ESC mandatory

[Merv and Sharon]

Hey Craig - it is good to see you back on the Forum! Really..

Merv

[400TT]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Hey Craig - it is good to see you back on the Forum! Really..

Merv

Thanks Merv. I have been browsing, but lost my login details when I bought a new notebook. Plus things have been really busy.

[victor]

maybe 2 or 3 cobras rocking up at our local or federal members officers with a letter, would make a point...it would be hard to forget .i would be happy to do brisbane so anyone anytime would suit me

[Merv and Sharon]

As far as I can see Craig is the only manufacturer/builder who has expressed an opinion on this Forum - and has honestly done so. I do hope he is right. The current system is crazy but not totally stupid and one can only hope that logic and common sense will prevail on the current issue. Of course, all our efforts to make our elected 'servants' aware of the issue can only help. A request to form a national association with its own rules would seem the only long term solution.

Merv

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

As far as I can see Craig is the only manufacturer/builder who has expressed an opinion on this Forum. Merv

Maybe the only Queensland manufacturer Merv. Classic revival offered his interpretation on page 6, post 82. Quite different thoughts to Craig.

As mentioned earlier, I attended a meeting at DRB prior to the November meeting at Medowbrook in Nov. 07. The complacency of manufacturers was as obvious then as it is now. I am not surprised that the November 07 meeting just couldn't get the support and direction it needed.

[Merv and Sharon]

OK Les. Has there been another meeting since that one 2 years ago - perhaps specifically on the new issue of ESP? Maybe the CC Club could do a quick survey of all manufacturers, kit suppliers, parts suppliers and so on to get some consolidated data on their thoughts on the key questions, estimates of the value of the industry, etc. That would be relatively easy to conduct?

Merv

[400TT]

Experience tells me that fighting or getting exemptions from ADR's is the wrong approach. But in saying that, that's exactly what I have been doing myself.

We need to bite the bullet and fight for our own regulations. While we remain ICV's we will always have this problem.

I didn't want to say anything, but I really take offence to criticism against manufacturers and particularly myself. Who here would really know what manufacturers are doing to help ICV compliance. Yes not all are proactive, yes there is always more that can be done, but there is a lot of work that is being performed behind the scenes. Same goes for engineers, a lot of proactive work there as well.

And I can tell you that holding a meeting of this type at a particular manufacturers place of business, like the meeting at DRB, is the wrong approach.

I attended the Nov 07 meeting long before I had any intentions of becoming a manufacturer.

But this battle on ESC is just too far off for me. I'm currently fighting for emissions at the moment.

[spookypt]

I attended the 07 meeting too from memory at Meadowbrook! There seemed to be a range of different topics/issues all trying to fly under the same banner of "creating something like the hotrodders" but then there was a stacking of other issues like emissions, noise etc etc. I felt different people had different issues to push and the more issues created the more off topic to the original issue we became....
For me, it was the beginning of the end. I respect everyone is in different positions, Craig, Les, Don and others.... Mine is that I can't muster the energy to fight on for what I have personally created.. So I'm selling to move to areas that are far less restrictive and compliant as to whats actually allowed... But to each their own and I respect their willingness and keenness to try and make a difference.

Spookypt

[400TT]

Originally Posted by spookypt

I felt different people had different issues to push and the more issues created the more off topic to the original issue we became....

Yeah, that is exactly what happened. Some wanted to stay as ICV's and get exemptions on ADR's and others wanted to have their own regulations. A united approach will be the problem.

[spookypt]

Although my memory is dodgy.... the ICV owners issues (eg: Craig and mine for example at the time) were "somewhat" different to what the manufacturers issues were (DRB for example). That's not a crack at Pete R, just an example of different people looking at the "issue" from a whole range of points of view.

It's a tough topic to get "all for one and one for all". Imagaine what it was like at the meeting! I think it almost has to be one mans fight with the complete support and backing from industry. To try and get "all" the players to agree as to the agenda boggles the mind. Remember ICV is supposed to be exactly that. Manufacturers are not "supposed" to make clients cars so there are reasons why certain camps push certain barrows... No fingers being pointed just my observation.

