cletus

they would be ok for a cert as long as they are a quality kevlar or teflon lined bearing, im pretty sure the original outer bushes in that arm are similar to that anyway, rather than a rubber bush. bear in mind they wont last very long on a road car with no boots as road grit and crap will wear them out have you tried mazda to see how much a new arm is?

i cant think of a way to put this that doesnt sound blunt, so dont take this as a personal attack. i can fully understand why you are annoyed. the vehicle cant be certified like that it because the rule book clearly says you cant. it said you cant when you started, your certifier should have picked this up when you suggested it. from the committee's point of view (TAC) why should they approve something that is specifically mentioned in the book as being not legal? if they looked at it and drove it, nothing would change, its still not allowed to be done. as i mentioned earlier, if yours was passed, that would be unfair on others who have spent time and effort on doing it to the standard in the book, if the TAC was used for bypassing all the rules then theres no point in having a book, might as well throw it in the bin. by the same reasoning, if 2 bevel boxes are ok, what about 4? or 10? i know that is ridiculous and no one would do a steering set up like that, but there has to be a limit, and it is one. as for the actual reason you cant use more than one? I dont know, but its likely that its something like, or a combination of, good engineering practice to not use more than 1, they dont want steering shafts doing zigzags all over the place, extra points of possible failure or wear, dont want people doing left to right conversions using them as previously mentioned, OE manufacturers dont do it so neither should modifiers, not a tradesmanlike way of making a steering shaft, etc etc i cant imagine your certifier wanting to write a letter saying he approved it, as that would mean he would be admitting to not reading the rules, or choosing to ignore them. If you want to know exactly why you cant use more than one, you could email justin@lvvta.org.nz he runs the TAC meetings hope this helps, Clint.

i dont know what the reason is, but i remember some talk about no angle drive boxes due to someone in australia doing left to right hand drive conversions using 2 angle boxes- leaving the steering box in the original place. i guess they have to set the limit somewhere. if they let things through all the time that dont comply with the rule book then there would be people moaning" xyz got a cert with stuff different from the book, why cant I?"

i actually walked out of the house and looked in the big bible. seems odd that the certifier would give the green light on what you have done, as the first section in the hobby car manual to do with steering shafts, says any direction change has to be done with u joints. later in that section it also says you cant use an angle drive, unless it is exactly the same as when it was in a mass produced vehicle application (the part in italics was updated with the second revision of the manual, at first you were not allowed to use them at all) do you/your work have a copy of the hobby car manual?

if you email justin@lvvta.org.nz he could let you know what you would have to do, ie if your design has to be approved by the TAC, you might not need to if you are using some existing centers and fitting wider bands

2.3(9) would apply to you if you are making your own wheels. not throwing poo on your idea, but might pay to check it out if you want it to be legal http://www.lvvta.org.nz/documents/standards/LVVTA_STD_Wheels_&_Tyres.pdf

did a job on a xr8 ute on friday, that had the brakes/susp/gearbox from one of those V8 race ute things in it. Gearbag was a t5, had steel plates sandwiched between the bell housing and tailhousing, and between the plates was steel bars bolted to the outside to strengthen it. Cool story eh

is the vibration only when you are driving? or if you put it in neutral and rev it does it do it?

if it nipped up a piston, undo cylinder bolts so they all flop around, wind on to trailer with starter actually, cut them off with hissing spanner then for max roughcunt spec

also, this is how i recommend they are done, have never had an issue //oldschool.co.nz/index.php?/topic/37800-welded-strut-how-to/

SGS is good but quite spendy, i send people to x ray labs http://xraylabs.co.nz/home.html

should sound cool with triple carbs on! cars looking good, i like your progress.

yep, sometimes needs a gusset on the flat bits if the seat mounts are a lot narrower than the rails.

who owns the chev?

i could do everything except the spindles, because the steering arm is part of them, needs a bump steer check so has to be done by a 1D certifier.

possibly, again needs to be a 1d certifier, needs bumpsteer check as well. the thing to remember is its the relationship between the pivot points of the arms that is important, more than the angle they are on. so if you shift the steering arm pivot point but not the lower arm pivot point, you may be making the problem worse. stopping guard rub by running stiff springs is a bad idea, as you are only masking the problem with another one. If you want my opinion-from the pics in your build thread, I would be considering another option. from the pics those shocks look too short, and appear to be a cheap brand that is not well known for lasting very long (MDU) if that is what they are, they are so china they dont even put the brand name on them. it would be a shame to do all this work just to fit a set of coilovers that are not much good anyway

yup. surely if you need those you have other mods that need certing anyway?

there is 3x 1D certifiers in auckland, mark stokes, neil fraser, and lance walsh

cant see a problem with that. What sort of car is it?

this. if its factory fitted inside the cabin then thats fine, but as soon as you do it as a modification, it would have to meet the LVV rules. The main one that would be hard is having it sealed off from the passenger compartment, you would have to build a sealed box around it.

^this exactly. then i would get in the shit, not the owner. well at least i would get to go to court and fight about it with lawyers and stuff. or tell the guy the car needs to be raised a bit, and not have to worry about it.

yep thats right. however, chassis rails are not normally a wear and tear item haha. so certifying a car like that would result in trouble eventually. i certed a cressida at 50mm not long after i started because i couldnt find a reason in the rule book at the time why it couldnt be that low (scrub line, travel etc all ok) but did end up with a lot of b/s from wof inspectors moaning about it, a cop rang me and asked why i certed it so low, etc...its not worth the hassle trying to justify or prove that its still safe when it probably isnt due to reasons mentioned above.

As far as a cert inspection goes, there are a few different things to look at with slammed cars, and different people have different opinions on whats too low. Most cars, the suspension geometry or tyre rub is the limiting factor on how low you can go. with a car done in this style, that is not an issue because the wheels and tyres are small so that drops it a lot for starters, so the chassis rail height becomes the main stumbling block. I dont know of any reports or statistics regarding accidents vs height, i think they lump any modified cars together as just being "modified" there was talk a while ago of having max spring rates in adjustable suspension because there was a run of cars in fatal accidents with suspension that was "too stiff", but that appears to have faded away for now. as far as the chassis height- me personally i dont think its actually that unsafe to have a car low if the suspension works properly, ive done a lot of k's in 2 different nissans with drop spindles, one was bagged and one static. damage is the main issue- a car with 50mm chassis rail clearance, and 30-40mm of suspension travel like what the rulebook says it should have minimum, is going to end up grinding thru the rails, sills, getting caught up on railway crossings, manhole covers, stuff like that.

I did the cert check on it. When it came in the shop it had just under 50mm clearance at the front chassis rails and about 5mm bumpstop clearance all round. we raised the spring platforms to get some travel back, checked it and the back was a bit high so dropped the back again by shortening the strut length, the chassis rails are now 70mm off the ground, it drives well as it is now. The tyre size makes it look higher than it is, plus the rails hang down quite a lot. the tech guy at LVVTA reckoned 80mm should be about as low as a car should be certed, however there is no legal minimum height, they dont want to set a particular amount as a minimum as every car is different. the 100mm wof rule is really a cockup as some cars are fine at that and others have zero travel, but they are "ok cos its got 100mm clearance" a certain white van and its owner has caused a LOT of shit with LVVTA and the police which has put low cars under more scrutiny as LVVTA does not want a repeat of what has happened with that one