Scary new anti tampering rules from the government

[mj2k]

Bad news from the government for those of us who like to obsessively fiddle with their cars:

Future of transport regulatory review: modernising vehicle standards

www.gov.uk

I'm guessing this has been doing the rounds for a bit, but it's the first I heard of it was when someone mentioned a petition against it on a Subaru forum (if your Subaru's unmodified you're doing something wrong ) earlier on today:

Petition: Do not implement proposed new offences for vehicle "tampering"

The Government’s modernising vehicle standards proposal suggested new offences for tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road. This could have a hugely detrimental impact on the UK motorsport and custom aftermarket industry.

petition.parliament.uk

Not quite sure what to make of it, most likely it'll end up in a series of unworkable fudges except on new cars, but it looks like remaps and cat deletes / sports cats will be illegal soon, and the hazy wording suggests other things like add-on cruise controls, 3rd party seats (since they involve an airbag delete, where does that leave the Sabelts?) and coilovers might become illegal too.

Scary stuff!

 

[chris3234]

This seems to be mainly Aimed at bypassing safety and emission systems

 

[mj2k]

This seems to be mainly Aimed at bypassing safety and emission systems

It does indeed, which will mean in theory an end to sports cats / cat deletes, and I suspect remaps too since they affect emissions and modifications would amount to 'tampering' under the new rules. Also I suspect a remap would be classed as tampering with the systems which control power. The wooly wording around what a 'system' is what mainly scares me though:

"We define a system, part or component as ‘software and/or hardware that impacts on the environment, road safety or security’. This would include examples such as those which assist or fulfil the driving task, control power, speed or emissions, protects road users or protects the vehicle from tampering."

That could mean almost anything

Aside from the hazy wording, I think it'd be pretty hard for a tester to prove the car's had a remap without connecting to every car via the diags socket and checking the ecu software version / maps against a database (i.e. pretty unworkable in practice) but I suspect there will be a dramatic decrease in the number of companies able to offer remaps for road going cars, and you can expect post-2022 cars to have their ECUs tightly locked down to prevent access. It's also possible some cars which can have automatic software updates may end up with 'security updates', similar to what they do on video gaming systems / mobile phones to block off any chance of accessing the ECU code directly, and reset the maps to standard.

Sports cats / cat deletes are fairly obvious though, and an easy target, so I suspect that one will be rigidly enforced.

 

[Troubles with 500c]

Didn’t this originate in the EU?

When will our lazy Civil Servants think for themselves and focus their efforts and our money on sorting out relevant issues like Smart Motorways.

 

[chris3234]

It does indeed, which will mean in theory an end to sports cats / cat deletes, and I suspect remaps too since they affect emissions and modifications would amount to 'tampering' under the new rules. Also I suspect a remap would be classed as tampering with the systems which control power. The wooly wording around what a 'system' is what mainly scares me though:

"We define a system, part or component as ‘software and/or hardware that impacts on the environment, road safety or security’. This would include examples such as those which assist or fulfil the driving task, control power, speed or emissions, protects road users or protects the vehicle from tampering."

That could mean almost anything

Aside from the hazy wording, I think it'd be pretty hard for a tester to prove the car's had a remap without connecting to every car via the diags socket and checking the ecu software version / maps against a database (i.e. pretty unworkable in practice) but I suspect there will be a dramatic decrease in the number of companies able to offer remaps for road going cars, and you can expect post-2022 cars to have their ECUs tightly locked down to prevent access. It's also possible some cars which can have automatic software updates may end up with 'security updates', similar to what they do on video gaming systems / mobile phones to block off any chance of accessing the ECU code directly, and reset the maps to standard.

Sports cats / cat deletes are fairly obvious though, and an easy target, so I suspect that one will be rigidly enforced.

