IS THERE A FUTURE FOR POST 1948 MODIFIED VEHICLES?

CHOPPED · Post by **CHOPPED** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:49 pm

hey stubby thanks for your support i know you said no offence to rodders but being involved with both for some 20 years now glass bodies have come along way in saftey a good friend of mine rolled his 32 coupe a few years ago on a local road in perth and walked away from it unharmed a testament to the rules and regulations on how we are required to build and licence our rods on another note getting hold of a steel car some 70 -80 years old is getting harder and harder these days bodys we passed up on 10 years ago are now in demand so the option is buy glass again thanks for your input of street machining and rest asured im workimg on establishing some sort of guidelines along that of the asrf thanks
paul

HPaddict · Post by **HPaddict** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:31 am

i think a meeting between a few people in the car building industry and other people with projects that are still to be registered might be the go in the near future, that might be a good start to get the ball really rolling.?

kelleigh54 · Post by **kelleigh54** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:24 pm

I'd like to thank the three that went to the trouble of having some input from my previous post. As for the rest of you out there, you just go on sitting on your hands until somebody else makes it good for you or you lose what freedom is left and then......... You may get off your arse and start waving those hands around and screaming "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON".

This means YOU, not the other blokes reading this forum! YOU

I would like to think that some of our eastern states patriots would be taking this seriously also, as i believe some of this shit is heading your way. Read on and you will see this could well be the start of a cancer spreading through our way of life.

Apologies for not riding this a little harder, but like everyone else out there i too have other issues on my plate. Currently patio and paving, gotta keep mum happy. Seat belts and a few other things to her wagon and then it'll be full on for 12 months on the FB as approval in principle runs out 12 months from this January.

On leave at the moment so playing catch up. Dropped into the technical section at Welshpool on Christmas eve and spoke to Denis Hampton.

It seems that what was supposed to have gone down in October, has not panned out the way they wanted.

A new code or alterations maybe, to the NCOP is being put into play. And West Aust. are the custodians of this new code. I asked if this was just for W.A. Tas. S.A. as i would have expected, BUT, this is Australia wide. SO TAKE NOTE ALL OTHER STATES AND TERRITORIES. For whom i believe some changes are already taking place. I also believe that not all states are ready to adopt W.A.'s code to full extent.

Be aware that I am only getting bits of information here and I am telling you as i have come to understand what is happening. It would be nice if others could make enquiries to their local authorities so we have input from other sources.

I also asked if these changes would be of a positive or a negative nature to our hobby, obviously in their eyes, we have nothing to worry about.
"If there were any issues, they should be raised now". To which i queried whether the associated trades/business' were aware of any changes being made? The answer was along the lines of "they should be" or to that effect, which probably means they aren't.

(Clint from Fat Pickups may be able to confirm this.)

As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, a body would need to be made up to control or liaise between business' and the Technical Section for W.A.

It was mentioned that the MTA or similar would need to control any issues should they be raised.

These issues need to be raised NOW! As it will be too late once this has all gone through. This hold up of six months they are experiencing, may just be the window of opportunity that we need. But we must act now, and when i say we, i mean business'/trades as this is your livelihood as much as it is our hobby/come way of life.

I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT ANYONE WHO KNOWS OF THOSE BUSINESS' RELATED TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, SPEAK TO THEM ASAP AS THEY WILL NEED TIME TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING.

Paul, i will drop in to see Clint this week. Will ring you prior to doing so, would be nice if we could all catch up.

Once again blokes, you all seriously need to be getting on the bandwagon here and discussing these issues with your mates, as in this case talking about it can be almost as effective as doing something about it.

J · Post by J » Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:29 pm

still trying to make sense of this all - let me know what I can do and i'l do it to protect the hobby...

il probably still be doin it when im around 50

HPaddict · Post by **HPaddict** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:03 am

here we go its happening already goodby modified cars?
http://www.fbekholden.com/forum/viewtop ... 2285#62285

(AUST)Mod · Post by **(AUST)Mod** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:08 am

relevent?
http://www.perth4x4.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25721

FB MAD · Post by **FB MAD** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:39 am

I'm a little confused with all the gibbly gook that is written via the link aust mod put up however after a brief look I can see some changes are to be made,and as always, most likely not for the betterment of us as modified car hobbyists.

They are asking for public submissions but I can't find how to do a public submission??

They are also asking for motoring group/enthusiast group submissions.

Anyone know of who and/or how that is to be done and if some groups or individuals have already done so??

Only have 'till April 9th to do it.

How can we as a forum group or individuals have some sort of input into what the authorities want to change??

I'd like to help in my own personal way, but at the moment am a little confused as to how??

Anyone know??

(AUST)Mod · Post by **(AUST)Mod** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:36 am

Any comments you would like included in the MTA submission to the AMVCB WP can be sent via email to the MTA Division Assistant, Julie Anaru-Johnson.

