ESC mandatory

[Merv and Sharon]

I believe we also have exemptions from the need to fit ABS and air bags. Why should this be different? A letter to the Transport Minister in each State or territory would force a reply surely.

Merv

[Zedn]

Thanks everyone for the input, especially the NSW guys.

Baz i was worried that what you say might be the case with having to make the changes. Hopefully the boffins want have to many more meeting in the next few years before i am finished. National legislation framework would make things easy i agree, but they would probably just enforce the strict requirements of each state. Being able to lock in you ADR's would make things easy. Being able to purchase a publication with a set standard for adaptation of ADRs for ICV's would make things even easier.

I agree with the idea of what they are trying to achieve, as to be honest i would want my family driving cars that have the ESC (currently we all do). But i guess its another example minority suffering.

Who knows, maybe we are jumping to conclusions and the engineers will give an exemption.

At the end of the day the mechanics of fitting the system is not a concern for me. If i had all the parts sitting in a box i could make it work. All it is, is a bunch of sensors for each wheel, a yaw sensor, hydraulic pump and computer. But Something tells me the cost of aquiring all the bits could be expensive. And who knows what calibration is involved.

I am planning to take my chassis for testing in a few weeks when i hire a trailer to move house. I will pick the engineers brain whilst i am at it about what this might mean.

Liam

[Zedn]

I believe we also have exemptions from the need to fit ABS and air bags. Why should this be different? A letter to the Transport Minister in each State or territory would force a reply surely.

Merv

Good point. Hopefully i am jumping to conclusions.

[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.

[gjkrv8]

Originally Posted by Zedn

Good point. Hopefully i am jumping to conclusions.

I think the reason why we dont have to fit ABS/Airbags is because they are not a mandatory item (yet).

Rgds

Gregg

[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"?