If your up for Rego in NSW - Read this. - Page 5

Baz · #81 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

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?

This is how I see it Merv.

The NSW Govt., is broke. I have paid my Engineer $2,500 for his work which included the Brake test, Sound Test and Mechanical Examination.

I don't know what occurs in Qld or Vic., but here, when you take your car to the RTA for them to do their inspection, you are not charged.

The RTA Inspectors are pretty pissed that the Engineer is getting all that brass and they are getting zero. Whether it's a power thing or whether they have been told by the State Labour Govt., to discredit the Engineers by ripping their reports to shreads I don't know, but what I am sure of is that it's either one or the other.

What I do know is that the NSW Govt needs every cent it can get. After going through what I am going through at the moment, I now firmly believe that their tactics are to remove the private Engineers from this equation through discrediting their Mechanical /Structural reports and gathering that revenue for themselves.

Unfortunately, I can find no other ICV Cobra owner that has gone through this ridiculous new process in NSW. I think I am the first and I'm not too happy about that at all.

What I do know is that my Engineer is really going to earn that $2.5K. I will comply with their requests as this has been my dream for 45 yesrs. My Cobra will eventually wear my COB-600 number plates which I have had in storage at out local RTA office for almost 3 years, but they haven't heard the last of me by a long shot. Mark my words.

Baz

Zedn · #82 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 06:16 AM

Baz,

How are the headrest covers actually attached? Is it just a cover with foam in it that slips over or is it actually attached? If it is not firmly attached then it wouldnt be serving the intention of the standard and they have reason to request it to be fixed. Even though there is no way your head could physically whiplash over it. Perhaps you can find someones seats to borrow for the inspection?

My RX7 seats are border line, if measured from the bottom of the bucket they are 855, if measured from the bottom of the back rest section they are closer to 750mm. The diagram in the ADR is not the clearest to know where to measure from.

The thing i have thought about is modifying the mounting location of the bracket that connects the seat back to the bottom, so the seat back is mounted higher thus leaving a gap at the bottom that can be filled with a lumber support. Perhaps you could discuss that with your trimmer. Only problem is that one side is mounted with a bolt to pivot on.

Are the fittings for the tonneau cover screwed on? Can you just unscrew them.

Dont be intimidated by him going through every ADR, your car has been built by a professional to comply with them. An expert inspector wouldnt have to read through every ADR, they should have such a good knowlege that they just have to occasionally look up specific numbers. I reckon he is just busy and is giving you an excuse. If i were you i would just wait for the report and try not to get him upset.

Makes you wish you were building a hot rod. They have life so easy, yet try to make out these are "just kit cars" and are heaps easier then hot rods.

I wonder how the clubbie guys are going with all this. Has your Engineer got anyone else going through or did you keep in touch with others doing the brake test?

Beejay · #83 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 07:05 AM

Baz,

What you are going through is terrible, and the RTA clearly has an agenda to stop ICV's getting registered. What a shame for the whole industry.

Having said that, do you think that modifying a head rest is going to meet Euro 4 standards? It would have been easier to buy the $200 SAAS seats or others that comply.

Sorry to be a party pooper.

Ben

Merv and Sharon · #84 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 02:32 PM

Baz if you are the first with the new procedure, how come they have rejected 140 others. I thought u said that. Seems as much an attitude as a new system. If this was a business application it would be restraint of trade in legal terms. I wonder how constructors of complete cars (factory built kits) are going in NSW? I guess this goes to the heart of the ICV definition.

Baz · #85 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Baz if you are the first with the new procedure, how come they have rejected 140 others. I thought u said that. Seems as much an attitude as a new system. If this was a business application it would be restraint of trade in legal terms. I wonder how constructors of complete cars (factory built kits) are going in NSW? I guess this goes to the heart of the ICV definition.

Merv,

What I was referring to is that I have never heard of anyone being put through the wringer for 5 hours previously.

Nor have I ever heard of anyone being scrutenised so deeply, that the Inspectors are going through each ADR, word by word and applying their interpretations of specific words down to the most finite detail.

Baz

Baz · #86 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beejay

Baz,

What you are going through is terrible, and the RTA clearly has an agenda to stop ICV's getting registered. What a shame for the whole industry.

