PLEASE READ THIS

[THE PIG]

This can effect most of us on this forum
please take the time to read & complete the survey

the survey has been up before but will be reviewed in 4 weeks

VSB14 Review
The Motor Trade Association of WA (MTA WA), as the peak representative body of the Automotive Industry is continually monitoring legislation that effects the industry.

The Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board Working Party (AMVCB WP) is seeking comments on Version 2 of the National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction & Modification, VSB14. In its current form, these regulations render a large percentage of vehicles ILLEGAL. That is, if you have changed the tyre diameter and added body lift, you may be contravening the “Code of Practice”.

The code is currently under review where it is intended to address issues such as updating of references, improving the document language and correcting issues of an editorial nature. There were also some major changes made which are summarized on the website.

The 4 Wheel Drive Industry Association (a division of the MTA WA) is currently reviewing sections of the code of practice regarding modifications of 4WD vehicles and is seeking support from all sectors of the industry in gathering data to assist in re-defining of the regulations in order to make them consistent, workable, reasonable, safe and fair for all.

There are two ways you can contribute:

You are invited to review Version 2 of the Code via the website link below, before Thursday 9 April 2009. Any comments you would like included in the MTA submission to the AMVCB WP can be sent via email to the MTA Division Assistant, Julie Anaru-Johnson.

www.pharosalex.com.au/pages/33achome.html

AND

By completing our Modifications Survey via the link below and answer the questions as indicated. All information is strictly confidential.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=V ... FdJw_3d_3d

[coxy321]

Thanks for that. I'm not smart enough to leave a constructive comment for that first link, so i just did the survey. Anything that might help i suppose!

[mkpatrol]

How do you know its going to "render" a large amount of vehicles illegel?

I could not see in there anywhere that thay (the states or whoever) are going to make these changes retrospective.

[festy]

In its current form, these regulations render a large percentage of vehicles ILLEGAL. That is, if you have changed the tyre diameter and added body lift, you may be contravening the “Code of Practice”.

VSB14 caters for body lifts up to 75mm. How many vehicles would have more than that?

Also, I just re-read section LS, and as far as I can make out there is no upper limit on tyre diameter if you're running factory rims.
The 50mm maximum increase is under section 4.2 "Non-standard tyres and rims" (which only appears to apply when non-standard rims are used) but section 4.1 "Replacement tyres on standard (or manufacturer's optional) rims" states that different size designations than that listed on tyre placard can be used providing load/speed rating etc is met.
Not sure if I've misinterpreted this or it's an oversight...

Also noticed that the changes to version 2 include a max track increase of 50mm for all 4wds, not just beam axles as in the original.

[Ben]

This may be of interest/help?

On Tuesday 10th February, Michael Coldham and Milton Oliver met with the Chief of Staff (Cressida Wall) for the Minister for Roads Tim Pallis and Ross McArthur and Barry Hendry from VicRoads to discuss the Vehicle Standards Bulletin (VSB) 14 and the implications on our members.
It was pointed out that FWDV represents 15,000 members of our Association, who were the only group affected by this policy. It was also noted that the VSB14 has no basis in science or fact and that it would stop our members from touring the country, because it does not provide enough safety gap between ground surface and vehicle in the area's of our country in which our members travel. It is believed that we shall not be following the European model, as it has little or no relevance to
Australia.

The meeting gave opportunity for FWDV to place on record our deep concerns about the VSB 14 becoming legislation on July 1st because there have been an abject failure on the part of VicRoads to consult with the peak body on any level.

In fact, it was pointed out, there had been a refusal by Vicroads to consult with FWDV despite direct requests by the Vice President of FWDV, in person on November 19th. This drew a sharp response from Ms Wall, who declared that no code of practice would become law unless peak bodies and key stakeholders had been “properly and genuinely” consulted. “The minister simply will not approve any draft otherwise.”

