Labor Governments New Motor Vehicle Suspension Regulations

Does this affect you?
Link:- https://leaders.myelectorate.com.au/crm/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=131&qid=166926

Think it will affect my dad's hot rod.
It's a 1937 hudson terraplane and is
considerably lower than standard.

original height

I had a quick read and to be honest it sounds fairly reasonable for the most part. Less than 50mm can be self certified, by a competent person. But what I cant see is how a person is deemed competent? Maybe I missed something?

nsuwift wrote:Think it will affect my dad's hot rod.
It's a 1937 hudson terraplane and is
considerably lower than standard.

original height

There's a bit near the bottom about street rod's. Sounds like they are basically still covered by there own set of rules.

Do we have a publication date yet??

On page 5 it says:

"This VSI No. 50 applies to vehicles modified and notified to the RTA or presented to an AUVIS after [publication date + 6 months]"

So we essentially have 6 months post the publication date, which at the top of page 1 is "TBA" to get things lowered under the current rules.

Just as well I'm about to get mine done, not that I would have a problem under the new rules (although with at least a 2 inch drop it would need a blue slip), but how much more of a pain would it be 😬

as it sits now. It will come back up alittle
as he has not finishe the fabrication of
the suspension. He stopped working on
his to help me work on my type three.

it says no to drop spindles, could affect a few vws

is this document just for NSW or is it going nation wide? i'm a little worried, i'm restoring a 59 cadillac, heres a promo pic and as you can see the "trim" is deff in the negative prospective. no engineering trickry here, its a factory promo picture!
vee-dub boys note that dropped spindles are OUT!!!

It's not retrospective.
So if your car has been modified and then rego'd, it sounds like it's ok.
My apprentice was in a rush to get his airbaged hilux signed off on when they announced it, so it wouldn't affect him.

Have they passed this yet?? Or are we in the + 6 months??

zocstar wrote:It's not retrospective.
So if your car has been modified and then rego'd, it sounds like it's ok.
My apprentice was in a rush to get his airbaged hilux signed off on when they announced it, so it wouldn't affect him.

Have they passed this yet?? Or are we in the + 6 months??

How can they prove if your suspension was modified before or after it has been rego'ed? Will you have to provide receipts or something?

Also, what is the definition of a street rod?

cam070 wrote:Also, what is the definition of a street rod?

A street rod is a special category of registration, with special rules detailed here: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/street_rod.aspx

Basically, “A Street Rod shall mean a vehicle that has a body and frame that were built before 1949, that has been modified for safe road use, or a replica of a vehicle the body and frame of which were built before 1949. Note that vehicles manufactured in 1949 or later that are carry over models of a vehicle model manufactured prior to 1949, eg Ford Anglia, are included in the Street Rod classification.”

I suppose it could be argued that all Beetles, particularly the earliest shape ones, are carry-over models from a pre-1949 design, but I'm not sure whether you'd win that argument. It would be nice to register a Bug as a street rod though, as they're allowed some very broad freedoms, such as 10" wide wheels for example, and engines up to 7.6 litres.

Were drop spindles ever legal in nsw?

cam070 wrote:How can they prove if your suspension was modified before or after it has been rego'ed? Will you have to provide receipts or something?

Also, what is the definition of a street rod?

Page 10, Yup that's what it says.
Under 5cm either recipts or stat dec.
Over 5 a report from the rta.

you can go more than 50 just need eng cert. but not more than 150 . still has thw 100mm law , think most of this is towards newer cars and 4x4's old cars would more than likely be in a case by case .

Hi

I think this new VSI50 is a step in the right direction, 150 mm is almost 6 inches.

Never been keen on dropped spindles.

The hot rods have very strict rules about what is a hot rod and will never allow that to change, even for US style cars post 1948 and would never allow a VW to be treated as a hot rod.

Steve

It hasnt been passed yet.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/vehiclestandards/raise_lower_vehicles.html

alot of business will be lost if it does pass , 6 inch drop is not much for a splitscreen bus , most of that is with the change of tyre

SuperOwen wrote:Were drop spindles ever legal in nsw?

