the point and squirt fun of an EV around here will remain! An amusing observation on chargers... even the fast charger at Lands End seems to be working again after being out of action for at least a couple of years (according to locals), though you still theoretically need to pay the £5 admission fee to the Lands End amusement park car-park to use it! :-)
John
John Martin
Caterham 420R SV, lowered floors and some creature comforts.
I'm convinced there's a strong market demand for a sub-1000kg Elise/size EV sports car and it'd be great to see Caterham produce it as a first EV model alongside the current (ICE) Caterham 7. My concern with the 7 is that keeping the current product alive and moving to EV might not be aligned on the same timescale, if the market moves faster than the needed technology, sadly it could be last one out please turn the lights off. A new model would be an incredible investment though.
When Lotus can achieve so much interest in the Emira at over 1400kg (compared to a 750kg Elise) it's proof that a weight penalty doesn't necessarily impact the ability to sell the product. Driving 7s, we all know and understand the benefits of minimal weight but it's pretty pointless heading to the grave shouting "I told you so".
Stu.
Caterham and Lotus Seven Club Leadership Team Member
The register for all numbered limited-edition Caterhams ....... www.thecaterhamregister.net ...... www.instagram.com/thecaterhamregister
Back on the Mini EV conversion subject. There is another article on a converted Mini in this month's Mini Magazine. Photos show the car with an H reg number plate complete with green flash. Looking the car up on the DVLA gives "car not found".
When you see all the other modified Minis with IC engines from all sorts of sources, both front and rear engined, all with original registrations it seems the DVLA are particularly against EV conversions
The engine swap in a mini is not dissimilar to a 7. If it's fundamentally the same engine principle, ie an ice engine of some flavour it's ok to do. Only if you cut the monocoque or chassis around you should inform them to assess. The rear engine things probably should get Iva's and q plates.
An ev conversion is a different propulsion system, as well as, if you go down the scrapyard tesla route, either a fairly major carve up of the chassis or monocoque and the loss of the original transmission. This will be enough to trigger a dvla investigation and loss of its registration and needs an iva. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
At work we have been approached several times to carry out ev conversions on different classic vehicles. We would never use second hand Tesla parts for the above reason. We go by only replacing the engine with a motor connected to the existing transmission and design the whole thing to be in a frame that is mounted on the original engine mount position along with keeping the whole vehicle mass within the original gvw. Effectively the only part that isn't originally fitted is then the electric motor and no mods made to the vehicle structure. That is the most important part that a lot of the converters don't abide by.
I know some people think it's best to remove the transmission but I'm not going to get into that argument. We have our reasons why we think it's best to leave it in and actually use it.
Is that also not a factor in being able to retain the period plate too? Also in Autocar this week , Matt Prior talks about the DVLA points system , applying to mods made to an old car . Too many (or too few , was it ?) and one can't retain the original period plate but has to use a Q plate . They always had a slight air of the substandard - unfair I know , but I'm sure was (is ?) the case.
With that background what I don't get is why my 2016 MX5 can have a personal plate from 1999 and my 2008 Seven had one from 1997 ? Aren't 'old' personal plates therefore available to modified vehicles at all ?
... but what they do have is a lot of power. Very frustrating.
Caterham and Lotus Seven Club Leadership Team Member
The register for all numbered limited-edition Caterhams ....... www.thecaterhamregister.net ...... www.instagram.com/thecaterhamregister
I presume this is not the Mini being discussed but if you look up the one that was done on the Vintage Voltage programme using the reg no. that appeared on the show (OBJ 460E) it comes up "vehicle not found". I guess that has the same problem
Andrew
1985 S3 1700 XFlow. Undergoing full restoration
Leccy Caterham is lead story in Autocar today
Have you got a link John, I couldnt see it on their website?
Thanks John, interesting read in Autocar today. Bob saying exactly what he told me at Beaulieu a few weeks ago. Here's an excerpt from the article...
For what its worth, I think CC do need a brand new EV car that will take them into the future. But to get there I also think they need the Seven EV that Bob also talks about. The company is known for the Seven and the Seven shape. A new car shape is a big risk and puts them into a group of car makers with very similar looking cars. Their version needs to offer something different - the current attributes of lightness etc will be a start. BUT, IMHO they also need the Seven to be an EV so that people can buy the classic shape they are known for - even if its a transitionary car taking them to their new shape EV.
John
John Martin
Caterham 420R SV, lowered floors and some creature comforts.
