Printable View
This is exactly what I was alluding to in my last post on this topic. But it's not only the backyard blokes, there are vendors doing exactly the same thing, selling bars built here in Aus or importing bars for sale that are not ADR compliant.........Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
That's what is annoying, they should state the fact they're not and are for use on vehicles pre dating the ADR compliance or 'comp' use only.
I'll warrant that bus also fails to comply with the overall length and front overhang standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
I'm pretty sure I found something that made Army service vehicles exempt from ADRs (sorry can't find a link :mad: ), but if you buy a Perentie privately then it does need to comply to the relevant ADRs.Quote:
Originally Posted by nugge t
Army vehicles will comply with ADRs wherever possible, Defence is a good corporate citizen. Exemptions need to be granted and are not just taken. One area that some military vehicles don't comply with is visibility/light transmission because or armoured glass, exemptions have to be applied for by the company selling the vehicle to Defence.
(edit: just realised I'm replying to an ancient post. And off thread.....)Hey olbod, have you ever been out walking in the dark with a torch in tour hand by your side, do you recall ever lifting it up - maybe even holding it above your head - to light up the path ahead. I think for the same reason light towers are high, elevated spot lights give an advantage when driving at night. As long as they are not setup to give glare from the bonnet!
A few people on here have expressed concern about how well modern bull bars that slope back protect occupants from animal hits. Now I really cannot comment on this as I have little personal experience.
Here is an example from my brother in the last day or so - this is one of the cars that his staff use on the job. I believe the vehicle has a ARB bar fitted.
His words.
"2 guys were doing 110km at night when they passed another car.
They hit a black cow which they didn’t see until 10 minutes after, they found it 2m in the bush.
The cow went over the top of the car. They didn’t roll the car but engine was pushed back and from the front of the door to the back of the ute was shortened 50mm.
Both walked away but passenger despite wearing belt and air bags still hit his head on the windscreen.
The bull bar is what saved them as it looks like it spread the impact across the whole front of the car and pushed the cow in the air."
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
So maybe modern bars do work well when hitting not only pedestrians, but animals as well. I wonder what would have happened if the car had been fitted with a sloping forward multi post bar forcing the car underneath, no doubt propelling the car into the air.
Cheers
Garry
I wonder if the cow would have gone through the windscreen, had they been travelling slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Ian
Agree. I wonder if they would have hit it, if they were driving smarter. Breath tested? Bob
Tuff the people who manufacturer the five posters have a statement on their web site stating their bars comply with the necessary standards
They also supply compliance certificates.
They have challenged the NSW police to an engineering debate apparently.
Sorry but that is wrong and misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck
The relevant part of the open letter on the tuff website states (my bolding):
The bolded bit is quite true. They have quite carefully not stated unequivocally that their bars comply with AS4876.1-2002. I have a copy of the standard and I cannot see how they can argue that most of their bars comply.Quote:
What is of particular concern to TUFF is the suggestion in the article that bullbars are non compliant because they have five posts. That is simply not the case. There is nothing whatsoever in the Australian Standard AS4876.1-2002 or the relevant Australian Design Rules which prohibits five post bullbars. The relevant requirement under AS4876.1-2002 is that the bullbar "generally conforms to the shape, in plan view, front view and side view, of the front of the vehicle to which it is fitted".
e.g. this bar:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
In no way does that bar :as the standard requiresQuote:
"generally conforms to the shape, in plan view, front view and side view, of the front of the vehicle to which it is fitted"
http://www.tuffbullbars.com/media/SI...ize/123048.jpg
I would like to see the "compliance certificates" they supply...???
They are right though that 5 post bars are not inherently illegal. I suspect that have added the tube corners past the outer posts in order to attempt to comply with part of the legislation, however they fail due to the profile of most of their bars.
...
For some reason I am experiencing deja vu here (from p10)
Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover