cletus

10 minutes ago, Nominal said:

I presume this bloke was happy when EV's were being incentivised

hes kind of correct,  using the figures on the previous page my chev costs me $130 per 1000km just in fuel tax so if ruc is $76 per 1000 ill be saving money

but, they have had a free ride for a while,  me find a violin to play a sad song for that guy for now having to contribute 

33 minutes ago, Alfashark said:

Yeah but your phone can already give them all of that and more. 

Strawman argument really.

how?

they obviously are not doing any sort of phone tracking at the moment for those purposes or we would have heard of it by now

you can turn off your phone, or leave it at home.

a device mandated by the government to be installed in your car to track your every move is a lot different

i hope im wrong, and this is conspiracy theory tinfoil hat stuff

but they have already said they would be using technology to enable  congestion charges as part of the ruc system and to avoid fraud ie unplugging the speedo. the most logical thing would be to use e-roads or similar

they will sell it as being an easy and convenient way of paying for RUC, and then come up with road to zero ideology to justify it '"oh heres an added benefit in road safety, we can track speeding drivers and send them tickets or remove RUC credits for speeding or accelerating too quickly or driving to the shops if its a walkable distance.

companies can already do this with e roads so its not that much of a stretch for the government to do the same in the name of road safety or climate change

2 minutes ago, sentra said:

curious to see what happens with petrol light vehicles when rucs come in on all vehicles as promised by nat-act - putting the equivalent of another 90 cents per litre on top the rest of the fleet is going to be pretty unpalatable, i cant see how the cost per 1000km would vary much between the types?

the headlines good for stirring the antiev pot but i guess thats what we have in store?

The cost is unpleasant

But the truly unpalatable thing will be how they do it, ie electronically 

Gps trackers for everyone. A very short step from tracking kms , to watching how far you went on a particular journey, and how fast you went, how quickly  you accelerated, etc  

Yeah seems dumb to pay the same for a small vs big car,

I did maths and it will work out cheaper than it is now to use my chev, and more expensive to use my mira, based on l/100 

"Transitioning EVs and plug-in hybrids to RUC is the first step in delivering on the National-ACT coalition commitment to bring all vehicles into the RUC system."

boo

26 minutes ago, locost_bryan said:

So the most affordable option would be a mildly worked 1256, that doesn't require any other parts or certifying (iirc 20% extra power before cert required).

Technically, requires cert due to capacity increase, regardless of power increase

As others have mentioned

First thing is to figure out

1. how much you can spend 

2. How much can you do yourself

3. how fast you want it to go and what do you want to achieve 

Most worthwhile swaps are going to need a gearbox/brakes/suspension/diff upgrade which is where the $$ required starts stacking up

If you can't do much yourself that also will get very expensive quickly 

This may dictate what you end up doing 

If he's just starting out and learning how to work on cars then it's probably better to start with an easier bolt in swap, as mentioned a 1256 with some mods to liven it up a bit, that doesn't need gearbox/brake/diff upgrades

A RUNAMUCK build thread update?

Is rain falling upwards?  

Have pigs taken to the sky?  

I'm actually abit fizzed to see progress on this 

I had fork seals done by honda about a year ago

The same fork still leaks about the same amount as before, they did the inner fork seals but didn't do the outer wiper seal which was perished/ cracked so had to take it back for that at the time, then I painted the forks and re fitted them 

I asked them to do bushes if it needed them but they said it didn't 

There doesn't appear to be any play and the chrome looks ok from what I can see on the outside 

Is fork seals something that is difficult or problematic usually? 

05 honda cb900f /hornet  

When you look at how much extra ADAS systems add to the costs of repairs, it's no wonder cars are getting very expensive to fix  

6 hours ago, xsspeed said:

Good cunts

21 minutes ago, DoBro Jesus said:

 

Awesome to see the help offered by others though, top notch.

This is one of the things that makes a club great 

2 hours ago, BobbyBreeze said:

I want to lift the chassis rails above the floorpan in my FairladyZ (260Z) for some more ground clearance. Basic thinking was get a new top-hat section folded and cut to fit the floorpan above the original ones, plug weld them in then remove the old ones at the floorpan, probably capping with some 3mm to give a bit of impact protection. At the front the new rail would go through the floorpan and fish-plate into the sides of the old rail, with a gusset to the castor arm mount. 

Any issue doing this as long as I can prove the new rail is stiffer than the old one? They are officially classed as floor stiffeners as they finish behind the seats and are only ~30mm deep. 

 

I can't see a problem with doing that, but you would want to discuss it with your certifier. 

In my opinion a good way to do it would be to do a design approval,  that way if it's approved , you can give the approval to your certifier and they should be able to pass it if it's done correctly

The only reason I suggest that is what you propose is not in the manual and it could be classed as a custom chassis rail , which then has to meet CCM reqs/ be 75x50x3, but that would make no sense in your application  

There's not much in the CCM relating to monocoque vehicles and chassis mods 

New springs that are a bit stiffer to cope with less travel, some good shocks and maybe some clever trimming of the bumpstop might get it to a point where it looks the same but drives much better

Is it 2wd or 4wd?

Usually just checked with them fitted. 

Belltech usually are ok but I've never seen any on a later model one like yours, which has a bolt in bearing unit I think? 

I'd be making sure you really want spindles, as they are quite pricey, plus cert, plus bump steer check, plus they can open up a can of worms as far as tyre clearance etc 

I have had customers fit drop spindles because they wanted a 50mm drop but it ends up with a whole new set of problems, like the tyres can now go 50mm further up so rub on big bumps, or the spindles change the track slightly so the tyres stick out, need geometry correction to pass bump steer check, rims rub on suspension arms , bla bla bla  

Some of the earlier trucks are actually better off with just a spring drop if you don't want it slammed as it gets the geometry better ie the control arms are flatter 

Yes. 

even pre approved complete front ends (heidts, rods by Reid etc) all have to have a bumpsteer check done 

you'd be surprised how many fail 

None of them are pre approved , all have to have a bump steer check done 

1 hour ago, HKM400 said:

Hoping someone can assist- we have an Isuzu Elf at work that is currently over 3.5 ton, so requires a class 2 license and COF. We want to remove some racking as it’s never used, this will put it under 3.5 ton so would only require class 1 to drive it and annual wof inspections. Is it a case of removing the racking and getting it certified at the new weight, or is there a separate process? 

Every time recently that I've asked LVVTA if a vehicle can have its GVM reduced even a small amount , the answer was no. 

One was a Ram TRX that the gvm was 3560kg which made it a heavy vehicle 

Another was a ute where if the gvm was lower they could have used a better size tyre 

It's something to do with NZTA rules, not lvvta 

21 hours ago, oldrx said:

Can I remove material from this ali brake caliper in the casting area marked and still pass cert? The square fitting on the new flexi line fouls 2-3mm. Tempted to just file all the way across but machining would leave a nicer finish. If machining maybe take the whole lot off flush with fitting face?

I think if the caliper doesn't have any recesses in the bore on the piston side, where that extra bit is on the back side, then you could machine it neatly for the hose to locate into. You would want to make sure the hose is going to be in the right orientation 

Otherwise if you think you might need to adjust hose position, probably better to get a hose end fitting that's rounded 

Looking at your lifter situation 

If they don't work or cause problems,  I wonder if it would be easy to make some adjustable solid ones that just plop in the holes with an adjuster/pivot/jam nut at the top