4WD Modification Regs - We're Not Over The Line Yet

Submitted: Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 01:20

ThreadID: 72833 Views:6292 Replies:2 FollowUps:15

This Thread has been Archived

timglobal

Received from ARB. Essential bit is to click on the link and fill it out ;) :

Dear 4WDriver

You may be aware that there has been a significant amount of activity recently with respect to Government regulation relating to the raising of vehicles including suspension upgrades and changes to tyre diameter.
In particular, there has been the release of VSI 50 in NSW which effectively banned any changes to the ride height of a 4WD vehicle without an engineers approval and the proposed National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Modifications (VSB 14) which seeks to limit ride height, suspension and tyre modifications.
The industry with the assistance of the Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council (ANFWDC) and its state affiliates has been active in discussions with state transport regulators over the regulations for these types of modifications. To date we have been successful in delaying the introduction of VSI 50 in NSW and we continue to discuss VSB 14 with both national & state regulators.
To assist in strengthening our position it is critical that we present Governments and regulators with as much research and data as possible to validate both the safety of these types of vehicle modifications being undertaken in Australia as well as the extent of vehicle modification and the variety of legitimate reasons why an owner of a 4WD vehicle would undertake these and other modifications. In short we need to dispel the myths that modified vehicles are all unsafe and driven by 20 year old “hoons”.
As part of the process to support our combined advocacy efforts, the ANFWDC have developed a short survey designed to be completed by 4WD vehicle owners which gathers some basic information on the demographics of the vehicle owner, the type of modifications undertaken and the reasons for the modification. This survey has been circulated widely through the 4WD Clubs nationally with a strong response to date however we are keen to broaden the focus of the survey and are seeking your assistance with this.
We are requesting that you spend a short amount of your time completing the survey, it will take you less than 2 minutes to complete.
The survey can be accessed by visiting the website:

anfwdc survey site

and then opening the survey by clicking on the heading:
“Participate in our survey of modified vehicles here. Your assistance is appreciated”
The results of this survey are a critical part of our information gathering to support our position to Government, therefore your assistance in completing the survey is greatly appreciated. Please fell free to pass this email onto your friends with a 4WD vehicle for them to complete.

Kind Regards

Kim Elliott
National Sales Manager

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator Share

Reply By: Member - DW (NSW) - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:35

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:35

It is obvious that the likely regulations, in relation to vehicle modifications, are going to have an impact upon numerous suspension manufacturers and suppliers. This open letter is a cry for survival.

I agree that most, if not all, four wheel drives need some different suspension as most manufacturers only provide comfort level suspension as standard. We all know how inappropriate that is especially when we load up with gear and trailers/caravans.

The vehicle manufacturers have uually spent millions of dollars on research in the development of their products. My belief is that they are more likely to know what their products are safe with rather than some backyard hoon.

However, there are a lot of vehicles that I have seen that are way over the top and must make them unstable. Around my home area there are numerous vehicles, like older Hiliuxs and many others, that have excessive lift. They not only have suspension lift but also larger tyres than standard. The tyres are often mud tyres, almost tractor tyres, when they usually drive on sand or gravel. They almost need a step ladder to get into them. It amazes me that they have not been stopped by the Highway Patrol and defected.

These are the vehicles that need to be removed off the roads not the average vehicle that has for example had a mine spring pack fitted as a replacement for the comfort pack.

It is these "over the top" vehicles that will cause this type of regulation to be imposed on everyone. Responsible suppliers will not encourage this type of modification to occur. So a lot comes back onto the suspension manufacturer and their suppliers to rid the road of the unstable type of vehicle by not even providing the type of parts that will destabilise these vehicles.

Look forward to your comments, too.
DW

AnswerID: 386087

Follow Up By: timglobal - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:30

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:30

Hi DW,

I can only assume you haven't read up on the subject. Your comments are understood, but unrelated to the issues at hand, as well as vague and in places Scruby-esque. The proposals are actually lazy government at its worst, based on "facts" about as solid as yours. It all relates to the definition of "excessive", which you don't even define yourself.

Broadly, the proposed regs would mean that *any* change from stock height +/- 50mm would require engineering certification. Beyond that you're trailering your crazy off-road hoon rig.

Any change.

To you, your 50 mm lift would be on the extreme limit, you crazy hoon, you. Bigger tyres as well and your loon machine would only be conditionally registerable. Now I'm certain you, definitely me and likely almost everyone else wouldn't think your rig excessive. Here lies the rub - what is?

Pretty much every vehicle I've seen on EO would be considered conditional reg only under the new rules. Some may just squeeze into getting engineered.

You have seen what, in your opinion, are "over the top" vehicles. Apart from your loose impression (apparently unsupported by technical knowledge) of the "excessive" size of the suspension and tyres, provide no reason, basis or definition for "excessive".

None of what you describe makes them inherently unsafe, but likely make them a lot better off road - possibly on as well.

The likely reason they haven't been defected is likely that they have been designed engineered, constructed and approved by mechanical engineers who have an in-depth technical knowledge. However grotesque they may appear to you, it doesn't mean they're unsafe or "over the top". I'm not clear if you possess any such formal knowledge, so cannot judge if you are presenting an informed contrary opinion.

Please can we focus on the draconian yet unfounded restrictions being proposed. Let's leave the baseless 4WD tabloid shock, horror and outrage fluff to Today Tonight and Harold Scruby.

T

FollowupID: 653644

Follow Up By: chisel - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:50

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:50

"Pretty much every vehicle I've seen on EO would be considered conditional reg only under the new rules. Some may just squeeze into getting engineered. "
No offence, and I must say I encourage what you are doing .... but are you really trying to say that nearly every EO member's vehicle has a greater than 50mm lift?

There will need to be compromises on both sides if you want to get the regulations watered down. And whatever the regulations end up being, the 4wd community needs to abide by them or risk further restrictions.

FollowupID: 653650

Follow Up By: Member - DW (NSW) - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:58

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:58

Hi Tim

Good to read your point of view and I can assure you that I am not in favour of Harold Scruby. Just heard on TV the push to outlaw 4wds from shopping centres!

It might be advantageous to the whole debate if we had informed comment from the vehicle manufacturers. I, for one, would be interested to see what they say about these add on parts.

May I say it is strange that the vehicle manufacturers do not supply these items that are causing the consternation.

We do need to bring all points out and present a balanced practical view to ill informed politicians.

Keep the debate going and get all the points documented for the betterment of all.

Cheers
DW

FollowupID: 653654

Follow Up By: timglobal - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:09

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:09

"Lift" includes suspension, tyres and body lift in your 50mm.

Yes, a quick scan of member who put rig pics and specs would suggest that is so. It isn't a robust survey. Quite the opposite. To focus on that is also missing the point.

What is entirely absent in the regulation discussion is where the issue lies with the current regulations.

Accepting government change, because it's the government that wants to change it, is the start of a long downward road. Regulations should be based in some degree of insight - these were foisted upon the public with no consultation with industry or even government - the RTA were unaware of and very unprepared when this was originally proposed.

It seems entirely reasonable that the regulations should not be watered down at all if there is no reason to do so. Why should we accept pointless regulations for a politicians mileage?

FollowupID: 653657

Follow Up By: timglobal - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:35

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:35

Hi DW,

That last response was a bit out of sync and to chisel's points.

Many manufacturers do offer suspension enhancements that would be considered "hoon" under these regulations. All are wisely keeping their views in the non-public discussion arena, as are the after-market guys. I wouldn't expect any formal comment beyond "we are working on this" until the discussions are concluded.

I have heard (and emphasise that it is anecdotal) that tests were recently done in Queensland using stock and modified 4WDs and cars. I understand in some cases the modified 4WDs outperformed even the stock cars. If anyone can support (or refute) this, then I'd be very interested.

Cheers,

T

FollowupID: 653660

Follow Up By: The Landy - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 14:44

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 14:44

I think DW hits on a point here...and that is the 4WD Associations need to demonstrate that they can propose sensible rules and regulations relating to 4WD vehicles (not just suspension) and that it can self-regulate.

Failing this, the risk is the government will do the job and that can only be to the detriment of the 4WD community.

But I think it is worth acknowledging that there are other interested groups in this debate that have an opposing view and that some compromise may need to be reached.

I also agree with DW comments that there are some 4WD vehicles on the road that have no place there, regardless of whether they have been engineered to a high degree......whilst an extreme comparisson, Formula one race cars are highly engineered, but you won't find them on suburban streets, because they are designed for a specific purpose. Much could be said of some 4WD vehicles with 'extreme' lifts.

Politicians are always happy to listen, but we need to put forward suggestions that work for all, which usually means some form of compromise.....

Cheers...

FollowupID: 653688

Follow Up By: splits - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 15:14

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 15:14

Member - DW (NSW) posted:

It might be advantageous to the whole debate if we had informed comment from the vehicle manufacturers. I, for one, would be interested to see what they say about these add on parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That could be very interesting. Whenever a manufacturer changes something, many other changes are usually made along with it so the whole package remains safe, relaible etc. I have often wondered who designed many aftermarket parts and what type of research and development program was carried out.

It remeinds me of an article I read in a leading motoring magazine on the Valiant Pacer back in the late 1960s. It consisted of an interview with a Chrysler executive. He said the reason for building the car was so many people were lowering Valiants and carrying out many other mostly minor modifications. Chrysler thought a factory modified car would sell well so they carried out the type of mods most people were doing only they "did them properly".

We may never hear what the 4b manufacturers think about the popular modifications carried out today but as sure as can be the RTA engineers will have discussed the subject with them.

FollowupID: 653691

Follow Up By: timglobal - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 15:51

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 15:51

All these points are based on an assumption that something is wrong that needs to be fixed. There are also some spurious assumptions about manufacturers - Ford & Firestone springs to mind at the front of a long list of counter examples.

All of those I can view in this thread would at best be required to get their car engineer approved for $1,000 and may even have to retire them altogether. Your lifts, tyres and HD springs are defined as "extreme" in this proposal - anything other than stock is. More than 50mm and it's private land only for you.

