Modification rant

[mickmac_42 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close mickmac_42]

TL;DR do your modifications properly, my horse is very high

There seems to be a lot of talk about how raising the height of a vehicle by more than 50mm is illegal (or will be illegal under NCOP). I've yet to read anything to support this. In fact, it clearly states that a vehicle can be raised by up to 150mm with certification. Anything above this is not covered by the NCOP. That's not to say it's illegal, just not dealt with by this bit of paperwork. It's also important to note that all modifications must comply with the ADR's (or AVSR's if the car was built pre-ADR).

That said, if you do want to go above 50mm you've got your work cut out for you. Section LS8 para 1 (p. 75 and on) details all the hoops you need to jump through. There's a lot.

The reason there are so many rules and regulations is because there are people who need it spelled out that actions have consequences. If you put dark tint on your windows then it will be harder for you to see out of your car, especially at night. If you load your roof up with a couple of hundred kilos of equipment then you can expect the car to become unstable. If you change the rolling diameter of your wheels then the speedo will be out and your brakes may not be as effective. If you mess with the geometry of your steering and suspension then you're messing with the stability of the car and (on modern cars) the effectiveness of your electronic stability control.

When a car engineers design and build a new car they need to ensure the performance complies with certain specifications. These guys are pretty switched on and have lots of computers to help them with crunch the data. The NCOP recognises that there is some scope for modifying a vehicle while keeping the performance of the vehicle within tolerance of the original specifications, and they allow these changes to be made without certification. They also allow for more complicated modifications to be made, but on the proviso that certain checks are conducted to ensure the integrity of the vehicle.

Group think amongst forum members seems to be a common issue. Some seem to think that they're the only one's accepting risk by modifying their car without regard for the rules, apparently only thinking of legal or insurance concerns. Consideration should be given to other users of the car, and other users of the road. Not everyone who drives our cars are going to have the finely honed skills we all seem to possess. I consider this worst case scenario. My wife borrows my car to take my daughter to school. She's driving down the road and needs to stomp on the brakes and maneuver evasively to avoid a collision. The problem is that the modifications i've made have thrown the paramaters for the ESC out the window. The car doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Worst case scenrio is that people die. I couldn't live with myself knowing that my "she'll be right" attitude was a contributing factor. I'll admit that this is scenario is a fair stretch of the imagination, but when we say "i'm prepared to risk it," is this what we're prepared to risk?

It may take some extra work, but i implore you to seriously consider the attitude you take towards any modifications you make to your car. Take the time to educate yourself on what the rules are. Don't just accept what someone says as gospel, even if they work in the industry. Ask them to qualify what they say with the supporting legislation. Above all else don't assume that because you asked them to do something and they did it, it must be legal.

Mike

[tassie tiger Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close tassie tiger]

Your on a hiding to nowhere with this one sadly. I was an accident investigator actually working on causational factors of vehicle collisions and as soon as you raise it on some forums you get slagged off.

Were just selfish is all.

cheers

[xlr8_87 Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close xlr8_87]

Yet another issue where the few idiots that get it wrong make it a lot harder for those who actually know what they're doing.

Can tell you now that my cruiser with quality 3" lift and 35's actually corners better than a standard 80, I don't treat it like that however, I treat it like what it is: 3 tonne of steel!

Modern cars are a completely different story and that's where all of this new legislation comes into effect though, messes around with ABS, ESP and all the other electronic gizmo's that try help the morons stay in control of their vehicle!

[glen_ep Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close glen_ep]

Can't speak for QLD, but down here in NSW it's now almost impossible to be mod-legal. It used to be quite simple; 50mm lift (combined tyre and suspension), OR, find an engineer that'll approve something bigger (typically 6" total lift).

Now, unfortunately, all the engineers were put out of work and replaced by a new approval scheme. There's also meant to be new rules that are partly aligned with NCOP (with adjustments), but these rules are NOT released yet (taking YEAAAARS). So right now we have NEW people to approve work who DO NOT know the rules. It doesn't matter how many profesionals you ask, you'll get different answers, and at the end of the day not even RTA can tell you the rules.

So... 50mm combined lift is still the only gurranteed safe/legal lift here in NSW. Do a tally of NSW Prado's with upgraded suspension AND tyres and you'll find there's a lot of "naughty" people here.

[glen_ep Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close glen_ep]

.............my cruiser with quality 3" lift and 35's .....................

Show us some action pics !!

[geograzza Member Find all posts View Profile Close geograzza]

I was an accident investigator actually working on causational factors of vehicle collisions and as soon as you raise it on some forums you get slagged off.

Were just selfish is all.

I don't dispute your last sentence, because I have seen some pretty stupid stuff. But I would like to ask, based on your experience, how many accidents could be directly attributed to being caused/worsened by a modification?

The reason I ask, is that if you listen to the likes of Harold Scruby, you'd think 4WD's with Bullbars are killing children like flies, but a closer examination of the facts of pedestrian deaths reveals that A) there are no real statistics for the number of deaths caused by bullbars, B) more than 80% of pedestrian deaths are adults, C) 4WD & Commercial vehicles (the ones most likely to have a bullbar) are only involved in a small proportion of pedestrian deaths. So although there are no direct statistics, extrapolation of known statistics indicates that vehicles with bullbars are responsible for a very small number of deaths of children, and of those it is impossible to say how many would have lived in the absence of the bullbar. I suspect that many other modifications fall into a similar category - people panic and think it is a death machine, but the reality of the situation is that the modified vehicle poses no statistically greater risk than many other vehicles.

Lets say you were to go extreme on a Prado, with a "need a step ladder" type lift, etc. Yes it would handle worse than the factory spec, but I can guarantee that it would still stop better and manoeuvre better than a loaded B-Double. Yet we still allow B-Doubles to go through city streets at the same maximum speed as a car that has all the safety bells & whistles. There are a number of technically illegal modifications that could be done to any modern car, yet it would still be safer than a stock '70s era Kingswood.

[Dusty74 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dusty74]

Geograzza, your simply using too much logic! You can't possibly be right, I have it on good authority from the latte gang that 4wds do in fact kill babies and kittens! All should be banned and the owners forced to plant 100 trees each.

Cheers,
Dusty

[smakb Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close smakb]

We are the most over regulated country in the world and you can not state (IMO) how many people are killed by these modifications unless you are also going to state how many people have beed saved by well modified vehicles.

I personally have hit a large animal in the middle of nowhere and we would have had a 2 day walk to get assistance if it was not for the frontal protection on the vehicle. And for the statistics, I have not killed any children. I have (as many of us would have) also rescued a number of people in standard cars who would have been trapped in various dangerous positions with the help of my modified vehicle.

I would not complain if people who lived in the city had to justify why they have a bull bar or a lift, as many do not need it, but if you are a member of a 4wd club or can show that you travel into the outback or high country there should be no issues.

We need to stop trying to regulate everyone and look at the people who are causing trouble. It's like the closing of tracks due to a couple of people doing the wrong thing. We don't close the Hume Hwy after a drunk truck driver kills 40 children in a school bus, nor do we ban alcohol. Why do you want to close my road but not your road?

More people are killed by Holden sedans speeding through the streets then 4wd's going though the outback.

Rant over......


Steve

[Disco4 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Disco4]

NSW banned suspension lifts (& lowers) for a very brief period after reacting to vehicle fatalities.

Public & political pressure forced them in to a rethink.

The 4 x 4 accessory manufacturers organised & demonstrated road testing of their suspension products & in fact proved that their 50mm suspension lift systems outperformed the equivalent OEM system.

Thus 50mm lifts are back & the legislation was repealed.

Victoria has adopted the NCOP in its entirety thus allowing both 50mm suspension lift & 50mm tyre diameter increase.

Some people have the opinion that the manufacturer knows best & we should not modify vehicles at all however if there were no alternatives there would be no improvement

I agree that there are people out there that do ridiculous things to cars, trucks & 4x4's but they will continue to do this whatever the law says much the same as people will get a gun if they want one despite regulation & legislation.

[matt150 Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close matt150]

This subject gets my blood boiling also Steve.

Friggin clowns in Parliment crap on about suspension heights etc. The BIG difference is lowering a shit box old falcon or commodore verses sensibly raising a 80g 4WD is wide and far apart. I bloody hate it when I see these old heaps of shit dropped on their guts because these knobhead shitbox owners reckon they look 'cool'. Yeah twenty mins with an angle grinder cutting the stock springs is a recipe for disaster in my books. I have first hand experience of the results of these shitboxes causing accidents.

In comparison, I have bought a new Prado that currently owes me over 80g. I have lifted it about 40mm and drive it sensibily. It's diesel, slow and full of airbags, anti-lock brakes, safe tyres etc. Yet I am considered a 'hoon' for daring to modify my vehicle in the eyes of the government. And still I sit at the lights watching these $1500 shitheaps tearing off when the lights turn green, apparently proving whose car is 'Cooler'. Bloody wankers....

I understand the basic reasoning behind the want to regulate suspension heights, I understand the want to ensure vehicles on our roads are safe; but I don't support the 'blanket cover' I get dragged into when I dare to 'modify' my suspension..

My rant hence over...

[Bassett Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bassett]

Well said Matt. I totally agree.

[gregbme Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close gregbme]

Tassie Tiger, it would be very interesting and informative to hear your opinions. Opinions from those who have done quality research is valued greatly.
Have just driven into Perth with my camper in tow and can't believe the morons who change into your lane immediately in front and have no idea of safe braking distance. At freeway speeds too! And the stereo blaring so loudly they wouldn't have a hope of hearing anything else.

[tassie tiger Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close tassie tiger]

I don't dispute your last sentence, because I have seen some pretty stupid stuff. But I would like to ask, based on your experience, how many accidents could be directly attributed to being caused/worsened by a modification?

Hi geo

I havent the knowledge to say whether they are overrepresented or not as that would be something that maybe monash uni may know.

They definitely were not an issue that stood out in the state where I worked. The big issue as I wrote once before were three things;
1. A little bit of speeding (10 - 20 over)
2. A little bit of inattention
3. A little bit of grog

Every fatal accident I attended had one of these and many (most probably) had two of these present. But of course the media, aided by the cops, focuses on the huge speeds with young people or really drunk drivers.

The other thing I found was that the majority of drivers on the road could barely drive a nail. They all think they are good drivers but the reality is they aren't.

A little diversion but it sets the scene for the next bit.

From the git go I fully support modifying vehicles up to 50mm higher and a small increase in tyre size. It is a good compromise that has pros and cons. The pros are that aftermarket suspension is generally far superior to std stuff so control is better. The small theoretical loss in braking due to the longer springs is negated due to the better quality. Again with the tyres a small size change will result in loss of braking and control however the side walls tend to be stiffer so that probably negates the loss. (of course we are talking marginal changes)

The 50mm change also ensures that most vehicles caster and camber can be adjusted back to factory without any issues or further mods. So its a pretty good balance both from a user perspective and a non user perspective. When most non 4wd users (apart from rabid greenies) see our prados set up like this then they either ignore us or consider us a responsible 4wder. A generalisation I know but I think its accurate. Our mums can jump in them and take the kids to school with no ill effects. And the reality is that a prado setup like this, maybe with some lockers, will take us anywhere we could want to go within reason. A patrol like this even further.

From a road safety perspective the balance is pretty good.

So this then leaves the small percentage of those who want to modify them further. What we are now asking is whether it is reasonable to take a vehicle and change it so it performs poorer than it was from the factory and then let it be driven on the road. The driver is still the same, most probably like most unable to drive a nail, but now the car handles like crap as well. Additionally, it is now to a height where if it does collide with another vehicle, and contrary to opinion on 4wd forums the 4wd is just as likely to be the crap driver causing the accident, you have the front of the vehicle above the intrusion bars on the side of the vehicle it hits.