I doubt most of this will be checked on a mot


It seems to more targeted at those providing such services and selling things like egr bypass kits



Also this is only the consultant stage pretty far with finally wording yet so will have to see what it's covers when they make the draft bills ect

 

[mj2k]

I doubt most of this will be checked on a mot


It seems to more targeted at those providing such services and selling things like egr bypass kits



Also this is only the consultant stage pretty far with finally wording yet so will have to see what it's covers when they make the draft bills ect

Agreed. I suspect cat deletes / sports cats will be checked for though. Most likely there will be some kludges / grey areas in the MOT testers handbook (and motoring law) to allow for things like 'classics' and cars which don't have an obvious, tightly defined exhaust setup (e.g. the Abarth 500 - cat is hidden in front of the engine, and two different types of silencer system can be fitted from the factory, or post-build by Fiat dealers).

I've been expecting some form of a lockdown on remaps for some time tbh so that part of the ruling isn't unexpected - with most modern turbo cars it's easy to get another 50-100bhp just by fiddling with the fueling / boost levels with a couple of cheap exhaust (and maybe induction) tweaks, and if the existing suspension / brakes can't handle the extra power that could pose a danger. But there's been no media uproar about "irresponsible remap hooligans" so we've got away with it so far

Brake / suspension upgrades may also be a target though, along with aftermarket seats which involve an airbag delete, and maybe even aftermarket cruise controls / alarms depending on how that fuzzy wording is sorted out.

 

[chris3234]

Agreed. I suspect cat deletes / sports cats will be checked for though. Most likely there will be some kludges / grey areas in the MOT testers handbook (and motoring law) to allow for things like 'classics' and cars which don't have an obvious, tightly defined exhaust setup (e.g. the Abarth 500 - cat is hidden in front of the engine, and two different types of silencer system can be fitted from the factory, or post-build by Fiat dealers).

I've been expecting some form of a lockdown on remaps for some time tbh so that part of the ruling isn't unexpected - with most modern turbo cars it's easy to get another 50-100bhp just by fiddling with the fueling / boost levels with a couple of cheap exhaust (and maybe induction) tweaks, and if the existing suspension / brakes can't handle the extra power that could pose a danger. But there's been no media uproar about "irresponsible remap hooligans" so we've got away with it so far

Brake / suspension upgrades may also be a target though, along with aftermarket seats which involve an airbag delete, and maybe even aftermarket cruise controls / alarms depending on how that fuzzy wording is sorted out.

After market seats without airbags are already a failure unless the cars is modified for competition use

 

[mj2k]

After market seats without airbags are already a failure unless the cars is modified for competition use

Ah, but what about Sabelts? They're effectively an aftermarket seat which requires an airbag delete, but they can be a dealer-fitted (or factory fitted in the case of the Abarth Essesse, etc) option on any 500.

Strictly speaking seat airbag deletes aren't a failure at the moment as long as the airbag system doesn't stop working and light the airbag light, so that may be an area of contention; plenty of older cars (and the Abarth, as above) where some versions have seat airbags and others don't, which makes anything more than "airbag light is lit" as a fail tricky.

 

[chris3234]

Ah, but what about Sabelts? They're effectively an aftermarket seat which requires an airbag delete, but they can be a dealer-fitted (or factory fitted in the case of the Abarth Essesse, etc) option on any 500.

Strictly speaking seat airbag deletes aren't a failure at the moment as long as the airbag system doesn't stop working and light the airbag light, so that may be an area of contention; plenty of older cars (and the Abarth, as above) where some versions have seat airbags and others don't, which makes anything more than "airbag light is lit" as a fail tricky.

They are legal if factory fitted

Anything after market should be a straight fail

Defect	Category
(a) An airbag fitted as original equipment obviously missing	Major
(b) Not in use
(c) An airbag obviously inoperative	Major

 

[mj2k]

They are legal if factory fitted

Anything after market should be a straight fail

Defect	Category
(a) An airbag fitted as original equipment obviously missing	Major
(b) Not in use
(c) An airbag obviously inoperative	Major

Yep, I suspect Fiat will be raising an issue on that one though if 500s with Sabelts fitted do start failing MOTs though under tightened regs - unless you have a receipt for the work (what do you do if you've lost it?) how do you prove if the Sabelts are fitted by a Fiat authorized dealer, or a DIY fit?

