Carby 427 Approval in SA

[400TT]

I'm surprised no one is talking about this.

John the president of CCC in SA has negotiated an exemption from meeting emissions requirements for an ICV fitted with carby 427.

They were unsuccessful on getting approval for 5lt with 8 throttle bodies.

Surely the approval for carby 427 in SA could help provide a little leverage in getting the same exemption approved in other states.

Certainly a great effort on John's behalf. See June 2006 Snaketales for more info.

[BMK]

Craig

Your spot on. I have watched with interest as John has tirelessly worked through the maize at the registration office with the aim of having the ICV recognised as such.

OK.." I'm the constructor and I want to use".. approach..

Guess the low volume numbers of ICV's that would be constructed could see them recognised as they are - Independantly Constructed Vehicles.

I read somewhere where all the emission sh*t is just that, as the noisy Sunday neighbour with his two stroke wiper - snipper puts more crap into the atmosphere on any given Sunday than you and I would in a month with our cars..

Unfortunately that is a fact....

.. Where to from here...

There has been a push for a long time to get the Cobras in a similiar situation as the Street Rods with their pre 1948 guidelines..Now that would be perfect for Cobra builders if it went Nationally - like the Street Rodders regulations/guidelines..

More manufacturers need to be talking with and supporting John to make it happen I think.

Just my $0.02 worth..

[venom0427]

Originally Posted by Bernie Knight

Craig

Your spot on. I have watched with interest as John has tirelessly worked through the maize at the registration office with the aim of having the ICV recognised as such.

OK.." I'm the constructor and I want to use".. approach..

Guess the low volume numbers of ICV's that would be constructed could see them recognised as they are - Independantly Constructed Vehicles.

I read somewhere where all the emission sh*t is just that, as the noisy Sunday neighbour with his two stroke wiper - snipper puts more crap into the atmosphere on any given Sunday than you and I would in a month with our cars..

Unfortunately that is a fact....

.. Where to from here...

There has been a push for a long time to get the Cobras in a similiar situation as the Street Rods with their pre 1948 guidelines..Now that would be perfect for Cobra builders if it went Nationally - like the Street Rodders regulations/guidelines..

More manufacturers need to be talking with and supporting John to make it happen I think.

Just my $0.02 worth..

What I heard, was that the hot rodders are being pulled up as well as the cobras.
This all stems from the importers, as we all fall under the same umbrella.
Toyota and Mitsubishi cracked the sh1ts a long time ago and asked john Anderson to help out.
So he shut the indecon down as to the point were we are today.

And boy was Anderson a d1ck (#1 keeps coming up??) I was working on the vipers about two years age for Chrysler, as they were changing GM, Anderson got the vipers changed, due to a seat belt bolt (l/h to r/h) for the kids baby seat (capsule) and said that all he car need the hole plugged, this was to stop the babies from driving the 500HP viper.

Theirs a rummer (strong rummer) that a couple of blokes are now hi up in the RTA, they got screwed by this person hi up there, so they decided to go public, this was not going to happen, so they got how you say, a job and benefits (they will be well looked after)

I was asked to pay a large $ to get a compliance plates for my cars, under the same deal, I declined.

The shame is that people (good engineers) are being shafted for pulling up crooked counter staff, which have a crap day and think they are god.
We’ve now lost too many good engineers due to the beurocrasy and the double standards that are being placed on the engineers (who have the degrees in engineering) and common folk like us.

I remember that when I bought my first kit, the new ADR that was being brought in by the end of that year, it was an air bag for the steering wheel, and that was over 14 years ago, and I’m still hearing it today.

And you right to, more talk about getting the cars through, than gossip, hear say and innuendo.

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by Bernie Knight

Craig
I read somewhere where all the emission sh*t is just that, as the noisy Sunday neighbour with his two stroke wiper - snipper puts more crap into the atmosphere on any given Sunday than you and I would in a month with our cars..

Forget the neighbours Bernie....Up here registration is administered by the Dept of Transport. These same goons run our public bus fleet.

Recently they were caught out and found to be flaunting EPA laws by having their bus workshops at Toowong ( a Brisbane suburb) spewing all manner of toxic paint fumes onto neighbouring residences. They had just not updated the filters/extractors to modern standards and they had been doing this for years.

These are the very same people who insist we use clean engines in our Cobras.

I commend john for his stance and I don't know if the hot rod solution is the answer ( although better than we have currently). I believe we, the car enthusiest community need to get into the ears of our polititians and get recognition for who we are ie. individual constructed behicles, not massed produced vehicles.

The cobra ( and other car clubs) should join forces ( not amalgamate) and get into the ears of our polititians. Once they realise how many of us voting public want this then maybe things will change.

Sadly, few of the kit manufacturers are doing much to make it easier to register these things.

