Lowering a vehicle in NSW - recent changes?

[Seano]

There was a perfectly good rule in place already regarding the minimum ground clearance (10cm).

...and this rule has not changed.

In the definition of lowering in the actual government produced document there is no mention of the no more than 50mm change either way rule applying to lowered vehicles......only that they must not be lower than 100mm.

The no more than 50mm change rule applies entirely to raised vehicles and applies to the gap between axle and guard...

ADR compliance is done for many versions of VWs at different suspension heights...so if you've a stock Golf and you want to run at the same low height as an R32 then that is fine....but you still need a engineers certificate/blue slip to do it in NSW......and what on Earth is the problem with that?

Certification is just another form filling exercise and only needs to happen once. Sure it might cost but you'll have just paid through the nose for some ridiculously short springs anyway.....what's another $200!!

[Rocket36]

I agree with you Manaz, but the government (as always) likes to be seen to be doing something without actually doing anything that's going to improve road safety. For instance, their are plenty of cars that shouldn't be on the road because they're unsafe but do they implement legislation to take action against such cars? No.

It's like the anti-hoon laws. A complete waste of time as there is already a road rule for EVERYTHING that can be considered hooning. This is nothing more than a vote grab and a means of raising revenue. Oh well... I guess the thing youi have to do as a car enthusiast is not provide any reason to be defected - i.e. do modifications legally and don't drive a car that can be defected. If you knowingly do, then you can't really blame anyone but yourself.

Or move to California! lol On TGUK this week (the latest episode that aired in the UK on Sunday night) they had a copy of a speeding ticket. Someone in a "Bugatti 2 door" which they assume was a Veyron was booked for doing 215mph in a 65mph zone. The MOST they can get fined on the first offence was $500 or so and for a second offence it's $700 or so.

[peedman]

Well this really makes me consider whether to drop my car on its guts or not. Coilovers already cost an arm and a leg, im not really gonna fancy paying $500 for engineering on an otherwise stock car.

[Manaz]

...and this rule has not changed.

In the definition of lowering in the actual government produced document there is no mention of the no more than 50mm change either way rule applying to lowered vehicles......only that they must not be lower than 100mm.

The no more than 50mm change rule applies entirely to raised vehicles and applies to the gap between axle and guard...

ADR compliance is done for many versions of VWs at different suspension heights...so if you've a stock Golf and you want to run at the same low height as an R32 then that is fine....but you still need a engineers certificate/blue slip to do it in NSW......and what on Earth is the problem with that?

Certification is just another form filling exercise and only needs to happen once. Sure it might cost but you'll have just paid through the nose for some ridiculously short springs anyway.....what's another $200!!

That's very interesting.

This PDF on the RTA website agrees with you. This one disagrees (it says raising or lowering).

So, does the RTA or the minister have it right (and why does the RTA have two documents which contradict each other on its' website)?

[Preen59]

what's another $200!!

$200 is $200 mate. It's that simple. Why bury people in needless paperwork and charge fees for things that shouldn't need to be done? It's complete BS.

[gldgti]

so if you've a stock Golf and you want to run at the same low height as an R32 then that is fine....but you still need a engineers certificate/blue slip to do it in NSW......and what on Earth is the problem with that?

0!!

what wrong with that is that you have to PAY money to someone to sign a form. its simple beurocracy feeding. plain and simple.

what about me? in the last 6 weeks i went through 4 height changes with my car before i was happy. gee that would have cost me an absolute bobm to get engineered each time, not to mention the time i would have to take off work because you cant see an engineer on the weekend now can we?

i'm sorry to anyone here trying to justify this crap somehow, but its OBVIOUS to me that this is another "Those young hoons in their lowered cars should all be locked up" laws.

I agree with you preeny, might as well go and live in california or the UK. its clear that the red tape monkeys have infested australia now too.

[Rocket36]

$200 is $200 mate. It's that simple. Why bury people in needless paperwork and charge fees for things that shouldn't need to be done? It's complete BS.

But to be legal, it DOES need to be done. I think that was the point.

[Manaz]

But to be legal, it DOES need to be done. I think that was the point.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence...

[Rocket36]

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence...

So are you saying it's OK for something to be illegal as long as authorities presume it's not? Sorry I don't quite understand your reference.

The presumtion of innocence until proven guilty applies in the judicial system, not the legal system. The legal system is black and white. It's either legal or it's not. If you knowingly modify a car illegaly, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you get caught. Do the modification legally and you don't need to be worried. Even if you get defected, you can get it cleared easily and claim for reimbursement of any associated expences.

[Manaz]

Sorry I don't quite understand your reference.

Quite simply - if I have my car modified legally, the onus of proof is on me. Whether or not I can seek compensation for the direct costs (inspection) or even indirect costs (time off work, hassle of changing my schedule, can I claim the cost of claiming the cost, etc - unlikely) is irrelevant - once a police officer (who is extremely unlikely to be an expert in car modifications, and frankly neither should they be, they have plenty of other things they need to be on top of) decides they're suspicious, it's not up to them to prove that I've done the wrong thing - it's up to me to prove that I've done the right thing.

I don't think that's reasonable.

All that aside, the rules aren't as bad as first thought (and Daley is to blame there, his media release as hosted on the RTA website was actually wrong).

[Preen59]

So are you saying it's OK for something to be illegal as long as authorities presume it's not? Sorry I don't quite understand your reference.

The presumtion of innocence until proven guilty applies in the judicial system, not the legal system. The legal system is black and white. It's either legal or it's not. If you knowingly modify a car illegaly, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you get caught. Do the modification legally and you don't need to be worried. Even if you get defected, you can get it cleared easily and claim for reimbursement of any associated expences.

The issue is that you shouldn't have to be put through that when clearly you are not in the wrong. And as you said it's black and white. So if you stay within the guidelines, your car is legal. Go outside the guidelines and the car is illegal.

Changing the rules so that a safe and roadworthy modification is suddenly deemed illegal is unfair. Completely unfair.

[Rocket36]

Changing the rules so that a safe and roadworthy modification is suddenly deemed illegal is unfair. Completely unfair.

Technically, modifying the components of a car (springs for example) with springs that aren't ADR complient or engineered for the car they're being put in is already illegal. So while the ride height isn't against the law, the actual modification is.

[Blitzen]

FFS Rocket, you arn't in the Air Farce any more...By the way you sound, I am beginning to think you were SP...Just cos you may have worked for the government, dosn't mean you have to agree with them all the time...

The rule that have be bought out are unfair, and to a point, unjust. As the rules stand, they don't affect me, but if I was a 4WD owner, I would be strategically poo bombing the NSW roads ministers office...Yet another reason why it is just not right to live in NSW any more...

[No457 Snowy]

Lowering a vehicle in NSW - recent changes?

Looks like ALL suspension height mods in NSW will require certification or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_50_raising-and-lowering-vehicles_17-july-2009.pdf

Could also have major implications with insurance claims invalid for lowered vehicles without the necessary certificates.


Snowy

[Rocket36]

Looks like ALL suspension height mods in NSW will require certification or am I reading this wrong?

Pretty sure to maintain 100% legality, they already do. *shrugs*