Now add in a bullbar to this vehicle. Not only is the impact above the intrusion bars you have reduced the crumple zones and impact absorption of the 4wd and put that into the other vehicle. Now thats cool if your family is in the 4wd, not so if they are in the car.

From a road safety perspective you want to cut down on as many fatal accidents and serious injuries that you can. From personal experience of passing death messages from MVA's I never once had a mum or dad say they were comfortable with their kid being one of the statistics. A smart arse line but true because a person is a statistic only if you dont know them.

Most accident investigators take the task seriously as do most traffic cops (sure there are asses on power trips but the majority have their hearts in the right place). So when you investigate the collision and speak with the families the focus is why did this happen and what you could do to prevent it happening again. The idea that its okay for a certain percentage of people to die, even though some will, is obtuse.

The bullbar debate that you raised is a classis example of this. If you have one fitted then you would obviously think they are great. The reality that they actually reduce your survivability (loss in crumple zone effects and spread of impact across the front) doesn't compute because the belief is they save you. So you get drivers talking of hitting huge roos and just driving on and that saved their life adding to it. But the reality is that I have only heard of one fatal from striking a roo and that was where it entered the vehicle and that wasnt a 4wd but a commodore in NT. Sure there may be a few others I hadnt heard of but I can assure everyone its not a pressing issue anywhere in oz.

Of course there is the fact that your vehicle wont be disabled by hitting a roo if you have a bullbar and you will save money on not claiming on insurance so of course there are benefits. The other BS out there is that if you get hit by a 4wd without a bullbar that you will die anyway. Thats crap - simply utter BS. I have seen it and its amazing what people walk away from.

Next time you see a prado without a bar go and stand alongside it. The front bumper is designed to crumple when it hits a person but not as much as the grill and bonnet - so the body folds over the front of the vehicle and rides up on it, into the windscreen and then off to the side. Now I wouldn't want it to happen to me and your chances are still pretty poor but survivability is still 50/50. With a bullbar - zip.

I dont think that bullbars should banned however some thought should go into their use. One that is removable for the 99% of the time that the only thing it is going to hit is human makes sense.

So a bit of a ramble. Not intended to have a go at anyone or their decisions in life.

Keep in mind that Australia is only a nanny state or over regulated when its someone else's kid. Otherwise, yeah, your right, it is.

cheers

(late edit - forgot the mack truck analogy. I get your point however mack trucks account for like .001% of vehicles on the road. SUV's are hitting the 35% mark so analogy noted but not really apples with apples)

[glen_ep Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close glen_ep]

Hey tassie tiger,
Lots of interesting reading there, certainly food for thought.

[DGW Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close DGW]

Darwin awards, why did they come about?

Pedestrians and car drivers are responsible for their actions and what I see, every day I have to work in the Sydney CBD, I am surprised any of them get home. It is both the vehicle driver and the person crossing the road who need to accept responsibility.

I recently saw a very pregnant lady in Martin Place walk across the road, talking on the phone and against the lights, a taxi locked the brakes up to miss her, her reaction was to date the taxi driver and continue walking and talking on the phone.

My wife drove an old Corolla for many years and when I started to commute to Sydney, she took my old Prado to work. She was surprised at the different manner she was treated by other drivers in the 4wd as opposed to the Corolla.

While it is easy to blame a bulbar or a lift or someone that lowers their suspension or listens to load music or drives a truck driver or a P plater, it is a moot point. While ever we drive cars, people will die, while ever people smoke cigarettes, people will die. I have surfed for well over 30 years and apparently there are sharks in the ocean and they eat peolpe every day, who would have thought that could happen?

While I understand your point about modifying vehicles and yes, there has to be a limit, maybe we should all drive Smart cars with a flag waving person in front…..