Bling

Great thanks for clarifying that, one less thing to sort. I'll get some proper anchorage plates to replace what is in there currently though as I'm not 100% happy with current setup. Just good to know it's not something that will need to be to current specs. Cheers.

From what I have read (which could be a wrong interpretation, hence asking the pros in here) the following documents and come up with my thoughts. Due to being retrofit previous to 1 January 1991, the anchorages must comply with 2.3 below, but not with an approved vehicle standard. So my theory is so long as it meets 2.3 requirements, it should be ok. Vehicle falls within table 2.2 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/seatbelts-and-seatbelt-anchorages-2002/#table22 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/seatbelts-and-seatbelt-anchorages-2002/#416a Retrofitted seatbelt anchorages that are not required to comply with approved vehicle standards 4.1(6) A seatbelt anchorage that is retrofitted must comply with 2.3, but does not have to comply with an approved vehicle standard if it is retrofitted in a motor vehicle: (a) before 1 January 1991, and the vehicle is one to which Table 2.2 applies; or (b) before 1 April 2002, and the vehicle is one to which Table 2.1 applies. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/seatbelts-and-seatbelt-anchorages-2002/#23 2.3 General safety requirements for seatbelt anchorages 2.3(1) A seatbelt anchorage and its mounting location: (a) must be of a strength appropriate to both the motor vehicle and the attached seatbelt; and (b) must be structurally sound and free of corrosion; and (c) must not be damaged or distorted. 2.3(2) When a seatbelt or part of a seatbelt is integral to a seat, the seat and the seat anchorages must be compatible in strength with the seatbelt or with that part of the seatbelt attached to the seat, as appropriate. 2.3(3) In assessing whether 2.3(1) is complied with, a person in section 5 may take into account evidence that the seatbelt anchorage is within the motor vehicle manufacturer’s operating limits. 2.3(4) In assessing whether 2.3(2) is complied with, a person in section 5 may take into account evidence that a seat or seat anchorage is within the motor vehicle manufacturer’s or component manufacturer’s operating limits, including the type of seatbelt for which it was originally designed.

I don't have a ticket handy for the cert car, but carjam says 14-Sep-1990. The car that I can check the actual ticket on says 1/89 and carjam says 25-jan 1989, so i'll assume the carjam dates are correct for now. Can try find an old ticket for the other car if needed though.

Have hopefully a quick on regarding rear seatbelts. Car in question will be going through cert. When imported it was fitted with static diagonal belts in rear. As per the requirements of the time to have at least static diagonal belts. These were bolted into parcel shelf with rectangular plates. It will have passed compliance I imagine with this as it will have been required on entry due to date of import. Have been reading the seatbelt anchorage standard, which seems to have come around post compliance of said vehicle. Will going for a cert trigger a requirement to meet the standard? I have two vehicles that had the seatbelts retrofitted in the same manner and have no problems come WOF time. Just wondering if I'm going to need to do anything to get through cert or not. Both cars must have gone through compliance fine as factory they come.with lap belts and no allowance for diagonals. This work must be done on entry at the time. Cheers for any help on this.

I don't have that one, but it looks to have all sorts of adjustability. Mine has a similar level of adjustability and I just wang the voltage / wirespeed / amps on whatever gets me a decent result. I never weld car panels at the lowest setting anyway as usually tack, tack, tack. If you plan to run beads on thin steel the lower settings might be needed. Wouldn't surprise me if it came with the 0.6mm roller / can probably order one if not.

What primer are you using? Does presol remove any of the shit on there?

Chassis probably just becomes the spring lol.

Ignoring setups like my work van that is single leaf. How do you think multi leaf setups are affected though when the stack is no longer acting in the way it's supposed to? Just seems like bad design to me if the loading is such that the springs are no longer working as designed. Unless of course they are designed to work inverted, but i'm not sure anyone would design for that. Depending on the spring stack layout, i'd think most would all be compressed and not able to function correctly. The van phones shown about would have the bottom spring not acting when needed, but completely compressed along it's length against the springs above it. Hitting a bump has to act on something other than the spring pack as they are all jammed together. I don't have leaf springs, but always up for learning.

