PDA

View Full Version : Aftermarket Exhaust and New Rules



Marmoot
3rd May 2003, 21:39
Hi everybody. This is the new rules. Anybody has read this?
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-safety/street-drag-qa2.html)

Basically, it looks like ALL aftermarket exhaust are illegal now :eek: :eek: :eek: (correct me please if I'm wrong. And I bloody hope I'm wrong).
What do you think of it? I think it's a load of $%^#*.

SpankMe
3rd May 2003, 21:46
I don't suspect it will be strictly enforced on everybody but just used to hassle the trouble makers and extreme noise makers. That doesn't mean that the odd cop or WOF guy can't be an asshole and do you for having an after market exhaust.

I am getting sick of the constant introduction of new laws. On their own they may seem to be doing the wright thing, but on the whole they just take away more of our freedom and turn this country into a nanny state.

SPman
3rd May 2003, 22:01
What a crock of *#$@ Shit!:argh:

Yet more friggin regulations to make everyones life a misery.

I see trouble ahead with this one (also my bike wouldnt pass under this new reg - so, do I have to pay $1500 for a standard muffler, and also lose 4hp and gain about 10Kg!!) :beer:

Bastards:brick:

merv
4th May 2003, 09:08
Yep its all bad news. I was in getting a WOF for the car yesterday and my friendly garage guy was telling me all about the exhaust thing and you guys have heard me spouting off about bureaucracy before regarding speed cameras and the like. The LTSA are now trying to act like our guardian angels and control us totally. Whoever voted for that to happen?

The new rule is quite specific that modified exhausts aren't allowed but the WOF guy will have to show some discretion because, take a car for instance, like our humble Honda. If it finally did rot its exhaust and I went to somehwere like Pitstop to get it replaced, they would I am sure not have a Honda genuine part to put on it. Would it then be illegal? If so what future is there for aftermarket shops at all. So the same applies to bikes, we could be in for a tough ride here. I would have thought some sort of db meter test would be the only fair way to do this as surely the actual output of noise is the issue and they are really targetting the super loud mega blow-pipes on the back of the boy racer cars.

As for the other new regs that came into effect this year they mainly pissed me off in relation to the cars and trailer. I had to replace all the suspension and steering ball joints on our classic Mitsubishi Celeste because you can no longer have any sort of worn or damage rubber boot cover on them even if they are oozing grease and are never likely to get damaged in the joint. One little knick and they are done for in the eyes of the bureaucrats. That cost me about $300 and a days work on Easter Monday to put right. The trailer now has to have tyres to the same tread standard as the car, so nor more using old car tyres on the trailer. Since when did a trailer wipe out because of this? I have been towing mine for 20 years now without a problem. The other one is safety chains welded on are no longer allowed unless you can produce a welders certificate for it. So I cut off the old chain and bought a new one at Repco and used shackles at both ends. All good stuff for us that also tow dirt bikes around eh!

Where will it end? I see them driving the regs as hard as Japan so that in the end we won't be importing Jap cast-offs that have got close to their comprehensive check requirements so maybe bang goes the cheap price of vehicles in New Zealand relatively speaking.

The US intrigues me because I understand they have no equivalent of the WOF test, just rely on the cops to give you a citation if they see something wrong with your vehicle. I can't see them in uniform crawling underneath to check ball joints or exhaust systems. May be the land of the free has it right!

So OK guys better dig your original mufflers out of the garage if you still have them.

boris
4th May 2003, 09:59
i sort of think it a good thing,Some cars and bikes make to much noise.SO harley riders will be pissed off.YOU can have an after market system as long as its not louder than it was standard.Hell my SV is louder than std so i will live and see what happens.

 

BoRis 

Slim
4th May 2003, 15:03
Originally posted by merv
I would have thought some sort of db meter test would be the only fair way to do this as surely the actual output of noise is the issue and they are really targetting the super loud mega blow-pipes on the back of the boy racer cars.
My thought exactly.

Any law that requires subjective rather than scientific measurement is going to cause all sorts of problems for all sorts of people.

My car exhaust (less than a year old & not a standard Toyota part) was louder at install than the faulty one that was removed. Go figure. :confused:


What about people who have high performance cars and motorcycles, but are not "boy racers"?
The LTSA’s advice to them is to drive responsibly so that you are not stopped and given a green sticker.
I'm gonna go with this approach & see what happens, since I don't have the original Honda exhaust anymore.

:calm:

Slim
4th May 2003, 15:04
One more thought:

What about classic bikes & cars with standard (for their original manufacture) exhaust systems?




Oh. And it kinda pisses me off that the LTSA can't be bothered to spell check their articles.

SPman
4th May 2003, 16:55
Once again a rushed, poorly thought out piece of legislative crap, that is going to make life more miserable than it should be, because some faceless beauracrats have got not enough to do except respond to half baked,knee jerk, reactionaries!:argh:

Stormer
4th May 2003, 18:03
Yeah, this could be a major headache IF they decide to get serious about it.

I read in that stupid "Indicator" thing they kindly give you with your reg. bill that with cars, you`re not allowed tyres 25mm wider than standard, and the diameter cannot change as well. No more wide low-profiles for the boy racers.

At this rate, we`ll soon all be riding / driving carbon copy vehicles.

So much for bloody individuality!!

bluninja
4th May 2003, 18:12
So what do you need to do to become a vehicle manufacturer?????

After all think of all the cars and bikes that share components.....engines, wheels, switchgear, suspension. Yet the resulting vehicle is to manufacturers specs. So I reckon I will setup myself up as a manufacturer of bikes based on Aprilia RSVR but with lighter freeer flowing exhausts, bigger air box, and different engine mapping.

Wonder how this will affect custom cars and bikes, which are nothing like the donor parts?

TTFN

Motu
4th May 2003, 19:59
Actually,all those regs are old,they are just being enforced - thanks to the boy racers who have pushed LTSA into action.

As a WOF inspector I'm really looking forward to this one - all my friends with non standard exhausts will think I'm an arsehole,so they won't bring their vehicles in to me.Owners of bussineses who I do work for will have to get complete new systems on their Commodores,so I won't have to service their fleet vehicles anymore.And the vindictive little shits who drive the likes of Subbies will probably burn my workshop down,no more worries!

I'm on the front line here,failing cars I've passed doz of times before,taking huge flack from angry customers,I'm not happy at all - and nor is the MTA,action is being taken but in the meantime - you fail buddy.

We can't cut you any slack,because the LTSA won't cut us any.If they find you have a new WOF with a noisy non standard exhaust - guess where the first stop is? My door - and there goes my wof authority.Sorry,I'm not losing half my income just because you can't find a complete new system for your CBX.

twistymover
4th May 2003, 22:32
Aftermarket exhaust or standard exhaust it should be based entirely on whether or not we exceed a certain decibel level. If someone does exceed this level, then rather than throw away a whole expensive aftermarket system, some aftermarket Guru perhaps could invent/provide baffles of all different shapes, sizes and lengths for people to install themselves and pass the wof without becoming bankrupt. Years ago Dunstalls were all the rage. I bought a pair for my 1975 Benelli 650 Tornado, even though there was nothing wrong with the originals.But I loved the sound they made.They made any 360 twin sound great. Those were fun days.

wari
5th May 2003, 00:01
Relevant Thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

Slim
5th May 2003, 08:43
I've just read The Cold Ones very informative posts in the "Relevant Thread" and now I'm wondering whether the government's done their homework properly regarding the old regs being fully superceded by the new regs.

Anyone care to comment?

Motu
5th May 2003, 08:46
The wof inspection is a visual test only,we aren't allowd to remove anything for a closer look,we can only make jugdments on howwe see it.A driveby decible test is way out of line - like do you guys want a $100 wof test?

wkid_one
5th May 2003, 10:38
All this creates is excess work for everyone.  Harley riders are notorious for having one set of pipes for the warrant and another for the road....

What happens here if your bike was supplied with aftermarket parts ex the dealer - are they then liable to 'replace' your mufflers as they supplied a 'non-warrantable' exhaust.

I am essentially fucked with the VTR - they will fail me the minute I drive up - yay!  Time to sell the bike I think

wkid_one
5th May 2003, 11:30
<DIV>Copy of my email to the LTSA....</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Hello,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Just reading the website on the new 'exhaust' law and I have some questions I need answers for if possible for a wider forum of bike riders.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is not true the exhaust 'loudness' laws were already&nbsp;in place, just not readily enforced?</DIV>
<DIV>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Why include motorcycles where in many instances&nbsp;having a 'louder' exhaust is a statistically proven&nbsp;'safety' feature from overseas studies.</DIV>
<DIV>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Why no phase in period?&nbsp; Many riders and&nbsp;drivers&nbsp;alike have had years without this law and spent&nbsp;countless thousands on their vehicle - yet this is a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; blatent disregard for the previous precedent set and&nbsp;allows owners no time to prepare.</DIV>
<DIV>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Has the LTSA worked with the manufacturers to&nbsp;ensure adequate suppliers of OEM mufflers are&nbsp;available to provide sufficient market when this law&nbsp;is enforced?&nbsp; If not, you are effectively leaving the&nbsp;population with no means of transport should demand outstrip supply - is there are contingency plan to deal with this?</DIV>
<DIV>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What if the exhaust is supplied with the bike/car at&nbsp;time of 'original' purchase (ie from new)......is this&nbsp;acceptable?&nbsp; For example, in my instance, the bike &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was supplied with Aftermarket Pipes from the&nbsp;Factory!?</DIV>
<DIV>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Why didn't the LTSA just introduce Low Volume&nbsp;Certification for exhausts?&nbsp; Surely if they are&nbsp;manufacturered to ISO and NZ standards, exhaust &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; quality is not comprised and the certifier can then&nbsp;ensure that the vehicle complies with maximum DBA&nbsp;readings?</DIV>
<DIV>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is the LTSA not just working on DB readings?</DIV>
<DIV>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In this instance, are 'free' inspections going to be&nbsp;offered to the owners of vehicles who are concerned&nbsp;about their exhaust?</DIV>
<DIV>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Can I please have any statistical data showing the&nbsp;correlation between loud exhaust and excess&nbsp;speed/dangerous driving?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

wkid_one
5th May 2003, 11:32
Questions and answers (drivers of modified vehicles)

The area of dispute is the word modified.&nbsp; I have spoken with a solicitor and the argument here is WHO modified it.&nbsp; I can adequately demonstrate my bike was bought as new with the pipes and supplied to NZ dealers with the Two Bros pipes by the factory - therefore apparently exempting me from the law.

