Log in

View Full Version : NCOP must read!!!!



discowhite
22nd April 2009, 07:36 AM
Hi All,

Just to keep you all up to date with the latest news. NCOP = National Code of Practice – I have spoken about this with you before.

I attended on behalf of the ANFWDC a AA AA (National 4 Wheel Drive Council) meeting on Friday and obtained the latest news on the NCOP. Over all I am happy with the approach of the AAAA – and also very encouraged as to the comments made at that meeting by the Qld Transport reps.

AA AA – will be undertaking a demonstration (international lane changing test /Braking test) on 4 vehicles – both in OEM and in after market setup. The AA AA position is to use a standard 2” suspension lift as this is the majority of suspension lifts made in Australia, and obviously the most likely one to pass the test. I have been assured that I will get an invitation to this as a representative of the ANFWDC – (ANFWDC is the member and not FWDQLD). The international land changing test /Braking test are quite severe but it is hoped that the OEM vehicles may not pass the test but the modified vehicles will. Vehicles will be supplied by members of the AA AA. All testing is paid for by the AA AA. Qld Transport indicated that if the modified vehicles pass the test then there will be no issue from them about the 50mm suspension lift and 2” tyre change size. All sounds very encouraging.

Also on Friday it was reported that VERSION 2 of the new NCOP VSB 14 was now released for public comment on early Friday morning.

Most of the states are like us, pretty happy if we get the 2” suspension lift and 1” tyre lift giving a total of 3” lift without further approval – but FWDVIC want to go for a 5” over all lift. (Ambit claim to say the least)

However we need to keep our members informed about this issue as we really do not know which way it will go. Now that we know the out come of the Election Murray will make contact with the New Transport Minister once his name is released, and have some discussion on this NCOP with him because it does not just relate to suspension and tyres.

I think that this needs to go out to all member Clubs in the mail out Jeff. David you need to bring this up with the Reps on Thursday night as well, as I will not be there, please.

To all 4WDrive Club Members, (also if you have friends who own 4wdrivers but are not members please pass onto them)

The purpose of this email is to bring to your attention a code of practice that has been drafted and being pushed through, by transport departments from around Australia. This draft if accepted will impinge on your day to day activities of 4wdriving including the undertaking of those planned trips whether you are doing bush trips or heading into the remote areas of Australia.

The NCOP VSB 14 (Now recently released Version 2) is a document to put in place a national code of practice (NCOP) restricting you in how you modify your 4wdrive vehicle. This code of practice if put into place in it’s present form will restrict the use and function of your 4wdrive vehicle as you would like it to be. (within reason).

To modify your vehicle to meet those challenging trips you will be put through the ringer and at a financial burden to get the permit(s) necessary to have those modifications
You as a responsible 4wdriver are encouraged to express your views and or present them to your local politician.

The following is just a brief overview on VSB 14.

Just the opening statement to NCOP VSB 14 is quite scary:
“The National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification (NCOP) has been prepared by members of the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board Working Party in consultation with industry, user groups, government agencies and individuals with an interest in light vehicle construction and modification”.
This statement is an outright lie at the worst, and misleading to all stakeholders, the general public including the legislators themselves, at the least.
1. The key stake holders, namely the 4wdrive owners were never consulted.
2. There was never any consultation with user groups i.e. 4wdrive association, tour operators or individual 4wdrive clubs.
3. The industry groups such as AA AA were not contacted or asked to participate either.
4. Apparently VSB 14 is currently now being practiced in WA by that state transport body without any legislative involvement from the government, but according to the document it is still open for public comment. (So what gives?)

Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board Working Party is a fancy name for the State Transport departments from around Australia who meet regularly together to discuss transport issues. Some of these State transport departments want the Very strict European rules implemented without change in Australia. Now we all know that we are not Europe and our conditions are much different to theirs.

