Swirl's Harris

[370steve]

6 minutes ago, Dezza said:

Where did you get that from? That sentence has been recently deleted from the MOT guidelines on the gov website so now any bike, Q plate or not, first 'used' after 1987 has to have indicators.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-motorcycles/introduction

[MeanBean49]

It all depends on if the Q plate v5 has a declared year of manufacture on it, if it does then legally it must comply to the standards applicable to that year, if it doesnt its treated as pre 71 regs.

However for getting an MOT its treated 1975 emossions, and 1971 for everything else iirc. 

So it will go through an MOT but isnt legal

Had it with my old Harris because it had a declared year i couldnt run black and silver plate and had to have indicators.

Edited November 6, 2020 by MeanBean49

[clivegto]

My 1986 alternative E don’t have indicators, still passes mot. 

[Swirl]

1 minute ago, clivegto said:

My 1986 alternative E don’t have indicators, still passes mot. 

Oct 86 the cut off date i think

[Dezza]

12 hours ago, 370steve said:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-motorcycles/introduction

The problem there would to be the preceding sentence but one, which sets a caveat that enables mot testers to ignore any 1971 get-out clause if they so wish. If there's a stated first use date after April 86 on the v5, then a Q reg still needs 2 brake light switches, indicators etc., unless the first use date can be proved as incorrect, which would be pretty much impossible.

[370steve]

20 minutes ago, Dezza said:

The problem there would to be the preceding sentence but one, which sets a caveat that enables mot testers to ignore any 1971 get-out clause if they so wish. If there's a stated first use date after April 86 on the v5, then a Q reg still needs 2 brake light switches, indicators etc., unless the first use date can be proved as incorrect, which would be pretty much impossible.

thats not the way i read it!! but thats half the problem with MOT, too many variables in how to interpret them!!

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by 370steve

[dupersunc]

The whole reason for a Q plate was because the date of manufacture is unknown.

The reads quite clearly me that a q plate should be tested as a '71 bike.

However if indicators are fitted, as in this case, they must conform when presented for a test.

I believe indicators must be a minimum of 350mm a part for an m.o.t, unless the bike is as originally homologated.

All fixable with sticky tape, or biscuits when the bike is presented for a test though 

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by dupersunc

[stockcar]

I know previously when I have taken a mates Harris for test (pukka Q plate) then we always removed the lighting as it caused potential issues otherwise

[clivegto]

Strangely this Harris wasn't registered until 1991 but has a very early frame number. Am thinking it started life as a race bike then registered for the road 11 year's later. 

[clivegto]

More pictures we like pictures. 

Oil catch tank. 

[370steve]

4 hours ago, dupersunc said:

 

I believe indicators must be a minimum of 350mm a part for an m.o.t, unless the bike is as originally homologated.

 

 

Spacing is not a concern on MOT, only on C&U or MSVA

 

[dupersunc]

1 hour ago, 370steve said:

Spacing is not a concern on MOT, only on C&U or MSVA

 

It was added a couple of years ago.

Mandatory direction indicators must have minimum separation distances between the illuminating surfaces of:

• solo motorcycles - 240mm at the front and 180mm at the rear

Edited November 7, 2020 by dupersunc

[370steve]

16 minutes ago, dupersunc said:

It was added a couple of years ago.

Mandatory direction indicators must have minimum separation distances between the illuminating surfaces of:

• solo motorcycles - 240mm at the front and 180mm at the rear

There is no requirement to measure the separation distance and they should only be rejected if the separation distance is obviously incorrect. 

Edited November 7, 2020 by 370steve

[370steve]

3 minutes ago, 370steve said:

There is no requirement to measure the separation distance and they should only be rejected if the separation distance is obviously incorrect. 

So up to the tester then 

[MeanBean49]

8 hours ago, 370steve said:

thats not the way i read it!! but thats half the problem with MOT, too many variables in how to interpret them!!

 

I agree, MOT tester has no acces to a V5 or anything that would tell them when the vehicle was first used, or what declared date of manufature is.

[dupersunc]

1 hour ago, 370steve said:

There is no requirement to measure the separation distance and they should only be rejected if the separation distance is obviously incorrect. 

It's a bloody minefield.

Best to provide biscuits to be sure.

 

[Wagola]

On 11/6/2020 at 9:55 PM, MeanBean49 said:

It all depends on if the Q plate v5 has a declared year of manufacture on it, if it does then legally it must comply to the standards applicable to that year, if it doesnt its treated as pre 71 regs.

However for getting an MOT its treated 1975 emossions, and 1971 for everything else iirc. 

So it will go through an MOT but isnt legal

Had it with my old Harris because it had a declared year i couldnt run black and silver plate and had to have indicators.

Just to add to the debate a bit. I have a Mag 4 on a Q plate that shows Date of 1st registration as May 1993 on the V5. I don't run any indicators and have never been pulled on this at MOT time for not having indicators. Seems like its at the testers discretion, or how well you know/get on with the tester , OR whether the tester is fully aware of the intricacies of rules ? Minefield !! 

I was told that if indicators are fitted then they have to be working but this was many years ago and may not be valid advice now.

 

[bluedog59]

My Q plate has 4 working indicators,

Left arm/leg,

Right arm/leg.

[clivegto]

Didn't have any decent clutch plates or steels so borrowed some out of my spare 1052 motor which look good & are within specs. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by clivegto

[clivegto]

Soaked the fibers in oil over night. 

[clivegto]

Changed the weights on the lockup clutch I borrowed from my b12 turbo. Just a educated guess for this setup until I get to ride it. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by clivegto

[clivegto]

Fitted. 

[clivegto]

Spun a bit off the case mounting bolts so they look shiny & have no lettering on the ends. Have done this with all the engine case bolts. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by clivegto

[clivegto]

I put the large O ring for the quick access clutch cover in a very safe place, so after having a chat with Sam have ordered some replacement spare ones. 

[Wagola]

The fabled "very safe place" ! If only I could find mine then I wouldn't need to keep buying stuff I know I have !!

Great attention to detail on this build ! Would love to see it in the flesh at some point. Puts my Mag 4 refresh to shame.