Illegal to raise/lower more than 5cm?

[SNB05T]

does anyone know a genuine (yeah i know this is very rare) local member of parliment that is on our side to fight toe to toe with us on this?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

In the context of suspension I would imagine all Pedders,selbys,whiteline,king springs products etc indeed meet or exceed the appropriate ADR specs if they didnot and it could be proven they caused someone to be killed they would be sued out of business, mate we are not talking the fluro lights you have under your car you bought at supasheep.

Ok, please don't shoot the messenger here, but im flagging a scenario that's not too far from our world..

A young driver looses control of a 5 star ancap DSC equipped Falcon and slams into a pole killing all 3 occupants, 1 of which is only 17, an investigation reveals the car had lowered/modified suspension, one of the parents of a young occupant decides the driver was at fault and launches a million dollar civil action against the drivers estate, during the investigation they discover the car was modified outside of the tolerances of the OEM's design and rendered it outside of its ancap 5 star DSC/ safety calibration....
The case grows legs and gets ugly, the suspension company that modified the car get dragged in as a third party of interest...
Impossible you say? If McDonalds can be sued (and loose) for coffee that's too hot anythings possible... We are becoming more and more litigious by the day..

Im not saying its right, but we all need to think carefully before going overboard with modifications in this day and age..

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Impossible you say? If McDonalds can be sued (and loose) for coffee that's too hot anythings possible... We are becoming more and more litigious by the day..

This happened in OZ?

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

This happened in OZ?

No, was the USA.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[JC]

Uniform legislation has been under review fior around 10 years, and is soon to actually be made public (actually, pretty sure it is open for discussion now). Looks like NSW is going to be first to implement.

Regardless, 50mm is heaps to play with. XR to SL is only around 10 to 15mm, SL to SSL about the same, and XT to XR is around 30mm, so most Fords (and other brands) cars can go to SL no worries at all. In fact, I find anything lower than that is totally uncomfortable, bouncy and dangerous.

As for 4WD, my understanding is that 2" lift is automatic approval, and up to 4" lift is approved after inspection etc . Anything higher would be problematic.

Lowering a car does not make it handle better; shocks, spring rate, torsional stiffness, swaybars etc make the car handle. Ride height is just ride height. So why do we all lower our cars? Because it looks good, and for some it is in the belief that lower handles better - as T3man has already said in this thread, 90% of the time it doesn't. Yes, it may corner better due to lower Centre of gravity and less body roll, but on undulating tarmac, it handles worse.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Ok, please don't shoot the messenger here, but im flagging a scenario that's not too far from our world..

A young driver looses control of a 5 star ancap DSC equipped Falcon and slams into a pole killing all 3 occupants, 1 of which is only 17, an investigation reveals the car had lowered/modified suspension, one of the parents of a young occupant decides the driver was at fault and launches a million dollar civil action against the drivers estate, during the investigation they discover the car was modified outside of the tolerances of the OEM's design and rendered it outside of its ancap 5 star DSC/ safety calibration....
The case grows legs and gets ugly, the suspension company that modified the car get dragged in as a third party of interest...
Impossible you say? If McDonalds can be sued (and loose) for coffee that's too hot anythings possible... We are becoming more and more litigious by the day..

Im not saying its right, but we all need to think carefully before going overboard with modifications in this day and age..

A worst case scenario granted but not one, that is not possible to be sure.

Even IF the car was not lowered more than the 2 inches [mentioned] , I think the company that made the springs could prove there was no detrimental effect to "safe" handling. If it was EXCESSIVE...3-4 inches or more...then well; would the onus not fall on the modifier? The company that made the springs (and most do) put disclaimers on their products stating "For Off Road Use Only" or words to that effect.

But I agree, food for thought for sure.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by JC

Uniform legislation has been under review fior around 10 years, and is soon to actually be made public (actually, pretty sure it is open for discussion now). Looks like NSW is going to be first to implement.

Regardless, 50mm is heaps to play with. XR to SL is only around 10 to 15mm, SL to SSL about the same, and XT to XR is around 30mm, so most Fords (and other brands) cars can go to SL no worries at all. In fact, I find anything lower than that is totally uncomfortable, bouncy and dangerous.

