issue of style bars.
Today, I finally had an initial response regarding the matter. It has been
an incredibly arduous effort to get a response from LTSA. You can read THE
SAGA at the end of this e-mail. However, the person I spoke to today,
Peter, has been incredibly helpful.
Peter has just been given the task of researching our questions. You can
read MY ORIGINAL LETTER at the end of this e-mail. He will be writing me a
letter shortly, but outlined the following information on the phone.
THE ISSUE
He has been researching the current legislation and regulations. It appears
that style bars "fall between the cracks" of the system, as the system only
knows about roll bars. WOF inspectors have very simple guidelines to
follow, to ensure consistency. Their guidelines in relationship to style
bars, goes...
WOF Inspector:
Look for non-factory modification to car
MX-5 + style bar = non-factory modification = question
BWM Z-3 + roll bar = factory original = pass
Ask for roll-bar certification.
If no certification - hold on to WOF
Refer to a low volume vehicle certifier for expert decision
Low Volume Vehicle Certifier
Apply low vehicle volume standard for interior impact and roll bars.
System can't deal with them, can't be certified as a rollbar, because they
are not designed for such.
No certification possible
RESULT = No WOF
THE SOLUTION
Peter said several times, that style bars are an anomaly. He is talking to
the Low Vehicle Technical Association about a new guideline for testing
stations, concerning the fitting of style bars, in such a manner as the head
can't strike them in an an accident situation. He has been receptive to the
idea, that he consult with the MX5 club on the draft guideline, so we can
assist in its development, before it is finalised.
I believe the guideline will be quite simple to evaluate. (not so sure
about how to word it in one simple sentence). If I look at the Racing Beat
site, using the principle "the head can't strike them in an an accident
situation", then some would pass and some wouldn't:
Ok:
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57222
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57223
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57224
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57211
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57212
Not ok:
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57200
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57226
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57225
http://www.racingbeat.com/resultset.asp ... mber=57228
I'll keep you informed on progress.
Regards,
Mike - Wellington / Upper Hutt MX5 Club Co-ordinator
http://www.mx5club.org.nz/events/wellington/ - REGISTER NOW
04-970-9709 (home), 021-631-731, (text/cell)
Wellington, NZ
MY ORIGINAL LETTER ----------------------
Hi, I've been asked to investigate a topic that has been recently discussed
on the MX5 Club of New Zealand mailing list.
A number of our members have Style Bars attached behind the seat headrests.
They are called Style Bars because they are not
designed to provide rollover protection and are not intended to be used as a
safety device. You can see an example here:
http://www.racingbeat.com/photos/57224.jpg
A few members have been told by testing stations to remove them because
"they are a modification and should be certified". This was their
interpretation of recent legislation.
Can someone enlighten us as to which specific section of the which
regulations is being interpreted, and whether this means
our members who have had these things for upto 10 years, will now have to
retrospectively remove them?
We have tried searching the database at http://www.status.co.nz/LTSA.html,
but it is not a particularly useful web interface.
Your reply will be posted to the MX5 Mailing list and probably printed in
our magazine.
THE SAGA --------------------------
20-Mar-03: I e-mailed the LTSA, using the e-mail address on their website
info@ltsa.govt.nz on behalf of the MX5 Club of New Zealand (appendix 1). I
received no acknowledgement or response.
30-Apr-03: I resent the e-mail to the LTSA. I also asked what was the
normal time to receive a response from the LTSA. I indicated I would print
it and send it as a paper Official Information Act request in 3 days. I
received no acknowledgement or response.
5-May-03: (or thereabouts): I printed the e-mail and posted it in an
envelope to LTSA, marked Official Information Request. I received no
acknowledgement or response.
14-May-03: I sent a submission on the draft Land Transport Rule: Vehicle
Equipment (Rule 32017). I specifically requested an acknowledgment, so that
I knew my submission had been received and would be considered. I received
no acknowledgement or response.
19-May-03: (or thereabouts). I rang the LTSA head office in Wellington.
The operator put me through to Andrew Martin, the Information Services
Officer. Andrew investigated the situation and rang me back with the
following facts:
1. The LTSA mail system computer used to auto-acknowledge e-mails. The LTSA
mail system computer had crashed and been rebuilt a couple of months ago.
The feature hadnt been re-installed and no one had noticed.
2. My e-mails of 20-Apr-03 and 30-Apr-03 had been received, but the person
who received them had chosen not to answer them. Andrew said he was unable
to get to the bottom of why this was.
3. My submission of 14-May-03 had probably been received and was probably on
the desk of the person handling the submissions along with 400 or 500 other
submissions.
4. My printed OIA request of 5-May-03 had been received and was being
processed.
25-May-03: Wrote a letter of complaint to Paul Swain, Minister of Transport
(and responsible for LTSA), outlining the above.
28-May-03: E-mail received from his Private Secretary (Transport), saying I
may expect a personal reply from the Minister in due course.
4-June-03: Peter Parnell, LTSA, rang to talk about how he is investigating
on our behalf
