Thread: Will Defender be eliminated by "Regulations" in Aus?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Don't put anything past the NSW RMS, the Council of Motoring Clubs reported on a case where a person was restoring a 1920s car that originally came to Australia as an engine/chassis and had the body built here. in the subsequent 80 odd years, the wood and metal body had died and a new one was constructed using the remnants of the original body as templates.

The RMS determined that it was a 2011 individually constructed vehicle and would need to meet 2011 ADR.

That was quite a battle the CMC had with NSW RTA/RMS.

I would imagine that would fit about 99% of all restorations. I would imagine that the particular problem you are referring to would be a case of some pen pusher trying to be smart and cover his "lower spine"

Originally Posted by JamesB71

As long as it isnt retrospective.....

It will be retrospective for some modifications. For example, I have to comply with some current ADRs (eg ADR V3 #79) for the installation of the turbo onto my Isuzu 110. 79 is emissions and crankcase ventilation. Open was OK in 86, and as such it is OK now in it's original form but now that I have modified the engine with a turbo to get engineering approval I have to comply with relevant current ADRs... so I have to have a closed provent system.

Obviously this example is different but goes to show that it isn't black and white.

MY14 was displayed at Frankfurt last week and the only obvious change externally...... it now says 'Defender' on the bonnet, but it is rumored to have ESC.... there were some pictures on twitter posted by a Journo but they have gone....

mandating ESC and ABS and all that acronym stuff is just stupid.

great while it works and idiots will drive to the limit of the system and then one day (probably sooner rather than later thank you all you build it cheaper and flog it for the same price bean counter dips) when some snot nosed brat who cant drive hooks into the same corner that hes taken a million times before like that gets a warning light on a dash hes not looking out that says "yeah buddy you're on your own now" they'll be off over the armco faster than I can say 'told ya"

Originally Posted by flagg

Obviously this example is different but goes to show that it isn't black and white.

very true - you could have a car that does not have to comply with such ADRs as seatbelts and so on because it was built before the rules were introduced. However - and I think it's the same across Australia? - it still has to be within a 'maximum' decibel limit no matter how loud it was when it left the factory. So there is still certain rules you have to comply to.

I nearly couldn't get a vintage motorcycle registered because it was above the maximum decibels ... despite the fact it had no indicators, a headlight I could turn on and off, no pollution control ... in the end my saving grace was somebody rode past on a (new-ish) Harley that was nearly at the maximum on the decibel-o-meter thing even though it was 100 metres away.

I don't think out little biddy market has a mention or even come into Land Rover's plans. It's what Europe are trying to achieve, and LR's interest in the US market. Australia follows in a delayed half interested manner.
I thought vehicle height, live axel performance which are both related to handling. Crush zones as mentioned for collision and those dreaded pedestrians, are all as much part of a upgrade as are traction control, airbags, and better emissions. Can't say I agree or like most of the upgrades, but I guess it all about the brainless world were all building.
One thing for sure I reckon, the new Defender will not be a 30 year purchase. It will have a limited life largely due to the costs of replacing electronics and air bags. Range Rovers, Disco's are paving the way. I believe all LR's are loosing the bonnet name and being replaced with the model name. Again RR have paved the way.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

mandating ESC and ABS and all that acronym stuff is just stupid.

great while it works and idiots will drive to the limit of the system and then one day (probably sooner rather than later thank you all you build it cheaper and flog it for the same price bean counter dips) when some snot nosed brat who cant drive hooks into the same corner that hes taken a million times before like that gets a warning light on a dash hes not looking out that says "yeah buddy you're on your own now" they'll be off over the armco faster than I can say 'told ya"

Totally agree. So many morons relying on this technology and a false sense of security

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

mandating ESC and ABS and all that acronym stuff is just stupid.

great while it works and idiots will drive to the limit of the system and then one day (probably sooner rather than later thank you all you build it cheaper and flog it for the same price bean counter dips) when some snot nosed brat who cant drive hooks into the same corner that hes taken a million times before like that gets a warning light on a dash hes not looking out that says "yeah buddy you're on your own now" they'll be off over the armco faster than I can say 'told ya"

And instead of saying "Well that was an idiot thing to do" or "He should have learn't to drive an off road vehicle on Road". The road safety boffins will say "Lets legislate so these vehicles have to be made idiot proof, more expensive, more complex and less easily repaired by the owner"