Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes
  • Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... Last
Results 1 to 25 of 149
Like Tree41Likes

Thread: Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes

  1. #1
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes

    Hi Guys,

    Advertisement


    get out your pens and start writing. The existing format of the club permit scheme is perfect. Why enforce roadworthies on 40+ year old cars though ?? At least make it a much less strict "safety check". There's not a snowmans chance in hell 40+ year old cars will pass a modern roadworthy.

    For bigger clubs, keeping photographic trackiing of vehicles is an immense burden on the clubs. However the "M" type plates .... bloody brilliant idea.

    seeya
    Shane L.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-letter1.jpg   Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-letter2.jpg   Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-proposed_changes.jpg   Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-v33_1.jpg   Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-v33_2.jpg   Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-v33_3.jpg  

    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/citro%EBn-forum/90325-best-project-car-you-have-ever-seen.html
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  2. #2
    Contented Peugeot Driver addo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Don't remind me!
    Posts
    16,609

    Default

    I ask seriously, who benefits from these changes?

    Is there a core of bureaucrats who believe that older cars really should be forced off roads for the most part, or is it people embittered at the introduction of the 90-day scheme, or is it people in power just inflating their need to be employed? Truly, I cannot see the benefits in further impositions - especially in concert with such poorly constructed documentation.

  3. #3
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by addo View Post
    I ask seriously, who benefits from these changes?

    Is there a core of bureaucrats who believe that older cars really should be forced off roads for the most part, or is it people embittered at the introduction of the 90-day scheme, or is it people in power just inflating their need to be employed? Truly, I cannot see the benefits in further impositions - especially in concert with such poorly constructed documentation.
    Haven't you heard.... everyone is driving dangerous, unroadworthy, modified car.... EVERYONE IS DOING WRONG !!! Taking advantage of the grey areas.

    there is a huge grey area with regards to modified cars. There is probably a lot of cars on the scheme that shouldn't be as they are modified. Having said that. How many accidents and deaths have there been from driving these "dangerous" cars Has there even been a club permit car EVER in an accident. I'd say the old fuddie duddies are worried they have lost control over peoples ability to there their own cars.

    Everytime the sun comes out here in Ballarat .... bloody brilliant. The vast range and types of cars you see cruising sedately along with shiny red plates is amazing.... I don't care if it's an XD falcon, or a special bodied 1930's Rolls.... It's just great to see them on the roads.

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    michael_ozzie and bluey504 like this.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  4. #4
    Contented Peugeot Driver addo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Don't remind me!
    Posts
    16,609

    Default

    The accompanying VSI is tragic; it's one of the most rubbish bits of official writing on vehicle standards I've seen. One of its worst presumptions is that nobody fabricates seriously from scratch; for example with brakes it assumes you buy a "kit". That mindset says a lot about its progenitors.

    To me, the 90 day scheme looks wonderful, a bounty for dobbing in serial transgressors might be a better spend.

  5. #5
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Maldon
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I would not have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting a RWC in my 12G replica - NOT modified, just a CAMS approved roll cage and seat harnesses.

    Bugga!!

    Fred.Victorian Club Permit Scheme changes-dsc03580.jpg

  6. #6
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    castlemaine
    Posts
    503

    Default

    [QUOTE=DoubleChevron;1284347]Hi Guys,

    get out your pens and start writing. The existing format of the club permit scheme is perfect. Why enforce roadworthies on 40+ year old cars though ?? At least make it a much less strict "safety check". There's not a snowmans chance in hell 40+ year old cars will pass a modern roadworthy

    I agree with Shane - the elephant in the room is the requirement for a RWC. It is totally unreasonable to expect that a 70, 60, 50, 40 year old car would pass a current Vic RWC test. Have you tried to get a modern car to pass recently - it's freaking difficult and VicRoads just keep making it harder. How did the clubs agree to something that will totally emasculate the current system?
    roger

  7. #7
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    17,965

    Default

    You all have until 10th October to make your comments and feelings known to the Authorities. Apparently you have been well represented up until now by a whole heap of organisations and clubs who have really looked after your interests. I'd suggest that if you don't all put pen to paper quickly with a united voice and with a copy of your complaints to your local members, together with a "get up" style face-book campaign the changes will go through "unopposed" as they say in government.
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  8. #8
    Fellow Frogger! Fingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Old Junee NSW
    Posts
    584

    Default

    The only thing I see as a drama with this is the requirement for a rego inspection. If it was a NSW pink slip style inspection, I can see no problem.

  9. #9
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,695

    Default

    I once had a 40 years old vehicle here in NSW on standard rego. That meant an annual roadworthy, and it passed every time. I didn't have to shop around to find a "friendly" inspector. What's the problem? Most really old cars are loved and maintained. The vehicle only had to satisfy design rules that existed when it was first registered.
    jo proffi likes this.

  10. #10
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seasink View Post
    I once had a 40 years old vehicle here in NSW on standard rego. That meant an annual roadworthy, and it passed every time. I didn't have to shop around to find a "friendly" inspector. What's the problem? Most really old cars are loved and maintained. The vehicle only had to satisfy design rules that existed when it was first registered.

    I've seen "roadworthy" cars from NSW .... complete bloody joke. You want to see what's involved in a Victorian RWC... they even have to take photos of all the mechanical components/tires/suspension to prove it's leak free and checked.

    The one guy in town I trusted to do my old cars, after decades of doing roadworthies gave it up.... couldn't be bothered with all the stringent bullshit include offsite storage in multiple locations of pictures etc...

    To put it into perspective. South Australia NEVER has roadworthies .... statistically unroadworthy cars had no impact on injuries and deaths. It's just a money spinner for the governments and car manufacturers trying to push people into more modern cars.

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  11. #11
    Fellow Frogger! DanielBendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seasink View Post
    I once had a 40 years old vehicle here in NSW on standard rego. That meant an annual roadworthy, and it passed every time. I didn't have to shop around to find a "friendly" inspector. What's the problem? Most really old cars are loved and maintained. The vehicle only had to satisfy design rules that existed when it was first registered.
    I bought a Magna 8 months ago. It failed the roadworthy due to tyres, worn front seat, plastic side molding had come off, plastic tray under engine was cracked and tow bar was fitted. Tyres and seat I understand, but reason for the other three was they presented a safety risk to someone walking around the car. I have no idea how anyone could walk underneath the car but apparently that's the legislation now.

    The CX is going to be interesting, and that's only 29.

    Via the aussiefrogs App

  12. #12
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBendigo View Post
    I bought a Magna 8 months ago. It failed the roadworthy due to tyres, worn front seat, plastic side molding had come off, plastic tray under engine was cracked and tow bar was fitted. Tyres and seat I understand, but reason for the other three was they presented a safety risk to someone walking around the car. I have no idea how anyone could walk underneath the car but apparently that's the legislation now.

    The CX is going to be interesting, and that's only 29.

    Via the aussiefrogs App
    Get the CX on a club permit NOW .... through your local club with a safety inspector. I would be expecting a huge flood of cars to be put on permits over the next couple of weeks before these rules come in.

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  13. #13
    1000+ Posts driven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superfred View Post
    I would not have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting a RWC in my 12G replica - NOT modified, just a CAMS approved roll cage and seat harnesses.

    Bugga!!

    Fred.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC03580.jpg 
Views:	391 
Size:	103.2 KB 
ID:	60309
    Other major issue would be a BullBar that currently does not comply with Regulation 257 of Road Safety Regulations

    Quote "Fittings such as driving lamp brackets or fishing rod holders must not protrude above the top or forward of the bull bar."

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/me...s/vsi1web.ashx

    The shape does not meet Vicroads pedestrian safety guidelines

    Attachment 60314

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safe...afety/bullbars

    Roll Cages need to be Approved by a VASS, Vehicle Assessment Signatory Scheme.... Engineer, not just CAMS approved

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/me...rvehicles.ashx
    Section 9.5

    Insurers may walk away from any claims due to the modifications.

  14. #14
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by driven View Post
    Other major issue would be a BullBar that currently does not comply with Regulation 257 of Road Safety Regulations

    Quote "Fittings such as driving lamp brackets or fishing rod holders must not protrude above the top or forward of the bull bar."

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/me...s/vsi1web.ashx

    The shape does not meet Vicroads pedestrian safety guidelines

    Attachment 60314

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safe...afety/bullbars

    Roll Cages need to be Approved by a VASS, Vehicle Assessment Signatory Scheme.... Engineer, not just CAMS approved

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/me...rvehicles.ashx
    Section 9.5

    Insurers may walk away from any claims due to the modifications.
    rollcage bit makes sense. There a danger in road cars as your not wearing a helmet. No-one wants to smack there head against rollcage tubing if they have an accident. I can't see a roadworthy testing picking up the dinky little bullbar though

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  15. #15
    Administrator
    mistareno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    I can kinda understand the reason for the changes. I couldn't get a straight answer from anybody on what I needed to do to get my car on Club plates. The conversations went along these lines:
    Me, "I need to get my car certified before I put it on club plates."
    Engineer, "What sort of modifications has it had done?."
    Me, "It's got a sightly bigger engine and it's turbocharged, oh and it's on straight gas and has bigger brakes all around."
    Engineer, "But no structural changes?"
    Me, "No."
    Engineer, "It's going on club plates, you don't have to get it certified, just a safety inspection by the club."
    Me, "Great, but how do I insure it with the modifications if it's not certified by an engineer though?"
    Engineer, "ummm....yeah....errr...."

    I personally like that It is now written in black and white that the car has to be certified with modifications above a certain level.

    Yes, it will cost me $, but will save me worries down the track, and I won't have to buy multiple slabs of beer for David.C to pass the car despite it's um...minor modifications...

    It shouldn't be up to the clubs inspector to decide what constitutes a safe modification and what's not, or how much power is too much or not. The previous rules were ambiguous and open to very different interpretation. This removes the burden of possible legal ramifications against clubs. That's a good thing in my view.

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,695

    Default

    I know a place where NSW inspections are photographed. I know others where they go all over the underside looking for oil leaks. I've been sent back because there was wear on a pedal rubber in the corner of a twenty year old car. You shouldn't be putting non-complying bull-bars on - again up here we'd be pinged. Old cars get no special treatment. You might have been getting getting away with something, but can it be expected to last? I'd be more annoyed by the bureaucracy and expense.

  17. #17
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seasink View Post
    I know a place where NSW inspections are photographed. I know others where they go all over the underside looking for oil leaks. I've been sent back because there was wear on a pedal rubber in the corner of a twenty year old car. You shouldn't be putting non-complying bull-bars on - again up here we'd be pinged. Old cars get no special treatment. You might have been getting getting away with something, but can it be expected to last? I'd be more annoyed by the bureaucracy and expense.
    No-one wants to "get away" with anything. The reality is ... "who cares" if a 40year old car weeps oil.... They mostly did when new too. Google victorian roadworthies... you'll soon get where I'm coming from. The idea of them isn't safety, it's too get old cars off the road, and "encourage" poeple to buy new cars .... Sure new cars are safer, but that's not it, it's simply money. Forcing poeple out of older cars makes more money for the motoring industry.

    So if a 10year old car is diffucult to get through a roadworhty, imagine getting a 40year old one through. It can be done, you just need someone that'll use common sense.... but of an oil weep ?? give it a wipe with a rag before you take hte piccies etc...

    Note: there is a difference between "weep" and "leak"..... "wear" and "dangerously worn" ect....

    seeya,
    shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleChevron View Post
    Note: there is a difference between "weep" and "leak"..... "wear" and "dangerously worn" ect....

    seeya,
    shane L.
    Regardless of how it is defined, surely anyone about to have their car inspected would give their engine bay a clean???
    I believe in NSW a leak weep whatever is Ok as long as the vehicle does not drop oil on the road.


    Quote Originally Posted by driven View Post
    Insurers may walk away from any claims due to the modifications.

    Thankfully the insurers don't have it all their own way. They would need to prove that the modification was a factor in the claim, and may not cover repairs to the modified bits.

    Mind you, you could expect their first letter to you to be one of denied liability should it come to it, just like when they send the other party a letter of demand even though it is blatantly obvious their client was at fault in the collision.

    Jo

  19. #19
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,798

    Icon14 Its workable as a common sense structure if liberally interpreted by clubs... IMHO!

    Shane
    I read through that material and most of it is common sense and has quite a bit of latitude built into it for reasonable interpretation. If clubs embrace the principles without slavish or the usual what if but, maybe line of fearfulness and allow common sense to prevail in the acceptance and use of the vehicles, then I see no problems.

    The roadworthy situation is no different to what was required when I registered my 1939 American bantam and I had no trouble at all with obtaining the roadworthy certificate, unless you run into an autocratic tester that doesn't like older vehicles and is determined to fail it come what may!! The beauty with being involved in a Car Club is that the word soon spreads and [email protected]@le pedantic old car hating testers are identified and avoided like the plague.

    My concern has always been with the hand wringing people who also gather around some car clubs and seem opposed to any practical low cost way of motoring enthusiasts enjoying and using their older cars. You know the ones that consider every one should be like them and have pots of money to employ "experts" they consider to be the only person that should ever touch a car and it becomes a rich "gentlemans" hobby and the have the wallet and means to exclude rather than include.

    You will notice that the exclusive veteran era, has very little in the way of regulation, but they are a very loud lobby in imposing regulation and restriction on every other era than their own.. exclusiveness has its own rewards and it has been like that ever since the Federation encouraged the registration authorities to bring permitted vehicles under club controls.

    So for mine, that looks pretty practical as a framework and the requirement for a roadworthy shifts liability issues away from the clubs but still establishes a "reasonable" and workable arrangement for owners to use their cars under a permissive system that wants to see older cars used and enjoyed by their owners.

    It will only fall down if the hand wringers and doomsayers are allowed to influence the process or keep asking for "ironclad" never ending interpretive regulation to remove the practical way this is written.

    The one area that I have a concern is the ability/need/intention of the car clubs to raise dollar cost (revenue) to offset claimed administrative burden on the club - Can the club charge members for the records, photographs and submission of paperwork associated with maintaining the permit system?

    What is a "reasonable cost" for administration and will that escalate in the future and perhaps eventually remove the present clear financial advantage, as compared with the costs of full registration and unrestricted use? If there is no clear financial advantage to the class of users, then the permit system will kill itself off with escalating cost and over regulation.

    Get the wrong type of people involved who want restrictive interpretation or favouring over regulation or building a restrictive club administration cost, imposed or layered, upon what was a simple and effective permit system, you will eventually erode the affordability that has been the cornerstone of the recent acceptance and useability of the 90 day permit system.

    Ken my
    bluey504 likes this.

  20. #20
    Contented Peugeot Driver addo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Don't remind me!
    Posts
    16,609

    Default

    To me, the heart of the matter is money.

    Old cars pretty much all can absorb money in their upkeep at a greater rate per kilometre than newer cars. If you have your older car tended by specialists, cheaper registration reflecting its extremely limited usage is a good way to balance the outgoings.

    Edit: Ken said it first!

    What I don't like about the NSW scheme is the absolute necessity to involve one's club in a driving exercise, by way of notification. That freedom of the 90-day system is a core asset in my view.

    For a Government to suggest these extra strictures are necessary, they should have some hard data to back it up, such as the number of club plated cars involved in accidents where the difference between their pre-accident state and that of an equivalent car having just passed a RWC examination, can be fully documented and reasonably ascribed as a contributor to the outcomes of each accident.

  21. #21
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    It's nothing at all to do with allowing "unroadworthy" vehicles on the roads. One of my cars has been owned since 1996 (that's 18years without a roadworthy .... WHY HAVEN"T I HAD THOUSANDS OF ACCIDENTS MAIMING PEOPLE IN THIS CAR ..... It had "one" roadworthy back then. How is this more or less dangerous than someone putting there pride and joy onto a club permit.'

    The reality is the "roadworthyness" of a vehicle has absolutely no statistical impact on it being in an accident that causes death or injury ( otherwise south australia would have horendous accident statistics. They have NO roadworthy ... ever ... there, even when vehicles changes hands).

    this is how stringent they are:
    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/me..._1212_web.ashx

    The tester also needs to keep photographic evidence of all testing. including for leaks. The photos must be stored in multiple offsite archives and all sorts of bull****.