Those affected:
Mining companies, fisherman, recreational drivers, farmers, in a nutshell anyone who owns a 4wdrive vehicle. The modifications include and notwithstanding anything or item you attach/fit to your 4wdrive vehicle that was not fitted to the vehicle during manufacture as per the ADR (Austrlian Design Rules).

Those not affected:
Government organisations that depend heavily on vehicle modifications such as ambulances, FESA fire-fighting units, 4wdrives used by indigenous communities and other government agencies (just to mention a few), - because they will have exemptions in place beyond the reach of ordinary 4wdrive owners, irrespective of how the legislators define certain modifications to 4wdrive vehicles being unsafe, which we know in most cases with the average 4wdriver is a falsehood.

Items defined as modifications:
Drawer systems; snorkels, wheel carriers, dual battery systems, spotlights, heavy duty springs and shock absorbers (in particular these items, as they will increase vehicle height as will light truck tyre as the profile of these tyres will exceed vehicle height).
It has been pointed out that under the current proposed NCOP VSB 14 just by fitting an ordinary Australian or American tyre 275x65x16 will exceed the proposed vehicle height by 8mm.

The above is just a few of the many items that are fitted to our 4wdrives, to meet the challenging conditions in the remote areas of Australia that we travel in, we fit these items to ensure maximum driver/passenger safety, vehicle durability over the rough terrain, and extend our fuel carrying capacity to alleviate the high risk in carrying extra jerry cans of fuel between the remote fuelling points. Another modification that comes to mind is your expanded or additional fuel tank that will be illegal.

For more information the link to the NCOP VSB 14 is below. Please look for Version 2, as this is just a recent update from the original.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb_ncop.aspx (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb_ncop.aspx)


Review of NCOP Version 2 (VSB14)

Please note that Version 2 of the National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification (NCOP) which was published as VSB14 is now open for public comment. The Version 2 draft documents can be found on the following website under the menu heading, NCOP V2 Public Comment: www.pharosalex.com.au (http://www.pharosalex.com.au/).
More detailed information about the review can be found under the menu heading Invitation to Comment whilst major amendments to Version 2 are summarised under the menu heading Summary of Changes.

Comments on Version 2 must be received on or before Thursday, 30 April 2009.
FWDQLD encourages you all to review the material and become aware and get involved.
Please do not treat this with usual apathy as we need action and urgently from all of the key stake holders which is you as a 4wdrive owner.

Please go onto the website and provide email comment submission back by the closing date of Thursday the 30th April 2009.

I have made my own personal submission as below.
I have only a very basic comment and that is as follows.

There has been NO consultation with any user groups or industry groups and as defined in the opening statement of “The National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification (NCOP)
· The key stake holders, namely the 4wdrive owners were never consulted.
· There was never any consultation with user groups i.e. ANFWDC Australian National Four Wheel Drive council – FWDAUSTRALIA, 4wdrive State association, Tour operators or individual 4wdrive clubs.
· The industry groups such as Australian Automotive After Market Association (AA AA) or the 4 wheel drive Council of Australia were not contacted or asked to participate either.
· There is no supporting evidence as to the need for these radical changes.

Local State Transport Ministers are unaware of what this group is doing?

I hereby submit:
In view of the impact on 4 wheel industry, user groups and aftermarket industry and the potential Negative implications to the employment of the Australian workforce, and the potential negative impact to the tourism industry and the potential negative impact in relation to the leisure and legitimate past time of the users of the 4 wheel drive vehicles. I do not support the introduction of the proposed legalisation with respect to VSB14.

I also submit that this process must be put on hold immediately, until the real proper consultation and mediation has taken place between real consumer user groups such as ANFWDC Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council – FWDAUSTRALIA, 4wdrive State association’s and industry bodies such as AA AA and the 4WD Council of Australia.

I also submit that there is no real evidence of the need for any such radical changes to the existing laws in relation to the modification of vehicles.