Yet Another Blogger: www.purplemeanie.co.uk
Also, just coming back to the points about DVSA and the mini experience. As those of you that joined the EV-SIG call the other day will know, I categorize the layouts for a sEVen in two configurations - broadly being motor-up-front and motor-in-the-rear. I'd originally thought I'd do the motor-up-front for a conversion but then got wooed by the weight benefits of motor-in-the-rear. I'm now leaning back to plan A again more. The packaging of a rear motor is looking like a lot more time and cost... and would result in chassis changes. The latter being something that will cause more problems if DVSA gets wind of the alterations. The motor-up-front can almost certainly be achieved by supporting the motor and any batteries off the existing engine and gearbox mounting points... removing the need for chassis changes. Though one of the consequences of the motor-up-front configuration is either reduced battery space (i.e. range and/or power) or a more complicated split battery setup - something you often see done on Vintage Voltage for instance, so not the end of the world but again more complexity. There are a zillion trade-offs to consider with a sEVen :-)
PS. I'm on holiday in Cornwall at the moment which both emphasises the fun of driving an EV around here (ID.3) and the frustration with the lack of charging points. Fortunately, I think the charging situation will get fixed (for instance both Exeter and Cornwall Services have installed more rapid chargers since we came here last, the Cornwall Services chargers even have canopies!) and the point and squirt fun of an EV around here will remain! An amusing observation on chargers... even the fast charger at Lands End seems to be working again after being out of action for at least a couple of years (according to locals), though you still theoretically need to pay the £5 admission fee to the Lands End amusement park car-park to use it! :-)
John
John Martin
Caterham 420R SV, lowered floors and some creature comforts.
Yet Another Blogger: www.purplemeanie.co.uk
I'm convinced there's a strong market demand for a sub-1000kg Elise/size EV sports car and it'd be great to see Caterham produce it as a first EV model alongside the current (ICE) Caterham 7. My concern with the 7 is that keeping the current product alive and moving to EV might not be aligned on the same timescale, if the market moves faster than the needed technology, sadly it could be last one out please turn the lights off. A new model would be an incredible investment though.
When Lotus can achieve so much interest in the Emira at over 1400kg (compared to a 750kg Elise) it's proof that a weight penalty doesn't necessarily impact the ability to sell the product. Driving 7s, we all know and understand the benefits of minimal weight but it's pretty pointless heading to the grave shouting "I told you so".
Stu.
Caterham and Lotus Seven Club Leadership Team Member
The register for all numbered limited-edition Caterhams ....... www.thecaterhamregister.net ...... www.instagram.com/thecaterhamregister
Back on the Mini EV conversion subject. There is another article on a converted Mini in this month's Mini Magazine. Photos show the car with an H reg number plate complete with green flash. Looking the car up on the DVLA gives "car not found".
When you see all the other modified Minis with IC engines from all sorts of sources, both front and rear engined, all with original registrations it seems the DVLA are particularly against EV conversions
Andrew
1985 S3 1700 XFlow. Undergoing full restoration
The engine swap in a mini is not dissimilar to a 7. If it's fundamentally the same engine principle, ie an ice engine of some flavour it's ok to do. Only if you cut the monocoque or chassis around you should inform them to assess. The rear engine things probably should get Iva's and q plates.
An ev conversion is a different propulsion system, as well as, if you go down the scrapyard tesla route, either a fairly major carve up of the chassis or monocoque and the loss of the original transmission. This will be enough to trigger a dvla investigation and loss of its registration and needs an iva. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
At work we have been approached several times to carry out ev conversions on different classic vehicles. We would never use second hand Tesla parts for the above reason. We go by only replacing the engine with a motor connected to the existing transmission and design the whole thing to be in a frame that is mounted on the original engine mount position along with keeping the whole vehicle mass within the original gvw. Effectively the only part that isn't originally fitted is then the electric motor and no mods made to the vehicle structure. That is the most important part that a lot of the converters don't abide by.
I know some people think it's best to remove the transmission but I'm not going to get into that argument. We have our reasons why we think it's best to leave it in and actually use it.
Is that also not a factor in being able to retain the period plate too? Also in Autocar this week , Matt Prior talks about the DVLA points system , applying to mods made to an old car . Too many (or too few , was it ?) and one can't retain the original period plate but has to use a Q plate . They always had a slight air of the substandard - unfair I know , but I'm sure was (is ?) the case.
With that background what I don't get is why my 2016 MX5 can have a personal plate from 1999 and my 2008 Seven had one from 1997 ? Aren't 'old' personal plates therefore available to modified vehicles at all ?