The Hoops are Getting Bigger

[Zedn]

Testing of side intrusion bars is not a requirement. The RTA provide exemption for the testing requirement of the ADR but not the performance requirement. The engineer needs to provide evidence that they have assessed the adequacy of the structure by comparison to a production vehicle, calculations or FEA. They cannot just say 'the car has side intrusion bars - tick'.

According to the RTA, the problems that ICVs have been having in the last 2 years is attributed to engineers approving things based on visual inspection with no work being done to provide evidence for compliance. Its the same for suspension mounts and any modifications made to factory OEM parts.

From the conversations i have had with people at the RTA from Safer Vehicles, they just want more evidence of compliance and not just visual inspections.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Zedn

Testing of side intrusion bars is not a requirement. The RTA provide exemption for the testing requirement of the ADR but not the performance requirement. The engineer needs to provide evidence that they have assessed the adequacy of the structure by comparison to a production vehicle, calculations or FEA. They cannot just say 'the car has side intrusion bars - tick'.

According to the RTA, the problems that ICVs have been having in the last 2 years is attributed to engineers approving things based on visual inspection with no work being done to provide evidence for compliance. Its the same for suspension mounts and any modifications made to factory OEM parts.

From the conversations i have had with people at the RTA from Safer Vehicles, they just want more evidence of compliance and not just visual inspections.

What Liam says is absolutely spot on. Take it from me as I have recently been through that hoop. The Signatory Engineer must prove by way of calculations acceptable to the RTA, that the side intrusion bars or for that matter, any other modified OEM part, is capable of performing the duty that they are designed for and not just say they comply with the NCOPLVM.


Baz

[Zedn]

Gday Baz,

Hows the leg? Have you been getting the cobra out to enjoy the new rego?

[WKB]

This an extract from the email I read yesterday. I did remove the kit builders name and the type of ICV.

"but now the RTA require that I or the engineer produce some test results for the (Side impact / Side Door Strength ADR29 ) normally this is a crash test or a simulated test .

The kit builder's submission letter compares the ICV door to a Commodore which is now not acceptable"

This ICV uses factory hinges and door latches from a late model car.


Warren

[Zedn]

I cant comment without seeing the full context of the email. Baz's car passed rego a couple of weeks ago and that didnt require side impact testing.

There are a few other ICVs that i am aware of and none have required destructive testing, but all require some sort of analysis to be conducted by the engineer.

[Zedn]

I just went through my records and dug out a letter i recieved from the senior vehicle engineer vehicle standards RTA on 16/11/2010.

Extract:

'The RTA has allowed some alternatives to demonstrate compliance to applicable ADR's. The ADR which alternate means of demonstrating compliance is acceptable are as follows:

ADR31/01 - Brake Systems - alternative is RTA abridged brake test
ADR69/00 - Full frontal impact protection - alternative is labelling warning of possibility of degraded occupant protection
ADR72/00 - Dynamic Side impact protection - alternative is labelled warning of possibility of degraded occupant protection
ADR73/00 - Offset frontal impact protection - alternative is labelled warning of possible degraded occupant protection

I know you said ADR 29/00 which is not in this list, however ADR 29/00 under the heading 'exemption' states that vehicles that comply with ADR 72/00 are exempt from 29/00.