S Crawford.

p38arover
22nd April 2009, 07:57 AM
Those not affected:
Government organisations that depend heavily on vehicle modifications such as ambulances, FESA fire-fighting units, 4wdrives used by indigenous communities and other government agencies (just to mention a few), - because they will have exemptions in place beyond the reach of ordinary 4wdrive owners, irrespective of how the legislators define certain modifications to 4wdrive vehicles being unsafe, which we know in most cases with the average 4wdriver is a falsehood.

Why will communities be exempt but others not?

Tank
22nd April 2009, 11:08 AM
What is the email address for submissions? Regards Frank.

discowhite
22nd April 2009, 11:28 AM
What is the email address for submissions? Regards Frank.


not sure, this was forwarded to me. ide be trying the national 4wd council.

cheers phil

Sprint
22nd April 2009, 12:06 PM
tried to read through all of it and got more and more confused as i went

what does it boil down to? no modifications will be allowed?

muddymech
22nd April 2009, 12:07 PM
can we just up a landrover remote area community then problem solved.

DeeJay
22nd April 2009, 12:07 PM
"To modify your vehicle to meet those challenging trips you will be put through the wringer and at a financial burden to get the permit(s) necessary to have those modifications"


So the Gov't has found another avenue to source some income.:mad:
Obviously, along with permits for just about anything, we now will have to pay for vehicle mods.
And so it goes on.

Xavie
22nd April 2009, 12:15 PM
I got a bit confused by it all too.

Is it saying that 2 inch lifts may still be legal buy may not???

Is it saying that the laws that are coming in will mean no chance of anything more then a 2 inch lift?

and it seems to mention that tyres no more then 2inch above standard will be accepted???

But if the vehicles on trial fails testing then nothing above factory will be permitted?

Scallops
22nd April 2009, 12:15 PM
Surely this legislation will not be retrospective? And I find it very hard to believe that items such as drawer systems and snorkels will become illegal without a permit.

Yorkie
22nd April 2009, 12:26 PM
i have had a read and it does not seem as extreme as whoever sent discowhite the email. it seems to follow current rules and infact increase some rules re tyre size permitted
"The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to:
• 4WD passenger vehicles specifically designed for off-road use (typically MC ADR category). All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles including those AWD vehicles that may be certified as MC ADR category, (also commonly known as soft roaders) are not included in this category.

must not be more than 50mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that vehicle."

seem to think current rule is 15mm in nsw at least.

definately worth reading the NCOP first before adding to many comments.
seems the people who will be affected most will be those with the big lifts and large tyres but do not thing it says these are banned, just need certification which they probably have anyway for insurance cover:angel:.

cheers
yorkie :)

Yorkie
22nd April 2009, 12:30 PM
I got a bit confused by it all too.

Is it saying that 2 inch lifts may still be legal buy may not???

Is it saying that the laws that are coming in will mean no chance of anything more then a 2 inch lift?

and it seems to mention that tyres no more then 2inch above standard will be accepted???

But if the vehicles on trial fails testing then nothing above factory will be permitted?

xavie,
from what i read these are the points of note
1.1 MODIFICATIONS NOT REQUIRING CERTIFICATION
• Lowering and raising suspensions (by not more than one third of the original suspension travel provided the original vehicle height is not increased or decreased by more than 50mm) *May require certification in NSW.
• Shock absorber substitution
• Spring and sway bar substitution

1.2 MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING CERTIFICATION UNDER LS APPROVAL CODES
• Raising the vehicle beyond 50mm but not more than 150mm

1.3 EXCLUSIONS
The following modifications are not covered by this NCOP.
• Vehicle lifts that exceed 150mm: Raising vehicles beyond 150mm is not permitted under this Code of Practice.

Not sure what you would do for +150mm lifts for road registered vehicle???

cheers
yorkie :)

waz
22nd April 2009, 01:04 PM
Of particular concern is page 49 - NCOP11 Section LS Suspension and steering.