Not that I know of

Klaus wrote:alot of business will be lost if it does pass , 6 inch drop is not much for a splitscreen bus , most of that is with the change of tyre

Change of height by changing tyres isn't included in that particular document, that's why they go to very careful lengths to define 'trim height'. Basically you're allowed 50mm by suspension drop without a report, or 150mm by suspension drop with a report, and then some other amount by tyre choice which is defined in a separate paper. I haven't read that one but the end result is that the minimum legal height is still 100mm.

allegedly, a young bloke has his air baged car parked in a car park, car nearly sitting on the ground,while he is at work and gets a defect for his being lower then 100mm.
the car has a engineers report and a adjustment of records on the rego papers matching the engineers cert saying air bags fitted.
So my question is why the defect for being lower then 100mm??????????????????????????????
allegedly the police do the rite thing as he had to check the car and owners detail on the net to write out the defect notice.??

Hi

I guess that if the car has air bags fitted it must still comply with minimum height requirements of 100 mm, whether its driving or not.

Steve

I dont see any air bag cars like that, they all sit down low🤪🙅🤪 so

Hi

I followed a Hi Lux the other day, it was dragging the arse on the ground with the front in the air, what happens to headlight aiming in that case, up in the trees I would guess.

Before Rose says anything about being online, I've been working on my bug all day.

Steve

1303Steve wrote:Hi

I guess that if the car has air bags fitted it must still comply with minimum height requirements of 100 mm, whether its driving or not.

Steve

The way I read it, is that adjuctable ride heights must not be able to be adjusted whilst the vehicle is mobile. Dumping it on the ground while staionary in a car park etc should be legal. Thats how I read it.

Which I think is the current regulation on that issue anyway.

Cheers
Brendan

Special Air Service wrote:

1303Steve wrote:Hi

I guess that if the car has air bags fitted it must still comply with minimum height requirements of 100 mm, whether its driving or not.

Steve

The way I read it, is that adjuctable ride heights must not be able to be adjusted whilst the vehicle is mobile. Dumping it on the ground while staionary in a car park etc should be legal. Thats how I read it.

Which I think is the current regulation on that issue anyway.

Cheers
Brendan

yeah allegedly this car was park and the owner was at work,
the young bloke come in late to day when we were leaving work to go home, He had to get the defect cleared and it was as easy for him to just push a button.🤪 and the car was 100mm 🤪
maybe we didnt get the whole story.

A Type 3 is equipped with "variable height suspension control system" (aka splines) and so can be slammed to minimum clearance 😂 see point1, on page 4.

Also the "Ground clearance over peak in road" method is totally dependent on wheelbase. So a large car can not be as low to the ground as a much shorter vw.

Go the Type 3's.👍👍

Ho hum.

bus914 wrote:A Type 3 is equipped with "variable height suspension control system" (aka splines) and so can be slammed to minimum clearance 😂 see point1, on page 4.

Also the "Ground clearance over peak in road" method is totally dependent on wheelbase. So a large car can not be as low to the ground as a much shorter vw.

Go the Type 3's.👍👍

Hi

Type 3s have a shorter wheel base than 1302 & 1303s.

I don't want to get all political but if the Labor government gets the boot next year, the shadow roads minister Andrew Stoner is likely to get that portfolio, please go to his website and register for his newletter http://www.andrewstoner.com.au/

At least he listening now, it may a different matter if he actually gets the job

This the email I received from him

Dear Steve

This morning, I obtained a copy of the Keneally Labor Government's latest plans to introduce their long-feared harsh new vehicle suspension regulations.

A copy of Labor's latest VSI-50 regulation can be found here.

I am in the process of going through the document and speaking with affected 4WDers and car enthusiasts.

Please email me and let me know what you think of Labor's latest vehicle height regulations.

Regards Andrew Stoner

ian.mezz wrote:

Special Air Service wrote:

1303Steve wrote:Hi

I guess that if the car has air bags fitted it must still comply with minimum height requirements of 100 mm, whether its driving or not.

Steve

The way I read it, is that adjuctable ride heights must not be able to be adjusted whilst the vehicle is mobile. Dumping it on the ground while staionary in a car park etc should be legal. Thats how I read it.

Which I think is the current regulation on that issue anyway.

Cheers
Brendan

yeah allegedly this car was park and the owner was at work,
the young bloke come in late to day when we were leaving work to go home, He had to get the defect cleared and it was as easy for him to just push a button.🤪 and the car was 100mm 🤪
maybe we didnt get the whole story.

Hi

This is all grey area.

So if you have bald tyres on your car could it be defected in a car park like the guy was defected with the air bagged car?

I'm not agreeing with the guy getting booked, just discussing it.

Steve

There's nothing grey about it, a car park is a road-related area and hence your car must be registered and comply with all roadworthiness rules. If it was on private land such as a driveway, then you could legally argue that they have no right to defect you, but in a public road or road-related area, parked cars are fair game.

As far as I can work out, the main reason that you're not allowed to leave parked cars slammed to the ground is that it makes it too difficult to tow your car away if your are parked illegally. Rules are rules nonetheless.

I've worked it out! Fear not my slammed friends!

If you remove the trim from your car and smooth it out, the rules no longer apply! Do that and put spats in/remove the wings.

1303Steve wrote:I don't want to get all political but if the Labor government gets the boot next year, the shadow roads minister Andrew Stoner is likely to get that portfolio, please go to his website and register for his newletter http://www.andrewstoner.com.au/

At least he listening now, it may a different matter if he actually gets the job

This the email I received from him

Dear Steve

This morning, I obtained a copy of the Keneally Labor Government's latest plans to introduce their long-feared harsh new vehicle suspension regulations.

A copy of Labor's latest VSI-50 regulation can be found here.

I am in the process of going through the document and speaking with affected 4WDers and car enthusiasts.

Please email me and let me know what you think of Labor's latest vehicle height regulations.

Regards Andrew Stoner

Totally disingenuous.

This is not a party political matter.

VSI50 is not "the Keneally Labor Government's latest plans" nor "Labor's latest vehicle height regulations". They are RTA matters.

Parliament doesn't ever knock back RTA regulations. Stoner will get up in the bear pit and argue and grandstand and get headlines and lots of free election advertising on car sites, but he will not vote against it he just wants the political milage. Watch Hansard, when the RTA present their final version to Parliament, it will be a 100% accept vote as always...

Devised by bureaucrats who remain in their positions regardless of who is in Macquarie street.

Fight the issue if you think VSI50 is damaging, don't prop up Andrew Stoner's ego by misdirecting anger at the Government, they can't change it, only the RTA can...

Hi Matt

As usual an interesting reply from you, “Totally disingenuous” someone been eating their alphabet soup.

So how would you know that creating political pressure would not influence the RTA, we’ve had the Labor government since 1996, a new coalition government might take a different tack with the RTA if elected next year.

When the uproar occurred over the last version of the VS150, the then roads minister Michael Daly was moved to another position.

The RTA has now come back with a revised VS150. What do you think caused the RTA to do that Matt? Could it have been concerned people writing to their local members and voicing their opinions on forums etc or do you think that the RTA just thought that they would be nice for once?

Steve

1303Steve wrote:The RTA has now come back with a revised VS150. What do you think caused the RTA to do that Matt? Could it have been concerned people writing to their local members and voicing their opinions on forums etc or do you think that the RTA just thought that they would be nice for once?

Steve

What it had to do with was industry pressure and the way it was poorly written which had the effect of not allowing modification to fire, ambulance, police, railways, power and other infrastructure vehicles.

Popular pressure had precious little to do with the revision. The Government does not inform the RTA, the RTA informs the Government.

The only thing that changes rules is pressure from industry and the generation of taxable revenue.