TV 3 News Tonight (Sun) modified cars for invalids
Page 1 / 2
kiwitrader43,
Jan 23, 4:55pm
This looks like someone at the top approved a design before negotiating his kickback, and now has had a change of mind. I saw two of these cars recently, and if I were disabled, one would be in my garage yesterday. Great innovative design. If the aluminium honeycomb is deem insufficient, use a kevlar carbon fibre floor. Hummers in iraq had an underbody protection that was designed by a recent kiwi immigrant made from kevlar, strong as. If it is a chassis triangulation strengthening issue, just do it. If it is a snout in the trough issue, expose and remove it. We are one big community on an island. This is a non event completely solveable.
kazbanz,
Jan 23, 6:22pm
Kiwitrader-in a nutshell. Faults were found with the vehicles and solutions for rectification offered. The manufacturer was pig headed and rather than doing something they took the "theres nothing wrong" line.
I guess my issue a year ago was that I felt for the poor buggers that laid out the money for em and the manufacturer buried head in sand
socram,
Jan 24, 1:27am
Unless things have changed, dramatically, the Certifier does NOT have the final say on anything. It all has to be LVVTA approved. To quote the certifier that was involved in my long winded saga, "All I am at times, is a photographer."
A potential certifier has made the point to me that he would only take on the job if his umpteen years experience as a qualified engineer and long time business owner, would be listened to, as he wasn't interested in being permanently overruled by bodies sitting in an office, or an advisory committee who had not seen the vehicle, no matter what their qualifications.
Sorry, but I still can't understand how number 1 got through if it was so unsafe.
I do believe that LVVTA have had to have a good look at both procedures and certifiers so it would be interesting to get an update on what has in fact changed, bearing in mind the HCM (Hobby Car Manual) is already quite a hefty tome.
I half expected to catch up with kellrae either last weekend or this, but no luck.
lookoutas,
Jan 24, 2:24am
The main problem here seems to be "arse" - someone has a sore one right now, and someone else (or more) are working on keeping their's covered.
supernova2,
Feb 24, 3:53am
I have had a look at the website etc. I also have a small bit of knowledge about ali composite race car chassis construction but i don't profess to have any idea about how safe or otherwise the Yeti job is. What we do know is that the LVVA etc said it was good to go so, drawing on the info and experiences of others who have had dealings with LVVA in vehicle mods, I can only conclude that it was decided that the YETI was acceptable. I thought that was the exact reason why we have all the rules and regs and inspections etc for modified vehicles
It only once more than one appeared, and I suspect once they were advertised for sale, that all hell broke loose.
If one had been involved in a decent accident then perhaps there would be grounds for LTSA to act like twats but AFAIK that hasn't happened.
I still would like to know what LTSA intend to do about every other modified vehicle that hasn't been crash tested. Limo conversions spring to mind. Think about the carryon if you try to comply an import with a sill dent but we can cut cars in half, extend them but meters and stick em back together and that's all honky doory.
I can shove a 6ltr into a viva and as long as I can get a LVVA guy to tick it off I'm good to go.
I can shove 30" rims and 20 series tyres onto a Hummer and I dont have to have it checked by anybody. I can fit the cheapest rubbish brake pads I can find and no body cares
Tui anyone?
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 24, 4:02am
That wouldn't surprise me. I didn't see that part but the LTSA guy that was interviewed seemed pretty unintelligent. Given the absurdity of their treatment of the situation as a whole I could well imagine some sort of in the background nonsense going on with someone manipulating personal connections in the LTSA.
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 24, 4:03am
Certainly. and I can see your point as well. However I don't think we should be allowing to get as far as fixing a non existent problem, assuming that to be the case.
supernova2,
Feb 24, 4:08am
Maybe the LTSA decision needs a Judical Review, or a complaint to the Ombudsmen.
Has it ever been said who at LTSA made the decision to revoke? If it has I wonder what qualifications that person/s had to make such a decision as opposed to whoever OK'd the Yeti in the first place?