As for 4WD, my understanding is that 2" lift is automatic approval, and up to 4" lift is approved after inspection etc . Anything higher would be problematic.

Lowering a car does not make it handle better; shocks, spring rate, torsional stiffness, swaybars etc make the car handle. Ride height is just ride height. So why do we all lower our cars? Because it looks good, and for some it is in the belief that lower handles better - as T3man has already said in this thread, 90% of the time it doesn't. Yes, it may corner better due to lower Centre of gravity and less body roll, but on undulating tarmac, it handles worse.

You've made some very good points there, 50mm or 2" is alot and can/will compromise handling on normal roads.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

You've made some very good points there, 50mm or 2" is alot and can/will compromise handling on normal roads.

Dang...you beat me to it...

[XR8 Uterous]

I have actually heard from a senior member of our local RTA, this rule will apply to newer cars only, with things like ESP, stability control and all the electronic help. Older cars would still be fine. But this is coming from a third person, so again how reliable it is, I don't know. Will know more on Monday.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Riksta

No, was the USA.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

In that case it's kind of a moot point bringing it up here!

[King Nothing]

The official word

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registrati...-july-2009.pdf

Once a vehicle has been raised or lowered, it must be checked by an Authorised Examiner at an Authorised Unregistered Vehicle Inspection Station (AUVIS) inspection, commonly referred to as a ‘blue slip’ inspection. This inspection will cover the design and installation of the components used in the
modification, and include specific safety check requirements and verification of the certificate issued by the engineering signatory or manufacturer as appropriate. Once the vehicle has passed an AUVIS inspection, an ‘Adjustment of Records’ form must be completed and presented to an RTA registry for processing.

The registered operator of a vehicle found to have been raised or lowered without the certificates required by this VSI No. 50 or whose records have not been amended accordingly during an RTA inspection or on-road police inspection may be issued with a defect notice or have its registration suspended or cancelled.


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

[bluovl]

This kind of rubbish is getting worse.
Where are any stats or figures on accidents caused by lowered cars??
You would think these kind of statistics would be well known or available to the public if this problem is as bad as this clown is saying it is.
I'd seriously like for any person that knows to post up some figures.

[MAD]

I wonder how they are going to deal with cars that have sports suspension as an option.
Eg. you buy a second hand car that didnt have sports suspension optioned, but you go and have it fitted. The car is now modified from how it left the factory but is within manufacturers specifications.


I read the last line as "any car presented for blue slip after august 1 will need the aforementioned documents."
I really hope for you NSW peeps that it is not the case, and previously modified cars will somehow be exempt. No Idea how they will work that though.

[ten[A]cio[U]s]

Originally Posted by Ex Arr

I have actually heard from a senior member of our local RTA, this rule will apply to newer cars only, with things like ESP, stability control and all the electronic help. Older cars would still be fine. But this is coming from a third person, so again how reliable it is, I don't know. Will know more on Monday.

Any more news mate?

I am really considering buying a bfII xr6 and NOT TOUCHING A THING..

The amount of laws and regulations that is coming out these days is taking the fun out of modifying a car.. I enjoyed fitting and improving the car, now im scared that every HP car driving around is out to get me!

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

The official word

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registrati...-july-2009.pdf

so i was right previously

man puts lowered springs in
man books app for inspection
rta wedged with req
man has to wait several months for inspection
man drives with lowered springs
man gets pulled over and has argument constable plod
man waives booking in face of mr plod
man goes into rta
rta says lowering is legal
man drives car
man gets pulled over by mr plod
mr plod defects car on "suspicion" of extra lowering being done after rta approval...........

repeat cycle

change man for woman if you so wish.


going to be very hard to police............

clubsport springs in a base model commodore
gt springs in a base model falcon
ralliart springs in a base lancer......
etc etc

all are factory......and how the hell do you tell if a ferrari, porsche or maserati have been lowered? they already sit on the ground!!

[flappist]

Oh no they are all out to get you....

Two points here:

1) This only applies to vehicles registered in NSW.