"An airbag fitted as original equipment obviously missing" - easy to prove with a steering wheel, but how do you know with a seat, unless the original airbag cables are plainly and obviously hacked about, there's a carbon fibre bucket which clashes with the plush leather on the other seats (though once again Sabelts clash with this) or there's a dirty great rip in the original seat where someone's pulled the airbag out?

Either way, aftermarket seats are an annoying but relatively minor one in this (no reason not to stick a racing bucket seat in the back and fit it when you get on-site for track days), though it might make the extortionate price of 2nd hand Sabelts go down a bit, which I wouldn't mind so much

 

[chris3234]

Yep, I suspect Fiat will be raising an issue on that one though if 500s with Sabelts fitted do start failing MOTs though under tightened regs - unless you have a receipt for the work (what do you do if you've lost it?) how do you prove if the Sabelts are fitted by a Fiat authorized dealer, or a DIY fit?

"An airbag fitted as original equipment obviously missing" - easy to prove with a steering wheel, but how do you know with a seat, unless the original airbag cables are plainly and obviously hacked about, there's a carbon fibre bucket which clashes with the plush leather on the other seats (though once again Sabelts clash with this) or there's a dirty great rip in the original seat where someone's pulled the airbag out?

Either way, aftermarket seats are an annoying but relatively minor one in this (no reason not to stick a racing bucket seat in the back and fit it when you get on-site for track days), though it might make the extortionate price of 2nd hand Sabelts go down a bit, which I wouldn't mind so much

As far as I'm aware all the seats are fitted at manufacter and not retrofitted by the dealership

That being said if it's available as a factor option it will pass the mot as they have to give them the benefit of the doubt


Stick them in a 1.2 pop and it's quite obvious they aren't factory

 

[mj2k]

As far as I'm aware all the seats are fitted at manufacter and not retrofitted by the dealership

That being said if it's available as a factor option it will pass the mot as they have to give them the benefit of the doubt


Stick them in a 1.2 pop and it's quite obvious they aren't factory

Ha ha, true, and they do seem to have disappeared from the 'Abarth options" now, but they were def shown as an option in the 'performance pack' a couple of months back:

https://www.abarthcars.co.uk/content/dam/abarth/uk/price_list/Price_list_october.pdf

And you can still scare yourself silly with the new prices in a few places:

Sabelt Seats For Abarth - Alcantara

MS-Racing is a Abarth Fiat on-line store dedicated in bringing you specialised and unique products for you and your car inc bespoke and lifestyle items not found elsewhere. We offer free advice & assistance with a passion for good customer service.

www.ms-r.co.uk

Just imagine fitting a new set of those to a high mileage 2007 1.2 pop - they'd be worth more than the car!

 

[g8rpi]

Note that the current MOT rules for many items do not apply to "extensively modified" vehicles such ss those used for competion. Hence if you have a roll cage and four point harness you should not get a fail for replacing the airbag steering wheel with a quick release race wheel.
To be honest a lot of the "bad" modifications are covered by existing laws. These new ones will just make it easier to enforce the fundamental princples.
About time the deletion of CATs, dangerous modifications to suspension like cut coils and the like to be controlled.

 

[mj2k]

Note that the current MOT rules for many items do not apply to "extensively modified" vehicles such ss those used for competion. Hence if you have a roll cage and four point harness you should not get a fail for replacing the airbag steering wheel with a quick release race wheel.
To be honest a lot of the "bad" modifications are covered by existing laws. These new ones will just make it easier to enforce the fundamental princples.
About time the deletion of CATs, dangerous modifications to suspension like cut coils and the like to be controlled.

