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

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

Liam

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]

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

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.

[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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Hmmm
 

Merv I may be interpreting your previous ? incorrectly so please ignore this if it doesn't apply...

My limited understanding is that no manufacturer of ICV kits can build complete cars under ICV. They can only build kits for Individuals to individually construct. I believe no manufacturer can actually build an ICV for a purchaser like you an me. Effectively that said we assume then that no ICV on the road today or planned for road use to come, has been built or is being built by a KIT supplier??? Harrison, DRB, RCR only sells kits for US to build. That I see in itself is an issue that some may not be too keen highlight...

I dont think this is true, i know that Classic revival sell turn key models. Probably others do to. Correct me if i am wrong.

Zedn if you're right... and you may very well be.

Then they wouldn't be Individually Constructed Vehicles then.....

Would they????

You are of course correct Spooky - I was referring to those few in Kitcar mag who do in fact make and sell complete cars by that LCV route. I was wondering if any of our kit suppliers have considered that route for customers who would like a turnkey vehicle?

Merv.... It just highlights the many twists and turns that the whole standards issue raise....

I would suggest that LCV in itself is a whole new ballgame again!

The National Code states the cut-off for builders assembling ICV's is no more than 3 vehicles per year. It can be the kit manufacturer or a 3rd party. But each state has it's own views on that regulation, some restrict you to only one kit a year. So you need to contact the local transport authority for clarification. It certainly isn't something that the transport authorities encourage, but by the same token the authorities can not discriminate either against an individual who does not have the capability to build there own. I know I have been approached by a physically disabled person looking to own an ICV built to their own specification. Now what do you do then.

Merv, the decision to go low volume path is a complex one. I think you need the right platform to do so. But it does have it's advantages. I've certainly considered the implications, but at the moment I would prefer to just sell kits.

Is there a difference between low volume and ICV?

Low volume are vehicles by companies such as Chamonix Australia http://www.550spyder.com.au/ that import 'kit' cars in a broken down form (or not), assemble and compliance them for sale.

Cheers

Yes, i know what they are. I should have been more clear. Is there a difference in compliance requirements?

That was one of the ones I was referring to Geoff. I was wondering if that was an option for some manufacturers and whether they would be affected by the impending rule changes (ESP, etc)? From what Craig has said this is an area that he and others have considered.

Merv