No-one, including the government, has put forward any reason other than a "I think they look too big / tall / gnarly / hoony / lifted" point that modified 4WDs should be restricted, in any way. CTP statistics have consistently shown that, assuming claims are an indicator, 4WDs are safer (making less claims / being claimed against)

Splits, the example of an F1 car is poor. I can (funds permitting) buy a car that can out-perform an F1 car in many aspects and drive it legally on the road. I have quite the pick of them in fact. All legal and perfectly safe in competent hands, which the law defines as anyone with a licence. As with DW, you don't outline what your vague definition of an "extreme" lift is. It is also very clear that these rules were not even discussed with the RTA prior to their announcement, never mind manufacturers.

The Landy, if you read the original post and link, you will see that what you propose is exactly what they are trying to achieve. By contributing to this survey, you will assist in that effort.

The rules are already arguably compromised, yet everyone seems to be happy to compromise again, based on, well, nothing.

I have found the comparison test I referred to earlier on another site. I won't link out of respect to EO, but follow Pat Callinan and this issue and you'll find it. It is interim and doesn't include "cars" but the interim conclusions are very interesting and should provide some succour for those who are already planning on compromise.

None of you, or the government, have outlined any reason why even the current restrictions are valid, aside from their existence and the apparent grotesqueness of the cars they may apply to.

Then we can get onto the proposed ones. Hell, why shouldn't the regs be *relaxed* if found to be wanting in their current form?!

FollowupID: 653701

Follow Up By: Member - DW (NSW) - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 18:28

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 18:28

Hi Tim

You have brought a lot of points out and that is good.

However, maybe you have a vested interest in the regulations perhaps more so than the rest of us.

Anyway, we do need to get all the facts out. I am sure that we would welcome the publication of your anecdotal tests that were carried out in Queensland. Hopefully, they were carried out and evaluated by independent assessors.

Keep the factual information coming.
DW

FollowupID: 653719

Follow Up By: Member - Tonyb (FNQ) - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 18:47

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 18:47

I agree it has to be decided what is excessive. I have a 3" Lift on my Rodeo with 1" higher tyres, making 4" lift all up.

This lift in no way makes the vehicle more dangerous on the road (imho) and only just allows me to partake of the 4x4 driving we enjoy.

Prior to the lift we could not go the places we liked to go, with the lift we can do the drives with little or no damage (97% less) and much reduced effort.

Look at my vehicle and it is proberly only the hight of a standard old model hilux.

Cheers Tony

FollowupID: 653722

Follow Up By: timglobal - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 19:16

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 19:16

Hey DW,

I think you mistake my passion for this issue as a hidden vested interest.

You should also read what I've written - the tests weren't anecdotal as you will see, if you choose to inform yourself about them.

I can't really give much more clue to their location without giving you a link, but you seem to need one, so here you go - 4WD Take Action

I can happily confirm that I have no commercial interest in or benefit from the outcome of this regulation. I also had no part in, or relationship to, the tests I described. I just keep myself informed and to boot, this saves me repeating vague tabloid fluff in place of my own formed opinions.

My only personal interest is that the reasonable recreational choice for myself and the thousands of others, including you, that enjoy driving their safely modified vehicles. This choice is threatened by vague and apparently baseless regulation.

Unhand that tinfoil hat, good sir. ;)

FollowupID: 653723

Follow Up By: Member - DW (NSW) - Thursday, Oct 08, 2009 at 05:33

Thursday, Oct 08, 2009 at 05:33

It is nice that 4WD Action did an "independent" test for their advertisers.
There is an appropriate comment about this magazine in thread 72378 especially in the follow up 1 of reply 5.
DW

FollowupID: 653783

Follow Up By: timglobal - Thursday, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:25

Thursday, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:25

Hey DW,

Wow. So close on the heels of your false insinuations about my vested interest. Now searching EO like that for negative comments? My posts not turn up anything? :)

So you hit the jackpot:

A false assertion in your first sentence (the tests were done by the AAAA, the industry body, not 4WD Action) - nice try at a Straw Man Argument

Then you're left scrabbling by using some random person's negative comment - why not just say you don't like 4WD Action yourself? I'm not a big fan either, but it's pretty much irrelevant here.

Congratulations.
Your prize is to bring something useful, even better substantiated, to this discussion.

Maybe, as you drive what would be, under these regs, considered a modified vehicle, you could provide us with your personal experience of such a mod and whether it alters the vehicle handling?

Maybe even the much-asked clarity on your definitions of "excessive" or "over the top" for regs?

FollowupID: 653795

Reply By: Who was that again? (Vic) - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:42

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:42

Click Here to do the survey

AnswerID: 386090

Follow Up By: timglobal - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:34

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:34

Thanks for the clicky John. T'was late and I forgot, doh.

FollowupID: 653633

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:58

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:58

Here's the DIRECT LINK

.

gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile My Blog Send Message

FollowupID: 653637

Back Moderator