Jump to content

Mac's 88 E-GX81-AEPQF MARK II TC24


Hachi-ichi

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 531
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

110 mm F + R. @ Beaver. 20 mm lower wasn't allowed for 2 reasons. Bumps like you said and also the Floor pan stiffeners were lower than 70 mm. Lowest point had to be above 70 mm. I can understand where CLint and the LVV are coming from right now, any lower and it would eat shit on bumpy roads, and generally just be unsafe by LVV standards. can't really lower it at this point because that will void the cert. May just kit lower it or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

height isnt the be all and end all...... He clearly states 20mm lower is on bumps and therefore would be a no go for cert.

The reason I said it, which in the context of this thread is quite obvious tbh, is that he is pursuing a certain style of which lowness is a huge part. He's made mention of shakotan before and of the fact he wants to go low. Couple that with the images he posted of guard gap I could fit my sizeable head (IRL not possible don't hold me to that) in made me think he was trolling a nigga, statement regarding legalities and bumps inclusive of trolling.

 

Boost some pics up. Been following this build silently with high hopes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the cert check on it. When it came in the shop it had just under 50mm clearance at the front chassis rails and about 5mm bumpstop clearance all round. we raised the spring platforms to get some travel back, checked it and the back was a bit high so dropped the back again by shortening the strut length, the chassis rails are now 70mm off the ground, it drives well as it is now. The tyre size makes it look higher than it is, plus the rails hang down quite a lot.

 

the tech guy at LVVTA reckoned 80mm should be about as low as a car should be certed, however there is no legal minimum height, they dont want to set a particular amount as a minimum as every car is different. the 100mm wof rule is really a cockup as some cars are fine at that and others have zero travel, but they are "ok cos its got 100mm clearance"

 

a certain white van and its owner has caused a LOT of shit with LVVTA and the police which has put low cars under more scrutiny as LVVTA does not want a repeat of what has happened with that one

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question cletus - on what grounds do you consider a low car unsafe? Presumably there are reports, studies etc? Or is it simply driving it on our shitty ass roads?

I am curious as to the actual real-world repercussions of having a super low car, as in, is there sufficient recorded evidence where a number off accidents are attributable in some form to the suspension of a car being unsuitable. 

 

I get this uneasy feeling of a blanket rule which as you rightly stated is garbage.

If it comes across as me having a go, I just wanna say I'm definitely not, I've just always been curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as a cert inspection goes, there are a few different things to look at with slammed cars, and different people have different opinions on whats too low. Most cars, the suspension geometry or tyre rub is the limiting factor on how low you can go. with a car done in this style, that is not an issue because the wheels and tyres are small so that drops it a lot for starters, so the chassis rail height becomes the main stumbling block. I dont know of any reports or statistics regarding accidents vs height, i think they lump any modified cars together as just being "modified"

there was talk a while ago of having max spring rates in adjustable suspension because there was a run of cars in fatal accidents with suspension that was "too stiff", but that appears to have faded away for now.

 

as far as the chassis height- me personally i dont think its actually that unsafe to have a car low if the suspension works properly, ive done a lot of k's in 2 different nissans with drop spindles, one was bagged and one static.

 

damage is the main issue- a car with 50mm chassis rail clearance, and 30-40mm of suspension travel like what the rulebook says it should have minimum, is going to end up grinding thru the rails, sills, getting caught up on railway crossings, manhole covers, stuff like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep thats right.

however, chassis rails are not normally a wear and tear item haha. so certifying a car like that would result in trouble eventually.

 

i certed a cressida at 50mm not long after i started because i couldnt find a reason in the rule book at the time why it couldnt be that low (scrub line, travel etc all ok) but did end up with a lot of b/s from wof inspectors moaning about it, a cop rang me and asked why i certed it so low, etc...its not worth the hassle trying to justify or prove that its still safe when it probably isnt due to reasons mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...