NSW rego questions/standards for a 2a

[Ozdunc]

Well. Bill hasn't passed rego. I've had a chat with the mechanic/inspector doing the testing and he's pointed out quite a few things that quite rightly need doing.

Fuel tank leak, oil leak from timing cover and oil filter, the outrigger under the drivers seat and the rigger holding the fuel tank to the chassis are rusty, suspension bushes. All fair, and whilst a bit of a pain, happy to do.

What I am confused about is -
1. he told me the exhaust couldn't exit out behind the rear tyre, it had to come out the back
2. All the holes in the bulkhead had to be sealed and any holes in the floor plugged, and all rubbers in situ.
3. The hard top had to have glass in it - what if I remove the top and come in as a convertible?

I've tried to search on the web to find out what exactly a rego check in NSW consists of but there seems to be no definative listing.
The mech/inspector seems to think that this 43 year old must conform to the modern day ADRs. I thought it just had to pass what was correct at the time of production.

Any ideas, or indeed recommendations for a rego mechanic who understands these cars. Pref Northern beaches of Sydney.
Or should I be thinking about a historic rego?

Cheers

[Lotz-A-Landies]

By rights the exhaust has to exit after the last opening window.

If you have no glass in the hard top tailgate then the exhaust by rights has to come out at the rear of the vehicle. (So it can get sucked back in by the vacuum effect of the vehicle travelling along the road)

If the vehicle has no engine, braking or suspension modifications, then the inspector can not refuse an original SIIa spec 4cyl exhaust that exits behind the rear wheel or a 6 cyl rover that exists at the rear LHS corner. Just take along an original SIIa parts manual and show him (sic) the respective page for the exhaust system. It is a matter of Law that they can not enforce an ADR that was issued after an unmodified vehicle was manufactured.

You can remove the hard top.

The other things you have to fix.

Diana

[isuzutoo-eh]

EDIT: Diana has more experience than I do, trust her advice over mine! /EDIT

You are correct, it must comply to Australian Design Rules at time of manufacture, not today. This means #1 a side facing exhaust is legal as long as it is behind the rearmost opening window.
2. This is correct. Duct or gaffa tape is your friend for holes; rubber boots around handbrake/gearsticks etc and door seals you have to do with the right part. Door seals only have to go as high as the door bottoms if you take the tops off. Also tape up any holes, rips or tears in seats.
3. Be careful, if you remove the hard top does it remove the seatbelt attachment points? If not, remove it. But you should get glass or perspex for the hard top if you plan on using it!


Historic rego will impact how you can use your Landy-you will be able to go on club trips, to club meetings and with prior warning to the historic rego officer (ie me for LROCS) you can take it for servicing and other special circumstance movements. You can't take it for a run to the shops, the beach or to the railway station. The limits are why CTP insurance on historic rego vehicles is very affordable!

I had my rego done at Land Vehicle Spares but thats a good two hour drive from your area!




Well. Bill hasn't passed rego. I've had a chat with the mechanic/inspector doing the testing and he's pointed out quite a few things that quite rightly need doing.

Fuel tank leak, oil leak from timing cover and oil filter, the outrigger under the drivers seat and the rigger holding the fuel tank to the chassis are rusty, suspension bushes. All fair, and whilst a bit of a pain, happy to do.

What I am confused about is -
1. he told me the exhaust couldn't exit out behind the rear tyre, it had to come out the back
2. All the holes in the bulkhead had to be sealed and any holes in the floor plugged, and all rubbers in situ.
3. The hard top had to have glass in it - what if I remove the top and come in as a convertible?

I've tried to search on the web to find out what exactly a rego check in NSW consists of but there seems to be no definative listing.
The mech/inspector seems to think that this 43 year old must conform to the modern day ADRs. I thought it just had to pass what was correct at the time of production.

Any ideas, or indeed recommendations for a rego mechanic who understands these cars. Pref Northern beaches of Sydney.
Or should I be thinking about a historic rego?

Cheers

[Warb]

It is a matter of Law that they can not enforce an ADR that was issued after an unmodified vehicle was manufactured.

With the caveat that they can change the law. I believe the 2007 changes to the Road Transport Vehicle Registration Act altered the seat belt requirements in NSW such that all vehicles registered after 1/1/1965 are now required to have front seat belts, though originally they were not:

29 Seatbelts for cars registered between 1 January 1965 and 1 January 1969
Every car and motor car derivative first registered on or after 1 January 1965 and before 1 January 1969 must be equipped for each front seat position that is adjacent to the side of the vehicle with a seatbelt that:
(a) has been installed in accordance with instructions issued by the manufacturer of the seatbelt, and
(b) at the time of its installation has not previously been installed and used in a motor vehicle, and
(c) is of:
(i) a type referred to in Australian Standard AS E35/BWG–1966 Drawings for bollard type webbing grips for testing car seat belt webbing as a Combination Belt (High) and has been manufactured in accordance with that Standard, or
(ii) some other type approved by the Authority.

[Ozdunc]

You two are diamonds!! Thanks!:cool:
I hadn't even thought about gaffer tape!
Historic is out of the question then.

The previous owner in his zealousness to grind off all the paint, removed all the rubbers, yep every single one - does anyone have a piccy of what they should look like?
Do I need to do the tail gate as well?

Also any hints for draining a fuel tank and safe storage of the tank whilst I get the outriggers welding back on.
Would a couple of 20l jerries and a funnel with a length of hose be safe enough?

Also what should I use between ali and steel to prevent corrosion? Sikaflex? At the moment there isn't even paint!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

With the caveat that they can change the law. I believe the 2007 changes to the Road Transport Vehicle Registration Act altered the seat belt requirements in NSW such that all vehicles registered after 1/1/1965 are now required to have front seat belts, though originally they were not:

29 Seatbelts for cars registered between 1 January 1965 and 1 January 1969

Every car and motor car derivative first registered on or after 1 January 1965 and before 1 January 1969 must be equipped for each front seat position that is adjacent to the side of the vehicle with a seatbelt that: ...<snip>A couple of points, is a Land Rover a "motor car derivative"? IIRC motor car manufacturers were required to fit seat belts from about 1966, (someone will have the details,) but Land Rovers were not required to have seat belts till the 1970's

Given that: compliance plates were not affixed to vehicles till 1972.
SIIa chassis numbers do not include a manufacture year,
NSW registration records don't go back before about 1995,how is anyone at the RMS going to know if the SIIa Land Rover was manufactured in 1970, or January 1965 or even February 1962?

Also the issue is about side exiting exhausts.

Diana

[JDNSW]

A couple of points, is a Land Rover a "motor car derivative"? IIRC motor car manufacturers were required to fit seat belts from about 1966, (someone will have the details,) but Land Rovers were not required to have seat belts till the 1970's

Also the issue is about side exiting exhausts.

Diana

Landrover (2a) is not a motor car derivative. If you think it is, what car is it a derivative of? The only car derived engine is the six, even. I suppose the gearbox and diffs are car derived, as are a number of accessories. But the vehicle as a whole? No.

I think the example of seat belts is simply given as an example of retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation on motor vehicle equipment is not unheard of, but is quite rare. The only real example I can think of was the requirement for fitting of rear reflectors (1956?), but there have probably been others.

John

[isuzutoo-eh]

Soft top Series are generally registered as utes despite having rear seats and so forth, and thus fall under commercial vehicle regulations. I don't know exactly what the differences are but there are some, I know mine had to have a passenger side mirror (however useless) fitted to pass the blue slip, but I suspect this means the retrospective legislation above on seatbelts is not valid either.

[clubagreenie]

In regard to seat belts there are a few interpretations I know of. Some countries had seat belts fitted oem earlier (Japan) and so must have them. Other vehicles that were not fitted from original but fall under historic categories (but not necessarily with club or historic rego) do not need them.

If he hasn't written it up as a failure yet speak to another more manufacturer/period sympathetic mechanic about it and their interpretations and requirements. I've found that once one gets a bee in their bonnet about one issue, as soon as it's fixed and you go back, only then will they tell you about the next fault they want fixed.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It's a bit like the coppa at the side of the road, what he (sic) says is the Law, is what he writes up the ticket for. If he has a misunderstanding of the Law, it's up to you to challenge it in the court.

With the blue slip inspector and knowing how few there are around these days, if you want the blue slip then you fix what he wants done or find someone else to do it. No point arguing with them, they'll just find more faults and write up a failure slip and then the next inspector will have to check those things as well.

[Warb]

Landrover (2a) is not a motor car derivative. If you think it is, what car is it a derivative of?

It is derivative of the first motor car ever built. It has 4 wheels and an engine, seats and a steering wheel. By your logic, if I made a car from parts of an aircraft, it would not be a motor car derivative it would be an aircraft derivative. I suspect that "derivative" in this context doesn't mean "uses parts from", it simply refers to the derivation of design. The Land Rover is most certainly derived from car design, as opposed to motorcycle or helicopter. The only possibility for suggesting it is not a car derivative is to state it is a tractor or truck derivative, which changes the game entirely and I suspect introduces far more problems! The reference in the regulation to "car derivative" is attempting to prevent people from claiming that their "special" isn't a car, and also maintain the distinction with motorcycle derived vehicles etc.



I think the example of seat belts is simply given as an example of retrospective legislation.

