yetchh Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 So what would those meager flaps actually achieve? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKtrips Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 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. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllTorque Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 Here is my understanding of current WOF requirements for mudguards. The cover down to the centre line rule is for trucks or flat decks that have a seperate ‘individual’ mudguard. If a car has the body panel as the mudguard it does not need to go down as far as the centre line. https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/general/tyres,-wheels-and-hubs/mudguards 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nominal Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 If it meant Cobra's had to have mudflaps I wouldn't be mad. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cletus Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 1 hour ago, AllTorque said: Here is my understanding of current WOF requirements for mudguards. The cover down to the centre line rule is for trucks or flat decks that have a seperate ‘individual’ mudguard. If a car has the body panel as the mudguard it does not need to go down as far as the centre line. https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/general/tyres,-wheels-and-hubs/mudguards I'd be happy to be incorrect on this one, but I cant find anything in the virm that says there are different requirements for trucks and cars apart from the different requirements for dual wheel vehicles The same mudguard diagram is in the motorcycle section as well @KKtrips possibly some wording that captures 4wd, lifted, or scratchbuilt vehicles that do not replicate a production vehicle might work? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cletus Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cletus Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 Land transport rule doesn't mention a minimum height for the rear of a mudguard for single wheels, only width Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mof Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 11 hours ago, cletus said: The problem is once it's in the book, a car going through cert will need mudflaps fitted to pass... Does this present an interesting conundrum where mudflaps fitted at certification, in the photos, removed at a later stage, legal at wof time but not matching cert photos so therefore.... not legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllTorque Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 1 hour ago, cletus said: 3 hours ago, AllTorque said: I'd be happy to be incorrect on this one, but I cant find anything in the virm that says there are different requirements for trucks and cars apart from the different requirements for dual wheel vehicles My interpretation is a vehicle either has individual mudguards or a body panel mudguard. Like most of the virm it is unclear. Any time I have called nzta for help they tell me to use my judgment. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testament Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 12 hours ago, cletus said: I had a couple of cars in today so put cardboard on them where a flap would be required under the proposed rule Other solution would be to add more slam? 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsspeed Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 mudflap dimensions gunna be written on cert plate? 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 Does the LVVTA not have enough power that the NZTA would listen if they told them to fix the general WoF VIRM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nominal Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 Some cans of worms should not be opened. If they look at it, it's likely to get more proscriptive and therefore worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 I currently spend a substantial part of my working day reviewing documentation for building quite complex machinery, this is not only for our assembly team but also to satisfy various directives and certification standards from around the world that we are subjected to. Biggest learning is not to do the usual human response and try to control every detail, the art is in conveying the design intent of each particular assembly without constraints, be that tooling, process or parts. For example, if I put down 'torque fastener to 200Nm' I then need to ensure there are torque wrenches available at that station, they are then subject to quality control, periodic inspection and calibration, Additionally, I will need to justify why that torque is specified so that the next engineer understands why that is stated. If the above fastener is not structural and once loaded could fall out with no il-effect, the effort above is quite wasteful. Whenever i've tried to be fancy with describing a process, it has backfired, not in a physical failure, but in restricting movements without rewriting existing documents. I would say it is clear to everyone here that in an effort to define a mudflap (noble intent) this is rearing up to be quite an own goal. While arbitrary rules also hurt, in the case of the mudflap, what is the intent? is there real harm from lack of full coverage? Your pics Cletus seem to shut down the whole discussion quite visibly, unless rally flaps for all? 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yetchh Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 11 hours ago, Testament said: Other solution would be to add more slam? That is exactly what I was about to say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoeddynz Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 14 hours ago, NickJ said: I currently spend a substantial part of my working day reviewing documentation for building quite complex machinery, this is not only for our assembly team but also to satisfy various directives and certification standards from around the world that we are subjected to. Biggest learning is not to do the usual human response and try to control every detail, the art is in conveying the design intent of each particular assembly without constraints, be that tooling, process or parts. For example, if I put down 'torque fastener to 200Nm' I then need to ensure there are torque wrenches available at that station, they are then subject to quality control, periodic inspection and calibration, Additionally, I will need to justify why that torque is specified so that the next engineer understands why that is stated. If the above fastener is not structural and once loaded could fall out with no il-effect, the effort above is quite wasteful. Whenever i've tried to be fancy with describing a process, it has backfired, not in a physical failure, but in restricting movements without rewriting existing documents. I would say it is clear to everyone here that in an effort to define a mudflap (noble intent) this is rearing up to be quite an own goal. While arbitrary rules also hurt, in the case of the mudflap, what is the intent? is there real harm from lack of full coverage? Your pics Cletus seem to shut down the whole discussion quite visibly, unless rally flaps for all? Wow ! - that seems all very complex for your work that builds wheel barrows!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 15 minutes ago, yoeddynz said: Wow ! - that seems all very complex for your work that builds wheel barrows!!!! As chief engineer of wheelbarrow alignments, I take my role preserving even tyre wear very seriously! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post yoeddynz Posted July 9, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2021 I can see! I just had a look on Google at your work. Very impressive. You have a very talanted and keen looking bunch of team mates. You look so proud!... 4 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kws Posted July 12, 2021 Share Posted July 12, 2021 Would I require a cert for fitting a strut brace like this? Goes between the two rear strut towers, but requires two holes in each strut tower to be drilled for the bolts. It'd be in the back of the Carib/Wagon but same concept. @KKtrips @cletus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bling Posted July 13, 2021 Share Posted July 13, 2021 How much point is there actually having a brace like that? Does the whole car flex that much? Probably don't need to tag them in here, they frequent often enough [ling]you're modifying the structure of the vehicle so my guess is needs a cert[/ling] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.