    Last time I got a roadworthy was on a 2year old Citroen C4 that had only done 30,000kms from new. It failed as the windscreen washer didn't work. I took it back (after changing the blown fuse).... The guy took the keys, parked the car on the street, took a photo of it infront of his business, took photos of it's VIN numbers, started the car and took photos of the wipers running and the windscreen washers working This is a requirement of the RWC in Victoria

    Imagine getting a 35 year old Range Rover that weeped everywhere when new .... let alone 30years later through this ... unless you coudl find someone that was willing to "massage" the piccies and requirements and bit to ensure a pass.

    It's a load of bull**** designed to push older cars off the road (older as in 5+years) as they become un-economic to tyr and keep on the roads. The car industry loves this as it'll mean more sales of new cars.

    It would be nice to put my fathers 1950 Traction Avant on a club permit soon. Can you imagine trying to get a 1950 model car with no syncho's on the lower gears, drum brakes, "pump" windscreen washer, single speed wipers, no demister fan, no indicators or factory lighting through a roadworthy. No seatbelts (they can be fitted, but are very ineffective due to the car being designed in the 1930s' so there being nowhere substantial enough to bolt the belt too). Lets no mention grease points, ball joints and driveshafts without rubber boots. etc....

    There's not a snowmans chance in hell this could pass a modern roadworthy ... let alone the brake tests etc...

    We used to have a local guy that lived and breathed old cars ... everyone took there oldies to him for Roadworthies. As soon as these modern roadworthy requirements came in ... he shutup shop. It wasn't worth all the bull**** involved.

    It sounds like Ken has found someone with a brain to take his old cars too. I hope we can all be so lucky!

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  22. #22
    WLB
    WLB is offline
    1000+ Posts WLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Warragul, Vic.
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Regulations don't have to make sense. They're often developed by people who don't really understand the problem that they're attempting to fix. P-plate drivers are banned from driving a turbo-charged or supercharged vehicle, but an exemption is available if it is a "family-type vehicle" and has a power to weight ratio of no more than 125 kW per tonne. However, there is a blanket ban on any vehicle with 8 cylinders or more, regardless of engine capacity or power to weight ratio. There were no exemptions available until a few months ago when V8s manufactured from 2010 were approved, if they meet the power to weight limit. (Why only approve late model V8s? Probably because of industry pressure).

    VicRoads uses a database, based on the Red Book vehicle database, and this is used to indicate if a specific vehicle is approved, banned, or if an application for exemption is required. The database may be found here.
    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/lice...icles-database
    Links eventually take you through to the Red Book site.
    As an example of how well the people who compiled the database understand the entries in that database, you need look no further than the classification of engine types. We have supercharged, turbocharged, and (wait for it)... aspirated!

    Anything with 8 cylinders is banned. We own two V8-engined vehicles; a 1970 Rover P5B Coupe and a 1987 Range Rover, and my 19-year-old son is not permitted to drive them, despite having done most of his Learner hours in the Range Rover. These family-type vehicles have power to weight ratios of 75 kW and 68 kW per tonne respectively. Real road rockets! Our diesel 406, diesel 505, and 504 TI could leave them for dust at the traffic lights.

    I believe that initially there were similar problems with blanket bans on turbo-charged and supercharged cars, and on motorbikes above a certain engine capacity, but commonsense eventually prevailed and the rules were adjusted to allow for the power to weight ratio to be considered. (Remember the old 3-cylinder 1,000cc turbo-charged Daihatsu Charade). There must be hundreds of people who find themselves in our situation where a P-plater in the family cannot drive the family car, so it surprises me that this situation continues.

    To further highlight the ridiculous nature of the V8 ban, and to show that this rule is probably more related to administrative expediency than safety, consider the following entries in the database:-
    1960 2.4L Simca Vedette V8 48 kW per tonne (1940s side-valve flathead engine) – Banned
    1972 4.0L Aston Martin DBS Vantage 6-cylinder 142 kW/tonne – Approved
    2013 3.6L Commodore V6 131 kW per tonne – Approved (What's the power to weight ratio of the ute with the same engine!)

  23. #23
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleChevron View Post
    Imagine getting a 35 year old Range Rover that weeped everywhere when new .... let alone 30years later through this ... unless you coudl find someone that was willing to "massage" the piccies and requirements and bit to ensure a pass.