In general I'm with the others who say that the Govt Depts in this country have absolutely no common sense. I believe that in part is due to the constant restructuring and the idiotic concept that employees must have a Uni degree (no matter in what) before they can be employed to flush the toilet. Sure in some cases the Uni degree makes sense but coupled with that you need to have life skills and relevent experience to draw on. Would you get a 25yr old with a Master in Engineering or a 60yr old mechanic to rebuild the dif in a Mk2 Jag? If you were LTSA you would get the guy with the Masters to convert the Jag to 4wd as that is safer rather than make any attempt to refurbish the existing dif.
Rant over
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 24, 4:12am
I won't quote it all for space, but great post supernova2. IMO, it all comes back to this stupid nonsense the Government has brainwashed into our society where we are made to think that nit picking over the semantics is far more important than the bigger picture.
People need to learn to use their brains again. We simply can't afford this absurd over regulation and idiocy. It's not only leaving these poor people without their independence the same sort of stupidity has peoples houses rotting because they are not allowed to fix them themselves and the certified contractors and consents are too expensive. We have Police wasting time ticketing people for exceeding the speed limit by margins so low that even their radar guns are only accurate to the same amount while real road menaces whizz by.
The whole thing is absurd and people need to wake up and say enough is enough already!
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 24, 4:33am
I have seen this sort of stupidity with compliancing too. In particular an MG I re-registered. They couldn't find the light switch (normal place) so they failed it for no lights. .Then the 3 point recoiling seatbelts were "not original" despite having the factory wiring connectors etc. but what do you know, they could sell me some new ones that complied! (but didn't recoil). Then they wanted me to re wire the car to make the factory park/marker lights blink (told them to P off on that one). But the icing on the cake was when they had it on the hoist and were getting excited because the battery tray base was spot welded and not seam welded in while the fuel tank leaked on their heads (no issue with the fuel tank apparently).
That scenario cost me $2000 in pointless alterations and pissing about with no net gain in safety.
sr2,
Feb 24, 5:29am
Has anyone got a link to the TV report?
supernova2,
Feb 24, 5:38am
I thought that in a reregister situation the vehicle had to meet the standard that applied when it was first registered so all the nonsense about belts and lights should never have been required. What year was the MG?
Also what's the housing issue? - pop up a thread in DIY so I can have an appropriate chat
kazbanz,
Feb 24, 2:32pm
You are ropeing in the same anti establishment rubbish again Jazz Rather than a generalised bleat how about staying on the SPECIFIC topic. Now again Im not saying for a moment that someone somewhere within LTSA et al hasn't dropped the ball. How and when WE don't know. Was it the origonal inspector or was it the guys that said WOA? We also don't know the specifics of why they are not up to scratch. Reading and looking I'm seeing two issues-The rear suspension has been totally rebuilt. 2)the rear east/west monocoque has been removed. 3)the floor has been removed/replaced with a component that will not perform in the same way as the factory floor in a crumple situation. AGAIN -Yes LTSA dropped the ball. But not in the way you are making out
kellrae,
Feb 24, 2:35pm
He is the Chairperson of VANZ - take a look at their website.
Wasn't McLaren's first F1 car tub built out of a composite? Mallite?
As I don't know the construction details, of the modified Yeti, I would have thought that an X brace under the floor, boxed a the ends, would restore most strength, added to whatever method was used for the new floor.
It would be great if we knew the facts.
Was it LTSA who withdrew approval or LVVTA? As a modified vehicle, wouldn't it have to pass the LVVTA technical committee, with plans submitted? As I understand it, the LVVTA committee consists of highly qualified people with extensive engineering experience including at least one ex-aircraft engineer and others with extensive Hot Rod experience.
