Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A bit like the reply I got to that pm I sent you the other day?

i gave you some constructive criticism. feel free to post it if you want!

Should there be somthing said in regards to this Ha! Nowwwwww you want to be the club supporter she ws not rude. She was too the point. If you feel the need to defend the club then go into the Whore threads

( You know which ones I mean) And start cutting sick in their

I have ALWAYS been a club supporter! Please show me where i have not been!

And whore thread? there is a club in the whore threads? didn't know that! Guess that means we have 10 different clubs! the whore threads are for people to talk about how their weekend was, and where their next meet is.. the NSW section is for car talk and overall nsw discussions

Moanie, I didn't write that post with any malice/ridicule intended as clearly stated in the first line. I was simply stating the double standards that seem to be appearing lately. I don't want to be caught up in all the political/personal vendetta crap going on within the NSW club and some of its members.

My main point was why now... why this post... hundreds of others have written the exact same phrase without the reply that Liz posted? Herself included... its kinda obvious that people are trying to stir the pot.

no probs chickie! Neither was I! I also was of the opinion that the post was rude.. but i know what you mean about others using the same phrase... its just not happened in nsw that i've seen!

At the end of the day we are meant to help each other! i think its great dif took the time to do a quick search for the thread started, i just thought she could have presented the information a little better. Note, the thread starter did say he 'tried' to search... so its not like he jsut posted a thread without bothering! I'd understand if that was the case.. the fact that he tried and had no luck, would lead me to expect a polite response.

And start cutting sick in their

I'm having a little trouble with that one Andrew.... I think you listen to too much James Brown.... Hahahaha!! now.. befooooore you start... it's a joke.. ok? haha kinda stuffses.

Ya, maybe i was a bit blunt towards corinne. Her post came across a bit rude, and i probably didn't help the situation by being rude back!

Despite what people think, I certainly wasn't out to stir the pot, I just tackled an issue the wrong way!

Sorry Corinne!

lol.....

No cat fights... just confused with the double standards.............. :rofl:

Although mud is better than jelly..... chocolate is even better! :thumbsup:

Mud! thats so dirty! I like you! ahahaha

Also i've heard that if you repeatedly get defected for the same thing, you WILL lose points. but only if they see you've been defected for it before.

Has anyone else heard this? :sorcerer:

Mud! thats so dirty! I like you! ahahaha

Also i've heard that if you repeatedly get defected for the same thing, you WILL lose points. but only if they see you've been defected for it before.

Has anyone else heard this? :sorcerer:

lol.... :rofl:

Check out smoky's post on pg1 (no 17). If its cleared you won't.. if its a previous defect which remains uncleared then you will be fined with points.

Now that its safe in here again...

what about for having a un-engineered high mount turbo? do you get done for points for that?

*schlaps Anthony*

Only if it was previously defected and remains uncleared!

Although I'd be getting that puppy engineered. You have the emissions pass which is all you need to engineer the turbo, exhaust, FMIC. Thats the hard part done! ... they can still defect you as it is not engineered and cause you the hassle of clearing it all up.

Everytime they go over Lucas's sunny they try and get anything thats not on the certificate! Although pretty much the rocks stuck in the tyre tread are engineered on that thing... its a losing battle everytime!

glad to see the issues here self resolved, unless anyone stil has an issue?

but to be on topic

what about if you have a completely enclosed pod and a fmic? still defectable?

It shouldn't be defectable unless the cop is a real Ahole.

I don't think you have to enclose the fmic but I have heard you have to have mesh behind the front bar in front of the fmic?

Maybe to stop someone from getting sucked in.. lol..

I think we should get an engineer to post up about this stuff the RTA rules aren't that specific.

as I dont know for sure, only hearsay. You are only allowed one induction mod. Ie. only fmic or only pod. But if the pod is engineered and the fmic is engineered, are they ok together or only one or the other/

Now that its safe in here again...

what about for having a un-engineered high mount turbo? do you get done for points for that?

anything that differs from stock will need tot be engineered :thumbsup:

Mud! thats so dirty! I like you! ahahaha

Also i've heard that if you repeatedly get defected for the same thing, you WILL lose points. but only if they see you've been defected for it before.

Has anyone else heard this? :sorcerer:

lol.... :rofl:

Check out smoky's post on pg1 (no 17). If its cleared you won't.. if its a previous defect which remains uncleared then you will be fined with points.

be careful with this though guys! Cause i got defected twice for my pod and exhaust (this was by a rta/epa setup though and not just by a highway patrolperson) and the second time, the epa took m to court... so be wary of second time defects!

as I dont know for sure, only hearsay. You are only allowed one induction mod. Ie. only fmic or only pod. But if the pod is engineered and the fmic is engineered, are they ok together or only one or the other/

That is totally confuzzling.

I would assume that they would be too seperate mods and that both would would need to be engineered.

Is that right?

as I dont know for sure, only hearsay. You are only allowed one induction mod. Ie. only fmic or only pod. But if the pod is engineered and the fmic is engineered, are they ok together or only one or the other/

this 'one intake mod' thing is victorian. not nsw.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...