Motu
5th May 2003, 11:41
It's a win/win for the likes of Pit Stop who fitted these big bore systems in the first place - now they can charge to fit a replacement as well.OEM systems are only available for NZ assembled or NZ new - jap import systems have to be made.

Bikes are a prob - I think they see this as a way to hit the Harley open pipes with one rule.But a big thousand dollar can with a respectable brand name is a borderline case - I'm not looking forward to my first one.

Motu
5th May 2003, 11:57
I made my own mufflers,sound ok to me - on the fringe here.

wkid_one
5th May 2003, 11:58
It seems to me to be a case of attacking the minority by legislating the majority.....a typically NZ response to anything that goes wrong.&nbsp; We have seen so much of it lately - prime example number one - Dogs off leashes!&nbsp;

To me this could have been better dealt with in a variety of ways;

1. More 'controlled facilities' for so called boy racers to vent their desires

2. LVC rather than green stickers/warrants

to name a couple.

However, I am still at a loss as to how 'loud exhaust' = dangerous driving.&nbsp; My explaination is it is just another way for the police to reach their 3 contacts per hour.

Fuck'm all - I am taking the slipons off the bike and riding around with no mufflers on at all - see how they like that!

Coldkiwi
5th May 2003, 12:20
I agree... its a load of arse that just means people are going to have to hold on to their standard pipes when they get an aftermarket one! (hey, maybe the prices will drop on those!? (silver lining?).

Its just going to be a pain to switch them over for the warrant. If the HD boys can do it so can I.

I'll be very interested to hear if LTSA have any response to the assertion that noise levels were already in place. They probably didn't even know....

&nbsp;

&nbsp;:brick:

aff-man
5th May 2003, 12:42
Would be interesting to know what i should do my vt's old exhaust was rusting,dented and generally crap looking so after numerous visits bikeshops all i could find that wasn't to expensive was a 400 exhaust of course the bike is heaps louder and stuff.But what about the guys with bigger,older bikes who have replaced exhaustes but now they arn't make anymore or will cost a small fortune for a modified one ???? Or if we have the old one but it looks crap do we have to use it.The cosmetic value of an exhaust on a motorcycle is also quite a bit more that a car and i doubt anyone thought of that.And what exactly is the law doing sure it lets the extaordinarilly light sleepers sleep but as to racing wouldn't a bike that goes 250kph with an after market exhaust now go 249kmph so i would be interested to know what exactly they are trying to prevent????????????

Slim
5th May 2003, 13:06
I don't know what it's like in Auckland, but on a still Friday or Saturday night in Hamilton, you can hear the boy racers cruising the main street for hours on end, from miles away. I'm not a light sleeper, and this doesn't bother me (hell, on a quiet night you can hear the trains at Frankton Junction, all the way from my place - what're they gonna do about that???)

But some fool decided to turn an old building on the main street into a bloody pricey hotel and not upgrade the windows for noise control, so they're probably one of the loudest voices, locally, FOR this new legislation.




I think we've missed our chance. Submissions were called for on this law some time ago, but because we all assumed they were only talking about cars, we didn't look into it and therefore never realised the serious implications for us as motorcycle owners.

It'll certainly be interesting when we next go for WOF, that's for sure.

wkid_one
5th May 2003, 13:15
Interesting Article from Australian Site (Motorcycle Council)&nbsp;- do our people do any legislative research??

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/40.html

There comments - any proposed reduction in motorcycle exhaust noise needs to be looked at very carefully!!!!!

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Slim
5th May 2003, 14:37
It would appear, from the NZ Police website, that the noisy exhaust problem is low on their priorities.

Check: http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.php where the last point (#21) states: "The existing legislation regarding noisy vehicles will continue to apply."

I've checked out the LTSA site, but I can't find the details which WOF inspectors will be adhering to. Anyone spoken to their local bike dealer who's a WOF issuer??

What is a Green Sticker? If one is issued one of these, can one ride/drive ones vehicle home and thence to the WOF station?

Slim
5th May 2003, 14:41
I think I've answered my own question after further searching on the Police site:

2. Vehicle that does not Comply with Regulations or Rules (Green Sticker)

Where you believe on reasonable grounds that a vehicle does not comply with the provisions of the regulations or the rules, issue a Green Sticker under Section 115 (1) of the Land Transport Act 1998. The vehicle may continue to be driven to reach a specified place for repair or may continue to be driven for a given time or under limitations as to speed or route or otherwise ( A breach of this order is enforceable)

3. Vehicle that does not Comply with Regulations or Rules (Verbal or Written Direction other than Green Sticker)

Where a minor defect is found that does not warrant the vehicle being inspected for a warrant of fitness or certificate of fitness, issue a verbal direction or a written direction on a TON to direct the vehicle to a place for repairs.

Motu
5th May 2003, 15:04
Originally posted by Slim


I've checked out the LTSA site, but I can't find the details which WOF inspectors will be adhering to. Anyone spoken to their local bike dealer who's a WOF issuer??


ALL wof inspectors - anyone who issues a wof to a vehicle with a noisy or non standard exhaust risks a visit from the LTSA Performance Review team...who will revoke their licence to issue wofs.If you find some stupid inspector who will give you a wof with an illegal system - give him all the custom you can...we don't want him on our team - they give us a bad name.

Slim
5th May 2003, 15:31
Originally posted by Motu
ALL wof inspectors - anyone who issues a wof to a vehicle with a noisy or non standard exhaust risks a visit from the LTSA Performance Review team...who will revoke their licence to issue wofs.If you find some stupid inspector who will give you a wof with an illegal system - give him all the custom you can...we don't want him on our team - they give us a bad name.
But what exactly constitutes an illegal exhaust?

It seems to me, that modified exhausts are legal, if they're no louder than the original, but how does one determine that?


Wkid_One - I've just been talking to Boyd Honda & they reckon the VTRs weren't imported (or approved by the LTSA) with the Two Brothers exhausts on them. The exhausts were either installed by the dealers themselves or possibly the importer. Your arguement may not hold up.

If a vehicle is failed because of the exhaust, it's apparently up to the owner to then prove their exception.

wkid_one
5th May 2003, 16:33
It is all yet open for discussion - as Honda imported the bikes and are the manufacturer and are SOLD with the pipes, apparently this gives me legal grounds for a position.&nbsp;

Until the position is demonstrated we won't know.&nbsp; I am taking the VTR in to the testing station tomorrow to get their opinion on the bike and its exhaust.&nbsp; The bike shop who serviced the bike indicated the pipes were not a problem regarding warrant which is a good indicator.

Re your point Slim - yes it may be low on the priority of the POLICE, but those conducting warrants may have it on a completely different priority list.&nbsp; The police won't bother with noisy exhausts as they know everyone needs to get a new warrant every 6 months and will ultimately catch everyone that way.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

bikerboy
5th May 2003, 17:30
How will they know an aftermarket exhaust when they hear it/see it?

Do they know how every standard exhaust sounds?

Ducati bikes come with Termignoni pipes or Ducati sport pipes from the importer, but they don't say on them "aftermarket pipe" How do they know if they are louder or just different? ie chrome, carbon, titanium, etc., and that they aren't the originals.

This is something everyone needs to contest in court if stopped and ticketed. Innocent until proven guilty means they must prove the pipes on the bike are 1. not the originals, 2. if not original then louder than original, 3. how loud the originals are/were compared to what is on the bike now.

I think this is mainly for the big bore boy racer types. They are too lazy/cheap to use db readings so will only cite the really obvious ones.
If we all challenge it in court they will soon ease up on the harder or more borderline cases. The law is too vague and any decent lawyer would get you off unless it is ridiculously loud.:calm:

Motu
5th May 2003, 17:45
Here is the MTA stand.

The Motor Trade Association (MTA) is concerned that the recently introduced Boy Racer Act (Unauthorised Street and Illegal Drag Racing Amendment Act) will create huge difficulties for its members when it comes to the issue of inspecting noisy exhausts during Warrant of Fitness Inspections.

An Infosheet document issued by LTSA to all Warrant of Fitness Inspection Agencies this week outlining the inspection requirements for modified exhaust systems states a reason for rejection is "the noise output is noticeably and significantly higher than should be expected for the vehicle" when compared with the vehicle's original exhaust system.

The MTA believes that vehicle exhaust noise is primarily a policing issue and should not have been brought into the area of vehicle inspection in the way that it has.

"While the MTA accepts that the public has every right to be concerned over vehicle safety and excessive noise, we are worried that this issue is being dropped into the laps of our members to sort out - and with patently insufficient industry consultation," said MTA's CEO Stephen Matthews.

The first formal request for submissions from LTSA on the proposed exhaust inspection process was not made until Wednesday 16 April, with replies due Tuesday 22 April, an already short time made shorter given the Easter holidays - meant that MTA was unable to fully consult with members and prepare a substantial response. However, MTA did raise a number of concerns regarding the practical aspects of the inspection process, including the submission timeframe.

Mr Matthews believes that the political agenda to remove the problem of boy racers is not one that the motor industry is equipped to deal with, and nor should it be asked to as it primarily relates to how vehicles are operated.

"A matter which should be handled by police is largely being transferred to our industry, in a very rushed manner via very subjective guidelines to deal with the problem. What one inspector may consider to be a noisy vehicle, may not be considered excessive by a neighboring Warrant of Fitness Agent, who may pass a vehicle that has just failed." he said.

The suggested test procedure provided by the LTSA is rudimentary and subject to variation across a wide range of elements including the vehicle, the test environment and the experience and hearing levels of the inspector.

The outcome of this new regime affects not only vehicle owners and inspectors, but manufacturers and suppliers as well. Under the new rules virtually any aftermarket exhaust system could be deemed to be non-compliant.

The MTA believes the subject of noisy exhaust inspections needs further investigation and consultation and will continue to work with all interested parties to achieve a consistent process which can be used by both police and the motor industry.



The MTA believes that vehicle exhaust noise is primarily a policing issue and should not have been brought into the area of vehicle inspection in the way that it has.

aff-man
5th May 2003, 18:41
go the MTA!!!.I have never been tested for a loud exhaust at a testing station so what does it involve according to coldkiwi it's a lot more complex that the good old dB meter.

Marmoot
5th May 2003, 20:10
I totally agree with MTA.

It is not the matter about my bike, or car, or anybody else's bike/car. But it is the precedent that this law sets. If the government continues on its way in creating knee-jerk reactions to everyday troubles, where would this country go to?
Not only it is rushed, but also it is not clearly defined, totally subjective to executors, vague, baseless, and not adhering to scientific tests or even statistics!!!
What kind of lawmaking is that??

And not to mention that it will cost the industry millions of dollars, as logically ALL aftermarket exhausts are now illegal (since I believe all of them are louder than standard).

I hope AA would give a harsh reaction to the law as well.

SPman
5th May 2003, 23:12
Originally posted by Marmoot

If the government continues on its way in creating knee-jerk reactions to everyday troubles, where would this country go to?
............
What kind of lawmaking is that??&nbsp;



1) exactly where it is now ?

2) F**ked!

wari
5th May 2003, 23:15
... I hope AA would give a harsh reaction to the law as well.

I get the feeling the AA has become a govt beneficiary ... unfortunatley!

twistymover
5th May 2003, 23:18
We could always hope for a hard- of-hearing wof inspector.

XRNR
6th May 2003, 06:37
re: HD riders with slipons as mentioned earlier

I suspect some of those German Helmeted HD riders out for a ride with their mates, will have exausts so quite that Mr Plod on the roadside wouldn't even lookup ;-)

Just another law left up to individual discretion which will only target the sheep, not the wolves!

bluninja
6th May 2003, 08:26
Rule 32017 2.7(4) is the problem rule relating to exhaust noise. It is on page 9 of the proposed new rules- get to these direct at: www.ltsa.govt.nz/consultation/vehicle-equipment/rule-32017.pdf (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/www.ltsa.govt.nz/consultation/vehicle-equipment/rule-32017.pdf)or go to the website and click on rule in 'constitution' box in bottom right of the page.

TO MAKE A SUBMISSION ON LINE (needed by June 3) go to the SUBMISSION FORM and scroll down to the exhaust system rule- enter that you disagree and give reasons, eg noisy exhausts not legal already, sports mufflers not necessarily too noisy, un policeable, decibel reading better?

Please send this on to other rev heads so that as much fuss is generated as possible.

.....this was sent to me......anybody else want to SUBMIT!!!

TTFN

BTW my submission FWIW

This proposal appears ill thought out, subjective and superfluous.

Traffic Regulations(1976) part 29 already sets down the maximum noise levels ( "no person shall introduce, manufacture or sell for first registration... a motor vehicle the noise output of which exceeds the levels specified in the First Schedule"). On that basis it would have been simpler, and more objective to set out the maximum noise levels.

I believe this proposal is unworkable since most people enforcing this law will be unable to discern the sound level of an original equipment exhaust on any given vehicle. It also appears unenforcable given that the word 'similar' would appear to have no specific, objective, legal parameters.

Finally, I wonder if compensation would be payable to vehicle owners where their exhaust meets the noise requirements of Traffic Regulations(1976)part 29, who are then given a green sticker for an exhaust which is still legal when tested.

wkid_one
6th May 2003, 09:49
I agree with everyone but for one point.&nbsp; We are yet to see how this is going to be enforced - we too maybe making a mountain out of a mole hill.&nbsp; The purpose of this law is to target a specific group of individuals, boy racers, not motorcyclists etc......until we know the implications of how this will effect us on a day to day basis - we are grasping at straws.&nbsp;

I am going to the VTNZ testing station today to see what they say about the VTR - if any bike is going to fail it will be a big bore V Twin......we can then work from there.

Case in point tho - no one at VTNZ will know what a VTR should sound like with OEM pipes - so I wonder what their reference point will be

bluninja
6th May 2003, 10:07
Take your point WKID, but if we have the opportunity to alter/stop bad law and regulations we should take the opportunity, not wait till it bites in the bum a few years later.

As for me.....to my knowledge I have the only 2001 model RSVR in NZ, so what would the testers reference be (yeah I know there are a handful of 2001 RSVs around, but will the tester know there's no difference?). I actually picked the Akrapovic cos it sounds good, but is only just over the UKs draconian sound regs so I wouldn't get hassled by the police over there.

Just as an aside. I had a friend convicted under a 150 year old UK law to stop people frightening horses on the roads. He was walking drunkenly down a footpath by the road trying to hitch a lift home at night. There was no specific law against that (he wasn't disorderly, violent, or making a nuisance) bu there are lots of other specious old laws lying around that can be used instead.

TTFN

Stephanie Shand
6th May 2003, 10:25
Please dear god do not tell me that the addition of a modest Scorpion pipe to my humble SV650 will cause concern for the Government - how silly - it appears from reading the literature that it is not just that it is louder, rather that it is louder than on "original" - original to who ?&nbsp; I purchased my bike from a LMVD dealer with the pipe on it - sounded great so I bought the bike - is that so wrong -

Will the "enforcers" be educated on whta is original and what is not ? or is it a matter of hrm - theres something to chase and make money from I will have that

&nbsp;

Stephanie

bluninja
6th May 2003, 11:12
Stephanie, ANY aftermarket exhaust on an SV650 has to be louder than the OEM one :D

&nbsp;

TTFN

Coldkiwi
6th May 2003, 12:26
I was thinking more about this last night and pretty much came up with that MTA article in my head. The only possible way to determine whether 'any aftermarket exhaust is louder than the original fitted by the manufacturer' would be to have a HUGE database of dB readings (driveby or stationary or whatever) for EVERY type and year of&nbsp;car or motorcycle on NZ roads.... which would be interesting given that most manufacturers probably don't have that data anyway or (and this is friggen imposssible by the way) have a carbon copy group of inspectors that know all of these sounds and can somehow (against the physics of our ear/brain) recognise a difference of less than 3 decibels.

...I do believe I will make my submission now!

What a piss poor piece of government dribble this is. Subjective, predjudiced and completely unenforcable.

Motu
6th May 2003, 12:47
I'm not sure,but I would say that most vehicles in NZ would comply with the ADR (Australian Design Rules),to pass the noise test they do a drive by,certain,gear,throttle etc,not something that can be replicated in a WOF test - unless you want to pay!

All reference to dBA levels have been removed from the WOF manual,or as the new one is called - Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual.Imposible for any WOF tester to check if the data has been removed.

In the Guide to Vehicle Standards I found this.

Moped.........77

M/C up to 125.....82

M/C over 125.......86

Car etc...........81.

That was dated 1 july 1978.

So a bike can be noisier than a car - but what's the difference between 81 and 86 - I don't know,without a meter no one will.

MikeL
6th May 2003, 12:58
Exactly.
Although I don't have a personal axe to grind on this one, it's the principle that is important. The legislation is ill-conceived, poorly worded and I believe impossible to enforce fairly. If it is deemed necessary to tighten up on existing regulations, then the only rational approach would be to provide the law enforcement authorities as well as WOF testing stations with standardized noise-measuring equipment, clearly defined parameters (noise level in dB in specific conditions) and appropriate training. Apart from the difficulty in ensuring standardization of procedure (think of the successive loopholes in the blood/breath-testing regulations that have been exploited by clever lawyers), there is the cost, which by itself is probably sufficient to ensure that this approach will not be seriously considered. So we get this compromise solution which creates injustice by the inevitable subjective judgements and selective enforcement.

bikerboy
6th May 2003, 17:55
:( Bluninja is correct in that we must make as much "noise " about this as possible now.

If we create a hugh outcry now it will have much more effect than later. It may be that they will never target bikes, but if we don't complain it will be there to be used as and when they want.:angry:

Everyone should post an objection and urge their friends to do so.:o

SPman
6th May 2003, 18:21
I agree with Bn &amp; Bb.Make as much noise as possible. If they pass a law, it may well be intended for a specific group - in this case boyracers, but if it is applicable to others, the chances are, it WILL be dragged out and used by the powers that be to suit whatever ends they are after. Or, it will be there, waiting, for the use of some snot!:done: :beer:

750Y
8th May 2003, 12:15
I wonder whether this will jeopardise our insurance policies in any way? There are companies out there like State who, when they want to, will look for a technicality to avoid paying out.
...
45 mins later after talking to the insurance company...
well it's all cool & so is my insurance company. They said it's not a problem for them. and also said that it doesn't classify the bike as modified if it was designed for that bike.

