New NSW Laws Re Suspension & Wheel / Tyre Changes [Archive]

View Full Version : New NSW Laws Re Suspension & Wheel / Tyre Changes

Pages : [1] 2

Gullible

16th July 2009, 12:44 PM

bob h

16th July 2009, 12:53 PM

What the, where was the public debate on this one,

Approval from RTA needed to raise or lower car suspension | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25790506-29277,00.html)

Im sure that I read somethingabout this somewhere on AULRO. It is my understanding that the legistration is notbackdated, ie that those with lifted suspension now are ok, but proving this is something else when pulled over by the cops. Also my understanding is that a 2" lift on a 4WD is ok but after that you need approval. Just another case of raising revenue I think.
Bob

incisor

16th July 2009, 01:05 PM

about time imho

windsock

16th July 2009, 01:27 PM

It'sNotWorthComplaining!

16th July 2009, 01:40 PM

5cm is 50 mm, so 2inch lift is legal

CraigE

16th July 2009, 01:51 PM

They are actually tied in with the NCOP's and any regulations or reccomendations adopted by each state will be retrospective. This is the issue I struggle with. How can they change something that was legal when done to the car. Even engine swaps are going to be a drama. A guy I know down here had to get someone down from Perth to conduct a lane change test as his Toyota has a 4" lift. It did pass but cost him a small fortune.
Second Edition Australian Design Rules (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/second_edition_adrs.aspx)

Vehicle standards information sheets (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_dl1.html)

Then there are the further proposed changes that are harsher again.

BMKal

16th July 2009, 01:54 PM

5cm is 50 mm, so 2inch lift is legal

...... provided you have obtained approval from RTA Engineers.

"From August 1, car owners will be limited to raising or lowering their suspension by no more than five centimetres, and all modifications will need approval from Roads and Traffic Authority engineers.

Currently, a car can be raised or lowered by up to five centimetres without approval and by up to 15 centimetres with approval."

Rayngie

16th July 2009, 03:32 PM

...... provided you have obtained approval from RTA Engineers.

"From August 1, car owners will be limited to raising or lowering their suspension by no more than five centimetres, and all modifications will need approval from Roads and Traffic Authority engineers.

Currently, a car can be raised or lowered by up to five centimetres without approval and by up to 15 centimetres with approval."

So how does it go for Land Rovers with adjustable height settings?, or are they all less than 50mm? i:e Terrain Response.

Ray,

Sprint

16th July 2009, 03:43 PM

i love how he specifically mentions lowering vehicles 15cm..... for me, that puts the floorpan of my falcon ON the road...... lets forget the rest of the things that hang loler than the floorpan..... the sump for example...... what a ******* retard

as for the date..... how on earth are they going to prove that the suspension alterations were done after that date? its impossible to prove unless it was done professionally at a suspension workshop that would issue a receipt..... which simply means that more people will be doing it themselves, and if they're gonna do that..... hey..... why fork out $100 for a pair of new coils when a couple of minutes with mr makita will achieve the same end look?

*THIS* is why i hate the bottom feeding, inbred, sensationalistic, retarded filth that get power over the country through that flawed system known as a DEMOCRACY

BMKal

16th July 2009, 06:57 PM

So how does it go for Land Rovers with adjustable height settings?, or are they all less than 50mm? i:e Terrain Response.

Ray,

I would assume they're talking about modifications to your vehicle only. What is supplied as original on Land Rover or anything else would already have passed ADR compliance to allow it to be sold here.

BMKal

16th July 2009, 07:09 PM

as for the date..... how on earth are they going to prove that the suspension alterations were done after that date?

I'm not so sure that they will need to be able to prove when the modifications were done. There's two ways that, at least what has been printed in the news article, can be read.

"Any vehicle that is raised or lowered after August 1 will have to carry a certificate stating that the modifications confirm to safety standard requirements."

I could read that as meaning either -

1. Any vehicle that has modifications made to it after August 1,

or

2. Any modified vehicle after August 1 - meaning vehicles that are already raised / lowered today.

Will be interesting to follow this to see just what the new law actually states, and not just what some minister has been reported as saying in the paper. If the new ruling is to be applied retrospectively, that is really going to chuck a huge spanner in a lot of people's works.

Will also be interesting to see if their definition of "raising" or "lowering" a vehicle includes changes in tyre profiles.

(And the typo is in the newspaper article, not in my copying of it. I'm pretty sure that the certificate should state that the modifications CONFORM to standard safety requirements, rather than confirm to them).

CraigE

16th July 2009, 07:35 PM

It is still a really grey area. The way it is written is it could be taken either way and this is the way they are getting it passed into each state as it looks as though it may only apply to new mods, but it is also written in a way so it can be implemented retrospective. The people I have spoken to are under the impression it will be retrospective. Policing it will be another issue.

frantic

16th July 2009, 07:51 PM

What they "probably" mean by after aug1 is a lazy law that in reality can only really be enforced against cars BUILT after that date.They did the same thing in NSW when they introduced the window tint laws for cars, set a date and no cars could be given darker tint after that date. It did not stop people doing cash jobs buying cars older than the date and getting a window tinter to fit it( know several who did it), that way they could claim it was done before the cut off. All a law like this does is slowly kill off the tint/ suspension mods/ engine swaps as the national fleet renews.

spudboy

16th July 2009, 07:55 PM

...*THIS* is why i hate the bottom feeding, inbred, sensationalistic, retarded filth that get power over the country through that flawed system known as a DEMOCRACY

Ha! Tell us what you really think :D

wardy1

16th July 2009, 09:32 PM

BMKal

16th July 2009, 11:05 PM

When I see some of the outright ridiculously/unsafely lifted trucks out there on the road everryday all I can say is 'ABOUT TIME'. Saw one such HiLux the other day on a wet road in Melb who almost made his truck 'fall over' trying to dodge a pedestrian in busy Glenferrie Rd (50kmh zone).
I'll be happy to see the same changes come in Vic as they have in Qld.

Not just in Victoria mate. There's a particular well known Ford F250 getting around Kalgoorlie that's so high a "normal" small car could just about drive under it. Won't be sorry at all to see the ****** who owns this thing told to get it off the road.

Gullible

17th July 2009, 09:01 AM

Bush65

17th July 2009, 02:16 PM

Read the last sentence in the press release.

“Vehicles raised above the 5 centimetre limit will only be granted conditional registration for use under specified conditions like competing in an off road competition,” Mr Daley said.

Slunnie

17th July 2009, 02:49 PM

It will be interesting to see if there is a change in attitude with some Toyota owners, will they still love their Toyota's off road performance with standard wheels and suspension set up.

Us Land Rover users will be OK, even if we can not lift them any more there still pretty damn good off road as standard.

Just be glad we are not in France the way they worded their law you would no longer be in compliance if you changed the brand of tire from the original factory supplied.
Yeah, the LC's and Patrols have got a fair bit of wheelbase and so they need the lift to ramp over. I think Rovers only LWB is the 110 (I doubt you would use a 130 for silly bugger stuff) and the 110" comes from the factory with a fair bit of belly height already.

Slunnie

17th July 2009, 10:40 PM

Well, the good times in NSW are over from the end of the month lads.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_50_raising-and-lowering-vehicles_17-july-2009.pdf

By the way, D3 owners of all should be the most interested..... because this VSI makes your vehicles unable to be reregistered after the end of the month also as the suspension can alter ride height while in motion.

quaddrive

17th July 2009, 10:52 PM

Currently the F250's and up are OK to lift and not have to the lane change test in W.A as the lane change requirement is only for vehicles with a GVM of up to 3500kg. F250's are over this so they can get through the loophole.. there is one I know of with a 12" lift and 40" tyres running around Perth.

Cheers

G

MickS

17th July 2009, 11:00 PM

This VSI applies to vehicles modified or presented to an AUVIS after 31 July 2009.

Still trying to understand the mumbo jumbo - is that retrospective?

hoadie72

17th July 2009, 11:10 PM

Slunnie

17th July 2009, 11:13 PM

This VSI applies to vehicles modified or presented to an AUVIS after 31 July 2009.

Still trying to understand the mumbo jumbo - is that retrospective?
No, but it is a date based on time of modification approval, not on year of manufacture which is what has almost always gone in the past.

What may be interesting, is if a vehicle has approval already and is blue slipped again after the 31st July such as for further modifications, reregistering etc then if the VSI50 will apply.

The other thing which is interesting is that they have stated if the vehicle breaches the VSI50 that it is illegal to reregister the vehicle, as opposed to saying that the vehicle simply cant be registered.

hoadie72

17th July 2009, 11:23 PM

I think the key thing here to remember is it's talking about modified vehicles, not vehicles that have already passed the ADRs.

ivery819

18th July 2009, 12:07 AM

Not just D3's but........
P38a's
Range Rovers L322 on
Range Rover Sports .......as well.(possibly some later classics as well)
+various Porsches, Citroens, Mercedes Benz and Lexus/Toyotas to only mention a few.
All can (and automatically do unless inhibited (for the P38a only)) alter the ride height whilst in motion as do many other brands and models. This feature is to improve safety, not reduce it ! All the systems are designed to work with the changing suspension heights.
What an ill thought out piece of legislation.

Slunnie

18th July 2009, 12:08 AM

I think the key thing here to remember is it's talking about modified vehicles, not vehicles that have already passed the ADRs.
Thats true.... just don't fit oversized tyres. :D

There are lot of probs in it, but it is for modded vehicles.

ivery819

18th July 2009, 12:31 AM

Thats true.... just don't fit oversized tyres. :D

There are lot of probs in it, but it is for modded vehicles.
What about standard (as above ) vehicles in a 'blue slip' situation ?

JDNSW

18th July 2009, 06:30 AM

Zute

18th July 2009, 07:46 AM

Zute

18th July 2009, 07:48 AM

Im still trying to find what the standard hight for a Suzuki Stockman is.

101 Ron

18th July 2009, 08:24 AM

A lot vehicles they will not have specs for.
Any one with a Unimog or 101 will find the vehicles going up in value.
I see one or two lifts around which are not too well done and this is what the govt should be chasing.
The problem is the average person is too busy working too worry about lobbing the pollys and the do gooders get the power and not the people.
It is a joke from the point of view that a 101 landrover stock from the factory with bias bar tread tyres has ample lift and designed to take 20 inch wheels if needed.
It will not pass any braking and swerve test.
It will be legal.
Yet I suppect a 101 will have a low accident rate.
The reason is the vehicle is driven by the owners with in safe limits by its owners.
The driver is the greatest safety feature.
A 101 will haul more weight on made roads safely if driven by a good operater driven at reduced speed and has done so for many years .....tried and proven.

Gullible

18th July 2009, 09:37 AM

I think the key thing here to remember is it's talking about modified vehicles, not vehicles that have already passed the ADRs.

Yes, but if the police think you have a modified vehicle and give you a compliance notice and you have to get a new Blue Slip for your vehicle you could have a nasty shock.

Looks like we will all have to move over to EAS so we can hide our lifts until we need them. :angel:

MickS

18th July 2009, 11:11 AM

Four Wheel Drive NSW are meeting with the minister next week. Nice to see the consultation process occurs after the fact...:mad:

Four (4) Wheel Drive NSW & ACT :: Representing 90+ clubs throughout NSW and the ACT (http://www.4wdnsw-act.asn.au/index.php)

Slunnie

18th July 2009, 11:18 AM

What about standard (as above ) vehicles in a 'blue slip' situation ?
That will be a really interesting situation if the blue slip is for a modification to ride height. Here is a quote from Outerlimits4x4

just got off the phone with the RTAs technical department. If it is engineered and rego'd before 31/7/09 it is and will remain legal, however if your car has to be re-engineered for something (i want to take my body lift OUT) after 31/7/09 it will then be illegal due to VSI 50

Slunnie

18th July 2009, 11:22 AM

well at this time, you can only lift your car in NSW by 15mm. So 50mm will be a hugh improvement. Oh and a lift includes tyres and suspension combined.
Its not the end of the world thou, I have seen plenty of big lifts that have been engineered.
Thats not correct. You can increase your tyre diameter by 15mm without approval. 2" lifts are/were standard affair and before it was removed from the VSI's you could lift by 1/3 metal to metal suspension travel, ie 70mm on a D2.

Gullible

18th July 2009, 12:32 PM

So, I guess all of us in the NRMA and other state equivalents, need to start sending emails to the organisation voicing our objection, or this will slide though and then it will be really hard to get it removed.

MickS

18th July 2009, 12:35 PM

And email the minister, as I have done, in a democratic fashion.....

office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.au

Gullible

18th July 2009, 01:18 PM

OK I've done a couple of quick emails to the roads minister and the tourist minister. Feel free to copy them, chop and change them, but do something to let them know this is an issue.

To the NSW Tourest minister

office@mckay.minister.nsw.gov.au

Dear Ms Mckay,

I am concerned that I will no longer be able to take touring holidays around NSW as I will not be able to rise the ride hight of my vehicle above that supplied by the manufacturer, under new rules VSI 50 being brought in by the the roads minister Mr Daley.

There are many wonderful places in outback NSW that do not have sealed roads or roads that are well maintained. Raising the hight of a vehicle for outback touring has been a standard safety precaution for many years.

We are a large and varied state and it is sad that my children will not be able to visit some of the more remote places as standard vehicles can not always get there and back safely. I implore you to contact the Roads minister and lobby him to consider the side affects of his legislation.

And for the roads minister

office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.au

Dear Mr Daley,

I am concerned and distressed by the new VSI 50, as it seems to have a negative impact on a large number of law abiding citizens.

Under VSI 50

"The suspension height must only be capable of being altered when the vehicle is stationary."

This clause makes all modern Range Rover, Rolls Royce, some Land Rover, Jaguar, and some Citroen vehicles unable to be registered in NSW. I would like to know if this was the intention of the legislation?

I am also concerned that I will no longer be able to take touring holidays around NSW as I will not be able to rise the ride hight of my vehicle above that supplied by the manufacturer. There are many wonderful places in outback NSW that do not have sealed roads or roads that are well maintained. Raising the hight of a vehicle for outback touring has been a standard safety precaution for many years. Can you please explain to me how my family holiday trips make me a car hoon.

BigJon

18th July 2009, 03:49 PM

I looked at the attachment that Slunnie provided.

How are they going to measure the "trim line" on a Rangie or Disco with cut guards and aftermarket flares?

dazzzler

18th July 2009, 04:50 PM

rick130

18th July 2009, 05:08 PM

barney

18th July 2009, 05:11 PM

Slunnie

18th July 2009, 05:35 PM

Well I think its great!

Sick to death of seeing tracks around here dug up by huge lifted 4wds with huge mudtyres. Once they have gone through in the wet its all over for those of us comfortable with our manhood and driving standardish vehicles.

I am upgrading (to LR) from a 100series landcruiser that had a 2" lift and slightly taller tyres and it would go anywhere a "normal" 4wder would want to go.

