Thread: Dangerous modifications. What’s your mind set?

Originally Posted by incisor

i

a statement like the above just shows that some people have absolutely no idea how the moderation process works on AULRO.com

there is a moderation process?

Originally Posted by Tombie

I know right ,
My reasoning (for lack of a better term):
I ride only in the 60 or less zones around home,
Traffic here is very light even at its peak,
Lycra mob only wear Lycra and a little dot of foam and reach similar speeds - nobody sees their PPE as substandard.
If they come off at 60 and so do I, my only concern is the mass of my bike..

Just to clarify, it was a bitumen rd I was on, and I was very glad to be sliding across it in my jacket! I was actually peeved that my new jacket was getting scraped!! Pretty sure had I not had it on, instead of getting up, straightening the handle bars and heading home, I would have been in hospital.

Also used too follow the D2a build thread. The OPs attitude changed that tho(more so in this thread too tho).

But it took all of about 3 sec to search for bullbar ADR specs, one pdf link quickly found relating to WA DoT specs.

While the OP(I think it was Blair?) may think he's confident his bar is fine, the WA DoT regs clearly state it's not!

WA DoT bullbar design specs

" ... The front face of the bull bar should not lean outward from the vehicle."

And as Trout said, and I immediately noticed too, no crush zone on the mount to the chassis!
Brother has a TJM bar on his D2(came on car), and as already said, it has a wave pattern mounting section to replicate the D2 crush cans .. and a separate winch carrier(as I think I remember it).

Originally Posted by DieSchnelleKafer

.... I have faith in the engineering, design and thought process of my work.

I post to this forum the work that i do in hopes people may take something from it and gather some ideas for themselves. What really happens is that i post my work and then someone like Tombie decides that he will devote his WHOLE MONDAY NIGHT to chopping it down and asserting his moral authority upon it.

....

Confidence is a great thing as a personality trait, helps to get 'stuff' done .... as was the case with the home made bull bar.
But when that 'stuff' becomes menacing to the rest of society, it morphs the notion of confidence into one resembling arrogance.
Arrogance and safety are usually mutually exclusive notions.

Hopefully for Blair the late deployment of the airbag won't turn the front occupants heads into smashed watermelons at some point in the future.
More worrying tho is going to be the bars impact on any errant pedestrian, and already mentioned insurance issues on the driver.

The hope will be that if at any point where he doesn't alter the bar, at the least it's removed from the vehicle if he ever sells the car in the future.

And you should learn to practice the idea of introspective Blair.
For one thing, I've had my differences of opinion with Tombie's comments, but have never viewed him as a troll. Robust discussion is always a healthy thing to have.
But Blair denigrates one person for highlighting the obvious defective design aspect to the bar and calls it "moral authority", yet on the other hand, hopes that his project inspires others!

Serious? You want, or hope that other people produce clearly defective accessories?
Is that the kind of 'moral compass' you want the general population to live by?

Have a look that the bullbar pdf linked.
And more so that rethinking the design of the bar .. rethink the attitude and learn to differentiate between what constitutes confidence and arrogance!

Been mulling on the opening question of this thread. I think I am prepared to take risks here and there, as is the OP by his own admission on motorbikes without enough safety clothing. I drive and have driven cars, landy's, trucks and trains that aren't at all 'user friendly' to anyone who would be unfortunate enough to be hit by same.

As for Mr Die Sneller Fella, I feel for him a bit, he has taken the time to post his pics etc of his build. All of a sudden he feels he is under attack for his build. Of course he reacts defensively.

I have seen posts on here where people think it is ok for unsafe or unregulated things to occur, lifting points on bullbars of perenties, replacing chassis numbers to name a couple that spring to mind. So lets not get too 'high n mighty' with him.

At one end of the spectrum we could all be driving around in Series Landy's which are about as unsafe as you can get by todays standards. At the other end, well, I read an article today about a kids tree fort that has a council order to be pulled down...because it doesn't meet safety standards...hand rails etc, and I say to myself...pleeeeease, can we just find the middle ground!

Originally Posted by Eevo

there is a moderation process?

bend down and touch your toes eevo

Originally Posted by incisor

bend down and touch your toes eevo

is it in yet?

Originally Posted by Gordie

lifting points on bullbars of perenties

Interesting point.
You, of course, realise the Perenties complied with the ADRs at the time of manufacture, otherwise, the compliance plate would not have been affixed. Nor would the civilian "Tanami" model have been sold.
I wonder how they could have manufactured a brush bar in 1990 to 2002 standards (oh, and I have a copy of that standard).

Maybe all the vintage and veteran cars should be put off the road because they do not comply with next years ABS and ESC ADRs. They don't even comply with the current brake test standards.

'73 S3s and '86 110s should be put off the road now because they will fail today's lane change tests.

Originally Posted by Eevo

is it in yet?

i wondered why your nickname was bucket.....