Proposal to be put to the RTA to build an ICV

[Baz]

I just need your feelings on this proposal before I formally submit it to the CEO of the NSW RTA. Hopefully, if all are in agreement, we might be able to implement one standard, workable system, which suits all, including the authorities, suppliers and kit car builders throughout all the States of Australia.

The first major step is to formulate a workable process for the first up builder who desires to construct an ICV.

ACTION:- He attends his local Motor Registry - RTA etc., and obtains an "Authority to Build an ICV" form which he completes and submits at that time. He is then given a "Memorandum of Understanding" from the RTA which contains all the Australian Design Rules which he has to comply with during a 4 year time period for his build. This "Memorandum of Understanding" cannot be changed in that 4 year period by either the RTA or the builder, regardless of how many new ADR's are introduced. The builder is also assigned a unique Build Number" which is registered on the RTA's computer system.

I appreciate that this system might already be operating in a couple of States, but if we could at least start to get some uniformity around the Country, things would be far simpler and more enthusiasts would elect to build a car rather than buy one which is already registered as applies in NSW at the present time.

I would appreciate some heated negative and positive feedback from all the regular contributors to this Forum please.



Baz

[Treeve]

Why not just fix the Applicable ADR's in the NCOP (i.e. prevent them from 'updating' the applicable ADR without updating the NCOP document) and say "righto, this is what you have to build to until the next version of the NCOP is sorted", and go from there, and then get a build number and VIN number assigned to a particular version of the NCOP (i.e. NCOP version 2, NCOP version 2.1). Same idea as yours, but gives a greater than 4 year window.

I like the idea of getting the ADR versions that are applicable set in stone at the start of the build though.

[suthol]

Originally Posted by Treeve

Why not just fix the Applicable ADR's in the NCOP (i.e. prevent them from 'updating' the applicable ADR without updating the NCOP document) and say "righto, this is what you have to build to until the next version of the NCOP is sorted", and go from there, and then get a build number and VIN number assigned to a particular version of the NCOP (i.e. NCOP version 2, NCOP version 2.1). Same idea as yours, but gives a greater than 4 year window.

I like the idea of getting the ADR versions that are applicable set in stone at the start of the build though.

This.

The only issue I see with them accepting this one will be needing to conform with all the other states if they want to change the guidelines.

Poor little bastrads

[Treeve]

I see this as an advantage not a disadvantage (the interstate buy-in) as it prevents particular state entities getting carried away and making revision after revision; it has to be mutually agreed. I've lived in QLD and NSW, and to be honest, the roads are the same, the cars are the same, so why shouldn't the rules be the same? It's all Australia after all...

Treeve

[Baz]

I am speaking from experience here as I had a number of ADR changes during my build process with absolutlely no consideration to what I had done previously or the costs I had incurred. At least, if you had virtually enterered into a legal contract with the RTA (Memorandum of Understanding)there could be no dispute or differing interpretations as is the case at present.

[boxhead]

I like your proposal Baz (I should as apart from wording,it is the same as NT) what I built to.

For your referances,incase it helps.
First stage is to apply to build the car, Using following paperwork and application form.
http://www.nt.gov.au/transport/mvr/v...tins/ibv32.pdf
The MVR board sit during the first week of each month and at this time is when they go through these applications (there is no charge applied at this stage), and if they are happy with your proposal then they send you "Approval in Principle" this gives you 4 years from the date to build the vehicle.
The vehicle is built following the VSB14 guide.
Vehicle Standards Bulletins
If you go past the 4 year deadline, I do not know who sits and approves an extension, but I simply went to my local MVR and asked, they jumped on there computer and extended the date by 12 months.
In regards to VIN number, this can be obtained at any time, and is attached to a persons name, I applied (again at local MVR) for my vin, they jumped on ther computer again, did not ask me for any vehicle or build details and supplied me a VIN.
Once the car was built, I got a plate made up that showed the vin and attached this to my car.
I used the chassis number stamped on the chassis as my ID for the propsal build and used that number throught the paperwork process.
Once the engineer inspected the car, he added the VIN number to his paperwork (His paperwork used my approval in principle number) and the MVR attached teh 2 together in there system.

[Treeve]

well there we have it, a system in place in Australia which seems to do exactly what we are asking it to do. A good place to start (how about a good place to stop too?).

Thanks for the info Boxhead, I'll certainly spend some time easing the documents.

Treeve

[BJ's Snake]

Ok, Here is my problem getting my head around this.

Me and probably most builders encountered ADR changes during the build but just abided by the rules and kept going, made the changes and got the job done in the 3 years allocated to complete the build.

Baz, as I understand you had your car built by a professional builder that should have been up on all rules and regs and yet there is no mention of any involement from him to help you through this. I would think that there would be some concern about reputation in all of this.

Also I have heard from a local engineer that once the RTA reach a happy medium, all previously registered cars will be required to be re-engineered to the new specs. I think that will be pretty hard to implement as there are alot of cars out there that would not come within a bulls roar of the current or new standards.
I hope common sense prevails and everyone wins but I will defend what I have which is a registered Cobra, before bowing to any new rules.
I will stay the "selfish Knob " according to another forum members description regardless.

