Illegal to raise/lower more than 5cm?

[SNB05T]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Wait, that media did a positive story on car enthusists?

i know im scared too.

seriously, its good to see people like athol fighting for us though.

[S_M_I_D_D_Y]

For people in the Newcastle area, meet at Energy Australia Stadium tomorrow (Tuesday 28/7/09) at 7.30pm there will be a petition to be signed

[Ross-b]

send that down to the coast

[VertexZ]

hate to be the devils advocate, but isnt this a bit of an over-reaction? When you lower a car, its normally only 25 or 50mm - within rules. If you lower more than that, there is a very good chance that you fail the existing criteria.

eg a BF XT has ground clearance of 140mm, meaning you can only lower by 40mm under the existing laws anyway.

As for 4WD's, typically they only raise suspension by 50mm (sometimes 75mm).
They do also use body blocks to lift the body off the chassis which allows the use of bigger tyres. Its not clear if the change in regulations is limited to suspension only. Not to mention, if you have a 50mm spring and 50mm body, you are generally running 35" tyres which are not legal anyway.

That said, lowering slows down hoons, because they have to slow to a crawl to get over speed humps.

[Ross-b]

its not an over reaction

read the whole vsi

[myxr6]

How does this affect people who have suspension they can raise or lower eg.airbag or hydraulic ?

[VertexZ]

So if I read correctly, the issue it NOT that you can only lower a car by 50mm, but it is infact that you need to have any lowering engineered?

If thats the case, fair point.

(4wders are screwed though)

[S_M_I_D_D_Y]

Originally Posted by myxr6

How does this affect people who have suspension they can raise or lower eg.airbag or hydraulic ?

Hydraulics have never been legal in Australia. Airbags will be allowed, however must not raise / lower more than the 50mm as stated, plus any chassis modifications will be illegal and also drop spindles so yea basically kills the mini trucks too.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by Bris_XR8

I don't want to see young hoons putting their lives or the lives of others at risk, just because they think their car looks better 15 centimeters closer to the ground," Mr Daley said.

"Raising or lowering a vehicle's height can put the driver, passengers and other road users at risk.

"It can affect handling, braking and safety features such as electronic stability control."

LMBO 15cm, 150mm or 6", just goes to show this clown has no Idea what he is talking about, 150mm what are people lowing Land cruisers now or something?

A 6-inch lift on a 4WD is a big and $$ exercise you just about have to replace all the suspension and steering components to get it to drive and handle half decent!
6-inch lowing on a car you would be sitting on the chassis!!

My Hiux with just a 50mm lift, I've had to fit Longer brake lines, "RTC" Steering Stabilizer and a Custom Toque Rod and you know what the thing drives better than it did Stock!!

My mate has 6-inch Lift on his Wrangler and there is not 1 factory Jeep suspension component on the Car even the drive shafts are after market.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by VertexZ

So if I read correctly, the issue it NOT that you can only lower a car by 50mm, but it is infact that you need to have any lowering engineered?

If thats the case, fair point.

(4wders are screwed though)

That's one part of the problem, yes. Personally, I'm ok, as SL lower by 40-50mm and I have a receipt (somewhere).

What I have a real problem with (sorry to sound like a broken record), is how it has been implemented. Basically the roads minister has announced the new rules at a press release and put out a new standard to be administered by the RTA. No parlimentary debate, no consultation with any stakeholders (suspension companies, car/4wd clubs, insurance companies) so noone knows what is going on. And he has gone on "parlimentary leave" and is apparently uncontactable. Never mind the fact he was on radio this morning, and other MPs are replying to emails.

The standard is poorly written, very ambiguous and won't do anything to stop illegally modified cars/4WDs as they were already beyond legal limits anyway. Insurance companies can't properly confirm if people will be insured, and the RTA or police can't say who needs to prove if modifications were done before August 1st. Basically it's a mess.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

What I have a real problem with (sorry to sound like a broken record).....

Really?! i dont think anyone has noticed!

