Matt76
Member
Haha I have been involved in one of them, niether the driver or I were watching were the car was going. No real damage was done and we still laugh about it 10+ years later...
Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:
Haha I have been involved in one of them, niether the driver or I were watching were the car was going. No real damage was done and we still laugh about it 10+ years later...
And that there is just lending weight to my point: the technically competent, or the considerate, or those that have enough smarts - they all think just like this.
Unfortunately, they are among the minority in our population. The law is there to protect the majority.
As for what is legal and what is not: any modification made to the vehicle, whether by competent mechanic or not, is NOT legal if it falls outside the proscribed* limits and has not been certified for use on Australian roads by a suitably qualified engineer.
* Proscribed = defined in law. The various road authorities around Australia have these available for download in their technical areas. For example, you can legally and without certification raise your vehicle by 50mm. Raise it 51mm and you need it certified.
Continuing on with that: raising a vehicle does more than lift the centre of gravity, which increases the outward inertia of the vehicle in a corner this is experienced as "centrifugal force" which is really just linear momentum - the vehicle's tendency to go where it would if you were on ice - and your tyres imparting a force that changes the direction of the vehicle.
You also need to consider bearing strength, because the vehicle now is a longer lever over the wheel bearings. The suspension mounts are now being acted upon by that same longer lever. The drive shaft has to reach slightly longer and you do need a certain length of splines in contact with the diff so that you don't shear the remaining splines off when applying power.
The engineer places their name on the line (which means they actually take legal responsibility, although the road authority will accept the actual blame if it lands in court) when they approve the modifications and declare that the vehicle is structurally safe for use on our roads. This declaration means not only that they think your vehicle and its mods are safe to use, but that in the event of some catastrophe, the modifications made are not automatically at fault - whereas, if there were no such certification, the modifications are automatically at fault and the person who did or authorised those modifications then becomes responsible and ultimately liable for the costs of the catastrophe.
The strength of the shackle isn't what they're worried about when they made it illegal, it's the lack of lateral location for the axle. Having said that, you can achieve the same effect with a custom shaped leaf so it's an inconsistent rule.
K
Krankin
Guest
Yes, thats a fact.
People need to take on board that fitting one mod will not only affect what it was designed to do
but affects so many other areas such as you mention, or more,
and sometimes with unfavourable consequences.
SOLID D22
Member
Not argueing any points here but again we have to consider at what we are all relating to when we talk about illegal mods, some of us are thinking raised, some are thinking stuff like home made or installed items and so on.
My point is a few of us posting threads including myself are probably not thinking along the same lines as what you might be thinking or know so it is very hard to compare a point laid out when we could be talking or thinking about 2 totally opposite things.
And its hard to say the law is the law, of course we must obide by it, no doubting that, but if one is so strongly for the law, which in turn is basically a rule, then how many rules have we all broken or should i say the law then, when everytime you are about to drive a car you must check all tyres, lights, horn etc etc.
I know i dont so in turn must be breaking the law every day.
Same as something so simple as allowing 3 flashes of your indicator before merging/turning or moving lanes, it may sound simple but a lot of people dont do it and turns/merges are where a number of accidents are involved, so really a simple matter is actually a very serious matter.
Its probably a bit off topic but thats the law.
What really boils my blood more than raise 4b's is seeing sedans on the road towing a huge caravan, horse float or tandem trailer with a car on the trailer and seeing the arse end of the car dragging along the floor, now thats dangerous and outright stupid.
My point is a few of us posting threads including myself are probably not thinking along the same lines as what you might be thinking or know so it is very hard to compare a point laid out when we could be talking or thinking about 2 totally opposite things.
And its hard to say the law is the law, of course we must obide by it, no doubting that, but if one is so strongly for the law, which in turn is basically a rule, then how many rules have we all broken or should i say the law then, when everytime you are about to drive a car you must check all tyres, lights, horn etc etc.
I know i dont so in turn must be breaking the law every day.
Same as something so simple as allowing 3 flashes of your indicator before merging/turning or moving lanes, it may sound simple but a lot of people dont do it and turns/merges are where a number of accidents are involved, so really a simple matter is actually a very serious matter.
Its probably a bit off topic but thats the law.
What really boils my blood more than raise 4b's is seeing sedans on the road towing a huge caravan, horse float or tandem trailer with a car on the trailer and seeing the arse end of the car dragging along the floor, now thats dangerous and outright stupid.
maddogrc
Member
a bit off topic...
but i've been told that extended anti inversion shackles cause the axle to twist so theres extra strain on the drive shaft or something?
true? false? tjm store just told me this...
K
Krankin
Guest
The answer to this is in ANTS OZ's post heading this thread.
I,m in total annoyance also with the morons that tow like you mention but its a different matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
ants_oz
Guest
Thankyou to all respondents for the tone of discussion in this thread. There is, in my opinion, mature healthy discussion going on here and I think it's great 
I probably shouldn't have used inferences to "unsafe" and "unroadworthy" in the same topic. I am the first to acknowledge that the two don't necessarily have a direct correlation. So for what it's worth - I intended this thread to refer to "roadworthiness" as defined by what is allowed and approved by law.
I probably shouldn't have used inferences to "unsafe" and "unroadworthy" in the same topic. I am the first to acknowledge that the two don't necessarily have a direct correlation. So for what it's worth - I intended this thread to refer to "roadworthiness" as defined by what is allowed and approved by law.
the_bluester
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 1
Actually it is not a strength thing, or at least not ONLY a strength thing . It actually will change the handling of the car, setting up leaf springs to alter the handling balance it is not uncommon to set the springs flatter and use longer shackles to reset the ride height. I can not remember off the top of my head if a flatter spring and longer shackle produces more understeer or more oversteer.