They suggested forcing the wof issuer to prove that the exhaust did not comply before failing it. Just get them to do so BEFORE they write it down otherwise it's a legal binding document i think. after all isn't it the wof issuer who is the expert who must prove the vehicles non roadworthiness? i don't think a bike should be able to be failed if the issuer THINKS it doesn't comply, they must be able to categorically state that based upon scientific evidence it doesn't comply.
I think the hot potato is just getting passed on down the line to the usual good ol consumer to foot the bill again.

What about the scenario that the wof issuer equips themselves to be able to scientifically evaluate a vehicles non/compliance.
Oh that's right it's expensive to cater to the customers. We'll just say "oh it's all the LTSA".
luckily for them the LTSA has given them the out they need to not have to justify their assessments in all cases.

taking it a step further what happens when the LTSA brings in more stringent emissions testing linked to wof inspections?
Do the wof outlets just go sniff sniff "oh smells a bit rich, that's a fail sorry" or "sounds a bit noisy I think Your valve seals might be getting a little worn? Fail again sorry".

any comments please Motu?

Coldkiwi
8th May 2003, 12:45
Well, until they do sort it out, when you turn up to the WOF station and the inspector looks at your noisy contraption say 'Oh yeah ,it complies.. see the manual says 86.. so I'll go idle it over here and you go stand WAY over there and we'll see what it comes up with!" If they don't specify locations/revs etc. otherwise then they can't really fail it.. (can they motu??)

The silly thing is, a simple dBA test at a certain point or points isn't impracticible and I think a good idea of managing the problem effectively and reasonably fairly! Simple dBA meters are cheap as (less than a grand), easy to operate and a test a different parts of the rev range would take a maximum of 3 minutes.

LTSA have completely missed the point on this one. They've failed to:


Identify the problem (boy racers in cars late at night)
get advice about how to solve the problem effectively (how do we stop boy racers with an under resourced police force)
Consult with any other people that may be effected by their solution (motorcyclists, classic car owners, non problematic car enthusiasts, manufacturers, retail outlets, overseas agencies/institutions...)
Provide any real beneficial input into the problem in any way shape or form


Lets see some posts on the submissions being sent out guys! Send one to your MP too because they have to reply!

&nbsp;

750Y
9th May 2003, 14:24
Just wanted to add.I went to Red Baron(a wof issuer) to try to clarify this new law & what it means in the real world for us.
basically the noise level will be considered too loud or not on the spot. This will be the measure of non/compliance.
Commonsense will prevail and if Your bike isn't "too loud" in the examiners "opinion" then it will be fine.
If it is too loud in their opinion for that particular type of bike then they will fail it. (a cb250 shouldn't sound as loud as a harley)
It's not about failing a vehicle instantly because of it's non standard exhaust system. It's all about the blatantly loud 'boy racers' getting crushed by legislative measures. personally i don't mind so-called 'boy racers' & their loud cars.
If Your wof issuer says they don't like Your slip ons, go elsewhere.
the best place to go will probably be bike familiar places who know dam well that a v-twin is gonna be loud and so are not concerned that there is a problem.
hope that's of some use.
i also spoke to LTSA head office who said basically if Your wof issuer won't pass Your V8 commodore because of the big bore then go elsewhere because they are being unreasonable with their newly found discretionary powers. at the end of the day it's discretion at the wof issuer and cop level.
if the cops or wof do You, it's up to You to prove the system's fine.
The bottom line is.. any time there is room for discretion there is room for commonsense and there is room for bullshit.

Slim
9th May 2003, 15:40
It appears that submissions can no longer be made on the Vehicle Equipment (Exhaust) Land Transport Rule.

Rules Currently Under Development (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/legislation/progress.html) - note that the link is no longer active for the Vehicle Equipment Rule.

Bugger.

Coldkiwi
9th May 2003, 17:10
well its apparently still open till June 3 so just mail them a letter. Its' all on the LTSA site.

&nbsp;

Marmoot
9th May 2003, 17:25
I hate the word "discretion" in the law, although I would like the police to use them more when the law doesn't say it :D

wkid_one
9th May 2003, 17:30
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">My submission to the LTSA:</SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"></SPAN>&nbsp;
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"></SPAN>&nbsp;
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Whilst I can appreciate the intent of the legislation surrounding the ‘exhaust systems’ in fail to see the method in which this can be enforced.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The legislation is entirely ambiguous and places too much onus on the testing agents interpretation.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The agent needs to have an understanding of not only how loud the vehicle is – but also a comparative understanding of how loud the vehicle should have been at manufacture.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>On top of this, the measurement of the loudness of the vehicle is entirely subjective.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>There are no explicit and measurable maximums or guidelines to provide a framework for the agent to work within – rather it provides them (and the police) and open slather to deem any car exhaust system ‘louder than original’.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>This is hardly a rational law and without specific parameters doesn’t allow Joe Public to determine what is ‘too loud’.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Surely Low Volume Certification of every exhaust system would be a far easy way to monitor ‘illegal exhaust’.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The company fitting the system therefore has to provide a certificate indicating the system complies with the legal dBA requirements and this certificate is required to be held in the vehicle and produced when requested.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The onus should be on the distributors and sellers of the systems to ensure that they are road legal, and accordingly the systems should carry ‘for road use’ stamps on them indicating they are legal for the road (as system used to great effect in the UK).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>To place the onus of the purchaser is pointless as we are not the experts in determining whether the system is legal or not, a job suitable for the manufacturer.<o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">In short, I feel this law is too ambiguous to provide any reasonable guideline and is entirely open to interpretation (and abuse) by the testing agents and police.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>It appears to be an entirely heavy handed approach to restricting the activities of a limited proportion of society and one that has missed the mark in terms of effect and management.</SPAN>

wkid_one
9th May 2003, 17:34
PS - Laws shouldn't allow for discretion.&nbsp; They should be black or white.&nbsp; Something is either illegal or it isn't.&nbsp; Discretion generally allows the law to be broadened, very seldom does it allow for it to be narrowed.&nbsp; Something to be cautious about is that no LTSA agent will pass you if there is doubt - the risk is too great to them.&nbsp; Also, it provides the police another reason to hassle both boy racers and bikers alike.&nbsp; You try arguing the point of discretion with a police man on the side of the road - fat chance.&nbsp; I have seldom seen discretion work in anyones favour other than the law.

My advice - get your WOF's from bike stores as they are the ONLY ones who know what bikes should sound like.&nbsp; LTSA's seldom see bikes due to the fact the most WOF's coincide with a service done at the bike shop...so don't risk it - take it to a shop.

What?
9th May 2003, 20:01
You can still make submissions from the LTSA web site - I did so last night. The guts of mine was similar to wkid_one's, but I added in a bit about parity: how can you outlaw straight pipes on a hogly doglyson (which give me the shits) when Jacobs brakes on V8 Cat powered trucks are legal? :brick::brick::brick:

Make lots of noise:mad:

wkid_one
10th May 2003, 16:26
I also question the position the police are then also taking on car stereos.&nbsp; In my mind, these are not only an annoyance to people external to the car - but may also prove to be a distraction to those inside the car.&nbsp; Also - CELLPHONES - how many times have you seen people texting away on cell phones etc - this is a far more important 'safety issue' that needs addressing rather than noisy exhausts.&nbsp;

All this money and time goes in to policing noisy exhausts - and the police and public wonder why the police are unable to respond quickly to burgularies, solve murders, deal with rape cases etc.....no wonder crime is rife in NZ - it appears only to be the road toll that Policing NZ is focused on - nothing else!&nbsp; They should focus on the real criminals in NZ, not the people who wish to spend their hard earned money (NOTE THEY HAVE JOBS) on their cars in the pursuit of individuality - allow the freedom of speech (to a point).&nbsp; It sure beats them stealing/mugging etc and in comparison to this is a minimal nuisance to society.&nbsp;

I had a friend who had her EVO stolen and it took the police 1.5 weeks to give her a case number, if however she had been caught showing a 'needless exhibition of speed' - the car would have been impounded on the stop!&nbsp; There is something grossly unjust about that!

Typical of NZ law however and the knee jerk reaction we have to what are small problems in the face of the wider scheme of things.&nbsp; For example - police at present would be better serving the community by reporting excess power useage as this has a wider impact on society than boy racers.&nbsp; At the end of the day, who are they hurting??&nbsp; I can't remember the last time (*or first time) a loud exhaust work me up and I lived in Alfriston where they used to drag.

Arseholes!

Motu
10th May 2003, 19:11
The crux of this matter for wof inspectors (like me) is that ultimatly theirs is not the final say.If I pass your 2 bros exhaust because I think it sounds sweet - down the road you pop a front wheel up...a cop pulls you over...he says your bike is too noisy,and you get a ticket...a big stink ensures...the cop is proved correct and the wof inspector has issued an illeagal wof.

We have no test equipment,no test proceedures to give a recordable result - it's all guess work.NO WAY will this work.I haven't had a vehicle in with a noisy exhaust yet,but I have been thinking hard about my policy on this one - I have come to the conclusion that I don't do wofs on vehicles with a non standard exhaust,I will say - go away and let someone else deal with it.

I was at a Dick Smith today and saw a decibel meter - goes up to 140 thingys....it doesn't mention exhaust noise,but noise is noise eh? $198 is not too over the top - I was thinking of getting one and setting up my own test proceedure - then I can have repeatable results,I can write them on the wof check sheet and say - it was putting out 78 whatzits when I tested it last week,don't know what it will prove though,I don't know how the manufacturer did their test.I just want consistancy and a figure to write down - we do this with brake tests.

What?
11th May 2003, 08:39
That's the direction I was headed in my submission to the LTSA Motu - if new noise laws are required, there needs to be STANDARDS; that means measurable numbers and a defined test method. It also needs to apply totally to vehicle noise, not necessarily just exhaust noise.