4wd clubs go on and on about how responsible we all are and quite simply modifying beyond these regs is for one of two reasons;

1. You want to be noticed. (buy an elvis suit)

or

2. You are happy to destroy tracks for your own gratification.

Tread lightly. If not, get into 4wd competition on private property and mod till your hearts content.
:)
Actually its the standard 4WD's that stuff the tracks which are in places where you probably want to go, not the big 4WD's. The Big 4WD's have traction and clearance and easily drive these tracks. The small ones sit there, get stuck, spin ruts and wheel holes into the tracks and soften everything up which makes them impassable without escalating damage and this increase the tracks susceptibility to wet. Then they winch of trees without straps and further grade off the track track surface with their diffs and belly's. These wheel holes are worn with rain and channelled run off which makes them deeper again so that the track is harder to pass... when the little 4WD gets home they then get onto the internet and blame those which big 4WDs for damaging the tracks and making the ruts soooo deep, the same tracks that the big 4WD just rolled through and barely noticed. A small 4WD generally wont get to the places that a big 4WD gets stuck in, and its the 4WDs which are not capable that are doing the damage to the popular regular tracks.

So lets quit with the little man syndrome. ;)

Bush65

18th July 2009, 06:25 PM

Too right Slunnie.

CraigE

18th July 2009, 07:33 PM

I agree with Slunnie in most cases and generally it is low clearance 4x4s with road tyres that do the most damage, however I have also seen highly modded 4x4s destroy tracks as well for no other reason than they could and did not know how to drive.

dazzzler

18th July 2009, 07:50 PM

Hmm, sorry, but your reply smacks of "I'm ok Jack, bugger you..."

Actually the exact opposite. I just want our tracks and trails left alone so the govt doesnt close them.

A std (or very mildy modded) Landcruiser/Patrol/Discovery will take you all the places that most 4wders wish to go. As soon as the big lifted and mud tyred (simex et al) vehicles goes through, particularly in the wet, they dig it up so bad that its over for the rest. And then we whine when the tracks get closed.

There are trails here that five years ago you could take the family for a great day out. Now they a 4wd test track only suited to modded vehicles and forestry are constantly inventing new methods of stopping access.

Simply, if you want to drive a highly modded 4wd as a sport then go and do it properly on tracks that aren't public property.

From a road safety perspective, on most Rigid Front Axle vehicles a lift of more than 50mm effects the castor angle and makes them less stable at speed. Restricting it 50mm reduces that worry and if you want to go past it then you need an engineers cert which only makes sense that its done properly.

dazzzler

18th July 2009, 07:58 PM

Actually its the standard 4WD's that stuff the tracks which are in places where you probably want to go, not the big 4WD's. The Big 4WD's have traction and clearance and easily drive these tracks. .

So lets quit with the little man syndrome. ;)

Interesting how we can have exactly the opposite reason for why tracks get damaged. :)

In your perfect world you are correct. I am comparing apples with apples here by the way, not little and big 4wds. If I struggle with my std cruiser then i may do as you say and winch off things etc. I may need to get snatched by my mate. A six inch lifted mud tyred cruiser may cruise on through without a hitch. So you are correct.

But, many six inch lifted mud tired cruisers like to have it a bit more challenging. So they go in when its wet and push on with huge tyres tearing up the track and they dont stop when they cant make it. Off they go again with the wheels spinning mud everywhere and tearing it up even more.

As for the little man. I dont rely on me car to prove to myself. But by all means if it helps then go for it:p

Chucaro

18th July 2009, 08:14 PM

My approach to off road driving and care to the enviroment it is the same as what the farmer applies to his tracks on the farm. If wet or the condition are bad enough where the vehicle can damage the track then do not drive on it.
It is easy to damage the public tracks when the user does not have to pay for the repairs ;)

lambrover

18th July 2009, 08:20 PM

if the six inch lifted car gets stuck you and your standard car won't be that far up the track any way so don't worry you will never get that far. It gives me ****s when people get on here and vent about moded cars, just because you have no interest in that kind of thing.

Like some have said the standard cars are the one's that have to try harder to go the same place, so when you have finished spining your wheels the rest of us will leave you there.

A friend has a 6 inch lifted patrol and he has done the work himself fitted snake arms front and rear and locked up both ends he hardly ever spins a wheel. Most people who have moded 4x4's do it because of the terrain they like to drive the most thus they know that it has effects on COG and you adjust your driving suit, people like us are not young dumb full of cum hoons.
It's the P plate commadore, skyline hoons that need policing.

Rosscoe68

18th July 2009, 08:31 PM

"Date of commencement
This VSI applies to vehicles modified or presented to an AUVIS after 31 July 2009."

dazzzler

18th July 2009, 10:16 PM

if the six inch lifted car gets stuck you and your standard car won't be that far up the track any way so don't worry you will never get that far. It gives me ****s when people get on here and vent about moded cars, just because you have no interest in that kind of thing.

No interest in that sort of thing?

Lets see. I've competed in off road racing at top level (16th Outright in an international), 2nd outright in State Rallying Championship all in cars built myself, opened new roads through the mountians of east timor with shovels and two discoveries with the UN, 2 x custom restos on VW beetles, done Yalwal, Bendethara Nth. Dont presume stuff you dont know.

I love off roading, 4wding and modding cars. But in my opinion, and I dont give a rats if it upsets you cause we aint in russia yet, things have gone too far when it comes to the mods allowed to road registered 4wds.

IMO, remember free speech, a 50mm lift and reasonable tyre increase still allows recreational 4wders to access remote locations and enjoy thier sport. Once it gets beyond that then the vehicle becomes the sport and just like every other motorSPORT activity you can join a club and do it on closed or private roads to your hearts content.
:)

Jamo

18th July 2009, 10:41 PM

warren9981

18th July 2009, 11:04 PM

Rosscoe68

19th July 2009, 09:17 AM

Maybe the idea would be to take one of these modern D3's etc and modify them slightly to give a higher lift at "Off Road" setting. This might allow a lift for better off road driving and still be within the letter of the law. Possibly wouldn't need an engineering certificate for this kind of lift as it would still drive at normal height on the asphalt.
Bears looking into maybe.;)

longer airsprings would probyl do that and still be able to sit at the standard height. although at probly a softer setting when at standard height. but yeah, bears a good thought.

Gullible

19th July 2009, 09:53 AM

The VSI states that it is for 'the requiements for raising or lowering from their originally designed and manufactured condition".

Therefore it doesn't apply to standard D3's, D4's, Porsches, Bentleys or any other car that has variable height air suspension as standard.

eg. My d3 has 3 originally designed and manufactured ride heights: Access, Normal and Off Road.

Yes the legislation does apply to your D3 because it states that:
"a vehicles ride hight can only be changed when the vehicle is stationary"
and the D3, along with some others, change hight while in motion.

And yes if you already have your blue slip then your fine, BUT if you need to get a new one because of a compliance notice/change of address/ other modification/ lapsed rego, then your 50mm lift WILL FAIL unless you have it engineered.

READ ALL THE LEGISLATION BEFORE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, then stop bitching about who's lift hight is to blame and send an email to your local member and one to the roads minister to see if we can get him to reconsider labeling us as hoons.

I don't even have a lift, but this peace of legislation seems poorly thought out to me.

dhard

19th July 2009, 11:09 AM

Just on the big vs small part. Slunnie in a perfect world you are right but unfortunately a lot of the gumbies who drive the monster patrols/hiluxs(main offenders in QLD) have no idea how to drive and will quite often be in 2wd and laugh at the big holes they have just dug up. A lot of these vehicles are down right dangerous and have no place on the roads. Hopefully the cert. for modding will be fairly easy to aquire for those who are more responsible and have there mods done properly and drive appropriately. 75mm lift would have been a better figure than 50mm imho as many 50mm lifts actually come up a little higher than stated.

Jamo

19th July 2009, 11:38 AM

Yes the legislation does apply to your D3 because it states that:
"a vehicles ride hight can only be changed when the vehicle is stationary"
and the D3, along with some others, change hight while in motion.

No it doesn't. Read it again.

It does not apply to vehicles in their OE state. It's purpose is stated clearly in the pdf linked by Slunnie. Read the second Paragraph 'Purpose".

The variable height rules only apply to vehicles that have been modified from their 'originally designed and manufactured condition".

My variable lift won't fail anything (unless the compressor breaks;)) as it has ADR compliance.:D:tease:

barney

19th July 2009, 12:43 PM

going back to what Slunnie was saying about the cause of chewed up tracks, I put forward the notion that neither group ,(mod or standard) are particularly at fault.
from what I've seen in my 30 odd years of fooling around off road, is that a lot of tracks are suited to long or short wheelbase vehicles, attempt that track in the wrong vehicle, you'll chew it up. Also, in a group of vehicles with similar wheelbases, following in convoy, it only takes one person who has the wrong technique early in the convoy, to make it harder for everyone else, then each successive car will do more damage.

of the people who actually take their 4wd's off road, there also seems to be two main groups, those that go 4wding for the challenge and those the go for the touring aspect of it, (of course there are crossovers).
unfortunately, by it's nature, the challenging side of it is more prone to do more damage to a track, in a touring group, if the track looks too gnarly, chances are they wont risk it for fear of damaging something and delaying the trip, opting for an alternative route if available. But on the other hand, if they decide to go ahead, they might not be as well equipped to handle the track as a vehicle that does that sort of driving frequently and may also cause damage in their quest to get through

neither group should be condemned for their choice, but both have to take responsibility for their actions.

having said that, I blame the Toyota drivers in general for trying to go off road in inferior vehicles.:angel:

Jamo

19th July 2009, 01:24 PM

having said that, I blame the Toyota drivers in general for trying to go off road in inferior vehicles.:angel::Rolling:

Here, a lot of beach/dune tracks get chewed up due to failing to lower tyre pressures.

There's always been a bit of a macho thing for some to see how far they can get without airing down. And for some they like to see how far they can get without engaging 4WD.

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 01:30 PM

Interesting how we can have exactly the opposite reason for why tracks get damaged. :)

In your perfect world you are correct. I am comparing apples with apples here by the way, not little and big 4wds. If I struggle with my std cruiser then i may do as you say and winch off things etc. I may need to get snatched by my mate. A six inch lifted mud tyred cruiser may cruise on through without a hitch. So you are correct.

But, many six inch lifted mud tired cruisers like to have it a bit more challenging. So they go in when its wet and push on with huge tyres tearing up the track and they dont stop when they cant make it. Off they go again with the wheels spinning mud everywhere and tearing it up even more.

As for the little man. I dont rely on me car to prove to myself. But by all means if it helps then go for it:p
So what you're saying now is that the lift and tyres are irrelevant and its all to do with the gumby behind the wheel while at the same type stereotyping the person with a 6" lift into a wheel spinning hoon?

Really, on the tracks you are talking about it will be no problem for that type of vehicle and no loss of traction. Its still the driver with stock tyres and all the ambition on a regular road that is chopping it out. Thats not a perfect world, thats just the way it is. I read your CV, surely you can then understand that a mainstream trail is not a wheel spinning challenge for a built truck.

Just on the big vs small part. Slunnie in a perfect world you are right but unfortunately a lot of the gumbies who drive the monster patrols/hiluxs(main offenders in QLD) have no idea how to drive and will quite often be in 2wd and laugh at the big holes they have just dug up. A lot of these vehicles are down right dangerous and have no place on the roads. Hopefully the cert. for modding will be fairly easy to aquire for those who are more responsible and have there mods done properly and drive appropriately. 75mm lift would have been a better figure than 50mm imho as many 50mm lifts actually come up a little higher than stated.
You didn't talk about the gumbys that drive regular vehicles - something which there are more of just due to sheer numbers. They will also generally be a lot less experienced in 4WDing.

barney

19th July 2009, 01:37 PM

there is macho thing that goes on with the part-time 4wd's of how far they can get before they lock their hubs

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 01:44 PM

there is macho thing that goes on with the part-time 4wd's of how far they can get before they lock their hubs
Ahhh so it is the Nissota drivers that are chopping the tracks out!

MickS

19th July 2009, 01:46 PM

FWIW, I've emailed the premier, opposition leader, local members (labor and liberal)....and.....I'm breathless with anticipation for their reply...:zzz::zzz::zzz:

Gullible

19th July 2009, 02:25 PM

No it doesn't. Read it again.

It does not apply to vehicles in their OE state. It's purpose is stated clearly in the pdf linked by Slunnie. Read the second Paragraph 'Purpose".

The variable height rules only apply to vehicles that have been modified from their 'originally designed and manufactured condition".

My variable lift won't fail anything (unless the compressor breaks;)) as it has ADR compliance.:D:tease:

My apology Jamo, your right I did not read it correctly.:oops2:

So we will all be getting vehicles with EAS in the next couple of years in order to obtain some lift.:eek:

CraigE

19th July 2009, 02:35 PM

there is macho thing that goes on with the part-time 4wd's of how far they can get before they lock their hubs
Yes, but it depends on circumstance. We often go as far as we can without locking centre diff or hubs and then as far as we can locked, but definatelly not on mainstream tracks, usually in mud pits designed for this, private property and sand (where any ruts are covered and repaired by the tide or wind). Usually to check the capabilities and practice genuine recovery. Leads to some amusement for other 4x4 owners from time to time. It is good practice.:eek::o
But as said just going in and ripping up tracks is wrong.

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 02:42 PM

So we will all be getting vehicles with EAS in the next couple of years in order to obtain some lift.:eek:
I tend to think that this may be the trend if this regulation remains or remains unchanged. Aftermarket air suspension will surely be the answer.

I've just been thinking about my own predicament with a vehicle on the build. Its a SeriesII with 37" tyres and no suspension lift. It currently sits 3" over standard which is nothing special, but it will need to be lowered by 1" to make it comply with the new laws... whats the benfit of lowering it??? Aftermarket EAS will allow it to run 1" lower normally and to be raised for offroad work. The suspension would need to be linked up like on a coiler and the bumpstops would need to be tuned due to the lower ride height. I'm guessing with EAS it will also need swaybars..... see, its all about the jobs creation program.

MickS

19th July 2009, 03:14 PM

Looking forward to hearing about the "suspension buy back scheme..." :wheelchair:

Tank

19th July 2009, 03:58 PM

FWIW, I've emailed the premier, opposition leader, local members (labor and liberal)....and.....I'm breathless with anticipation for their reply...:zzz::zzz::zzz:
I wouldn't hold my breathe for a reply, it is a done deal so as far as we are concerned (in politician/bureaucrat speak) we can all get stuffed, the time to act was before this legislation passed. I posted a warning about it a while back and got blasted for being pessimistic, the NCOP warning has been in General Chat stickies for ages, how many of you contacted the Government with your concerns before the dirty deed was done, no good whining now, Regards Frank.

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 04:04 PM

I wouldn't hold my breathe for a reply, it is a done deal so as far as we are concerned (in politician/bureaucrat speak) we can all get stuffed, the time to act was before this legislation passed. I posted a warning about it a while back and got blasted for being pessimistic, the NCOP warning has been in General Chat stickies for ages, how many of you contacted the Government with your concerns before the dirty deed was done, no good whining now, Regards Frank.
I did, but the NCOP has gone through the proper processes as part of its implemenation and there has been consultation and lead time. The VSI50 was out of the blue and from nowhere. It also makes the NCOP redundant in NSW for this particular area. For what the NCOP doesn't require engineering, VSI50 does. When the NCOP does require engineering, the VSI50 has banned.

