I had this assessment prepared for inclusion in the next issue of Custom Kitcar Magazine, but unfortunately that publication is no longer in circulation. I have decided to circulate it on this Forum for general information and hope that a few of the issues I have highlighted will help kit builders in the future and also inspire Kit Manufacturers to make available and include to the client, far more applicable build / test data on their product when they sell a kit.
After what I’ve been through in the past 2 years, I feel that I am more than qualified to comment on such things.
BACKGROUND
I purchased my kit comprising the body, chassis, steering system and roll bars from the Replica Car Company (R.M.C.) in Perth, W.A. in October 2007. The build took about 2 years and the registration process about the same.
My first and most important piece of advice is select your kit manufacturer very carefully. The problem which I found is that by the time I reached the Registration Phase and was tasked by the R.T.A. to supply technical data concerning some of the components which I purchased from my kit manufacturer (R.M.C.), the management and employees from that Company had changed. They were not the same people who I dealt with 2 years earlier. The current staff could not supply the necessary information about how a particular part was initially constructed, what the grade of metal the part was constructed from and whether it had been heated or welded in the manufacturing process, as they weren’t employed by that Company when the parts were manufactured and sold.
STEERING SYSTEM
This applied particularly to my steering setup which was purchased from R.M.C. in 2007. That system included a VC Commodore Steering Rack and an Intermediate Steering Shaft which joined the Steering Rack to the Mitsubishi Sigma Steering Column.
At the request of the R.T.A., I emailed R.M.C. requesting specific information on how the Steering Rack was shortened from its original length. The current staff at R.M.C. could not supply that information as they were not with the Company when the product was sold to me in 2007.
I later emailed them again, requesting information for the R.T.A. on the specifics of the Intermediate Steering Shaft. They responded with incorrect information, stating that the shaft was from a donor VC Commodore. This was totally incorrect as the shaft fitted to my vehicle was individually fabricated from a steel rod. This incorrect information by R.M.C. was subsequently passed onto the R.T.A. causing embarrassment as well as wasting valuable time and money. As a result, I then had to have that shaft scientifically analyzed for strength and durability by virtue of Section 3.4.5. of the National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Modifications (NCOPLVM) which relate to the ‘General Requirements’ for ‘Steering Modifications ‘.
Section 3.4.5.2. States:-
It is recommended that steering modifications be carried out by selecting production components which do not require cutting, heating, bending or welding.
Where such operations cannot be avoided, the operations employed must be determined and controlled so that the final properties can be predicted and verified on an individual component basis by a NATA approved materials laboratory, using Australia Standard AS 1554, 1985 Part 1 as a reference. The following post process testing by the laboratory is a minimum for such components:
(a) welded parts must have the weld material identified, a hardness test traversing across the weld area including the heat affected zone, an x-ray inspection and a Statement of weld integrity.
(b) Heated parts must be stress relieved, heat treated to the laboratory’s specifications and crack detected by a process as least as accurate as Magnafluxing.
(c) Parts which have been cold worked (where permitted) must be checked to ensure that the cold working is not excessive, stress relieved if required and inspected by a process at least as accurate as Magnafluxing.
What this means that any part which has been individually manufactured and has not been sourced from an ADR approved donor vehicle must be subject to extensive testing by the manufacturer who MUST provide documented evidence to the licensing authorities that the subject part can withstand all the forces that it may experience when fitted to the vehicle.
On the positive side of the ledger were the two Steering Shaft universals which secured the shaft to the column and rack. These were identified as being sourced from a donor vehicle (1976 Triumph 2000) and were therefore classified as ADR compliant.
KIT MANUFACTURERS
The majority of Kit Manufacturers supply information such as Torsion and Beam Test results for the chassis, Side Door Intrusion data, Torso, ELR, Outboard, Inboard and External Lap Seat Belt Anchorage data and Door Hinge data. Unfortunately the original data supplied to me by R.M.C. was issued for a prototype model and not issued in respect of each individual vehicle sold. It is imperative to satisfy the authorities that the information supplied to customers in relation to Torsion and Beam testing relate to the vehicle which they have purchased and not be in a generic form from a prototype test vehicle/chassis.