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Really?! i dont think anyone has noticed!

Gotta be passionate about something

While I'm here, Shadow Roads Minister has this press release on his website.

http://www.andrewstoner.com.au/media...sion-laws.aspx

Responsible Drivers Now ‘Hoons’ Under New Suspension Laws
26 July 2009
NSW Shadow Minister for Roads Andrew Stoner today called on Nathan Rees and his Roads Minister Michael Daley to drop their harsh new regulations which prohibit motorists from raising or lowering their vehicle’s suspension.



Earlier this month, the Rees Government introduced new regulations prohibiting car owners from raising or lowering their suspension by no more than five centimetres, with all new modifications needing to gain engineering approval.



According to Rees Labor Government, the measures are aimed at ‘car hoons’ and are designed to save lives .



However, the changes affect thousands of motorists, including many 4WD owners, who lower or raise their vehicles for safety reasons.



Motorists with raised or lowered suspensions will have to get their vehicles approved by RTA engineers for the cost of around $1,000, or risk attracting fines worth thousands of dollars.



Mr Stoner said the Rees Government’s vehicle suspension policy was out of touch and another example of Labor making policy on the run.



"Everyone agrees that we need to stop car hoons, but this new regulation is like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut,” Mr Stoner said.



“The changes will affect many law abiding motorists, including 4WD users, rural motorists and even wheelchair taxis, yet they will do nothing to stop the so-called hoons, who already modify their vehicles outside the existing laws.



“The solution to 'hoons' is better enforcement of the existing vehicle standards, not a nonsensical bureaucratic decree,” Mr Stoner said.



"It's just ridiculous that the Rees Labor Government can't distinguish between responsible drivers and young car hoons.



"If the Minister had consulted the community or had debated the new rules in parliament, he would have realised that most motorists who raise their vehicles' suspension do it for safety reasons, not to make them look 'cool'.



"This is just another example of the incompetent Rees Government making policy on the run, which will end up costing and inconveniencing thousands of responsible motorists,” Mr Stoner said.

[whynot]

I must be getting old ... I am siding with the Government on this one. A few points;

First, any change in ride height fundamentally alters the suspension design. The maximum suspensions travel is fixed by its designers. What altering the ride height does do is remove either the compression or rebound travel. I think that it is more than reasonable that if the ride height is adjusted by more than 5cm, it has engineering approval.

Second, most reasonable suspension shops will first try to talk the average “lad” who wanders into the shop out of ride height changes greater than 5 cm. If you are after genuine handling, then the package will be lowered springs (around 2”), shock absorbers, sway bars, new bushes (maybe neoprene). Any lower, and it is for show and not for go.

Third, if one really wants to go beyond the 5cm limit, then there is still the option of getting engineering certification. Considering the price of some extreme makeover suspensions, engineering certification is cheap. And, it will give the additional benefit of having someone check that the mods are still sensible. If one cannot get engineering certification, then one has to wonder if it is safe enough to drive on the roads in the first place.

Forth, I am sick of seeing pimply faced bozos, typically in a ricer, tooling around on the suspension stops. Next time you see one, just watch the vehicle. Often, it tramlines. Often, it skips and slides over a ripple strip. If there is any depression in the road while it is cornering, it moves off the chosen line. Typically, the driver just does not have the prerequisite skills to keep such a vehicle under their control in normal circumstances. They definitely have no hope in an emergency. :

Nah ... suck it up. If you modify the vehicle beyond the 5cm rule, get it certified.

(Just wait a sec while I step into this flame proof suit.)

[Ross-b]

have you read anything

what you are explaining is the current laws on it

which your right in saying its reasonable

the new laws is what we are complaining about

[whynot]

Yes, you now need to get engineering certification up to 5cm. Outside that, it is illegal. I still agree with the government.

My view is that, if there is a genuine market for lowered suspensions then the price for engineering certification will fall. Besides, “lowering” to improve handling performance is often overrated in family vehicles. Stiffer springs, shockies, sway-bars, and bushings are the way to go.

