Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Draft National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification (NCOP)

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/vsb/P ... pt2005.pdf

Reading through the tyre/susp mods section, looks like a 50mm body, 50mm suspension and 50mm tyre lift can be engineered. Just need to check the top of my headlights is less than 1200mm from the ground.

what about current cars engineered over 50mm suspension?

The change in height cannot be more than 150mm. So 150mm suspension, or 50mm BL and 100mm suspension. Dont change tyre sizes, and have a second set for off-road use only i.e. giant roller skate.

HeathGQ wrote:The change in height cannot be more than 150mm. So 150mm suspension, or 50mm BL and 100mm suspension. Dont change tyre sizes, and have a second set for off-road use only i.e. giant roller skate.

what if your already engineered for more than that?

bogged wrote:

HeathGQ wrote:The change in height cannot be more than 150mm. So 150mm suspension, or 50mm BL and 100mm suspension. Dont change tyre sizes, and have a second set for off-road use only i.e. giant roller skate.

what if your already engineered for more than that?

Then you're farked.

Now, STFU.

RoldIT wrote:

bogged wrote:

HeathGQ wrote:The change in height cannot be more than 150mm. So 150mm suspension, or 50mm BL and 100mm suspension. Dont change tyre sizes, and have a second set for off-road use only i.e. giant roller skate.

what if your already engineered for more than that?

Then you're farked.

Now, STFU.

whore..

what do I look like - the answer man?

Its up for public comment.... so make a comment to your states representative, or better still, through teh clubs association. Its certainly an issue though regarding the 'retrospective application'.

its beautiful. its fair as we could hope for. I would like to see bigger tyres for trips less than x klms for proven comps.

I really like the parts about not electroplating suspension etc, they never worry about this stuff and it's important.

looks like brains have gone into it, even roll axis etc is there

(N/A= Not Applicable, Y=Yes, N=No) What is the maximum size tyre offered by the manufacturer for this vehicle? ________________
What size tyre has been fitted? ________________
Is the difference less than 50mm? Y N

If the vehicle body has been lifted relative to the chassis, Is the overall body lift less than 75mm? Y N

If the suspension has been modified to provide an increase in vehicle body height, is this increase less than 50mm? Y N
NOTE: If the answer to any question is “Nâ€

i think its good that they have done something.

however part of me thinks they have just put a different spin on the rules we already had, with a few exceptions.

Ie its good that a GU can legally have 33's, instead of 31's (?) + 15mm... And a 4 inch lift. (with airbags, no bodylift)

However, we can still only have 4" of overall lift including body. The good part is we can vary what we want. Ie 4" suspension... Or 1" susp. and 3" body. But in the long run it still equals out to 2" suspension and 2" body which is what we had before... who is going to go out and pay for new springs and shocks to get a 1" lift and then put 3" body lift in...?

But im still happy with it. My car will no longer be unroadworthy, except the claws that i went and bought are still 30kg under the vehicles minimum tyre load rating, so there's no point in getting it all legal until my next set of tyres. And for the 1" of extra lift for me to go from 3" to 4" requires panhards, extended brakelines, probably more castor? etc etc etc.

[quote="HeathGQ"](N/A= Not Applicable, Y=Yes, N=No) What is the maximum size tyre offered by the manufacturer for this vehicle? ________________
What size tyre has been fitted? ________________
Is the difference less than 50mm? Y N

If the vehicle body has been lifted relative to the chassis, Is the overall body lift less than 75mm? Y N

If the suspension has been modified to provide an increase in vehicle body height, is this increase less than 50mm? Y N
NOTE: If the answer to any question is “Nâ€

150mm is 25x6 or six inches which in my opinion is plenty. a government body allowing more would be shooting itself in the foot.

anyone from qld would be happy with this. superior, climax etc may not be a shackels will not be allowed.

the offset rules allow for gu diffs to go on a gq and still have room for 50mm track increase. Tyre with on a gq is up to 16" who wants more. tyre diameter is 50mm better than the current 15, and it says more will not be allowable under this legislation, allowing room for other ways that will allow it. (hopefully this gets easier too) currently you are allowed bigger tyres in qld its just too much of a pita no one has bothered - even siggy.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/vsb/vsb_ncop.aspx

Draft National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification (NCOP)

Notes for Comments on the Draft National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification

This Draft of the National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Construction and Modification (NCOP) has been prepared in consultation with industry, user groups and government agencies with an interest in light vehicle construction and modification.

