KKtrips

On 29/08/2021 at 14:19, cletus said:

Probably should have sold it to someone I didnt know then I wouldn't have to hear half drunk sharns about how good it would be with a turbo/lsd/4age/3sge/ 1uz

This reminds me, we need to have a drunken sharn night, been a while since the last one, from memory that might have been Waiarapa 2018, when we shared the cab of a Micro truck?

Isn't that RXSUMO's old vehicle? Someone is making a mint from his estate sale.

/beaten like a $20 hooker.

1 hour ago, xsspeed said:

@KKtrips thanks mate

As far as compiling this how was it done? Looking at various manufacturers recommendations? Ultimately curious about the variance in rim width based on profile, is that because a 70 profile is  generally designed to be a balloon sidewall but a 30 profile designed to be rigid?

Information was taken from the 2020 ETRTO Standard (like below but more current). Then a comparison was made to see if there were any common areas on the previous infosheet that we could increase over the ETRTO as we had already accepted them previously. Anywhere there was a logical choice to increase, it was done, but only up to a max of 1/2" more than the ETRTO. Then where there were gaps in the chart, they were filled in by following the patterns of up to down and left to right.

I hope that having a single sheet is much easier to use than the bible that the old one was. That was my idea so you can blame me if not.

11 minutes ago, MRWEST said:

Interesting, bit of a change from the last one, fixed what was probably actually an error on the old sheet which i was hoping too use on my car but ah well it happens haha

Yeah there were a couple of errors on the old one, which we have cleaned up, probably get some flak for it, but we couldn't perservere with the errors that were on the old one.

13 minutes ago, cletus said:

Do I get a chocolate starfish for being first? 

Yes, and some hotdog flavoured water to wash it down...

Also for everyone waiting, here is the draft new Tyre Size to Rim Compatibility Guide which has gone out for consultation.

It may be subject to change, so don't count all your horses in one basket yet.

On 12/07/2021 at 21:00, spiderwebfx said:

What is the correct ruling when it comes to this image in regards to tyres with sidewall tread
 

Tyre tread is the part that rolls on the road, so the horizontal part and probably a portion of the part that rolls around the corner. But vertical (sidewall) tread is not part of the tread in regards to guard coverage.

I would expect coverage of the horizontal to the red line.

 

The intent is aimed at jacked up 4WDs etc requiring mudflaps. I was there during the discussion and as far as I recall it was agreed that if the mudguard tapered off at the tail end then that would be OK, but it would seem that the words that Tony wrote did not allow for that.  

40 minutes ago, MRWEST said:

Hey @KKtrips is this still to come? Was looking at the wheel/tyre doc out for consultation at the moment last night, and refers to the previous multi page fact sheet for tyre to rim sizing?

Cheers

The sheet is completed and is in the mailout that is going out this week. Will post here once the updated document has been uploaded.

5 hours ago, spiderwebfx said:

I'm looking forward to seeing this. I'm guessing it'll just get the PDF updated on the LVVTA site?

 

Yup, it'll be a PDF on the LVVTA website.

22 minutes ago, Beaver said:

@KKtrips Don't excite me like that. It doesn't put out 50% more power but I believe because it has a churbro added it meets the requirement for needing hoops (and the gloria never came out turbo, so can't make use of that loophole either). I'd love to be told otherwise though!

The new Engine and Drivetrain standard has been relaxed. (note the Driveshaft Loop info-sheet you got above from has been withdrawn)

New requirements are

9.22.1
Unless 9.22.2 or 9.22.3 applies, a drive-shaft safety-loop must be fitted at the forward end of each section of drive-shaft transmitting power to the rear wheels on any low volume vehicle which is of a front-engine and either rear-wheel drive or four-wheel drive configuration, and which incorporates an open drive-line, if:
(a) the vehicle has had an engine conversion which has resulted in a significant increase in power or torque; or
(b) the vehicle has had its factory-fitted engine modified such that a significant increase in power or torque has resulted; or
(c) the drive-shaft fitted to the vehicle, either:
            (i) has been modified by welding; or
           (ii) is an aftermarket drive-shaft, including one made from steel, carbon-fibre, aluminium, or a composite material.

FYI - 9.22.2 and 9.22.3 are other exclusions for not requiring a driveshaft loop and a significant increase is considered to be 50% or greater.

You might not need driveshaft loops. Has the driveshaft been modified at all? Does it make 50% more power or torque than factory?

16 hours ago, RUNAMUCK said:

I wont do either actually.

I just surprised me that the new system has such a possibility to not work. I'm  not throwing shit at anybody.

Well if you are in an area of no cellphone reception, I expect they will probably end up looking over the vehicle, and either calling into control to look up the information or if it is during business hours, ask them to call LVVTA.

But to be honest most cops won't pull you over in the middle of nowhere for a modified vehicle check unless they see you being a dickhead and based on the response they get from the occupants of the vehicle, will either look for something to sticker you on, or give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that come WoF time, the WoF inspector will ping it.

14 minutes ago, RUNAMUCK said:

And say you were heading into a place with none?  

Just playing devils advocate......

Why are you asking people who are not policeman about what a policeman would do in a highly improbable scenario?

I'm sure the first time it happens to someone, we will all hear about it and no matter what we guess right now, we will probably be wrong.

The answer will either be the cop will do nothing, and you will scoff at the answer because ACAB, or the cop will do something and you will blow a fuse because ACAB.

On 01/06/2021 at 16:38, xsspeed said:

hey @KKtrips did these change since you mentioned it in 2019? Looking at tyres for 16x9 and 16x10, the 10s are semi ball ache

I just got the final version of the revised Tyre-rim Compatibility Infosheet approved last week.
It'll probably be out in the coming week or so. It's been simplified and reduced down to 1 page of comparisons rather than 6 pages.

Try Franz at Autoglas Stieger for rear side glass, he has surprised me in the past with how easily he can get weird stuff in from Europe/UK.

20 minutes ago, Testament said:

so implying more of an allowance for race/rally cars with stripped interiors

Keep in mind that some codes (ie drag racing) do not allow fuel lines inside the vehicle...

7 minutes ago, Testament said:

so implying more of an allowance for race/rally cars with stripped interiors

19 hours ago, shizzl said:

Can rubber fuel line be legally routed through the cabin of a road car? 

Then covered by carpet etc etc

Providin you use the correct fuel line, have no connections inside the passenger compartment and it must use bulkhead fittings at each end, it should be OK. But it must also be able to be inspected, so covered by carpet is a no go.

11 hours ago, Hemi said:

Hey @cletus / @KKtrips
is this something that can be certed? for some reason i thodught onotching has to be welded, or it the other way around? 
 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Looks like a serious bit of kit and would probably be overkill for anything other than an uber mega slam.

IMHO bolt on = fuck off.

Be like Mike and weld it in.