[ball]

stocker wrote:

Because im upgrade the Braking system to something that comes out Stock Standard with 31" Tyres

So i guess there's no real argument there

Sorry that is a stupid statement.

There is a lot more to calculating the loads than that. Does the donor vehicle have the same mass as your modified one? Is the wheelbase the same? What about the balance/ weight split between the front and rear axle etc.

There are a hell of a lot more things to take into account.

This is why you pay someone to do it for you.

Go and have a talk to someone that has had to appear at a coroner's inquest to justify their actions and explain why they weren't responsible for a death. They will tell you a statement like yours would likely see you cop the blame.

How much would a decent lawyer cost to keep your ass out of jail when your half assed modified car mows down a bunch of school kids at a crossing.

An engineers report would be small change then.

[stocker]

Of course not Royce, My gripe isn't with the testing process never said it was...


Never claimed to be a genius Royce... But Geese i learn as much as I can...

My Gripe is with the Cost, cause im Damn Sure my vehicle will pass any test you throw at it.

[got_bar_work]

I can't see y they need a race track to test the car
Y can't they just do it on a quiet street
Dont they just do a high speed lane chane test and jump on the brakes at a certin speed and make sure it stops in a allowed distance
I can't c y u need to get something that is a bolt in mod passed . Can't they just make the supplier get it checked once then any car with that kit is instant passed eg calmini lift
It's been passed once that should mean any one
Who ever fits one should never need to go to all the trouble of getting it looked at again

[alien]

got_bar_work wrote:

I can't see y they need a race track to test the car
Y can't they just do it on a quiet street
Dont they just do a high speed lane chane test and jump on the brakes at a certin speed and make sure it stops in a allowed distance
I can't c y u need to get something that is a bolt in mod passed . Can't they just make the supplier get it checked once then any car with that kit is instant passed eg calmini lift
It's been passed once that should mean any one
Who ever fits one should never need to go to all the trouble of getting it looked at again

race track because it is controlled conditions. the cost to shut off a street would be HUGE.

my engineer said that he has a formula to calculate the brake test from 40km/hr as well as the locking up thing i mentioned previously - so its a safer test to do, and this is done on a quiet road not a race track.

you cant approve all calmini lift kits because theres always other things that are different... you could hower use a previous build as a precedent to allow the next one to be built (to get approval).

[stocker]

ball wrote:

stocker wrote:

Because im upgrade the Braking system to something that comes out Stock Standard with 31" Tyres

So i guess there's no real argument there

Sorry that is a stupid statement.

There is a lot more to calculating the loads than that. Does the donor vehicle have the same mass as your modified one? Is the wheelbase the same? What about the balance/ weight split between the front and rear axle etc.

There are a hell of a lot more things to take into account.

This is why you pay someone to do it for you.

Go and have a talk to someone that has had to appear at a coroner's inquest to justify their actions and explain why they weren't responsible for a death. They will tell you a statement like yours would likely see you cop the blame.

How much would a decent lawyer cost to keep your ass out of jail when your half assed modified car mows down a bunch of school kids at a crossing.

An engineers report would be small change then.

Uh Yes It will have the Same Wheel Track, On A Slightly Shorter wheel base I think by 200mm Shorter Weight will be about the same (say within 100kg's)

Because i will be using the same Axles. as the Donor vehicle.

And thanks for wonderful insite into your Crystal Ball...


Either Way, Like i Said, i have no element of doubt in my mind that my vehicle will Pass any test you throw at it.

And that is that.

[royce]

stocker wrote:

ball wrote:

stocker wrote:

Because im upgrade the Braking system to something that comes out Stock Standard with 31" Tyres

So i guess there's no real argument there

Sorry that is a stupid statement.

There is a lot more to calculating the loads than that. Does the donor vehicle have the same mass as your modified one? Is the wheelbase the same? What about the balance/ weight split between the front and rear axle etc.

There are a hell of a lot more things to take into account.

This is why you pay someone to do it for you.

Go and have a talk to someone that has had to appear at a coroner's inquest to justify their actions and explain why they weren't responsible for a death. They will tell you a statement like yours would likely see you cop the blame.

How much would a decent lawyer cost to keep your ass out of jail when your half assed modified car mows down a bunch of school kids at a crossing.

An engineers report would be small change then.

Uh Yes It will have the Same Wheel Track, On A Slightly Shorter wheel base I think by 200mm Shorter Weight will be about the same (say within 100kg's)

Because i will be using the same Axles. as the Donor vehicle.

And thanks for wonderful insite into your Crystal Ball...


Either Way, Like i Said, i have no element of doubt in my mind that my vehicle will Pass any test you throw at it.

And that is that.

Same center of gravity? same anti dive and lift properties?

There are way more variables than we can fathom, this is why being an engineer takes a long time

[kirstyandgrace]

[squibby]

stocker wrote:

Because im upgrade the Braking system to something that comes out Stock Standard with 31" Tyres

So i guess there's no real argument there

Good God, whatever you do don't touch your brakes anymore. Thats the message I'm getting I've got from a couple engineers LOUD AND CLEAR. You can fit factory equipment from the same car only. Example, if the sporty model comes with rear discs, but you have the poverty spec model with rear drums, then you can do a disc conversion with some ome stuff from the sporty model.

But if you do something else the engineers I talked to don't want to know.

How this all relates to my engine conversion I don't understand. I apprciate that my vehicle may now have a higher top speed, but since the limit is 110kph that can be ignored. The engine weighs the same as the old engine, so again no change there, so someone please explain to me again why an engineer agreed verbally with me over the phone that my car does not need a brake upgrade, but then said he would not 'take me on' to approve my engine conversion. What happened to the engineers judgement? I mean I fitted an M18 to M13 engine management, exhaust etc. There is reasonable doubt that it would not meet the emmisions ADR's. Therefore i took it to get it tested at the RTA's facility and it passed. i have a certificate to give to the engineer. In his own mind it does not need a brake upgrade it will still conform to whatever ADR it was originally designed for, so why am i being rejected? A brake test could be performed and another certificate provided, but it is not reasonably practical to have such a test done. there are no facilities available. So I am expecting an Engineer to provide me with a paid service and put his balls on the chopping block for me. He will be getting paid for this priveledge. If He has to have paper from different testing stations for everything then WTF service is he providing for me? - collating a load of paperwork. I can do that myself thanks. Expensive middle man if thats all he's doing.

[BlueSuzy]

You need another engineer.

All deadline info here:
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/ ... wners.html

[larry]

a little off the discussion at hand, but still related:
what are your thoughts on an unengineered car with 'illegal' mods and voiding insurance, during a crash?

im talking about 3rd party insurance mainly, in the case of a fatality would/could your insurance company be like, nup tyres are 1" too big we're not paying. and then me getting stuck with 2 million dollars worth of life-ruining debt?

my dad seems to think thats whats going to happen, and all i can get from my insurance company is 'if its un-roadworthy then its not covered', just looking for your opinions on the likelihood of this?

[royce]

squibby wrote:

stocker wrote:

Because im upgrade the Braking system to something that comes out Stock Standard with 31" Tyres

So i guess there's no real argument there

Good God, whatever you do don't touch your brakes anymore. Thats the message I'm getting I've got from a couple engineers LOUD AND CLEAR. You can fit factory equipment from the same car only. Example, if the sporty model comes with rear discs, but you have the poverty spec model with rear drums, then you can do a disc conversion with some ome stuff from the sporty model.

But if you do something else the engineers I talked to don't want to know.

How this all relates to my engine conversion I don't understand. I apprciate that my vehicle may now have a higher top speed, but since the limit is 110kph that can be ignored. The engine weighs the same as the old engine, so again no change there, so someone please explain to me again why an engineer agreed verbally with me over the phone that my car does not need a brake upgrade, but then said he would not 'take me on' to approve my engine conversion. What happened to the engineers judgement? I mean I fitted an M18 to M13 engine management, exhaust etc. There is reasonable doubt that it would not meet the emmisions ADR's. Therefore i took it to get it tested at the RTA's facility and it passed. i have a certificate to give to the engineer. In his own mind it does not need a brake upgrade it will still conform to whatever ADR it was originally designed for, so why am i being rejected? A brake test could be performed and another certificate provided, but it is not reasonably practical to have such a test done. there are no facilities available. So I am expecting an Engineer to provide me with a paid service and put his balls on the chopping block for me. He will be getting paid for this priveledge. If He has to have paper from different testing stations for everything then WTF service is he providing for me? - collating a load of paperwork. I can do that myself thanks. Expensive middle man if thats all he's doing.

Another example of dont get it so it must be stupid, its a shame this mentality is slowly choking the world, once apon a time when people didnt get it they put in teh effort to find out why

why a bigger engine needs bigger brakes, brakes are required to pull you up more than once, the more you use brakes the more the heat up, once they start to get hotter than optimum they dont work as well and eventually they stop working, you crash into something and people might end up dead.

The test for brakes isnt one stab and measure how far it took to stop, you must accelerate up to a certain speed as fast as you can, then stop as quickly as possible, then accelerate again and stop, this continues on for a certain amount of cycles. The bigger or more powerful the engine the less time is takes to get back to the braking speed so the less time the brakes have to cool down so they will fade and stop working quicker than with the slow engine.

What emmisions testing did you have done? I would think that full cycle closed chamber drive testing would be pretty expensive and you would fail, given that we have already seen dyno reports showing your mixtures suck a bit and this plays havoc with emmisions, see theres another thing you probably arent even aware you need to consider, how fine a line an actual clean tail pipe is

[royce]

larry wrote:

a little off the discussion at hand, but still related:
what are your thoughts on an unengineered car with 'illegal' mods and voiding insurance, during a crash?

im talking about 3rd party insurance mainly, in the case of a fatality would/could your insurance company be like, nup tyres are 1" too big we're not paying. and then me getting stuck with 2 million dollars worth of life-ruining debt?

my dad seems to think thats whats going to happen, and all i can get from my insurance company is 'if its un-roadworthy then its not covered', just looking for your opinions on the likelihood of this?

Ever case is different and the insurance compaines have a lot of avenues to refuse to pay (afterall they are a profit making company, not a public service everyone has a right to) but it seems unless the illegal mod was a cause of the accident they usually dont consider it when paying, though given the amount of things larger tyres can alter (namely braking distance and ability to swerve) its pretty easy for them to say it is a factor compared to say removing the rear seats.

[alien]

squibby wrote:

stocker wrote:

Because im upgrade the Braking system to something that comes out Stock Standard with 31" Tyres

So i guess there's no real argument there

But if you do something else the engineers I talked to don't want to know.

You'll just need to find the right engineer... The engineer that did my SPOA approval etc refuses to do lifted 4wds anymore because the laws have gotten too hard to make anything passable anymore, and he's only interested in the "fun" jobs, so has now just decided no more lifting. Plus he gets paid a lot more to do crash investigations than he does to certify a vehicle and risk his livelihood.

There is however still 1 other engineer in perth that will do big lifts and is happy to tackle the rules to get a vehicle passed.

So in your case you've just not found the right one... I would also say though that you might be presenting a poor case to the engineers and thats why they cant be bothered with you. You need to think about how you word sentences with these guys and explain why you did everything you did, and be open to changing it.

[303zuke]

Don't forget, too, that Insurance Companies can refuse to insure vehicles with LEGAL mods that have been engineered, either by not issuing a policy, not issuing a renewal or by refusing a claim. As Royce has said, they are not a public service with an obligation to insure every bloke that walks in.

It is every bit as important to discuss your vehicle mods in detail with your insurer first, just as much as it is with an engineer.

Having insurance refused is a pain in the arse. If you think paying a one-off Engineer's Cert is bad, how would you like to see your annual insurance premiums go from $500 with a mainstream insurer up to $2000 annually with some specialist broker because your vehicle is considered too "far-out" for NRMA/GIO/AAMI, etc?

Why should it be so if you car is registered and engineered properly? Because they will be wearing the risk of the vehicle on the road, and the responsibility of repairing any damage. How much harder is it for an Insurer to replace custom fabricated components, or try and ID various bits from half a dozen vehicle models that you've sourced parts from?

[alien]

^^ thats true - i can't comprehensively insure my sierra... well, i can through "Just car" but only for $4500 or something, and its $1k a year premium!

While all the insurance co's i called said no to comprehensive, they all were happy to give 3rd party though (which i have). Their argument for not giving comprehensive wasnt that it was modded and on the road, it was that it was an "offroad vehicle" and their policies cover me offroad - so i was too much of a liability to roll/damage it offroad and file a claim for a bunch of custom work.

[squibby]

royce wrote:

Another example of dont get it so it must be stupid, its a shame this mentality is slowly choking the world, once apon a time when people didnt get it they put in teh effort to find out why

why a bigger engine needs bigger brakes, brakes are required to pull you up more than once, the more you use brakes the more the heat up, once they start to get hotter than optimum they dont work as well and eventually they stop working, you crash into something and people might end up dead.

The test for brakes isnt one stab and measure how far it took to stop, you must accelerate up to a certain speed as fast as you can, then stop as quickly as possible, then accelerate again and stop, this continues on for a certain amount of cycles. The bigger or more powerful the engine the less time is takes to get back to the braking speed so the less time the brakes have to cool down so they will fade and stop working quicker than with the slow engine.

What emmisions testing did you have done? I would think that full cycle closed chamber drive testing would be pretty expensive and you would fail, given that we have already seen dyno reports showing your mixtures suck a bit and this plays havoc with emmisions, see theres another thing you probably arent even aware you need to consider, how fine a line an actual clean tail pipe is

I've had full cycle closed chamber testing done, and it was free. RTA sponsored scheme. Mixtures might suck, Mechanic told me they were a bit off but nothing to worry about, but they conform to ADR79/01. Over a range of different conditions (load, crusing, hills, all simulated over 3.2kms from 0 - 110kph).

No I don't get why an engineer verbally agreed that the brakes are adequate but then didn't want the job, I haven't said the system is stupid I'm working with it, but being rejected by one garage and then entertained by another makes me suspect grey areas exist at this moment in time.

Perhaps I don't take rejection very well when I compare my mildly modified vehicle with some of the other behemoths I see driving around, Imprezas with 400bhp and Landcruisers with 6-8inch lifts. need to harden up

perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Maybe that particular mechanic just doesn't want to bother with my car, perhaps its boring and he has more fun jobs to do.

[missmyljdaze]

stocker wrote:

Uh Yes It will have the Same Wheel Track, On A Slightly Shorter wheel base I think by 200mm Shorter Weight will be about the same (say within 100kg's)

a wheelbase shortened by 200mm, a possible weight gain of 100kg, chuck in a possibly higher centre of gravity and a few other minor factors that engineers know a lot more about than mugs like us and it can all add up to a chain of events leading to a compulsory appearance in the coroners court.

The coroner is not restricted to absolute proof like a regular criminal court- he can condemn you on his opinion or based on hearsay.

Accidents (I prefer to call them incidents) are rarely caused by 1 factor- almost always it is a combination of several things together- or a chain of failures and events.
Think of your modified 4wd going around an off camber corner on a bitumen road at speed and having to stop real fast for some reason.
You have a combination of most likely grippier tyres on off camber bitumen, raised centre of gravity, shorter wheel base, different pitch/ roll/ yaw characteristics due to suspension mods and shorter wheelbase, and a modified brake system.
You are expecting an engineer to put his reputation and livelyhood on the line by certifying your modified vehicle is safer than one fresh out of the factory.
The more stuff you mess with- the more risks that something will come back to bite you.

The best way to deal with engineers is not to lob onto thier doorstep and expect them to rubber stamp your mods.
Consult with them before you do ANYTHING and tell them your aims- ask them for thier advice on the best way to go about achieving your aims.
Thats what engineers are for.
You build to comply with thier professional advice and they are then happy to stamp your papers.

Stephen.

[SierraDan]

BlueSuzy wrote:

You need another engineer.

x2.

Squibby is that your Jimny in Speers Point?

Give Athol Mullen (Mullen Engineering: 4956 8030) a ring he isn't "engineering" at the moment but I'd be interested to see his opinion.

[squibby]

SierraDan wrote:

BlueSuzy wrote:

You need another engineer.

x2.

Squibby is that your Jimny in Speers Point?

Give Athol Mullen (Mullen Engineering: 4956 8030) a ring he isn't "engineering" at the moment but I'd be interested to see his opinion.

Yeah, thanks mate, thats is mine. Yeah, Mullen Engineering is the obvious local choice, but still on christmas holidays and not on the list yet. Sounds like a good guy as with most engineers, just hope not too busy, would like to get it sorted locally. I spoke to him before I did the mod over the phone, it was he who recommended the emmisions test would likely be required, so thats all I've done so far. I don't doubt for a moment that perhaps some other changes will be required, I just don't know what yet. I've done everything my untrained eye can see for now.

[ball]

missmyljdaze wrote:

a wheelbase shortened by 200mm, a possible weight gain of 100kg, chuck in a possibly higher centre of gravity and a few other minor factors that engineers know a lot more about than mugs like us and it can all add up to a chain of events leading to a compulsory appearance in the coroners court.

The coroner is not restricted to absolute proof like a regular criminal court- he can condemn you on his opinion or based on hearsay.

Accidents (I prefer to call them incidents) are rarely caused by 1 factor- almost always it is a combination of several things together- or a chain of failures and events.
Think of your modified 4wd going around an off camber corner on a bitumen road at speed and having to stop real fast for some reason.
You have a combination of most likely grippier tyres on off camber bitumen, raised centre of gravity, shorter wheel base, different pitch/ roll/ yaw characteristics due to suspension mods and shorter wheelbase, and a modified brake system.
You are expecting an engineer to put his reputation and livelyhood on the line by certifying your modified vehicle is safer than one fresh out of the factory.
The more stuff you mess with- the more risks that something will come back to bite you.

The best way to deal with engineers is not to lob onto thier doorstep and expect them to rubber stamp your mods.
Consult with them before you do ANYTHING and tell them your aims- ask them for thier advice on the best way to go about achieving your aims.
Thats what engineers are for.
You build to comply with thier professional advice and they are then happy to stamp your papers.

Stephen.

We have a winner.

[SierraDan]

squibby wrote:

SierraDan wrote:

BlueSuzy wrote:

You need another engineer.

x2.

Squibby is that your Jimny in Speers Point?

Give Athol Mullen (Mullen Engineering: 4956 8030) a ring he isn't "engineering" at the moment but I'd be interested to see his opinion.

Yeah, thanks mate, thats is mine. Yeah, Mullen Engineering is the obvious local choice, but still on christmas holidays and not on the list yet. Sounds like a good guy as with most engineers, just hope not too busy, would like to get it sorted locally. I spoke to him before I did the mod over the phone, it was he who recommended the emmisions test would likely be required, so thats all I've done so far. I don't doubt for a moment that perhaps some other changes will be required, I just don't know what yet. I've done everything my untrained eye can see for now.

Not saying he'll approve it or anything, but he has always had a more strict opinion on what will and won't pass from what I've heard him turn down.

[stocker]

All these people blowing off the point I was trying to make so let me spell it clear.

I wish to cast my dismay at the cost, something which cost 400 dollars for a certificate like my bodylift. I just Got off the phone with the same engineer... I pretended to be someone else with an identical car etc...

The answer I got " due to rising costs with the rta to engineer a body lift will be 1200 Incl Gst".

Not only that let's clear up the grey areas. Why will one engineer approve. One thing And another won't

Riddle me this

[squibby]

ball wrote:

missmyljdaze wrote:

You are expecting an engineer to put his reputation and livelyhood on the line by certifying your modified vehicle is safer than one fresh out of the factory.
Stephen.