If you have a Vic/QLD registered vehicle then said vehicle must comply with the local state rules. Remember SA P platers can drive V8s and turbos in NSW and up until recently QLD P platers did not need P plates on their cars even when interstate or could ride any motorcycle regardless of capacity if they had done Q-ride.
It used to be common practice to register V8 converted cortinas and capris in NSW as it was illegal up here but interstate is exempt.

2) As I read it, if the suspension mods are done by an authorised person OR the components are factory or approved aftermarket components e.g. XR suspension on a XT or Bilstein coilover kit then and the difference is less than 51mm then there is no problem.
On the other hand if the change is greater than 50mm OR it is a fully sick hacksaw job then it has to be investigated by an engineer.

I agree with this totally. It is far to easy to totally stuff the dynamics of a vehicle in the name of uber-kewl-osity.
You need an engineer to certify an engine change or other major modification and modern vehicles are quite complex with safety systems they rely on static parameters.
Some vehicles can be modified by far more than 50mm and be perfectly safe, many cannot. You do not change your suspension every week so what is the problem?

What this will (or at least should) reduce is the number of home brew fast and furious maccas dwellers who drift onto your side of the road on a tight corner because their tyres are skipping.

[Ross-b]

hmm

anyone with a stock BF xt want to measure the distance from center of wheel to top of guard for me?

simmilarly anyone with a bf xt with optional sports suspension wanna do the same?

and while im at it how about xr owners


may i add

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

so therefor it can be stated that the vehicle was modified before july 31st

like thats not confusing

Lowering a vehicle
The ground clearance of a fully laden vehicle must:
• Not be less than 100 mm within one metre of an axle (see Figure 2).
• Be at least one-thirtieth of the distance between centres of adjacent axles at the midpoint between
them (see Figure 2).
• Allow the vehicle to pass over a peak in the road with the gradient on either side of 1:15 if the
wheels of one axle of the vehicle are on the slope on one side of the peak and the wheels of the
next axle are on the slope of the other side (see Figure 3).
In addition, the running clearance (which is the distance from the surface on which an unladen vehicle is
standing to the lowest point on the vehicle excluding unsprung mass) must not be less than 100mm.
Refer to ‘Certification’ on page 5 for particular requirements for lowering the ride height by reducing the
overall diameter of the wheel and tyre combination by up to 15 mm.
Drop axles/spindles must not be used to lower a vehicle’s ride height.
Chassis rails must not be notched or cut to lower a vehicle’s ride height

thats not contradicting anything is it

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by flappist

Oh no they are all out to get you....


2) As I read it, if the suspension mods are done by an authorised person OR the components are factory or approved aftermarket components e.g. XR suspension on a XT or Bilstein coilover kit then and the difference is less than 51mm then there is no problem.
On the other hand if the change is greater than 50mm OR it is a fully sick hacksaw job then it has to be investigated by an engineer.

Sorry mate, if I'm reading correct you may be a bit wrong there. Anything over 50mm is illegal, regardless if it's been engineered.

I'm annoyed at being grouped into the "hoon" category, along with most people here. I have never had a speeding fine, in fact the only thing was an at-fault accident when I rear-ended a guy who stopped cold on the freeway in the right hand land and blew 0.04, and I lost a couple of points for it (fair enough, I copped it). I learnt from it and now back off further in the wet.

I'm annoyed at having to have my car inspected, at my own cost and time, simply because it has been lowered an inch or so.

I'm annoyed at the useless politicians in this state, who instead of trying to fix REAL problems prefer to look at the easy targets, bignoting themselves and giving the appearance of fixing a problem that was never previously an issue.

I will be annoyed when I'm sure to be pulled over repeatedly over the next couple of months when they are enforcing this law. I know it won't be the officers fault, but I'm sure he will cop it from a number of motorists for just doing his job.

I was considering buying a set of coil-overs and sway bars, but now I'm holding out for the moment to see where this is going, and I'm sure the company who's missing out on my $ is annoyed.

[flappist]

Fair enough, I just skirted through the doco. While I think I understand the principle they are trying to deliver I suspect, like most legislation created by "anti" lobby groups, the actual implementation needs to be improved.

Like the first round of P plate laws, Smart cars etc were banned while Porsches and M series BMWs were ok.

But you have to remember this law like so many others only affects the idiots who voted the lawmakers into power......

