Working the Std. setup

[Bl4cK32]

Can anything be done to make an r32 gtst handle better keeping in mind that :

a) the car has to be kept at the std. height,

B) front strut braces are illegal in SA

Im basically trying to keep the car legal for the street but want it to handle the best it can. I understand lowering it, adding strut braces, pinapples, etc are the go, but how good can the std ride height be made to handle??

In SA its defect city for lowered Skylines, so to keep it looking stock is best.

Thanks for the help

[slip]

A set of aftermarket quality shocks, springs and swaybars (and bushes if needed) is a great start.

Whiteline is probably where you should start your journey. You could even use height adjustable coilovers if you want to spend a bit more. You can get these 2nd hand from importers etc.

some 16x8 front and 16x9 rear wheels or 17xwhatever blah blah with good tyres will also help.

Camber adjustment if needed (ie adjustable strut tops or whatever they use for 32's)

Whiteline has proved that you dont need to go too low to make a line handling well. You may even be able to lower it slightly without it being too noticeable.

Oh, and the shocks and springs should be suited to each other as a package. Not just chosen willy nilly as you may end up with a nasty setup.

[Bl4cK32]

Actually on the car at the moment is a set of Bilstein suspension set to the middle adjustment (3 levels of adjustment). How far from std is the top height on Bilsteins, anyone??

Coilovers are illegal in SA due to "being able to lower the car in 15 mins" They require the height adjustment to be welded at std height. Sad, but who wants coilovers welded??

How good would say the std shocks be, with stronger rate springs, bigger tyres, camber adjustment, and sway bars. (i dunno if swaybars are legal in SA). Would this be a good setup, or would anyone recommend the same with the coilovers welded ?

Hopefully i can keep me bilsteins (i luv em )

edit/ SA police will measure height to defect.

[Sydneykid]

Hi Bl4cK32, I have never heard of any regulations is SA banning adjustable height suspension. This would be contrary to the Australian Design Rules to which SA is a signatory. Citroens, Range Rovers, Lexus, Honda Mercedes etc etc all come standard with height adjustable suspension. Plus if your car was complied with adjustable suspension (prior to DOTARS) it is in fact illegal to change it under the National Act (which can not be overturned by state regulations).

Many models of R32's come standard with a front strut brace, and therefore it would be illegal to remove it. Plus if your car was complied with an after market strut brace or two (prior to DOTARS) it would also be illegal to remove it/them.

There is a lot of rumour going around about this sort of stuff that is not correct. I strongly suggest that you get the precise requirements, in writing. If they contravene the ADR's then you are entitled to dob them in to the Dept of Transport in Canberra.

Regardless of the above, an engineers certificate will make any mods you make legal anyway. You can check this with your local engineer (look in the Yellow Pages).

If you have further questions I suggest you consult the suspension industry, they obviously have a huge interest in this sort of stuff. Whiteline have a forum on their web site which is supported by highly qualified technical resources, don't be afraid to use it.

Hope that helps

[Bl4cK32]

Regardless of the above, an engineers certificate will make any mods you make legal anyway. You can check this with your local engineer (look in the Yellow Pages).

Hey SK, thanks for responding.

The quote above im pretty sure is not relevant here in SA. I might get Steve to have a read of this to confirm, but im pretty sure in SA the local Vehicle Inspection Station can still defect a car even if it is fully engineered, because they dont think it might be safe.

Hey Steve if your reading what is the law in SA regarding what SK has said?

[Steve]

Basically, its wrong unfortuneately.

I spoke to the head inspector at regency, he said the car must be stock. When pushed, he said it can have coilovers, but they must be welded to the correct height, as they didnt want anyone being able to change the height in 5 (not 15) minutes. I wasnt too impressed by this, but that was what he said, I have taken a record of conversation.

another person I have spoken to, was told by a regency inspector that the stock suspension is best, and there fore it should only have stock suspension fitted!

AFAIK, strut braces are legal as they are OEM option - but at the end of the day, they may knock it back if they 'think' it may be substandard, no comeback.

You are quite correct, they do not have to accept an engineers cert, even if it is one that is recognised by them. I was told this by the Head of Transport SA. He told me that some engineers seem to know better than others what they like to see, and how they like things to be done.

As for taking action, the road traffic act has a liability clause, which states that no person of tpt sa or sapol shall be liable as long as they acted in good faith - so no point taking legal action either:)

[Sydneykid]

Hi Steve, have you asked them about cars that have "standard" suspension with height adjustment? How do they handle Citroens, Range Rovers, Lexus, Mercedes Benz, Rolls Royce, BMW, Ford LTD, Holden Statesman, Subaru etc etc. They can not have a blanket State rule about how long it takes to adjust suspension that contravenes an ADR which has no such requirement.

