ESC mandatory

[Zedn]

In a post about emmisions, Merv asked if anyone has received a response from Mr Albanese. I posted a response here so i can bump the thread back to page 1.

So far there has been nothing that i know of. Mind you i am not really expecting that they respond to every letter they get.

I am suprised that the manufacturers havnt made any noise (beside classic revivals).

Ian are you still watching this post? Have you heard any news? Do you know of any ESC (or ESP etc) options that are emerging?

I am focusing on Nov 2011 and planning to get to a point where i can go through engineering around June 2011. It wont be finished, but i reckon past that point my investment will be worthless.

The Victorian builders will get to enjoy this new legislation in just a shade over 12 months.

[martrogers]

I got this holding email on 30 Oct. I'll be giving Julia a phonecall if I don't get a reply by the end of Nov...

No reply from the feds yet.



Dear Mr Rogers


The Minister for Roads has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter regarding Electronic stability control for Build Vehicles.

The Minister has arranged for the matters raised to be examined and a response will be provided as soon as possible.


Yours sincerely






JULIA HURLEY
MINISTERIAL LIAISON OFFICER

[victor]

.................................................. .................................................. .....

[400TT]

It's a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

There are many ADR's ICV's do not comply with. Some officially, some unofficially.

My opinion is that we will get an exemption for ESC as well.

They will never trust ICV community to install an ESC system that can be trusted.

ICV builders just don't have the budget and resources to get it to work 100%.

I've spent $10,000's dollars on compliance and even I don't have the budget for ESC development and testing.

How much money would the high volume vehicle manufacturers spend on ESC development for each vehicle?

[Zedn]

Thats interesting Martin. Did you send a letter or email?

400TT. I hope that what you are saying is correct, but to be honest i think you need to reconsider your opinion. At this stage there are no exceptions to the rule. The many ADR's that you refer to that ICV's do not have to comply with are mainly those that relate to destructive test methods. Without the ICV community voicing their concerns there will not be an exclusion for this ADR. Do you think that Mr Albanese is going to stop and think.."you know what, maybe there are people that cant comply with this i better make an amendment that allows for exlusions". That is not going to happen without us and every other enthusiest voicing their concerns.

They will never trust ICV community to install an ESC system that can be trusted.

They dont trust us to do anything, that is why cars are tested and inspected. I am sure that if this is enforced, testing will be required like with the 160kph brake test. If you dont pass, you dont pass full stop.

ICV builders just don't have the budget and resources to get it to work 100%.

This is true, but they dont give a s**t.

Sorry to get all excited, i dont want to offend anyone, but i dont think we can be complacent about this and expect it will be fine. If i was selling kit cars i wouldnt be letting my business be open to chance. People need to be proactive.

Liam

[400TT]

Liam, sorry mate I'm just not concerned about ESC. But I certainy respect and admire your passion and efforts. When the time comes closer, the engineers themselves will be an important aspect when it comes to discussions with the transport authorities.

Unfortunately I have far more pressing work in respect to compliance.

There are many specific aspects of our ADR's that many of our ICV's do not comply with. And I'm not talking about crash related safety.

I take registration compliance very seriously. It is my business.

[Merv and Sharon]

Hey Craig - it is good to see you back on the Forum! Really..

Merv

[Merv and Sharon]

Hey Craig - it is good to see you back on the Forum! Really..

Merv

[400TT]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

Hey Craig - it is good to see you back on the Forum! Really..

Merv

Thanks Merv. I have been browsing, but lost my login details when I bought a new notebook. Plus things have been really busy.

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by 400TT

Liam, sorry mate I'm just not concerned about ESC.

Craig, that is exactly the complacent attitude of manufacturers referred to earlier in this thread. Manufacturers should be concerned with any threat which may cause risk to their industry.

Originally Posted by 400TT

When the time comes closer, the engineers themselves will be an important aspect when it comes to discussions with the transport authorities.

And well they might. But their income relies on being recognized as an engineer by the authorities. Hence, in a way they become "servants". In any case, the object of the exercise is to encourage a formal exemption to the legislation before some poor ICV builder has expended the money and effort in building an ICV and now hoping his engineer can obtain an exemption.

Originally Posted by 400TT

Unfortunately I have far more pressing work in respect to compliance.

Craig, I find this statement rather disturbing. Are you simply saying you don't have 5 minutes to cut & paste an email off to the minister?.

Originally Posted by 400TT

I take registration compliance very seriously. It is my business.

I thought you did but your comments don't reflect that.

Craig, unless I have misread your comments I really do find your comments disturbing. You mention having spent "$10,000's dollars on compliance" which you either add to your clients costs or invest in "intelligence" for your business. Either way the cost will/can be amortized in some way in the business even if only via the tax system.
Are you expecting some poor individual to expend the same (ex pocket) if/when this legislation is not exempted for ICV's ?.

[victor]

i see snakebite still has this on their site...since 07...

THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICV Regulations Meeting





Don Pilling has organised a meeting to discuss the current ICV Regulations on Wed 21st Nov at 7:30pm @ unit 12/33-43 Meakin Rd, Medowbrook.

[400TT]

I just can't see them enforcing it. It's just dangerous for a home builder to implement. If I was an engineer or transport department I wouldn't accept any donor systems or anyone's home brew installation.

Sorry it's just too far on the horizon for me at the moment. I'm just being honest. And I'm already stretched too thin.