I do not know the MTA's emai, but I think that this could work as a means of getting the correct email: All correspondence to mtawa@mtawa.com.au

ANdrew

kelleigh54 · Post by **kelleigh54** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:20 pm

Note:
Builders, modifiers and owners of vehicles need to be aware that compliance with this NCOP does not guarantee that a vehicle will be acceptable for registration in the case of an ICV or for continued registration in the case of a modified registered production vehicle. If, for example, an ICV submitted for approval does not handle or brake satisfactorily or has any other feature that renders the vehicle unsafe or not roadworthy, it is most unlikely that it will be accepted for registration.

It is also important that builders and owners keep abreast of changes to legislation and vehicle registration policy in their jurisdiction, particularly in cases where a project is expected to take some years to complete. Changes to legislation before a vehicle is completed may mean that certain vehicles cannot be registered without appropriate modifications. Similarly, regulations pertaining to vehicle modifications, vehicle standards or registration policy may change causing certain vehicle modifications to become unacceptable in the future.

www.pharosalex.com.au/pages/33achome.html

Ya’s really need to start reading, and consider as a legal document they will have loop holes in there to stuff you right up. Read carefully.

oldnek · Post by **oldnek** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:50 pm

kelleigh54 wrote:Note:
Builders, modifiers and owners of vehicles need to be aware that compliance with this NCOP does not guarantee that a vehicle will be acceptable for registration in the case of an ICV or for continued registration in the case of a modified registered production vehicle. If, for example, an ICV submitted for approval does not handle or brake satisfactorily or has any other feature that renders the vehicle unsafe or not roadworthy, it is most unlikely that it will be accepted for registration.

And so it shouldn't be, thats common sense

It is also important that builders and owners keep abreast of changes to legislation and vehicle registration policy in their jurisdiction, particularly in cases where a project is expected to take some years to complete. Changes to legislation before a vehicle is completed may mean that certain vehicles cannot be registered without appropriate modifications. Similarly, regulations pertaining to vehicle modifications, vehicle standards or registration policy may change causing certain vehicle modifications to become unacceptable in the future.

Most builders should be regularly in touch with their Engineers and RTA or DOT. The rule changes do not happen that often, but when they do most are very well informed of the updates. And the slack ones they just don't care, their only in for the money.....

I think,where the problem lies, One is the interpretation of the rules,The other is how good the engineer is himself and how qualified he or she is, and mostly It's is the time taken for builds or completions to take place and with that, the lessor of contact between owners and engineers, because during that no contact period, a lot can happen,.....what was good to do 2 years ago when the engineer last spoke to you was OK, can well be no good this year.

I think the quicker we get a National Modified vehicle legislation the better. with one governing body to set and approve on all modifications. And the head of this type of organization, should be a well qualified engineer with a common sense approach to modifications ( IE: Ron Harrop or Larry Perkins and I'm sure there are many others of that Stature) and have their company's to sign off on it.
It actually isn't as silly as it seems!.

John

kelleigh54 · Post by **kelleigh54** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:28 am

Agree with every thing you say Oldnek. I am happy to do whatever it takes engineering wise. what I disagree with are the rules being imposed that are set (AND VERY CLEVERLY) in place to cripple the project before it is started. And if you read the notation, you will find that giving themselves the right to change as they desire is a catastrophy to someone who has already spent alot of time and money working on a modification only to find it is now illegal

HPaddict · Post by **HPaddict** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:58 am

oldnek wrote:
kelleigh54 wrote:Note:
Builders, modifiers and owners of vehicles need to be aware that compliance with this NCOP does not guarantee that a vehicle will be acceptable for registration in the case of an ICV or for continued registration in the case of a modified registered production vehicle. If, for example, an ICV submitted for approval does not handle or brake satisfactorily or has any other feature that renders the vehicle unsafe or not roadworthy, it is most unlikely that it will be accepted for registration.
And so it shouldn't be, thats common sense
It is also important that builders and owners keep abreast of changes to legislation and vehicle registration policy in their jurisdiction, particularly in cases where a project is expected to take some years to complete. Changes to legislation before a vehicle is completed may mean that certain vehicles cannot be registered without appropriate modifications. Similarly, regulations pertaining to vehicle modifications, vehicle standards or registration policy may change causing certain vehicle modifications to become unacceptable in the future.
Most builders should be regularly in touch with their Engineers and RTA or DOT. The rule changes do not happen that often, but when they do most are very well informed of the updates. And the slack ones they just don't care, their only in for the money.....

I think,where the problem lies, One is the interpretation of the rules,The other is how good the engineer is himself and how qualified he or she is, and mostly It's is the time taken for builds or completions to take place and with that, the lessor of contact between owners and engineers, because during that no contact period, a lot can happen,.....what was good to do 2 years ago when the engineer last spoke to you was OK, can well be no good this year.

I think the quicker we get a National Modified vehicle legislation the better. with one governing body to set and approve on all modifications. And the head of this type of organization, should be a well qualified engineer with a common sense approach to modifications ( IE: Ron Harrop or Larry Perkins and I'm sure there are many others of that Stature) and have their company's to sign off on it.
It actually isn't as silly as it seems!.