[venom0427]

Again here, here, but be careful, you aren’t trying to take on the RTA, you are taking on the local Gov (say Vic roads) each state sees the ADRS there way, not the way that the ADRS have been laid out.

say you look at the head light hi, or a seat, as to weather they meet the ADRs, especially chassis, each engineer has his way of doing the test, so some results will come out different.
If you were to do it, it would be wise to get the engineers on you side first, go in full bore with the back up of the industry.
Lets look at history, look at all of the proto types that said that they will be ADR approved, and come with low volume compliance.
Nearly all have come unstuck, even though they all had manufactures backing.
We all could come unstuck, say the new design rules need air bag (or air bag’s), roll over compliance, crash test, ABS the list can go on.

It took 1 idiot at Canberra who thought that he was god, and now look at the sh1t we are in now.


PS: im home sick, so ill bug you guys?

[Rebel1]

Exactly my argument venom0427.

Thats whats wrong with the hot rod deal...it's an agreement...an exemption if you will. This form of "agreement" can be overturned on the whim of a single person with enough authority.

I agree the various states interpret these rules differently....and that's fine, that's a local issue. The main issue here is the difference between " consumer quantities" of manufacture as opposed to ICV ( single one-offs).

That's where the problem lay...we are expected to manufacture an ICV to almost the same standards as the mass produced vehicles. Leastwise as far as pollution, noise, etc.. I agree that frames/chassis/seats etc., need to meet a certain standard and that's a manufacturers (read kit manufacturer) responsibility to meet.

But when the issues we are dealing with have to do with...emissions, noise, seat belt warnings, toggle/rocker switches or all manner of variables which in the overall scheme of things are really not too important to public safety then there needs to be a flexibility or softening of the regulations.

The EPA are governed by government policy which has a lot to do with International conventions. If the federal government agree ( in a world wide sense with other countries) that they are going to implement a certain level of vehicle emission that's fine.......for mass produced vehicles.

I am reminded of these rules every morning when a neighbour fires up his harley to go to work. He is legal at that noise level....a cobra is not.

In a nutshell...if something is not done soon, then we will be seeing air bags etc., as a requirement.

Cheers

[Rebel1]

By the way...that neighbour I mentioned.

I plan to get even very soon. see how much he likes an illegal cobra ( noisewise) firing up at 6:00 am

[venom0427]

rebel1 you are right, but again,each state and each engineer has a way of looking at the ADRs, so were do you start.

do you get a body or group of engineers together and do battle.

remember, we lost 5 good engineers (vic only)due to d1ck heads at each RTA branchs.
they all lost to them.
but its not just the kit manufacturers responsibility to meet the requirments,
One engineer’s opinion is different to another or the guy behind the counter.
Each engineer was taught differently to the other, so the way that they look at a set of rules, will be the way that they interpret it.

That’s what I was saying about the twist and beam test(chassis), there is the QLD way or the VIC way or the WA way or even the NSW way.

They all do the test differently, all we have to do is submit the test with the paper work VIC, but then it’s up to the guy in QLD to decipher or accept or reject the engineers report, or re do the test to comply with his way (or his standards).
And also, the euro3-4 ADRs, that we have to or will be having to comply to, the USA has stronger regulations than that of Europe, thanks again to Anderson, his decision has changed the Australian way of the future.

Think, Ferrari, Bentley, Chevy low volume, ford low volume, etc, these cars will never be seen on the streets of Australia, because of these new rules.

The 2005 dodge viper was to sell in Australia for $306,000, and Chrysler decided to pull the pin, because of him????.........it was going to be to hard to comply

[Rebel1]

Sooo...what do we do....lay down and die.

For all the reasons you have extrolled only confirm that something needs be done.

I work in an area where standards apply....strict Australian standards which reflect International standards. Not engineering sadly.

I fail to understand where an engineer refuses to accept, lets say, a beaming test which has been certified by an authorised testing authority. If a kit manufacturer goes to the trouble to have a chassis engineered, tested by a recognised testing authority, it is certified as compliant, then what right does a snotty nosed counter guy have to question the legitimatacy of the design.

I can't see any engineer arguing against the results of properly designed and tested ( read certified by recognised authority) chassis design. He may question the quality of welds etc but that is a manufacturers quality problem...not one of design.

I believe that most of the current confusion results from the standards not being clear. I have discussed with engineers their interpretation of a particular ruling when that same "issue" was approved elsewhere. Without going into too much detail, the need for 3 wipers was argued by one club member with an engineer. The engineer wanted 3 blades...the constructor had installed two. Two were eventually accepted after much measuring and debate about sight lines.

This is a simple example where it is left open to approved engineers to interpret. If the standard was properly documented...was accepted...and the car built to that standard. Then the engineer has no grounds for dispute. His job being to inspect the construction of the car against that standard.

Having said that....I also believe that is exactly how and why the Hot Rod fellas got their "standard" approved. They took the trouble to debate it, design it....engineer it, and then document it...and then got it approved by the authorities as the standard. They also put in place an inspection and policing process.

