ESC mandatory

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Rebel1

A subject which has in the past been discussed to death.

Leave it to the bureaucrats and we will have a standards disaster which will stifle the ICV industry.

Merv also said the following: "The 'industry' has a large and continuing stake in the establishment of one national set of rules".

I sat in on a meeting a while back which included a number of Qld. based manufacturers. During that meeting I mentioned it was my view that unless the "Industry" starts lobbying and discussing issues with State governments then eventually there will be no industry.

The manufacturers at that meeting were complacent to say the least.

John Staszynski the ex President CCC SA. was setting up a working party which was to lobby governments but received little support. I suspect once an owner/builder has gone thru the "joys" of compliance then that's it as far as that owner is concerned. ie. He has his toy and has no interest in what happens in the future.

The manufacturers ( with cobra club support) have to drive this change. The manufacturers are the folks making money from the industry. They need to be more proactive.

Of course you are correct in what you say Les, but having been through the ADR changes which occurred in NSW during my build time, I can appreciate the position that Liam (Zedn) is in and why he is concerned.

I agree with you Les, that the persons who this is going to effect most in NSW especially, are the Kit Car Manufacturers and those who make a living building Kit Cars for clients, not to mention, blokes like Liam who are just commencing their build in NSW.

Mando says, if I have got this right, that the situation in SA is:- You notify the RTA or its equivalent in that State, that you are commencing to build an ICV and they supply guidelines and give you a time span in which to complete the build. Any new ADR's which occur between the commencement of your build and the your nominated completion date do not apply to you. If you require more time to complete your build than was originally allocated, you make application to the Licensesing Authority. Have I got that right Mando?

gjkrv8 indicates that Victoria has a similar system to SA. Whats the go in WA Cobber and in the N.T. Boxhead?

Les or Merv:= Is the situation the same in Qld, if not, what's the situation up there?

I'm not for bureaucrats drafting Memorandums of Understandings either. This should be a generic document applicable and relevant to all States, put together within the ICV Industry with input from Owners, Builders and Engineers. What's the feelings on this aspect.

Regards

Baz

[Rebel1]

Baz, you are merely reinforcing my comments. John Staszynski was representing the Australian Cobra collective, not just the SA chapter.

His want was to try and have the cobra not classed as an ordinary ICV wherein one is exposed to ADR changes but to have some classification not unlike the Hot Rod association, set the standards as to the build/engines/etc and have them approved and fixed and then have the Cobra Clubs "manage" the build standards.

Have a look at this paragraph from the hot rod site: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a sub-committee of each State Council and will have the responsibility of:Liason between the State Registration Authorities and the ASRF.
Establishing and maintaining acceptable building standards for ASRF class vehicles with the objective of ensuring that these vehicles may be registered.


To amuse yourself even further go here http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...treet_rod.aspx
and look at the Street Rod Manual and then tell me why a cobra builder has so many restrictions whilst a hot rod builder has so many exemptions.


If the Australian Street Rod Federation can pull it off why can't the Cobra Clubs?.


I'll tell you why ... because the Street Rod Federation had the future of the movement in mind and got off their collective backsides and did the work.


Thats what John Staszynski was attempting. Sadly, he was a sole voice.