There are Crocodile tears from me on the aesthetics of lowered suspensions. Besides, there is always other improvements to spend money on.

I would be also loathed to modify a vehicle (including tyre size) that has any form of electronic stability control. (BTW, Robbo has interesting comments about low profile tyres in this month’s Wheels.)

[calais]

Originally Posted by whynot

I must be getting old ... I am siding with the Government on this one. A few points;

First, any change in ride height fundamentally alters the suspension design. The maximum suspensions travel is fixed by its designers. What altering the ride height does do is remove either the compression or rebound travel. I think that it is more than reasonable that if the ride height is adjusted by more than 5cm, it has engineering approval.

Second, most reasonable suspension shops will first try to talk the average “lad” who wanders into the shop out of ride height changes greater than 5 cm. If you are after genuine handling, then the package will be lowered springs (around 2”), shock absorbers, sway bars, new bushes (maybe neoprene). Any lower, and it is for show and not for go.

Third, if one really wants to go beyond the 5cm limit, then there is still the option of getting engineering certification. Considering the price of some extreme makeover suspensions, engineering certification is cheap. And, it will give the additional benefit of having someone check that the mods are still sensible. If one cannot get engineering certification, then one has to wonder if it is safe enough to drive on the roads in the first place.

Forth, I am sick of seeing pimply faced bozos, typically in a ricer, tooling around on the suspension stops. Next time you see one, just watch the vehicle. Often, it tramlines. Often, it skips and slides over a ripple strip. If there is any depression in the road while it is cornering, it moves off the chosen line. Typically, the driver just does not have the prerequisite skills to keep such a vehicle under their control in normal circumstances. They definitely have no hope in an emergency. :

Nah ... suck it up. If you modify the vehicle beyond the 5cm rule, get it certified.

(Just wait a sec while I step into this flame proof suit.)

Mate, you really need to actually read yeti's post in detail.

The justification you have used is completely blown away by the engineer's letter which yeti has posted.

The problem with this 'law' is that it was done without consultation with any industry or enthusiast bodies, without parlimentary debate, and without engineering theory or basis.

The minister goes on about car hoons trying to 'look cool', but really, he is using his own personal opinions and attempting to pass them off as fact. And when called upon to answer for his actions, he is conveniently on 'leave' which to to me reads that this is a revenue raising cash grab for an already overworked government department (rta) that is already choking with the red tape they have created for their supposed customers.

So unless you are quite happy to sit back and let your elected goverment become so draconian as to invent problems and issue hamfisted, arrogant and ignorant responses via law, continue to support them...... I know I sure as hell wont.

(For those who might enquire as to why a Queenslander is replying here I live part time in both QLD and NSW, and drive supposedly legal modified vehicles in both states)

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by whynot

Yes, you now need to get engineering certification up to 5cm. Outside that, it is illegal. I still agree with the government.

Good to see you have now read up to understand what is going on after your previous post.

Originally Posted by whynot

My view is that, if there is a genuine market for lowered suspensions then the price for engineering certification will fall. Besides, “lowering” to improve handling performance is often overrated in family vehicles. Stiffer springs, shockies, sway-bars, and bushings are the way to go.

Your "view" on engineering certification price, is that substantiated, or just an opinion? Nobody outside the RTA has been consulted, so it's a bit soon to know if prices are going to fall. I've already heard of one bloke increasing his price for 4WD guys from $600 to $1200.

Even with those modifications, you will still need an engineers certificate for a car that was perfectly safe a month ago, and has been for years.

Originally Posted by whynot

There are Crocodile tears from me on the aesthetics of lowered suspensions. Besides, there is always other improvements to spend money on.

Crocodile tears for you perhaps, but to others it matters. There is a 4WD charity event (SIDS and kids) that looks like it won't be going ahead as a result of these laws, and they hoped to raise ~$7000.