But then what??? will the cops be required to carry decibel meters and be able to conduct roadside tests? And do not lose sight of the fact that a WoF is only worth the paper it's written on at the time of writing (this is a legal standard). If I get a pull for noisy pipes soon after getting a WoF, it would be me, not the issuer, in trouble, as the issuer need simply claim that noisy pipes were not fitted to the bike (car, truck...) at the time of inspection. This is a different scenario to a dangerous vehicle fault ignored or missed, because I could leave the tesing station, turn the corner and whip the baffles out of my pipes. I would be unlikely to go out and remove my new brake pads and put old ones back in. Doubt it? There have been a number of high profile incidents where cars have been involved in crashes when bald tyres were the cause, and the cars had new WoF's. Some people simply borrow a set of good tyres to pass the test:eek: then put their baldies back on. In none of these cases was the issuer held accountable&nbsp;- their claim that the tyres were up to standard at the time of testing was held as correct.

As Wkid has alluded to, while very noisy exhausts may be annoying, the trendy car stereo with 35 squigawatt sub-woofers are downright painful to those outside the vehicle. I see no sign from the LTSA that this interests them in the slightest.:brick:

Coldkiwi
12th May 2003, 12:39
this is all so stupid.

all the testing standards (very well researched and presented documents I can assure you) exist to deal with exhaust noise and here LTSA are trying to recreate the wheel and doing a piss poor job of it.

So how come no opposition MP's are into this??? Why isn't it in the news?

bluninja
12th May 2003, 12:55
Perhaps because bikers are insignificant??:confused:

TTFN

Marmoot
12th May 2003, 13:03
Sounds more like "victimization of the minority" rather than "law" to me.
The reason why it goes ahead is simple: the target of the law (boyracers...and bikes....) are not popular subjects in the society, therefore the majority don't really pay attention to it.
What the don't realize (yet) is that the law wording holds the potential to be used against them as well at later days if the authority needs to (for example: the need for more money/funding).

aff-man
12th May 2003, 14:43
Well then all we need to do is find someone in the public eye who is into bikes or the new holden ss ( couldn't hear anything while sitting behind it). And inform them of this law and how it affects them and thier little world.Then people might pay attention to what some of the government agencies are getting away with.It seems that as long as it doesn't affect them it isn't important but little do they know allthough aimed at "boy racers and bikers" the middle aged man is going to have a spot of trouble as well. And if we in a testing station and fail due to a loud exhaust i am sure taking a new holden or ford v8 from a dealership we could prove they are louder. They want money we have it and if they can take it they will , either that or some politition&nbsp; is throwing around statistics about "boy racers" and due to stupidity they probably assume less noisey exhausts mean less boy racers so much for a bloody democracey. :brick: :brick: :brick: :brick: :beer:

BigB
12th May 2003, 15:30
It'll be interesting to see what happens when John Banks takes his harley in for testing???

I bet he'll have something to say if fails!!!!
:D :D :D

750Y
12th May 2003, 15:58
You can't be serious, does he really sail a harley?
I'd love to see John banks on his hd. what a puller. I need a good laugh.
:D

bluninja
12th May 2003, 17:07
Banksie has a Harley, but doesn't get out on it&nbsp; much (got quite a shock when he found out how much it was to license it with the ACC levy !!). He does admit to it not really being a bike, and was quite a laugh when he popped into the AMCC clubhouse.

TTFN

aff-man
12th May 2003, 19:05
Talking about biting you in the ass :D :D :D :D :D&nbsp; He was so keen on trying to get the boy racers out of auckland and now look where he sits , you gotta love karma!!!!!

MikeL
12th May 2003, 20:21
Originally posted by bluninja
Banksie has a Harley

He also has a very shrewd grasp of political expediency.
I suspect the Harley riding might be expendable in the right circumstances...

BTW Bluninja I appreciate the irony of your Latin tag: "Anything said in Latin sounds profound"! ;)

bluninja
13th May 2003, 07:55
Mikel, I was hoping someone would apreciate that....possibly more appropriate for this debate is Lex malla, lex nulla A bad law is no law. (St. Thomas Aquinas).

TTFN

Marmoot
13th May 2003, 16:14
Ahem.....it is already taking innocent toll and creating debates :D


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3501569&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=

Motu
13th May 2003, 16:52
Shit Hot! it's started already - the cops used a decibel meter,the wof tester didn't ,he is not supplied with one and has no decibel levels in his manual - suprise! we have a problem - HELLO???!!!!!

moko
13th May 2003, 17:57
Here in Britain cops used to pretty much turn a blind eye(or deaf ear?)to loud exhausts but as usual it got abused and even I get pissed off with having what sounds like a squadron of low-flying Tornadoes zapping past my place at midnight every Saturday.There`s now a crackdown of sorts and the Police even have the powers to confiscate "nuisance" vehicles.Usual procedure was to stick standard pipes on for the M.O.T.(our WOF)then change back,o.k. pipes were not legal but not excessive either,usual dickheads have screwed it up for everybody.Having said that be a bit discreet and you`re still un-likely to get a pull,Cops are mainly after the morons who treat our roads as race-tracks and they`re usually the "weekend warrior" types.

Coldkiwi
13th May 2003, 18:23
right, next time I see piggy sitting on the road side i'm gonna pull over (on my nice quiet 6R!) AND ASK HIM WHAT THE HELL THE STORY IS!!! :angry:

I'm THIS close(imagine tightly pressed fingers) to writing to nanny herald and giving them a decent serve of 'look at this crap' and educating some of their dear readers about just what is going on behind the scenes!

Whangarei woman Norma Cates could be the country's first "mum racer". The 46-year-old mother of two drives a Ford Falcon and has never had a speeding ticket in her life. However, under the new Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill -- just over a week old -- the Whangarei housewife has been fined for driving a car with a modified exhaust which was deemed too noisy by police. Bizarrely, what was deemed too loud by the police was found to be okay by warrant of fitness experts the next day, raising the question of "just how loud is too loud?" (BIZZARE!? MORE LIKE BLOODY INEVITABLE)Mrs Cates was driving her son's Toyota Starlet GT car when she was stopped by police on Friday night. Mrs Cates had dropped her son and two girls at a party and was stopped about 10.30pm on her way home. The car was "green-stickered" and a $150 fine dished out because the car's engine pumped 98.9 (NO ACOUSTIC ENGINEER EVEN CONTEMPLATES READING DECIBELS IN 0.1 ACCURACY: PEOPLE REPORTING 98.9 dBADON'T KNOW THEIR ARSE FROM THEIR ELBOW) decibels of noise out the exhaust. A green sticker means the car must be given a new WOF before it is allowed back on the road. Police used a meter to measure the noise, which exceeded the recommended 85 decibels. (RECOMMENDED BY BLOODY WHO!? POSTMAN PAT!!?!?!?! THE ONLY DECENT RECOMMENDATIONS CALL FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SERIES OF TESTS (see my earlier rants in the other exhaust noise thread) TO GET A FAIR GAUGE)The next day, the Cates took the car to a Vehicle Testing New Zealand station -- and the exhaust passed the WOF test, which simply involves a VTNZ expert listening to the muffler. (WHAT"s HIS NAME!? I'LL TAKE MY BIKE THERE... STUPID REPORTERS)Whangarei police acting Sergeant Neil Pennington said that under the new legislation police were not required to use a noise meter (so what the f&amp;%$%&amp;((*^%$$%%K WERE THEY DOING!?!) but had been directed that 85 decibels was the limit for car exhausts. The legislation states that if a car's modified muffler is noticeably louder than noise that would come from the original exhaust system it should be ordered off the road. However, Mrs Cates said the anomaly in the testing methods meant her son could be passed by VTNZ but be pulled up by police for the same offence. (CLEARLY THE HERALD DIDN'T TWEAK TO THIS BEFORE HAND)Land Transport Safety Authority spokesman Andy Knackstedt said he understood that police had been directed to carry out simple tests without meters to gauge noise levels (Whangarei police acting Sergeant Neil Pennington said that under the new legislation police were not required to use a noise meter - SORT THE STORY OUT BOYS!). "They simply get in the vehicle and get it half-way to "red-line" and listen. If it is significantly and noticeably louder than it should be they can place a green sticker on it," he said. The method allowed consistency between roadside and garage testing (IN WHAT PLANET CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE EVEN JOKINGLY CONSIDERED CONSISTENT!!!!!). In the past the police had used noise meters but conditions on the roadside could not be replicated in a vehicle testing station, he said. Meanwhile, Mrs Cates is writing to police about the fine and will not be paying it. "It's bizarre. Someone needs to get their act together," she said.

*TAKES SEVERAL LONG... DEEP... BREATHS*

It's a case in point ain't it? 42 yr old mum drops kids off at party and drives nicely home. NOT exactly boy racer is she??? but the thick pricks at the Herald still entitle it 'mum-racer' .. :angry2:FOR F&amp;*%^#($^^%KS SAKE!!!! get a clue you prats!!! thats the whole problem!!!! she ISN"T a problem! and she's getting busted.

gawd some people are thick (or trying to sell too many papers)

&nbsp;

Coldkiwi
13th May 2003, 18:26
Thats it. i'm submitting a rant to my MP, herald and LTSA.

(then you lovely people can avoid wading through my tirades to get some polite conversation going) :beer:

SPman
13th May 2003, 19:21
Had to take a case like this to garner any public attention!:argh:

Mind you, people (Mr &amp; Mrs Public) are now being roused from their comfy chairs and might start to take notice.......:beer:

Coldkiwi
13th May 2003, 21:36
so... if I start my letter

Dear Imbecilic Gits*...

Your brain is filled with snot and your education makes a stoat thats been skulling ethanol for a week look like a&nbsp;certified genius!!...