Imagine how well it would handle with operating suspension then. Inverted leaf springs to me would be the equivalent of bound coil springs. This theory could be wrong, but I can't see how inverting leaf springs actually offer any form of good suspension. flipside to that, is you often can't go silly low and have working springs, so it is a balancing act between looks and handling nice. As for the legality, I was quite surprised that inverted leaf springs are not a WOF issue. Work ute had passed previously no worries. Only had the extra spring fit by choice. I bet it handled a lot nicer afterwards though (not my vehicle).

People tend to add another leaf when getting them reset. Inverted is just bad in general. Old mans ute had stock suspension inverted with his box on the back (most likely roll like this with no clue). He had another leaf put in and all sorted.

I think I recall something about links expiring? Could be dreaming though.

What diameter ducting do you need for the heater vent?

Yeah I regret mentioning it now, but it was mainly in case those that don't actually know they will be up shit creek, now know if they read the thread. Dude probably won't have insurance on the pile anyway so it was totally a hypothetical.

I never said that? You specifically said you are going to drive the vehicle with parts that it is not certified to have installed. So my point was (didn't think i'd need to explain it I guess), if you stack it, they can look at the photos and if they determine the changes you made contributed to the accident, you're up shit creek.

MIG / TIG use different gas IIRC, so go with the gas to suit the process you're using. I roll co2 and MIG, because I own the cylinder. Argoshield (for MIG) seems to be a better option.

No one cares. LVVTA will have photos though, so don't stack it into something as you'll be paying off their repairs forever. The reason you can't make changes is because people in general are stupid and don't know what is and isn't safe. So everyone has to suffer. If you want to swap wheels like you do underwear, stick within the rules to not need a cert. If you want the freedom to run the likes of coilovers and aftermarket brakes, then you play by a different rule book. Doesn't matter what you do, people will get upset at something.

You should bring a rolla.

Best option is to ask the certifier what they want you to do. They'll all have their own preferences.

Winter is tough, I had to wait for warm weather to do most of my painting as I didn't want to paint inside / also have very limited space. Most of my stuff I did a panel at a time, and epoxy primed it. Then waited till it was warm enough to do the filler primer / top coat. If you're wanting to do the topcoat, then a decent heater should sort that. I had plastic surrounding the car at one point, suspended from the roof. This kept all the grinder dust enclosed. Could do similar for painting panels.

Thanks for that, would certainly have a paper trail to show it was done to the correct specs.

When using aftermarket coilovers, is it acceptable to substitute parts out for custom parts so long as they are at least as strong as parts they replace? Think locking nut at bottom of threaded tube. Supplied is quite short. I want to get some fabricated that are longer with the same locking design at the top. So basically threaded tube below the nut that is the same diameter as the shock body. But all one piece, machined out of the same material of original locking nut. Reason for this is due to going large wheels, the locking nut is too close to wheel. Moving it up also moves it inboard due to strut angle, thus gaining clearance. TIA

So correct me if I'm wrong, lol. But you're saying if you claim you accidently make money from an unintentional 3 property development, you don't have to pay income tax on the profits? That's either the best loophole ever, or your accountant will likely end up in jail lol. Just doesn't add up to me. So feel free to dumb it down further if you can be bothered

Yeah might hoon into local agent for those chaps and see what they say. I've only priced up genuine so far, which is why I started looking at other options lol. Was already on RockAuto shopping so figured i'd see what they offered.

Will do, a lot of places do off the shelf bars. I want the receiver type bar as my shins are sensitive to walking into fixed bars at pace. But will look at all the options when the time comes. Wiring is the bigger pain.

Sweet cheers. A google search shows that it's actually built out of quite thick plate, so i'm now pretty confident that it's up to the task. Just wasn't sure if I was missing anything WOF wise. But from the towbars i've seen on cars i'm assuming so long as they are of sound construction, it's an area not actually regulated for light vehicles.