Cutting Whole Under Water Bottle For Cooler Piping

[WogsRus]

NO I am saying every tom dick and Harry will tell you to put in a ring, but it doesn't make any difference. I got mine with no ring cos I could prove to them that it makes no difference. BUY for all you commoners; you will most probably need to put in a ring, cos that is what EVERYONE does. BUT not me.

BUT the topic asks is cutting a hole legal, and yes it is, if you know what to do and how to do it.

MY point with the ring is that all normal engineers who don't bother doing any calcs, will just put in the ring to minimize stress fractures, as that is what has been done for the past 300000000 years.

Like I said if you have problems with stress fractures in that spot, then there is already an underlying problem with the car, such as a bent or damaged chassis.

SO NO I am not agreeing with you. LOL.

COME on I have to be difficult.

[Rekin]

You said you went to court about the hole? What happened in court?

[Roy]

MY point with the ring is that all normal engineers who don't bother doing any calcs, will just put in the ring to minimize stress fractures, as that is what has been done for the past 300000000 years.

But you said its not part of the chassis..yet then you say it is a stressed member, sufficiently stressed to the point that it may have stress fractures ?????

Id be interested to see what assumptions you made in doing those calcs...i guess you assumed the radiator support panel, bumper support etc is rigid and doesnt deform in an accident?

[WogsRus]

i got off, just had to prove it and it is all good.

NO NO NO I am saying that is what the other engineers do as that is what has been done for so long, many of them do not understand the physics behing the problem, it is just what has been done for so long.

I am saying that IF and that is a BIG IF, FOR SOME UNKNOW REASON that area is cracking due to stress, then there is an underlying problem in the chassis, ie it has been damaged or twisted before. THE GUARD is NOT A STRESS MEMBER.

maybe that makes a little more sense.

In regards to the cals, i put the car frame, as best as it could be drawn, in a program called SPACE GASS, it's an enginerring software used to design structual design. The model was runw ith and without the hole and that was the error found. Offcourse the actuall model is by no means an accurate representation of the car, the program limits the geometry that could be modeled, i mean the compex curves are TOOOO dificult to do.

I made a model as best as the software would allow me and then did it with a hole and without the hole.

[R31Nismoid]

Offcourse the actuall model is by no means an accurate representation of the car, the program limits the geometry that could be modeled,

Just brilliant.

Absolutely brilliant.

You'd do well in parliament

[WogsRus]

I was trying to state that not EVERY CURVE can be modeled. If you knew anything about engineering you would know that as long as the same variables are kept constant and the models do not chage, then if the differance is a certain percentage, you can state that this would be the same percenatge in real life. There are guidlines for this trust me.

[WogsRus]

by accurate i mean it's about 85-90% true. NOT that the actual model is wrong, just can't model all the curvs. BUT a true representation if you know what i mean.

[khunjeng]

are we failing to realise one important point...

facts will not win you the arguement when u get defected for this...give him a mok up model made from play-dough, color coordinate it and everything...even put little people in the cars - and the cop will still defect you if he wants to...

Its then up to you to prove/fix..but its not going to stop it from happening until u have the paperwork to shut them up..You maybe be right, or wrong I dont really give a toss...its whats ok "within the rules" and making sure you apease the person who approves it..

Its not about fair...this is life bud.

If u dont like it...then why vote Labour back in again?

SAU for President!

[WogsRus]

yess you will get defected, bout you can get off. I did, just have to know your right.

[GTRgeoff]

Here is vote number 3 from an Engineer that the hole there is not going to reduce the structural integrity of the vehicle in any way that can be calculated. The technical word is infintessimal. Welding a ring is simply to prevent propagation of stress raisers however if the hole is cut cleanly and the edge finished neatly and dressed then there will be no such occurance. Further they need not be structural stresses but could be due to simple harmonic motion due to road and wind induced vibration.

Essentially you need a certificate in Victoria (which I will assume is different to Tassie and certainly Qld) which can only be obtained from a VASS engineer since not everyone might know not to cut the structural component. See here http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyre...8340/0/VSI8.pdf

While the certificate will say it expires in 30 days it remains current until you make further changes to that modification and the engineers record will show that, so the Police will have a difficult time if you do challenge their unqualified assumption.

Ash the ring is not a necessity for all Engineers so your answer up there and in the linked thread is totally wrong so I suggest you edit both. You just need the certificate so without it you would be defected as well. You really shouldn't try to question what Engineers do either, since your multitude of one line answers to questions across the forum that require a detailed response are ... lets just say... unsuitable, inappropriate and lacking in technical depth which indicates a substantial lack of knowledge. Perhaps best you stick to managing the tone of the forum and not attempt to provide any technical advice, unless you make a disclaimer that you are completely unqualified to do so (because as a moderator you "represent" the forum and therefore it's owner so could make a case for legal and financial liability) and then users can make their own assumptions.

[Roy]

Interesting, so your saying if i spend a weekend and do a 3D model of my front end using something like Soild Edge, then drop it into an FEA package like Nastran then they will accept this in court?

Still cant get away from the fact that on cursory review drilling a hole in the inner guard does introduce a point of failure so that in a collission it will likely fold a this point...now how big a deal this is ??????????????

