ESC mandatory

400TT · #1 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 10:38 PM

It's a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

There are many ADR's ICV's do not comply with. Some officially, some unofficially.

My opinion is that we will get an exemption for ESC as well.

They will never trust ICV community to install an ESC system that can be trusted.

ICV builders just don't have the budget and resources to get it to work 100%.

I've spent $10,000's dollars on compliance and even I don't have the budget for ESC development and testing.

How much money would the high volume vehicle manufacturers spend on ESC development for each vehicle?

Zedn · #2 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 04:45 AM

Thats interesting Martin. Did you send a letter or email?

400TT. I hope that what you are saying is correct, but to be honest i think you need to reconsider your opinion. At this stage there are no exceptions to the rule. The many ADR's that you refer to that ICV's do not have to comply with are mainly those that relate to destructive test methods. Without the ICV community voicing their concerns there will not be an exclusion for this ADR. Do you think that Mr Albanese is going to stop and think.."you know what, maybe there are people that cant comply with this i better make an amendment that allows for exlusions". That is not going to happen without us and every other enthusiest voicing their concerns.

Quote:

They will never trust ICV community to install an ESC system that can be trusted.

They dont trust us to do anything, that is why cars are tested and inspected. I am sure that if this is enforced, testing will be required like with the 160kph brake test. If you dont pass, you dont pass full stop.

Quote:

ICV builders just don't have the budget and resources to get it to work 100%.

This is true, but they dont give a s**t.

Sorry to get all excited, i dont want to offend anyone, but i dont think we can be complacent about this and expect it will be fine. If i was selling kit cars i wouldnt be letting my business be open to chance. People need to be proactive.

Liam

400TT · #3 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 05:38 AM

Liam, sorry mate I'm just not concerned about ESC. But I certainy respect and admire your passion and efforts. When the time comes closer, the engineers themselves will be an important aspect when it comes to discussions with the transport authorities.

Unfortunately I have far more pressing work in respect to compliance.

There are many specific aspects of our ADR's that many of our ICV's do not comply with. And I'm not talking about crash related safety.

I take registration compliance very seriously. It is my business.

Rebel1 · #4 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400TT

Liam, sorry mate I'm just not concerned about ESC.

Craig, that is exactly the complacent attitude of manufacturers referred to earlier in this thread. Manufacturers should be concerned with any threat which may cause risk to their industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400TT

When the time comes closer, the engineers themselves will be an important aspect when it comes to discussions with the transport authorities.

And well they might. But their income relies on being recognized as an engineer by the authorities. Hence, in a way they become "servants". In any case, the object of the exercise is to encourage a formal exemption to the legislation before some poor ICV builder has expended the money and effort in building an ICV and now hoping his engineer can obtain an exemption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400TT

Unfortunately I have far more pressing work in respect to compliance.

Craig, I find this statement rather disturbing. Are you simply saying you don't have 5 minutes to cut & paste an email off to the minister?.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400TT

I take registration compliance very seriously. It is my business.

I thought you did but your comments don't reflect that.

Craig, unless I have misread your comments I really do find your comments disturbing. You mention having spent "$10,000's dollars on compliance" which you either add to your clients costs or invest in "intelligence" for your business. Either way the cost will/can be amortized in some way in the business even if only via the tax system.
Are you expecting some poor individual to expend the same (ex pocket) if/when this legislation is not exempted for ICV's ?.

victor · #5 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 11:34 PM

i see snakebite still has this on their site...since 07...

THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICV Regulations Meeting

Don Pilling has organised a meeting to discuss the current ICV Regulations on Wed 21st Nov at 7:30pm @ unit 12/33-43 Meakin Rd, Medowbrook.

400TT · #6 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 11:35 PM

I just can't see them enforcing it. It's just dangerous for a home builder to implement. If I was an engineer or transport department I wouldn't accept any donor systems or anyone's home brew installation.

Sorry it's just too far on the horizon for me at the moment. I'm just being honest. And I'm already stretched too thin.

I would prefer the effort being put towards a national body with the backing and resources to work with authorities to create our own regulations and be self regulating. Just as the Australian Street Rod Federation have done. But it does mean that individuals, clubs and manufacturers will need to work together and shell out real money and support the cause. Those funds would be used to cover legal costs etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by victor

i see snakebite still has this on their site...since 07...

THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICV Regulations Meeting

Don Pilling has organised a meeting to discuss the current ICV Regulations on Wed 21st Nov at 7:30pm @ unit 12/33-43 Meakin Rd, Medowbrook.

As mentioned earlier, just couldn't get the support and direction it needed.