[MAD]

They just complicated things un-necessarily to make it look like they were doing something against 'hoons', when in fact they made it worse initially, because they didnt look past their noses but stated that V8's and turbos are evil.
The old law of 125kw/tonne (or whatever it was) pretty much covered all bases.

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best.


I hope this doesnt put undue pressure on the after market industries related to this. It's the last thing we need in this climate of all times.

[King Nothing]

Agree 100%, badly modified cars shouldn't be on the roads and I see your point in that respect. I sure as hell didn't vote these idiots in and it's affecting me.

The implementation has been terrible. There has been no consultation with stakeholders (The first Pedders heard about this was the same as the rest of us, I imagine every other aftermarket suspension manufacturer is the same). This isn't the only instance of this happening right now, the marine park debate in fishing circles is exactly the same thing.

This is a real industry with real jobs that are being affected. As I have read previously this would be the bread and butter work for many of these places, fitting lowered springs that meet whatever standards are required. Now that is in jeapordy, purely because Mr Daley "thinks so".

I had a look through the thread on the Pedders XA coilovers, and the manufacturing process involved, there is a significant investment there that would require a certain baseload of work (manufacturing springs) to meet costs. How will this rushed piece of legislation affect them? How many jobs could potentially be lost? And they have had NO WARNING.

This government should be dealing with REAL PROBLEMS affecting EVERYBODY, like the recession, the woeful way in which swine flu is being handled in our hospitals (I know first hand!), public transport, housing affordability, homelessness, traffic congestion, crime, just to name a few. Not putting on useless band-aid solutions on problems that don't exist, and can cost people their jobs, in a recession, just so that the ACA cardigan brigade thinks the government is actually doing something.

[Keepleft]

Athol Mullen, engineer who does compliance stuff for submission to RTA calls Michael Daley's latest endeavour 'a can of worms'.

He's on Facebook, or at the aus.cars newsgroup.

Some legal applicability issues will need to work their way through the courts.

Athol Mullen is wondering if police can issue defect notices and fines for something that is in an RTA rule, but not actually in the relevant schedule of the regulation made under an act of parliament. Implemented without a regulatory impact statement and without any consultation with affected stakeholders, affecting thousands of people from hunters and farmers to hot rodders... Michael Daley, what have you done?

It's a huge can of worms. The complete absence of legislation leaves me wondering if we're looking at an unconstitutional action by way of exceeding executive powers.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Agree 100%, badly modified cars shouldn't be on the roads and I see your point in that respect. I sure as hell didn't vote these idiots in and it's affecting me.

The implementation has been terrible. There has been no consultation with stakeholders (The first Pedders heard about this was the same as the rest of us, I imagine every other aftermarket suspension manufacturer is the same). This isn't the only instance of this happening right now, the marine park debate in fishing circles is exactly the same thing.

This is a real industry with real jobs that are being affected. As I have read previously this would be the bread and butter work for many of these places, fitting lowered springs that meet whatever standards are required. Now that is in jeapordy, purely because Mr Daley "thinks so".

I had a look through the thread on the Pedders XA coilovers, and the manufacturing process involved, there is a significant investment there that would require a certain baseload of work (manufacturing springs) to meet costs. How will this rushed piece of legislation affect them? How many jobs could potentially be lost? And they have had NO WARNING.

This government should be dealing with REAL PROBLEMS affecting EVERYBODY, like the recession, the woeful way in which swine flu is being handled in our hospitals (I know first hand!), public transport, housing affordability, homelessness, traffic congestion, crime, just to name a few. Not putting on useless band-aid solutions on problems that don't exist, and can cost people their jobs, in a recession, just so that the ACA cardigan brigade thinks the government is actually doing something.

Playing devils advocate here..... lets remember 50mm is allot to play with BEFORE it needs to be engineered... i wonder what % of pedders' customers go lower then 50mm... im beginning to think this isn't as big an issue as it first appeared "on face value"...

I followed a very low Falcon through a car park with 4 speed humps yesterday, 2 mins later after waiting for him to negotiate each speed hump sideways (while scraping his exhaust) at crawling pace we eventually go out of the car park, then he crawled out due to the exit angle of the driveway... surely it must be annoying as hell having a car so low in the first place?

