Proposal to be put to the RTA to build an ICV

[Tenrocca]

Originally Posted by suthol

While, strike, hot, iron, the, is ( rearrange to suit )

Too, far, push, and, f**k, off, they, us, tell ?

It does sound a good idea, Just not sure we should be pushing our luck right now if things are about to improve.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Tenrocca

Too, far, push, and, f**k, off, they, us, tell ?

It does sound a good idea, Just not sure we should be pushing our luck right now if things are about to improve.

Hi Andrew,

I have an understanding contact within the RTA heairachy who is more than keen to listen and respond to change if the proposal has merit. It is only a proposal and eventually will be submitted to them for consideration. Whether they take it and run with it is up to them, but any improvement would be more than welcome.


Baz

[Baz]

Originally Posted by 400TT

Baz, great idea.

In your proposal, do the required testing procedures & required values also get locked in? e.g. chassis torsional requirements, requirements for side intrusion, seat belt mounts etc.

We have an "approval to build" in QLD, but it doesn't lock in anything as far as I can see.

Thanks Craig,

I can't see any reason to change from the current requirement of testing requirements which really should be supplied in the first instance by the manufacturer of the kit, not the buyer. The overall objective is to have a completed vehicle which is as safe and roadworthy as possible.

Speaking of "Kits", I was browsing through an aeronautical magazine the other day and noticed that they now have 'Kit Planes' for sale. E.G. A build your own Spitfire for $45K. Who said the 'Kit' industry was on its knees?

Baz

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by Baz

Speaking of "Kits", I was browsing through an aeronautical magazine the other day and noticed that they now have 'Kit Planes' for sale. E.G. A build your own Spitfire for $45K. Who said the 'Kit' industry was on its knees?

Baz

I wonder if the aviation watch dogs are eating from the same breakfast bowl as the RTA?

[suthol]

Originally Posted by Dimis

I wonder if the aviation watch dogs are eating from the same breakfast bowl as the RTA?

It's far easier to get a kit plane in the air legally than a kit car on the road in NSW.

Go figure.

[400TT]

Baz, I would recommend locking in the testing procedures as well. Because when you purchase the kit the manufacturer should supply all the docs for the current testing or at least the buyer knows what is currently required from the engineers. But there is nothing stopping the RTA from introducing new testing procedures and requirements while the kit is being built. This is separate from the ADR's that the kit is being built to etc. The testing procedures and requirements can be changed independently to the ADR's. i.e. the requirement for certified seat belt mounts, compared to physically testing the seat belt mounts, same goes for anti-intrusion bars etc.

Just making sure your wording covers both.

[Krait]

Kitplanes (experimental aircraft) have been around since the Wright Brothers. The some of current offerings are very sophisticated. Even jet versions are available.

Cheers

[BMK]

Baz

Knowing that you have built your car to a very high standard complying to all relevant regulations along the way then begs the question on exactly what/why the vehicle cannot be presented for VIN# allocation and registration.

My understanding is the car is regularly checked by an engineer who then signs off on the car with a covering letter advising you to present the car for registration. Your State registration branch should then register the car.

If they refuse the engineer and you have a valid reason to ask why not.

Unfortunately, this is a problem in every State. As Kris Kincaid has pointed out the ASRF have worked hard to obtain an SR plates and recent changes have seen the introduction for ICV to be register form either 45 day or 90 day use.

A log book is kept and the car can be used at anytime over the 45 or 90 day period.

Cars can be moved up to 100 meters on the road without filling in a day use.

Hmm about to go National as a permit scheme. When you consider the little use we give our vehicles it is a not a bad option. Also it appears that all vehicles engine etc. Combinations can. Be registered this way.

I just saw a car with a 351w and top loader registered this way. The motor was from a early 80's Fairlane.

I can see enough of our cars being declined for full registration and a joint legal action being taken against Ministers and registration authorities. At the end of the day these are not cheap cars and builders are not 18 year old hoons. Whilst this may seem extreme it will make a Transport Minister take notice. Hmm 4 or 5 contribute to a legal claim works out cheap as this I would think would be sorted in a Ministers office by staff there...

[Baz]

Originally Posted by 400TT

Baz, I would recommend locking in the testing procedures as well. Because when you purchase the kit the manufacturer should supply all the docs for the current testing or at least the buyer knows what is currently required from the engineers. But there is nothing stopping the RTA from introducing new testing procedures and requirements while the kit is being built. This is separate from the ADR's that the kit is being built to etc. The testing procedures and requirements can be changed independently to the ADR's. i.e. the requirement for certified seat belt mounts, compared to physically testing the seat belt mounts, same goes for anti-intrusion bars etc.

Just making sure your wording covers both.

Appreciate all the help I can get here Craig. Thanks for you input. This is what the Forum is all about and hopefully will achieve some really positive outcomes for everyone.


Baz

[Baz]

Originally Posted by BMK

Baz

Knowing that you have built your car to a very high standard complying to all relevant regulations along the way then begs the question on exactly what/why the vehicle cannot be presented for VIN# allocation and registration.

My understanding is the car is regularly checked by an engineer who then signs off on the car with a covering letter advising you to present the car for registration. Your State registration branch should then register the car.

If they refuse the engineer and you have a valid reason to ask why not.

Unfortunately, this is a problem in every State. As Kris Kincaid has pointed out the ASRF have worked hard to obtain an SR plates and recent changes have seen the introduction for ICV to be register form either 45 day or 90 day use.

A log book is kept and the car can be used at anytime over the 45 or 90 day period.

Cars can be moved up to 100 meters on the road without filling in a day use.

Hmm about to go National as a permit scheme. When you consider the little use we give our vehicles it is a not a bad option. Also it appears that all vehicles engine etc. Combinations can. Be registered this way.

I just saw a car with a 351w and top loader registered this way. The motor was from a early 80's Fairlane.

I can see enough of our cars being declined for full registration and a joint legal action being taken against Ministers and registration authorities. At the end of the day these are not cheap cars and builders are not 18 year old hoons. Whilst this may seem extreme it will make a Transport Minister take notice. Hmm 4 or 5 contribute to a legal claim works out cheap as this I would think would be sorted in a Ministers office by staff there...

To BMK,

It's great to have input from you Bernie and I feel privileged that you have elected to be part of this discussion. I really appreciate it.

My car was presented for full NSW registration and VIN No. allocation over 12 months ago. It was knocked back on 29 issues, but that's another story and one which I won't enter into here, but to put it bluntly, "I was not happy Jan." Unfortunately, because of illness and other factors, it took my engineer 9 months to respond to the RTA's list of items requiring attention. There are other matters here which made what's left of my hair stand on end, but I won't go there either.

We then asked for further particulars from the RTA as to what they actually required in respect of their rejection of "some" items on my engineers second Certificate and it has taken three months for them to respond to our request. Their response to me, in my opion, was only expedited because of certain actions I recently took.

Hopefully, I will be attending a meeting with the RTA Inspectors and my Engineer next week and hopefully, positive outcomes will occur.



Regards,

Baz

[BMK]

Baz

I thought that you would have it moving along as you know the system. Good luck with the next meeting.

I know that many that follow will appreciate your work - damn you should be out there enjoying e Cobra..

[Baz]

Originally Posted by BMK

Baz

I thought that you would have it moving along as you know the system. Good luck with the next meeting.

I know that many that follow will appreciate your work - damn you should be out there enjoying e Cobra..

My enjoyment time is near Bernie.

Baz