Thats been posted up here before. I already have a copy that i am using as my build checklist. Great to know thats what they are using.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa.../vsb_ncop.aspx

Reply from RMC
 

I have established that TRW was the original manufacturers and suppliers of the Steering Racks for VC Commodores to G.M. They no longer operate in Australia and are now based in the U.K. I have also established that no specific scientific or engineering tests were carried out by them on any individual, unmodified VC Commodore Steering Racks supplied to GM.

This means that if I have to have my rack scientiffically examined for strength, torsion and flex, I will have no data in which to compare the results with. Question:- Will the RTA now require a recall of all VC Commodires to have their racks examined? I don't think so.

I have also received a couple of responses from R.M.C in Perth. My former contact was Bradley. He was fabulous, but unfortunately for them, has now left the Company. Instead I spoke to Mark who was as equally outstanding. He's only been with RMC for 8 months and couldn't supply me with adequate answers concerning the Engineering date for the modified VC Commodore Steering Rack which they produce for RMC and also G Force.

The owner of RMC and Westfiled Sports Cars is Richard Wheeler. He is currently holidaying in Europe so good ole Mark rang him over there to get my answers.

RMC have modified over 400 VC Commodore Steering Racks in 20 years and have never had a failure or an issue with them.

They modify them by removing the inside shaft from the outside casing and shortening the nearside end by 100mm. They then re-thread it, seat and insert the new Ball Joint Joint. The outside metal covering is then cut to size and re-welded. The main shaft is never cut so the strength of the rack has NEVER been compromised. Being 100mm shorter, it is actually stronger than the original un-modified rack.

Beejay mentioned the other day that the RTA monitor this Forum. I have been trying to get onto the RTA Inspector who is dealing with my application today to inform him of what I have learnt today. I have rang him several times on both his land line and mobile phone. I have left Voice Mail Messages for him to contact me without result.

Well Tony, if you'r reading this, please ring me. I have some other issues which I'm sure you will be interested in.

Baz

damn Baz im feeling for you mate
as im ready for engineering also have complete the emissions finally after 5 months of trying and changing programs etc then my original engineer peter smith told me that he no longer does icv's then i found another eng named jorge montano to which tonght he sent me an email saying that until the new scheme has been implimented and understood he cannot do my report as he doesnt want to look bad or look like an idiot in front of the rta of which he was the head of engineering , now the hunt begins for another engineer this is so fustrating how is your engineer coping with the changes going on at the rta at the moment,, good luck Darrell

Baz,

I cant see anything about the steering rack in that checklist. The Street Rod handbook doesnt require testing of any sort.

I remember Kitcar magazine mentioned something about reuqirements for shortening of steering components in one of the CKM cobra build articles. It might be worth seeing if Robert knows anything about it.

Liam

Shouldn't all that be in the engineers report. There's no need to do that again when a Signatory engineer has done that previously. They are simply bullying.

Boss290cobra, i was worried that would happen. I dont blame them, but hopefully they dont all take that stance.

Baz,

Check out NCOP11 Steering and suspension. Specifically code LS3 page 35.
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...g_3Feb2006.pdf

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...steering_1.JPG
http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...steering_2.JPG
http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...steering_3.JPG

Although this is a national code of practice and not necessarily adopted by RTA it is the only document to provide guidance. Reading this it appears that it can be certified by a suitably experienced and qualified signatory i.e. your engineer.

Kitcar mag was issue 6 may-june09 cobra build - steering. Their rack has an approval number written on it. If Gforce and RMC use the same, i assume your is the same. Im guessing you are a subscriber since your car has been in it a couple of times.

Zedn

I also know that the engineer who worked with me will no longer do NSW cars.

Now that you have sold your roof, it is highly probable that it will be poring rain when you next present it to the rta.

I had a similar problem and when the car was on the trailer I wraped the car in shrink wrap, you can get it from Office works. Wont damage the paint and will keep the water out.

Cut if off when you get there and then rewrap to get it home.

good luck

Phil

Shrink wrap keeps it nice and fresh too....

Sounds to me like it's a bunch of egotistical jealous bastards at the RTA NSW, and I hope they read forums.

Hi Phil and thanks for your imput. I really appreciate it.

I think you know where I'm coming from. :):):):)

If I dont have a roof, I don't need a demister so I don't have to dismantle my consul, dash etc. It also resolves the high mount stop light problem being partially obscurred by the strip of trim under the rear perspex windows. The cling wrap idea is great too. I was thinking of keeping my golf umbrella in the car. I have a spare one for when Martha or Louise is travelling with me. Thanks Pal. We weill prevail.