*herald, police chiefs, LTSA, MP's

do you think they'll print it?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

aff-man
13th May 2003, 22:20
Maybe the local papers could print something giving the average joe who doesn't buy the herald a heads up.By the way is it legal to make a law that leaves so much room for descretion because in my very very very limited undersatnding if it's not a black and white law anything done against you cauld potentially be taking to court where due to coldkiwi's extensive explaination anything to do with exhaust noise level readings is highly inacurate. Ad court costs are a lot cheaper that getting your exhaust replaced .

Coldkiwi
14th May 2003, 13:09
exhaust noise levels readings don't have to be dodgy. they just have to well set out for all to see and be based on meaningful research

As for court costs... I'm actually really tempted to make a REAL din next time I go past a cop. i've got a standard exhaust but I might just redline it (clutch in) going past and get him to pull me over... and then have some fun asking him to explain what the hell they are doing, what the hell they THINK they are doing and why the hell they think they might do it and know why!. I suspect quite strongly that my bike would make more than 85dB at 7000rpm at a metre (I guess thats where the idiots measure it?).. but its a stock exhaust!! haha... oh I would really have some fun in court with that.

I hope that Mrs Cates gets some good legal advice because someone has to MAKE- THEM -PAY!!!

&nbsp;

duckman
15th May 2003, 16:20
I not sure I understand how this is going to work - If the test is based on whether or not your aftermarket exhaust is louder than your standard setup, are the LTSA going to provide the WOF shops with a decibel rating for every make and model of every car, bike and truck ever produced ??

I suspect the LTSA would have trouble producing a decibel rating for the hot air that escapes their collective cake holes.

Also, Who's responsible for the ticket if your bike comes fitted from the bike shop with an aftermarket setup.
e.g. for a limited time all Ducati 750SS's were sold from Haldanes with arrow carbon fibre pipes - Which sound absolutely brilliant and quite loud.

Once again motorcyclists pay the price for cars stupidity!! :niceone:

bluninja
15th May 2003, 16:52
Duckman we are paying for government and LTSA stupidity, cars have little to do with it, other than giving them an excuse to expose their stupidness to the public.:done:

TTFN

duckman
15th May 2003, 17:19
:Oops: - good point - My bad

Coldkiwi
22nd May 2003, 17:39
righty ho.. I'm slowly compiling my submission to LTSA/letter to MP. Its taking a while because each time I find some more information on acoustics and proceedures for assessement, it raises more questions about what they are trying to do with this legislation!

The amount of contradictions and irregularities I have come across is quite unbelievable.

So far I've found overseas information from London (40 page draft report from the mayor.. remarkably well written and researched), a 56 page report from sweden (and you know how thorough the germanic/nordic lot are!) on vehicle noise, the interesting view point from the NSW motorcycle council (cheers wkid), the herald article about Mrs Cates getting booked and then passed, ISO and British standards regarding vehicle nnoise measurement, conflicting information from the police website and very little info from LTSA that means squat!

I did however have a rather interesting conversation with a calibration inspector in Porirua today and he revealed that&nbsp;neither the police&nbsp;nor LTSA have consulted them ( 'we are the only source of scientific information for the police') about this legislation. I suggested they probably would need some technical input when they get my submission!!

I fully intend to bury them and highlight all of the crap (not hard when you know a little about acoustics) that this legislation has in it to my MP and LTSA :niceone: I'll put a post in here (or maybe a new topic cause it won't be short!) and you're all welcome to drag ideas out and flick them on as seperate letters or whatever to those in positions of alleged power. :)

&nbsp;

wkid_one
22nd May 2003, 19:21
There is a present news article at regarding the legality of the LTSA law re exhaust noise&nbsp;- saying unless they can demonstrate a positive correlation between exhaust noise and vehicle safety - the law may in fact be illegal.

Motu
22nd May 2003, 22:31
Got myself a loan of a decibel metre to fart around with (no,haven't done that yet,but can do a 100db belch!)

So...yeah,cars are quiet - 1 or 2 metres,45deg angle,standard exhaust not much over 70db.CRX with slightyl noisy exhaust - 110db on a rev.My Honda? - 100db without trying too hard (bummer!) Now the good part - my Honda TLR200 trials bike - 100db...shit man,you can't hear this thing running from 2 metres away!!!!! Hi Ace diesel....100db just standing beside the thing!

So this 1 metre 45deg test is worthless,but it works with a standard car,so the cops are going to use it...of course just about anything will fail.These metres are just too damn sensitive.Did a Google on the subject today and the only things about db testing motor vehicles is the drive by - not practical.

Anyone with more clues than me got any concrete info on exhaust noise level testing? Some exhaust systems say they have been tested to a cetain db level - yeah,but how?

Coldkiwi
23rd May 2003, 17:05
motu, anything talking about exahust levels from a manufacturer will have been done to the ISO 362 standard (listed under the "noise laws in NZ" thread) which is the big impractical (for everyone but large companies).

What is this 1m at 45degree thing? Where did that come from motu? There is (of course) nothing in any standard that suggests it and I haven't been able to dredge anything up from LTSA that says they should test like that. If you can gimme some info on that I can almost certainly show how ludicrous it is. I have access to a $30,000 B&amp;K sound level meter (being an acoustic engineer has some uses!) that I can take&nbsp;around and measure a good range of cars (modified and non-modified) that would be very useful to be able to have in my submission.

let me know dude :)

&nbsp;

mccool
23rd May 2003, 20:11
Kia ora KiwiBikers

What a great site! Pleased to meet all you all. Heres my submission to LTSA on the topic. Feel free to use it for yours. Its worth sending them something, ivil servants have to apy attention to the response to their own consultation. I knoe, i are one.

Motu
23rd May 2003, 20:29
I have no idea where this test method came from - must be some sort of urban legend in the trade,I have heard it enough times for it to make an impression on my subconsious,my consious mind doesn't know.But I also get the impression that that's how the police are testing.Can anyone confirm how they are using their decibel metres?

More tests today,cars sure are quiet,diesels very noisy.Todays bike test was on a standard VFR750,lots of noise to send the metre crazy,but it's not exhaust noise.So it appears there is no way to set up a simple,repeatable decibel test in a workshop or testing station situation,I don't see how this whole thing can work,it's dumb,dumb,dumb!!!

Had a Ducati 851 in for a WOF with Staintunes - how could anyone be upset with the noise this thing put out,it was beautiful! I guess I am a biased inspector and should turn myself in to protect the public.

Slim
24th May 2003, 02:51
I've been making my own enquiries today & found some interesting stuff. I'd be interested in a summary of what you've come up with from the technical side, ColdKiwi.


The proposed changes to exhaust noise are not "law" but "rules" and therefore don't have to be put thru parliament
Exhaust noise is in no way mentioned or referred to in the new "Boy Racer" legislation AT ALL
Police instructions regarding excessive exhaust noise refer to the 1976 Traffic Regulations (which is interesting!)
No WOF issuer that I spoke to, including VTNZ, has noise measurement equipment.
My motorcycle, with it's aftermarket Micron can on it, would be passed for WOF by my local Honda dealer and VTNZ, and the Highway Patrol Cop I spoke to said he certainly wouldn't green sticker it.


I think that's it for the actual exhaust rules. But I found out all sorts of other interesting things today.


I know more about the exhaust rule & proposed change than my local Honda Dealer (and WOF issuer)
All vehicles impounded under the new Boy Racer law (for racing, burnouts, unnecessary displays of speed or acceleration or putting diesel on the road) MUST have a green sticker applied to it by the police officer.
The Defective Vehicle Notice (Green sticker) refers to the Land Transport Act 1998 (see my earlier comment)
If your vehicle is Green Stickered, you HAVE to take it to a VTNZ testing station for a new WOF, but comments from my local Honda Dealer indicate that they are not sufficiently familiar with Motorcycle WOF requirements, and may not even have a fully motorcycle driver licenced inspector. (The Hamilton one does, but he wasn't in when I went to see them).


I think that's about it. I'm now off to find copies of the 1976 and 1998 versions of the law to find out what's going on.

bluninja
25th May 2003, 13:24
Wow, great stuff Slim. Maybe you should change your quote to... I research, therefore I'm single :p

TTFN

Coldkiwi
26th May 2003, 12:43
not just VTNZ slim. The LTSA site also says VINZ, AA and on road NZ can also re-pass it. You make an interesting poitn about the exhuast nouise in the legislation. I think there is a very cunning smokescreen going up here.

The police site craps on about the act and how they can impound this and confiscate that. it THEN says 'police will also be targeting vehicles with ineffective silencers or exhausts'... no mention of the act enabling them to do so lawfully!

I had a bit (Hoho) of a crap on in the old noise laws thread about what the 1976 act says and how its assessed if you're interested .

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO LINK TO A THREAD!?

MOTU! Where do you work?? I'll bring my ZXR in :).

I'm in the same boat about the 1m test. I can find no basis or reference for it.. but it appears to be the only one going!!

Of course, you make a good point about the source of noise to. No chain noise while stationary, and you can have an poorly maintained engine making a stack of noise off the casing without it being due to an 'ineffective or substantially noiser than standard silencer'

this whole debarcle is a crock. I know mike (owner Mt eden m/cycles) thinks it will fade away but I think its going to require a few public courtcases to demonstrate how ludicrous it is before that happens if these submissions don't work!

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

bikerboy
26th May 2003, 14:44
Apathy is going to be a bigger obstacle.:o

I've spoken to a lot of non bikers about this, firstly, they hadn't even heard of it despite the small bit of press coverage and secondly, the attitude seems to be" it might be a bit vague but it's really to get the boy racers(good idea) so doesn't affect me.

That's the attitude the police are counting on. If by chance the mainstream public get burned by it, too many others will still think it doesn't affect them. Most ask "why you need a loud exhaust anyway".
:argh:

Kwaka-Kid
26th May 2003, 18:21
i reckon! - where were u when i had all those skool assignments!

ur not single direcntly by choice are you.. :P hahahyahaha! :) sorry :D but im in a happy mood as i own an RVF400 :D

Motu
26th May 2003, 20:19
`My workshop is on the corner of Carr and Hayr rds Mt Roskill,next to the BP station - I have the decibel metre for this week,then decide if it's worth keeping.In one of my earlier posts I gave the decibel figures from the 1976 regs.

If the cops are using this 1 metre 45 deg test...they can go up to ANY standard car and say....SEE...doesn't even get to 80db - but just about anything else,standard or not will fail.

The part that concerns me is that they are not using a law to make noisy exhausts illeagal,they are trying to use the WOF regs to do it - which puts me in the position of law enforcement,not in my job discription - this is what the MTA are pissed off about.

Slim
27th May 2003, 05:26
I found the "1M at 45degree" testing method!

http://www.ultracars.co.nz/policeguidelines.pdf

Nb: It's not on police header, although we could probably find out who "Ian James, Inspector" is, and it's hiding on a Hamilton Car Sales Yard site. :confused:

Kwaka-Kid
27th May 2003, 05:26
so you work for Deane Auto? or own it? - do you guys do bike WOF's? - i used to work @ rental car company down carr rd :)

Slim
27th May 2003, 06:02
Originally posted by Coldkiwi
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO LINK TO A THREAD!?
Go to the thread you want to link to and copy the address.

When you're creating your reply, look just above the window where you type and you'll find a button that says "http://". Click that, type in what you'd like the link to say, press return, then paste in the address for the thread you want to link to.

eg

Old Exhaust Noise Thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?threadid=121)

Or, just copy the address for the thread directly into your post.

eg

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?threadid=121

HTH
:)

Slim
27th May 2003, 06:47
Wkid_One

You mentioned a news article about the legality of the new LTSA rule about exhaust noise.

I've searched on the NZ Herald site but can't find it. Could you please see if you can find it & post it up here?

Thanks
Lisa

What?
27th May 2003, 10:03
Ian James is (unless retired - he may be now) based at the police farce HQ in Welling Town.

BTW, the new rule makes reference to exhaust noise being "louder than standard". Under the basic premise of NZ law, isn't the onus on the accuser (cop or WoF tester) to PROVE that the exhaust in question is louder than standard? If so, they would require a decibel meter, a method and an identical, but&nbsp;standard, vehicle with which to do the comparison. Without this, it could not stand up in court. Could it?:(

Motu
27th May 2003, 12:43
Thanks Slim,you have extraordinary searching powers! I was begining to wonder if I had made it up in my sleep!

That's me KK,I hope you weren't ''Directly'' involved with said company,questions are still being asked down here.

Well....the MTA and industry reps met with the LTSA (wtf are you doing?) so the LTSA has had a bit of a rethink and on the WOF website this morning I found this....""a non OE or aftermarket exhaust system or component alone is NOT a reason for rejection.Such a system that makes noticably and significantly more noise than is expelled from an OE system IS a reason for rejection''

So it's back to us to make the call - a sports exhaust is ok,your Remus cans are ok,but those nasty RX7s and bloody Harleys are out! unless you get an officious prick like me!

Coldkiwi
27th May 2003, 13:55
FAN TASTIC!

Guys, I talked to the strategic traffic management unit yesterday and discovered some more crap

1)They didn't know where the idea to measure at 1m came from (thanks for finding that file Slim!). Not LTSA they said so they guessed at within the police force. But as I wrote earlier, the calibration guys (techy arm of pigs inc) have never been consulted on that.

2) They don't have to use the meter at all. 'an officer will have a good idea if its louder than it should be'. This is because (how s**t is this?)..

3) THEY HAVE ONE CRAPPY DICK SMITH METER FOR THE WHOLE OF AUCKLAND!!!

I kid you not. This is how serious they are taking this. Its merely a token gesture of technicallity to allow them to pull this biased crap. I'm gonna hang them with this :)

*looks at looming June 3 deadline* HELP! better get on with it... I have a lot of writing!

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Slim
27th May 2003, 23:20
Originally posted by Motu
Thanks Slim,you have extraordinary searching powers! I was begining to wonder if I had made it up in my sleep!
The only reason I found it was because I was trying to find the BS3425 testing standard & that document mentions it in the format I was searching for. So it was just blind luck. :)

Tonight I'm hoping to complete my submission - I'll post it up once I'm done.

Kwaka-Kid
28th May 2003, 05:00
Originally posted by Coldkiwi
FAN TASTIC!

Guys, I talked to the strategic traffic management unit yesterday and discovered some more crap

1)They didn't know where the idea to measure at 1m came from (thanks for finding that file Slim!). Not LTSA they said so they guessed at within the police force. But as I wrote earlier, the calibration guys (techy arm of pigs inc) have never been consulted on that.

2) They don't have to use the meter at all. 'an officer will have a good idea if its louder than it should be'. This is because (how s**t is this?)..

3) THEY HAVE ONE CRAPPY DICK SMITH METER FOR THE WHOLE OF AUCKLAND!!!

I kid you not. This is how serious they are taking this. Its merely a token gesture of technicallity to allow them to pull this biased crap. I'm gonna hang them with this :)&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Well firstly i must say Dont listen to any of the STU guys :P ahaha! nah, spose some are aight.

secondly yeah its now just by officors ears, because it was so much hassle getting the meters about when u can only hold some1 up 15mins, but i will say they have more then one crappy dicky smithy job around, ive seen. (but maybe STU just have 1 themselves)&nbsp; its like the speed cameras, there are how many speed camera box's in auckland now? 8-9? but you realise about a year ago they still only had 1 camera that was shared between them, im not sure about now, i wouldnt be surprised if they had 2 as the budget may have allowed :niceone:

Coldkiwi
28th May 2003, 12:30
you've seen more than 1 meter around? you're doing better than them!

anyway, its friggen easy to get a meter, they've even provided a catalogue number in the guidelines.

I figured out why the levels are so low. They've directly translated the old accepted (and sensible) limits from the 10m pass by test into the new 'lets stand1m behind the car and rev its arse' test and just added a token 4db!! I'm talking to the professor that is mentioned in the guidelines today to see what his role in this cock up has been. a 4dB increase isn't even half as loud again, despite a 1/10th of the distance.

To imply that completely different testing proceedure can be approximated by a pure dB fudge factor is the&nbsp;depth of ignorance from an acoustic point of view (I know most people don't know much about acoustic measurements but trust me on that!). if I put something like that in my calculations or a report I'd very soon have a job go horribly wrong and loose my job for professional negligence.

&nbsp;

bluninja
28th May 2003, 12:49
CK, glad you are so professional. I would hate to hear of you losing your job for unprofessional negligence:niceone:

TTFN

Dave
28th May 2003, 14:53
This is such a load of shit-Sorry guys i haven't read the entire thing but are they doing the so called 'tests' at idle or on a rolling road at 100k/hr at full throttle? Huge difference.-don't know a testing station with a proper dyno-only brake testors.

Kwaka-Kid
28th May 2003, 16:17
bike still, 3,000 rpm and 4,000rpm tests, cant exceed 81db, isnt that right?

Slim
29th May 2003, 05:55
OK. Here's my submission, finally completed.

It's only taken 6 nightshifts to do. ;)

Dave
29th May 2003, 09:26
Very well researched and well done-I hope it doesn't land on deaf ears.(excuse the pun)

Antallica
29th May 2003, 10:21
Just a little off topiuc, but do you guys reckon I could get another exhaust put on my FXR150? I would like to make it sound better and give just a little more kick.

Anyone reckon it's possible?

Kwaka-Kid
29th May 2003, 16:21
hmm, i say go for it, or just take the muffler off - its a 150, how nouisy ca nit be ?:P&nbsp; secondly, i have one question mate.. if u were gunna buy such a small bike, i take it for learner licence? why not go for a RG150? i mean, i never thought much of those FXR's, 150cc 4 stroke? why not go 2 stroke scince ur limited to cc rating and then u get some power.. well limited but still? what made you do it ? :D

Antallica
30th May 2003, 09:47
I didn't actually realise at the time that the RGV's were better... I would have got one if I could find one at the same price I got my FXR at ($2.3K @ 4,000km, mint cond.) But besides, all the RGV's I've seen have been such ugly mothers.

Coldkiwi
30th May 2003, 12:12
nice one slim!

Hopefully my submission (when it gets done) will be able to fill in some of the techy blanks you've got :) I've got a busy weekend ahead of me I think!

Trying to dredge through all the technical info (or lack therof!!!) and make sense of the principles of the mess is taking ages.

Marmoot
30th May 2003, 12:21
Slim wrote:
Is it a condition of WOF Inspector certification to pass a hearing test (which employ measurable test methods and noise/frequency levels) and are they then required to have annual hearing tests to assure they remain qualified to conduct noise tests on vehicles?

ROFTLMAO :done: :done: :done: :done:

Kwaka-Kid
30th May 2003, 16:03
nah it cant do, becase most officers couldnt hear those high pitched 2 stroke noises... deaf on that tone thanks to all the ear bashings of wife :P

mahahaha! :)

Coldkiwi
31st May 2003, 10:56
Hey motu, have they booked you in for calibration yet? :)

XRNR
1st June 2003, 17:28
On NZ's self professed "NZ news leader" website www.nzherald.co.nz I could not find the article at all. But I am no techno geek.







Lots can be found on the Herald site about how NZ's Police is doing a lot to cleanup those NASTY boy racer types!











#############



http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,194546-1-7,00.html





No limits to car noise







Jun 01, 2003







The Land
Transport Safety Authority wants new laws by the end of the year




defining how much noise a car is allowed to make.



<b>A 20-year-old
man has had a charge of operating a noisy vehicle thrown out by the
Nelson District Court, which said the car had a warrant of fitness,

so is allowed on the road.

