Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

code of practice states diffrerent

Sorry but no.

The wheels must be contained within the bodywork, or mudguards (including flares) when the

wheels are in the straight ahead position.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP11_Section_LS_Tyres_Suspension_Steering_V2_1Jan_2011%20v3.pdf

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb_ncop.aspx

And the code is still in draft and live so it does not come into play legaly, your state authority guidelines are the ones you must comply with.

Its a good read though.

And the code is still in draft and live so it does not come into play legaly, your state authority guidelines are the ones you must comply with.

Its a good read though.

wrong!

it already has....the standards must be met when engineer the car....we can have this debate all day but ive spent the last 6 months working on this and won...not to mention that my car was engineered in sydney to those rules

wrong!

it already has....the standards must be met when engineer the car....we can have this debate all day but ive spent the last 6 months working on this and won...not to mention that my car was engineered in sydney to those rules

Well then how about a link to said docs, as during my engineering process this came up as well, all the information I have come up with states that you cannot have wheels or tyres outside the body line, this is also what my engineer said, but if you have some new relevant information that can be backed up by a legal document that the local (i.e NSW RTA for example) will use for compliance then I shall be proven wrong.

Until then just saying Im wrong holds no weight.

Well then how about a link to said docs, as during my engineering process this came up as well, all the information I have come up with states that you cannot have wheels or tyres outside the body line, this is also what my engineer said, but if you have some new relevant information that can be backed up by a legal document that the local (i.e NSW RTA for example) will use for compliance then I shall be proven wrong.

Until then just saying Im wrong holds no weight.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb_ncop.aspx

these regulations are a standard and are live....all cars (including modified must meet these) and YES these are not drafts these are the CODES that must be met

as i said i spent the last 6months in court over this exact thing and have the documents to prove it how ever i see no need to show these to you to prove you wrong...

Sorry but no.

The wheels must be contained within the bodywork, or mudguards (including flares) when the

wheels are in the straight ahead position.

http://www.infrastru...n_2011%20v3.pdf

http://www.infrastru...n/vsb_ncop.aspx

And the code is still in draft and live so it does not come into play legaly, your state authority guidelines are the ones you must comply with.

Its a good read though.

http://www.infrastru...n/vsb_ncop.aspx

these regulations are a standard and are live....all cars (including modified must meet these) and YES these are not drafts these are the CODES that must be met

as i said i spent the last 6months in court over this exact thing and have the documents to prove it how ever i see no need to show these to you to prove you wrong...

LOL

Your link was the one I posted up before, YOUR link states.

The wheels must be contained within the bodywork, or mudguards (including flares) when the

wheels are in the straight ahead position.

LOL

Your link was the one I posted up before, YOUR link states.

The wheels must be contained within the bodywork, or mudguards (including flares) when the

wheels are in the straight ahead position.

2nd to that i never stated anything about that link saying otherwise....

NCOP11 Section LS Suspension and Steering V2 01Jan2011 [dl_acrobat.gifPDF: 1319 KB]

4.2.3 Clearance

No part of the wheel must touch any part of the body, chassis, steering, braking system or

suspension under any operating condition. To check this, the vehicle must be fully laden and

capable of negotiating raised obstacles that would normally be encountered whilst driving such

as speed humps and driveway entries. This test should be conducted from lock to lock without

any part of the rim or tyre contacting any other part of the vehicle. Test weight for passengers is

68kg plus 15kg per person for luggage where luggage space is provided.

Section LS Tyres, Rims, Suspension and Steering

Version 2.0 – 1 January 2011 Page 21/LS85

The wheels must be contained within the bodywork , or mudguards (including

flares) when the

wheels are in the straight ahead position.

Steering and/or suspension stops must not be modified to provide clearance for wheels.

Skyline model = R33 GTS

Wheel diameter = 17"

Wheel width = 9" front 10" rear

Wheel offset =45 on rims using 30mm bolt-on spacers = 15 offset

Tyre size = 235/45/17 front 255/40/17 rear

Modifications to fit =roll guards

299619_4740367320688_491036213_n.jpg

321397_4740448522718_1212336204_n.jpg

16800_4734162885581_370505900_n.jpg

Edited by viinnh
01Jan2011[/i]' timestamp='1358223891' post='6707258']

the vehicle must be capable of negotiating raised obstacles that would normally be encountered whilst driving such as speed humps and driveway entries.

tumblr_inline_mg512u1eto1qbnggp.jpg

Wondering on fitment for r34 with no problems and unrolled guards?

18x8.5+25

18x9.5+35

thanks

if it is stock height that will fit no worries, even with full sized tyres to the rims. Tho it may rub on the plastic splash guards in the fronts when turning hard, but it isnt hard to do that anyway. Nor is it a problem.

If you lower the car you will need to roll the rear arches.

I had 34R wheels on which are 9.0 + 30 with no dramas, new rims are a 9.5 so hoping all should be ok

didnt you check what clearance you had then when you had those rims on? that way you would easily be able to tell what ur working with.

Also your wheel alignmentsetup is going to play a part so what might fit on one car will rub on another...

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...