Thread: My MG just failed the bullbar laws..

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Thats stupid Max, I'd got to another blueslipper. I would expect those laws not to be retrospective like every other revision.

But they had front bumpers, so its not how it was originally registered.

Hey MGs are dangerous!
Mate had one and one evening he parked it outside a pub and a patron who had been watching the footy all afternoon, came out carrying a slab, and went A over T over the MG. Being so small he didn't see it

Originally Posted by mudmouse

I thought the 'front protrusion' laws were for add on stuff - bull bars, rod holders, lights, aerial mounts etc.

Did the inspector say it failed (partly) just because the front bar wasn't fitted?? I had the same knock back years ago on a falcon coupe.

I think thats why you can't get Shelby Cobra replicas on the road with the jack mounts on the front - you have to put those faggy chrome things on.. real killers those jack mounts

Nothing to do with lethal...

Its injury from spiking....

And the Law applies to parked vehicles with tow bars...

You are not, by law, allowed to leave the tongue on a bar when not in use...

If someone kicks it you can be charged / sued

here's hoping that only applies to those detatchable ones. Taking the towbar off my 2a every time it's not in use might get a bit old.

Originally Posted by Tusker

In getting this back on the road after 30 plus years, it failed the blue slip today.

Partly because the front bumper mounts protrude forward of the bodywork ala the thumbnail. Its really annoying. This thing has never had a prang (when they normally get removed) , and I'll be damned if I'm cutting the chassis extensions now.

Looks as though I'll have to get a nudge bar made up. Grr.

Regards
Max P

don't bitch about it , just put the bumper back on it, you are in the wrong. the man is correct - you want to register an old car, you have to make it the way it was built to be inspected,
then if you want to cheat at racing it by making it lighter, then take the bumper off,
actually i am not sure you should have been allowed to track it without the bumper,
but the cams book is too fat to read.

oh, and i should point out 'it didn't fail the bull bar laws - it wasn't roadworthy'
and as my last comment - what is that piece of chrome on the car behind the 'a in the picture? - yes a ****ing bumper bar.

now pick the corner and pick the track.
I nominate the late and much lamented Amaroo Pk and Stop/Go corner.

I'd guess the same Rick... that was onto pit straight wasn't it?

Harry, you can say something without being a rude bastard about it. If you also open a CAMS manual, you'll find that there is an index to Historics or any other class, and those sections are thin to read. If you race then you should also be familiar with any other generally relevant sections.

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Harry, you can say something without being a rude bastard about it. If you also open a CAMS manual, you'll find that there is an index to Historics or any other class, and those sections are thin to read. If you race then you should also be familiar with any other generally relevant sections.

sorry to offend,
but if people want to rant about the law doing them wrong, then be sure they are legal..
as for the cams manual, a two year old copy is on the shelf, and historics is my interest, but it can stay there.
there are a lot of people taking a wider view of the rules of historics than the rules allow, and getting away with it, to the detriment of those that follow the rules and 'spirit' of the historic 'reason' for maintaining a 'classic' track vehicle.
the original post was about failing a roadworthy inspection for road registration in a vehicle modified for racing by removal of the front bumper, if i am correct, titled as 'my mg just failed the bullbar laws'

it didn't fail the bull bar laws [whatever they may be?]
it failed a roadworthy by not having a bumper bar fitted and 'dangerous' projections -ie - the bits the bumper bar dumb irons bolt to.