The stupid thing is that all of this has come down as a hoon law and the need to address safety, and in reality it will do nothing to address hoons. The hoon title is just spin for public acceptance as it does not address or even mention hoons and hoon behaviour in the document, and the safety aspect is about making things safe that were never not safe.

barney

19th July 2009, 04:08 PM

BMKal

19th July 2009, 04:11 PM

I tend to think that this may be the trend if this regulation remains or remains unchanged. Aftermarket air suspension will surely be the answer.

Have just been reading on another forum where one of the regular posters is an Engineer licenced to issue certification for mods (I think in NSW). He has already recommended on that forum that people "seriously look at air suspension options".

MickS

19th July 2009, 04:15 PM

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 04:17 PM

BMKal

19th July 2009, 04:24 PM

Do you have a link?

NSW RTA approval required for ANY lift - Page 5 - Australian 4WD Action Online Forums - the 4WD, 4x4 and offroad truck community. Get the latest tips, news, reviews, images and video clips. (http://www.4wdmonthly.com.au/forum/showthread.php't=73180&page=5)

Posts #85 / 86.

I was wrong about the location though - he's in Qld.

dhard

19th July 2009, 04:34 PM

Yes plenty of gumbies drive standard rigs just they don't tend to take them offroad slunnie. By far the biggest problem i have seen belongs with the flannel wearing drive while drinking bundy or the like in a jacked up dog of a patrol/hilux with a set of 35's on. Who have no skill and the only way to approach any obstacle is to hit the loud pedal. I see very few standard rigs out there and the ones i do are generally in a club or too scared to tackle anything that remotely tests their vehicle. This is what i've seen up here it may be different elsewhere but probably not.

dhard

19th July 2009, 04:35 PM

Have just been reading on another forum where one of the regular posters is an Engineer licenced to issue certification for mods (I think in NSW). He has already recommended on that forum that people "seriously look at air suspension options".mmm i heard they were against them.

MickS

19th July 2009, 04:47 PM

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 04:54 PM

NSW RTA approval required for ANY lift - Page 5 - Australian 4WD Action Online Forums - the 4WD, 4x4 and offroad truck community. Get the latest tips, news, reviews, images and video clips. (http://www.4wdmonthly.com.au/forum/showthread.php't=73180&page=5)

Posts #85 / 86.

I was wrong about the location though - he's in Qld.

Thanks for this BMKal

This I thought was a really good comment over there for if it can be modified or perhaps replaced by the NCOP:

If the 4wd association had any brains this is what they should be targeting. This is a great thing that can be used to our advantage. Sure limit full rego cars to 50 mm no probs. BUT the 4wd association, or probably a group that knows more about 4wds and modifications should now sit down with the rta and develop some guidlines on this conditional rego. The rta knows nothing about modifying cars, they just do as there told. If a group were to approach them with usuable guidlines on what cars should be allowed conditional rego they WILL listen. Its been done before with the hotrod association and the car clubs with there historic rego. Its just a matter of approaching the rta as a body and working out ground rules. This would be an excellent outcome. If you went by the hotrod/historic rego example, your rego costs are $80 a year your allowed to drive within a 8 km radius of your house at anytime as maintaince runs, then your can use it on any club run or show or event. Look at the mods that hotrods are allowed to do and still have conditional rego. It could also be organised in a way that rock crawlers could get rego so as to be used in state forest etc. Its limitless what can be acheived! Youd be very suprised when the rta is aproached by a large body with sensible ideas what can be acheived.

lambrover

19th July 2009, 07:09 PM

dazzler it sounds like you have vast experiance of road. but what you clasify as hard core off roading and what I think it is are two different things.

now my county is lifted 2.5 inch over standard and I have custom shock towers and run 33 inch tyers this enables me to tackle tracks that are more challenging than what a standard 4x4 can handle, As for toyota and nissan they need a 5 to 6 inch lift to even get the chassis off the ground to the same height as my county so they are an inferior product to start with.

how many 4x4's with a lift above 4'' do you hear about in crashes on the roads, not many. majority of 4x4's in crashes are either standard or have a small lift, from this it is easy to see that most (but not all) with bigger lifts drive there vehicles properly and should be left alone.

barney

19th July 2009, 07:22 PM

the 4wd association has been working with the rta to try to come to a happy medium on this for a while. unfortunately, the goverment has not consulted anyone on this and gone ahead without them.
the association has urged us to contact the minister and the premier as individuals ,not members of any particular group, and voice our concerns and disapproval

already taken care of slunnie
below is excerpt from presidents reponse to the minister

Minister Daley, by taking this action, has ignored the current National Code of Practice –
(NCOP) for the Modification of Light Vehicles which has been produced with RTA
participation. The RTA is a member of the AMVCB Working Party which is currently
updating the NCOP. Presidents of the national and state four wheel drive associations
have called on the Minister as the peoples’ elected representative, to take real control of
his advisers and require evidence to back up the claims made in the release.

MickS

19th July 2009, 07:49 PM

Slunnie

19th July 2009, 09:40 PM

already taken care of slunnie
below is excerpt from presidents reponse to the minister

Minister Daley, by taking this action, has ignored the current National Code of Practice –
(NCOP) for the Modification of Light Vehicles which has been produced with RTA
participation. The RTA is a member of the AMVCB Working Party which is currently
updating the NCOP. Presidents of the national and state four wheel drive associations
have called on the Minister as the peoples’ elected representative, to take real control of
his advisers and require evidence to back up the claims made in the release.

That sounds good Barney! Hopefully it will send a message that there is due and reasonable process, and that he isn't a law unto himself.

MickS

19th July 2009, 10:23 PM

It's interesting that parliament hasn't sat since June, and will not resume until September...and a quick look through Hansard of this particular minister's addresses does not broach this matter.

Politician's....:toilet:

303gunner

20th July 2009, 02:20 AM

I'm confused about the actual requirements of this VSI. To me it reads that:

1. Any change to a vehicle's ride height from original is a Major Modification.
2. There is an allowable limit of +/- 50mm for road registered vehicles, but even within this limit, the vehicle is regarded as modified and requires an Engineer's Certificate.
3. Failure to provide the Engineer's Certificate (or other proof the vehicle is modified in a safe way to comply with ADRs) will make it illegal to re-register the vehicle. This certification must be provided at the next roadworthy inpection after 31 July 09.

Has anyone thought to seek the opinions or support of aftermarket suspension manufacturer's regarding Engineering Certificates? I'm sure that OME/ARB, Kings, Lovell's, etc would not like to see their market disappear overnight and might be of some assistance to an owner in obtaining certification for their suspension modifications.

Another point to consider, my insurance company is currently aware of my 50mm Old Man Emu suspension and approves covering it and my vehicle, but is a mainstream company that WILL NOT cover vehicles with any modification requiring an Engineer's Certificate. Will I be looking for a new Insurer? As this VSI is in force from 31 Jul stating my vehicle has a Major Modification from ADR conditions, is my policy now void?

Slunnie

20th July 2009, 07:37 AM

303gunner, you dont fall under VSI50 as your modifications are existing. But what you're saying will be correct for a vehicle that does come under the new VSI.

JDNSW

20th July 2009, 07:45 AM

You can search for your vehicle's "Road Vehicle Decriptor" here.....

Road Vehicle Descriptor Online (http://ols2.rta.nsw.gov.au/rvd/searchRVD.do;jsessionid=c0a80d99223c5ee44b6a9afd4b e49a6f9b240ad76b51.e38Lc38KbxiObO0Ma38Ke4zNp65In5W L'submitValue=start)

....which addresses, among other things, the trim height as described in VSI 50.

It does not work - possibly because it is only an hour and a quarter after the published start of hours of operation, possibly because I am not using IE.

I was going to see if it included the ex-army Series Landrovers!
John

MickS

20th July 2009, 09:49 AM

Bush65

20th July 2009, 12:31 PM

It does not work - possibly because it is only an hour and a quarter after the published start of hours of operation, possibly because I am not using IE.

I was going to see if it included the ex-army Series Landrovers!
John

Try this John...Road Vehicle Descriptor sets (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/myrta/downloads/roadvehicledescriptorsets_dl1.html)

I had a look for series vehicles. Not there. Just Range Rovers, Discos, Defenders and Freelanders...
No series Land Rovers, no Discovery I (only II's on), no Range Rover Classic.

I assume these RVD forms were devised for manufactures to submit at some time around 1999.

BTW, I did notice, while looking at some for Landcruisers, one that had Lovells Springs as the Licensee's Name.

Psimpson7

20th July 2009, 12:55 PM

Interesting to note that there are mistakes in those forms.

Take a look at the figures for 90's

The only one IMO where they have the suspension numbers correct is the 03my one. I would say its wrong in one way or another on all the other 90 ones.

Sprint

20th July 2009, 01:14 PM

go figure, the only falcon the descriptor lists is a 2008 ute!

roverrescue

20th July 2009, 01:36 PM

Was going through the RVD for the 130...

What I like best is they say for the front - standard mid wheel to arch is 560mm, with a bump clearance of 525mm (ie 35mm up travel only) and a minimum allowable of 548mm.

My relatively stock height 130 sits at 510mm wheel to arch and has 80mm of up travel...
So it is "lowered" by 38mm. I am such a hoon and a danger to soceity.

This will be fun when they try to enforce these rules, can you imagine plod on the side of the road trying to decide if it is a defender; MY or later; HCPU 110 or 130!!!!!! And then pulling out the tape measure. I guess they just write a note and you then have to present to the pits and show cause?

BTW they also got the wheel track and wheel offset wrong?

Oh well... such as life.

S

Gullible

20th July 2009, 04:21 PM

Fear not all, I got a reply from the ministers office today,

Thank you for your e-mail to The Hon Jodi McKay MP.

Your correspondence has been noted and will be given all necessary attention.

Office of the Hon Jodi McKay MP
Minister for Tourism / Minister for the Hunter
Minister for Science and Medical Research
Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)
Ph: 9228 5668 / Fax: 9228 3698

It will be interesting to see what they deem as "necessary attention":p

barney

20th July 2009, 04:37 PM

slunnie,
that document is available on the association website, on the front page.

Slunnie

20th July 2009, 06:34 PM

Barney, thanks so much for this. I thought it would be good to have a read and see how they approached it and with what so that I/others could have a better quality input into it.

barney

20th July 2009, 06:44 PM

slunnie, now you can see why i've been banging on about the association so much to the members.
I'm glad someone has listened.

stevo68

21st July 2009, 10:37 AM

Came across this petition on another site....who knows...signed it none the less... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/225770612

Regards

Stevo

Shamo

21st July 2009, 11:31 AM

After reading that clearly they are really only going for hoons who are lowering their cars rather than lifting. I think its unfair that we get penalised because of the idiots who are actually crashing from hooning in a lowered car, i don't see how lift can be dangerous, its not like most fourbies are going to be able to go fast enough for it to seriously effect your car....

Shamo

barney

21st July 2009, 02:08 PM

Shamo,
you need to read their guidelines again. what they are trying to point out is that by raising suspension, you not only raise your vehicle's centre of gravity, but also raise the contact points, so instead of your bumper hitting the side intrusion bars of a normal family sedan, it now hits higher, potentially exposing the occupants to greater risk of injury.
they do have a point, although it is a minor one, there are plenty of other more serious road safety issues they could attack, but i suppose that by doing this they can target the hoons in the doof-doof cars and defect them easily. unfortunately, we get caught up in the process.

rick130

21st July 2009, 06:52 PM

<snip>

BTW they also got the wheel track and wheel offset wrong?

Oh well... such as life.

S

Yep, pointed it out on another thread a few months back.

As successive models come out, the older versions disappear from the system, which is really unfortunate as they used to lift 300Tdi 130 CC's with a pretty good lift, IIRC it would have resulted in something like 5" or more between the bump stops :D

rick130

21st July 2009, 06:53 PM

<snip>

BTW they also got the wheel track and wheel offset wrong?

Oh well... such as life.

S

Yep, pointed it out on another thread a few months back.

As successive models come out, the older versions disappear from the system, which is really unfortunate as they used to list 300Tdi 130 CC's with a pretty good lift, IIRC it would have resulted in something like 5" or more between the bump stops :D

Such are the cock ups in the RVD's

Disco95

21st July 2009, 09:49 PM

I'm confused about the actual requirements of this VSI. To me it reads that:

3. Failure to provide the Engineer's Certificate (or other proof the vehicle is modified in a safe way to comply with ADRs) will make it illegal to re-register the vehicle. This certification must be provided at the next roadworthy inpection after 31 July 09.

Has anyone thought to seek the opinions or support of aftermarket suspension manufacturer's regarding Engineering Certificates? I'm sure that OME/ARB, Kings, Lovell's, etc would not like to see their market disappear overnight and might be of some assistance to an owner in obtaining certification for their suspension modifications.

Another point to consider, my insurance company is currently aware of my 50mm Old Man Emu suspension and approves covering it and my vehicle, but is a mainstream company that WILL NOT cover vehicles with any modification requiring an Engineer's Certificate. Will I be looking for a new Insurer? As this VSI is in force from 31 Jul stating my vehicle has a Major Modification from ADR conditions, is my policy now void?

So the way I read this, any lifted vehicles without an engineers cert will fail its pink slip when it's next up for rego (providing it is old enought to require inspection.)

I've got Pedders rear springs, and std Defender fronts in my Disco. Plus lowered front shock mounts.
Also, do the words "any modifacation will require approval" mean that std height heavy duty suspension systems are not legal? After all you're modifying spring rates.
I think that this is irresponsible if that is the case, imagine a fully decked out 4WD on the std springs:eek: Winch, dual batteries, rooftop tent, rear drws, twin spare wheel swing aways.
When do we get too heavy to be safe on factory gear?

The insurance thing is worrying me also. I'll be ringing mine tomorrow.
Also I'll be talking to my local Pedders man and my local vehicle engineer sometime in the next few days.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be getting my D1 engineered for the lift and larger tyres I reckon.

Slunnie

21st July 2009, 10:07 PM

So the way I read this, any lifted vehicles without an engineers cert will fail its pink slip when it's next up for rego (providing it is old enought to require inspection.)

I've got Pedders rear springs, and std Defender fronts in my Disco. Plus lowered front shock mounts.
Also, do the words "any modifacation will require approval" mean that std height heavy duty suspension systems are not legal? After all you're modifying spring rates.
I think that this is irresponsible if that is the case, imagine a fully decked out 4WD on the std springs:eek: Winch, dual batteries, rooftop tent, rear drws, twin spare wheel swing aways.
When do we get too heavy to be safe on factory gear?

The insurance thing is worrying me also. I'll be ringing mine tomorrow.
Also I'll be talking to my local Pedders man and my local vehicle engineer sometime in the next few days.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be getting my D1 engineered for the lift and larger tyres I reckon.
This is not a criteria in the pink slip AFAIK so it shouldn't fail. I've never been asked for my Engineering papers when having a pink slip done - or ever for that matter. According to the VSI, it will only affect vehicles that are modified after the end of this month. How they can tell when it has been modified is a mystery to me.

Its also too late to get engineered prior to VSI50 coming in. There has been a directive sent to all RTA engineers informing them the no engineer reports relating to VSI50 from the 17th to the 31st will be accepted by the RTA. There has been every effort from the minister to stop absolutely any lead time on this VSI being given to those that it affects.

cucinadio

21st July 2009, 10:32 PM

Slunnie

21st July 2009, 10:40 PM

so ...at the end of the day we in QLD as yet .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................

"Have nothing to worry about !"...:banana::banana:

Cheers

I thought that QLDers were not allowed to increase tyre size at all and were not allowed more than a 2" lift anyway???

That leaves less options as NSW still have preVSI50 vehicles.

Psimpson7

21st July 2009, 10:47 PM

You would be correct Simon

georgesadlik

21st July 2009, 10:48 PM

According to the VSI, it will only affect vehicles that are modified after the end of this month. How they can tell when it has been modified is a mystery to me.

that's an interesting point and suits me. onwards and upwards.

cheers

george

Slunnie

21st July 2009, 11:01 PM

that's an interesting point and suits me. onwards and upwards.

cheers

george
You may be able to just get tyres done in isolation.

cucinadio

21st July 2009, 11:07 PM

I thought that QLDers were not allowed to increase tyre size at all and were not allowed more than a 2" lift anyway???

That leaves less options as NSW still have preVSI50 vehicles.

well in that case you guys have nothing to worry about as it really is a grey area up here ....depends on where you live and if the cops are bored **** less .....:angel:

cheers

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 12:43 PM

I'm finding it very confusing! as i always do on these threads

Does this mean because I have a 2" lift and slightly bigger tyres then standard should I now be getting an engineers certificate?

Slunnie

22nd July 2009, 12:47 PM

I'm finding it very confusing! as i always do on these threads

Does this mean because I have a 2" lift and slightly bigger tyres then standard should I now be getting an engineers certificate?
Your level of compliance will remain unchanged as the modifications were made before VSI50.

Hmmm, meaning the lift is all good, and if the tyres are not more than 15mm over standard diameter then you're also all good with that too.

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 01:00 PM

So I suppose the argument will be how you prove the mods were done before and no doubt a grey area....

ok so help me out with the crap maths here I have 245/75/16's is that over or under the 15mm? i believe the standard is 235/70/16's

Slunnie

22nd July 2009, 01:26 PM

Thatscool Lou,

According to Miata the 235/70-16's are 29.0" and the 245/75-16's are 30.5", so the change in diameter is 1.5" or approx 38mm.

According to Cooper tires as a guide, the 235/70-16 has a dia of 736mm and the 245/75-16 has a dia of 775mm, so a difference of approx 39mm.

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 01:54 PM

Slunnie

22nd July 2009, 02:06 PM

oh so technically I would need a cert for the tyres.....

However at the moment I wouldn't due to the fact that the rules don't apply becasue mods are already done.

But does it apply to newer vehicles these rules? becasue I could prove I had these tyres on before rules came out by showing a receipt for the tyres being fitted before the date but what happens when getting new tyres after the date? do you then have to go back to near standard? (I'm talking hypothetically here).
Yes and no.

You dont fall under VSI50 which is the new one, but you do fall under VSI09 which is the old one. VSI09 requires engineering certification for tyre diameter changes that are more than +/-15mm of any tyre on the placard. The prob now, is that the engineers are booked out until the end of the month and if you did engineer the tyres, then you would fall under VSI50 and not be able to run the tyres and suspension as the combined lift is greater than 50mm....

......unless you could find a loophole. ie, check the WSM to find the highest suspension tolerance for your vehicle, then calculate the vehicle height. Check the lift on your vehicle provided by your tyres and suspension to see if you are above 50mm over the highest possible factory tolerances. IF you are good with that then it may be worth chatting to an engineer even after VSI50 becomes active.

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 02:11 PM

So could I not get a cert to cover me on both the suspension and the tyres? or does it not work like that....

I would be happy to get a cert done its got to be cheaper than putting the car back to standard

Slunnie

22nd July 2009, 02:17 PM

Under VSI50, if you roll up and an engineering signatory and say I've a 2" lift and tyres that are 1.5" bigger in diameter then you cant get approval.

If you turn up and say I have tyres that are 1.5" bigger which give a .75" lift, and the suspension is sitting at 1" over the maximum suspension ride height according to LandRover, then you may get an engineering certificate if everything else checks out ok - ie brake test, speedo calibration etc. As a side note, Disco2's have a +/-15mm suspension tolerance, and the vast majority were delivered at the lowest end of this - thats how you might use the factory suspension tolerances to gain for you a certain amount of free lift... this is why its important to check the WSM for specified ride heights and tolerances.

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 02:21 PM

but I didn't think these rules were in play yet....or is that the case now anyway! how can people have the lifts that they do and the tyres that they run and get a cert now.

I'm finding it very hard to understand in regards to what I have on my car is very moderate yet I still couldn't be covered if I went and got a cert tomorrow.

Slunnie

22nd July 2009, 02:29 PM

You needed an engineering cert on your tyres even before the new rules. VSI09 and VSI50 both state a max tyre oversize of 15mm without engineering certification. If you can get an engineer to sign off on it, get a weigh bridge ticket and have a blueslip done before the end of the month then its no dramas. If you cant, then once VSI50 becomes active then if makes life a lot more difficult.

But I agree, the mods are nothing really and if anything probably make it a better handling vehicle on and off road. This is exactly what a lot of the fuss is about, as under VSI50 the only ride height related modification that you can do to your vehicle without engineering approval is fit tyres that are within 15mm of standard to it. With engineering approval you are limited to a ride height change of 50mm total, and that includes tyres, suspension and body lifts/drops. Its absolutely insane and has come in under the hype of fixing hooning problems - which is not even related.

crash

22nd July 2009, 04:19 PM

What gets my goat regarding alot of vehicle modification change laws is there is no data to justify them. It is all about face value and getting the general public to percieve that these laws are for the benefit of all and will stamp out all the problems caused by modified vehicles.
Present the stats and the reasoning along with the proposed changes and the law makers would most likely get general support from the public.
If the laws are meant to decrease the road toll where are the stats?
In the past 10 years of living in this country and looking at the newspaper articles and the 6:00pm news the majority of road deaths have occured in sedans or varieties of them, along wiht a handfull of prime movers and a very select few of 4wds. And the 4wds that I have seen have been stock standard.
Now if you look at insurance records and claims this may be a different story and modified 4wds may feature more than stock standard as they do allow you to get into more remote destinations and further off the beaten track that may lead to increased vehicle damage when compared to a stock standar.
Now I feel better with that off my chest. Maybe this should have gone into the rants page.

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 04:34 PM

I have signed the petition I want to write a letter also but i just dont know what to write that will give it impact.....:(

I erge everyone like Barney has said to join up the 4wd association and look at there dealings also...it costs you nothing and the more we unite the stronger we will be!!!
You do need to be a member of a club that is registered with the association......but the more club members that get on board the better.

MickS

22nd July 2009, 04:52 PM

This is what I sent...FWIW...some taken from a member of the jeep forum via the 4WD NSW forum on this subject.

"Mr. Premier

Regarding your road minister’s press release on Tough New Laws for Car Hoons.

The majority of owners of lifted 4wd vehicles could not be considered hoons, they have families, are typically members of a 4wd club and are responsible members of the community. To be referred to as a car Hoon is inaccurate and insulting.

Hoon is a derogatory term used in Australia and New Zealand to refer to a person who engages in loutish, anti-social behaviour. In particular, it is used to refer to one who drives in a manner which is anti-social by the standards of contemporary society, that is, fast, noisily or dangerously. Hoon activities can include speeding, street racing, burnouts, doughnuts or screeching tires. Those commonly identified as being involved in "hooning" or street racing are young, predominantly male although increasingly female drivers in the age range of 17 and 35 years.

Vehicles are lifted for many reasons, but least of all because 'they look cool'. Typically they might be lifted to negotiate difficult terrain when carrying a load, especially when touring. Owners of these vehicles spend many thousands of dollars in their home town preparing the vehicle for a trip, and then spend several thousand dollars at various locations during the trip.

At a time when the country is experiencing financial hardships, any activities that encourage people to spend money travelling within Australia should be encouraged.

I am a married, middle aged father of two children, who owns a 4WD vehicle and uses it for the purpose that it was intended. i.e. not only on road, but off road. I am a responsible citizen and constituent, a member of a 4WD club, and cannot afford overseas holidays so I chose to use my 4WD as a means of relaxation for our family in the many great off road areas of this state.

I resent being referred to as a “hoon”, and am disgusted at how this legislation has been rushed through without any thought given to the honest 4WD enthusiasts. These enthusiasts number in the tens of thousands, and vote as well."

dullbird

22nd July 2009, 10:27 PM

Dear Sir,

I am writing in regards to the new Hoon laws announced on the 16/07/09 and enacted on the 17/07/09.

These laws are suppose to target street racing and other anti social behaviour made evident by the use of the word Hoon!, however the haste to get these new laws enacted Mr Daley has in fact been unfair to the many thousands of people these rules will effect especially in a financial manor.

I own a four-wheel drive vehicle the car has a small lift and a moderate increase in tyre size. This was not done so I could be a hoon it was done so I could safely follow my partners 4wd which is higher than my car standard (his car is standard but of the same marquee) So we can both travel out to the remote parts of the country with our dogs and enjoy the Australian country side together.
I Have recently only returned from a 12,000k trip going through parts of Australia in which I spent over $4000 dollars...$4000 dollars which might I add goes into Australia’s already fragile economy.
I’m more than happy to get my car engineered if that is what is needed, but Since Mr Daley has taken it upon himself to not only race these rules through without the correct consultation, and made no public announcement that I know of in regards to the rule change that is to come into effect. I and other responsible 4WDers have not been given the chance to take the steps towards getting a certificate.
I wouldn’t have even known about these changes if it wasn’t for the fact I’m a member of a 4wd Club and a large national 4wd forum, of likeminded people.

It also astounds me that you would do something that would make such a major financial impact to so many people in the current economic climate. Remember it doesn’t just affect us directly it affects business as well as tourism.

If you actually took the time to talk to people with in the 4wd community you would realise that we are out to collectively share, care, repair and enjoy the Australian country. Something I don’t think you could relate to the word “hoon” quite the opposite.

My car is my only mode of transport. Both I and my partner have our house up for sale as we wish to move more out into the country. If my car becomes defected due to me not having a fair chance to get it engineered, I will not be able to get to my place of work which will mean I will lose my job!
Is that fair?
For me to change my car back will cause me a GREAT financial burden... I was already given such a burden when I moved to Australia 3 years ago. I changed my UK license to an Australian one. After driving my V8 discovery for 3 months only to be informed that I could no longer drive it due to a P plate restriction. I had a car being imported from the UK which was sitting on a boat a month away and the RTA would not give me an exemption. I (so I could get to work in reasonable time and not a 2hr journey on public transport) had to wear the cost of $11,000 for a car even though I had one that was arriving. May I add that this is the same car that I will now incur a further financial burden just because someone couldn’t give me and others the courtesy of a warning and sufficient time to act.

I think Mr Daley has made a mass generalisation as well as discriminated against the 4wd community and that alone should be enough to get these new rules and time frame reviewed

What happened to giving people a FAIR GO!!!!

Regards
Louise Thompson

MickS

22nd July 2009, 10:47 PM

You could also sent it to the opposition leader -

barry.ofarrell@nsw.liberal.org.au

and the shadow transport minister too - Gladys Berejiklian -

willoughby@parliament.nsw.gov.au

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 07:56 AM

Done

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 09:34 AM

Here is the submission from Athol Mullen, and RTA Signatory on the central coast:

On Thursday, 16th July 2009, NSW Minister for Roads, Michael Daley MP released a News Release titled Tough New Rules for Car Hoons.

The intent of the announcement was ostensibly to crack down on "car hoons" who drive vehicles that the minister thinks are unsafe.

Unfortunately, the content of the news release is factually inaccurate and the minister (or whoever wrote the news release for him) clearly either does not know or understand the content of the NSW RTA Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Modifications, the Australian Design Rules (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx) and Schedule 2 of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rtrr2007478/sch2.html), or is misrepresenting that code of practice and those legislative instruments.

The majority of the "car hoons" that the minister seeks to regulate more strictly are driving vehicles that are not legal. That's right, not legal. Some may have documentation that makes them appear legal, but proper inspection would reveal either that the vehicles are not consistent with that documentation or that the documentation has been issued in error. So, if the people that will be affected are not these "car hoons", who are they? The answer is almost everybody else.

Examples of people affected include ordinary motorists who replace sagged, worn out suspension springs in their vehicles; infrastructure corporations such as rail maintenance and electricity companies; farmers and hunters who have their vehicles raised for normal day to day farm operations; grey nomads who have heavy duty springs and tyres fitted to their 4WDs so that they can tow their caravan or camping trailer to visit remote parts of the country; predominantly family oriented 4WD enthusiasts and clubs; charity groups who are helped by 4WD clubs to take terminally ill children to places that they couldn't otherwise access; environmental rehabilitation groups who are assisted in removing rubbish by 4WD clubs; emergency response groups including SES; 4WD tour operators; participants in charity bashes; the residents of remote communities for whom 4WD tourism is the basis of their local economy; hot rod and modified car owners and all of the industries that support these people in their activities.

What is the minister's definition of a "car hoon"? Elsewhere, he refers to "young hoons". Given that some of the people affected are senior citizens, what is the minister's definition of "young"?

The real problem is that the government have starved the RTA and Police Force of the funding required to effectively operate, let alone training Inspectors for Vehicle Regulation (IVRs) and Police Officers, and to assist in ongoing review and training of Engineering Signatories to ensure that the existing system operates as intended. This is not just my personal opinion, but is based upon public and private statements made by IVRs, police officers, RTA staff and other signatory engineers since the current labor government, then led by Bob Carr, came to power in 1995.

For example, a few years ago, a Highway Patrol police officer stated in a usenet news group that they couldn't get funds to purchase paper for their photocopier, but that they could use petrol that cost more than the paper and waste considerable time to drive to another station and back to collect a ream of paper, because the fuel was in a different budget.

As an engineering signatory, I have offered to run a training "question and answer" sessions for local Highway Patrol Police Officers several times over the past decade. The officers and Patrol Commander that I suggested it to were positive about the idea, but it went no further because there is simply no funding available to do it.

So we have unsafe, illegally modified vehicles being driven on the roads, with the Police and RTA not having the resources and training necessary to detect and defect all of those vehicles. The minister's solution is to change the rules, thinking that the vehicles are actually legal because they haven't been defected. The new rules can only be described as draconian, misguided and almost certainly unworkable. The irony is that they won't have the slightest effect on the illegally modified vehicles that were ostensibly the target. Drivers of illegally modified vehicles will continue to operate those vehicles outside the law, regardless of how strict those laws are made.

So lets take a look at a few statements from the news release.

"At the moment, vehicles can be raised or lowered by up to 5 centimetres without approval, and by up to 15 centimetres with authorised engineering approval."

The statement is completely and utterly false. It may have come about from an attempt to simplify the actual rules, but the result is nowhere the truth. Under the existing Code of Practice, vehicles can be raised or lowered by up to 1/3 of the original suspension clearance without requiring certification. This is a direct function of the vehicle design, varying from less than 20mm on some cars to around 70mm on some 4WD vehicles.

The 15cm limit with an engineering certificate does not exist in any way, shape or form. To raise or lower a vehicle by more than the 1/3 of suspension clearance described above, the design of suspension must be changed or an entirely different suspension fitted in place of the original. In these situations, the design of the suspension and the position of that suspension relative to the chassis rails will determine the resulting height of the vehicle. This means that there is no defined 15cm limit. For example, a light commercial vehicle from the 1920s to 1950s that is fitted with more modern suspension components might be lowered by more than 15cm, bringing its front bumper bar to around the same height as a modern vehicle, and hence improving not only its handling and braking but also its compatibility with modern vehicles in a crash.

If the existing 1/3 of suspension clearance rule is replaced with a blanket 50mm limit with certification, as proposed, many cars will now be able to be lowered further than is presently legal, and well beyond the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. The initial version of Vehicle Standards Bulletin 50, the RTA policy document that attempts to implement this ministerial directive is ambiguous on this point.

"I don't want to see young hoons putting their lives or the lives of others at risk, just because they think their car looks better 15 centimetres closer to the ground."

This statement is remarkable in how it shows how out of touch with reality the minister is. For cars newer than the 1960s, it would be a genuine struggle to physically lower them by 15cm without major modifications. Even ignoring for a moment the legislated requirement for a minimum ground clearance of 10cm (or more depending on wheelbase), the physical modifications required to lower a car 15cm would essentially require the removal of the entire suspension and could certainly never be legal. On a few models of 4WD passenger vehicles, lowering them can be physically possible because they are a raised version of a normal height car, but they cannot be legal at that height because they change ADR category (MC to MA) due to that lowered height, and they cannot be shown to comply with the ADR requirements for that changed category.

Perhaps the minister can name a model of car popular with "young hoons" that has an original ground clearance of at least 25cm, such that it can be lowered 15cm and still comply with the ADRs and maintain the legally required 10cm?

"It can affect handling, braking and safety features such as electronic stability control."

A correct statement, but the assumption that the effect is automatically negative is remarkably naiive, as is the assumption that vehicles where these are negatively affected will be legal.

Many older vehicles that are lowered are done so as part of modernising the suspension and improving the vehicle dynamics including handling and braking. Such vehicles usually have their other safety features improved at the same time, such as by fitting seatbelts, a collapsible steering column, windscreen washers and demister and improved windscreen wipers. Encouraging such vehicles to continue to be driven without these modifications would be to discourage safety improvements.

Modern safety features already limit the extent of modifications that can be carried out on vehicles. For example, because the dynamics of how the front of a vehicle collapses in a crash are critical to the operation of SRS airbags, 4WD vehicles that are equipped with SRS airbags cannot be fitted with a body lift, (spacing the body up on the chassis) unless it is possible to prove that the SRS system will not be adversely affected by the body lift. To date, I have never seen such proof for any vehicle model, and body lifts are not legally fitted to any SRS airbag equipped vehicle that I know of.

For vehicles where ESC is fitted, a similar situation applies, with alterations in suspension height and tyre diameter being restricted. As I understand it, aftermarket companies in the USA now offer "piggyback" computers to re-tune the ESC system to compensate for suspension height and tyre diameter changes. Aftermarket companies in Australia already offer re-tuning kits for ESC on several models of car. This needs to be addressed specifically for ESC equipped vehicles rather than trying to apply a rule relating to ESC to vehicles that are not fitted with it. When there is an Australian Design Rule that mandates the performance of ESC, such recalibration will be mandatory for continued ADR compliance.

"Raising a vehicle's suspension can also reduce the driver's ability to see pedestrians and cyclists, and higher headlights can startle other road users,"

Is the minister allowing Harold Scruby to write his speeches for him?

Raising a vehicle within the limits of safe and predictable handling and within the ADR prescribed limits for light heights, including the ADR prescribed legal maximum height for headlights effectively limits any adverse reduction in vision of pedestrians and cyclists close to the vehicle while improving vision of people and objects further away.

For vehicles 1994 and newer, ADR 8/01 also prescribes a Primary Vision Area, and legal raising of such vehicles is limited by the ability to maintain compliance with that requirement.

An ADR compliant headlight installed at a height within the prescribed limits of the ADRs and adjusted in accordance with those rules is legal in NSW according to the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007.

Again, the minister appears to be confusing illegally modified vehicles with legally modified vehicles.

If the minister is genuinely concerned about vehicle lights startling other drivers, it would be far more productive for him to act upon the continued widespread illegal use of front and rear fog lights and the failure of the checking of headlight aim during registration inspections. It is over a decade since an RTA IVR told my then employer to "at least wipe the dust off the top" of his headlight aim testing machine "so that it looks like it has been used". Judging by the number of vehicles driving around with obviously misaimed headlights today, this problem appears to remain widespread.

"Mr Daley said any vehicle being raised or lowered would require certification stating the modifications conform to safety standard requirements."

This proposal means that many vehicles that presently wouldn't require certification will require certification in the future. Leaving aside the issue of how it is determined whether a vehicle was raised before or after the implementation of these new rules, there are the connected issues of the fact that many new vehicles are raised within this range by rural new vehicle dealers before delivery, and the availability and distribution of engineering signatories across the state. Quite simply, the economic implications of requiring certification of these vehicles are staggering and the limited availability of signatory engineers makes it virtually impossible to implement.

"The changes also mean any modifications must meet specific requirements such as the vehicle having at least 10 centimetres ground clearance."

This is a misrepresentation of the current situation. Regardless of whether a vehicle is certified or not, the 10cm minimum ground clearance requirement is already an enforceable requirement within Schedule 2 of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007. It is not a new requirement. I also understand that regulations governing licensed vehicle repairers makes it an offence for them to modify a registrable vehicle such that it does not comply with the ADRs or state regulations. Again, the minister appears unfamiliar with the existing legislation and appears to be confusing illegally modified vehicles with legally modified vehicles.

"Vehicles raised above the 5 centimetre limit will only be granted conditional registration for use under specified conditions like competing in an off road competition."

This assumes that vehicles raised by more than 5cm are not "daily use" vehicles. That is an assumption that many people in rural NSW would dispute. During the debate about banning bullbars in urban areas a few years ago, one farmer who had to travel to Sydney on a regular basis to take his then pregnant wife to see a specialist asked whether this would mean that he would have to unbolt the bullbar from his vehicle and chain it to a post on the side of the Great Western Highway on every trip. Conditional registration that limits the use of raised vehicles in the city, as Mr Daley's policy advisor has apparently stated as being part of the intent, would seem to imply that rural people would have to change their suspension during each trip. An obviously absurd and impossible proposition.

This also assumes that the vehicle owner is rich enough to pay to buy an additional vehicle and pay for registration and insurance on an additional vehicle. So much for the Aussie Battler.

I note that the method of implementation of this announcement is by way of a policy document issued by the RTA, and not by legislation. It is extremely worrying that the rule has not been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and has not apparently been the subject of any consultation with any affected groups outside the RTA.

I call upon the minister to immediately order that Vehicle Inspectors Bulletin 50 be rescinded, and given that the minister appears to have displayed gross incompetence and appears to have lost the confidence of a significant portion of the voting population of NSW, I call upon the minister to resign.

rick130

23rd July 2009, 09:45 AM

Thanks Slunnie.
Any idea if that has gone to the press as well ?

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 09:51 AM

Thanks Slunnie.
Any idea if that has gone to the press as well ?
Rick I'm not sure what he's done with it. He has published it as a blog and linked it on outerlimits. It certainly needs to be brought to the attention of those with power and influence.

Here it is
http://you-have-to-be-kidding.blogspot.com/2009/07/car-hoons-news-release.html (http://you-have-to-be-kidding.blogspot.com/2009/07/car-hoons-news-release.html)

Psimpson7

23rd July 2009, 10:16 AM

That letter from the RTA Signatory is good.

Unfortunatley this is another letter sent by some one on outerlimits, and that sort of thing isnt going to help atall

we are not hoons, we are enthusiests who like having something different to looking like a government car, if we all drove around in cars like the polies do we would look like a stupid breed, i myself am nearly finished putting a heap of money and effort into my 4x4, it will be finished in mid august area, and now you want me to completely re-do my car to suit you guys, its not on, now i have to sell my car in pieces just to make you happy,,,, guess what, if i do sell it in pieces it will be cash to me and nothing to you, but still i am over you people not letting us live, whatever happened to freedom, there is none, you do interest and that stupid gst **** off yous pulled,and take money away from me that i obviosly earnt through working hard (you wouldnt know what that is) and take money from my pay packet each week, DONT YOU THINK YOU HAVE ENOUGH FROM US ALLREADY wake up to yourselves oh and michael daley(lower caps on purpose) sleep with one eye open, there will be a mob of so called hoons rocking up to your joint in protest very soon id say

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 10:26 AM

Some one ask him to put it on the accosiations website as well.....

Boxer

23rd July 2009, 12:35 PM

Just spoke to an engineer and he says I'm in the clear suspension wise cause I'm only running 2 inches of lift, but he's said the tyres can only be 15mm bigger than standard, which mine are a shade bigger than. Luckily it could be engineered with a braking test. Brakes work fine, so it should be ok.

Any thoughts?

Scouse

23rd July 2009, 12:44 PM

Any thoughts?Just make sure you air down at rego time - you should be right then ;).

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 12:48 PM

Just spoke to an engineer and he says I'm in the clear suspension wise cause I'm only running 2 inches of lift, but he's said the tyres can only be 15mm bigger than standard although not as big as yours I think mine are 30.6", which mine are a shade bigger than. Luckily it could be engineered with a braking test. Brakes work fine, so it should be ok.

Any thoughts?

hey boxer I'm in exactly the same boat!! I have 2" lift but my tyres are over the 15mm limit not as big as yours though mine are only 30.6" so your WAY over the legal limit for size of tyre.....is the engineer you have able to fit you in to give you a cert? you think he could fit me in also?

I could do with having my lift engineered to otherwise I have to find away of proving I had the lift in before that date...

I believe we also have to get a blue slip done and a weight bridge ticket before notifying the RTA

I have been trying to contact an engineer in Newcastle (number given to me from a friend) with no luck :(

Mate if you could help me out I would really appreicte it

long stroke

23rd July 2009, 12:58 PM

Oh know:(
If your having troubles with a 2'' lift, i'm stuffed.
Mines running at least a 3'' lift:o
Only 31'' tyres though, maybe i should beef my brakes up;)

cal415

23rd July 2009, 02:06 PM

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 02:11 PM

Well as for mine, its only 2in lift, but im at about 2.5in lift extra from the tyres being 5in over standard diameter...... and i have no chance of having mine engineered before the 31st as is in pieces, they are really screwing us on all sides with track closures, regs, high costs for rego etc etc.....
You will also have to do an abridged brake test at a track because of the tyres size rather than a normal brake test.

To fit 37's on my IIa I may have to lower the suspension by 1"!!!! At least its just a spring reset.

cucinadio

23rd July 2009, 02:16 PM

You will also have to do an abridged brake test at a track because of the tyres size rather than a normal brake test.

To fit 37's on my IIa I may have to lower the suspension by 1"!!!! At least its just a spring reset.

so where does this leave you in regard to your beast mate...?

cheers

Boxer

23rd July 2009, 02:25 PM

hey boxer I'm in exactly the same boat!! I have 2" lift but my tyres are over the 15mm limit not as big as yours though mine are only 30.6" so your WAY over the legal limit for size of tyre.....is the engineer you have able to fit you in to give you a cert? you think he could fit me in also?

I could do with having my lift engineered to otherwise I have to find away of proving I had the lift in before that date...

I believe we also have to get a blue slip done and a weight bridge ticket before notifying the RTA

I have been trying to contact an engineer in Newcastle (number given to me from a friend) with no luck :(

Mate if you could help me out I would really appreicte it

Maybe try these guys, they're all listed by the RTA.

Mackay Donald R
D R MacKay and Associates
Pty Ltd
2a Marshall Street
NEW LAMBTON
HEIGHTS
NSW 2305
E: dmackay3@bigpond.net.au
P: (02) 4956 8030
F: (02) 4956 8030
M: 0414 685 537

MULLEN Athol
Mullen Automotive
Engineering
24 Newcastle Street
CARDIFF
NSW 2285
E: athol@idl.net.au

PHILLIPS Duan A
VTOL Pty Ltd 17 Irvine Street
GARDEN SUBURB
NSW 2289
P: (02) 4943 5348
F: (02) 4943 5348
M: 0402 266 622

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 02:25 PM

so where does this leave you in regard to your beast mate...?

cheers
The D2 is unaffected because everything is engineer approved on that, even down to the brake rotors.

The Blue ute is in a bit of bother. :angel: They tyre rules in VSI50 defer to VS9 so as far as I know are still fine. Because its pre ADR I understand that I only require a standard brake test rather than the full ADR spec abridged version. The tyres lift it by 3" so I need to lower the suspension by 1". My thoughts there are to reset the springs 1" lower if times short, or to link it up and run airsprings which I'll do a bit later after its all back on the road again. That will allow a low ride height for the road and the ability to raise it when offroad. At this stage I'm thinking to reset the springs because if NCOP V2/3 gets approved then we may be limited to 2" lift from oversized tyres max which cuts me back to 35's - I need to have it approved and registered before then.

Grover-98

23rd July 2009, 02:32 PM

Oh know:(
If your having troubles with a 2'' lift, i'm stuffed.
Mines running at least a 3'' lift:o
Only 31'' tyres though, maybe i should beef my brakes up;)

Your brakes should be fine mate i wouldnt bother beefing them up at all i am also running 31's and i wont be touching the brakes :)

Boxer

23rd July 2009, 02:52 PM

The D2 is unaffected because everything is engineer approved on that, even down to the brake rotors.

The Blue ute is in a bit of bother. :angel: They tyre rules in VSI50 defer to VS9 so as far as I know are still fine. Because its pre ADR I understand that I only require a standard brake test rather than the full ADR spec abridged version. The tyres lift it by 3" so I need to lower the suspension by 1". My thoughts there are to reset the springs 1" lower if times short, or to link it up and run airsprings which I'll do a bit later after its all back on the road again. That will allow a low ride height for the road and the ability to raise it when offroad. At this stage I'm thinking to reset the springs because if NCOP V2/3 gets approved then we may be limited to 2" lift from oversized tyres max which cuts me back to 35's - I need to have it approved and registered before then.

So you were able to engineer yours with the 285/75/16 Wranglers? Same tyres as mine. I run neg25 offset rims, but its all you can do with my setup to stop inner guard scrubbing

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 02:59 PM

So you were able to engineer yours with the 285/75/16 Wranglers? Same tyres as mine. I run neg25 offset rims, but its all you can do with my setup to stop inner guard scrubbing
There were no probs with those tyres when it was engineered. Its also engineered for 34x11.5-16 Simex, something I was able to do because the speedo correction unit has 2 settings on it. Thats interesting about your rims. I think the D2 probably gets away with these tyres being on standard rims because the axle is a bit wider than that under a D1. The Simex which measure 12"x35" only just clear under the guards but I did need to adjust the steering stops to prevent rubbing on steering lock.

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 03:23 PM

can anyone sugest a Sydney based engineer perhaps one they have used?

Boxer

23rd July 2009, 03:29 PM

can anyone sugest a Sydney based engineer perhaps one they have used?

Try John, I've been talking to him about my ratrod. Seems like a pretty switched on guy.

VARETIMIDIS John
Consulmotive Pty Ltd

Unit 8/16-16A Hearne St
MORTDALE
NSW 2223
E: consulmotive@optusnet.com.au

P: (02) 9153 0011
F: (02) 9153 0592
M: 0412 253 973

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 03:31 PM

I still really think Duan is worthwhile also, even though he is up the coast. I've used him and was very happy.

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 03:42 PM

he is the number I have but I can't get in contact with him

I still really think Duan is worthwhile also, even though he is up the coast. I've used him and was very happy.

discowhite

23rd July 2009, 05:24 PM

I still really think Duan is worthwhile also, even though he is up the coast. I've used him and was very happy.

he engineered my ute.....thankfully b4 all this hit the roof:eek:

cheers phil

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 05:34 PM

well I got in contact with Duan (well not him directly) and a women answered the phone and as soon as I mentioned his name I was told very bluntly that he is not well and wont be available until a few weeks :(

I also emailed one of the guys that boxer suggested Mackay and he is not available until 8.8.09:(

Looks like I'm not going to be able to get one done. :BigCry:

Disco95

23rd July 2009, 08:42 PM

Hey DB, I'm going to talk to a guy local to me. I'll see if I can get some spots booked.
It will be St Georges Basin, 20min past Nowra.
So in regards to my D1, where do I stand Tyre wise lagelly at the moment. I'm running 31's

dullbird

23rd July 2009, 08:59 PM

mate if my tyres are illegal at 30.6" then your will also be......

15mm above factory standard which is 235/70/16 I dont know what that would make the tyres size. but deffinalty under 245/75 which is what I'm running.

mate I'm willing to travel to get a cert just need warning so I can get the time off work to go (if they will let me).....also need to allow enough time to get a blue slip also

Remember it needs to be done by 1st august....

long stroke

23rd July 2009, 09:23 PM

Does anyone know if it would be possible for me to register mine running 3'' coils and 31'' tyres under the new laws?:(

CHEERS TIM.

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 09:51 PM

Does anyone know if it would be possible for me to register mine running 3'' coils and 31'' tyres under the new laws?:(

CHEERS TIM.
That lifts it too high Tim. You've got a 4" combined lift, and even if the suspension ride height tolerances were on your side, I think that you'd still be too high.

I think at this stage you best hope will be if the NCOP replaces VSI50 sometime down the track and the NCOP is revised from Ver2 back along the lines of V1 which doesn't have a lift composition break down - meaning you can lift by up to 150mm by whatever means.

Gazz

23rd July 2009, 10:23 PM

what are the new laws on suspension lifts?

Slunnie

23rd July 2009, 10:59 PM

Lucy

24th July 2009, 09:16 AM

Just reading further into the VSI 50, It also makes D3s and Range Rovers illegal, in that you can not have variable height suspension that can be adjusted while moving!

303gunner

24th July 2009, 09:20 AM

You may be able to just get tyres done in isolation.
I'm not looking forward to driving to Tibooburra to get my next set of Muddies.:( They're expensive enough in Sydney!

Slunnie

24th July 2009, 11:43 AM

Just reading further into the VSI 50, It also makes D3s and Range Rovers illegal, in that you can not have variable height suspension that can be adjusted while moving!
A standard vehicle doesnt come under VSI50 as there has been no change in ride height. What will be interesting is if there is a D3/RRS that gets lifted as that will then require certification and blue slipping which brings it under VSI50, and as you say the air suspension will then not comply.

I'm not looking forward to driving to Tibooburra to get my next set of Muddies.:( They're expensive enough in Sydney!
:lol2::lol2:

Psimpson7

24th July 2009, 11:48 AM

That will also apply to air sprung classics wont it as they adjust height on the move

Slunnie

24th July 2009, 12:02 PM

That will also apply to air sprung classics wont it as they adjust height on the move
It reads that way assuming that the suspension is modified.

I dont understand how this VSI can be workable.

The other interesting aspect, is that if I have to return my Disco back to standard ride height again, I cant even fit the factory SLS either. :lol2:

Psimpson7

24th July 2009, 12:03 PM

It reads that way assuming that the suspension is modified.

I dont understand how this VSI can be workable.

The other interesting aspect, is that if I have to return my Disco back to standard ride height again, I cant even fit the factory SLS either. :lol2:

Lol:D

MickS

24th July 2009, 12:18 PM

Reply to an email I sent to Malcolm Kerr, the local Liberal MP...

"Dear Michael

Thank you for your email. The NSW Labor Government’s recent policy announcement to make it an offence to lower or raise a car’s suspension was clearly made on the run.

The NSW Liberals and Nationals oppose these changes, which have been introduced by the Rees Labor Government without consultation or any parliamentary debate.

The changes will affect many law abiding motorists, including 4WD users, rural motorists and even wheelchair taxis, yet they will do nothing to stop the so-called hoons, who already modify their vehicles outside the existing laws.

The vast majority of 4WD owners are responsible drivers, not 'young hoons', and they don't deserve to be punished.

The solution to 'hoons' is better enforcement of the existing vehicle standards, not a nonsensical bureaucratic decree.

The NSW Liberals and Nationals have called upon the Roads Minister to withdraw the policy forthwith and will continue to pursue this issue on behalf of NSW motorists when Parliament resumes in September.

Regards, Malcolm"

dullbird

24th July 2009, 12:43 PM

Lets hope they do at least it will give me enough time to get my tyres certified!! so I wont have to worry any futher in the future.

MickS

24th July 2009, 02:38 PM

It's interesting how Malcolm Kerr refers to it as "policy" and Daley's press release calls them "rules"..

Since when can you be booked or defected for breaching policy? Has to be law first, and that can't happen until these oxygen thieves return to parliament in September - AFAIK.

Bulldog

24th July 2009, 05:30 PM

Slunnie

24th July 2009, 06:41 PM

Is it just me, or are we missing an obvious point here (which i questioned here about a year ago):

Up until now, most 4x4s with big mods - say, 35" tyres and 6" lift - did not have an engineering certificate. They were illegal the whole time. I don't know of a single 4x4 owner that does have one. No-one gets pulled over for checks, nothing. And some of these 4x4s are massive!

So whats saying that anything is going to change. IMHO, nothing will change. You'll go and buy and fit a lift as normal, drive as normal, and avoid the need for getting a new RWC - thats what these guys do anyway. I think it just gives the law the ability to make a car unroadworthy if they so desire - commodore hoons for example. For those of us trying to live within the law (i try ;)), we couldn't (legally) just fit a big lift and tyres before, and never will, without major headaches/money. How much does an engineering cert cost for a massively mod'd 4x4, including speedo correction, airbags, everything - not cheap i imagine...

I fitted my 2" lift yesterday ;).
It does make a difference, but only to the honest citizen who tries to do the right thing. The people that it is meant to affect will continue unaffected with their half assed vehicles and driving antics.

The solution is to start checking certification

But, how does the police officer know if a vehicle definately has been modified - Its a good question because a 4WD with a 2" suspension lift may be within a few mm of the manufacturers max allowable ride height.

The silly thing is that some vehicles with limited suspension travel under these rules can run more lift. The guideline was lift/lower by 1/3 metal to metal suspension travel with a min clearance guideline. Thats the stupid thing, as there are already a stack of guidelines for this - but it's never policed or checked.

Sailfin

24th July 2009, 06:58 PM

The NSW government has passed Draconian laws relating to suspension on cars and 4WDs, the new law will come in to effect on the 1st of August this year.

Any suspension modification up to and including 50mm of lift, carried out after Saturday 1st August 2009 in NSW must be fully engineered or carry the manufacturer's approval. The total amount you are allowed to lift your 4WD from the ground is 50mm. That is it! This includes any combination of larger diameter tyres, bodylifts and suspension lifts. Any higher lift than this will only be eligible for conditional registration.

For example a 4WD with a 2 inch suspension lift and tyres even 1 inch larger in diameter will not be able to be registered for daily on road use.

And they have a big go at air suspension, will be almost impossible to fit Arnott air springs, air suspension cannot be adjustable on the move.
You have a better chance of winning lotto than being allowed to fit air suspension to any vehicle that is not fitted with it from factory, this includes adjustable air bags in rear coils.

They have not consulted the 4X4 after market industry properly and i believe this will possibly bankrupt some businesses.

Crazy.

Link to PDF from RTA website with full new regs.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_50_raising-and-lowering-vehicles_17-july-2009.pdf

*EDIT, lol did not see this thread somhow, thanks for moving it.

George130

24th July 2009, 08:05 PM

Bush65

24th July 2009, 08:09 PM

...And they have a big go at air suspension, will be almost impossible to fit Arnott air springs, air suspension cannot be adjustable on the move.
You have a better chance of winning lotto than being allowed to fit air suspension to any vehicle that is not fitted with it from factory, this includes adjustable air bags in rear coils...
I have fitted air springs to my 84 rangie, which was not originally available with air suspension.

I have a control unit to vary the height, but to comply with VSI 50, I will install the control unit in the back or under the bonnet.

Thus it will satisfy the requirement that:
The suspension height must only be capable of being altered when the vehicle is stationary.

If the wording for variable suspension height is taken literally, then you are correct that air bags inside coil springs will not be legal, because
This requires that the front and rear suspensions must be both raised and lowered by the same amount ...

This an example of how poorly the document was drafted, because any reasonable person knows these air bags are used to correct ride height when a load is carried.

DiscoMick

24th July 2009, 09:25 PM

I've sent my little protest emails to Michael Daley and Barry O'Farrell, for what its worth.

My Disco has a 50mm lift, but standard tyres. No engineering certificate. So if I get stopped by the cops in NSW can I be defected, even though I'm registered interstate, or am I OK because it was done before 1 August 2009 or is an interstate vehicle?

Incidentally, its not about safety in my case as the lifted suspension is stiffer than the standard sagged springs, so it actually rolls less than it did previously.

I wonder what happened to the Kevin Rudd idea that laws should be adopted nationally to reduce variations between the states? Yet here is NSW going it alone with some half-baked scheme.

Idiocies like this are among the reasons I left NSW and try to go back as little as possible.:eek:

Slunnie

24th July 2009, 09:42 PM

I wonder what happened to the Kevin Rudd idea that laws should be adopted nationally to reduce variations between the states? Yet here is NSW going it alone with some half-baked scheme.

I guess that what the NCOP was meant to be. Fingers crossed that the RTA VSI's might vanish with the NCOP. Some areas are already defered to the NCOP VSB's such as small trailer construction guidelines. I can only imagine that this will be the least humiliating way for the minister to back down.... that if the whole incentive of VSI50 isn't to push the introduction of the NCOP into NSW in the first place.

DiscoMick

24th July 2009, 10:02 PM

We can only hope...
Also hope no other state is stupid enough to follow NSW's lead.

dullbird

24th July 2009, 10:14 PM

I've sent my little protest emails to Michael Daley and Barry O'Farrell, for what its worth.

My Disco has a 50mm lift, but standard tyres. No engineering certificate. So if I get stopped by the cops in NSW can I be defected, even though I'm registered interstate,
or am I OK because it was done before 1 August 2009 or is an interstate vehicle?

Incidentally, its not about safety in my case as the lifted suspension is stiffer than the standard sagged springs, so it actually rolls less than it did previously.

I wonder what happened to the Kevin Rudd idea that laws should be adopted nationally to reduce variations between the states? Yet here is NSW going it alone with some half-baked scheme.

Idiocies like this are among the reasons I left NSW and try to go back as little as possible.:eek:

you should be ok as it was done before the date of the new law.

I'm not overlly worried about my 2" lift...its more of a case if I get pulled over to be check and they realise I had it fitted before they can still pull me for my tyres..and after that date its to late to get the lot engineered together

DiscoMick

25th July 2009, 06:56 AM

I don't actually have any paperwork to prove itwas done before 1 August 2009 as it was actually done 4 years ago. However, hopefully this stupidity will be sorted out. How would the cops enforce it? If I say it was done before the law was changed where is the onus of proof - do they have to prove otherwise or do I have to prove it?

The irony of this is that its proposed to combat hooning, but hooning is about human behaviour, not the height of vehicles. You can hoon in any height of vehicle. So its a classic case of twisted logic. You might as well try to stop teenage pregnancy by altering the design of underpants! ;)

DiscoMick

25th July 2009, 07:51 AM

In case it helps anyone else form a letter, here's an email I just sent to NSW Premier Nathan Rees. His email is: ThePremier@www.nsw.gov.au So get writing guys and girls!

Premier of NSW
Nathan Rees

Dear Mr Rees,
I am writing to express my concerns about the new vehicle height rules announced by your roads minister Mchael Daley, which I believe are fatally flawed, illogical, misdirected and will cause huge problems for many thousands of respectable vehicle owners if they are enforced (if it is possible to enforce them, that is).
Here are my reasons:

The laws are illogical. They were justified as an attempt to combat hooning, but hooning is a human behavioural problem, not a technical issue about vehicle heights. You can hoon in any height of vehicle. Altering vehicle heights is irrelevant. You might as well try to reduce teenage pregnancies by altering the design of underpants!
I understand NSW already has a law which affects lowered vehicles by setting a minimum height above the ground below which a vehicle may not go (I think its 10mm) so, if the new law is aimed at lowered vehicles, its redundant as the police already have the power to police lowered vehicle height.
If the new law is aimed at raised vehicles then its very shortsighted. Raising the height of a vehicle does not make a person a hoon. Far from it. My Land Rover was rasied 50mm to give greater clearance when travelling difficult roads, particularly in rural areas, but I'm not a hoon, I'm a 55 year old father and grandfather with a clean driving record who is a member of a national 4WD organization and likes touring around this country. I'm insulted to be lumped in with hoons.
If its about track damage, then it's wrong. Raised vehicles may not cause more damage to tracks, in fact the opposite is probably true. A raised vehicle has more height to get over obstacles without damaging them. If it has wider tyres it is less likely to get bogged, spin the wheels and rip up tracks. So a raised vehicle may be less likely to damage a track than a standard vehicle. The issue is not the height of the vehicle, its the attitude of the driver.
If its about safety, then the new law is not logical either. Aftermarket vehicle suspension parts are of a higher standard of manufacture than original equipment. For instance, the replacement springs and shock absorbers in my Land Rover are much stronger than the originals. They are also stiffer, which means my vehicle actually rolls less now than it did on the original springs and shocks. The upgrade has made it less likely to roll, not more. Larger tyres also put more rubber to the road so that could improve braking and grip. Raised vehicles are not necessarily less safe than standard vehicles. The new rules are misguided.
There are many apparent errors and unanswered questions in the new rules. For instance, the new rules refer to height changes of 50mm, but I understood the vehicle registration rules in NSW referred to changes of more than one-third of the spring height, metal to metal. Which is correct?
Another issue is what about vehicles which come from the factory with height adjustable suspensions, such as the Land Rover Discovery, Range Rover, Jaguar, Citroens and so on. I know it may be argued they are in standard condition and so are OK, but I understand the new rules refer to their height being altered while 'standing', but those vehicles can alter their heights while moving, so are they legal or not?
Another issue relates to interstate vehicles visiting NSW. Will they be defected if stopped by police if they don't comply with the NSW rules? Will I be stopped from driving from Brisbane to visit my wife's elderly parents in Lismore? Will I no longer be able to tour NSW for fear of being fined because my vehicle has a 50mm lift? If so, then you have just effectively banned many tens of thousands of interstate motorists from NSW. That will be a huge blow to the NSW tourism industry. I wonder how many servos, cafes, caravan parks and national parks will be empty now and how many people will lose their jobs because of reduced visitor numbers.
There is also the issue of the thousands of people employed in the aftermarket industry whose work will dry up because of this. I refer to equipment suppliers, 4WD shops, motoring shops etc. How many jobs will be lost because of these new rules?
Another issue is about consultation with affected people. I understood the RTA was consulting with 4WD associations and others about vehicle safety. Suddenly, the minister has unilaterally made an announcement without reference to those likely to be affected by it. He has pre-empted those discussions.
Finally, what about the issue of the move to attempt to achieve national uniformity in vehicle rules, which everyone said was a good idea. Suddenly, NSW has gone it alone with some very badly planned and problematic rules of its own. That's a very bad decision for NSW to make.
For all of the above reasons, I urge you to intervene to withdraw these new rules and initiate genuine consultation with affected parties towards the aim of achieving real advances in road safety, not the chaos which will result if these new rules are maintained.
Yours in hope,
Michael Secomb
15 Marlane Court, Springwood 4127 Queensland.

TerryO

25th July 2009, 09:08 AM

Has anybody else read about the new laws being put before the NSW Parliment that make it ilegal to modify suspension or wheel and tyre sizes from standard on any vehicle? These are meant to stop 'Car hoons' from hot rodding their cars but have far ranging impacts on every road user in the State. These new laws would put NSW's out there on their own as no other State has laws like it.

If passed these laws will put an end to modifying 4x4 suspensions for more ground clearance or putting larger wheels on with larger tyres then standard. The NSW Government minister who is putting these poorly thought out changes to the law forward has done no consoltation with any industry group at all.

This will have a huge impact on 4x4 owners needless to say.

Regards,
Terry O'Neill

Scouse

25th July 2009, 09:37 AM

There's a couple of threads running at the moment. Have a look in General Chat for at least one of them.

Here you go:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/83855-change-lifts-lowering-cars.html

dullbird

25th July 2009, 10:12 AM

Did anyone else notice that 4WD Action have also put out a newsletter on it also...

incouraging people to write a letter:)

INter674

25th July 2009, 10:27 AM

In NSW any change of ride height requires an engineering certificate to a mx combined lift of 50mm. The only exception is if you fit tyres that are within 15mm of the original size. This starts at the end of this month.

crap, can't wait for the Tassie fun police to follow suite:mad: ..and they will because regulators are like sheep down here...

We can only hope that after closing all the tracks and denying any mods without any reasonable thought, justification or consultation, they realise what mindless damage they have done to the economy in the process, and revenue declines causing the PS to be downsized accordingly:D

Lucy

25th July 2009, 11:53 AM

A standard vehicle doesnt come under VSI50 as there has been no change in ride height. What will be interesting is if there is a D3/RRS that gets lifted as that will then require certification and blue slipping which brings it under VSI50, and as you say the air suspension will then not comply.

:lol2::lol2:

It states "Variable Suspension height control (all vehicles)". Nowhere does it state for modified vehicles only. Point number 2 of this section states "The suspension height must only be capable of being altered when the vehicle is stationary". Again, it makes no distinction between standard and modified vehicles. It also states "A statement of conformance must be provided as part of the certificate issued by the engineering signatory or manufacturer, or manufacturer's authorised dealer" It doesn't differentiate between the manufacturer of an airbag suspension system, or the manufacturer of a vehicle.

I had it read by a lawyer friend. Her take was exactly what I was thinking too. While it is ambiguous, it does, in effect, make Air-suspended Discoveries and Range Rovers Illegal! IDIOTS:angrylock:

keithy47

25th July 2009, 01:04 PM

My understanding was that these new laws regarding the max lift of 50mm wern't being applied retrospectivley. I.E if you already have a bigger lift then it won't need to be engineered.

dullbird

25th July 2009, 01:10 PM

My understanding was that these new laws regarding the max lift of 50mm wern't being applied retrospectivley. I.E if you already have a bigger lift then it won't need to be engineered.

Thats right....buyt if you read back to what I have writen, if they pull me for my lift even though its irelevant they could book me for my tyres!!;) same goes for you if you dont have a cert for them

Slunnie

25th July 2009, 01:10 PM

It states "Variable Suspension height control (all vehicles)". Nowhere does it state for modified vehicles only. Point number 2 of this section states "The suspension height must only be capable of being altered when the vehicle is stationary". Again, it makes no distinction between standard and modified vehicles. It also states "A statement of conformance must be provided as part of the certificate issued by the engineering signatory or manufacturer, or manufacturer's authorised dealer" It doesn't differentiate between the manufacturer of an airbag suspension system, or the manufacturer of a vehicle.

I had it read by a lawyer friend. Her take was exactly what I was thinking too. While it is ambiguous, it does, in effect, make Air-suspended Discoveries and Range Rovers Illegal! IDIOTS:angrylock:
The 2nd paragraph of the document which outlines the documents purpose states:
This VSI is intended to advise vehicle owners, operators and persons registered as engineering signatories on the RTA's Engineering Certificate System of the requirements for raising and lowering vehicles from there originally designed and manufactured condition.

If its standard, then its ok.

dobbo

25th July 2009, 01:29 PM

So if I go 2 inch lifted springs, with a very soft ride then tub the guards and increase the overall height of the wheel wells so I can maximize travel, to counteract the awful ride I could utilize poly bags to stiffen up the ride for use on road. Fit standard sized tyres in a very aggressive pattern. With my interpretation of the rulings the car should be legal under these guidelines and not need to pass engineering.

How does these rulings effect brand new utes when the dealer delivers them vehicles as a cab chassis? Surely a few inches of upwards travel can be achieved on a custom tray

Grumbles

25th July 2009, 02:25 PM

I chatted to a suspension shop the other day. He said a retrospective exemption was available providing the work was done by a pro shop and you had a receipt dated before August to prove it.

cal415

25th July 2009, 02:26 PM

Dobbo, unless you remove the bump stops and cut the chassis your stock size tyres will fit in the gaurds without tubbing without a single problem.... no point tubbingn the guards on a defender theres heaps of room.

dullbird

25th July 2009, 02:50 PM

I chatted to a suspension shop the other day. He said a retrospective exemption was available providing the work was done by a pro shop and you had a receipt dated before August to prove it.

mmmm I dont think its just a pro shop.....or do you mean a garage..

keithy47

25th July 2009, 04:09 PM

Well it will be interesting to see how the new laws are enforced anyway, personly im not too concerned but then again i've only got 30.6 tyres and 2 inch lift. I think more police focus will be defecting commodores with "fully sick" chopped springs and such as the laws also apply to lowering a car more than 50mm. Where was the consulation on these new laws though?

Sailfin

25th July 2009, 04:59 PM

The 2nd paragraph of the document which outlines the documents purpose states:
This VSI is intended to advise vehicle owners, operators and persons registered as engineering signatories on the RTA's Engineering Certificate System of the requirements for raising and lowering vehicles from there originally designed and manufactured condition.

If its standard, then its ok.

I think your right, these new laws are so poorly written that if (and probably will be by ARB etc) taken to court they would not stand up to scrutiny, they are to general.

Forgive me if im wrong but does this not smack of IGNORANCE and PREJUDICE against 4WDers on the part of the body responsible for researching and recommending the new requirements.

How are we supposed to prove the date of our modifications? if i have 33's now and buy a new set in November, how can i prove to the RTA/police that stop me that i have had 33s for 2yrs and the brand new set have not just been fitted?

Maybe they are suggesting we all just go and buy a Prius.

MickS

25th July 2009, 05:30 PM

Maybe they are suggesting we all just go and buy a Prius.

The Prius is good for something....:rocket:

YouTube - Jeremy Clarkson - Chapter 3 - Prius Shootout

Gazz

25th July 2009, 05:49 PM

Thanks for the advice Slunnie, I was concidering a lift but I should have know the fun police in NSW (regulation central) are ulimately closing off all clean fun options.:(

Bush65

26th July 2009, 10:10 AM

So if I go 2 inch lifted springs, with a very soft ride then tub the guards and increase the overall height of the wheel wells so I can maximize travel, to counteract the awful ride I could utilize poly bags to stiffen up the ride for use on road. Fit standard sized tyres in a very aggressive pattern. With my interpretation of the rulings the car should be legal under these guidelines and not need to pass engineering.

...
Unfortunately no! 2" lifted springs will need a cert.

If you relocate the front shocks, you could then fit poly bags front and rear (as long as you can't inflate them while the vehicle is moving).

Dougal

26th July 2009, 10:25 AM

Were you guys over there able to lift vehicles without any post-lift inspections or anything for roadworthyness?

Over here (NZ) we have the Low Volume Vehicle Association that has registered engineers that look at vehicle alterations beyond manufacturers spec and must sign off and issue a small plate that is then riveted inside the engine bay for all to see. Cops, mechanics checking for warrent of fitness etc have this cert plate on record and it lists all alterations. I have OME shocks and springs listed as well as shock mount alterations and Nissan engine etc. Good system and pretty easy if you start with consulting a certifiable engineer pre-alteration to get his take on how to do it.

The LVV process here is not run by engineers.

It was setup by the hotrod club and is done by selected mechanics. It is only heavy vehicles (3500kg tare upwards) and commercial vehicles which come under inspection and certification by a RTCE (Road Transport Certifcation Engineer) in New Zealand.

The term "registered engineer" in New Zealand no longer exists, the legislation was rewritten around 2003, they are now Chartered Professional Engineers (CPEng). There is no legislation requiring CPEng status, but most councils require structural engineers with CPEng status to sign off a building design for the building consent.

Slunnie

26th July 2009, 11:51 AM

Unfortunately no! 2" lifted springs will need a cert.

If you relocate the front shocks, you could then fit poly bags front and rear (as long as you can't inflate them while the vehicle is moving).
Dobbo... ummm, didn't....... I'm sure he always had a 2" lift on that thing...... maybe....:angel::angel::D

MickS

26th July 2009, 04:47 PM

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/07/217.jpg
(http://www.aulro.com/afvb/Sunday%20telegraph%20page%2029%20Dated%2029/07/09)

cal415

26th July 2009, 05:24 PM

Dobbo... ummm, didn't....... I'm sure he always had a 2" lift on that thing...... maybe....:angel::angel::D
I think he is running some standard defender springs after pulling out the load leveler and county springs....

Boxer

27th July 2009, 09:12 AM

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/07/217.jpg
(http://www.aulro.com/afvb/Sunday%20telegraph%20page%2029%20Dated%2029/07/09)

And as far as sticking up for the guys with the lowered cars goes, I'm sure out of the 1600 or so Commodores who each paid $25 towards the NSW Starlight Foundation's Cruise for Charity on the weekend, there'd be plenty of cars there that would be lowered more than legal, but still driven sensibly and enjoyed.

Fluids

27th July 2009, 11:28 AM

The Prius is good for something....:rocket:

YouTube - Jeremy Clarkson - Chapter 3 - Prius Shootout (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsJjZIuF1lg)

LOL ! ... Maybe we should let Jeremy Clarkson road test Michael Daley MP ??

What say you all ?? :wasntme:

:D

MickS

27th July 2009, 01:56 PM

And as far as sticking up for the guys with the lowered cars goes, I'm sure out of the 1600 or so Commodores who each paid $25 towards the NSW Starlight Foundation's Cruise for Charity on the weekend, there'd be plenty of cars there that would be lowered more than legal, but still driven sensibly and enjoyed.

I saw a conga line of commodores on Saturday coming up from Canberra....good on the boys (and girls) for supporting the foundation. No doubt they are in, boots and all, trying to stop this ridiculous policy.

StuRR80

27th July 2009, 03:10 PM

We can only hope...
Also hope no other state is stupid enough to follow NSW's lead.

I wonder how long it will take Capt'n Bligh to follow in NSW footsteps.
She seems to be doing well so far with the anticipated sell-off of state assets! :mad:

dullbird

27th July 2009, 10:16 PM

Dan is the principle policy manager, light

I told him i had being modifying my 4wd for the last 6 months and only now is it ready for engineering and what i could do?

here is his response,

As discussed it is appreciated that the release of VSI 50 may impact on work already in progress and the RTA is prepared to allow you defer registering your modified vehicle after the 1 august deadline. In order to do so, please provide me with the following information:
* your name and address as they appear on your current rego papers
* the make model and rego number of the subject vehicle
* the nature of the work being undertaken
* the reasons why the vehicle is being modified outside the 50mm limits specified in VSI 50 and
* the likely completion date of the modifications.

Once i receive this information i will ensure you are granted an extension to the july deadline and to allow the modified vehicle to be registered without conditions.
best wishes
Dan Leavy
Principle Policy Manager, Light

I URGE ANYONE OUT THERE TO EMAIL / CALL THIS PERSON AND APPLY FOR THE SAME BENEFITS.

When i spoke to him he said that they are in the process of preparing a press release to extend the deadline to allow vehicles to be engineered as they were un aware how many vehicles would be affected.

feel free to copy this to any other forums you are part of as this needs to be shared!!!

Dan_LEAVY@rta.nsw.gov.au

cal415

28th July 2009, 02:10 AM

For those people from Newcastle, Apparently there has been something organised, some kind of petition signing rally or something tommorow night at the Knights stadium at 7:30pm - All those apposed to VSI50 are asked to attend... hopefully all the meatheads in there jap crap illegally modified 4wds dont turn up otherwise it will be open day for the police.

Zute

28th July 2009, 04:15 PM

Will you be taking your Defer? Because under the new rules you wont Pass.:nazilock:

cal415

28th July 2009, 04:40 PM

Nope... if i took my county it will require several trailers and a car float to get it there at the moment.... :)

mudmouse

28th July 2009, 08:46 PM

I hope this isn't a repeat but I couldn't be stuffed searching for a previous post...

The bloke to contact is dan_levy@rta.nsw.gov.au

Apparently he is the Principle Policy Manager for the RTA (light vehicle mods). The word is he can authorise an extension for the cut off date (31 July) if you just don't have time to get your vehicle certified - finding an engineering signatory with time to do a certificate is like a chooks tooth.