There is also the fact that longer shackles will act as a longer lever and distort the bushes further under cornering load which will produce more rear steering effects.
Last edited:
simon
Member
I would quite happily risk my own life in a vehicle i have modified, but never the life of someone else, therefore I would never illegally modify a vehicle that is to be driven on the road.
Having said that, a lot of modifications are legal here in the UK that arn't in Oz, so it would be interesting to know the reasons behind different laws in different countries.
Also Engineering certificates for bolt on parts make no sense to me. For example, If a friend gets 3" extended shackles for his series 3 landrover, and gets this certified by an engineer, surely if you buy the same shackles for your series 3 landrover yours will pass certification too?
They should certify the parts not the vehicle in my opinion, save the engineers for certifying things that have been engineered, not just bolted on.
SOLID D22
Member
That is so true!
But i think the engineer just wants to see its installed correctly, i think thats the whole point of involving the engineer.
The engineer also wants to see how it will effect the entire vehicle, not just what you have added. Who knows what's been done to the vehicle prior.
For example, one part could be fine and legal but when combined with 3 other mods it could make the vehicle unroadworthy.
For example, one part could be fine and legal but when combined with 3 other mods it could make the vehicle unroadworthy.
Aido
Member
I'll bite.
Can anyone point to the rule book? Where does it reside?
ADR and state laws vary don't they?
Just asking because if your supposed to walk the line then it should be clearly painted.
case in point
http://www.navara.asia/general-tech-talk/2345-legal-not.html
Knackers here has to come to a website based upon his vehicle run by and contributed to by those of us at home. Its a fair question to ask too for a relatively simple matter but if the information isn't easily obtainable and clear cut from the authorities that govern what can and cant be done then what hope has anyone got?
Some things are obvious in modifications but others aren't.
F'rinstance adding a 4"body lift and 6" suspension lift with portal axles and a 454 to a Suzuki Vitara is a definite deviation from the design parameters as it was approved for use on Australian roads. But what about the bloke that goes down to Autobarn in his Hyundai Excel and sees the super white, super bright HID globes that are a straight forward swap for his dull candles. They too are not legal but can be bought on any sat morning and scorching retinas sat night.
Who's right and who is wrong?
The bloke that went to all the effort of strengthening his vehicle and over engineering everything to suit his Vitara on steroids is just as wrong as the Hyundai driver that just wanted to see a bit further and add something to his car.
So where is the rule book that clearly states what you can or cant do?
On with the show
Can anyone point to the rule book? Where does it reside?
ADR and state laws vary don't they?
Just asking because if your supposed to walk the line then it should be clearly painted.
case in point
http://www.navara.asia/general-tech-talk/2345-legal-not.html
Knackers here has to come to a website based upon his vehicle run by and contributed to by those of us at home. Its a fair question to ask too for a relatively simple matter but if the information isn't easily obtainable and clear cut from the authorities that govern what can and cant be done then what hope has anyone got?
Some things are obvious in modifications but others aren't.
F'rinstance adding a 4"body lift and 6" suspension lift with portal axles and a 454 to a Suzuki Vitara is a definite deviation from the design parameters as it was approved for use on Australian roads. But what about the bloke that goes down to Autobarn in his Hyundai Excel and sees the super white, super bright HID globes that are a straight forward swap for his dull candles. They too are not legal but can be bought on any sat morning and scorching retinas sat night.
Who's right and who is wrong?
The bloke that went to all the effort of strengthening his vehicle and over engineering everything to suit his Vitara on steroids is just as wrong as the Hyundai driver that just wanted to see a bit further and add something to his car.
So where is the rule book that clearly states what you can or cant do?
On with the show
SOLID D22
Member
Aido your right and iv been trying to prove the same point as you, that is big or small rules can be broken very easily, and some rules that seem like they dont make sense, when broken, can end up in catastrophe.
Another example is headlights, headlights can not cause an accident, unless obviously you dont turn them on at night or you are absolutely blinding someone with your highbeams, and thats where my point is, standard headlight hi beams send you blind, so what is the difference that makes the law saying you cant have more than 6 forward facing lights.
I dont know if more than 6 lights will light up more of the road for you, but having 6 or 2 hi beam lights pointing in your face is blinding.
Another example is headlights, headlights can not cause an accident, unless obviously you dont turn them on at night or you are absolutely blinding someone with your highbeams, and thats where my point is, standard headlight hi beams send you blind, so what is the difference that makes the law saying you cant have more than 6 forward facing lights.
I dont know if more than 6 lights will light up more of the road for you, but having 6 or 2 hi beam lights pointing in your face is blinding.
Aido
Member
Cant be arsed reading every NSW regulation.
1. I dont live in that state
2. I would then have to read every states rules to see how they differ
3. Isnt ADR - Australian Design Ruling - the over riding factor that will be argued in court should it come to that? Irrespective of state legislation.
Aido
Member
Edit: Who's right and who is wrong? they both are but one knows he is and the other doesn't.
Last edited:
I did the search "vicroads vehicle modifications" and hit #2 was the Vic Roads web site page:
Vehicle Standards Information
which includes a summary of the Australian Design Regulations.
Vehicle Standards Information
which includes a summary of the Australian Design Regulations.
joshy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 0
Only fact if you havent increased your wheel track. 35's, and 4"~ lift but my wheel track was increased more then 6", Never lifted a wheel onroad and handled fine.
joshy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 0
Track bars or wrap bars provide location for the axle but they are deemed illegal.
Last edited:
