Trying to make sense of ADRs. The current one is version 3. The previous one is version 2 and applies to cars built after 1969. There is no version
one. So my question is, what applies to vehicles built before 1969?
They can't backdate standards I assume (ie apply the 1969 standard to pre 69 cars) otherwise we'd all be retrofitting airbags to our bugs. I need to
establish the regs for things like moving the front indicators (later bugs have indicators in the front bumpers and this is what i want to do but
apparently there are rules about size and brightness), positioning of mirrors and fitting of seatbelts etc etc which the transport department tells me
is covered in the ADRs but no ADR is in place for 1966. Or earlier for that matter.
Has anyone dealt with this before? I can't seem to get an answer from transport and the wait time to talk to compliance section who handles this
sort of thing is up to a couple of hours. Should be the same Australia wide.
pretty sure ADR doesn't apply to pre 70 or 69 cars?
but NCOP does. NCOP is what ADR is based upon. Stands for National Code Of Practice.
Basically any mod you wish to do to any year of vehicle must be done to NCOP standards.
ADRs are just what modern OEM vehicles must pass really IMO.
If your car is pre 1/1/1969 then there are no ADR's required if it is not modified. Modified is ambiguous, as 1966 vehicles did not need certain
things, so modifying to include those things puts you into a more grey area.
If it is modified engine, chassis, seating, suspension etc. you must speak to an Automotive Engineer in your state.
Most engineers are guided by the NCOP, and there is another document known as VSB14 (Vehicle Service Bulletin)
I mostly deal with modifying 1967 or earlier vehicles, and the ease of being earlier than 1969 is obvious (in Victoria, being the VASS system). Go
with the system, and that bit of paper they give you ate end is worth it. I do Stretch limo's, chop tops, V8's, convertibles and more and deal with
this all the time.
But presumably things like, for example, fitting additional indicators to an oval, in lieu of just the semaphores, should not be an issue (ie you
should be able to add extra safety features but not remove them). Later bugs had indicators in the front bars (not sure if that was in addition to or
in place of the fender top ones) so theoretically if this is done on one not covered by ADRs this should be ok and not be something they can pull you
up on?
It makes it hard when the lack of info available means it is only rego time that you find out what you have done is not ok.
Does the national code of practice cover a "one rule for all" approach, ie a model T Ford often has no indicators, no tail lights and wooded body,
so does a 1960's early bug fit in the same bracket as this or are they era specific. Considering you can baja a beetle and it is still a beetle with
no mod plate required as far as I'm aware, surely changing simple things would not be too much of an issue?
Baja's certainly require a QT Mod plate
When I used to deal with Qld DoT, improvements like you speak of were not inforced but recommended.
By the way, late bugs with indicators in the bars were instead of guard mounted ones.
Be verry careful when modifying, ever if you do not need to comply with ADR's, as far as I am aware, all vehicles need to comply with the AVSR or
Australian Vehicle Standard Rules
Link: http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reforms/AustralianVehicleStandardsRules1.pdf
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
... I know of lot of people such as myself rolling
the baja as a 'beetle' simply because of no manufacturer's logo, although I can strongly speculate it to be a sand piper kit from John Sherman back
in the day.
!| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Originally
posted by psimitar Careful when playing with the indicators cos as I found out when taking my semaphored bug for it's RWC the semaphores need to still operate as well as the 'new' wing mounted ones. Even to the point that the semaphore bulb needed to flash like the rest of them. Could be RWC inspector specific but beware |
Chris, when i bought my baja. this was the one thing that it HAD to above all else had to have, because like you said it really is a pain to get one.
mine was modified in '82. Kind of makes you wonder if even the dept of trans would have any record of that?
