My assessment of the ICV Rego process in NSW

[Treeve]

Originally Posted by Rob. Smith

The certifier needs to be very rich. To cover the 10 million $ + insurance policy that must be paid for seven years after he retires. The test that must be done for braking and handling are far beyond the requirements of major auto manufacturers. Litigation started this whole ridiculous thing...and ask Baz. They can knock back an ICV for any simple excuse. A name change doesn't change a draconian system. Treeve, you can see I am bitter and twisted about the RTA. ( I had lots of stress when I registered mine) I sincerely hope the process has been 'cleaned up' and things start to go smoothly for future builders.

There is a lot of mis information about what you must have heard. The thing about the insurance requirement is:
1. You have to be very rich to be uninsured
2. The insurance policy arranged by the RMS already covers the run off period - once you stop, there are no further payments to make
3. They can no longer knock back a vehicle without an excuse. If thy did in the past, you should have asked your engineer what they were going to do about it - they should have known it was wrong (and hence misled you in the first place) or they should have challenged it until a satisfactory decision was given. Any decisions about accepted standards are distributed such that the signatories must read them before they can log in.

Finally, there is the issue of fraud. The RMS have prosecuted 2 signatories from the 'old' scheme, where both admitted fraudulently issuing certificates. One issued 20, the other 26. They have put this out in a media release, and to my knowledge, they are following up on further cases.

The new guidelines are not likely to change in a hurry, and they have taken suitable steps to ensure all engineers are kept up to date with determinations on rulings. I see it as a good thing.

I appreciate that past performance has severely damaged people's trust in the RTA / RMS. I'm not employed by them, but as a signatory I am free to ask questions on your behalf and clear up anything which you want to know.

Cheers,

Treeve

[boxhead]

Sounds like a good step in the right direction.
All people needed was a set of rules that are written and can be followed, sounds like you have that now.
So all you NSW guys, get cracking. I expect to see a cement colored car with plates in 2012 & a dirty white one.

[Treeve]

Originally Posted by Zedn

Great post Baz, will be helpful to new builders.

I question the commercial viability or need for kit manufacturers to conduct all the destructive testing. I dont feel this would improve the safety of the vehicles and the cost of this testing would take many kits sold to recover. To complete all testing would likely cost the manufacturer $50-$100k by the time you include cost of building several chassis and components for testing.

FEA can provide results that are accurate enough for the risk to be managed with a factor of safety.

How many high rise buildings are built and demolished to check if they will fall down in the event of wind loading or eathquake? These contain much more occupants than a car

G'day all,

I have been in conversation with a local distributor to do FEA of their chassis for seat and belt mounts, such that they can offer this information to their customers on purchase.

The advantage of this is that they will save their customers considerable heart ache when the signatory inspects the chassis. This works as a sales point for this manufacturer as they offer a high quality kit; part of the proof of the quality is a decreased cost for engineering.

Cheers,

Treeve

[Rob. Smith]

Originally Posted by Treeve

There is a lot of mis information about what you must have heard. The thing about the insurance requirement is:
1. You have to be very rich to be uninsured
2. The insurance policy arranged by the RMS already covers the run off period - once you stop, there are no further payments to make
3. They can no longer knock back a vehicle without an excuse. If thy did in the past, you should have asked your engineer what they were going to do about it - they should have known it was wrong (and hence misled you in the first place) or they should have challenged it until a satisfactory decision was given. Any decisions about accepted standards are distributed such that the signatories must read them before they can log in.

Finally, there is the issue of fraud. The RMS have prosecuted 2 signatories from the 'old' scheme, where both admitted fraudulently issuing certificates. One issued 20, the other 26. They have put this out in a media release, and to my knowledge, they are following up on further cases.

The new guidelines are not likely to change in a hurry, and they have taken suitable steps to ensure all engineers are kept up to date with determinations on rulings. I see it as a good thing.

I appreciate that past performance has severely damaged people's trust in the RTA / RMS. I'm not employed by them, but as a signatory I am free to ask questions on your behalf and clear up anything which you want to know.

Cheers,

Treeve

Man.. You have already answered many of my questions.Thanks for the clarification. I'm not afraid to ask 'stupid' questions and get bagged for them....this saves others from embarrassment.ha ha ha. My car was engineered and approved way back in 2002 when the rumours were flying and my engineer was told the 'Facts' by the RTA. The requirement then was the giant insurance and the post retirement follow-up to exempt the RTA from any litigation. My engineer was reasonably close to retirement so he took it. He was an Industrial Mechanical Engineer by day and his hobby was the Auto signatory role.....he loved it and was extremely thorough with his inspections and reports. Thanks again for the clarification.
Rob.

[Treeve]

Originally Posted by Rob. Smith

The certifier needs to be very rich. To cover the 10 million $ + insurance policy that must be paid for seven years after he retires. The test that must be done for braking and handling are far beyond the requirements of major auto manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Rob. Smith

The requirement then was the giant insurance and the post retirement follow-up to exempt the RTA from any litigation. My engineer was reasonably close to retirement so he took it. He was an Industrial Mechanical Engineer by day and his hobby was the Auto signatory role.....he loved it and was extremely thorough with his inspections and reports. Thanks again for the clarification.
Rob.

G'day Rob,

Firstly, thanks for your feedback. I'm in much the same position as your engineer in that I will be doing this work at weekends, outside of my current role.
Next, there are two key things you have mentioned which I'd like to address further:

1. Having to do more than major manufacturers.
Although major manufacturers get some leeway in applicability of ADR's based on current model line-ups, we have to accept from the start that our projects count as new vehicles. By going to VSB14, we get numerous allowances in which ADR's apply - those listed in VSB are not the most current. There is also a change to the emissions requirements, back to the levels of 37/ (I think, off the top of my head if I'm wrong, I'll reference the appropriate material). This must be checked with an IM240 test, but this test is only ~1/3 of the full emissions cycle that the major manufacturers have to go through at the more stringent levels of 79/02 for a new model.
For vehicle handling, and brake performance, it is quite simple. We have an abridged brake test to perform (much shorter than a full brake test), and there is a lane change test. The lane change test, brake test and drive by noise tests can all be set up and carried out in a relatively short period - I'm estimating 2 to 2.5 hours.
We do not need ESC. The testing for ESC is hugely expensive, because to carry out the test, a robotic arm must control the steering inputs, and the vehicle must recover. At least we don't have to do that!

Finally, insurance. It's no secret that we are now required to carry insurance for $20m public liability and $5m professional indemnity. The operating structure of the signatories, the RMS and the customer is such that the signatory will bear the brunt of any litigation. Much has also been said about the $25,000 excess. People believed that if a claim of <$25k came in, the insurers would not fight it, and then charge the signatory $25k. That's just not how it works. If you claim $10k, the insurance can make a choice if they want to argue it or not, but they have to confirm this with the signatory. Then, if the claim is accepted by the signatory, the $10k is claimed, not the full $25k excess.

At the end of the day, you buy insurance to protect yourself if something did happen. What if someone puts in a claim for $20m? at least my insurance covers it (and would fight pretty hard not to pay I'm sure). Do I have the money to defend a $20m claim? Unfortunately not...

As I said above, it's a hobby for me at weekends; like all addicts, I can stop doing it any time I want... But if you have genuine questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I didn't come on here expecting people to pay for my services, but rather to help clear the air around the RTA/RMS and help fellow enthusiasts get their cars registered. It's really not that bad!

Cheers,

Treeve

[Treeve]

I should add, that although NSW has not officially accepted VSB14/NCOP r2, I have been told by the RMS/RTA that if I work to it as a standard, then they would accept my submissions.

Treeve

[Rob. Smith]

More clarification provided...Thank you. Your insurance policy payment must be pretty 'painful'.. that is what my engineer was upset about. A hobby/ interest, shouldn't cost a bomb. He definitely wasn't poor but he couldn't justify the exorbitant cost of the giant insurance costs. I hope the new VSB14/NCOP r2 is accepted and implemented by the NSW mob....I hope the reshuffle is a positive one.
Rob.

[Towmaster]

Do the brake tests etc still have to be carried out at a race track?

[Treeve]

Any vehicle testing etc must not be carried out on the public highway. If you have access to a runway, that would be sufficient, but the RMS/RTA will not allow brake or lane change tests to endanger the public (which is fair enough).

This is less of a problem outside of the cities - regional airports aren't exactly bustling hubs with flights every minute. Plus, having huge insurance coverage helps ease concerns of those responsible for airports when approached to use them.

Treeve