For Questions Regarding WOFs/CERTs/NUMBER PLATEs

[yetchh]

So what would those meager flaps actually achieve? 

[KKtrips]

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.  

[AllTorque]

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

[Nominal]

If it meant Cobra's had to have mudflaps I wouldn't be mad.

[cletus]

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? 

[cletus]

[cletus]

Land transport rule doesn't mention a minimum height for the rear of a mudguard for single wheels, only width  

 

[Mof]

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?

[AllTorque]

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.

[Testament]

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?

[xsspeed]

mudflap dimensions gunna be written on cert plate?

[ajg193]

Does the LVVTA not have enough power that the NZTA would listen if they told them to fix the general WoF VIRM?

[Nominal]

Some cans of worms should not be opened. If they look at it, it's likely to get more proscriptive and therefore worse.

[NickJ]

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?

[yetchh]

11 hours ago, Testament said:

 

Other solution would be to add more slam?

 

That is exactly what I was about to say... 

[yoeddynz]

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!!!!

[NickJ]

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!

[yoeddynz]

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!... 

 

 

[kws]

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

 

[Bling]

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]