[khunjeng]

I agree with geoff. I would have throught the more common kind of stress to be exerted on a hole in this area would be of a harmoic type from general vibrations etc. Although persoanlly I think you have more chance of hitting a pole than this hole causing your car to become unsafe.

[Mavric]

Just to add to this i also went to 2 other engineers prior to the one who actually approved my car and they were not willing to even weld a ring around the hole to make it "approved", as they weren't 100% convinced that the ring would solve the problem..

Going to vary from each engineer so just keep that in mind.. we may all know that it's a 0.0045% difference but u cant prove it unless u ram the car into a wall now can you... thats what they told me anyway!!!

[GTRgeoff]

Got to love the old style slide rule engineers = lazy bastridges. If the were CP Eng (Certified Professional Engineers - I have allowed mine to lapse since I don't care to practice much anymore, but I needed it to manage the professional engineers practicing in my service, only several hundred or so) they would be up to date and expanding their knowledge. It takes some minor number crunching and most design books will give the right stuff to use if your memory is a bit vague. An enclosed curve is the most structurally sound engineering element we know and for a given material you can calculate the ideal curve size for a particular stress. You can also conduct calculations to come up with crack tip radii IOT put a life to an item using the advanced crack growth theories. Who needs an actual crash test?

So Troy, what about the metal tubing through the hole? How would you think that affects controlled structural collapse? I'll admit that while the substructure of a GTR33 front chassis is slightly different to a GTS25t, the main structural components are the same and the GTR has ally guards and bonnet so drops a significant amount on the Youngs modulus for those items collapsing. WRT that the hole in the skirt area is definitely not a critical point of failure.

What is interesting is the comment in the other thread that the "Act" states you don't actually need a certificate. In this case any of us Engineers can write our own report and being subject matter experts the court must accept what we write as true or prove incompetency and offer an alternative. I must find the complete "Act" and have a read as the extract offered was not sufficient for me.

[R31Nismoid]

If the engineer tells me thats what i need to pass.

Then thats good enough to me. It cost less than $20 to make the bloke happy.

As VSI8 says (which i have read many many times) it required a cert.

So therefore without one, it is illegal is it not? VSI states that it is.

How is what i said wrong or invalid? I never offered technical advice. Just stating what the law requires

I aint liable, neither is this forum as again, i was right in what i was saying. Dont get all 15yr old on me.

[GTRgeoff]

No Ash. You stated you MUST have the reinforcement. One engineer says they want you to have one. 3 Engineers right here that are competent professionals state you don't need one. 2 Engineers reportedly state even with one they won't extend liability. The right answer unless you are qualified is "it depends".

VSI8 may not be a legal document if it is not specifically supported by the "Act". A government organisation can not make law unless the "Act" specifically covers it. Close points of law but sufficient for the expert to iterperet for a specific outcome. As yet I'm unconvinced. I see no need to recognise the VSI or its statement that you need the certificate in this case as law therefore it may very well not be illegal. The "Act" appears to state otherwise.

So essentially you are wrong, and wrong to offer the advice if you don't fully understand it and not legally competent to do so. You say it needs to have a welded brace in a technical argument then you are attempting to offer technical advice. I'm more in protecting CB and SAU than you, but if I come across 15yo it is so you understand.

Liability is a complex arena, but someone may take what you state as a position by the "forum" since you can be considered a "representative". So be very careful is all I suggest, not just with regard to this but to other advice you may care to offer. I on the other hand am not representing the forum and I am qualified so I don't have concerns for my liability since I can support my position technically and legally.

More to follow when I have time to finish reading the "Act".

[mr_crust]

The only reason that law stills is valid is becuase it has never been contested and proven that cutting that hole is illegal, if someone went to court and was able to prove that cutting a proper hole has no major effect, nobody will get defects.

Remember police only inforce the law , they do not have to have any knowledge in that specific area, for that reason many people have been defected for total rubbish that doesn't effect the vehicle.

An uncle of mine was getting defected for having 'a loose steering wheel" he asked the officer to come to his workshop and show him whats wrong, he handed over the business car (his the owner and manager of a good year workshop) The officer turned around and stated that she had no time and will let him off this time.

This law may still be in place, but i think anyone who goes to court and contests it will have a good chance of getting off, with the example of Mavric, who said 2 engineers wouldnt even give him a cert becuase they were unsure on the law.

[WogsRus]

OK so we are setteled then. All good everyone happy. GOOD stuff. OK move on. GTRgeoff, thanks you explain it a lot better the me, i'm a wog and words don't come so easy. But thanks. Like i said, if you have the balls to do it, anything can be provenb, just need the know how to do so.

Edited January 6, 2007 by WogsRus

[khunjeng]

OK so we are setteled then. All good everyone happy. GOOD stuff. OK move on.

hahah nice one. ** waits 1 month until the topic comes up again.

[GTRgeoff]

Actually Daz the point to contest is whether you need a certificate to cut a "panel" in front of the firewall. The chassis or a true structural element is a different matter.

The engineers Mav saw aren't worried about the law but the legal liability of approving the removal of material and their own laziness in assessing the change.

The reason I declined th opportunity to be a VASS certifier was because VicRoads needs you to maintain incredible levels of insurance cover, particularly to indemnify them in case I made a mistake, so that the cost then of conducting a VASS enterprise blows out and that cost passes on to the customer. I saw too little in the margins when I was incapacitated physically so made a genuine business decision.