| Quote: | |
Originally
posted by bajachris88
and getting that letter is difficult... you need a baja kit that has the manufacturer make and model printed on it to prove it was made by such and such assuming that 'such and such' provided you a baja kit that was an approved kit back in its day. Decades later paint and repairs hide or destroy logos or model details ... I know of lot of people such as myself rolling
the baja as a 'beetle' simply because of no manufacturer's logo, although I can strongly speculate it to be a sand piper kit from John Sherman back
in the day.The only other alternative for them to approve my kit is destructive testing at a Nata testing facility (flexural and tensile testing) of a 100mm x 100mm (i think it was) square sample of my kit's fibreglass. QT said over the phone after submitting 'request to modify vehicle form' twice that its to predict what happens if you hit a pedestrian. I can tell em what happens: nuffin good by the pedestrian with the front bull bar !Ah wells... sorry to deviate, just an interesting addition to the ADR discussion. But you can understand where QT is coming from, and they aren't familiar with our vw madness/facet. |
Makes it bloody hard. The guy from mods and compliance who I asked yesterday told me the blinkers cannot be any less bright or visible than the standard. Not hard to be better than a 15 watt 6v bulb I say. Some nice led bulbs would easily exceed that. Plus they need to be visible at 45 degrees. But it may be simpler to refit the originals. Just takes away from the smooth streamlined look a bit. Plus new blinker rubbers and probably lenses too are needed which will be more $$$ than led blinkers. Will decide what looks good later on. I have a couple of the park lamp fittings from rossi lights which should be able to be fitted inside the headlights with an orange led bulb. At least that way someone can always change it back later on.
How about some '76 bumpers, just for rego?
I got a plain front bar at the abbey swap so just need a rear now. I actually don't like the later bars. Not on an early bug anyway. Just want to get it complete and back together then sell it. Looks awesome already so should be good once done. But not my taste particularly. I prefer stock.
"just for rego" get it?
Borrow a '76 bar?
I thought the later bars had wider mounts on them? In any case I have a front and I'm sourcing a rear so should be right. I don't plan to put this one through rego anyway, just want to make sure whoever does can do it without issue. Trying to keep it as standard as it can be with a few tasteful mods that comply.
| Quote: | ||
Originally
posted by AA003
Why would they need to flash if they never did from factory? Sounds like the RWC inspector was a goose. |
I looked into this a little last night, because it seems youare having alot of trouble just for indicators. I wouldn't hesitate changing mine WITHOUT
seeing an engineer. All indicators that are comercially avalible for automotive use should have the ADR that applies to them printed on there casing
somewhere. couldn't get a photo of my indicator ADR because of the way its mounted, but as you can see the number plate light falls under ADR 43
(all lighting may fall under this)
Which shows the the orangebulbs in the rossi's are actually a no no, all OEM lights from other cars will have these too. After that as long as you
follow the guide lines for visabilty, brightness and flash rate you are golden.
if your RWC guy is giving you greef about something so simple as this he either has no idea or is being a doosh
It is not just that indicators say ADR - They must be E tagged and the correct catergory for the position of the inidcator on the vehicle. Front
Inidcators should be cat 1, 1a or 1b, Rear Indicators should be cat 2 and Side inidcators are Cat 3, 4, 5 or 6. You can tell the catergory by the
small numbers immediatley above the E marking on the lense.
Motor Cycle use Cat 11 and 12.
If going to an engineer becareful using generic lights of EBAY which may be tagged but are possibly untested copies out of China. You should use
known OEM brands.
Note however most roadworthy guys won't have a clue about this and as long as it works will be happy.
The ADR's are there to read
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/
But the issue is that the ADR applies to the vehicle year in question, not to the parts, that is to say that a car made pre 1969 does no have an ADR that covers it as such. So generic stuff is ok as long as it complies with the equivalent of what the vehicle came with in that year. So you technically can't fit semaphores to a bug that came with indicators as this would be a backwards step. But you can fit better indicators to it. Makes you wonder how these big window bugs pass with their oval conversions, even taking a 60s body and fitting it to a 70s pan (meaning it registers as 70s but has 60s tech which is a no-no).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
It's no different to the MOT in the UK. Tester knows the general rules but if ever stuck on older vehicles they just refer to the official books.
So if ya take it for a RWC and they come up with some odd failures then they have to give you a correct reason for the failure stating section of law
it's not meeting.
When they took a 1932 Model A Ford for RWC from our work, the RWC guy was a bit confused. He had to put N/A (not applicable) in a lot of sections of the RWC, as he could not check things that were not there.