Tarkus is NON Complient

Black_FTOGPX · Post by **Black_FTOGPX** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:56 am

Would the series 2 front bar and lights be compliant? You could just to a swap and it would make your car look a bit newer.

ph3var · Post by **ph3var** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:23 pm

You could sell the car to someone over here in Perth - if thats the direction you take.

We dont need roadsafe certificates like you guys do over there.

Once its regoed as long as the cops dont defect it for things like
- Too loud
- Too low
etc etc

FTOluv · Post by **FTOluv** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:39 pm

We dont need roadsafe certificates like you guys do over there.

i never knew that

so u can transfer the title of an car to someone else without a roadworthy?!

ph3var · Post by **ph3var** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:05 pm

As long as the car is regoed then you dont need anything to transfer it.

Post by **dstocks** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:37 pm

Ahhh,

but if it has interstate rego (not WA), is this still the case???

ph3var · Post by **ph3var** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:46 pm

No idea though I see a lot of cars driving around over here with NSW and VIC plates still on them.

strat · Post by **strat** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:12 pm

The FTO is compliant, you don't have to change anything! Read my last message. Documents from VIC Roads own website show that the FTO is compliant.

You just got a prick of an inspector who has misinterpretted the rules. If what he said was true, every car with a rounded nose or with the indicators set back would not be compliant and there are thousands of these on the roads from all the major car makers.

pagan · Post by **pagan** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:06 pm

strat is right, get some legal advice or something, have no mercy on this tool, personally the whole thing sounds suss to me...

vic roads does not send out random letters, they are far too busy as is, and the police have spot checks for illegally modded cars... either someone has requested your car be checked, someone with a beef with you or the police have cannaried you, otherwise once the car is givin the OK, thats that.

tarkus · Post by **tarkus** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:10 pm

whether I got an inspector whose parents are not married, I have checked the ADR9(This is the document that Vic roads is based on) and it does state that the light should be seen from 45 degrees. I have had a couple of people check and you cannot see it from that angle. I need my car on the road, so if I put an extra indicator on the front and it costs me about $100.00 so what at least I can still drive the car. I cannot afford to start getting legal advise to fight a dumb inspector. They have the power to really lean on me.
one of the things they picked up on was that my front near wheel was buckled, I bought a 2nd hand wheel and had it changed this morning. I asked them to check if the wheel was OK, guess what "the rim had a ding in it but it is not buckled". so I now have a spare wheel, instead of that poxy / sissy no way spare that comes with the car.
I am now waiting to hear from GT Autos @ Croydon to see what they can do about the front indicator.

and to all the VIC members "next sunday, cruise to Rob Roy hill climb" meet Ringwood Target square car park.

Cya Tarkus (I am getting too old for all this sh*t)

Post by **dstocks** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:56 pm

Tarkus,

Look at your Private Messages. I think I have a palatable answer for you that will fix your headaches. Unfortunately, cannot post publicly.

strat · Post by **strat** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

This formating the message stuff is kind of hard so read and enjoy but I don't think I'll be doing this again, it takes too much time.

VIC Roads' own documentation shows that the "Geometric Requirements" for the "Direction Indicator Lamps" is 80 degrees outwards and 45 degrees inwards as per ADR 6.

This same document defines the term "Geometric Requirements" as:

VIC Roads wrote:the angles, both horizontal and vertical that the illuminating surface of a lamp shall be visible.

So, as per what the VIC Roads guy has told you, the indicators must be visible, inwardly at a 45 degree angle (outwardly at an 80 degree angle).

The document then goes on to talk about "obstacles and obstructions". It says:

VIC Roads wrote:There shall be no obstacle on the inside of the horizontal or vertical angles to the light that shows from any part of the apparent surface of the lamp.

In other words, there are to be no obstacles within the 80/45 degree angle that blocks any of the light.

So far, these two points are exactly as per the VIC Roads guy. But the key parts of the document is what comes next:

VIC Roads wrote:No account shall be taken of obstacles or obstructions to the light from the lamp that are present at the time of issue of a compliance plate approval for the particular vehicle.

Converted to plain english, if the obstacle or obstruction existed when the car was complianced, ignore it â€“ i.e. Stock equipment is fine but if you add something later, after it has been complianced, that blocks the light, it's not OK, e.g. a bullbar, new bodywork, etc.

The next part of the document specifically addresses the exact issue Tarkus has, that of the indicator being hidden by the bodywork:

VIC Roads wrote:If, when the lamp is installed, any part of the illuminating surface within (the 80/45 degree angles) is hidden by any part of the vehicle or its accessories, proof shall be supplied that the part of the lamp not hidden still meets the photometric values.

So even if you can't see the physical indicator as long as the light being emitted from it is still at the 80/45 degree angle it's OK.

Perhaps you should ask VIC Roads to explain those last two paragraphs in plain english and see what their interpretation is.

tarkus · Post by **tarkus** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:00 pm

For those interested I have updated some of the information on my NON compliance on my web site at www.larson.150m.com Then follow the links to â€œvehiclesâ€

tarkus · Post by **tarkus** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:13 pm

Well folks I am now â€œcompliantâ€

FTO AUSTRALIA

Tarkus is NON Complient

rego

urgent

Re: urgent