We have a winner.

I thought Australian ADR's set the benchmark and that is what the certified vehicle meets. Never read that it should be safer then one fresh out of the factory. And safer is all relative. Our 4x4s are safer on unsealed roads where we tend to drive quite a lot.

[squibby]

stocker wrote:

All these people blowing off the point I was trying to make so let me spell it clear.

I wish to cast my dismay at the cost, something which cost 400 dollars for a certificate like my bodylift. I just Got off the phone with the same engineer... I pretended to be someone else with an identical car etc...

The answer I got " due to rising costs with the rta to engineer a body lift will be 1200 Incl Gst".

Not only that let's clear up the grey areas. Why will one engineer approve. One thing And another won't

Riddle me this

The cost ain't bothering me too much. Fact is the engineers now have more comprehensive public liability insurance under the new scheme, and I'm not sure but I think the RTA charges more because they are recording and controlling the mods better, both of these things are all good in my opinion.

SO cost hikes, - oh well, it happens.

[Ben_Sierra]

squibby wrote:

ball wrote:

missmyljdaze wrote:

You are expecting an engineer to put his reputation and livelyhood on the line by certifying your modified vehicle is safer than one fresh out of the factory.
Stephen.

We have a winner.

I thought Australian ADR's set the benchmark and that is what the certified vehicle meets. Never read that it should be safer then one fresh out of the factory. And safer is all relative. Our 4x4s are safer on unsealed roads where we tend to drive quite a lot.

The ADRs are a minimum. No engineer who values his career will sign off on modifications that make a vehicle less safe than it was before. He would be opening himself up to all sorts of potential liability.


I sympathise with these engineers. I am an engineer myself, although not in the motor trade. However I do sign off on safety related railway systems

Let me assure you, nothing gets my name put on it until I've spent all the time I need to be completely satisfied that it is safe. Not just that it meets requirements. An engineers time costs lots of money - and why shouldn't it? With all the time, money and effort that goes into getting the qualifications and experience to get to that position.

Fortunately, my clients understand this. It seems the vehicle-driving public often don't...

[ball]

stocker wrote:

All these people blowing off the point I was trying to make so let me spell it clear.

I wish to cast my dismay at the cost, something which cost 400 dollars for a certificate like my bodylift. I just Got off the phone with the same engineer... I pretended to be someone else with an identical car etc...

The answer I got " due to rising costs with the rta to engineer a body lift will be 1200 Incl Gst".

Not only that let's clear up the grey areas. Why will one engineer approve. One thing And another won't

Riddle me this

I saw some of the rates that the NSW RTA were introducing. If you are trying to run a business you need to make sure that you pass on costs.

Not that hard to understand really.

The grey areas bit is easy. Some engineers value their name more than others.

If I do a job, it is done the right way or not at all. If someone comes in and wants something half assed done then I refuse the work. My business = My rules, not the customers.

This goes back to what Royce posted about "shopping" around until you find an engineer that is willing to sign of on something for a donation. It just looks like the NSW Government are now tracking and documenting things better. This added work obviously comes at an increased cost.

[squibby]

Ben_Sierra wrote:

squibby wrote:

ball wrote:

missmyljdaze wrote:

You are expecting an engineer to put his reputation and livelyhood on the line by certifying your modified vehicle is safer than one fresh out of the factory.
Stephen.

We have a winner.

I thought Australian ADR's set the benchmark and that is what the certified vehicle meets. Never read that it should be safer then one fresh out of the factory. And safer is all relative. Our 4x4s are safer on unsealed roads where we tend to drive quite a lot.

The ADRs are a minimum. No engineer who values his career will sign off on modifications that make a vehicle less safe than it was before. He would be opening himself up to all sorts of potential liability.


I sympathise with these engineers. I am an engineer myself, although not in the motor trade. However I do sign off on safety related railway systems

Let me assure you, nothing gets my name put on it until I've spent all the time I need to be completely satisfied that it is safe. Not just that it meets requirements. An engineers time costs lots of money - and why shouldn't it? With all the time, money and effort that goes into getting the qualifications and experience to get to that position.

