defect notice

[Dee]

! In fact it is probably getting 35mpg, but as a recycled Hyundai.

Seriously, what about fellow passengers . A rusty heap would compromise their safety too. Also seat belts keep you inside the vehicle. Unrestrained occupants endanger other occupants and also their immediate environment.

true the unrestrained passenger bit. i should have said "if your the sole occupant".

as for the rusty heaps, can anyone tell me how rust in the bootlid of a falcon will compromise safety? also it's up to anyone as a passenger to assess the risks of what they are riding in as well

If its rusting in one place its usually a tell tale sign that it may be rusting in another, as rust is a sure sign of age, and/or condition. Accelerated in coastal areas, yes. But if a car has rust of a certain degree in panels where they are well painted and washed on a somewhat regular basis, then how much do you think could be under the given car?

Rusty shocks, brake lines , chassis rails, suspension, steering parts.
Rust has absolutely no structure what so ever. It will absoluetely crumble on impact. Offers no protection or strength. Yes, newer cars are designed with "crimple" or "crush" zones into panels and guards, but they still must provide the driver and passengers a certain amount of protection while minimising impact force at the same time, and also keep the car storng enough for the ins and outs of daily driving. even more so in 4WD's.

[Mad Cruiser]

Remember, this is "outerlimits" after all.

For those whingers, have a good listen to yourselves. You all act like children

Let this thread die, all chucky did was make a point then the rest of you went off your high horses bringing arguments out of nowhere related to chucky's original post. I don't give a shiat if you all flame me for my comments

If ya don't like it then head over to 4wdmonthly or Overlander forums

[slosh]

I actually did read all of the thread and you missed my point & I can see how after I re-read it. My point was so many people put their familys lives at risk by driving around in an unroadworthy vehicle. Just because a vehicle has an engineers certificate which has been accepted by a registration authority does not mean it is road worthy, it just means it has met the minimum requirements of the law which innthe tru sense is not the same thing. I have seen quite a few vehicles with engineering certificates which should not have been anywhere near a public road.

A badly modified vehicle is far more dangerous than a standard car with a couple bald tyres and blowing smoke, just look of the pics of Patrols with no swaybars fitted lifting a front wheel as they corner.

I have no sympathy for people who get defects as it is your responsibility to keep your vehicle roadworthy, and its not hard.

GU4800, maybe next time you can ask why instead of just jumping on me because you dont understand

I don't really like your choice of words, mate. If you are suggesting that modified vehicles which have been passed by engineering authority and comply with state laws are not suitable for the roads then that is rubbish.

I didnt say all, but they are out there & you are a little nieve to think they are not.

If a vehicle is lifting wheels going at reasonable speed around a corner it's hard to see how it has passed the pretty strict laws, and my guess is that the mods are not engineered.

I would personally prefer to be on the road with any modded 4x4 with engineering certificate than a car "with a couple of bald tyres".

Bald tyres are not inherently dangerous until it rains & then it depends on the level of wear as to how it performs, its all relative.
We have a system which allows limited mods to vehicles and still able to drive on the road. By bagging this system you really are in the same category as the rest of the anti- 4x4 media.

How can this be, I own one, I enjoy it I just choose not to mod it & I have no problem with the system as long as the mods are performed correctly.

Remember, this is "outerlimits" after all.

I am sick of hearing people criticise engineered trucks. They are legal, and their owners have gone to a lot of expense to make them that way.
If you want to stand on a soap box and say everyone should drive a standard 4x4 then as Mad Cruiser said, say it on Overlander forum. This is O-U-T-E-R.......L-I-M-I-T-S where people who are interested in modifying their 4x4 come for ideas, whether it be to the limits of the law or offroading or anything else 4x4 related.

[mkpatrol]

Slosh, you can suffer in your ignorance & no I am not going to leave I wouldnt give you the satisfaction. Its a free country & you insiuating I leave bacause I have a point of veiw is very narrow minded of you. You have totally mis quoted & misread my posts which is more the pity.

[bad_religion_au]

Slosh, you can suffer in your ignorance & no I am not going to leave I wouldnt give you the satisfaction. Its a free country & you insiuating I leave bacause I have a point of veiw is very narrow minded of you. You have totally mis quoted & misread my posts which is more the pity.

i think most people are scratching their head at what your trying to communicate... perhaps the fault there doesn't lay with the reader, but perhaps the text they are attempting to decipher.

and i think you'll find this isn't a free country... otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening... because chucky could keep driving his 4bie without worry from mr plod or those freedom restricting laws

as for the rusty car statement, i agree to a point... but how many people have seen cars that have a place that "typically" rusts (i.e. outer skin on the wheel arches on an xd falcon), but have no such rust in the other parts of the car?

and if it's an indication, why is rust repair legal, isn't that just trying to cover up the fact your car might be falling apart in places that aren't easily inspectable... and can someone please give me some statistics of the number of road fatalities in australia caused BY RUST

[bad_religion_au]

There is 3 levels or rust in the code, the last on where there is a hole is not legal,
Bootlid hmm.. maybe exhaust fumes could enter the cabin, you could become sleepy and have a head on.

Eric

wish someone had told me that... i've been done for surface rust on the bonnet (where the bonnet hits the roof rail if you put it right back on a 40). i often wondered how that could be dangerous

[scout392]

There is 3 levels or rust in the code, the last on where there is a hole is not legal,
Bootlid hmm.. maybe exhaust fumes could enter the cabin, you could become sleepy and have a head on.

Eric

wish someone had told me that... i've been done for surface rust on the bonnet (where the bonnet hits the roof rail if you put it right back on a 40). i often wondered how that could be dangerous

Stage 1 – Surface Rust
Light, powdery corrosion on the surface of a section of metal is termed surface rust and is
sometimes the first indication of corrosion that can be observed; it should warn the owner of
a motor vehicle to take steps to prevent the rust from spreading.
Surface rust can occur on or behind any body panel of a motor vehicle particularly if the
protective coating is scratched or damaged.
A typical case of surface rust is shown below.

Stage 2 – Advanced Rust
Surface rust, if left unattended, will develop into an advanced form of corrosion which can
usually be seen as an eruption of oxidised metal, either on bare metal or under paint. This
eruption occurs because the rust reaction involves an increase in volume so that pitting or
bubbling of paint is the usual indication of penetration of the rust.
An example of a section affected by advanced rust is illustrated below.

Stage 3 – Extensive Rust
The final stage of the corrosion process is the formation of a heavy encrustation of oxidised
metal which completely replaces the parent metal. This results in a hole or series of holes in
the body panel or structural member of the motor vehicle when the rust is removed. This
category of rust can usually only be rectified by replacement of the affected body panels and
parts. The illustration below shows a section affected by extensive rust.


Eric

[mkpatrol]

i think most people are scratching their head at what your trying to communicate... perhaps the fault there doesn't lay with the reader, but perhaps the text they are attempting to decipher.

This is the problem, I have re-read what I wrote & the first thing I wrote about Chucky's car was definately ambiguous as I was trying to direct it generally, but the rest I dont see a problem with except maybe my retort to Slosh wich in my onpion got the response it deserved.

Maybe if Slosh had understood what I said before he replied then the conversation would not have degenerated further. I see exactly the same thing when people try to decipher the regulations, the first thing they think is "this is stupid" without actually understanding the intent of the rule & then trying to work out how to meet it correctly.

Anyway thats life,

I might just become like Bogged & just stir shit instead of trying to help people

[gu4800]

[
This is the problem, I have re-read what I wrote & the first thing I wrote about Chucky's car was definately ambiguous as I was trying to direct it generally, but the rest I dont see a problem with except maybe my retort to Slosh wich in my onpion got the response it deserved.

Ambiguous - don't think so. Try, just plain, garden variety, WRONG!

Your comment:

This makes it worse, I wont let my Missus in an unroadworthy or unregistered car.

This comment is very specific, and implies that I was commenting on an unregistered or unroadworthy vehicle - too which it is quite obvious I wasn't.

What is "general" about quoting someone? Quoting is specific! You quoted me, talking about Chucky's car, and stated that it made it "worse" that it was his family car and that I had a "poor attitude". At no stage did I state that it was OK to drive a modifed 4WD simply becasue it is your family car - I specifically stated that the car in question was not modified over the top and is actually a touring 4WD. And Chucky made it clear that the car has the relevant paperwork to accompany the mods he does have.

Once you have removed your foot from your mouth (and stick from your behind), perhaps we can have a constructive discussion.

The point I am trying to make, and I'll try not to make this ambiguous, is that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY ATTITUDE TOWARDS SAFETY AND FOR YOU TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS INCORRECT!

Now, all this bickering isn't going to achieve anything. Just go and remove that foot and come back to the table and finish your dinner.

[mkpatrol]

[
This is the problem, I have re-read what I wrote & the first thing I wrote about Chucky's car was definately ambiguous as I was trying to direct it generally, but the rest I dont see a problem with except maybe my retort to Slosh wich in my onpion got the response it deserved.

Ambiguous - don't think so. Try, just plain, garden variety, WRONG!

Your comment:

This makes it worse, I wont let my Missus in an unroadworthy or unregistered car.

This comment is very specific, and implies that I was commenting on an unregistered or unroadworthy vehicle - too which it is quite obvious I wasn't.

What is "general" about quoting someone? Quoting is specific! You quoted me, talking about Chucky's car, and stated that it made it "worse" that it was his family car and that I had a "poor attitude". At no stage did I state that it was OK to drive a modifed 4WD simply becasue it is your family car - I specifically stated that the car in question was not modified over the top and is actually a touring 4WD. And Chucky made it clear that the car has the relevant paperwork to accompany the mods he does have.

Once you have removed your foot from your mouth (and stick from your behind), perhaps we can have a constructive discussion.

The point I am trying to make, and I'll try not to make this ambiguous, is that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY ATTITUDE TOWARDS SAFETY AND FOR YOU TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS INCORRECT!

Now, all this bickering isn't going to achieve anything. Just go and remove that foot and come back to the table and finish your dinner.

I went back & reread like it was pointed out I should do, I explained the reson behind my comment & that still isnt good enough for you.

Its not my problem you cannot accept my explanation so I cannot win (not that I really want to anyway I just wanted to add a bit to a hot topic).

My point about jumping on people obviously didnt sink in either.

[gu4800]

My point about jumping on people obviously didnt sink in either.

Yes it did - I was just letting you know that I didn't appreciate being told that I have a POOR ATTITUDE when I said nothing to give the impression that safety isn't a concern for me. That's all. Telling someone they have a poor attitude doesn't generally sit well with me, particularly when you don't even know me.

Anyway, I'm well and truly over it now. Perhaps I went a bit far asking you to remove that stick.

Can we just kiss and make up now and get back ON topic?

[mkpatrol]

Can we just kiss and make up now and get back ON topic?

OK, hugs and kisses


BTW, it was bloody hot in Brissy on Wednesday (thats why it took me so long to reply).