ESC mandatory

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Mando

Bazz, the former President of the Cobra Club in S.A. has been involved in lobbying for not only consistent rules, but for exemptions similar to those enjoyed by the Hot Rod community for many years. You may already know of John Staszinski but if you want his contact details let me know.

Regards.

Thanks Mando,

What I would like to see is the Cobra Club Presidents in each State form a Committee to fully and clearly research and record the current situation which is required in their particular State as to what is required to build and register an ICV.

When all the States have compiled their records, they should be formulated into one document prefaced by a covering report showing how inconsistent the various Regulations and interpretations of the Australian Design Rules are in each State.

That document should then be forwarded to the Federal Minister for Transport in Canberra with representations from each States Club President to standardise the Regulations Australia wide. It would also have the effect of showing the Minister what a ridiculous system we have in place at the moment. An application to also provide for a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the owner/builder of an ICV and the Licensensing Authority in each particular State should also be included, outlining a specified period in which the build is to be completed and the fact that no new ADR's can be imposed on the owner/builder during that specified period.

Any Comments?

Baz

[Merv and Sharon]

We have the principle of 'mutual recognition' in most State government processes these days. It needs to get on to the Transport Ministers' national meeting agenda with their Federal counterpart. Unfortunately the whole thing could become summative and we could finish up with a list of rules that are the total of all the others combined! However, if Cobras are to survive in something like their current format then a national agreement has to be reached.

[*Cobber*]

It will never happen while Australia has multi level departments and silos along with states of incompetence.

Be careful what you wish for.

The kit car industry and parts suppliers need to lobby not the poor builders who are lumped with a useless system. After building 1 ICV I doubt I would build another due the threat of moving goal posts.

Take a look at the UK system, plain English guide lines and covers the whole country with 1 set of rules. The UK would probably have the largest range of kits available and a real industry.

[Merv and Sharon]

Good point. The 'industry' has a large and continuing stake in the establishment of one national set of rules, that are fair and also reasonable. The costs of these cars is increasing every year and may well be out of the reach of many would-be builders in the near future, especially if compliance with ever-changing rules makes these cars require ABS, emissions control, Stability Control, impact testing, and so on.

Cobras would then become more and more modern vehicles that insulated us from the driving experience. Buying an old Healey, MG, Porsche or Alfa may be the only way into classic motoring.

[Rebel1]

A subject which has in the past been discussed to death.

Leave it to the bureaucrats and we will have a standards disaster which will stifle the ICV industry.

Merv also said the following: "The 'industry' has a large and continuing stake in the establishment of one national set of rules".

I sat in on a meeting a while back which included a number of Qld. based manufacturers. During that meeting I mentioned it was my view that unless the "Industry" starts lobbying and discussing issues with State governments then eventually there will be no industry.

The manufacturers at that meeting were complacent to say the least.

John Staszynski the ex President CCC SA. was setting up a working party which was to lobby governments but received little support. I suspect once an owner/builder has gone thru the "joys" of compliance then that's it as far as that owner is concerned. ie. He has his toy and has no interest in what happens in the future.

The manufacturers ( with cobra club support) have to drive this change. The manufacturers are the folks making money from the industry. They need to be more proactive.

[Mando]

Rebel1, I have to agree with all the points you made in your post in particular the last one. It really is up to the manufacturers to organize themselves for self preservation.

Regards.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Rebel1

A subject which has in the past been discussed to death.

Leave it to the bureaucrats and we will have a standards disaster which will stifle the ICV industry.

Merv also said the following: "The 'industry' has a large and continuing stake in the establishment of one national set of rules".

I sat in on a meeting a while back which included a number of Qld. based manufacturers. During that meeting I mentioned it was my view that unless the "Industry" starts lobbying and discussing issues with State governments then eventually there will be no industry.

The manufacturers at that meeting were complacent to say the least.

John Staszynski the ex President CCC SA. was setting up a working party which was to lobby governments but received little support. I suspect once an owner/builder has gone thru the "joys" of compliance then that's it as far as that owner is concerned. ie. He has his toy and has no interest in what happens in the future.

The manufacturers ( with cobra club support) have to drive this change. The manufacturers are the folks making money from the industry. They need to be more proactive.

Of course you are correct in what you say Les, but having been through the ADR changes which occurred in NSW during my build time, I can appreciate the position that Liam (Zedn) is in and why he is concerned.

I agree with you Les, that the persons who this is going to effect most in NSW especially, are the Kit Car Manufacturers and those who make a living building Kit Cars for clients, not to mention, blokes like Liam who are just commencing their build in NSW.

Mando says, if I have got this right, that the situation in SA is:- You notify the RTA or its equivalent in that State, that you are commencing to build an ICV and they supply guidelines and give you a time span in which to complete the build. Any new ADR's which occur between the commencement of your build and the your nominated completion date do not apply to you. If you require more time to complete your build than was originally allocated, you make application to the Licensesing Authority. Have I got that right Mando?

gjkrv8 indicates that Victoria has a similar system to SA. Whats the go in WA Cobber and in the N.T. Boxhead?

Les or Merv:= Is the situation the same in Qld, if not, what's the situation up there?

I'm not for bureaucrats drafting Memorandums of Understandings either. This should be a generic document applicable and relevant to all States, put together within the ICV Industry with input from Owners, Builders and Engineers. What's the feelings on this aspect.

Regards

Baz

[Merv and Sharon]

Baz,

I also supported the point that the kit manufacturers are the ones with the long term stake in getting uniform regulations in their industry. We individually have our hassles but when we have achieved registration, we can easily lose the intensity of interest. I personally haven't lost interest as I feel that the next builder and the next deserve equal and reasonable treatment.

In QLD I had to get approval from Queensland Transport to build an ICV. This approval was sought through my consultant engineer, with frame diagrams and some other details provided by the kit manufacturer in the submission. I then was required to consult with the engineer throughout the build process. In fact this was only telephone contact to check certain aspects of the build. There was of course a detailed final inspection.

The Manual provided by the kit manufacturer was reasonably explicit about the relevant ADRs. There was NO maximum or minimum time period specified in my letter of approval from QT. The only proviso was that the "engine" would "need to be compliant with ADRs for ICVs - at the time of final inspection".

Merv

[Rebel1]

Baz, you are merely reinforcing my comments. John Staszynski was representing the Australian Cobra collective, not just the SA chapter.

His want was to try and have the cobra not classed as an ordinary ICV wherein one is exposed to ADR changes but to have some classification not unlike the Hot Rod association, set the standards as to the build/engines/etc and have them approved and fixed and then have the Cobra Clubs "manage" the build standards.

Have a look at this paragraph from the hot rod site: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a sub-committee of each State Council and will have the responsibility of:Liason between the State Registration Authorities and the ASRF.
Establishing and maintaining acceptable building standards for ASRF class vehicles with the objective of ensuring that these vehicles may be registered.


To amuse yourself even further go here http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...treet_rod.aspx
and look at the Street Rod Manual and then tell me why a cobra builder has so many restrictions whilst a hot rod builder has so many exemptions.


If the Australian Street Rod Federation can pull it off why can't the Cobra Clubs?.


I'll tell you why ... because the Street Rod Federation had the future of the movement in mind and got off their collective backsides and did the work.


Thats what John Staszynski was attempting. Sadly, he was a sole voice.

[Merv and Sharon]

Could one seek approval to build a Cobra AS a 'street rod"?

[*Cobber*]

No, a cobra falls outside of the street rod years.

WA
http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/licensing/1414.asp

In simple terms you apply to the DPI or now the transport department to build an ICV and nominate what you want to build and engine etc. The DPI / Transport will then grant you permission to build and give you a 2 year time frame to build. If you go outside that time frame they may impose new regs on your build. IM 240 test was one that was recently added, now it has just been suspended due to "technical issues" whole other thread.

Compared to the rest of the country we have it fairly easy here in the west but there are still plenty of hoops to jump through.

If the kit car industry wants to survive in Australia and be part of nation building local industry it must do the pushing.

How many kit manufacturers are there in Australia (not just cobra's)? These are the targets to stir up not the poor mug who buys a kit in the hope of one day being able to negotiate their way through the minefield of regs.

Happy to be part of a new wave movement and wave flags and sign a petition.

I also feel like it has been done to death.

[Mando]

If the manufacturers don't give a $hit why would anyone else?

Regards.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Mando

If the manufacturers don't give a $hit why would anyone else?

Regards.

I'll tell you why Mando. Because blokes like Liam are stuck with this ridiculous system. He has asked for help and that's what I'm trying to do for him, even if he is a lone voice. If this ESC ADR becomes a reality, he definately won't be the only crying out for help.

We have a State election coming along in the not too distant future and from present indicators, we will probably have a change in Government.

The time is perfect for some serious lobbying. As the 'Big Man' would say, "Are you with me?"

Baz

[Merv and Sharon]

Perhaps it is time that our national president wrote, on our behalf, to all the kit makers and suppliers and asked if they wanted to join in submission to the National Transport Ministers' forum/meeting each year with their National Transport Minister, citing the value of the industry, the benefits of a single reasonable set of rules and the parallels with the rodders? Do the kit manufacturers have a body of any kind?

Merv

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Perhaps it is time that our national president wrote, on our behalf, to all the kit makers and suppliers and asked if they wanted to join in submission to the National Transport Ministers' forum/meeting each year with their National Transport Minister, citing the value of the industry, the benefits of a single reasonable set of rules and the parallels with the rodders? Do the kit manufacturers have a body of any kind?

Merv

Merv, That's exactly what John Staszynski did. I still have the email on file.

In fact, herewith an excerpt from that email:

Hullo and welcome to a specific interest group focused on allowing replica cars to be registered for road use under the same system and rules that are applied to street rods.

Your name has been selected as someone that may be interested in becoming involved in a national lobby group that will support the above goal.

The aim is to lobby all the state transport departments systematically and simultaneously so that state ministers and the state regulators will be receiving the same message at the same time.

Some of you will be aware that in my role of Cobra Car Club President South Australia I have been able to achieve some gains in this area on a local basis. However if we are to avoid the problem of a state arguing that they cannot proceed alone in this area we must take a national approach. This will also demonstrate to the authorities that this is not a "flash in the pan" issue that will soon go away if it is put in the too hard basket.

If you are not interested in being involved just reply to me and I will remove your name from the list.

I have set out a framework on how this group can operate using the recourses of the Cobra Car Club branches in all states except NT and Tasmania where none exist. The clubs have a mandate to lobby on behalf of their members. These members are also interested in replica cars other than just cobras, i.e. GT 40, Daytona replicas etc.

Name. Replica Car Lobby Group.

Aim. To establish a coordinated common purpose lobby group in every state and territory of Aust.

Purpose. To create a "Replica" category within the state registration systems and move our replica cobras etc into that category instead of the Individually constructed Vehicle (ICV) category they currently hold.

Why? The ICV,s we build are subject to different requirements in different states. However they all class them as ICV, a one off construction and one individuals efforts. This means that different requirements can be imposed on similar vehicles within the same state if desired. For example, in SA I have negotiated an exemption from meeting emission requirements for an ICV fitted with a carburettor 427 yet was rejected on an exemption for a fuel injected 5 litre because it was fitted with eight throttle bodies. There are such options as club rego in some states but not a national basis.
Something that is available on a national basis is the Street Rod category. These cars are NOT ICV s even if they are all different and individually constructed by the owner/builder and engineered by a contracted engineer. No the state ministers in their wisdom have decreed that a special Street Rod set of rules be created to manage the building and registration of these cars.

And it went on further.......


Baz, You well want to contact John and continue what he started. I agree it needs constant attention and some-one to drive the concept.

[Merv and Sharon]

Seems like he was on the right course then Les. Did our national body support him? Did any manufacturers also join in?

Merv

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Seems like he was on the right course then Les. Did our national body support him? Did any manufacturers also join in?

Merv

Merv, I have no idea if any manufacturers supported him. John was the National Cobra President when he started this attempt.

I can comment on the meeting in which I was involved which did include manufacturers and, as mentioned previously, two major local manufacturers were complacent to say the least.

From my point of view that was the end for me. I had arranged meetings on three occasions with QT department heads. Had gleaned a degree of support from QT. Had been given guidance by QT department heads which appeared to open a door for us to continue discussions.

Frankly, I was somewhat disappointed with the lack of follow on by those given the task.

[Merv and Sharon]

Sounds like you did all the ground work there and John was the national president ... You both did your best then. I guess when the kit manufacturers are busy filling orders they see no need to look further. Seems shortsighted as this country has a capacity to create rules for everything - unlike any country I have ever lived in (except Sweden).

Merv

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

I guess when the kit manufacturers are busy filling orders they see no need to look further. Seems shortsighted as this country has a capacity to create rules for everything - unlike any country I have ever lived in (except Sweden).

Merv

I guess you're right Merv re the Manufacturers. I was not the Queensland co-ordinator of this initiative but was requested to start the ball rolling as I had the "contacts" at QT and to pass details to the actual co-ordinator.

I felt the initial discussions were quite positive.

What I can say is this ..... I totally agree with Johns view ie. Have the States create a new Classification (John suggested a REPLICA category) because the Classification of ICV if a definition which the States continue to require and they don't like creating exemptions to an already defined standard.

The Hot Rod Federation was successful in convincing the States to create the Hot Rod classification to cater for their vehicles.

Bureaucrats don't like setting standards and then hand out exemptions to those Standards. It's a little like Legislation.

EDIT: For your interest Merv, The object of the exercise was to also set an approved standard of engine emissions and to "lock" those into the new classification. Carby engines were out. The 5Ltr Windsor, either standard injection or mass-flow, 351 Windsors with mass-flow, as well as later model of Ford and GM engines were contemplated. The mass-flow folks provided us with sufficient proof their system would meet requirements.

[Merv and Sharon]

Interesting. The new classification idea is a good one, where we/they could specify a 'type' within a range the features of the replica/s. Could mean of course that we would have to use an all Ford designation in Cobras - small block that is, if a single 'type' was established for traditional Cobras? (Those modern GM motors are the ones to blame for this slide to modernity and all its regulations????)

Seriously though, this seems the right path as you have described it above, and should be the take off point for any future moves. Perhaps at the coming Nationals the State Presidents could get together and discuss some strategies and how the issue could be progressed so that future builders have greater confidence that their vehicles are registerable and feasible from a construction perspective?

Merv