Fortunately, my clients understand this. It seems the vehicle-driving public often don't...

phhhh. So a good engineer is one that insists on his own preferential requirements rather then the minimum requirements legislated? Nah, Preferential engineering adds cost to your clients. Don't get me wrong, exceeding requirements is great and has its place when the client wants or endorses the extra, but if he wants to simply meet the legislated requirements that should be his right - It's his money. A really good engineer is one who knows the limits of his own competency, and where standards are 'grey' or lacking can fill in the gaps subject to his own competency. he doesn't cower away and tell the client he can't help end of. At least direct him to someone more experienced. You can't write legislation or rules for every single modification, but you can interprete the principles based on the rules that do exist.

Anyway, don't really know how that applies to the Motor trade, but I'd like to think I know a thing or two about Railway safety system.

I know nothing about Motor Vehicle Engineering though. Wish i did.

[got_bar_work]

What I don't get is they go on about all this crap about breaking and handling yet any moded car that has been built with some common sense in it is going to shit all over that of any truck. Yet there allowed on the road
There should be one across the country brake test and driving test on a set track with cornering braking etc that every single car truck bike hast to pass
As long as it passes that and a engineer said the design is strong and not going to break then we should be able to do anything we want as long as it's got tires covered lights seatbelts and no sharp corners

[Ben_Sierra]

squibby wrote:

Ben_Sierra wrote:

squibby wrote:

ball wrote:

missmyljdaze wrote:

You are expecting an engineer to put his reputation and livelyhood on the line by certifying your modified vehicle is safer than one fresh out of the factory.
Stephen.

We have a winner.

I thought Australian ADR's set the benchmark and that is what the certified vehicle meets. Never read that it should be safer then one fresh out of the factory. And safer is all relative. Our 4x4s are safer on unsealed roads where we tend to drive quite a lot.

The ADRs are a minimum. No engineer who values his career will sign off on modifications that make a vehicle less safe than it was before. He would be opening himself up to all sorts of potential liability.


I sympathise with these engineers. I am an engineer myself, although not in the motor trade. However I do sign off on safety related railway systems

Let me assure you, nothing gets my name put on it until I've spent all the time I need to be completely satisfied that it is safe. Not just that it meets requirements. An engineers time costs lots of money - and why shouldn't it? With all the time, money and effort that goes into getting the qualifications and experience to get to that position.

Fortunately, my clients understand this. It seems the vehicle-driving public often don't...

phhhh. So a good engineer is one that insists on his own preferential requirements rather then the minimum requirements legislated? Nah, Preferential engineering adds cost to your clients. Don't get me wrong, exceeding requirements is great and has its place when the client wants or endorses the extra, but if he wants to simply meet the legislated requirements that should be his right - It's his money. A really good engineer is one who knows the limits of his own competency, and where standards are 'grey' or lacking can fill in the gaps subject to his own competency. he doesn't cower away and tell the client he can't help end of. At least direct him to someone more experienced. You can't write legislation or rules for every single modification, but you can interprete the principles based on the rules that do exist.

Anyway, don't really know how that applies to the Motor trade, but I'd like to think I know a thing or two about Railway safety system.

I know nothing about Motor Vehicle Engineering though. Wish i did.

I said nothing about "preferential" engineering.

I would be very surprised if an engineer would sign off on something that makes a vehicle less safe than it was previously.

Certainly, in my industry, regardless of "minimum standards" we would have a lot to answer for if we made a system less safe by modifying it, I can't imagine that a car is any different.

If an engineer were to sign off on something that made a vehicle less safe than previously, and that contributed towards an accident, he could be held liable. I don't know too many engineers that would be happy with that...

Also, the ADRs are one thing, but the states also have their own laws which need to be adhered to...

[pickle2589]

Has anybody gotten a 2" body lift engineered in NSW for a sierra under the new scheme yet? How much and who can do it?