Exactly. I was simply making the point that whilst the ADR's in force at the time of manufacture (or first rego) are normally those that apply to the vehicle, there are exceptions where laws have been changed.



how is anyone at the RMS going to know if the SIIa Land Rover was manufactured in 1970, or January 1965 or even February 1962?

I've not been through the process yet, but don't you have to state the first rego date or date of manufacture when you re-register it to avoid it being classed as "new" and having to comply to todays ADR's. In which case I suppose we all simply claim the vehicles were first registered before 1965 when we register them?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It is derivative of the first motor car ever built. It has 4 wheels and an engine, seats and a steering wheel. By your logic, if I made a car from parts of an aircraft, it would not be a motor car derivative it would be an aircraft derivative. I suspect that "derivative" in this context doesn't mean "uses parts from", it simply refers to the derivation of design. The Land Rover is most certainly derived from car design, as opposed to motorcycle or helicopter. The only possibility for suggesting it is not a car derivative is to state it is a tractor or truck derivative, which changes the game entirely and I suspect introduces far more problems! The reference in the regulation to "car derivative" is attempting to prevent people from claiming that their "special" isn't a car, and also maintain the distinction with motorcycle derived vehicles etc. <Not correct: Australian requlations, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s had a variety of classifications of light vehicles.
Motor car, was a light motor vehicle primarily designed to carry passengers, its derivatives were light motor vehicles based on the same engineering platform, such as station wagons, panel vans and utilities which shared the same engine, transmission, suspension, braking systems and shared some or many of the same body panels. Under todays definitions motor cars were Passenger Vehicles Motor vehicles that are built to carry people. Includes sedans, station wagons, coupes, convertibles and people movers.

Land Rovers were considered goods motor lorry, they were a commercial platform generally designed to carry goods, the station wagon version was derivative designed to carry passengers and equated to a light bus. Under today's defintions a Land Rover were classified as Light Trucks Motor vehicles constructed for load carrying (including panel vans and utilities) and weigh up to 4.5 tonnes GVM.

>
<snip>
I've not been through the process yet, but don't you have to state the first rego date or date of manufacture when you re-register it to avoid it being classed as "new" and having to comply to todays ADR's. In which case I suppose we all simply claim the vehicles were first registered before 1965 when we register them?They ask you the model and where it was last registered to determine that it is not a recently imported vehicle. Even if it has never been registered in Australia before, if it was imported with the correct paperwork, then it has to comply with the ADR (or other legislation) current at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

Where some people get tripped up is when they build a vehicle from parts, in which case it is classified as a new "individually constructed" vehicle, although there are moves to have that amended in respected of vehicles like vintage cars where the manufacturer only made the rolling chassis and other companies, like the "Holden's Motor Body Builders" would construct a body to go on the chassis.

[Warb]

Whilst I see what you are saying, I don't think I'd like to present it in a court of law!

By todays standards a ute (or panelvan) is a car derivative, but the LR ute isn't because it doesn't share components forward of the windscreen with a "car", because the station wagon LR with which it shares components isn't a car it's a light bus, because the LR ute on which it's based isn't a car derivative it's a motor lorry, because......

I think I'll just fit seatbelts!!

[Davehoos]

I found this link and it was a good read.dated 1985.
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1985/pdf/Belt_Analysis_4.pdf


NSW retrofil law...
From April 1973 belts have to he fitted in the front seats of cars and derivatives first reglstcrcd on or after I January 1965




VIC retrofit..laws
From July 1971 belts have to be fitted to the front seats of all cars (first registered on or after 1 January 1951), prior to thc issue of a roadworthmess certificate (which is required on change of ownership) From February 1974 belts have to be tilted in the front seats of all cars manufactured alier 1 October 1964

this was updated in 1988 and i found this


http://www.aulro.com/afvb/series-2-2a/114261-seat-belt-rules-old-cars.html

[Davehoos]

landrover station wagon in NSW was an omnibus and required seat belts-but an omnibus...untill recently.

my mum always has wagons-crown- falcon-holden-nissan/datsun and untill ULP they had been M/LORRY in nsw.after that they changed to P/CAR.as did most 4X4.

I know of early holden owners that had to remove seat belts as they called them unsafe.

LEGAL
what ever you do if you use the car for buisness-a wedding get some real advise..workcover and other groups are much more rude and nasty that aleather capped- bike pant HP officer.

[ERASER]

Regarding seat belts, i rang the rta in nsw before i tried getting Warthog registered and asked if i had to have seat belts. RTA told me it didnt need seat belts if they werent fitted when the car was sold new as long as my land rover was standard. The guy that did my blue slip also rang the rta to confirm and he got the same reply.
So warthog got registered without seatbelts or reverse lights as thats how they came out. Warthog is a 1965 2a.