I would prefer the effort being put towards a national body with the backing and resources to work with authorities to create our own regulations and be self regulating. Just as the Australian Street Rod Federation have done. But it does mean that individuals, clubs and manufacturers will need to work together and shell out real money and support the cause. Those funds would be used to cover legal costs etc.

Originally Posted by victor

i see snakebite still has this on their site...since 07...

THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICV Regulations Meeting

Don Pilling has organised a meeting to discuss the current ICV Regulations on Wed 21st Nov at 7:30pm @ unit 12/33-43 Meakin Rd, Medowbrook.

As mentioned earlier, just couldn't get the support and direction it needed.

[victor]

maybe 2 or 3 cobras rocking up at our local or federal members officers with a letter, would make a point...it would be hard to forget .i would be happy to do brisbane so anyone anytime would suit me

[Merv and Sharon]

As far as I can see Craig is the only manufacturer/builder who has expressed an opinion on this Forum - and has honestly done so. I do hope he is right. The current system is crazy but not totally stupid and one can only hope that logic and common sense will prevail on the current issue. Of course, all our efforts to make our elected 'servants' aware of the issue can only help. A request to form a national association with its own rules would seem the only long term solution.

Merv

[Rebel1]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

As far as I can see Craig is the only manufacturer/builder who has expressed an opinion on this Forum. Merv

Maybe the only Queensland manufacturer Merv. Classic revival offered his interpretation on page 6, post 82. Quite different thoughts to Craig.

As mentioned earlier, I attended a meeting at DRB prior to the November meeting at Medowbrook in Nov. 07. The complacency of manufacturers was as obvious then as it is now. I am not surprised that the November 07 meeting just couldn't get the support and direction it needed.

[Merv and Sharon]

OK Les. Has there been another meeting since that one 2 years ago - perhaps specifically on the new issue of ESP? Maybe the CC Club could do a quick survey of all manufacturers, kit suppliers, parts suppliers and so on to get some consolidated data on their thoughts on the key questions, estimates of the value of the industry, etc. That would be relatively easy to conduct?

Merv

[400TT]

Experience tells me that fighting or getting exemptions from ADR's is the wrong approach. But in saying that, that's exactly what I have been doing myself.

We need to bite the bullet and fight for our own regulations. While we remain ICV's we will always have this problem.

I didn't want to say anything, but I really take offence to criticism against manufacturers and particularly myself. Who here would really know what manufacturers are doing to help ICV compliance. Yes not all are proactive, yes there is always more that can be done, but there is a lot of work that is being performed behind the scenes. Same goes for engineers, a lot of proactive work there as well.

And I can tell you that holding a meeting of this type at a particular manufacturers place of business, like the meeting at DRB, is the wrong approach.

I attended the Nov 07 meeting long before I had any intentions of becoming a manufacturer.

But this battle on ESC is just too far off for me. I'm currently fighting for emissions at the moment.

[spookypt]

I attended the 07 meeting too from memory at Meadowbrook! There seemed to be a range of different topics/issues all trying to fly under the same banner of "creating something like the hotrodders" but then there was a stacking of other issues like emissions, noise etc etc. I felt different people had different issues to push and the more issues created the more off topic to the original issue we became....
For me, it was the beginning of the end. I respect everyone is in different positions, Craig, Les, Don and others.... Mine is that I can't muster the energy to fight on for what I have personally created.. So I'm selling to move to areas that are far less restrictive and compliant as to whats actually allowed... But to each their own and I respect their willingness and keenness to try and make a difference.

Spookypt

[400TT]

Originally Posted by spookypt

I felt different people had different issues to push and the more issues created the more off topic to the original issue we became....

Yeah, that is exactly what happened. Some wanted to stay as ICV's and get exemptions on ADR's and others wanted to have their own regulations. A united approach will be the problem.

[spookypt]

Although my memory is dodgy.... the ICV owners issues (eg: Craig and mine for example at the time) were "somewhat" different to what the manufacturers issues were (DRB for example). That's not a crack at Pete R, just an example of different people looking at the "issue" from a whole range of points of view.

It's a tough topic to get "all for one and one for all". Imagaine what it was like at the meeting! I think it almost has to be one mans fight with the complete support and backing from industry. To try and get "all" the players to agree as to the agenda boggles the mind. Remember ICV is supposed to be exactly that. Manufacturers are not "supposed" to make clients cars so there are reasons why certain camps push certain barrows... No fingers being pointed just my observation.

My 2 cents worth... And Wazza B may be interested and I am happy to lead as the culmanator (Spell) of topics... I would like to see at the 2010 Nats a forum meeting held for all attendees with strict topics on agenda and votes accordingly with a yearly review at the Nats to see how things are progressing. Beats the crap out of same issues being raised year after year... My suggestion would be a meet and greet on the Friday evening with a National CCC Quorum (spell again) being formed with a simple topic for discussion and vote system that is diarised and journaled into SnakeTales with individuals being nominated to head each topic issue for review.
Topic 1: ICV rules and how to lobby
Topic 2: Cobra Nats being held at Wakefield but run by a different club each year
Topic 3: Should Wazza B be MC again at the dinners??? Yeah OK no brainer....

But you get my drift? Mind you, if that idea is poo poo'd I'm happy just to come down for a fang!



SpookyPT

SpookyPT