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Playing devils advocate here..... lets remember 50mm is allot to play with BEFORE it needs to be engineered... i wonder what % of pedders' customers go lower then 50mm... im beginning to think this isn't as big an issue as it first appeared "on face value"...

I followed a very low Falcon through a car park with 4 speed humps yesterday, 2 mins later after waiting for him to negotiate each speed hump sideways at crawling pace we eventually go out of the car park...

Sorry mate, but unless I've really got it wrong, ANY suspension modifications require an engineers certificate. Anything above 50mm will be illegal entirely.

Old rules
0-50mm - no certification required
50-150mm - engineering certificate required
150mm+ - illegal

New rules
0-50mm - engineering certificate required
50mm+ - illegal

I'd love to be wrong...

Either way it still doesn't change the terrible way this has been handled, the confusion is inexcusible, and the time frame (2 weeks!!!) is pure insanity. How does he expect every single lowered or raised car in NSW to be engineered within 2 weeks?!

[Ross-b]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Playing devils advocate here..... lets remember 50mm is allot to play with BEFORE it needs to be engineered... i wonder what % of pedders' customers go lower then 50mm... im beginning to think this isn't as big an issue as it first appeared "on face value"...

I followed a very low Falcon through a car park with 4 speed humps yesterday, 2 mins later after waiting for him to negotiate each speed hump sideways (while scraping his exhaust) at crawling pace we eventually go out of the car park, then he crawled out due to the exit angle of the driveway... surely it must be annoying as hell having a car so low in the first place?

nope it says that ANY change in height is considered a MAJOR mod meaning it needs engineering. and even after that we cant go lower then 50 mm.

ive got ssl in the rear of mt xt where does that leave me? after the cash i spent on new shocks springs bump stops alignments and camber adjustments. have i really modified the car un safely?

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by Ross-b

nope it says that ANY change in height is considered a MAJOR mod meaning it needs engineering. and even after that we cant go lower then 50 mm.

ive got ssl in the rear of mt xt where does that leave me? after the cash i spent on new shocks springs bump stops alignments and camber adjustments. have i really modified the car un safely?

If you have lowered your car so it is greater than 50mm lower than standard, then it will be illegal. Unsafely, well that's another question.

[Ross-b]

what do u think of this?



thats a b4 shot with a slice of the after showing the new distance from center of wheel to guard

what are ur measurements (i presume still stock?)

[b2tf]

I am asking the same question as some here but I think this very thread highlights one of the major issues that this law now places on everybody who wants to modify a car - what is legal and what isnt, and what or how do you prove it?

In my own personal example my ute is at stock XR height - that's already lower than a normal Falcon. Now if I lower mine another 50mm all round, am I ok according to this law, and if so, how do I explain that to Constable Plod on the side of the Highway? I can guarantee now that most police around here will not even know what stock XR Falcon ride height is (that's not meant as a derogatory comment, rather in my experience it is actually true), so how can I, or do I even have to, persuade Mr Plod that my car is ok even though yes it has been lowered?

[Ross-b]

Originally Posted by b2tf

I am asking the same question as some here but I think this very thread highlights one of the major issues that this law now places on everybody who wants to modify a car - what is legal and what isnt, and what or how do you prove it?

In my own personal example my ute is at stock XR height - that's already lower than a normal Falcon. Now if I lower mine another 50mm all round, am I ok according to this law, and if so, how do I explain that to Constable Plod on the side of the Highway? I can guarantee now that most police around here will not even know what stock XR Falcon ride height is (that's not meant as a derogatory comment, rather in my experience it is actually true), so how can I, or do I even have to, persuade Mr Plod that my car is ok even though yes it has been lowered?

from what i have read if you modify it after july 31 then you need a certificate. and obviously you wont get a certificate if there's something wrong and whoever certifies it will have time to research and know their stuff

still remains the question of how to prove it was done before the date?
should i call the rta and get it checked and signed off to prove it was done before?

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by Ross-b

still remains the question of how to prove it was done before the date?
should i call the rta and get it checked and signed off to prove it was done before?

yeah well thats the other thing - I could do it this week and all would be fine.