From my understanding, if you put on a 50mm suspension lift, then you can't run 265/75R16 tyres.

W

Slunnie
22nd April 2009, 02:15 PM
This is what I sent on 21 Mar 2009. I emailed it to jsdwork@iinet.net.au so I hope that was the correct place!


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to VSB14. My comments relate to the LS section on Suspension and Tyres.

LS79
Pg7 Re Installation of variable air suspension systems may preclude the use of pneumatic helper springs fitted to the insides of coil springs and air adjustable shock absorbers if fitted with an in-cab settings adjustment. This will also preclude the aftermarket installation of air springs to 4WD’s etc which include stranded and off-road modes such as those currently provided as OE by manufacturers such as Land Rover

Pg9 Re Suspension travel is a positive move to accommodate the fitting of stiffer springs which are typically used in touring, commercial and towing vehicles which are modified to carry additional weight.

Pg15 Re ESP is logical. If the VSB14 LS does not provide enough scope for consideration of modifications to ESP equipped vehicles, perhaps an engineering signatory will be able to approve or reject any modifications based on individual studies especially as there is an increasing incidence of fitment.

Pg19 Re Max tyre size - tyres must not be larger in diameter than 50mm than the largest fitted by the manufacturer. This is later reinforced in the 50-150mm High-lifted section Pg71 where the max lift which can be provided by an increase in tyre size is 25mm (ie no tyres more than 50mm larger than OE). Should be assessed individually by an engineering signatory as vehicles will vary on their tyre size suitability and nonOE products which are able to increase the capacity of related components. The ability to design vehicle modifications that allow greater tyre sizes within other related guidelines will assist in providing the attainment of 4WD modification goals of increased ground clearance and traction with sympathy to the DOTARS goals of vehicular stability, performance and community perceptions.

Pg69+ Re High lift section, there is control now on the composition of lifts up to 150mm. This includes a 50mmOD increase limit for tyres on pg69, Suspension to be lifted no more than 75mm on Pg71, body lifts no more than 50mm on Pg71. If you lift beyond 50mm then you must undertake a lane change test Pg72 which will determine your max ride height up to a max of 150mm over standard. This section is blanket rather than vehicle specific and perhaps the lift composition is better determined on an individual basis by the engineering signatory. Some suspension designs are more than capable of accommodating suspension lifts beyond 50mm and 75mm while performing to acceptable standards. Likewise the accommodation of various tyre sizes can be constrained by bodywork and so the lift composition between tyre size increases, suspension alterations and body lifting may vary with each vehicle. Some vehicles are also not reasonably capable of achieving all of these lifting processes, but are able to otherwise be modified within these guidelines to run at 150mm lift with acceptable stability and will benefit from a relaxation of this lift composition stipulation. Such vehicles may include those fitted with SRS and those with bodies constructed onto a chassis directly or with unitary construction.

Mick-Kelly
22nd April 2009, 03:19 PM
As opposed to all the scaremongering going on, this stuff has existed for many years and is just being bought into line on a national level. In Qld the existing system is the Code of Practice for light vehicle modifications. Example would be an aftermarket long range fuel tank. This currently requires a mod plate in Qld and has for years. Suspension travel must remain at two thirds manufacturers spec, aftermarket seats mod plated etc. etc.
The NCOP is just the states trying to get on the same page and have the same system to suit end users. Example is in N.S.W it is legal to have an airbag suspension system in a 'lowlux' while in Qld it is specifically precluded by Qld transport. Under the NCOP airbags would be legal if engineer approved. You will be able to do the same mods you do now, except for monster truck lifts.

hook
22nd April 2009, 05:01 PM
Why will communities be exempt but others not?
[/size][/font]


Because we live in a racess country.............

and that is agaist the whites not the blacks.....:mad:

Slunnie
22nd April 2009, 05:24 PM
As opposed to all the scaremongering going on, this stuff has existed for many years and is just being bought into line on a national level. In Qld the existing system is the Code of Practice for light vehicle modifications. Example would be an aftermarket long range fuel tank. This currently requires a mod plate in Qld and has for years. Suspension travel must remain at two thirds manufacturers spec, aftermarket seats mod plated etc. etc.
The NCOP is just the states trying to get on the same page and have the same system to suit end users. Example is in N.S.W it is legal to have an airbag suspension system in a 'lowlux' while in Qld it is specifically precluded by Qld transport. Under the NCOP airbags would be legal if engineer approved. You will be able to do the same mods you do now, except for monster truck lifts.
There are common elements from the states in the original NCOP, but the NCOP version 2 which was released a couple of months ago (ie this one) has had some significant modifications done to it which have significant implications to those that don't want to drive a bog standard Camry.

DiscoStew
22nd April 2009, 05:29 PM
Items defined as modifications:
Drawer systems; snorkels, wheel carriers, dual battery systems, spotlights, heavy duty springs and shock absorbers (in particular these items, as they will increase vehicle height as will light truck tyre as the profile of these tyres will exceed vehicle height).



Surely this legislation will not be retrospective? And I find it very hard to believe that items such as drawer systems and snorkels will become illegal without a permit.

I cannot find any direct reference to snorkels or drawer systems.

Tombie
22nd April 2009, 05:55 PM
Amusingly, South Australian department of Road Transport has informed myself and several others that they will NOT be adopting the NCOPs :p

beforethevision
22nd April 2009, 05:56 PM
There are common elements from the states in the original NCOP, but the NCOP version 2 which was released a couple of months ago (ie this one) has had some significant modifications done to it which have significant implications to those that don't want to drive a bog standard Camry.

OK, thats interesting. The original NCOP was very reasonable (in my opinion) and gave flexbility within logical bounds. EG powerful engine = big brakes and diffs.

Cheers!

Mick-Kelly
22nd April 2009, 06:58 PM
Thats the other side of the coin, they've been arguing about this for at least 5 years. I cant see them reaching an accord anytime soon. More likely that some states will pack up their bat and ball and go home. I cant see snorkels and drawer systems being considered modifications (factory options). And a lift of three inches overall should be good for most vehicles. From what i've read it is just an attempt to have what is legal in Qld, legal in WA for example ie. using standardised systems on what requires a mod plate and how it is subsequently tested. No more roll tests in WA etc.

hook
22nd April 2009, 09:41 PM
The Govt. can't even get the school systems the same.....

Mick-Kelly
22nd April 2009, 10:59 PM
It will likely go the same way as the 'national' heavy vehicle drivers workbook that was supposed to be the new panacea. Except that WA, NT and Tas went screw you and went their own way. Our state governments cant even agree on a standard rail track size. In short i will believe it when i see it and i think a lot of people would be surprised how illegal their 4wd's are currently when looking at state regs. So i dont forsee a lot of earth shattering change.

Slunnie
23rd April 2009, 01:00 AM
OK, thats interesting. The original NCOP was very reasonable (in my opinion) and gave flexbility within logical bounds. EG powerful engine = big brakes and diffs.

Cheers!
I agree, I liked the original NCOP and it opened up some really interesting options (at least for nsw) but still managed the big trucks (which are not even legal under the current regulations despite engineering). Looking forward, as 4WD's increasingly use independant suspension, it is dealing with an issue for 4WD's that is slowly going to become redundant anyway short of axle swaps.

3toes
23rd April 2009, 08:09 AM
Our state governments cant even agree on a standard rail track size.

Know what you are saying here as this example is a classic of the type. For those who are not up on this piece of Australian history let me refresh you: Big get together of all the states to agree on a national gauge. Someone had suggested that it would make sense of you could travel by train across the continent without problems due to differing gauges seen in other parts of the world. All agreed on the narrow gauge as (some things do not change) it was the cheapest to build. After this agreement was reached NSW then has a new state engineer appointed who is Irish. Decides that NSW should build to standard gauge with which he has experience from building track in Ireland. Victoria cannot stand by and let NSW operate a larger gauge than them and so then has to go one better than NSW so they build wide gauge track.

beforethevision
23rd April 2009, 03:21 PM
I agree, I liked the original NCOP and it opened up some really interesting options (at least for nsw) but still managed the big trucks (which are not even legal under the current regulations despite engineering). Looking forward, as 4WD's increasingly use independant suspension, it is dealing with an issue for 4WD's that is slowly going to become redundant anyway short of axle swaps.

I like the concept of double wishbone, as it can give you good centre clearance without the need for massive tyres and crazy ratios. If there was a defender style vehicle, running double wishbone all round (with long A arms, not like the FL etc) it would potentially drive very well on and off road.

TBH double wishbone actually increases the possibility of wicked lifts, albeit without compromising handling. Flares, coilovers, CVs and longer, camber corrected wishbones would be an expensive kit, requiring much engineering, but give a superior result.

Cheers!

isuzutoo-eh
26th April 2009, 05:40 PM
Know what you are saying here as this example is a classic of the type. For those who are not up on this piece of Australian history let me refresh you: Big get together of all the states to agree on a national gauge. Someone had suggested that it would make sense of you could travel by train across the continent without problems due to differing gauges seen in other parts of the world. All agreed on the narrow gauge as (some things do not change) it was the cheapest to build. After this agreement was reached NSW then has a new state engineer appointed who is Irish. Decides that NSW should build to standard gauge with which he has experience from building track in Ireland. Victoria cannot stand by and let NSW operate a larger gauge than them and so then has to go one better than NSW so they build wide gauge track.

Sorry to hijack, but...

Not the way i understand,
Originally the NSW engineer, from Ireland, wanted 5'3" broad gauge also known as Irish Broad. Vic agreed, ordered their locomotives, rollingstock and started laying track.
At the last minute before NSW equipment was ordered, engineer in chief was changed to a Brit, who (sensibly) mandated the world standard gauge of 4' 8,1/2" to be built.
Vic had already spent their money, couldn't change their order and so stuck with 5'3.
SA followed blindly with their closest neighbour for major routes, QLD, WA and Tas couldn't afford the standard gauge so went with the de facto world standard gauge of 3'6. SA also built secondary lines in 3'6".
Interestingly, only the NSW public railway system stuck to the one gauge all the way through, Vic had four 2'6" lines, WA built standard gauge, Tas and Qld had 2' gauge government lines. Research suggests the commissioner for railways at the time had a tough fight against the narrow gauge crowd.
Cheers,
Mark
train enthusiast-who? me? :p

Slunnie
9th May 2009, 09:48 PM
Here is an interesting note from a NSW RTA Signatory that has posted on Outerlimits.


A couple of highlights from a letter sent by the RTA to all signatories, dated 25 March 2009:

The current version of the NCOP is not recognised by the RTA.

The NCOP is currently undergoing revision and it is intended that the revised document will be used in NSW when it is completed.
So Hulksta, that means it's not even a guideline in NSW right now.
Athol

Slunnie
9th May 2009, 10:00 PM
I like the concept of double wishbone, as it can give you good centre clearance without the need for massive tyres and crazy ratios. If there was a defender style vehicle, running double wishbone all round (with long A arms, not like the FL etc) it would potentially drive very well on and off road.

TBH double wishbone actually increases the possibility of wicked lifts, albeit without compromising handling. Flares, coilovers, CVs and longer, camber corrected wishbones would be an expensive kit, requiring much engineering, but give a superior result.

Cheers!
Check the racing in the states.

King of the Hammers.... one of the fastest had IFS

XRRA Moab... speed/crawling events - winner had IFS.
Pirate4x4.Com - The largest off roading website in the world. (http://www.pirate4x4.com/tv/) check out Episode 15 if you have a spare 15mins.

Slunnie
9th May 2009, 11:08 PM
And more signatory comments from the engineer.


I wouldn't expect the NCOP to be adopted in NSW within 6 months, if ever.

The RTA have a guy drafting their proposed complete re-write of the NCOP to make it more like the current NSW rules. It appears that VIC are doing something similar with their own re-write. You'll end up with a committee comprising one person from each state and territory being presented with multiple new proposed versions. Do you think that they'll ever all agree on one set of rules? http://carl.outerlimits4x4.com/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

DiscoMick
15th May 2009, 08:37 PM
Fascinating.
Has anyone on here ever actually had a vehicle with a 50mm lift or slightly bigger tyres (not huge) rejected for rego for that reason?

Tombie
15th May 2009, 09:12 PM
Fascinating.
Has anyone on here ever actually had a vehicle with a 50mm lift or slightly bigger tyres (not huge) rejected for rego for that reason?

I live in SA - We never even get inspected :D

4" Lift... 33's :cool:

Slunnie
15th May 2009, 09:56 PM
Fascinating.
Has anyone on here ever actually had a vehicle with a 50mm lift or slightly bigger tyres (not huge) rejected for rego for that reason?
I've never been asked for my engineering papers, not from the RTA, nor the Police or the pinkslippers. The only person that has ever wanted to see them was the fellow who did the blue slip on it so the rego papers could be updated with the report number.

But that said... if anybody does ask for it, then I want to have it and everything on the vehicle legal.

DiscoMick
16th May 2009, 08:33 AM
I thought you didn't need engineering papers for a lift up to 50mm? Is NSW different to Qld?
Up here in sunny Bananaland we don't need to front the vehicle for a blue slip to renew rego, just pay online. Very civilised. Treats vehicle owners like intelligent adults, rather than potential axe-murderers.













PS: Yes, I do have an axe...

Blknight.aus
16th May 2009, 07:56 PM
Ive spent more time than I should have trying to convince some idiot copper doing a "vehicle roadworthy inspections" that big red is not above standard height and is not modified.

Slunnie
16th May 2009, 08:36 PM
I thought you didn't need engineering papers for a lift up to 50mm? Is NSW different to Qld?
Up here in sunny Bananaland we don't need to front the vehicle for a blue slip to renew rego, just pay online. Very civilised. Treats vehicle owners like intelligent adults, rather than potential axe-murderers.

The ruling is actually that a vehicles suspension can not be lifted by more than 1/3 of metal to metal suspension travel. 50mm gets thrown around by a lot of people, but its actually incorrect. The other thing which is incorrect is that it is within an engineers scope to approve suspension lifts outside of that guideline. The closest I've been able to get is by lifting 1/3rd metal to metal over the highest ride height specification from LandRover which equates to 4" on an Aus spec D2.

I would also prefer the annual inspections. Not all people who are treated like intelligent adults are intelligent adults.

DiscoMick
17th May 2009, 03:04 PM
That's very interesting - I'll remember that.
I'm quite happy with 50mm - I don't need it any higher for my purposes.

Slunnie
17th May 2009, 04:15 PM
That's very interesting - I'll remember that.
I'm quite happy with 50mm - I don't need it any higher for my purposes.
All of that is applicable for NSW though. I'm not sure what QLD's regulations are. They are meant to be a lot tighter.

DiscoMick
17th May 2009, 08:25 PM
Really? I thought Qld was supposed to be more lenient. Must have heard that wrong...

landrovercrap
4th June 2009, 11:24 AM
landrovers are just so slow and old granpas drive them:twisted:

abaddonxi
4th June 2009, 11:43 AM
landrovers are just so slow and old granpas drive them:twisted:

So true, so true.

Have you got anything to say that we don't already know?

When you're alone at night, which Land Rover do you fantasise about?

;)

Cheers
Simon