Baz

Thanks Liam,

Really helpful info.

Baz

Baz, my main concern here is that because RTA have listed it as a fault, it MUST be fixed, not sure if removing it will be classed as a fix.

Example being when I presented my car for rego to engineer, I had my aero screen fitted, because from a normal seating position you look over it, there was no requirement for wipers nor demister.
However, it did not pass due to the 4 point harness as opposed to retractable belts, in the time between the engineer inspection then finding out I had failed due to seat belts, I had refitted my full sized screen.
I contacted MVR (NT equivelant of RTA) and spoke to the man in charge of ICV's, he advised that rather than me flying engineer down for another look, he had spoken to engineer and both parties where happy for local branch of MVR to carry out seat belt inspection, I mentioned that I had refitted the original screen, he advised this was not an issue as they where only to inspect seat belts and any parts directly attributed to this fix (ie mounting points, correct operation etc)

My point is that anything marked as a fault at time of inspection, must be fixed, not removed.
But I honestly do hope it works for you.

[quote=boxhead;1055201]Baz, my main concern here is that because RTA have listed it as a fault, it MUST be fixed, not sure if removing it will be classed as a fix.

/QUOTE]

Proof of Sale for the Roof ...Copy of the Reciept will be enough!!...They can't force you to buy another ROOF!!..the problem no longer is in existence!!!
And by the way Baz I'm really happy with the fitment on my new roof it's amazing how similar the 2 kits are,thanks for getting to me so Quickly though with the storms Sydney have had lately I reckon you were mad selling it!!!!!

As long as the mounting points were removed with it.

[quote=OZCOBRA;1055209]Thanks Oz,

I hope you get many years out of it. It was only used the once last Thursday when I took the car to the RTA.

Baz

[quote=Baz;1055366]Baz, I could be wrong but I assumed the seller normally supplied the reciept?

The buyer supplies the cash.

So I suspect you need to write the reciept and keep a copy of it, probably with buyers signature and details.

[quote=boxhead;1055386]Dave,

Sorry. Seniors moment. My mind was elsewhere. I couldn't believe I sold it so quickly.

Baz

Subline to the ridiculous.
 

This thread is crap. It is a duplicate of the next thread and I didn't know how to delete it so I just blocked it out and put in this rubbish.

Latest Update.
 

Its now been over a week since I had my car inspected. I rang the RTA Inspector early in the week, around Tuesday to find out what was going on and he told me he is still working on the report for my car and that he would ring me in the afternoon of Friday 4/6/10. It came 3.40pm and no word from him so I took the inintiative and rang him. He informed me that he was working on my report and was up to ADR 22. He further advised that he would ring me when his report was complete. He is going through each ADR thoroughly and seeing that there are 84 of them and he is only up to 22, I dont think I will be going to the Nats in October.

ADR 22 relates to seats. Back in late 2009 after I had my MX5 seats stripped down, speakers installed, additional padding installed and then upholsered in Connolly Leather, the relevant ADR was altered, yes the goal posts were changed midstream in that the required height of the back rest was changed from the normal 780mm to 850 mm. In other words, this made my MX5 Mazda seats illegal. In order to overcome this problem, I had two extension head rests constructed which fit perfectly over the top of the MX5 headrests. Today, the RTA Inspector informed me that those headrests were not acceptable and that I would have to strip my seats down, extend the internal frames so the actual seats complied with the ADR. He indicated that my additional headrests did not form part of the seat construction and were similar to 'Wood covers on golf clubs.'

I informed him that I had sold my roof and would not be fitting one in the future. His reponse was that even though my tenax fittings were still on the car, that it was CAPABLE of having a roof fitted, I would still need demisters, even though I told him that those tenax fasteners would only be used with my tonneau cover.

This is where we are at and we are only up to ADR 22. By the time we reach ADR 84 I might never recover. I have inserted a couple of pics of my MX5 seats before the additional headrest were manufactured and fitted and after. Judge for yourself.

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...n_leather_.jpg
Standard height MX5 seats which complied with pre 2009 ADR.

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...d_MX5_seat.jpg
MX5 seats with additional headrest to comply with revised ADR 22 Backrest Height requirement.



Baz

Sounds like your engineer will be out of a job soon? Clearly he isn't needed. This would be complete farce Baz, if it wasn't so serious. Did he have any problems with the colour of the car?