Having said that, do you think that modifying a head rest is going to meet Euro 4 standards? It would have been easier to buy the $200 SAAS seats or others that comply.

Sorry to be a party pooper.

Ben

Ben,

From what I was told yesterday, it would appear that I will have to source some really narrow seats, e.g. Clubman dimensions, as the position where the seats fit between the transmission tunnel and the doors is really narrow and seats such as SAAS just won't fit.

Baz · #87 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zedn

Baz,

How are the headrest covers actually attached? Is it just a cover with foam in it that slips over or is it actually attached? If it is not firmly attached then it wouldnt be serving the intention of the standard and they have reason to request it to be fixed. Even though there is no way your head could physically whiplash over it. Perhaps you can find someones seats to borrow for the inspection?

My RX7 seats are border line, if measured from the bottom of the bucket they are 855, if measured from the bottom of the back rest section they are closer to 750mm. The diagram in the ADR is not the clearest to know where to measure from.

The thing i have thought about is modifying the mounting location of the bracket that connects the seat back to the bottom, so the seat back is mounted higher thus leaving a gap at the bottom that can be filled with a lumber support. Perhaps you could discuss that with your trimmer. Only problem is that one side is mounted with a bolt to pivot on.

Are the fittings for the tonneau cover screwed on? Can you just unscrew them.

Dont be intimidated by him going through every ADR, your car has been built by a professional to comply with them. An expert inspector wouldnt have to read through every ADR, they should have such a good knowlege that they just have to occasionally look up specific numbers. I reckon he is just busy and is giving you an excuse. If i were you i would just wait for the report and try not to get him upset.

Makes you wish you were building a hot rod. They have life so easy, yet try to make out these are "just kit cars" and are heaps easier then hot rods.

I wonder how the clubbie guys are going with all this. Has your Engineer got anyone else going through or did you keep in touch with others doing the brake test?

Liam,

Yesterday, he displayed great pride in informing me that through the week he rejected a Clubman which had 22 issues so I'm not alone.

Baz

Merv and Sharon · #88 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 04:12 PM

Baz would the state omsbudsman take up your case as an example of duplication of requirements and over zealous implementation of guidelines?

Rog246 · #89 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Baz if you are the first with the new procedure, how come they have rejected 140 others. I thought u said that. Seems as much an attitude as a new system. If this was a business application it would be restraint of trade in legal terms. I wonder how constructors of complete cars (factory built kits) are going in NSW? I guess this goes to the heart of the ICV definition.

Jeez Merv, you just might have something there !
What if Baz registered himself as a Business, got an ABN from TAX. Then filed a formal complaint as a constitutional restriction of trade between the states !?

Baz if this wasn't so serious, not just for you but for everyone, it would be the basis of a real Shakespearean farce !
Keep your chin up sunshine. I was once told the persistence beats resistance, so keep persisting,
and as said before " Nill desperandom illigitimous carborumdom ! "

Rog

Beejay · #90 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 05:16 PM

Baz,

Might be worth checking the wreckers for a fairly new Swift or Corolla etc. for seats. Won't be cheap but might be the only way out.

Earlier I thought I had found some good seats from a Peugot but they were electric and had bulky bases - very common on most seats today.

Cheers,

Ben

NASSTY · #91 (**permalink**) 06-04-2010, 06:10 PM

I'd suggest looking at early Honda Prelude seats, narrow and reasonably tall and should only be a couple of hundred bucks. Pain in the A#$e this stuff I know but the path of least resistance will get you there faster. My engineer had some stupid suggestions and passed other things that were greyer. Charged a bomb too but at least at V1croads all they did was process the paperwork and checked the vin number. Car regoed in 1/2hr. The R7A would appear to fly against the common govt practise nowadays of subcontracting all the "work" out to 3rd parties.

Baz · #92 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Baz would the state omsbudsman take up your case as an example of duplication of requirements and over zealous implementation of guidelines?

I doubt it Merv as all they are doing is following the ADR's to the letter. It's hard for me to say this. but the law is on their side and it looks like I will have to comply with their requests WHEN I receive the list. When it does come through, I will be sitting down with my Engineer and going through it in detail. He's signed off on his report, so his neck is on the chopping block. I only hope for both our sakes that he has some favourable ammunition that he can fire back at them.

Baz

boxhead · #93 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 04:42 AM

I think I have heard of people using Hyundai excel seats in tight applications, not sure if they would compy with height regulations as they are late 90's models and regs where different then.

OZCOBRA · #94 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 07:14 AM

Just in case you guys didn't see this little GEM....Personally I thought it's timing was particularly strange at the time considering the prominence of this topic here.....posted as a 1'st post...then NO follow up....Hmmmmm was I on the mark

...MRD40 ???...or is it in fact Mr.NSW-RTA?????
ICV rego in NSW

Merv and Sharon · #95 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 02:14 PM

Baz I wasn't suggesting that what they did was not legal but that the required processes were a duplication.

That is, the engineer was 'appointed' by the RTA and the NSW Govt to oversee the ADR applications of the build and was registered to be able to charge a fee for that service. Then again, another set of agents employed by the government (the 'Inspectors") were required to check his checking. That would seem to be duplication of procedure and a disadvantage to the public - an issue I think the Omsbudsman could be interested in.

Baz · #96 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OZCOBRA

Just in case you guys didn't see this little GEM....Personally I thought it's timing was particularly strange at the time considering the prominence of this topic here.....posted as a 1'st post...then NO follow up....Hmmmmm was I on the mark

...MRD40 ???...or is it in fact Mr.NSW-RTA?????
ICV rego in NSW

Hi Oz

I think your spot on. I find it strange that Mr D40 posts on 25/8/2009 and does get a response on his thread for 10 months and then by Chris 5.7ltr on 2/6/2010, which is coincidetally 5 days after my first visit to the RTA.

I know that they are reading these threads. I just wish Anthony, that you would get on with preparing my list of 'Non Complying Issues' so I can attend to them instead of wasting your time on this Forum. ICV Builders have a right to know what they have to go through in this State and noone, RTA included is going to prevent me from telling them.

By the way, you spell 'hear' - 'HERE'.

Baz

Zedn · #97 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

I know that they are reading these threads. I just wish Anthony, that you would get on with preparing my list of 'Non Complying Issues' so I can attend to them instead of wasting your time on this Forum. ICV Builders have a right to know what they have to go through in this State and noone, RTA included is going to prevent me from telling them.

Baz you said in your first post they told you two weeks, hasnt it only been one?

boxhead · #98 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zedn

Baz you said in your first post they told you two weeks, hasnt it only been one?

I think your right, maybe your little picture is correct.
I know a user with Chris 5.7 as user name on another forum (not personally) but an active member for more years than Baz has been active on here/hear.

Maybe Baz is working for the RTA and is trying to scare everyone away from building a Cobra?

Yes they are being harsh, but as you said Baz, by the book they are correct, so I say - pull your head in a notch or 2, take a deep breathe and fix what they want with a smile and say thank you.
Then enjoy the car.

What is teh old saying - you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Merv and Sharon · #99 (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 07:04 PM

True, but a key issue is how the next applicant is treated, and the next and, so on. There are appointed state and national review bodies currently examining claims of double management of applications in all fields including health, education and transport and the policy of 'mutual recognition' is a key criterion. That is, if one appointed body approves something, then another should not re-start the process. If I were the RTA in NSW inspectors I would be trying to justify my existence - which it seems they may be doing.

As much as Baz has been personally and financially disadvantaged in this process, there is a bigger picture. Still we have been this way before ....

lovehamr · #**100** (**permalink**) 06-05-2010, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxhead

Yes they are being harsh, but as you said Baz, by the book they are correct, so I say - pull your head in a notch or 2, take a deep breathe and fix what they want with a smile and say thank you.
Then enjoy the car.

What is teh old saying - you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Then, sometimes it's just better to use a flamethrower. Who wants the f'ing flies anyway?

You guys put up with an enormous amount of crap to build your cars and your personal liberties are eroding at a startling rate. My hat's off to you who persevere despite your draconian government’s intervention!!

Steve