Secondly if your car was complied (pre DOTARS) with "aftermarket suspension" then it is in fact illegal to change it to "standard suspension". How do they handle this?

Thirdly, SA is a signatory to the national ADR's. They can't have rules in SA that don't agree with the ADR's. If you are unfairly treated in this way you can complain to the Dept Transport in Canberra.

I am aware of the history of this occurring on a number of occasions, the best example is when the ADR's where changed to allow for cars that came standard with headlights lower than 600 mm. Some States had not "caught up" and were defecting totally standard cars that complied with the ADR's. The Dept of Transport was notified and they instituted legal notification on the relevant States of their breaches of the ADR national agreement.

I have found when dealing with local bureaucrats, the thing they hate the most is being overruled by higher authority national bureaucrat. I use it all the time.

I can only suggest that you don't simply accept this, it is quite plainly wrong. My actions would be to get it in writing and send a copy to Canberra and request clarification.

As for the "good faith" cop out, they can't use that defence if it has been formally pointed out to them that they are in breach of the ADR agreement by Canberra. If you check the legal history you will find at least 2 cases where damages were awarded.

I'm a firm believer in the Network monologue " I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".

[Steve]

Hi Steve, have you asked them about cars that have "standard" suspension with height adjustment?  How do they handle Citroens, Range Rovers, Lexus, Mercedes Benz, Rolls Royce, BMW, Ford LTD, Holden Statesman, Subaru etc etc.  They can not have a blanket State rule about how long it takes to adjust suspension that contravenes an ADR which has no such requirement.

Have no idea, didnt ask

Secondly if your car was complied (pre DOTARS) with "aftermarket suspension" then it is in fact illegal to change it to "standard suspension".  How do they handle this?

This may be so, but it doesnt stop SAPOL defecting cars with stock BOVs (for their BOV), nor does it stop regency from telling people to remove or weld their sus.

Thirdly, SA is a signatory to the national ADR's.  They can't have rules in SA that don't agree with the ADR's. If you are unfairly treated in this way you can complain to the Dept Transport in Canberra.

This is easy, local legislation states that cars must comply with ADRs AND local SA legislation - ADR3700/01 (emissions) state that the car must comply for 5 years or 80,000kms - Tpt SA say it must continue to comply - this is another little thing I am yet to understand, and Tim Ireland just said because it is older than 5years/80,000kms doesnt mean it doesnt need to comply to emisssions, so they choose to apply the same emissions for the life of the vehicle - nice eh, I could go on, but I wont bore everyone here.

I am aware of the history of this occurring on a number of occasions, the best example is when the ADR's where changed to allow for cars that came standard with headlights lower than 600 mm. Some States had not "caught up" and were defecting totally standard cars that complied with the ADR's.  The Dept of Transport was notified and they instituted legal notification on the relevant States of their breaches of the ADR national agreement.

It would be nice if they issued notices here in SA, but AFAIK they dont. Even the police dont know what is legal and what isnt, so just send the cars to regency, regency inspectors dont know either, and if you disagree, you need to prove otherwise, the onus is on the owner of the vehicle Example: guy with a stock soarer, gets told to remove the black box under the dash, as it looked like it wasnt OEM to the inpsector - it was his cruise control module

I have found when dealing with local bureaucrats, the thing they hate the most is being overruled by higher authority national bureaucrat.  I use it all the time.

I can only suggest that you don't simply accept this, it is quite plainly wrong.  My actions would be to get it in writing and send a copy to Canberra and request clarification.

I asked Tim Ireland who should I address any issues to regarding problems I have with current policy - he told me the next in line was the Tpt Minister, and I am putting together a submission to that effect now, but this is a long drawn out process. It involves alot of research as I dont want it to be dismissed because of any inaccuracy on my behalf. Hopefully it will be ready for submission soon

As for the "good faith" cop out, they can't use that defence if it has been formally pointed out to them that they are in breach of the ADR agreement by Canberra.  If you check the legal history you will find at least 2 cases where damages were awarded.

Road traffic act 1961 states

Limitation of liability

163K. No person who does any act in pursuance or purported pursuance of this Part, or omits to exercise any power conferred under this Part, is under any civil or criminal liability in respect of that act or omission if the person acted, or omitted to act, in good faith and with reasonable care.

the part referred to above is defects. Also, unlike NSW, here in SA a police officer or tpt SA inspector and pull any car over and thoroughly search it without needing cause - criminals have more rights than a driver.

I'm a firm believer in the Network monologue " I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".

I dont really like it much myself. I have, as stated, been investigating different state legislation and application of ADRs. I am quite sure that I will be able to annoy a few people, but hopefully alot.

[Steve]

And another example, in WA you could get a car complied with atmo BOV, but no way they will accept it here - they make their own rules.

[Sydneykid]

Hi Steve, good luck with the submission if you need any help please ask, I will be glad to contribute. I would also strongly suggest talking to the suspension industry, as their livelyhood is threatened. PM me if you need contact details.

[Steve]

Sydneykid, yes please:) every bit helps.

[Bl4cK32]

Im thankful SK for your help, and helping Steve in anyway you can.

As well as all the good work u are doing Steve wish i could be of more help, but haven't been defected in the 'line......yet.

[Steve]

Cheers, but dont feel bad you havent been defected yet, its a pretty painful process.

[Bl4cK32]

I know from previous cars i've had what a pain in the arse they are.

I had a gemini (i know but it was my first car), with cobra clubman seats in the front. The copper defected the car coz he thought some bullsh*t like the bolts were wrong, or the mounts were wrong.

Go to regency, engineers there say seats are 100% ok - mounts, plates etc. Then the engineer looks at me and says your pretty tall (190cm), the seats are against the law coz of your height the seatbelt comes across your chest in the wrong area with the seat all the way back. (seats are non reclinable, bucket style).

So basically i couldnt have the seats because of my height.

[Steve]

WTF? that is crazy, next thing they are going to stop people over certian heights from buying small cars - they never cease to amaze me.

[Sydneykid]

Hi Steve, are the Regency guys exempt from being sued? Actually don't worry about answering, of course they can be sued, under Common Law. That's an Australian Constitutional right which a State Government can't legislate away. I think it is time we started a class action against Regency. We would need about 15 or 20 guys who have suffered as a result of them applying requirements contrary to the ADR's.

In SA, Litigation Lawyers are allowed to charge on a no win, no fee basis. Slater and Gordon have a Public Interest Unit which works with individual clients or community groups whose problems challenge traditional sources of power within society, such as government, the police and other law enforcement bodies, big corporations or powerful individuals.

This is a quote from their recent seminar on the subject;

Such work often deals with precedent-setting issues or issues of public significance that might otherwise not be taken on by other firms.

Slater & Gordon’s Public Interest Unit applies the following criteria when assessing potential cases.

A matter must:

• raise a legal problem;

• arise from harsh or unjust treatment by a powerful individual, corporation, government or law enforcement agency;

• affect a significant number of people, not just an individual; or

• impact on disadvantaged or marginalised groups or classes of people;

• raise issues of broad public concern; and

• have a reasonable prospect of success.

Issues of interest

Issues of interest to Slater & Gordon’s Public Interest Unit include:

• Civil liberties

• Trade union issues and workers’ rights

• Government services - education, welfare, services for young people or people with disabilities

• Police misbehaviour/misconduct

• Discrimination

• Aboriginal rights issues

• Consumer rights versus big business

Recent Public Interest Cases

You may be familiar with the following cases recently conducted by the firm’s Public Interest Unit:

• Civil claims on behalf of protestors injured by Victoria Police at a baton charge outside Richmond Secondary College in 1993.

• The civil action against members of Victoria Police, the Sheriff’s Office and the State of Victoria in which a County Court jury made a record award of exemplary damages to a mother of four who was strip-searched after being taken into custody over non-payment of two parking fines.

• The defence of three East Timorese independence activists who were charged with arson after they lowered and set fire to the Indonesian Consulate flag.

• The successful appeal against non-selection to the Australian Olympic Team by a judo athlete with very limited financial resources who was being denied her right of appeal.

• The intervention by Amnesty International to raise important matters of international law and human rights in the Federal Court case concerning the asylum seekers aboard the MV Tampa.

I think this case would fit very nicely, what do you reckon?

[Steve]

That is pure gold, many, many thanks - I think this case sounds perfect. Might even have flow on benefits to the rest of Aust - finally get some sort of standarisation, and a workable even playing field for all - fingers crossed.

Thanks again:)

[Bl4cK32]

Hope u get closer to desired result Steve

[Steve]

Well it certainly gives me a backup if the submission to the Minister of Tpt doesnt get any results.

[GTRgeoff]

It has to follow more than one avenue, such as full copy and extracts to the papers, copies to the television channels, the minister, opposition leader and shadow minister, and the state Ombudsman.

Make sure when submitted it has a full address list attached so the filth cannot ignore it. There is nothing worse for a pollie or Govt dept than bad media or questions about ignored issues. I'm in Defence acquisitions and we deal with it all of the time, answering questions from the ministers office from even unsubstantiated claims, but this one has substance.