have you registered a cobra in NSW?

[Jethrow]

Question. Why are you trying to show compliance with ADR 10/02 when the latest NCOP for ICV only calls up ADR 10/01?

I think this sets sets a bad precedent. I know it's easy for me to say this comping from WA, but I don;t see how the registration authorities can demand more than what the federally issued NCOP asks for.

Instead of banding together to do a test, perhaps you could band together to query this stance?

[Philm]

I tend to agree with Jethrow,
Yes maybe we can find a way to comply, but only until the next hurdle is put in place.

I am concerned that with every new ADR the cobra is becoming less "cobra" and more Toyota Prias.

I think the task in hand is to lobby NSW to adopt the NCOP for ICVs.

Phil

[OZCOBRA]

Originally Posted by Philm

I think the task in hand is to lobby NSW to adopt the NCOP for ICVs.

Phil

Phil ,
From what I've heard the NSW RTA had employed a Technical Writer to re-write the NCOP using its framework to be in line or as close to the CURRENT NSW requirements!!



NOTE;

NCOP....Warning To Users!!

""Users of the NCOP need to be aware that this document needs to be used in conjuction with the appropriate administrative requirements of the JURISDICTION
in which they either wish to REGISTER or gain approval to MODIFY a vehicle already reistered........

Further.....Whilst the NCOP provides assistance with respect to the construction of ICVs and the execution of modifications it is NOT to be taken as a design manual..""

This document in its own wording hand balls the resposibilty to the State Regulatory Authority if it so wishes to implement it's own Standards...... NCOP is a mininum Requirement of Operation!!

So as good as the NCOP could well be for us, the final document when published it is at best a guide for the RTAs to do as they wish unless they are lobbyed by groups such as us to get relevant Exemptions.


OZ....

[Zedn]

The NCOP is being considered for adoption by the RTA, but it will not replace ICVs. I assume it will replace the RTA standard for light vehicle modification.

The RTA have circulated a draft ammendment to the current NCOP to the signatories that pushes many of the modified cars into being an ICV. This include changes to wheel base, rebody and some others into being registered as an ICV. They then go out of the NCOP procedure and are required to comply with all ADRs with the exception of the those that have been made exempt for ICVs eg ADR69 and similar.

The national requirements for a low volume manufacturer (commercial manufacturer who actually sells their cars to the public) are lower than the current requirements for ICVs in NSW.

[Jethrow]

Originally Posted by Zedn

The national requirements for a low volume manufacturer (commercial manufacturer who actually sells their cars to the public) are lower than the current requirements for ICVs in NSW.

Well there it is right there. Sounds like it's time to start lobbying the politicians.

Reminds me of a story I once heard about an Australian who designed and built his own small single seater aircraft back in the early 1970s. It is a fine little aircraft, but the designer builder had every conceivable block put in his path by the then DCA to prevent him from registering it.

In the end, he took the department to court, and showed that the DCA was unreasonably with-holding his approvals, and creating demands that were beyond requirements. He won, and got his aircraft approved!

[suthol]

Originally Posted by Jethrow

Question. Why are you trying to show compliance with ADR 10/02 when the latest NCOP for ICV only calls up ADR 10/01?

I think this sets sets a bad precedent. I know it's easy for me to say this comping from WA, but I don;t see how the registration authorities can demand more than what the federally issued NCOP asks for.

Instead of banding together to do a test, perhaps you could band together to query this stance?

I couldn't agree more however, NSW have not adopted the new NCOP and never considered the old one because it was quite a poor document and full of contradictions.

Since around 2002 things in NSW have been getting progressively tougher so what we are trying to achieve is an understanding of exactly what they will accept, the feedback that I have shared today as a result of Saturday's phone call is the nearest I have had to anything like a quality response since my car went on the road on a UVP in 2009.

It may not be what we want to hear but at least they are talking again.

Regards
Dave King
Suthol VII