What about the poor guys at suspension shops whose jobs could be lost? Their industry has had no consultation for the incoming sledgehammer.

Other improvements? Just wait until they legislate those out of existance as well with similar poorly conceived and implemented regulations.

Originally Posted by whynot

I would be also loathed to modify a vehicle (including tyre size) that has any form of electronic stability control. (BTW, Robbo has interesting comments about low profile tyres in this month’s Wheels.)

My car does not have ESC, neither does the great majority of cars on the road. So why are the laws that dictate the roadworthiness of my car affected by a system that it does not have? Point taken that it could interfere with it, so why not just legislate that all cars with ESC require engineering approval?

[calais]

Quote:
Originally Posted by whynot
I would be also loathed to modify a vehicle (including tyre size) that has any form of electronic stability control. (BTW, Robbo has interesting comments about low profile tyres in this month’s Wheels.)



My car does not have ESC, neither does the great majority of cars on the road. So why are the laws that dictate the roadworthiness of my car affected by a system that it does not have? Point taken that it could interfere with it, so why not just legislate that all cars with ESC require engineering approval?

The ESC debate is also one which these laws doesnt have any scope to cover considering what was written in yeti's post reference piggy-backing existing ESC equipped cars to enable the ESC to operate exactly the same way it would have if the suspension was OEM.

There is obviously going to be a proliferation of one sided arguments for and against, but IMHO, there is not a single reason that the RTA should get away with these tactics, which lets face it, the majority of the motoring public wont care about (camry drivers are just like that..........)

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by calais

The ESC debate is also one which these laws doesnt have any scope to cover considering what was written in yeti's post reference piggy-backing existing ESC equipped cars to enable the ESC to operate exactly the same way it would have if the suspension was OEM.

There is obviously going to be a proliferation of one sided arguments for and against, but IMHO, there is not a single reason that the RTA should get away with these tactics, which lets face it, the majority of the motoring public wont care about (camry drivers are just like that..........)

It isn't the RTA, they weren't told any more than we, the general public were. It's Roads Minister Michael Daley. Give the guys at the RTA a break and ask Mr Daley your questions.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by calais

Mate, you really need to actually read yeti's post in detail.

The justification you have used is completely blown away by the engineer's letter which yeti has posted.

To be honest, I did skim through it the first time, because I thought the points were overstated.

But, I did go back and re-read them, and I will address them here.

Firstly, the “engineer” inside the RTA sounds like “grunt”; a low level inspection officer. I note, with interest, his appeal for more staff to enforce the regs. (A Google on his name is interesting reading. I’ll leave one to draw their own conclusions.)

Secondly, knowing the way governments work, I would highly doubt that The Minister came up with this suggestion off his own bat. The way these things work is that the recommendation would have bubbled up from inside the RTA. At some point in time, an RTA media weenie, sensing a media opportunity, would have flicked this up to the Minister’s office for approval and announcement. The Minister’s media minders would have put “a spin” onto the story. And the Minister just reads out to the media what is put in front of him. If the entire Ministerial briefing note is any more than four pages long (at 16 point font), I would be surprised. It sounds like the “grunt” (see first point) is too low in the food chain to even see such a brief before it is released.

Third, the RTA Office has used some emotive language, but, I wonder if it stands up to reality.

Let’s take the Grey Nomads example. A) There is nothing in the proposal to stop a person replacing worn springs. B) There is nothing in the proposal to stop a person putting in stiffer springs. C) Most Grey Nomads I see on the road are driving late model Toyota, Nissan, and the odd Rover, with stock standard suspension. I have an acquaintance whom regularly deep into the Kimberly’s with nothing more than a standard V8 twin-turbo diesel and an absolute mothership of a Kedron van. If he can go so deep into the outback with a “standard” suspension, I am left scratching my head over the need for a jacked up 70 Series.