All they really did was professionalise the process. No different to private enterprise in all manner of design/manufacture/management.

I really believe the authorities are content to outsource all manner of services they once controlled. All one has to do is prove the standard is safe, meets acceptable standards, ( be they engineering or otherwise) and of consistant quality. Then put in place an inspection/policing procedure to ensure the quality is adhered to.

I believe the kit car industry( read all ICV's) is now big enough (in $ terms) to become professional. I don't see too many cobra kit manufacturers putting in place standards to differentiate themselves from backyarders.

I bought an RMC many moons ago because they proved to me the beaming test acceptable to the Queensland authorities. Queensland transport had confirmed the RMC was accepted but I wanted proof from the manufacturer. I believe at that time that RMC had some testing jig and a part of their business income came from testing the chassis of stretched limo's etc.

My wants really are quite simple. Some exemption from the emissions laws, noise levels, and ground clearance. Thats it.

Cheers

[400TT]

Originally Posted by Rebel1

I have discussed with engineers their interpretation of a particular ruling when that same "issue" was approved elsewhere. Without going into too much detail, the need for 3 wipers was argued but one club member with an engineer. The engineer wanted 3 blades...the constructor had installed two. Two were eventually accepted after much measuring and debate about sight lines.

Hey, no problems getting 2 wipers approved in QLD these days. Just got to get sweep right. Thanks to OzVenom(Scott) for his work on that, documenting the swept area to our engineer. I can certainly vouch for the effectiveness of 2 wipers, after driving that Harrison through torrential rain when travelling interstate a few years ago. The old DRB had 3 wipers and swept area was greater, but all important areas can be covered with 2 wipers.

But you probably already knew that...

[Rebel1]

Craig...exactly. ( thought you may comment on that )

But at that time engineers were waving their fingers in the air and insisting on three blades. It took Scotty to convince them the errors of their ways.

It just confirms my thoughts about the whole process.

To give more respect to what the hot rod fellas have done with their standard...have a look at how they want the drag links on Jag suspensions.

They..and many Cobra manufacturers, used to have parallel trailing arms for Jag suspensions. Now their standard insists on converging arms in line with the bottom swing arm pivot of the suspension.

They found a binding issue with the parallel arms so they changed it.

Takes some1 of scotties talents to get rid of that binding.

Cheers

[400TT]

Originally Posted by Rebel1

But at that time engineers were waving their fingers in the air and insisting on three blades. It took Scotty to convince them the errors of their ways.

Yep, had 3 wipers on the first Cobra.

I've heard that Scott can solve the problem of rain hitting the screen completely, I think it involves installing a hair dryer...

Notice I'm not saying much when it comes to transport authorities. I'm still undergoing therapy after the last approval/incident. Actually not far from the truth.

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by 400TT

Yep, had 3 wipers on the first Cobra.

I've heard that Scott can solve the problem of rain hitting the screen completely, I think it involves installing a hair dryer...

Notice I'm not saying much when it comes to transport authorities. I'm still undergoing therapy after the last approval/incident. Actually not far from the truth.

Hehehe Craig...where's ya adventurous spirit?

[venom0427]

Ok, beaming tests was as I remember.

we would have a chassis bolted to the floor at the rear via the shocker mounts (now this varies as to the engineers as were as to hold the chassis down) now if my shocker mount are say 10" away from centre and then you test the same chassis with the shockers are 15" away from centre, the test will have different results.

One engineer didn’t require the chassis to be bolted via the shocker mounts some did it via the frame???

As for the front of the car, if you were to place a jack stand under the front of the centre cross member and as he does the beam test, if the stand has a 1 1/2" plate then you are not getting a true reading.
As well as if the material you use is say 100x50 SHS to do the twist test, some engineers require that the material should be factored in but others do it as a solid beam.
Also what is the method that was used by the said engineer to carry out the beam test, how many dial gaugers were used, and at what point did they place them, now we only had two dial gaugers, so we could only take two readings at one time and then move the gaugers again to take another reading.
now after going thru 6 engineers over the past 15 years they all have there own way of doing the test, BUT they all said that the other engineers way of doing, either the calculation or the way the test was done was a ???.

One car was built to go to qld, it was engineered in Vic and when it got to qld the guy got the car to a roller, called a local engineer and the engineer pulled the car up as the body was about 1-2 mm to thin, it should have been 6mm.

Now we had a hell of a fight and the customer had to (if I remember correctly) put extra layers to please the engineer.

Nearly all the engineers we used have left because of thousands of other people trying to do the same thing....build there dream.
It’s the d1ck heads at Canberra, and the guy behind the counter that has turned this whole industry up side down.
My worst fear is that in about 2-3 years time the only kit/replicar industry will be gone.

It will cheaper for a guy to buy a second hand car, and re-design the whole thing to suit him.