have you registered a cobra in NSW?

[Merv and Sharon]

This could well be the beginning of the end for some kit manufacturers. I hope not but they read these ADR developments as well. It all becomes too hard.

[Wazza]

I'd suggest that Peter Ransom ( D.R.B. Sportscars ) has simply made a sensible move, whilst the GFC continues to have such an adverse effect on his business.

I would think that a business like D.R.B. would have reasonably low profit margins , and depend heavily upon a continued decent number of orders.

When the orders slow down, unfortunately a lot of the costs continue on a week to week basis.

He sold a lot of kits ( GT40's) to the U.S.A., and the swing in the Australian Dollar, and the U.S. Dollar has slowed that down.

This together with the general tightening of the economy, would obviously mean that there will be a severe slow down in the market for items like GT40's and Cobras.

Peter has stated that he'll reduce the operation , until the economy picks up, and will still continue with parts sales. etc. mostly via the internet, and the continued follow up service to the existing clients , operating from smaller and less expensive premises.

I would think that for the forseeable future, the "Australian "Cobra manufacturers need to either be almost a "One man band"...i.e. smaller operations with minimal overheads...or "Sub-contract" a lot of the work , and thereby only pay for the services /skills as they need them, rather than having "staff" sitting around waiting for the next order..

The manufacturers that rely on purchasing a lot of their kits/goods/parts from the U.S. certainly have a better time of it now, than they did in previous years, when the Australian Dollar was worth U.S.$0-60.


I wish Peter the very best of luck, and hopefully he can treat this as a well deserved "break" until things improve.

Cheers,
Warren.

[Merv and Sharon]

Yes DRB has been a real icon in the Australian market.

[400TT]

Originally Posted by strida

Merv,

If the kit manufacturers don't get on board and follow up on these changes they shouldn't be in the business.

Most of these guys would know what stage of the build we are up to with their particular kits, maybe they should become more supportive.

Our recommendations form a large part of their continued business and we do continue to buy parts from them during the build.

I would expect or at least hope that most kit manufacturers are supporting owners with the changes occurring in NSW etc. I can't speak for other manufacturers but we are in touch with our NSW owners, NSW engineers and looking at the best way forward with compliance. We are actively involved with registration process for many of our owners. We are in the fortunate position to not have any NSW owners with kit builds progressed enough to be immediately impacted by the registration changes. So this gives us some time to see what the final requirements are for testing and work out the best way forward with continued compliance. We don't want to rush into anything and incur unneeded expense as in the end it's the customers that end up paying for it in the kit and parts prices we offer.

It is certainly is a difficult time, not only for the kit car industry, but many small businesses in Australia. I certainly hope for the best for anyone that is doing it tough at the moment. It's my experience that our kit car industry is made up of a lot of enthusiasts that are passionate about their products and support the hobby to it's fullest. I've always had great respect for the suppliers and manufacturers that actively support the club activities. For the past 12 months I have been very concerned about the health of the industry and I expect the registration problems in NSW have affected sales across multiple states from most local manufacturers. Also an increasing number of buyers are shopping directly overseas looking for better range & value for both parts and kits. The quality and choice available from around the world is moving forward at a rapid pace. This means constant change and innovation required to inspire buyers.

If there is anyone with suitable kit manufacturing/assemble skills that is out of work please don't by embarrassed/hesitant to contact the other manufacturers to see if there are other opportunities for you, it's not always as grim as it appears. I know we are always looking for skilled and enthusiastic people, either full-time or part-time and especially at the moment.

[strida]

Sadly, I stick to my original comment

[suthol]

Well, I had a call from my RTA contact on Saturday and it looks like things are still possible but will take a bit of work.

I found by searching the RVCS database that the NC MX-5 column is indeed ADR10-02 compliant but to use it the airbag must be removed and replaced with a foam pad of suitable density.

The NC is one of the few cars that still have hydraulic power steering via the rack rather than electric assist on the column which makes the column unsuitable.

A few of us are looking at pitching in and buying a column complete with wheel and mocking a chassis up to have it tested which will provide empirical evidence that it is compliant in and ICV.

As for the seat and belt mounts we are considering the same testing approach which will work in a clubman because all the chassis are almost identical in design and structure.

I am rather p1ssed off that they would convey this message to one of their own but haven't responded to me since the question was first asked in September last year.

Watch this space.

Note We will not be spending a cent unless we get something in writing from the RTA that they can be held to, words on the phone disappear in the air.

Regards
Dave King
Suthol VII

[OZCOBRA]

Dave,

Once again thanks for taking the time to share all the positives and possibile solutions for the guys currently building.

This thread should be made a STICKY (Registration Requirements) because of it's importance to the ICV community as a whole across Australia at the moment !!!........What do the GODS of MODERATION think?????

Again the level and volume of info you've bought here and its clarity is actually a refreshing read compared to previous threads on similar issues and I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping you continue to frequent the Forum.

Keep up the great work!!!

Thanks ....OZ..

[Jethrow]

Question. Why are you trying to show compliance with ADR 10/02 when the latest NCOP for ICV only calls up ADR 10/01?

I think this sets sets a bad precedent. I know it's easy for me to say this comping from WA, but I don;t see how the registration authorities can demand more than what the federally issued NCOP asks for.

Instead of banding together to do a test, perhaps you could band together to query this stance?

[Merv and Sharon]

That has my full support as well. We have hedged around these issues for a long time with various attempts to work in a coordinated way.

[Philm]

I tend to agree with Jethrow,
Yes maybe we can find a way to comply, but only until the next hurdle is put in place.

I am concerned that with every new ADR the cobra is becoming less "cobra" and more Toyota Prias.

I think the task in hand is to lobby NSW to adopt the NCOP for ICVs.

Phil

[suthol]

Originally Posted by Jethrow

Question. Why are you trying to show compliance with ADR 10/02 when the latest NCOP for ICV only calls up ADR 10/01?

I think this sets sets a bad precedent. I know it's easy for me to say this comping from WA, but I don;t see how the registration authorities can demand more than what the federally issued NCOP asks for.

Instead of banding together to do a test, perhaps you could band together to query this stance?

I couldn't agree more however, NSW have not adopted the new NCOP and never considered the old one because it was quite a poor document and full of contradictions.

Since around 2002 things in NSW have been getting progressively tougher so what we are trying to achieve is an understanding of exactly what they will accept, the feedback that I have shared today as a result of Saturday's phone call is the nearest I have had to anything like a quality response since my car went on the road on a UVP in 2009.

It may not be what we want to hear but at least they are talking again.

Regards
Dave King
Suthol VII

[OZCOBRA]

Originally Posted by Philm

I think the task in hand is to lobby NSW to adopt the NCOP for ICVs.

Phil

Phil ,
From what I've heard the NSW RTA had employed a Technical Writer to re-write the NCOP using its framework to be in line or as close to the CURRENT NSW requirements!!



NOTE;

NCOP....Warning To Users!!

""Users of the NCOP need to be aware that this document needs to be used in conjuction with the appropriate administrative requirements of the JURISDICTION
in which they either wish to REGISTER or gain approval to MODIFY a vehicle already reistered........

Further.....Whilst the NCOP provides assistance with respect to the construction of ICVs and the execution of modifications it is NOT to be taken as a design manual..""

This document in its own wording hand balls the resposibilty to the State Regulatory Authority if it so wishes to implement it's own Standards...... NCOP is a mininum Requirement of Operation!!

So as good as the NCOP could well be for us, the final document when published it is at best a guide for the RTAs to do as they wish unless they are lobbyed by groups such as us to get relevant Exemptions.


OZ....

[Zedn]

The NCOP is being considered for adoption by the RTA, but it will not replace ICVs. I assume it will replace the RTA standard for light vehicle modification.

The RTA have circulated a draft ammendment to the current NCOP to the signatories that pushes many of the modified cars into being an ICV. This include changes to wheel base, rebody and some others into being registered as an ICV. They then go out of the NCOP procedure and are required to comply with all ADRs with the exception of the those that have been made exempt for ICVs eg ADR69 and similar.

The national requirements for a low volume manufacturer (commercial manufacturer who actually sells their cars to the public) are lower than the current requirements for ICVs in NSW.

[Jethrow]

Originally Posted by Zedn

The national requirements for a low volume manufacturer (commercial manufacturer who actually sells their cars to the public) are lower than the current requirements for ICVs in NSW.

Well there it is right there. Sounds like it's time to start lobbying the politicians.

Reminds me of a story I once heard about an Australian who designed and built his own small single seater aircraft back in the early 1970s. It is a fine little aircraft, but the designer builder had every conceivable block put in his path by the then DCA to prevent him from registering it.

In the end, he took the department to court, and showed that the DCA was unreasonably with-holding his approvals, and creating demands that were beyond requirements. He won, and got his aircraft approved!

[Treeve]

OK guys,

To support Dave (Suthol) I'm going to give you a clear example of where the NCOP contradicts the ADR's. I've even contacted the Department of Infrastructure, and had a response in writing which clearly contradicts the NCOP (either version). In summary:

ADR 4/04 (seatbelts) has a specific allowance for multiple point harnesses (i.e. a 4 point harness). These have been approved as legal by the Department of Infrastructure. If you want a copy of the email, PM me and I'll forward it to you. Both NCOP's have clauses to prevent you from legally using harnesses in them.

The issue with NSW is: they typically work from VSI 7, which states 10/01 as the relevant standard for steering columns. However, as they are the guys who approve what goes on the road, they are working from 'the most recent addition'. This means we have to meet 10/02 - a standard that just about all car manufacturers in australia have managed to get an exemption from on the basis that their cars are continuations of earlier models. Frankly, they are a law unto themselves, and do what they wish. File this under 'arrogant RTA', for mr Gay. The operate under the guise of something being a 'safety driven' decision, hence no-one in the world can argue with it because it is in the name of safety.

I've been warned by some to watch what I write on the forum; so far I've made sure I've been factual. All I can say is that I have been repeatedly let down by a public service; they are unelected, so we have no opportunity to get rid of them, and I'm sick of it. On the basis that petrol flows through my veins, I am already looking for my next job to be interstate so that I can leave NSW - what a shame that another person who pays significant amount of taxes as a professional engineer will be taking his skills elsewhere based on the RTA decision making process.

Treeve

[Jethrow]

Come to WA - plenty of work for engineers over here!!

[Merv and Sharon]

Any news in NSW? Are things changing? Baz how are your preparations?

[Zedn]

, but cant say till its official.

[sideshow]

the above reason where alot of stuff contradicts itself
is the reason why I'm moving and if things don't get better
where I'm going then I'll change jobs and do this on the side
I know of a car that got defected for emissions
emissions got fixed and new cat fitted
it got knocked back cause they could physically see new cat
had been welded in
so the EPA said it's rta problem now
rta said no it's EPA problem
now only way it passed was to find a STD exhaust from
orig car which was 20 years old. n go figure how a new cat
works worse than a 20 year old used one
sadly I know some shops wanting out if this industry
between the rta rules and cheap stuff from china
alot of shops will not be here in 10 years
so for me it's time to maybe look at change

[Zedn]

There has been some positive outcomes and a policy will be released shortly. I have been asked not to spread the word on the details until they have a policy out as they want to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

The information i have been told from the horses mouth is positive and will help with a more achievable criteria.

Watch this space.