No problems here, all good sensible debate.Mick wrote: don't take anything i'm saying as an arguement it's just disscussion and thinking out loud, it's good to hear from someone that knows what the rules are
Dr Terry
Moderators: reidy, Blacky, NSW Mod
No problems here, all good sensible debate.Mick wrote: don't take anything i'm saying as an arguement it's just disscussion and thinking out loud, it's good to hear from someone that knows what the rules are
Its a shame modified cars get left out as most are just as passionate as the restorers.Dr Terry wrote:
You are correct, however the Sam Barris cars were one-off seriously modified cars & were not 'era typical' of cars of the 50s. Even they were, they involve serious modifications, which need engineering approval, so obviously they are not acceptable on H-plates. If engineered, they will probably qualify for the new scheme. As I've said a couple of times now, the word 'modified' does not appear in the RMS H-plate rules.
I don't want to go into the 'nitty gritty' of the problem with the Victorian model, but there are several serious issues down there.
Victoria does not have yearly NSW pink slip type inspections, so once a 'dodgy car' has been 'accepted, then it goes under the radar for good. There are a lot of unroadworthy cars (drag cars & others) in Victoria masquerading as 'historic' & the insurance companies are seeing a surge in comprehensive claims as a result. All this does is make it more difficult & more expensive for the genuine guys who just want to enjoy their old car every 2nd weekend, or whatever.
Dr Terry.
It's just part of their argument Cal. Not all, they have said even bringing in yearly checks is no guarantee you will have 100% of the cars on the road in a roadworthy state. Which I'm sure you all know someone who gets a dodgy yearly examination and others who use it as a tool to generate extra income, but we digress from the original topic.Cal wrote:I gotta say I'm staggered the RACV uses that as an argument for justifying non yearly checks.
They're admitting that there are unroadworthy cars out there, but it's ok because they may not contribute greatly to accident numbers ?
I realise that we are now off topic, but we might as well continue, because it's all related.iso007 wrote: New cars in nsw don't need pink slips for the first 5 years. Rego checks are $35.00 each so the mechanic certainly doesn't spend much time checking Them over. I see no great benefit in yearly inspection, it is just what we are used to that makes other states seem too lenient.
You look in the service book of any new VW, Audi, Toyota, and many other makes and they'll tell you that using up to 1lt of oil per 1000km is acceptable .iso007 wrote:Dr terry. It would be better for you if these uncaring car owners were driving volkswagons. They use up to 500ml of oil per 1000ks. So if they didn't check under the bonnet at least once a month you would get an engine rebuild out of it. It is unbelievable that in 2015, any car manufacturer could get away with this.
iso007 wrote:Yes the oil use is acceptable to them so they don't have to field Warranty claims from disillusioned customers.
If we were in Vic, I am sure you wouldn't go to a Mechanic and get him to do a yearly safety check on your car.