While the utilities (rail and electricity) do have 4WD, all of the passenger vehicles I have seen are standard suspension. The all terrain vehicles that utilities use that I am aware of are trucks. As for the emergency services, once again, these tend to be standard 70 Series cruisers. If emergency services do require raised height, then, the additional expenditure for engineering certification is only a pimple on the backside. Be aware that for real all-terrain emergency work, the vehicles are “manufactured” and often come with a second set of compliance plates.

As for electronic stability control, I am highly concerned that someone would modify a vehicles ESC with some type of electronic piggyback without getting engineering certification. Manufacturers literally spend millions testing and calibrating. Look at the effort FPV went to get some minor mods to the F6 tested. So, the RTA Officer is implying that modifying ESC without an engineering certification is OK?

Of course, it would not be a political bunfight without introducing the “sick kids” element of the story. What a lot of crock (not to mention highly nauseating) to make a connection between sick children and this suspension issue. Those who are paddling this line should take a good hard look at themselves.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Good to see you have now read up to understand what is going on after your previous post.

Thank you, but I did understand the issue. However, granted, there was a simple typographical error that did change the grammatical meaning of the post.

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Your "view" on engineering certification price, is that substantiated, or just an opinion? Nobody outside the RTA has been consulted, so it's a bit soon to know if prices are going to fall. I've already heard of one bloke increasing his price for 4WD guys from $600 to $1200.

The economic law of supply and demand will determin the final price. If there is enough demand, price will fall. (This is simple economics 101.)

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Even with those modifications, you will still need an engineers certificate for a car that was perfectly safe a month ago, and has been for years.

“Perfectly safe” is a blanket statement. As already been mentioned above, lowering certain vehicles by 40mm makes them illegal by the current regulations. I also have a hard time believing that a jacked up HiLux or LandCruiser, with its higher roll centre and changed moment of inertia is “perfectly safe”.

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Crocodile tears for you perhaps, but to others it matters. There is a 4WD charity event (SIDS and kids) that looks like it won't be going ahead as a result of these laws, and they hoped to raise ~$7000.

See my previous post.

Originally Posted by King Nothing

What about the poor guys at suspension shops whose jobs could be lost? Their industry has had no consultation for the incoming sledgehammer.

So, what about them? They will keep doing work repairing suspensions, replacing springs, and generally flogging overpriced components to wide-eye pimply faced p-platers with a promise of how much “fast” their car will go or look. The only change is that they will not be selling raising or lowered springs. Or if they are, then making another killing on the side selling “engineering certification”.

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Other improvements? Just wait until they legislate those out of existance as well with similar poorly conceived and implemented regulations.

Well, now that you have mentioned it ... You do realise that changing the brake pads (particularly to “performance” types) can seriously throw both the ABS and ESC out of calibration? Effectively, make stopping distances longer.

Originally Posted by King Nothing

My car does not have ESC, neither does the great majority of cars on the road.

And, that too will pass. Your next car probably will have ESC. So, better the Government introduces the legislation now, before you get disappointed the next time around.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by whynot

Forth, I am sick of seeing pimply faced bozos, typically in a ricer, tooling around on the suspension stops. Next time you see one, just watch the vehicle. Often, it tramlines. Often, it skips and slides over a ripple strip. If there is any depression in the road while it is cornering, it moves off the chosen line. Typically, the driver just does not have the prerequisite skills to keep such a vehicle under their control in normal circumstances. They definitely have no hope in an emergency. :

Nah ... suck it up. If you modify the vehicle beyond the 5cm rule, get it certified.

This is the problem, all the bad eggs in one basket. this law will not be successful in removing these cars of the road, it will just hurt a wider spectrum of enthusiasts.

[King Nothing]

Looks like we've won! Michael Daley is going to withdraw the changes due to the massive negative response received from the public.

From 4WD Monthly Website

We've won!!!!!

Hi Everyopne,

Michael Daley has just released a press release ataing that following this morning's meeting he has agreed to put the proposed VSI50 rule changes on hold.

Michael Daley was present at a meeting this morning because he has been bombarded with so many letters and emails from all of you at 4WD Action via the website and forumand other upset 4WDers he felt the need to sort this out. Your efforts in writing and emailing in are directly responsible for this outcome. We have spoken and we have been heard!

Because Minister Daley was at the meeting he was able to be convinced that the VSI50 rules needed more thought and a working group including reps from the RTA, 4WD user groups and the AAAA, aftermarket industry will be set up to discuss any further changes aimed at increasing road safety.

This is fantastic news for 4Wders and it has happened because of the combined fight that we all put in to prevent this.

Great work everyone, this is a hugely successful outcome and while nothing has been decided re new regulations this is a massive step forward for us.

Congratulations everyone and this has proven the collective power we have when we all stand up together for what is right.

Thanks again,

We have won the battle but noit teh war. We must keep[ pressure on to prevent future reg changes but you've all done a massive job here and should be very proud.

Glenn
__________________
Glenn Wright
Editor
Australian 4WD Action magazine

[King Nothing]

NSW MINISTER FOR ROADS
MICHAEL DALEY MP
NEWS RELEASE
MINISTER AGREES TO FURTHER CONSULTATION ON
CAR MODIFICATION LAWS
Wednesday 29 July 2009

Minister for Roads Michael Daley today met with representatives from the 4WD community and car industry who asked for the introduction of proposed vehicle modification rules to be delayed and for more time to consult.
Mr Daley said he agreed to put the rule changes on hold and that more consultation was needed following the meeting.
“I’ve listened to feedback from the industry and the community, and have agreed to set up a working party to look more closely at how we are going to address this road safety issue,” he said.

“All of those who attended today’s meeting agreed that safety is paramount and that unsafe modifications of vehicles do need be stamped out.
“The working group will include representatives from the NSW Centre for Road Safety, Four Wheel Drive NSW-ACT, Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, the Australian 4WD Industry Council as well as other agencies and experts,” Mr Daley said.

Executive Director of Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association Stuart Charity said this was a terrific outcome.
“We’re passionate about road safety and we understand the intent of the regulation is to make the roads safer,” he said.
We’re looking forward to working towards a practical solution that meets road safety objectives while also taking industry views into account,” Mr Charity said.

Greg Redfern from Four Wheel Drive NSW-ACT also welcomed the outcome and said the working group would have their full support.
“We want to eliminate unsafe practices in the driving community and we’ll work with the government to make sure these new regulations meet those objectives without any adverse consequences for the motoring community at large,” he said.

“We all agree that there is no place for extreme and illegal modifications, but the clubs in our association follow a strict code of conduct and ethics, and we want to make sure they’re not punished,” Mr Redfern said.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Looks like we've won! Michael Daley is going to withdraw the changes due to the massive negative response received from the public.

From 4WD Monthly Website

Umm... that's not what he said......
READ his press release again....
Its more like a "stay of execution"

[cjf]

Maybe all of the car forums user should jump on this and send letters of complaint to his office as well just to remind him that we as car enthusiats pay taxes as well.

[HP-0351]

Glenn Wright is a work colleague and basically said this afternoon that it has been put on hold until further notice pending a more thorough examination of such a regulations impact on modified 4wd owners, modified car owners and associated industries is fully determined...

It's a step at least in the right direction but not a total win as yet.

As Glenn Wright is our overall Publisher of 10 performance car titles that we produce he was also in there batting for all of us as were the AAAA.

[calais]

Cuppacino or short black... its still a coffee. Good to see that he has pulled his head in, and will now consult with the obviously relevant stakeholders in the matter, which will then in turn make whatever laws they spew out somewhat more palatable.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Umm... that's not what he said......
READ his press release again....

Yeah ok, of course Mr Daley isn't going to admit public pressure influenced his decision. It's about community consultation. Which is what a large amount of the complaints were about.

Guess what though? It means you don't have to put up with me posting about this anymore

[hydrulictelstar]

so does that mean the lowered cars after august 1st

can still drive around with nothing to worrie about?

or

do they still need a mod certificate