If your up for Rego in NSW - Read this.

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by boxhead

Baz, talk with Les on the phone, I dont think your rack will be marked with an "E", I read his post as it should be stamped with a number? maybe part number by the supplier.

Exactly, there is no "E" number. It must be an RMC number that proves they did the shortening or at least approved the standard of work.

My number, stamped in large letters on top of the cast end adjacent to the steering input shaft is RMC854.

The build manual (dates back to the Anaconda days) also says in the parts list that the rack, steering column, and rear shortened diff bits MUST be sourced from RMC and are stamped and numbered.

[Zedn]

Exactly, there is no "E" number. It must be an RMC number that proves they did the shortening or at least approved the standard of work.

My number, stamped in large letters on top of the cast end adjacent to the steering input shaft is RMC854.

The build manual (dates back to the Anaconda days) also says in the parts list that the rack, steering column, and rear shortened diff bits MUST be sourced from RMC and are stamped and numbered

Unless RMC have ADR approval, the numbers will mean didely squat. I imagine it will be the same as brake lines where the shop has an ADR certificate that approves them to do the work.

I expect thats what the RTA will require.

[OZCOBRA]

Sorry Merv ,

Couldn't hear you laughing over all the noise of me kickin heads in my steel caps....Sorry no NINJA boots on these feet!!
PS ...hope you had a good day !!!

OZ

[400TT]

Originally Posted by Zedn

Unless RMC have ADR approval, the numbers will mean didely squat. I imagine it will be the same as brake lines where the shop has an ADR certificate that approves them to do the work.

I expect thats what the RTA will require.

The RTA could be satisfied if the rack had testing documentation or there is certification documentation to prove the shortening process did not result in the modified rack having less strength and reliability than the original rack. That's what would concern me and I expect that will also concern Baz now it has been pointed out.

I expect no one here uses a matching steering rack and column where the original ADR approval really means anything. Normally there are modifications made to the column shaft lengths, the angle of the column shaft and joints, the location of the rack & column mounts, non-matching rack to column, mount types used etc. Then you should also have calculations for amount of load being put through the steering assembly from tyres and suspension compared to the original donor vehicle with it's largest optional sized wheels and tyres.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by 400TT

The RTA could be satisfied if the rack had testing documentation or there is certification documentation to prove the shortening process did not result in the modified rack having less strength and reliability than the original rack. That's what would concern me and I expect that will also concern Baz now it has been pointed out.

I expect no one here uses a matching steering rack and column where the original ADR approval really means anything. Normally there are modifications made to the column shaft lengths, the angle of the column shaft and joints, the location of the rack & column mounts, non-matching rack to column, mount types used etc. Then you should also have calculations for amount of load being put through the steering assembly from tyres and suspension compared to the original donor vehicle with it's largest optional sized wheels and tyres.

Thanks Craig,

You have made some interesting and correct points and I take them on board. All I can do now is wait for a reply from RMC.


Baz

[Merv and Sharon]

OZ: "Merv - ... Have a laugh at yourself"

I did OZ - you must have missed it - above ("Mc Fly it is! I had an idea that they may have contacted the moderator and ... well complained. At least this thread has united the those with police force/service histories among us)."

Enough of "common sense" included for a guy working (not on cars unfortunately) today

[BMK]

Baz

Not good news. Hope you have more luck once the number of items identified have been done.

Here hoping they don't find more..

[BMK]

Hershal

Hi mate. Yes we have a few problems over here with presenting out cars.

Good to hear that you are thinking about the Phillip Island Classics next year. Glad to have you over.

We will do the east coast up to Sydney etc. for sure..

Mmmm two old Armed Robbery Squad and Homicide cops together on a road trip - some stories no doubt. Make those Underbelly characters look like kids..

Cheers

Bernie

[*Cobber*]

bludy hell.....

Good luck, just fix what they want it doesn't sound like a show stopper.

[Merv and Sharon]

I think you have had some good feedback and support on this Baz. It is a horror story, however, and is a case study of what can happen. It should form the basis of a good letter to the RTA and Ministry - once you're registered however!

[jcraigau]

Illegitimi non carborundum

...or move to WA

[stephen low]

So jccraigau

Are you telling Baz to not let the bastards grind him down or f&@* the system?

Or both?

For Baz it's more a case of -

Nullae satisfactionis potiri non possum. - as sung by the Lapides Provolventes

Hang in there Baz the satisfaction will eventually be great!

[spookypt]

Keep ya chin up Baz.....

SpookyPT

[jcraigau]

I was going with the first one, but latin is not my strong suit. Sounds like poor 'ol Baz could use them both though...

[stephen low]

Truth be told, the Latin class I found myself in at secondary school was by accident as I think I should have been in a visual arts type class instead.

So to easily summarise my real knowledge of latin.

About all I can vaguely recall is Laborum Laboras Laborat - "to labour", presumably with different Grandma inflections!!

My English Grandma is pretty stunted too!! No where near as bad as Venom's though - lol

As for you Baz

Lapides Provolventes are the Rolling Stones singing I ain't got no satisfaction (yet)!

But it will come.

Cheers

[Merv and Sharon]

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

[Philm]

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

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Philm

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.

Phil,



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

good luck

Phil

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

[boxhead]

Originally Posted by Baz

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

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.

[OZCOBRA]

[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!!!!!