The certifier cannot pass the vehicle on his own. That pass has to come from LVVTA and if my dealings with them over the last 18 months are anything to go by, they are very thorough.
socram,
Feb 24, 3:09pm
Mine is a 1956 car (modified) and I not only had to remove the lap and diagonal belts and replace them with new web grabber belts, I also had to have all the seat belt mounts modified and also have an additional mount for the lap belt, as the reel and belt can't share the same fixing. There were no belts in 1956.
Once you try and re-register a car, the rules are totally different from a car that has been on hold. You then get the ludicrous situation whereby there are two 100% identical cars. One is 100% legal, the other isn't.
Its a total farce if you are involving several organisations, particularly if you elect to restore, repair, modify and compete and also run the car on the road and the car is currently either an import or deregistered.
What is even worse is that no-one seems to know ALL the procedures and sequences, let alone the rules that are constantly changing.
kellrae,
Feb 24, 3:15pm
LTSA = NZTA (they are a bit sensitive about that! LOL
It was the NZTA who withdrew the WOF and Certification on the recommendation of the LVVTA, who in their 'opinion' felt the cars were unsafe.
Remember 10 cars were certified over a period of time. So 10 cars went through the process.
I see you have commented that the LVVTA comprise of highly qualified people. Great but are they actually qualified in composite engineering? And what does highly qualified actually mean?
socram,
Feb 24, 3:17pm
Vehicle Assiciation of New Zealand (VANZ) does not assume responsibility for the quality of the listed products or the quality of work of the listed Cerifiers, Modifiers. We are not to blame for stuff breaking. If you get in trouble because you've used one of the listed products or services, you wave your right to take us to court.
We do try to ensure that stuff we list is kosher, but you never know, so be carefull.
****** Thanks kellrae. That extract (copied and pasted) is so full of typing/spelling errors that I though that it might have been in Chinglish!
It says a lot for an organisation if that is the level of their professionalism.
socram,
Feb 24, 3:20pm
Good point!
"Last week I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one."
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 24, 3:58pm
Yes you are quite right about it just having to be original spec, however these turnips were just that, idiotic turnips without a clue. I told them on the spot that I would NOT be making the marker lights blink, especially as you would never see them in the day anyway. I should have pushed the seatbelt issue too but was quite a young fella at the time and felt swayed by their "authority".
The house issue is just with relation to cladding work and licensed contractors etc. Have already done it in DIY and spoken to the council so not too worried about hashing it out again. Thanks for the offer though.
elect70,
Feb 24, 6:34pm
Obviously they cant have rear seats /passengers , so rear end rigidity shouldnt be a problem . But now NZTS have ruled them unsafe cant go back without looking stupid even if VAG approved it . Sue the barstards .
kcf,
Feb 25, 12:59am
God I love armchair experts :)
kellrae,
Feb 25, 7:53pm
These do have rear seats they fold and stow up under the rear side windows then fold down to be used.
kazbanz,
Feb 25, 8:02pm
THIS is snip/snip reporting-You left out the bit where the organisation who represents disabled driver were one bigl driving force behind this. They raised the issue with the LVVTA To Quote The Vehicle Association for People with Disabilities says it was one of the groups that raised concerns.
"They are serious safety issues," says the organisation's Robert Berger. "The certifier should have put a stop to it at the beginning and then there wouldn't have been an issue and it would have been on one car."
Mr Phillps has been asked to modify the cars by New Zealand authorities, but says that would destroy the structural integrity of the car.
The Transport Agency stands by its decision, saying that it has to look out for not only the drivers of the cars, but also everybody else who uses the roads.
Frankly the way I read it the MANUFACTURER is the one being totally pig headed about this and refuses to carry out the modifications required to allow the cars on the road. Sorry but you are looking in the wrong place. Go back to the builder and get the remedial work carried out at his cost.
PLEASE ---don't for a second thing Im not sympathetic to your plight. 80k invested and car ordered off the road I can only imaging what a bitter pill that would be to swallow. BUT I genuinely feel you are targetting the wrong place.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.