Calmini UCA's illegal!

Nissan Navara Forum

Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That would be the pecker in the fluro vest to the left of screen in that footage.
Your right Big Gus it does seem like a pretty stupid test. Particularly when someone could sell a car that has passed. The new owner knows nothing of it and sticks some crappy tyres on it and now its a fail... Surly there's a height v width formula that could be used.
 
What a bullshit test,90% of car drivers would fail that test, the only cars I have seen changing lanes like that have red P- plates on them, even in the event of an accident most peoples reaction times would not save them I wonder who the fukchead genius was who thought up this crap test was.

As tests go it's (in my opinion) only a reasonable benchmark. Problems I can see: human error, tyre compound issues, road surface issues, environmental issues (eg dust/dirt/vegetation blown in), crosswinds, inaccurate speed measurement (whose speedo is 100% accurate) ... but take those factors out, and you've at least got a passing chance of telling whether or not the vehicle is a deathtrap likely to roll over when avoiding a child that runs out onto the road or if the thing is at least stable enough to make an emergency swerve without becoming a hazard itself.

It's not perfect, and as 4 Naving points out, there may be a better way to do it with formulae - but until someone nuts out those formulae, and verifies them, and tests them (under various conditions) then sets a specific method up for measuring vehicles to apply those formulae against, the "lane change test" is about the only tool in the shed.

How many times have you bashed in a tent peg with a rock? A hammer's a better tool, but if you don't have one with you ...
 
What a bullshit test,90% of car drivers would fail that test, the only cars I have seen changing lanes like that have red P- plates on them, even in the event of an accident most peoples reaction times would not save them I wonder who the fukchead genius was who thought up this crap test was.
The funny bit is the test isnt for drivers.
If we actually tested the ability of drivers to actually drive then for starters Canberra would be a much better place to drive as the roads would only have a few cars on them.
Its simply a test to make sure the center of gravity for a vehicle isnt so high as to make the vehicle unstable should the need arrive.
Would you seriously want to drive a vehicle knowing full well in the event of having to swerve it would simply fall over ?
 
The funny bit is the test isnt for drivers.
If we actually tested the ability of drivers to actually drive then for starters Canberra would be a much better place to drive as the roads would only have a few cars on them.
Its simply a test to make sure the center of gravity for a vehicle isnt so high as to make the vehicle unstable should the need arrive.
Would you seriously want to drive a vehicle knowing full well in the event of having to swerve it would simply fall over ?

Did someone say "Suzuki Carry" ???
 
The funny bit is the test isnt for drivers.
If we actually tested the ability of drivers to actually drive then for starters Canberra would be a much better place to drive as the roads would only have a few cars on them.
Its simply a test to make sure the center of gravity for a vehicle isnt so high as to make the vehicle unstable should the need arrive.
Would you seriously want to drive a vehicle knowing full well in the event of having to swerve it would simply fall over ?

Yeah I know what the test is all about but it still comes down to the person behind the wheel, not enough driver education in this country is the problem.
 
Get it in writing. Other drivers (truck drivers) will tell you all about different transport people telling you different things. Some things they tell you could cost more than $1000 easy! So the moral is GET IT IN WRITING!
 
I'd use the middle pedal

Just in case anyone was interested (and didn't know), here's a video of a lane change test.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9OtGfdf6HQ[/YT]

It is about 3 seconds from beginning to end of the first swerve. The drivers reaction time was before the witches hats. At 100km, I'd guess it would be 80 to 90 metres.
Instead of driving around the simulated kid running on the road, I would just stop. Much safer..

Also, when I get to lift my Nav up, I will ring up the insurance company and tell them. Pay the extra premium and they won't argue.
 
Yep aussie frontier is on the money, however the accident would have to be your fault and the insurance company would have to inspect your vehicle...... Wether or not the assessor will pick up your mod is a roll of the dice.

If the modification is directly related to the cause of the accident your proper buggered.

You can tell them you have a 4" lift and they will put it on your policy no worries. When it comes to making a claim you may find a completely different story......

Anyone know someone who hasn't been paid out due to mods? I certainly don't.
 
Last edited:
Insurance investigations range from how the vehicle was repaired/maintained prior to the incident to whether or not the vehicle would pass a strict roadworthy if it weren't a mangulated mess. Examinations of the driver, their driving history, road conditions, street lighting, even factors such as floodlights mounted on houses, shopfronts, pedestrian crossings and in parking lots that might cause issues. Setting up a tow hitch, or choice of brake pads, shackle ratings, you name it, if it is possible for the failure to have caused or contributed to the incident then yes, it's investigated and potentially blamed.

If an insurer (through their assessors initially, then their investigators) can find a means of recovering their outlay (repair costs + medical + compensation + ongoings + legals) then they will.

A $1K repair bill with $3K in medicals, $10K in legals and $40K in compensation is not unheard of. It's never JUST the cost of fixing the car. The insurer has more to cover than just that!
 
Old.Tony*Did someone say "Suzuki Carry" ???__________________

Didn't the first A class have a bad rep for ending up on its side/roof?

And yet it initially passed design rules worldwide ?
 
I once had a Suzuki sierra, no way I would have done that in it. roll roll roll.
I always thought it was safer to break strait as swerving for a roo or the like leads to the same thing.
Buy as Old Tony said I guess they need some way to determine fit for purpose...
 
Narrow wheeltrack is always going to need stiff suspension to prevent the body from rolling too much. Trouble is, the suspension doesn't stay that way forever. How many of us have changed from factory saggy springs?

When you take a car like ours - which already has its CofG above the axle line - and then not only give it a suspension lift, but a body lift as well - the CofG towers over the critical point.

That point is (look at sports cars) at or below the axle line. With a CofG below the axle line, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to roll the vehicle. It needs a wheel to actually stop in its sideways motion (and not break) for the car to flip. Look at Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini, Jaguar, McLaren and the higher-ended Renault, Peugeot and even cars like the Skyline, Soarer, Sylvia, FTO, GTO, GT40 - the list goes on. The CofG is low for stability.

What we do with our cars with a suspension lift is raise the two heaviest components in the vehicle - the drivetrain and the body. A body lift cranks up the pressure even more.

That's why the standard limits for these exercises are fairly low (50mm suspension lift etc). Within those limits, the CofG is still close to factory. Whack a 125mm lift or more and you've significantly raised the CofG so that as a lever goes, it's quite effective in reaching over the axle and thus tipping the vehicle over.

As for the Carry/Sierra issue ... I really don't know how they ever managed to put them on the road. I've seen a few of the older Sierras around town and they look great - they've had almost the entire wheel sitting outside the factory body and great big flares added to give them stability, but I'm sure they'd be capable vehicles on the lunar surface with a small change in propulsion!
 
Narrow wheeltrack is always going to need stiff suspension to prevent the body from rolling too much. Trouble is, the suspension doesn't stay that way forever. How many of us have changed from factory saggy springs?

When you take a car like ours - which already has its CofG above the axle line - and then not only give it a suspension lift, but a body lift as well - the CofG towers over the critical point.

That point is (look at sports cars) at or below the axle line. With a CofG below the axle line, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to roll the vehicle. It needs a wheel to actually stop in its sideways motion (and not break) for the car to flip. Look at Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini, Jaguar, McLaren and the higher-ended Renault, Peugeot and even cars like the Skyline, Soarer, Sylvia, FTO, GTO, GT40 - the list goes on. The CofG is low for stability.

What we do with our cars with a suspension lift is raise the two heaviest components in the vehicle - the drivetrain and the body. A body lift cranks up the pressure even more.

That's why the standard limits for these exercises are fairly low (50mm suspension lift etc). Within those limits, the CofG is still close to factory. Whack a 125mm lift or more and you've significantly raised the CofG so that as a lever goes, it's quite effective in reaching over the axle and thus tipping the vehicle over.

As for the Carry/Sierra issue ... I really don't know how they ever managed to put them on the road. I've seen a few of the older Sierras around town and they look great - they've had almost the entire wheel sitting outside the factory body and great big flares added to give them stability, but I'm sure they'd be capable vehicles on the lunar surface with a small change in propulsion!

Trouble is Tony if you make your wheel track any wider to make your car better and safer these morons in DOT consider it unroadworthy, I have to downsize my rims and offset to bring the wheel track back to their bullshit specs thus off come the arctic flares so it doesn't look stupid not to mention the thousands of dollars I've spent to get it like that, little do they know how well it corners and handles but that doesn't matter does it because it's all in the name of SAFETY.
 
Trouble is Tony if you make your wheel track any wider to make your car better and safer these morons in DOT consider it unroadworthy, I have to downsize my rims and offset to bring the wheel track back to their bullshit specs thus off come the arctic flares so it doesn't look stupid not to mention the thousands of dollars I've spent to get it like that, little do they know how well it corners and handles but that doesn't matter does it because it's all in the name of SAFETY.

Can't you get it engineered with the wider track?
 
I think it's 50mm wider track max engineered or not.
 
Last edited:
No they won't allow any more than 50mm,i mean why bother saying you can have any size flare you like if you can't put the wheels and tyres to fill them out, i can keep the 305's but have to go back to 8 inch rims with a smaller offset don't know what flares I will use yet will see how the new rims look first.
 
Oh wow haha so they will let you keep illegal tyres.

What did they say about your bodylift?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top