I found out last thursday about VSI 50 with a bare chassis and garage full of bits...including 2.5 inch lift kit which stuffs me.

Things to tell them for an extension;

1. name and address (as on rego papers)
2. make, model and rego.
3. nature of work.
4. reasons for mods outside of VSI 50.
5. likely completion date.

Good luck all.:(

Matt

Eeeeer...Doh! Should've checked page 20 of this thread - thanks Lou.

p38arover

28th July 2009, 11:58 PM

Dan is the principle policy manager, light
<snip>

Dan Leavy
Principle Policy Manager, Light

I hope he really didn't spell it that way! :eek:

:D

Also I think the word "Vehicles" should follow the word "Light" :angel:

dullbird

29th July 2009, 12:00 AM

I hope he really didn't spell it that way! :eek:

:D

Also I think the word "Vehicles" should follow the word "Light" :angel:

actually Ron I don't think it does....as someone asked that question on an other forum...and the guy who originally sent the email had to explain the title to people.....

p38arover

29th July 2009, 12:09 AM

Ahh, here we are (from a letter he wrote):

Dan Leavy
Principal Policy Manager, Light Vehicles

If people are going to write to him, please get his position right.

I've just done a quick Google search and it seems every 4WD forum has copied the same message with the incorrect spelling and incomplete position name.

dullbird

29th July 2009, 12:23 AM

I just assumed that when the guy on the forum asked him what the title meant he would of picked up on his own error and said opps or something. Because he didn't I figured that's what it was :)

I suppose one should never assume

bluelightdisco

29th July 2009, 06:12 PM

does any one know anything about the new modification laws coming in on august 1st :confused:?

p38arover

29th July 2009, 06:18 PM

Merged with main thread.

difflock

29th July 2009, 06:51 PM

Important information for NSW 4WD Owners
Email just arrived from ARB.

The NSW government is planning to introduce legislation that will make it very difficult to modify the suspension on any vehicle. The legislation in question is targeted at "hoon" drivers, but has widespread implications for any motorist wishing to make even minor modifications to their vehicles. This has a severe impact on any person in NSW who wishes to fit an aftermarket suspension and/or larger than standard tyres to their 4WD. There has been no consultation with the aftermarket industry, or interested parties such as 4WD clubs and associations. The legislation is due to take effect imminently, and we are urging all of our customers in NSW to write to their local MP, voicing their objections.

There are two links contained within this email. One relates to the proposed Vehicle Standards Information. The other is a template letter, which you are welcome to use when writing to your local MP.

There are numerous parties who are objecting to this legislation, and with the support of all of us, we sincerely hope to see this matter resolved.

dullbird

29th July 2009, 07:23 PM

does any one know anything about the new modification laws coming in on august 1st :confused:?

Ohhhhhh yes!!! just look in here there is 22 pages of it;)

DRanged

29th July 2009, 08:16 PM

Great
Have to throw the engineers certificate in the RRC again. All the " wet behind the ears" highway boys will be having a go again.

I spoke to a local engineer about vehicles that were in the process of being built/engineered when VSI50 rolled out.

I dont like your chances. What he did say is a national code may be on the cards, if it is implemented VSI50 for NSW will be void. Then we need to see what the national code will entale.

Politicians just suck

Nuf said
Justin

Yorkie

29th July 2009, 09:06 PM

seems the rules have been put on hold if the 4wdaction editor is correct.
We've won!!!! Rules delayed for further discussion. - Australian 4WD Action Online Forums - the 4WD, 4x4 and offroad truck community. Get the latest tips, news, reviews, images and video clips.

:)

Mud_Bogger6

29th July 2009, 09:45 PM

Also my understanding is that a 2" lift on a 4WD is ok but after that you need approval. Just another case of raising revenue I think.
Bob

My Little Sierra is lifted 2" and had rego in '05 will i need to get the engineering aproval to re-rego my little beast under this new legistation??? :confused:

dullbird

29th July 2009, 09:59 PM

confirmed it has been put on Hold.....

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/07/50.jpg

I for one though will still be getting my tyres cert'd I'm not taking the risk

cal415

29th July 2009, 10:05 PM

WOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO hopefully this gives me some time to get my truck back together and engineered!

dullbird

29th July 2009, 10:11 PM

and me to find my bloody compliance plate :(

Grover-98

29th July 2009, 10:14 PM

Well this is some OK news i guess but i believe it will still come into play :(, i guess its time to try get my mods engineered?!

long stroke

29th July 2009, 10:15 PM

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY YY:arms:
Very happy now!!!!
I'm with you DB will most likely try get mine engineered as soon as i can:eek:
If i can....

CHEERS TIM.

Tusker

30th July 2009, 08:07 AM

and me to find my bloody compliance plate :(

?

And it'll no doubt be wrong.. the paint code on mine is a mucky brown. Neither panbeater nor I were duly impressed when I asked them to spray some wheels to match the car..

Regards
Max P

MickS

30th July 2009, 08:56 AM

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_15_engineering_signatories_june_2009.pdf

dullbird

30th July 2009, 11:18 AM

he has found the plate....thank god

Bush65

30th July 2009, 05:12 PM

Old news deleted.

seano87

30th July 2009, 05:15 PM

Apparently the introduction of the new lift rules has been put on hold for the time being.

Yeah, just heard news of it as well.

Politicians seeing sense and reason?? Unheard of, however in this case, I sure won't be complaining! :D

Seano

Xtreme

30th July 2009, 05:56 PM

VSI 50 INDEFINITELY POSTPONED
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/newsletter/2009/jul29/date.jpg

That's right, the pending VSI 50 suspension regulations have been INDEFINITELY POSTPONED by the NSW RTA!

Landy110

30th July 2009, 06:03 PM

Xtreme

30th July 2009, 06:11 PM

I actually think good tight regulations should be enforced.
I don't know about the rest of you but I am no automotive engineer and have no idea what the implications of changing my suspension are.

I see all types of yobs, who think they know better than the engineers who designed their vehicle, making all kinds of modifications with absolutely no understanding of the physics involved in swerving at 100 kmh.

I fully agree. The only mod I have found necessary to my Defender is to fit genuine HD front springs, Polyairs in rear and decent shocks all round.

However this postponement will at least give those who have modified vehicles time to arrange the necessary certification, as laws relating to suspension mods will be introduced in some form eventually.

DiscoMick

30th July 2009, 06:15 PM

The new regulations have been postponed for further consulation.
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/take-action/REL%2029.pdf

Tank

30th July 2009, 06:20 PM

Yeah, just heard news of it as well.

Politicians seeing sense and reason?? Unheard of, however in this case, I sure won't be complaining! :D

Seano
The only thing that Politicians see is whether this action will cost them votes and put them on their arse back in civvy street.
Pollys don't give a TOSS about anything that doesn't benefit them, Regards Frank.

cal415

30th July 2009, 06:46 PM

I actually think good tight regulations should be enforced.
I don't know about the rest of you but I am no automotive engineer and have no idea what the implications of changing my suspension are.

I see all types of yobs, who think they know better than the engineers who designed their vehicle, making all kinds of modifications with absolutely no understanding of the physics involved in swerving at 100 kmh.

You may not be an engineer but the RTA signatories that sign off on these lifts as being safe ARE,, as for banning everything over 50mm even uptight grey nomads should be smart enough to see thats not the way to do it.... I dont mind them cracking down on people who have gone over the top with there lift without engineering but banning everyone even with engineering is just plain silly.

dullbird

30th July 2009, 07:05 PM

You may not be an engineer but the RTA signatories that sign off on these lifts as being safe ARE,, as for banning everything over 50mm even uptight grey nomads should be smart enough to see thats not the way to do it.... I dont mind them cracking down on people who have gone over the top with there lift without engineering
but banning everyone even with engineering is just plain silly.

no one has suggested the banning of already engineered cars.

Disco95

30th July 2009, 09:16 PM

And the good news is.....VSI50 has been INDEFINATELY POSTPONED.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Disco95

30th July 2009, 09:18 PM

VSI 50 INDEFINITELY POSTPONED

Thanks to the strong fight we as 4WDers have all put up against VSI 50 - in conjunction with the might of the 4WD aftermarket industry, we’re very excited to announce that the pending VSI 50 suspension regulations have been INDEFINITELY POSTPONED by the NSW RTA!

Michael Daley’s office emailed a press release last night directly to 4WD Action’s email address due to the huge show of opposition you 4WDers displayed.

Following a meeting on Wednesday of key industry stakeholders, the NSW safer vehicles unit, 4WD groups and the Minister for Roads the Hon. Michael Daley, a decision was reached to postpone VSI No 50 pending widespread public consultation and engineering evaluation.

Michael Daley attended this key meeting due to the massive amount of correspondence from 4WDers. Because the Minister was at the meeting he was able to be convinced on the spot that VSI50 needed more thought.

Thousands of emails and letters from you, 4WDers, have literally clogged the offices of the Ministry and the RTA, all with a common, united theme. As 4WDers we are not hoons, but responsible law abiding tax payers, and our combined efforts have proven this. Thanks to our common and sensible approach we as a community have has these nonsensical regulations postponed.

A working group will be formed including user groups and industry representatives to discuss future regulations aimed at increasing road safety which is an aim we all share.

We have fought this battle together and won the first part. The key word here is together. There are over 200,000 keen 4WDers following what we do in the magazine, website and DVDs and it’s by all of us standing together that our collective voice was heard and listened to by the Minister for Roads.

Once again we’ve proven that we’re a force to reckoned with- and that we won’t be beaten by ill-informed bureaucracy. People power is an amazing thing when everyone is working toward a common goal.

Where to from now? Don’t think for a second we’ll be resting on our laurels because there is so much still to be achieved!

We’ll be actively seeking advice from industry experts, and you- the fighters in the 4WD community- to ensure sensible proposals are put to the NSW RTA. A working group is to be formed to examine all aspects of what constitutes a legal and safe suspension lift- and you can bet you last dollar we’ll be there in the thick of it fighting the cause!

We’ll be relentlessly pursuing the RTA and Ministry so that any further regulation imposed is informed and doesn’t limit us enjoying everything our industry has to offer. Hundreds of millions of dollars is generated by the 4WD tourism industry, not to mention the thousands of jobs that we’re actively protecting by campaigning for what we know to be the right thing.

This is not just an issue for NSW- as a nation we need to move toward developing a common code of practice for the 4WD industry so we can ensure a level playing field for all. We all strive for our vehicles and roads to be as safe as possible, something the government now understands thanks to YOUR support.

We need to stay on the job- and we’re not just talking about suspension modifications- bullbars, tyre size and engine conversions are all agenda items for the militant activist groups striving to destroy our lifestyle and livelihoods. If we continue to present ourselves as a sensible and powerful part of the community our concerted efforts will pay off.

The team at Australian 4WD Action and yourselves are so passionate about maintaining everything we love about our lifestyle that we’ll never cease to lobby on your behalf. With your continued support we have so much to achieve! Thankyou for the thousands of submissions and sensible approach to this issue.

We’ve won the battle, not the war- and we’ll go down fighting if we have to!

Keep checking the website and forums for the latest updates.

» Click here for official press release (PDF - 81kb)

Real 4WDers, real 4WDs, real 4WDing.

That’s what it’s all about!

Sincerely,

Glenn Wright

Editor,
Australian 4WD Action

dullbird

30th July 2009, 09:21 PM

extremely BAD wording on 4wd actions behalf I think

it has not be postponed indefinitely, it has just been postponed!!

Guys please don't see this as a oh well I don't need to do anything now, as regulations of some sort WILL come in. its just the ones that were are now being revised!

the link given to the press release is the same one I have posted a page or two back which was taken direct from the 4wd associations website, of whom are actually attending the meetings! not getting emailed to like Glenn Wright is.

Slunnie

30th July 2009, 09:34 PM

VSI50 is still well and truly alive at this stage and the government and decision makers still have a firm agenda for where they want the vehicle standards to be. It has done nothing at this stage but bought time. VSI has NOT been canned.

I suspect now that there are 2 plans.

1. Is to have a lot of concerned 4WDers have their 4WD's engineer approved and let the apathy set in before VSI50 or VSI50 V2 is rides in.

2. It will be replaced with VSB14 from the NCOP, and this was a strategic move to coerce NSW to become a little more accommodating with in the development of VSB14 V3 so that it can be passed.

frantic

30th July 2009, 10:07 PM

Yes slunnie it sound's like the old developer ploy. Developer wants to build a 4 storey apartment block in a restricted area, knows its a vocal area, so proposes a 6- 8 storey block and "appears" to be whittled down by council to "only" 4 storeys, council look like winners developer gets what he actually wants and people affected by it are told be happy as we "cut " it back by 1/2!
Same theory for modified vehicle laws! We will still get hit with a big stick "eventually", but its only "half" as big as first proposed so shut up and be happy!:mad:

cal415

31st July 2009, 12:15 AM

no one has suggested the banning of already engineered cars.
Sorry i meant stoping people from engineering cars with more then 50mm lift. bad wording on my behalf... Its just annoying to see people who are for this law, i think we all have to remember it will just lead to further cut backs on what we can do with our own vehicles and soon enough the only way we will get to see the more rugged parts of the country is on horse back etc, then they may ban large horses due to danger of rolling one over at high speed :D
Where does it end!

dobbo

31st July 2009, 02:24 AM

Am I just being paranoid or is it kind off convenient that the petition signed in various places all over the state could be used to highlight who exactly hasn't got engineering on their HOON MOBILES, wonder who'll get pull over in the coming weeks?

Zute

31st July 2009, 07:11 AM

Cal, Horses are already baned in many National Parks and dobbo, yes I think your being a little Paranoid.

cal415

31st July 2009, 10:24 AM

ok how about push bikes? :)

crash

31st July 2009, 10:50 AM

Just recieved news that this legislation has been postponed and a working party to be formed.
Hopefully some sense will come of it all
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/take-action/REL%2029.pdf

INter674

31st July 2009, 12:46 PM

Just recieved news that this legislation has been postponed and a working party to be formed.
Hopefully some sense will come of it all
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/take-action/REL%2029.pdf

phew, lets hope the fun police/tax collectors in other jurisdictions note the NSW deferrment:o

...I also presume other States are not yet so broke that they view these things like the NSW Government does!!

DiscoMick

1st August 2009, 11:14 AM

I wonder if the claim that 8000 jobs in 400 companies in NSW were threatened by this legislation might have caused them to decide to think again. Certainly hope so.

dullbird

1st August 2009, 11:16 AM

Well I got my certificate yesterday. Some may think that I'm paraniod and I would never hd to much to worry about but now I have piece of mind knowing that if they do suddenly crack down. I'm safe and don't have to go through that panic and stress again.

MickS

1st August 2009, 11:54 AM

dullbird

1st August 2009, 11:59 AM

mortdale cost me $400

MickS

1st August 2009, 12:01 PM

Cool - and that was for the lift and the tyres....?

dullbird

1st August 2009, 12:04 PM

yes and wheels....it was worth the money just for him to tell me that its one of the nicest cars he has driven in a while:)

Slunnie

1st August 2009, 08:06 PM

Here is the doc that VSI50 was apparently based on

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc280.pdf