Agreed, my main concern is with the fuzzy wording around what makes a "system", but as long as that's tightened up so e.g. fitting a new satnav doesn't cost you an MOT fail (or travelling without an older relative in the car, since they're effectively a 'speed control system' ) it's not going to do anything which shouldn't be regulated anyway (e.g. a +150bhp cat delete, new turbo and remap with no other modifications)

 

[s130]

Talking of 3 or 4 or multi point safety harness then from my motor sport days they were NOT road legal (to actually use on public roads) UNLESS they had a single fasten/unfasten buckle like all normal vehicle seat belts have. So for our cars we used 3 pointers replacing the original seat belt bolts with "eyes" AND leaving the original seat belts in situe. Never actually, as I recall, used the harness on the public road despite it being legal to do. Always used the normal seat belt. Also some MOT testers back then were piccy about full race harnesses with single buckle so leaving the seat belts in ensured no arguments

I've not checked in recent years on the harness situation but certainly all those required motor sport safety mods for basic roads cars (used for sprinting, trials etc) like yellow tape on battery negative lead, label on ignition switch indicating ignition off direction, etc. and for road legal cars used for 'racing' where external electric cut-off switch, fire extinguisher activation, tow eyes/points etc. with all the required labelling were insurance company declarable.

In the referenced document they say they do NOT want to interfere with legitimate motor sport etc. BUT I can not see how that is possible. Many road cars used for motor sport have their sloppy floppy driver's seat replaced with a proper more secure and safer protective seat. So front airbags are left in place (or should be) but the driver's seat side airbag has to be removed. Technically under the new proposed regulations that would be illegal. Removal of safety device and fitting of a bypass

There must be plenty of other "things" in the proposals that would affect road going motorsport cars and would be too difficult and complex to construct rules around so I guess the politicians will just ban this type of motorsport and cars and we will only be allowed to have "trailered" vehicles. That will go down well in the motorsport world (not)!

The petition is actually not well worded. It says:

"Modified vehicles that are used on the roads are subject to the same MOT testing as all other road cars and there are therefore adequate safeguards to ensure modified vehicles are roadworthy.

The MOT also includes emissions testing, which ensure that modified cars do not breach emission standards.

Some modifications, such as aftermarket brake parts, can even increase safety and applying any offences to improvements like this would be illogical."

This will get easily bounced I think if it gets to parliamentary debate because it does not mention/show specific examples of where legitimate tampering "IS REQUIRED" (e.g. my racing seat and side airbag example, or, say, the UP-RATING of breaks to cater for non public road use).

 

[mj2k]

The petition is actually not well worded. It says:

"Modified vehicles that are used on the roads are subject to the same MOT testing as all other road cars and there are therefore adequate safeguards to ensure modified vehicles are roadworthy.

The MOT also includes emissions testing, which ensure that modified cars do not breach emission standards.

Some modifications, such as aftermarket brake parts, can even increase safety and applying any offences to improvements like this would be illogical."

This will get easily bounced I think if it gets to parliamentary debate because it does not mention/show specific examples of where legitimate tampering "IS REQUIRED" (e.g. my racing seat and side airbag example, or, say, the UP-RATING of breaks to cater for non public road use).

Agreed, the annoying thing is that nobody mentioned this proposed ruling until the 'request for comment' was already closed; I suspect a little clarification in the wording of the standard (and in that petition!) would be all that is needed.

However given Boris' recent defeat in a by-election and all the discontent in his party combined with the powerful lobbying which the classic car movement seems capable of (there was even a nonsensical clause dropped into the MOT regulations around banned LED lights to allow their use in classics) I suspect this bill won't be proceeding any further without being heavily modified (it'll get a straight through exhaust, wide wheels, fluffy dice and a nice go-faster stripe ) since the wording around classic cars is equally fuzzy.