How to pass the "noise test"???

[Merv and Sharon]

This is becoming a real worry. We should all put in Corolla motors and be done with it. If you want complete confusion see: http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/gene...sedADR8300.pdf

Merv

[Baz]

Enough is enough.

This morning I took the time to draft out a two page set of representations which I emailed and also faxed to the Minister for Roads in NSW Parliament, Mr. Eric Roozendaal MP requesting answers to a number of questions as raised my members of this Forum in this thread and also of my personal concerns to this ridiculous change in procedures relating to the high speed brake test.

I concluded the reps., to Roozendaal with the following comment:-"Truthfully, I doubt whether you are even aware of the existence of this ridiculous amendment, as no person in their right mind would allow it to be implemented."

I also sent a copy of the representations to a good M.P. friend of mine who sits in the Legislative Council in the Opposition Benches.

Lets see if it does any good. Hopefully, we will be doing brake tests at speeds less than the maximum speed limit in the near future and not necessarily on private roads or race tracks.

Baz

[Rebel1]

Good move Baz.

Since my post on this subject and raising concern regarding possible accidents. I got to wondering how exactly Insurance companies would view an accident under this testing. I would guess Insurance companies and their legal representatives would have very valid argument to refuse a claim.

I then got to thinking about Workers Compensation for the engineers and also how Workplace health and Safety would view this bureaucratic brainstorm.

I can understand auto manufacturers ( Ford, Holden, Chev etc.) being made to undertake these tests with controlled testing conditions, robot controlled test mules etc and amortizing those costs across thousands of cars, but for an ICV.....just plain stupidity.

Good work Baz.

[Ross Smith]

Hi Bobby,

I took my car to the Midland centre to be licensed and there was no drive by test, they accepted the engineers testing and report. They do not have the equipment to test your car at the licensing centre. My car makes a lot of noise, but they did not complain, they did fail it because it was backfirinfg and that was loud, but tuning fixed that and it passed the second time.

My engineer only did static testing, there was no requirement for drive by testing when it was done a year ago, have the rules changed in WA?

Ross

[Plums]

Hi Ross,

I have a different engineer so perhaps that's where the driveby test comes from. I do know that your engineer must have been very nice to you, because there is no way your car would come anywhere close to as quiet as mine is right now, and mine is a fair way off passing.
Your car is loud, sounds bloody awesome and I'm jealous as hell...

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Rebel1

Good move Baz.

Since my post on this subject and raising concern regarding possible accidents. I got to wondering how exactly Insurance companies would view an accident under this testing. I would guess Insurance companies and their legal representatives would have very valid argument to refuse a claim.

I then got to thinking about Workers Compensation for the engineers and also how Workplace health and Safety would view this bureaucratic brainstorm.

I can understand auto manufacturers ( Ford, Holden, Chev etc.) being made to undertake these tests with controlled testing conditions, robot controlled test mules etc and amortizing those costs across thousands of cars, but for an ICV.....just plain stupidity.

Good work Baz.

Rebel,

My four requests to the Minister, reflects the Insurance question as well as a couple of other matters that you have mentioned previously in this thread. These are the 4 requests and comment that I sent:-

1. An explanation as to why his Dept., is insisting that a member of the NSW public, places his/her life at risk to comply with this ridiculous amendment?

2. Who accepts responsibility if someone is seriously injured or even killed during these testing procedures?

3. Is this State prepared to pay for any damage caused to the vehicle during these tests, as the owners Insurance Company certainly won't?

4. That this ridiculous requirement be immediately overturned and that future brake tests be carried out at speeds under the maximum speed limit applicable in this Country.

Final comment: "Not only is it dangerous, but it also rips your new tyres and brake pads to pieces. Just because a person builds an I.C.V.., that doesn't mean that they are comfortable or even capable of driving at 160kph, let alone doing crash stops from that speed. Anything could happen and eventually will."

I have already received a reply back from my friendly M.P. who sits on the Opposition Bench in the Legislative Council. She responded to my email whilst holidaying in Turkey and stated that she totally supports my submissions and has instructed her staff to proceed in pursuing this matter with full vigour in the House.

Sounds good to me and that's a good start.

Baz.

[Beejay]

Guys,

Remember that this is a public forum, and anyone including the RTA could be reading this. At the end of the day, the rules are in place and we have to build and present a car that complies if we want registration.

I managed to pass the noise testing, but it took a lot of sound proofing and induction pipe trials before I got even close.

The brake testing is pretty freaky at 160 Kph - I am glad it was the engineer doing this and not me! The tyres and brakes sure get a workout.

Cheers,

Ben

[Rebel1]

Beejay, that's exactly the point...who cares if they read this or not.....the NSW Minister is about to get a letter so who cares if he gets some preview of a voting public opinion.

You say the brake test was freaky...what if something failed and the engineer and your car ended on a scrap heap?. Did you check if your insurance would pay out if an accident did happen during testing?.

Are you really telling me that you would be content to loose your $k60-$k80
cobra because a bureaucrat was too lazy to read the fine print?.

Originally Posted by Beejay

Guys,

Remember that this is a public forum, and anyone including the RTA could be reading this. At the end of the day, the rules are in place and we have to build and present a car that complies if we want registration.

I managed to pass the noise testing, but it took a lot of sound proofing and induction pipe trials before I got even close.

The brake testing is pretty freaky at 160 Kph - I am glad it was the engineer doing this and not me! The tyres and brakes sure get a workout.

Cheers,

Ben

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Beejay

Guys,

Remember that this is a public forum, and anyone including the RTA could be reading this. At the end of the day, the rules are in place and we have to build and present a car that complies if we want registration.

I managed to pass the noise testing, but it took a lot of sound proofing and induction pipe trials before I got even close.

The brake testing is pretty freaky at 160 Kph - I am glad it was the engineer doing this and not me! The tyres and brakes sure get a workout.

Cheers,

Ben

Ben,

I really hope the RTA are reading this.


Baz

[Philm]

I passed the noise test with my car by doing exactly what Ben did and wrap everying up seal off all holes like side vents well wells etc.

I do not understand the change to 160kms it makes no sence and as you guys have said I am sure most of the cars will not be driven at that speeds, expecially the LS1 powered cars


I think we have done fairly well with the ICV rule changes in the past, but as Matt has said the move to a more taylored set of rules like the hot rodders would be the only way the ICV will survive.

Good work Baz

Les, the numbers are scary, but this is what could happen.

Phil