Cutting Whole Under Water Bottle For Cooler Piping

[mr_crust]

The image below was from another members car and what the engineer done to make it 'safe'. Looking at the quality of workmanship on that , i could have done better with my hands tied behind my back. In particular look at the top 10mm bold and how its attached, i really question how that improves the saftey of the car, the only thing i can see it doing is lining someone else's pocket.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...st&id=65521

My dad is an engineer for Ford and when we spoke about this issue, he looked at the Act *which i posted in the other thread* and he told me that, its states not cutting the chassis, as the skirt is not a part of it, so we shoudn't have any drama's.

You really need to sit down and go through each term one by one in the act which is a pain staking thing to do, and see exactly were you can cut...Geoff you really seem to know your stuff buddy

Edited January 6, 2007 by mr_crust

[Rekin]

GTRgeoff for president! :sorcerer:

Seeing as we have some info, how do we make the law recognise this as a legal modification?

We all carry a copy of GTRgeoff's response and show to police

[WogsRus]

You have to make sure you check out all the "word" in the act, each deffenition is what i mean.

I know this is a bit childish and so forth, but can i say what i stated is correct then?

[Roy]

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.

Im with you Geoff...ask Mav about how amped i got over what was happening to him. Fact is a hole in a panel introduces a point of failure...thats as far as they are willing to take it/think. Dont worry about the fact that above it is a folded section of steel (Folded structure gives the panel a hell of a lot of rigidity) and on the lower side the panel is incorporated into a rail...so really its like a crock of shit that this is causing owners grief.

I dont look forward to the day i get pulled over...but it will happen, and i sure as hell wont be paying an engineer to "engineer" my own car.

[GTRgeoff]

Daz, can you point me to a copy of the document you referenced from? I have the Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999 and the Road Safety Act 1986 and there is no section 28 in either. Different numbering systems are used and there are no other documents on the Dept Justice website.

[R31Nismoid]

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".

I stated (as ive said) what the engineer said to me in a converstation early last year.

You wanna argue, say im wrong, go do it with VicRoads and the engineers they list. They are the people telling me these things. Im not just thinking it up because im bored.

As all i am doing is passing on what they told me, pretty plain and simple.

[mr_crust]

Geoff,

Funny you ask for those links, when i copied them only 2months back they worked and now all of them come up as errors, but i no doubt made a backup of all of it on my work PC.

I will look around now for it, if not i will post it on monday when im at work.

EDIT: this was the site http://www.dotars.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx

im just going through it now to find the exact extract

Edited January 6, 2007 by mr_crust

[Mavric]

Im with you Geoff...ask Mav about how amped i got over what was happening to him. Fact is a hole in a panel introduces a point of failure...thats as far as they are willing to take it/think. Dont worry about the fact that above it is a folded section of steel (Folded structure gives the panel a hell of a lot of rigidity) and on the lower side the panel is incorporated into a rail...so really its like a crock of shit that this is causing owners grief.

I dont look forward to the day i get pulled over...but it will happen, and i sure as hell wont be paying an engineer to "engineer" my own car.

Yea the whole thing was a joke and a way of making money to keep my car "safe".....

worst thing was the VIV i had done on the car meant nothing along with the the vic roads checks..

the biggest problem we have in Vic with our system is that we have 3 Bodies controlling out roads.

Vic Roads, cops and the EPA.

EPA are the only ones that know anything.. the other 2 are a bunch of dick heads that need to look at a signed piece of paper which becomes very annoying when being sent around Melbourne cas one individual out of those 3 say something is wrong but cant prove it..

I mean to top my problem off i spent around 1500 bucks and a heaps of thanx to alot of ppl for my car getting to the engineers for me to receive a letter in the mail from the EPA.. Even thought i had to get an emissions placard put on my car from the engineer. That tells me the whole thing was a waste of money but hey... u get that..

Rant over that wasn't planned on being one!!!

[khunjeng]

we talked a lot about this little hole...

what about those who have cut the Reo bar to fit the FMIC...hmmm now that should be more of an issue...

[Roy]

But they have to remove your bar to tell...im not letting anyone remove my bar. Hell wghen i have removed it i put hazing through it because it twisted...ended up needing to be resprayed....so rather not have anyone but a trusted panel beater go removing bars etc.

[khunjeng]

But they have to remove your bar to tell...im not letting anyone remove my bar. Hell wghen i have removed it i put hazing through it because it twisted...ended up needing to be resprayed....so rather not have anyone but a trusted panel beater go removing bars etc.

its obvious if u have a big FMIC in a GTST...I've only done one but its right in the way. Mav was defect for this also I believe.

In fact how does the reo run with the GTR is it the same? Myabe my FMIC is just too big..

[GTRgeoff]

OK I said I was going to read the Act, the regulations and have reviewed the document provided by Daz. That was better than milo and warm milk. I can't for the life of me remember why I am so happy to not be a technical regulation engineer anymore........

Unfortunately the doc linked in the other thread is part of the ADR set which the states use as a guideline. Some states differ in their interpretation and can impose more strict regulations than the base level they propose. For Vics the regulations state that a certificate must be provided for any panel cut forward of the firewall. There is no interpretation possible, it can mean any section referred to as a panel be it structural or cosmetic.

What remains is finding an engineer competent enough to assess the holes' location and pass it without some idiotic plate be it welded, butchered or glued. Pass the message with your feet, if they insist on the mod then go elsewhere as there appear to be engineers that will pass it without the plate and tell them why you are going elsewhere. The costs of running VASS are too high to pass up jobs. Of course if the hole is butchered, be prepared to get it supported. The engineer should take photos to support his documentary evidence so if the mod remains static the certificate remains current beyond the 30 days.

If you despise the regime, make a political stand and vote Bracks out next time after talking to local pollies from the opposition camp. Don't move to Qld where the systems are still logical and cheap, I need it all for me