John

and i spose you voted for the GST that was going to replace the other taxes which we still have with GST on top, oh yeah and what about the cheaper fuel when the GST was to come into affect, it never happened either! it might seem all above board but i assure you there are hidden agendas. wake up people for fuk sake

HPaddict · Post by **HPaddict** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:23 pm

this is not about the safety thing i agee on that part, read between the lines people.
this is about NCOP -2 not the current NCOP which we alredy have in WA aswell. you guys are NOT getting the point NCOP stands for national code of practice and that means you not just WA, it is about NCOP-2 it a revised version so the old standard version of NCOP MAY NO LONGER STAND. READ WHAT IS POSTED PROPERLY. THIS ALSO MEANS A CAR CURRENTLY REGISTERED UNDER THE OLDER NCOP MAY BE RECALLED AND KNOCKED BACK FOR REGO if it does not comply to NCOP-2 simple. i urge you to read it fully.

HPaddict · Post by **HPaddict** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:48 pm

well well well, it has begun, http://www.ozrodders.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=30526

kelleigh54 · Post by **kelleigh54** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:00 pm

Strongly suggest you all take time to look at these and read the entire articles.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/ ... y-2009.pdf

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/94/help- ... ars-in-nsw

The article below is pasted from the ozrodders forum (see HPaddict's link in previous post).

PRESS RELEASE

AAAA: New NSW Government suspension regulations a farce

In an attempt to hamper modifications made by “car hoons”, on 16 July the NSW Minister for Roads Michael Daley announced changes in regulation that will cause havoc for both the automotive industry and thousands of drivers on NSW roads with minor, currently legal suspension modifications.

The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA) is outraged by this poorly conceived new regulation. The AAAA is the national industry association representing over 1250 manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers and retailers of automotive parts and accessories, tools and equipment.

The Minister announced the new regulation in a media statement headed “Tough new rules for car hoons” and said the regulation will take effect from 1 August 2009. The regulation will mean that virtually all suspension modifications and wheel and tyre upgrades will require certification by authorised engineers.

AAAA Executive Director Stuart Charity said this announcement shocked both the industry and driver groups alike. “The industry has worked closely with governments nationally for many years to develop and promote vehicle modification guidelines designed to meet appropriate road safety requirements,” said Stuart Charity. “The industry is alarmed at this unilateral and unreasonable announcement.

“Neither the industry nor key driver advocacy groups have been consulted regarding this new regulation. No consideration has been taken of the impact that this proposed regulation will have on the wide range of road using industries that must make suspension modifications to their vehicles to improve safety and load carrying capability. Among these roads users are the building, construction, mining and rural industries.

“In addition, there are thousands of private vehicle owners that make suspension modifications to tow their animals, boats and caravans, or simply to improve vehicle handling across a range of driving conditions,” he said.

Unproven assumptions

Stuart Charity said the Minister, or his advisors, made untrue assumptions about the facts of suspension modification and in the language used to announce this proposal.

“Firstly – and unbelievably – they assumed that if you modify the suspension on your vehicle, you are a ‘car hoon’. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is fact. Recent AAAA research actually revealed that about 80% of the end users of modified suspension are aged between 26 and 49 years of age. Owners of 4WD vehicles are one of the largest groups making aftermarket suspension modifications and 66% of them are aged between 36 and 49 years. So, the major users of aftermarket suspension modifications are not the 18 to 25 years old high risk group. We also know that ‘hoon drivers’ are only a small portion of the 18 to 25 years old group.

“Secondly, they assumed that if suspension modifications are tougher to access, then there will be less hoon behaviour on NSW roads. The reality is that those who behave illegally on the road are also likely to make illegal suspension alterations.

“A third issue is many of the modifications outlined in the Minister’s press release that will require engineering approval, are legal in every other state in Australia, making this ‘NSW only’ scenario unworkable.

“Finally, the automotive aftermarket industry is totally dismayed at the arrogance exhibited by this announcement. This industry has an annual turnover of $5 billion, exports of $600 million and employs 30,000 people. In NSW, the AAAA membership is 400 companies employing 8,000 people. The AAAA enjoys close working relationships with NSW Government organisations, including the Road Transport Authority, which appears to have ignored an independent engineers report on the improved safety performance of suspension lift modifications submitted in June 2009.

“Given that the automotive aftermarket invests significant resources to ensure that road safety is paramount in the design, engineering and performance of aftermarket products, it is impossible to understand how the industry’s long term contribution could be ignored on this occasion.

“The real issue is that in trying to target ‘car hoons’, the NSW Minister has attacked the wrong ‘cause’. Hoon driving is a driver behaviour issue. It is not a vehicle suspension issue, or even a vehicle modification issue.

“We call on the Minister to immediately withdraw this ill-conceived, unworkable regulation and to engage in appropriate stakeholder consultation with a view to developing common sense laws that have the support of key industry and driver groups,” said Stuart Charity.