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    If it leaks as much as you suggest and is dropping oil all over the place after a clean....I'm Ok with pulling it off the road for good, regardless of how 'historic' it is.

    Pretty sure every motor bike rider would share my veiw.

    Jo

  24. #24
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jo proffi View Post
    If it leaks as much as you suggest and is dropping oil all over the place after a clean....I'm Ok with pulling it off the road for good, regardless of how 'historic' it is.

    Pretty sure every motor bike rider would share my veiw.

    Jo
    Depends, do you call a drip always hanging from stuff ... "leaking". If I parked it in the same spot on concrete for a week you'll see a drip under the gearbox, transfer case, engien and both diffs. Some with the CX ... they always seem to have a drip hanging from the gearbox (that you never see actually drop to the ground).

    Modern cars don't seem to do this, they stay very oil tight. The old stuff always seems "damp", even if it doesn't actually leave oil marks under it.

    You know the sort of "leak" that never seems to make the oil levels drop if you check them.

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  25. #25
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WLB View Post
    Regulations don't have to make sense. They're often developed by people who don't really understand the problem that they're attempting to fix. P-plate drivers are banned from driving a turbo-charged or supercharged vehicle, but an exemption is available if it is a "family-type vehicle" and has a power to weight ratio of no more than 125 kW per tonne. However, there is a blanket ban on any vehicle with 8 cylinders or more, regardless of engine capacity or power to weight ratio. There were no exemptions available until a few months ago when V8s manufactured from 2010 were approved, if they meet the power to weight limit. (Why only approve late model V8s? Probably because of industry pressure).

    VicRoads uses a database, based on the Red Book vehicle database, and this is used to indicate if a specific vehicle is approved, banned, or if an application for exemption is required. The database may be found here.
    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/lice...icles-database
    Links eventually take you through to the Red Book site.
    As an example of how well the people who compiled the database understand the entries in that database, you need look no further than the classification of engine types. We have supercharged, turbocharged, and (wait for it)... aspirated!

    Anything with 8 cylinders is banned. We own two V8-engined vehicles; a 1970 Rover P5B Coupe and a 1987 Range Rover, and my 19-year-old son is not permitted to drive them, despite having done most of his Learner hours in the Range Rover. These family-type vehicles have power to weight ratios of 75 kW and 68 kW per tonne respectively. Real road rockets! Our diesel 406, diesel 505, and 504 TI could leave them for dust at the traffic lights.

    I believe that initially there were similar problems with blanket bans on turbo-charged and supercharged cars, and on motorbikes above a certain engine capacity, but commonsense eventually prevailed and the rules were adjusted to allow for the power to weight ratio to be considered. (Remember the old 3-cylinder 1,000cc turbo-charged Daihatsu Charade). There must be hundreds of people who find themselves in our situation where a P-plater in the family cannot drive the family car, so it surprises me that this situation continues.

    To further highlight the ridiculous nature of the V8 ban, and to show that this rule is probably more related to administrative expediency than safety, consider the following entries in the database:-
    1960 2.4L Simca Vedette V8 48 kW per tonne (1940s side-valve flathead engine) – Banned
    1972 4.0L Aston Martin DBS Vantage 6-cylinder 142 kW/tonne – Approved
    2013 3.6L Commodore V6 131 kW per tonne – Approved (What's the power to weight ratio of the ute with the same engine!)
    You know for a while there, a 'P' Plater could legally drive a 180kw commodare .... (I think it's a130kw per ton or something ludicrous there limited too). But they can't drive my 2.5ton 120hp (on a good day) range rover... couldn't drive the XM or my wifes 407... .'cos they have turbos (weeny little diesels mind you) .... they also can't drive my CX turbo petrol. which wouldnt be as quick as the massively powerful commonbore they could drive.

    We have 5 cars on the road here.... the only ones a 'P' plater could drive are the 1963 ID19's. everything else is turbo charged or V8 .. .which is laughable. 'Cos a modern base model, lowest powered hi-undi slugomatic would blow most of them off the road.

    No sense at all right? The power to weight thing isn't retrospective, it's only for modern cars that are on the Vicroads system.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •