Australian Design Approval & Registration

[Peter Delaney]

I have the "pleasure" of living in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We have a State Premier whose name is Carr, but who has never got his driver's licence, and a Transport Minister named Scully (belongs in the X-Files) who thinks that we all should be using public transport !!

You can imagine how sympathetic these guys are towards the "Individually Constructed Vehicle" movement. As far as I can ascertain, any newly registered car must meet the current Australian Design Rules (ADR's), with the only exception being related to crash testing (Thank God for small mercies !). The latest version of the ADR's (ADR 7900) came into force this January, and equate to the Euro-2 rules.

Having finished almost all of the car except final paint & engine, I am now looking down the barrel of these new ADR's and trying to figure out how to meet them.

There appears to be 3 big issues for a GT40 :

- Brakes : there is a strict series of tests which must be undertaken, but this should not be a problem as my GT40 Australia (DRB) has '87-88 Corvette brakes. In the 'Vette, these brakes will eat any testing, so should be a walk-over in a car nearly half the 'Vette's weight.

- Noise : This would be a real problem for a stock crossover / cats / muffler setup on top of the gearbox, so I will have to reserve this top space for cats & loop the system back to run through big & boring mufflers on each side of the gearbox. As a last resort, I could use the "temporary s/steel wool pot scrubber muffler enhancer" made famous by one of our most respected Forum members (name withheld for his own safety !!).

- Emission Control : this will be the killer. The car has to undergo a full test cycle from cold start, through the full range of driving conditions on a dyno, & exhaust gasses are continuously monitored. My guess is that these new ADR/Euro-2 rules are probably something close to the current California rules. I have come across some new "pre-cats" which are ceramic-based & come up to operational temperature much quicker than conventional units. These should help with the cold-start part of the test cycle. If I add standard (big) cats to these, perhaps I can squeeze things through (with the help of an Autronics ECU running lean & a high-temp thermostat).

These are only thoughts at the moment, but I can't help wondering if I am "re-inventing the wheel" - the big question is whether any of you guys have managed to get a 302 pushrod engined '40 through the latest ADR's / Euro-2 / California rules on emissions, & if so, how ?

At the moment, the only "safe bets" I have are the latest quad-cam Ford modular motor (big issue on how to fit it in), the Lexus Quad-cam (sacriledge !), or the GenIII GM 'Vette engine (more sacriledge !).

If anyone out there can provide some "war stories" on how they got their car through these tough new sorts of regs, it would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Peter D.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Peter, in some states up here in US we can get around this by using an older motor block which can be verified to be from the period before emission controls were required. I am using a 1967 or 68 302 to build my engine up. Do you guys have this option? even looking at how hard it might be to find a vintage Ford block, it might be worth your while in trouble saved- if those rules apply there. Good luck.

 

[Peter Delaney]

Unfortunately Jim, each "Individually Constructed" car presented for registration here is considered to be a "New Car Design" and has to meet all the current regs. There are no exception clauses relating to the year of the original car it replicates, or the year that the engine was made. Bummer !

Kind Regards,

Peter D.

 

[Guest]

Just to make things interesting there seems to be some "Interpretation" differences from state to state here in Oz. I thought it was one ADR rule for everyone.

I am hopefully only about 8 weeks from attempting licencing and would be interested in all the feedback possible as I was unaware of the rule changes.

In WA, I was on the understanding that once the approval in principal had been granted from the DOT for the construction of the car as a "custom built / individually constructed vehicle" the rules as at the date of approval applied.

It all sound like things could all get real pear shaped if what you are saying is correct and I might have just built a cheap unlicensable "Race" car instead of an expensive Licensable "Road" car. Now that will be very disapointing and pretty damn hard to explain to her indoors !!

Regards,
RV

 

[Robert Logan]

It was me that brought this matter to peters attention when he was trying to purchase some parts from Roaring Forties.

The new rules are for all NEW vehicles and it depends on the method of registration used by the manufacturer and also which state that these rules are being read in.

We are currently working on the new Euro 2 emmissions for our cars and we have untill the end of this year to comply.

My GT40's were taken through full ADR37/01 emmisions and this is why our cars are still OK to register. Other manufacturers have not done the full tests and relyed on the fact that the engines were fitted to current modle cars and that the engine was fitted "completely" into the new car. This wasnot the case as the fueling system was not complete , the exhaust system was not complete as per the original car or the induction system.

The NSW government were taken to court I believe because of a non-ADR compliant car that was involved in an accident. The car was UNSAFE and the new owner sued the State for allowing the car to be registered. The state were forced to purchase the car and the SHIT hit the fan.

The Roaring Forties GT40 is still registerable in all states and teritories but others are not.

This insistance that all ICV's comply properly is good in my opinion as the blatent flaunting of the rules has gone on for to long by many manufacturers and their associated engineers and the level playing field will seperate the wheet from the chaff.

As a mater of interest the emmisions test has a completely different "urban cycle" and it has an evaporative component which also needs to be passed. These tests are the responsibility of the manufacturers in my opinion and this should not be the sort of thing that owners should have to worry about after they have spent their monies.

Peter, please contact me again if I can be of any further assistance.

Best wishes,

Robert

 

[Peter Delaney]

Rick, you are right in your comments regarding "interpretation" being different between the States in Oz. The new ADR79-00 / Euro-2 standards are set on a Federal level - it is up to the individual States as to how & when they apply them. As Robert points out, the State of NSW has gone nuts after the law suit. My recent enquiry with the NSW RTA's Vehicle Standards group basically went as follows :

Me : "I would like some advice on registering an Individually Constructed Vehicle"

Them : "Don't build one" !!!

Me : "Too late - I am about 2 years into the build, and am getting close, what will I need to do to get it passed ?"

Them : "You will have to meet the full emissions requirements of ADR79/00 (full cycle testing), will have to pass the braking tests, and will have to have an Engineer's Certificate."

Me : "Are there any "grandfather clause" exceptions or periods of grace for cars which started construction before these rules came in (Jan '03, as appears to be the case in the states of Queensland & Victoria"

Them : "No, every ICV presented for 1st rego in NSW after Jan '03 must meet the new ADR79/00 regs for emissions, braking & noise"

Me : "What if I use a recent Ford engine, currently being sold in new Ford cars, which only meets ADR37/01 ?"

Them : "Manufacturers selling ADR37/01 compliant cars/engines are allowed to do so until Jan '04. If they introduce a new model/engine before that date, they have to meet ADR79/00. As your car will be a "new car", it will have to meet ADR79/00 up front".

Me : "How do I move forward ?"

Them : "I suggest that you write to the Vehicle Standards Group in RTA & seek a definitive written ruling on what will apply to your project, and that you engage a certified Engineer to guide you."

I will seek such a written ruling & keep you all posted. I suspect that everyone in other states will have to do something similar (sooner or later). Just to cheer you up, the RTA guy also mentioned that there are moves afoot to bring all states into line ! Being a cynic when it comes to the "public service mentality", I suspect then this means that other states will be dragged down to the NS bloody W position !

Rick, don't panic just yet ( I like your positive spin on "pear-shaped" : a useful race car - my first thought was a useless (but beautiful) billycart !!! ). One way or another, we'll find a way through, even if it means we have to fit roof racks to handle half a dozen cats in series. We'll just have to find space to store the official "rego" versions of everything so that they can be re-fitted if the boys in blue slap a defect sticker on the car !

Kind Regards,

Peter D.

 

Peter,

WOW!! You're making me grateful to live where I do. I feel sorry for you guys down there. Thank goodness there's people like Robert that are 'in the know' about these government rules.

Good luck and (try to) have fun!

John

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

Very interesting. Good Luck!
Jim

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

Lynn
Well said. To me all of our cars are more hobbies/ works of personal expression/ preservation of history. Safety is one thing. In NY my MK-IV must pass a safety inspection every year but IMHO the enviromental damage caused by all of our hobby cars in the scheme things is meaningless.
Jim

 

[Mark Worthington]

Peter, I wish you the best success in navigating the byzantine regulatory process.

You know, I've always been enamored of Australia (never been there, though), the land, the people, the beaches, the scantily clad women on the beaches, etc. But I'm afraid that Australia is a lot like Kalifornia in terms of overzealous regulators and clueless legislators. I began to form this opinion back in grad school when I wrote a paper comparing Australia's water resource management and legal allocation systems with those of the US and English common law...basically things are legislated to death. Firearms have also been legislated nearly out of existance. Now this about how ridiculously complicated and expensive it is to build and drive your own automobile.

It just saddens me that a country with such awesome potential is hobbling itself with stupid, agenda-driven legislation.

Good luck, mates.

 

[Peter Delaney]

Well said Lynn - it really does SUCK ! Mark is right about our over-zealous legislators - I read somewhere that Australia has more politicians per head of popluation than any other country. Three levels of government, federal, state & local, and voting for these dickheads is compulsory. Sometimes I think that this country is just a rest home for politicians with a life-support system attached - us !

To work off my frustration, I think I'll go out & mow the lawns & trim the edges - that should create more emissions than a year's worth of driving the '40 ! I might as well do it while I can - I am sure that in a a year or two, I'll be able to post a picture of my fully ADR-compliant lawnmower, complete with cats & a 60dB muffler !

Kind Regards,

Peter D.

 

[Bill Hara]

Peter

I read the first half of this thread last night, and was wondering how it was all going to effect me as I am still a couple of years away from completion. I was thinking about how much of a difference it makes to the environment running a EFI 5ltr Windsor as compared to the current 5.4ltr jobbies in the current model Fords. Bugger all I think, then this morning on the way to work I'm stuck behind a shitbox Toyota Camry that was pumping out clouds of smog, coming in through my ventilation system, necessitating a lane change to avoid the pollution. Where is the law enforcement to stop this joker from driving a piece of crap on the road???
I fear there are some worrying times ahead! What solutions are there available to us?

 

My advice would be to seek advice on the Australian Car Club Forum : http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=65

There are a few guys currently building Cobras in NSW, and I'm sure that they have been told that they are OK because they can prove that their car build started BEFORE 1st Jan, 2003. This is when the really nasty regulations came into effect.

It's still not a walk in the park, but it's nowhere near as bad as the (hopefully) uninformed RTA guy would have you believe.

 

Lynn, kudos. To sum it up, the vast majority can all agree that no one should have a larger home (ie "monster house"), better car, or heaven forbid; make more money than them- regardless of the blood, sweat, tears, investment or risk involved. To them, it's just not "fair". ...the last time I was on the left coast I heard an interview with a woman who was the fearless leader of a citizen's group doing all they could to deny a neighbor the ability to build a "monster" home on the 16 acre parcel that he and his wife had worked their butts off to buy. When asked the definition of a "monster" home; she thoughtfully said that "it's anything larger than mine; no one needs that". Welcome to the animal farm...

 

[Guest]

In a word, this SUCKS.

STEP UP ON SOAPBOX:
Did you notice that a major part of this, at least in NSW, stems from some guy who sued the state for letting him register his car. The state is responsible for him licensing his car?? What happened to the good old days when a man was responsible for his own actions? This is at the heart of many of our lossed freedoms: to many people expect someone else to be responsible for protecting them from themselves, their decisions or those calamities that can befall any one of us. Manufacturers need some guidelines as to making their products safe, but beyond that, there is only one sure fire way that a product won't hurt you: don't buy it. If you do buy it, then what happens to you is your responsibility.

Now, I am not unrealistic: a government has some responsibility to protect its citizens. But it appears that saftety concerns and emissions are not being considered as two different issues in many cases. I am all for safety inspections and my car will have to pass one. I understand that the emissions of huge fleets of cars like those produced by the major manufacturers, who have the resources to address the issue without going broke, is also a public safety concern. BUT, given the number of cars that are built by individuals, their contribution to emissions is a nit. They should, therefore, be given an exemption to a rule that will cost them so much money that would probably not pursue this activity; especially, when compliance to it wouldn't profit the public anything. Do you have a "pursuit of happiness" clause in you constitution? We in the US do, but it seems to be the one that gets trampled the most in the name of keeping people "safe" while they are involved in an activity that is inherently dangerous and always balances on a knife's edge: life.
STEP DOWN OFF SOAPBOX.

Sorry for the diatribe, but this issue is a pet peave of mine.

 

[ChrisL]

OK all you Aussies out there. The best thing that YOU can do to fix this situation is to join an AOMC (Association Of Motoring Clubs) affiliated car club. If your not a member already then go out and join RIGHT NOW!!!

Did you know that legislation was proposed recently by our over-zealous leaders that would have made it illegal to work on your car in any residential area. That’s right... illegal!!! This preposterous legislation came so close to being passed, were it not for the AOMC pointing out that it would have been technically illegal to replace a spark-plug in your lawn mower, or pump up your tyers!!!

OK, so have you joined a car club yet??? Well don't just sit there... off you go

PS. If you’re not sure how to go about it, please feel free to drop me an email.

[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: Chris L ]

 

[40 Bud]

Peter, I hope your laws say just that you have to vote i.e. you could vote against all of them! good luck.

 

[Clive C]

Peter,

I have had a 40 under construction for some years, and a couple of years ago contacted our local Rego geese about what would be required for rego. This had the fortunate outcome of establishing a start date. I received a polite reply, with some of the most ridiculous tests I could imagine. On cornering, I would have to demonstrate it would take a corner at maximum speed. And what corner would that be, Mr Inspector? Braking was also covered, and again a crash stop from maximum speed, with no deviance from straight and narrow would be permitted. And on what particular piece of public road would you like this carried out, Mr Inspector?
I asked about side intrusion bars in the doors. I was asked where my hip lay in relation to the body, and when I explained it was down in the tub, with metal to the outside sill and the inner sill, and the middle bit was the fuel tank, I was told that this metal was acceptable as side intrusion. Petrol everywhere, but at least my hip might not be broken.

I later contacted an engineer, who does a lot of work in the ACT. One of his first questions was what did I propose to do about ADR69 (I kid you not). Turns out this is to do with air bags. I immediately told him that if required I would stop building there and then. I explained that 1, you are almost lying down in the thing, and 2, I couldn't imagine how you would trigger the thing. Given the height at the front, and allowing for some droop under brakes, I would hit the rear axle of a normal Ford/Holden before I hit anything else.
He came back to me a few weeks later, and said he had discussed this requirement with the rest of the local engineering fraternity (about 4 of them) and they had approached the rego mob. Wonder of wonders, ADR69 will not be required. This same engineer has built a simply stunning copy of the Jaguar XJ13, so I expect some sensible decisions as time goes on.
I believe a very early RF40 is about to hit the streets as I type, so will catch up with him and see how he got on.

Cheers
CCnull

 

[ChrisL]

CC

Your post reminded me of a very funny article I read quite a few years ago. In approving the McLaren F1 for road use, a basic test requirement was for the car to accelerate under full power to almost top speed, then brake hard to zero - 3 times repeatedly - with the examining official sitting in the back seat!!!

The story goes that the official emerged from the F1 pale as a sheet and shaking like a leaf.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

And I thought we were over-regulated here in the USA. You all have it bad down there. Are you allowed to fire these guys at the next election, or are you stuck with them? We seem stuck with our lot.