Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

We've got it easy because we can build track cars with the mods we want, and drive on a track. But 4wders don't have that luxury.

Takeaction.4wdaction.com.au

Vote against it, even if youre not in the scene. I'm sure you can all sympathize for these guys. :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/352429-government-to-ban-bullbars/
Share on other sites

It's about bloody time. Unless you live in rural Australia and run the risk of hitting wild-life, you don't actually need a bullbar and they're nothing more than a hazard to other motorists and pedestrians.

+1 Its interesting that you cant have a Jaguar on the front of your car because its a pedestrian hazard yet you can have a bull bar which is much more dangerous.

You get hit by a 4b and a bull bar is the least of your worrys.

exactly my thought as well

I mean why make the extra effort & worthwhile cause of improving licensing requirements & driver training when it's easier just to ban something to appease the all important focus group

looks like they (in NSW at least) just couldn't let the whole banning lowered/raised vehicle bungle go & decided they'd make another band-aid policy to waste taxpayer funds on :thumbsup:

I think it's funny the design rule they are proposing to change is called "GTR09." Conspiracy? :nyaanyaa:

  • Like 1

Summary of proposed requirements for vehicles and VFPS (bull bars)

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/files/Pedestrian_Safety_Requirement_Summary.pdf

• Where VFPS (bull bars) are fitted, the following would apply (see Table 2):

For vehicles not specifically designed for off-road use, such as passenger cars (eg Holden

Commodore, Toyota Camry) and 2WD light commercial vehicles (eg Ford Falcon utility,

Ford Transit van), a standard similar to the main bull bar standard as adopted in Europe

(2005/66/EC as incorporated in EC 78/2009) and similar to GTR 9.

For vehicles specifically designed for off-road use, such as 4WD passenger cars (eg

Subaru Forester), 4WD light commercial vehicles (eg Toyota Hilux) and 4WD Sports

Utility Vehicles or “SUVs” (eg Toyota Landcruiser, Landrover, Nissan Patrol), a

standard already established in Australia (Australian Standard 4876.1 2002). This

standard would be more design flexible and has already been partly adopted by NSW and

Victorian transport authorities.

The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Assoc called for Adoption of AS 4876.1 (2002) in the Industry Position Paper for Vehicle Front Protection Systems (VFPS) Bull Bars, June 2009. http://www.aaaa.com.au/files/issues/PositionPaperBullbars.pdf

These 4WD Action dickheads need to learn to read FFS. The Industry got what they wanted and there is no proposed ban on bullbars for 4WDs.

Edited by hrd-hr30

lol i have a 4x4, with a winch and a bullbar and spotties, and i drive it to and from work each day, i need a 4x4 to get onto building sites with materials.... i dont really need my bull bar when im in tow... but when i go away surfing/camping with GF/mates its a dam handy thing to have!

i would like to see the Gov try to ban bullbars on 4x4s, it would be basicly impossible, think of all the people it would affect, not only the people that have and use there bull bars, but the people that sell them, and make them! not including that no one would ever buy a winch again unless it was for a comp truck, and also the sales from spot lights would die out.... it just affects to many people!

the only way they could do it, is if they faise it out, eg all 2012 plated 4x4s cant not run a bullbar... that also would piss alot of people off......

  • Like 1

lol i have a 4x4, with a winch and a bullbar and spotties, and i drive it to and from work each day, i need a 4x4 to get onto building sites with materials.... i dont really need my bull bar when im in tow... but when i go away surfing/camping with GF/mates its a dam handy thing to have!

i would like to see the Gov try to ban bullbars on 4x4s, it would be basicly impossible, think of all the people it would affect, not only the people that have and use there bull bars, but the people that sell them, and make them! not including that no one would ever buy a winch again unless it was for a comp truck, and also the sales from spot lights would die out.... it just affects to many people!

the only way they could do it, is if they faise it out, eg all 2012 plated 4x4s cant not run a bullbar... that also would piss alot of people off......

+1 totally agree with you.

think about ARB and all those other companies... they'd be fcked.

THEY'RE NOT BANNING BULLBARS ON 4WDs!!!

maybe people will see it now?

Quoted for truth.

And quoted cause I know how frustrating it is when people fly off the handle without knowing the truth and when you tell them, they totally ignore it and continue on their merry way.

There is no proposed legislation to ban bullbars. The heading of this topic is false and should be changed.

  • Like 1

Are they going to ban soccer mums from driving massive SUVs in the city (when they can't even park a Nissan Micra properly without hitting something...) any time soon?

I'll support that 100% :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

+1 Its interesting that you cant have a Jaguar on the front of your car because its a pedestrian hazard yet you can have a bull bar which is much more dangerous.

haha my landcruiser has a bullbar with a mack bulldog on the front, its a definate pedestrian hazard

Seriously wtf is the point in having a bull bar if you dont live in a country area, so sick of seeing soccer mums driving around in these massive tanks with bull bars on them, I say bout bloody time they banned them.

It is in case they go off road... you know, like up the gutter and onto the nature strip or something :rolleyes:

  • 3 weeks later...

TBH real 4WD's like Patrols, Landcruisers etc are generally in a different league from jacked up soccer mum buses (ie Territory etc)

That's as narrow minded a view as some of the stupid rules being bandied about.

FWIW my jacked up soccer mum bus (Pathfinder) spends more time offroad than 90% of landcruisers and patrols ever will. This was a month after I got it - 20k each way on a coal mine site every day. Out there you need good lights and at the minimum a nudge bar, as you WILL be running over wildlife.

post-266-0-74778200-1299101971_thumb.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...