There was much other discussion, as Ms Wall attempted to ascertain the realities pertaining to the current code implementation. The outcome of the meeting was that VicRoads will not put up any recommendation to the Minister to approve VSB14 as legislation until:
a) the draft rests on hard scientific evidence where vehicle modifications are concerned – in particular, bull bars, vehicle suspension changes and tyre sizes;
b) the AAAA have completed their tests and a review of the outcomes has been discussed resolved and reached agreement;
c) VicRoads must properly consult with FWDV, AAAA and VACC and consider any tests conducted by the FWD sector (AAAA, VACC and FWDV) before any draft can go to the minister.

This is a fantastic outcome for our members and further proof that our relationship with Government is vital to our future.

http://www.fwdvictoria.org.au/upload/ne ... _VSB14.pdf

[chimpboy]

This may be of interest/help?

On Tuesday 10th February, Michael Coldham and Milton Oliver met with the Chief of Staff (Cressida Wall) for the Minister for Roads Tim Pallis and Ross McArthur and Barry Hendry from VicRoads to discuss the Vehicle Standards Bulletin (VSB) 14 and the implications on our members.
It was pointed out that FWDV represents 15,000 members of our Association, who were the only group affected by this policy. It was also noted that the VSB14 has no basis in science or fact and that it would stop our members from touring the country, because it does not provide enough safety gap between ground surface and vehicle in the area's of our country in which our members travel. It is believed that we shall not be following the European model, as it has little or no relevance to
Australia.

The meeting gave opportunity for FWDV to place on record our deep concerns about the VSB 14 becoming legislation on July 1st because there have been an abject failure on the part of VicRoads to consult with the peak body on any level.

In fact, it was pointed out, there had been a refusal by Vicroads to consult with FWDV despite direct requests by the Vice President of FWDV, in person on November 19th. This drew a sharp response from Ms Wall, who declared that no code of practice would become law unless peak bodies and key stakeholders had been “properly and genuinely” consulted. “The minister simply will not approve any draft otherwise.”

There was much other discussion, as Ms Wall attempted to ascertain the realities pertaining to the current code implementation. The outcome of the meeting was that VicRoads will not put up any recommendation to the Minister to approve VSB14 as legislation until:
a) the draft rests on hard scientific evidence where vehicle modifications are concerned – in particular, bull bars, vehicle suspension changes and tyre sizes;
b) the AAAA have completed their tests and a review of the outcomes has been discussed resolved and reached agreement;
c) VicRoads must properly consult with FWDV, AAAA and VACC and consider any tests conducted by the FWD sector (AAAA, VACC and FWDV) before any draft can go to the minister.

This is a fantastic outcome for our members and further proof that our relationship with Government is vital to our future.

http://www.fwdvictoria.org.au/upload/ne ... _VSB14.pdf

That is very good work by FWDV.

[alien]

filled out and commented.

thanks.

[v840]

Done. Now post tits or GTFO.

[OPBUNDY]

Hi All,Please take the time to fill out the WA based MTA survey it is important it will affect us all.

The head of the working party is WA based and is well known to WA 4wders as being extremely anti 4wd.WA has somewhat been used as a test for VSB14 and if the WA's adoption of VSB14 is seen to be successful VSB14 would be far easier to roll out Nationally.

Make no mistake the main Author of VSB14 overviews any revision so there is a vested interest in it's success.I will quote a member of his WA based Department
"I hate 4wd's they have no place on the road"
"4wd's are dangerous enough and then you guys go and modify them"
It is important that VSB14 not be rolled out in it's current form.

[sloshy]

Done. Now post tits or GTFO.

[JWB]

This survey is currently closed. Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.



Survey link no worky for me

[THE PIG]

survey has now been fixed

[Batty]

How do you know its going to "render" a large amount of vehicles illegel?

I could not see in there anywhere that thay (the states or whoever) are going to make these changes retrospective.

That is correct. It is unlikely the states will make the legisltation retrospective. Imagine how much it would cost them.

Batty
4WD Action

[Batty]

Also, I just re-read section LS, and as far as I can make out there is no upper limit on tyre diameter if you're running factory rims.

The code seems to say that this is only the case if the original tyre size is no longer available and a tyre of equivalent size is to be used. I doubt we would be lucky enough to get away with that oversight.

Batty
4WD Action

[festy]

The code seems to say that this is only the case if the original tyre size is no longer available and a tyre of equivalent size is to be used. I doubt we would be lucky enough to get away with that oversight.

That might be the intended reasoning behind the code, but that's not what the words say.
It clearly states that any vehicle designed to comply with ADR24 can use a tyre size that's not listed on it's placard, providing you meet certain crietria (size not being one of them, just load and speed rating).

[Twistinchassie]

im sick off this bullshit, even if i engineer my 4runner
(that im planning to do) i can and no doubt will be defected by the highwaypootrol. i have had them throw engineering slips back at me saying" this dosent mean shit to me" when driving mates modified cars, albeit airbagged utes and wagons. the ncop states that a maximun track increase of 50mm above std. i have a ln60 4runner that i have swapped the rear axle to the ifs diff, ln65 etc. being 3"mm wider overall and swapped the front hubs with the std ifs hubs, matching the 3" overall or 1.5" per side. i cannot see any additional load to the axle the ifs hubs use the same bearings and my axle is strongly gusseted and i have chromoly inners cv's outers etc. and yet 50mm increase only? by going a wider track i am still narrower than a patrol and i have increased stability due to having 5" springs and 2"bl, and again above the ncop allowed max lift of 6" and thats not including larger tires. Another thing im concerned about is being done for having"lifted/ Longer Shackels" the leafs i have fitted are longer than std and have a laonger than std shackle to acoomidate functionality of the longer leafs! these regulations shit me and should be done on a vehicle to vechiel basis! please shed light on any of my issues as this is doing my head in, having spent heaps of time building my rig how i want and what i believe to be correctly engineered, the last thing i want is to be told i cant drive it!

End rant


Cheers James

[zagan]

im sick off this bullshit, even if i engineer my 4runner
(that im planning to do) i can and no doubt will be defected by the highwaypootrol. i have had them throw engineering slips back at me saying" this dosent mean shit to me" when driving mates modified cars, albeit airbagged utes and wagons. the ncop states that a maximun track increase of 50mm above std. i have a ln60 4runner that i have swapped the rear axle to the ifs diff, ln65 etc. being 3"mm wider overall and swapped the front hubs with the std ifs hubs, matching the 3" overall or 1.5" per side. i cannot see any additional load to the axle the ifs hubs use the same bearings and my axle is strongly gusseted and i have chromoly inners cv's outers etc. and yet 50mm increase only? by going a wider track i am still narrower than a patrol and i have increased stability due to having 5" springs and 2"bl, and again above the ncop allowed max lift of 6" and thats not including larger tires. Another thing im concerned about is being done for having"lifted/ Longer Shackels" the leafs i have fitted are longer than std and have a laonger than std shackle to acoomidate functionality of the longer leafs! these regulations shit me and should be done on a vehicle to vechiel basis! please shed light on any of my issues as this is doing my head in, having spent heaps of time building my rig how i want and what i believe to be correctly engineered, the last thing i want is to be told i cant drive it!

End rant


Cheers James

You'd need to check out the NSW regs these are for WA.


Which bring me to the question wouldn't you need to be in WA to comment or what ever on these laws?

[Dozoor]

i imagine this is about the Blanket rules covering all states,

[festy]

The N in NCOP stands for national

[Batty]

The code seems to say that this is only the case if the original tyre size is no longer available and a tyre of equivalent size is to be used. I doubt we would be lucky enough to get away with that oversight.

That might be the intended reasoning behind the code, but that's not what the words say.
It clearly states that any vehicle designed to comply with ADR24 can use a tyre size that's not listed on it's placard, providing you meet certain crietria (size not being one of them, just load and speed rating).

The code says "equivalent". Equivalent is not fitting a 40" tyre to your old 40 Series because the standard tyres havent been made since the 60s.

Batty
4WD Action

[berad]

This stuff has been circulating the net for years with dates set for rules to be implemented, i have seen nothing, half the rules are fair game, theres no need for massive muddies on the street nor ridiculous lifts/body blocks or half the other mods i see on a daily basis, my car is far from the most legit, but at a glance it looks it.

End of rant.....

[berad]

im sick off this bullshit, even if i engineer my 4runner
(that im planning to do) i can and no doubt will be defected by the highwaypootrol. i have had them throw engineering slips back at me saying" this dosent mean shit to me" when driving mates modified cars, albeit airbagged utes and wagons. the ncop states that a maximun track increase of 50mm above std. i have a ln60 4runner that i have swapped the rear axle to the ifs diff, ln65 etc. being 3"mm wider overall and swapped the front hubs with the std ifs hubs, matching the 3" overall or 1.5" per side. i cannot see any additional load to the axle the ifs hubs use the same bearings and my axle is strongly gusseted and i have chromoly inners cv's outers etc. and yet 50mm increase only? by going a wider track i am still narrower than a patrol and i have increased stability due to having 5" springs and 2"bl, and again above the ncop allowed max lift of 6" and thats not including larger tires. Another thing im concerned about is being done for having"lifted/ Longer Shackels" the leafs i have fitted are longer than std and have a laonger than std shackle to acoomidate functionality of the longer leafs! these regulations shit me and should be done on a vehicle to vechiel basis! please shed light on any of my issues as this is doing my head in, having spent heaps of time building my rig how i want and what i believe to be correctly engineered, the last thing i want is to be told i cant drive it!

End rant


Cheers James

Can you explain to me how you have increased stability due to 7inchs of overall lift?. If the centre of gravity higher = less stable.

Longer springs = more axle wrap = more stress on everything = less than standard braking and handling., longer shackle more risk of bending/breaking components. yes i know stronger material is used and are usually stronger than oem. although probably also illegal but less noticeable is moving the spring mount foward/back so stock length shackles can be used.

If you have engineer slips/plates thrown back at you and there legit take it up with the engineer and dot. Dont know about your states rules, but airbags would mean notched chassis's and would probably need height limiters?????. obviously its no fun with a 100mm limiter and not railing.

Chromoly cv's make no difference to what they are talking about, the stress is on the bearings when the tyre is offset outwards away from the knuckle. ifs hubs and housings don't add stress as compared to spacers and flipies.

Unless ive misunderstood your comment then my bad, And no im not a nazi mine has some of the above. rules is rules if i get caught then its noones fault bar mine.

Rules are written in such a way to be twisted in which ever way the law see's fit.

[Slunnie]

There was nothing that I saw which was all that significant in the changes to VSB14 that would really worry people unless they have dynamic stability control - where they may not even be able to fit a 2" lift as I read it. Although not a major issue now, it probably will be a little down the track when people start to modify them more for things like touring etc and the technology becomes more prevalent.

Suspension has freed up since preNCOP, wheels and tyres have freed up since preNCOP. The only thing in there that has any real impact on the way we mod cars legally is that we have a 6" limit on overall lift where it was possible to go beyond that in the past.

edit... actually something which I hadn't previously noticed, was that I suspect under VSB14 LS that antiwrap bars are not approved, and they have suggested 4-link. I'm not 100% that I have interpreted the VSB correctly though.

[Slunnie]

Actually, now I'm getting into it there has been a lot of stuff changed since I last read the bulletins. There are some pretty significant changes to it all.

This is only in the LS (Tyres + suspension) bulletin

LS79
Pg7 Re Installation of variable air suspension systems may preclude the use of pneumatic helper springs fitted to the insides of coil springs and air adjustable shock absorbers if fitted with an in-cab settings adjustment. This will also preclude the installation of air springs to 4WD’s etc which include stranded and off-road modes such as those currently provided OE by manufacturers such as LandRover

Pg9 Re Suspension travel is a positive move to accommodate the fitting of stiffer springs which are typically used in touring, commercial and towing vehicles which are modified to carry additional weight.

Pg15 Re ESP is logical. If the VSB14 LS does not provide enough scope for consideration of modifications to ESP equipped vehicles, perhaps an engineering signatory will be able to approve or reject any modifications based on individual studies.