These data reports should be prepared by the Kit Manufacturer and contain endorsements listing the owner’s name, the date the tests were conducted and the chassis reference number which should also be stamped into the chassis in a conspicuous position. The required data for the Torsion and Beam test performed on my particular chassis was eventually located and supplied from an Engineers Office employed by RMC in 2007 and located in Adelaide.
The RTA now requires Signatory Engineers to provide evidence that the steering, front and rear suspension, seats and seat mounts, seat belts and anchorages, side impact protection and brakes meet the NCOPLVM and will take all forces that the vehicle can experience as well as being Australian Design Rule (ADR) compliant.
It should also be mandatory for Kit Manufacturers to supply Steering Rack mounting load and strength data and Seat and Seat Belt Anchor Pull Test data. Similarly, they should also be required to supply adequate data and structural calculations on side impact implications.
These tests could be performed on a prototype generic chassis/jig identical to that being purchased by the customer and provided to the customer at the time of sale. This would negate the prospect of the owner being advised by the registering authority at the time of his initial inspection for registration, that the data initially supplied by the manufacturer was deficient in detail.
All Kit Manufacturers should have a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each Licensing / Registration Authority in each State of Australia. This M.O.U. would clearly outline the data / calculations that each Kit Manufacturer should supply to a client in order to satisfy the requirements of that particular Licensing / Registration Authority in each State.
The benefit here for both the Kit Manufacturer and the client are obvious. It is far easier to do these tests on a bare chassis in the manufacturing phase than being confronted with the prospect of stripping a completed car back to the bare chassis to satisfy the request of an RTA Inspector. Tests would only need to be repeated when there were changes to a chassis design by the manufacturers. This would also require a re-negotiation of the applicable M.O.U.
The RTA acknowledges the difficulties in assessing a vehicle to ADR 3 and ADR 5 (Seat and Seat Belt Mountings). These difficulties would be completely removed if Kit Manufacturers conducted and documented the tests outlined in the previous paragraphs.
This would also negate the current requirement for Signatory Engineers to provide an assessment of the installation, accompanied by detailed calculations that take full cognizance of the condition of the attachment points and the host vehicle as a whole. This assessment of these tests should also indicate that the components will be capable of withstanding the forces specified in the ADR’s.
Kit manufacturers should be supplying all this test data to the customer when an I.C.V. is originally purchased from them. At the present time, the N.S.W. customer has to track down and chase up all the engineering data required by the registering authorities.
SIGNATORY ENGINEERS
My next piece of advice is to select a competent Engineer. Don’t just rely on what you have heard from other people. Ask the Engineer to nominate a few of his past customers, get in touch with them and be guided on what they say before making your mind up to employ that person as the Signatory Engineer for your project.
The Engineering Signatory who certifies a modification to a motor vehicle must – where structural modifications have been carried out (including steering conversions) or a vehicle is individually constructed, ensure, by appropriate engineering analysis or tests, that the vehicle is structurally sound and is able to be safely controlled by the driver. (Road holding and Handling tests are not prescribed by the RTA, but it is recommended that such tests be conducted and should include heavy braking and cornering tests to the extremes that could be encountered on the road.)
A TRUE CHASSIS ENSURES A TRUE BUILD
I selected R.M.C. because it had a substantial chassis and above average side impact protection. The first activity after receiving delivery of the chassis and body was to remove the body from the chassis and have the chassis laser measured. This ensured that the chassis was square and true. A couple of minor adjustments were conducted which if ignored, would have caused major headaches further along in the build.
CONCLUSION
My dream for the last 48 years has finally arrived and I love it. I must admit that it has not been as a pleasant experience that I thought it might be. I have been put through an unacceptable and unnecessary number of hoops. Many barriers and disappointments have been placed before me in the process, but I have also benefited by the support and knowledge of the members of the Australian Cobra Club and Ozclubbies Forums. You guys know who you are and I would like to thank you publicly for all your help and support. Thanks also to Robert Jacobs who has professionally documented my build through this great magazine over the past 3 years and I'm really sorry to see it finally fold.
Thanks all for your help and support and I sincerely hope that this article will help others in attaining a speedy process of building their dream. I also hope that the initiatives that I have suggested will be adopted by Kit Builders and Licensing / Registration authorities throughout this great Country as I definately know that they read this Forum. (Hi to Tony and Hernan)
Baz.