My 2 cents worth... And Wazza B may be interested and I am happy to lead as the culmanator (Spell) of topics... I would like to see at the 2010 Nats a forum meeting held for all attendees with strict topics on agenda and votes accordingly with a yearly review at the Nats to see how things are progressing. Beats the crap out of same issues being raised year after year... My suggestion would be a meet and greet on the Friday evening with a National CCC Quorum (spell again) being formed with a simple topic for discussion and vote system that is diarised and journaled into SnakeTales with individuals being nominated to head each topic issue for review.
Topic 1: ICV rules and how to lobby
Topic 2: Cobra Nats being held at Wakefield but run by a different club each year
Topic 3: Should Wazza B be MC again at the dinners??? Yeah OK no brainer....

But you get my drift? Mind you, if that idea is poo poo'd I'm happy just to come down for a fang!



SpookyPT

SpookyPT

[Zedn]

http://www.nothoons.com.au/

This worked apparently. Mind you it is state and not an ADR.

Liam

[Zedn]

I just sent this email to Andrew Stoner MP

Dear Mr Stoner,

First of all i would like to commend you on your involvement with the vehicle suspension rules.

I would like to bring to your attention another issue that relates to motor vehicles that is going to have a hugely negative impact on an Australia wide community of enthusiests that are not hoons.

The new ADR released by Anthony Albanese for mandatory electronic stability control is possing a large threat to enthusiests like my self that build individually constructed vehicles (eg Kit cars, Replica vehicles, low volume vehicles etc). I myself am mid way through building an AC Shelby Cobra replica. I have already invested a lot of money in building this vehicle and if not completed before Nov 2011 i will not be able to register it without ESC (which Bosch have quoted $1.3M to design for a vehicle).

Dont get me wrong, ESC is fantastic for day to day cars where the manufacture is making many cars and can therefore absorb the design cost. But it will kill what is in fact a very family oriented community that know the time and the place to be a hoon is on the race track at the many club organised events.

I know this doesnt specifically relate to your area, but i would be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter and any assistance you can offer our community.

Regards,

Liam Martin
[B.eng (Civil) Dip eng Prac]

[Merv and Sharon]

I agree Liam. The survey format that you attached could give us data to use/quote, especially if the survey was well focussed on 'yes/no' issues regarding the creation of a "Cobra Class" of vehicle, similar to the Hot Rod association's. We may never, as Craig says, agree on all the issues but I suspect we would one the critical ones.

Merv

[Rebel1]

Merv, to answer your question re consequent meetings .. no there hasn't.

In response to Craig's comment ie. "And I can tell you that holding a meeting of this type at a particular manufacturers place of business, like the meeting at DRB, is the wrong approach." .... I say absolute bloody rubbish.

No one outside of the industry knew of this meeting except myself. Those invited to this meeting were manufacturers/builders and the object of the meeting was as a simple courtesy, repeat a courtesy, to the builders to advise them the outcome of several discussions held with QT. I was the only "outsider" invited as the QT discussions had mostly been with me owing to my long standing "contacts" within the department. I left this meeting somewhat dejected.

I repeat what I mentioned in a previous thread ... QT were most helpful and even advised us what they considered the best way to move forward. What a loss of an opportunity?.

What then happened was a public meeting was held at Meadowbrook and the whole thing fell to pieces. I did not attend this meeting.

Why did it fall to pieces?? .... There is an old saying in government circles .... ie.: "Never call an enquiry unless you know the outcome"

John Staszynski had it all sorted and had begun the process. All he wanted was to establish a coordinated common purpose lobby group in every state and territory of Aust.

As to the question of "replica" regulations or staying with the ICV classification. The builder has the choice as to what classification he wishes to comply just as the hot rod fellas currently enjoy. It is just a damn site easier for them under the hot rod regulations.

There is much I can't divulge in a public forum regarding my discussions with QT, but one thing which does stick in my mind is: The department does not like ICV's or hot rods. Read into that what you will.

Craig, If I was currently in the market for a GT40 I would like to know if I can register the car in say 2012. I would certainly like to know if I had to plan for the fitment of ESC and what, if anything, my supplier is doing to address the question.

[400TT]

[quote=Rebel1;999612]
Craig, If I was currently in the market for a GT40 I would like to know if I can register the car in say 2012. I would certainly like to know if I had to plan for the fitment of ESC and what, if anything, my supplier is doing to address the question.

QUOTE]

Les there are no guarantees. There could very well be other changes that occur before then. That's the way it works for ICV's. My gut feeling is that the transport departments will not want us to incorporate ESC ourselves. Common sense will prevail. As it has done in the past. But that's just my opinion and I don't feel I should be crusified for it.

Over the last few years I have seen both common sense from transport departments and what I consider to be disappointing changes. It's a mixed bag.

Yes you could choose whether you wanted the "replica" regulations or ICV regulations. But we couldn't even come up with a consolidated approach. Some people involved wanted replica regulations and others wanted to change the ICV regulations.

I certainly pushed for financial involvement as that is the way the Australian Street Rod Federation works. They pay Barristers etc to fight for and protect their regulations.

[NASSTY]

It seems to me that if gov. departments are made aware of the costs involved to regulate some aspect of the regulations then there may be an opportunity to effect change.
One good example from the industry I'm in was the elimination of superannuation contributions surcharge. It cost the ATO more money to regulate it than it (ATO) collected. It was part of a package of super reforms at the time but you get my drift.

For ICV the two big issues are emissions and now ESC. How much time and $$ is wasted by Transport departments to administer these requires, carry out audits etc compared to the kms travelled per year and breaches of the rules actually found? Is it more practical and economical to relax the regs. I've heard on the grapevine that some in Vic are taking this approach. If that's the case it would seem to me that engineers under the VASS system (who certify ICV in VIC at least) would be the most influential especially if backed by all interested parties. Common sense, where has it gone???

Al

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by NASSTY

For ICV the two big issues are emissions and now ESC. How much time and $$ is wasted by Transport departments to administer these requires, carry out audits etc compared to the kms travelled per year and breaches of the rules actually found? Is it more practical and economical to relax the regs. I've heard on the grapevine that some in Vic are taking this approach. If that's the case it would seem to me that engineers under the VASS system (who certify ICV in VIC at least) would be the most influential especially if backed by all interested parties. Common sense, where has it gone???

Al

Spoken like a devoted bean counter Al, and I agree with some qualification.
I think you are mistaken when you say the authorities are unaware of the admin costs. Discussion with QT up here very much indicated their concern with admin costs of the ICV category. This is somewhat indicated by their recommendation not to pursue a "cobra" category as Cobras were only a very small part of the replica scene. ie. Their recommendation was to incorporate all manner of replicas. Cobras,GT40's,clubman and whatever other make of replica is out there. Hence the effort to widen the audience at the before mentioned meeting. ie.: QT didn't want to deal with a whole host of different replicas.

The message in fact was very simple and straight forward: Governments like to outsource for several reasons.
1. It's cheaper for them to administer.
2. If things go pear shaped, responsibilty can be directed away from them.
3. The category is "managed" by people with more knowledge of the industry.
4. Governments can be seen as complying with international agreements (emissions,ESC etc) without the exemptions of interest groups (read ICV's/hot rods/replicas) reflecting on governance.

The message was very clear .. If an interest group, lets call it "replicas" can establish a set of "acceptable documented standards" which include some degree of emission standards (unlike Hot Rods ((no emission standard))but maybe not as stringent as current legislation), engineering practice (beam and torsion tests etc), and mechanical approval( read engineers) in an auditable manner then they would very much entertain the concept.

[Merv and Sharon]

This adds more information than we have had so far Les. Thank you. I guess the Clubman guys are equally stressed. They may well outnumber Cobras. To have a single 'replica' category would need carefully developed criteria to allow the state and national authorities some degree of confidence that such a category could not be too broad and thus be exploited.

However, as others have said, fighting each new impost on ICV builders on an 'exemption' basis will eventually prove impossible, when one minister/bureaucrat defies common sense. The ESP issue may be 'it'.

This is all sounding too hard!!!

Merv

Merv

[Rebel1]

No one said it was going to be easy Merv, but the concept really is no different to quality management systems employed by government departments, Corporations and educational institutions.

But ... it has already been done by the hot rod guys and could be copied to some degree . We were even put in touch with one of the engineers who helped guide the hot rod guys in their implementation of their system adopted federally. Resident in Queensland no less.

The term "Hot Rod" covers a huge range of car types.

I think we also need to understand that many of the "Standards" currently in place were developed by the industries they represent. Cruising the highway last night I was passed by one of those 3 wheel trikes. Cool looking 3 seater thing, polished VW sticking out the back, huge set back (caster?) on the front forks. They are registrable and the standards were very much developed by the "industry".

We, on the other hand, want a car that is different but it would appear not interested in defining the standards those cars deserve to maintain their individuality.

[Merv and Sharon]

Surely you are not going the 3 wheel trike route Les???? Could be an interesting picture!

I was also wondering if some manufacturers have considered the LCV (low compliance vehicles) route? Particularly those that build complete cars?

Merv