Pg19 Re Max tyre size - tyres must not be larger in diameter than 50mm than the largest fitted by the manufacturer. This is later reinforced in the 50-150mm High-lifted section Pg71 where the max lift which can be provided by an increase in tyre size is 25mm (ie no tyres more than 50mm larger than OE)

Pg25 Re Rose Joints (Heims for you Yanks!) can now be engineered onto a road vehicle - to ensure suitability.

Pg69+ Re High lift section, there control now on the composition of lifts up to 150mm. This includes a 50mmOD increase limit for tyres on pg69, Suspension to be lifted no more than 75mm on Pg71, body lifts no more than 50mm on Pg71. If you lift beyond 50mm then you must undertake a lane change test Pg72 which will determine your max ride height up to a max of 150mm over standard.


Edit: Some modification areas are also constrained by additional/alternative???? bulletins from their state authorities. NSW.

This doc is a must read for those into modifying, especially if the NCOP has been ratified in your state. It has been updated and is significantly more comprehensive than previous additions. Its a long read though.

[Slunnie]

I hope this is ok.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to VSB14. My comments relate to the LS section on Suspension and Tyres.

LS79
Pg7 Re Installation of variable air suspension systems may preclude the use of pneumatic helper springs fitted to the insides of coil springs and air adjustable shock absorbers if fitted with an in-cab settings adjustment. This will also preclude the aftermarket installation of air springs to 4WD’s etc which include stranded and off-road modes such as those currently provided as OE by manufacturers such as Land Rover

Pg9 Re Suspension travel is a positive move to accommodate the fitting of stiffer springs which are typically used in touring, commercial and towing vehicles which are modified to carry additional weight.

Pg15 Re ESP is logical. If the VSB14 LS does not provide enough scope for consideration of modifications to ESP equipped vehicles, perhaps an engineering signatory will be able to approve or reject any modifications based on individual studies especially as there is an increasing incidence of fitment.

Pg19 Re Max tyre size - tyres must not be larger in diameter than 50mm than the largest fitted by the manufacturer. This is later reinforced in the 50-150mm High-lifted section Pg71 where the max lift which can be provided by an increase in tyre size is 25mm (ie no tyres more than 50mm larger than OE). Should be assessed individually by an engineering signatory as vehicles will vary on their tyre size suitability and nonOE products which are able to increase the capacity of related components. The ability to design vehicle modifications that allow greater tyre sizes within other related guidelines will assist in providing the attainment of 4WD modification goals of increased ground clearance and traction with sympathy to the DOTARS goals of vehicular stability, performance and community perceptions.

Pg69+ Re High lift section, there is control now on the composition of lifts up to 150mm. This includes a 50mmOD increase limit for tyres on pg69, Suspension to be lifted no more than 75mm on Pg71, body lifts no more than 50mm on Pg71. If you lift beyond 50mm then you must undertake a lane change test Pg72 which will determine your max ride height up to a max of 150mm over standard. This section is blanket rather than vehicle specific and perhaps the lift composition is better determined on an individual basis by the engineering signatory. Some suspension designs are more than capable of accommodating suspension lifts beyond 50mm and 75mm while performing to acceptable standards. Likewise the accommodation of various tyre sizes can be constrained by bodywork and so the lift composition between tyre size increases, suspension alterations and body lifting may vary with each vehicle. Some vehicles are also not reasonably capable of achieving all of these lifting processes, but are able to otherwise be modified within these guidelines to run at 150mm lift with acceptable stability and will benefit from a relaxation of this lift composition stipulation. Such vehicles may include those fitted with SRS and those with bodies constructed onto a chassis directly or with unitary construction.

Regards

Get in blokes! Have a say!

[Twistinchassie]

Can you explain to me how you have increased stability due to 7inchs of overall lift?. If the centre of gravity higher = less stable

wel i probably can't only to the extent of having a wider track to bring the ratio of height to track to a similar form as std, although yes i do have a high center of gravity. That being sed i drive accordingly.
as for the longer springs axle wrap shouldnt be an issue great enough to cause me any issues "i hope" concidering i have fitted a rear x member and have a wrap bar if needed. the 3L dosent lay down that much power to tear the hangers off. how ever i am aware that by design/ function this mod does impose greater stress's than the std setup. And have you seen the shitty welds from the factory? wow! also i didnt mention my brakes are upgraded to a greater system than stock, v6 calipers, disc rear etc. i have re positioned the rear spring hangers accoringly to suit the longer 56" springs, i set my rig up for more up travel than droop so i can fit larger tires without cutting guards. i didnt want to run BL but decied to to fit my steering box in without hacking the body mount out. chances are i will remove the BL. and yes monster notches and negative frame height isnt smiled upon in nsw. however not the isolated incident in my case. any how i just get fed up with Nsw Mainly becoming a policed state. as beard said

Rules are written in such a way to be twisted in which ever way the law see's fit

. we need less dickheads ie highway patrol. interpriting the law.. although i guess its there job.

any way cheers, i guess i just need to keep talking to my engineer. just becomes anoying with all these regulations. i understand the need for some for saftey etc. but it has to stop somwhere.

cheers

[Slunnie]

I think NSW is relatively ok though we're not exactly the USA in terms of modification freedoms. QLD is the worry!

[melts]

How do you know its going to "render" a large amount of vehicles illegel?

I could not see in there anywhere that thay (the states or whoever) are going to make these changes retrospective.

That is correct. It is unlikely the states will make the legisltation retrospective. Imagine how much it would cost them.

Batty
4WD Action

VSB's arent retrospective, in that you cant get fined for past use of these mods. however if you want to continue using the roads with your car moving forward from the date the standards come into effect you need to comply. So if the standards say you need to be engineered for your level of lift that you happened to have installed back when you didnt need engineering (this is an example, i havent looked at what you can and cant do now vs the changes yet) you will now need engineering to comply with the road rules / adrs.

worse if they have you recorded for some form of mod that has a requirements change before they can just get in touch and ask you to prove that you have done the work to comply it. if you fail you become the owner of a yellow stickered car.

The only thing that has any form of retrospective protection is a bone stock vehicle, which should have a plate saying it was built on a date to comply to a list of adr's. that car should only be assessed to that level. put on some mods and then suddenly your mods need to meet the current adrs.

its a joke and i bought a 4wd to get away from dealing with pits and licensing and engineers, and figured a 4wd would do that and let me enjoy my weekends, now reading this stuff its like owning an import all over again. at least so far i havent seen police grief 4wd owners like they do import owners.

ps. the rant above about how the laws will void retrospective blah blah blah are only for WA, i dont know any other states way of treating these problems, as I have only dealt with WA licensing, where they wore me down and I ended up de-registering an import because their process is arcane and for every step i pushed forward i was given another 2 steps to take as they moved the goal posts.

[-Nemesis-]

Without reading this whole thread.....



Spoke to my engineer a while ago about these rumoured changes. Like he said, no matter what new standards are introduced if you're vehicle is already certified then they cannot make you change it.

So long as your 4WD is fully certified to meet the current standards you're set. Like he used as examples, old cars with lapsash seatbelts etc etc... They met the standards at the time of production so they are still legal now.

This does nothing to help people who want to mod their 4WD after any new strict standards are in place.

[mkpatrol]

The code seems to say that this is only the case if the original tyre size is no longer available and a tyre of equivalent size is to be used. I doubt we would be lucky enough to get away with that oversight.

That might be the intended reasoning behind the code, but that's not what the words say.
It clearly states that any vehicle designed to comply with ADR24 can use a tyre size that's not listed on it's placard, providing you meet certain crietria (size not being one of them, just load and speed rating).

ADR24 has been repealed so that is not valid.

Edit: This is th actual wording for tyres & tims "The combination of tyre and rim must meet size and construction requirements of ADR 23, or if the vehicle was manufactured before 1 January 1974, one of the following standards:"

ADR23 only applies to passenger car tyres so if you are using light truck tyres then you are not affected.

In the ADR section it mentions ADR24 but it also states that thei s ADR MAY be affected. If it was affected then that would only be for vehicles that were originally certified to ADR24. Depends on the states I guess, when Iwas working up at the test statio, once an ADr was repealed we didnt enforece it at all.

Mind you the NCOP wasnt in then so that stance may have changed.