End of rant.
Cheers

[Modena]

given other forum members posts this week that there is positive light at the end of the tunnel, I'm wondering why you would be doing this now Baz?

[boxhead]

I too was wondering "why start now when it appears to be close to sorted"?

But added the NT process as it appeared close to Baz's proposal.

[Zedn]

Hi Baz,

My build is registered with the RTA as part of the pilot scheme that has been running for a few years. I have an ICV number for my build which includes the date it was entered into the system. The name on the form is VSCCS which is as you are aware the name of the new scheme that they are reviewing and finalising. In other words the infrastructure is already in place to manage this and would just need the approved ADR versions added in.

BJ, what you have described is incorrect. There is no way that the RTA will turn around and say all ICVs on the road must comply with current guidelines. There is no legal instrument that allows this to happen and what legislation exists only requires a car to comply with ADRs current at the time and some additional specified safety clauses (see the NSW Road and Transport (Vehicle registration) regulation 2007 schedule 2). That is like saying that all production cars must be made to comply with current ADRs because production and ICV cars all fall under the same legislation. The new system that the RTA are proposing to implement includes photographs of new ICVs and modified vehicles being taken and kept on a database that will be available to police.

A car is required to maintain compliance to the standards that it was originally certified to. If someone modifies their car after rego then they take a risk that their car will be defected. If defects are not rectified then the car cannot be registered. This is the same for any vehicle in Australia regardless of full production or ICV.

I have spoken to a key player in the RTA and he does not come across as the devil and it is important that we take a productive approach to all this (as Baz is trying to initiate). The RTA may dismiss the request, but it should at least be suggested.

In my personal opinion individual state management is not the ideal way to handle ICVs. The ICV scheme should be part of or tacked on to the national low volume production scheme. For low volume production vehicles a manufacturer is required to submit evidence for each ADR. Where destructive or overly expensive testing is required the scheme allows for alternative means of demonstrating compliance. Approvals and VIN are issued at a national level and then accepted by the states. A similar system that allows the VIN to be issued at a national level for ICVs would mean every state had the same requirements and this would assist manufacturers to ensure their kits will have no issues in any state. This increases customer confidence and would intern support the industry.

Cheers.

Liam

[Merv and Sharon]

Thanks Liam. Let's see how it goes in formality. You guys have done some great work on this, and in each of the state Clubs, I am sure most appreciate the effort, research, time and experience that you have brought to the task.

I also can't see how any retrospective process against already registered vehicles could happen. There is no parallel, unless the vehicle is found to have been significantly modified with out a second compliance plate.

[kris-kincaid]

Don't street rods in Australian get special treatment for registration? You guys should get the RTA guys to roll the street rod date up from 1949 to 1965. According to THIS PDF, the 1949 rule was established around 1982 when a 1949 car was 33 years old. Since the Cobra design is pushing 50 years old, maybe the RTA guys would consider it.

Nobody would have ever thought the California SB100 rule would ever work, but it has. Us guys in America don't know how great we have it.

[Zedn]

It wouldnt matter with that date, our cars are registered as the year of when they are first presented for registration. The street rod system goes off the actual manufacture date and does not allow for replicas. If you were to build a modern hot rod kit or put a 32 body on a brand new aftermarket chassis it would be classed as an ICV and not a hotrod unless the chassis incorporated an original cross member. Even with hotrods in NSW, if you want full registration and not just a club permit you have to jump through similar hoops to ICVs. With draft plans that the RTA have for the national code of practice appendix for NSW, just about all hot rods will be classed as ICVs as any change to wheel base, rebody and substantial modifications will require the car to be registered as an ICV.

[Gav]

In respect to what has been stated earlier, if the build date of an ICV in NSW was considered to be the date in which the chassis was built, as it is in Victoria, that would then illiminate the issue of having to comply with ADR's that are implemented during the build process.
Has this been suggested?

[suthol]

Originally Posted by Gav

In respect to what has been stated earlier, if the build date of an ICV in NSW was considered to be the date in which the chassis was built, as it is in Victoria, that would then illiminate the issue of having to comply with ADR's that are implemented during the build process.
Has this been suggested?

My engineer is meeting with the RTA today and will probably be proposing the build window as an option to be considered.

The main thrust of the meeting is to discuss the much hated VSCCS scheme.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Modena

given other forum members posts this week that there is positive light at the end of the tunnel, I'm wondering why you would be doing this now Baz?

Because the current system in NSW stinks and I'm trying to make it a lot simpler and easier for those who follow behind me with their builds.

Baz

[Modena]

Originally Posted by Baz

Because the current system in NSW stinks and I'm trying to make it a lot simpler and easier for those who follow behind me with their builds.

Baz

dont get me wrong Baz, I understand WHY you would do this, I just don't understand the timing.

[suthol]

Originally Posted by Modena

dont get me wrong Baz, I understand WHY you would do this, I just don't understand the timing.

A fair bit of pressure has been heaped on the RTA before, during and immediately after the state election and for the moment at least they are listening and more importantly responding.

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

[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.