Members of the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board Working Party are now seeking comments from members of the public and organisations who have not had an opportunity to comment.

It is important to note that the NCOP will be a “liveâ€

get commenting....

i read through most of it, understood some of it, but it bru21 is happy then i guess it will be a good thing.

one observation though, it says its a "code of practice" does that make it not law??

im gonna have to start reading it instead of browsing because i cant find
a mention on axle swaps....eg patrol axles- rocky, zooki etc

and i dont understand the lingo

Spartacus wrote:im gonna have to start reading it instead of browsing because i cant find
a mention on axle swaps....eg patrol axles- rocky, zooki etc

and i dont understand the lingo

theres mention of it, somewhere down near the bottem. i think it says that its not in this code.......

bru21 wrote:its beautiful. its fair as we could hope for. I would like to see bigger tyres for trips less than x klms for proven comps.

I wouldn't be afraid to approach an appointed representative with a suggestion such as that, particularly with the backing of businesses and clubs.

In light of the rational thinking that has clearly gone into this regulation I think you'd be even odds of getting a fair hearing

mickyd555 wrote:i read through most of it, understood some of it, but it bru21 is happy then i guess it will be a good thing.

one observation though, it says its a "code of practice" does that make it not law??

that was what i was implying just cbf to see the correct words. a code of practce works with approved persons. Higher order mods have to go through the dot's state panel.

I have said this should have been the case from the start. I bet you will find everyone will stick to 6" and below too because the advantage of 7-8" will be small compared to having an illegal truck.

Mentions about axles referred to swapping them to a new vehicle. track can not be made narrower unless special application is made, and the track from the donor vehile becomes the std. eg gu in gq - gu track plus another 50mm. that is fair.

I would even go as far as going back to little 33's on the street if the spring height was legal to keep them happy. at the moment as it is now i couldn't be farked and will run what i feel as there is no reasonable alternative. I have to go big to hide the lift and guard hack so i am pretty stuck to 37's.

i hope this draft is close to the real thing and it is easy to impliment especially when i ask a question at the dot i would like a black and white answer.

I also hope that they are reasonable and have computer sourcing of applicable data eg I walk in and say i fitted 5degree drop arms from 3rds.... They say sweet its on our system, they have passed before, thanks for notifying us etc. I feel this is better than having a authorized person look at every mod when the majority are bolt on. having their employee's better trained abd carrying out fair inspections at the dot will be cheaper for all involved then road side bastard acts.



cheers jjustin

mickyd555 wrote:

one observation though, it says its a "code of practice" does that make it not law??

mickyd555, yeah sort of, it can be.
When the relevant authorities go to approve mods they will use the code of practice as a reference to see if the mods fall within the guidelines.
Page 2 explains it's purpose and role in detail

Cheers

Doesn't seem to address the issue of straight axle swaps into a previously IFS/IRS vehicles. I believe this will be increasingly popular as more and more vehicles go independant front/rear.

As an example, how do they measure the track? From the donor axle, or donor vehicle? Are you allowed to go the 2" over the track width on the axle or is it limited to the 1" on the (previously) IFS/IRS track width.

Exactly how do you measure the spring lift (above standard) and bumpstop clearances from a vehicle that is going from independant suspension to solid?

-------------------------

This is a "Code of Practice", possibly made to keep the likes of Scruby happy and off the backs of the Federal politicians. I doubt whether any States will take any notice of it. It is a political smokescreen.

sudso wrote:mickyd555 wrote:

one observation though, it says its a "code of practice" does that make it not law??

mickyd555, yeah sort of, it can be.
When the relevant authorities go to approve mods they will use the code of practice as a reference to see if the mods fall within the guidelines.
Page 2 explains it's purpose and role in detail

Cheers

Then they refer to the state rules and you're toast...................

Code of pratice ussally means it is only a guide line. It seems to me that the state RTA's will still have the last say which could mean in theroy nothing will change. years ago i used to teach scuba diving when a code of pratice was brought in and it had very little affect to how the sport/industry was regulated but most good operaters choose to follow it.

i hope it will bring around change for the better but i won't hold my breath.

lowlux wrote:Code of pratice ussally means it is only a guide line. It seems to me that the state RTA's will still have the last say which could mean in theroy nothing will change. years ago i used to teach scuba diving when a code of pratice was brought in and it had very little affect to how the sport/industry was regulated but most good operaters choose to follow it.

i hope it will bring around change for the better but i won't hold my breath.

Note that it says "code of practice" and they mention "miniumum requirements". It would be nice to see this become the standard everywhere, but I think that states with harsher legislation will keep that legislation in place - which will override the code of practice.

ISUZUROVER wrote:

lowlux wrote:Code of pratice ussally means it is only a guide line. It seems to me that the state RTA's will still have the last say which could mean in theroy nothing will change. years ago i used to teach scuba diving when a code of pratice was brought in and it had very little affect to how the sport/industry was regulated but most good operaters choose to follow it.

i hope it will bring around change for the better but i won't hold my breath.

Note that it says "code of practice" and they mention "miniumum requirements". It would be nice to see this become the standard everywhere, but I think that states with harsher legislation will keep that legislation in place - which will override the code of practice.

In general Polititians like to be seen to be doing something, rather than actually doing anything.

Quick look through, it appears fair to me. I would say this is a win for us (for once)

I would like to see the ability for the 150mm to be made up of bigger than 50mm max tyres. Diff clearance is what I want and 50mm max on Zuk ain't much. I'd rather have no body lift and cut the guards.

MQ080 wrote:Quick look through, it appears fair to me. I would say this is a win for us (for once)

suspension lift is limited to 50mm, that can be approved under the Mod Code. It's not a max of 150mm of any combination.
Max 50mm suspension
Max 75mm body lift
Max 50mm tyres.
But combination of max 150mm

I bet you will find everyone will stick to 6" and below too because the advantage of 7-8" will be small compared to having an illegal truck.

I dont know... remember that 6" includes tyres. That leaves most people with a 4 " lift. A 4" may vary from vehicle to vehicle (ie big enough on some, not on others), and as I see it and just as you have said, in order to hide the lift using bigger tyres, its going to look rather silly on some cars if they go and put a 4" lift and their max tyre size is 2" over standard... that sorta skateboard look.

Like in my case, I want a 4" lift on my gu, and that will leave me with enough guard clearance for 35's, but they arent legal, and im probably going to see a whole lotta wheel arch if i stick to the 33's. As i stand at the moment its not really worth me getting any more lift (in my situation anyway) as for me to go to 4" i have to go panhards, brakelines etc, and then i can't go the 35's to match it.

Ah well, looks like if i want what I want i am just going to have to put up with having an illegal rig. And i want 7" lift and 37's...

HeathGQ wrote:

MQ080 wrote:Quick look through, it appears fair to me. I would say this is a win for us (for once)

suspension lift is limited to 50mm, that can be approved under the Mod Code. It's not a max of 150mm of any combination.
Max 50mm suspension
Max 75mm body lift
Max 50mm tyres.
But combination of max 150mm

exactly, nothing has really changed. They have given us an extra 1" bodylift, and bigger tyres. However all these can only equate to 150mm. Therefore changes are minimal. They have just worded it differently to make it look like they have done something (In my opinion)