</b>



The LTSA says
the authority is consulting right now as part of the vehicle




equipment rule.







Andy Knackstedt
from the LTSA says the current law is not clear.







Motoring
industry groups are involved in the consultation process.



#############

Motu
2nd June 2003, 13:27
Everyone thinks a WOF lasts for 6 months,like the car or bike is in safe condition for a 6 mth period - WRONG! The only thing saving us from law suits and manslaughter charges is that the wof is for THE DAY OF ISSUE ONLY!!!!! In a wof test we are checking the wear and condition between THE LAST WOF AND THIS WOF! Tomorrow it could be 1000km away,or locked in a garage for the next 6mths. Just because it has a WOF DOESN'T mean it's leagal and safe.

That guy should of be fined - just because it has a wof is no excuse. See,it keeps coming back at the wof inspector!:angry2:

bluninja
2nd June 2003, 14:35
Motu, it's a shame I can't find the more detailed article I read. It was actually thrown out because there was no standard test or test equipment that the owner could use to prove that his exhaust was compliant. In the absence of this it was accepted that the WOF was effectively the test (even though there is no direct test for exhaust sound in the WOF). What worried me is that the police said according to the rules it was uncumbent on the driver to prove that his exhaust was compliant, and not on them to prove that the exhaust did not comply.

If that's the case, the police can say anyone's exhaust doesn't comply, and it is up to them (at their own cost) to prove otherwise. It seems to go against the innocent till proven guilty stance that common law is based upon. Luckily one court has thrown a case out becuase there is no standard test or equipment that drivers can use......ie they have no way of defending themselves or disproving the charge.

TTFN

Kwaka-Kid
2nd June 2003, 16:14
Originally posted by Motu
Just because it has a WOF DOESN'T mean it's leagal

erm, somthing tells me it does? :)

Motu
2nd June 2003, 19:06
Your tail light blows - you still have a wof...but it's not leagal to operate,your responsability to keep it UP to wof standard.

Yer right bluninja,it should be up to the police to prove it dosen't comply - and document the how and why.

wkid_one
2nd June 2003, 20:44
Well I had a run in with Mr Plod today........on two counts and both on the Rimutakas.....

1.&nbsp;&nbsp; Passed a group of cars - and pulled in behind a police car doing 80kph.....so I bided my time and then passed him and shot up and over the hill like a day-glo yellow mis-firing scud missle!&nbsp; Then once over the other side&nbsp;I stopped to talk to another rider and Mr Plod pulled over....and beckoned me to his car......

He then asked me what the following distance was for a car travelling at 70kph.&nbsp; I said 28m and proceeded to ask why the car was only doing 70kph in a 100zone......to which end he had no answer......

2.&nbsp; On the way back, I must have passed the mufti cop and then went up the inside of the next car on a 35kph corner with my knee on the ground...next minute on go the cherry winklers and I am pulled over.&nbsp; The cop then proceeded to tell me over for 'dangerous driving' and went to ticket me.&nbsp; I asked him what the reason for the ticket was - I was within the speed limit, and in my lane and under total control of the bike.&nbsp; He indicated that 'that style of riding is illegal'??&nbsp; I told him he may want to show me where in the road code that is because it wasn't anywhere I had read it.&nbsp; He decided not to ticket me...

An example of cops being wankers - neither time was there any need to pull me over - just an example of the police flexing there mis-directed muscle.

On the upside tho - neither commented on the pipes at all.

PS - Don't hit the cateyes with your knee down - I have a huge bruise on my knee now, a limp&nbsp;and one munted looking knee slider.

Coldkiwi
3rd June 2003, 01:30
twas the night before cut off

and all through the house

not a keypad was stirring,

not even the mouse.

The submission was packed with evidence and flair

And poor Coldkiwi was stuffed and could not care.

Allright. here it is. after all my rants the bastard is done and I'm pooped.

see... this is what happens when those govt. idiots stick their oar in, I loose sleep! bastards. and I start writing drivel poems&nbsp; at 1:30 in the morning because I've just finished a 14 page chronicle!!!

if only they put as much time into those guidelines as I put into arguing about hwo stupid they are!

&nbsp;:whocares::argh::done::angry2::angry::roadkil l:

:sleep::bigthumb:

aff-man
3rd June 2003, 09:30
Nice one CK Who did you send it to the reply will be very very interesting if you even get a reply at all

&nbsp;:rockon::D:D:D

Marmoot
3rd June 2003, 10:04
Very well put.
I also read in recent NZH and Nzoom that there are some new developments (read: arguments) about this law.
I begin to believe there is a window for a change :o

Coldkiwi
3rd June 2003, 12:32
indeed... quarters of the LTSA appear to be backing down a bit as the chorus gets louder.Thanks for kicking all this off Marmoot!:niceone:

Coldkiwi
3rd June 2003, 12:35
I'ev submitted it to LTSA via the web, I'll send it by post to them and to my MP.

I'll pull out the juicy bits and send it to nanny herald, maybe even revise it again and send to dear old Johnny&nbsp; banks with a few enlightening commens about certain american makes of motorcycle and the apparent illegality of them... maybe I should do that via the heralds letters section?? that could be fun!

&nbsp;

SPman
3rd June 2003, 21:23
Nice work CK&nbsp; :niceone:

Coldkiwi
3rd June 2003, 22:08
cheers.

respect to all those who posted submissions earlier, they helped me sort out my ideas!

Slim
4th June 2003, 10:07
Well done, CK. :)


I copied my submission to all the motorcyclists in the building, 2 of which are my team leaders or managers & wanted to know the details so they could send their own submissions. :D

wkid_one
4th June 2003, 18:23
Before anyone does that - you may want to read my reply from them.&nbsp; They have confirmed that it is the restatement of the existing law.

Response from the LTSA to my 'query'

Your enquiry is probably related to the information sent by the LTSA to

Warrant of Fitness inspectors last month saying that they should use as

their reference point for assessing a noisy vehicle the noise emissions when

the vehicle was new.

That information was sent out NOT because the law had changed but because

the increased focus on unauthorised street racing activities has resulted in

an increased interest and emphasis on noisy vehicles. There is also likely

to be an increase in the number of vehicles 'green stickered' under section

115(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 for vehicle defects. One of these

defects may be a noisy modified exhaust system.

The LTSA has received considerable expressions of interest in this matter

and is clarifying further that the fitment of a non-OE (original equipment)

or aftermarket exhaust system or component is not, on its own, a reason for

rejection in the warrant of fitness inspection. The question is whether

that exhaust system is noticeably and significantly louder than the

original, and whether the vehicle is being operated in a socially

irresponsible manner.

Motorcycles and decibel limits

The LTSA is aware that motorcycles as a group are noisier than motorcars and

that some motorcycles are noisier than others. This is recognised in the

law at present, in Regulation 29 of the Traffic Regulations that prescribes

maximum noise limits for vehicles sold for first registration in New

Zealand, and for vehicles that are modified in a way that could affect the

noise output of the vehicle.

&nbsp;

The decibel limits in this test refer to measurements made in a drive-by

test that requires expensive and sophisticated measuring equipment that must

be operated by skilled technicians, and it is important that measurements

are carried in an appropriate testing facility. The cost to vehicle owners

to have this test performed would be substantial and it is therefore not a

practicable solution for individual vehicles at the time of WoF inspection.

The LTSA will continue to investigate the possibility of a practical and

affordable objective noise test, but in the interim WoF inspectors will

continue to use the subjective test that has been in the WoF inspection for

many years. We are confident that WoF inspectors can apply their knowledge,

skill and experience to assess "if the noise output is noticeably and

significantly higher than should be expected for the vehicle" in the same

way that they apply their knowledge, skill and experience to assess if a

vehicle has worn seat belts or has an unacceptable level of corrosion.

Timeframe for any changes to law regarding exhaust systems

Although all these actions are being undertaken under current law, the LTSA

has been consulting over the past six weeks as to if and how the law should

be changed in the future as regards exhaust noise emissions. The changes,

if any, will be put in place in about a year's time when the relevant

Traffic Regulations are revoked and Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Equipment

(the Vehicle Equipment Rule) comes into force. The LTSA has received

numerous submissions on vehicle noise during this consultation exercise and

will take these into account when re-drafting the rule and submitting it to

the Minister of Transport for scrutiny. Among the submissions received have

been industry suggestions for an objective noise test and the LTSA will work

with the exhaust system industry and with the Low Volume Vehicle Technical

Association to ensure that the technical requirements in the final draft of

the Vehicle Equipment Rule provide a practicable and workable regime.

&nbsp;

Yours sincerely

&nbsp;

John White

Manager Safer Vehicle Policy

bluninja
4th June 2003, 18:41
What a lot of HUA (head up ass)! What's this? We aren't changing anything, and if we do we'll consult properly and all will be well in the world.

BTW They don't test noise output of an exhaust every year during the MOT (equivalent of WOF). They do however check that the exhaust is stamped as approved to those standards. The exhuast manufacturers have to get their products type approved, or they can just stamp them not for road use. How hard would that be?&nbsp;If the exhaust is noisy the police just check that it's stamped. &nbsp;Bikers, swap the exhaust system for the MOT and then back again afterwards.

WKID good that you got a response. Thanks for posting it.

TTFN

Kwaka-Kid
4th June 2003, 20:00
yeah thanks for that dude, however can someone please post the gst of it all down here? haha no time to read it all and scrubs just came on! haha cyas in 30mins! :P

p.s all go check my new topic in Tweaks section asking about RVF 400 exhaust :P ta :)

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?threadid=420&amp;goto=newpost (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?threadid=420&amp;goto=newpost)

Redstar
4th June 2003, 21:21
some of those momo systems look like they would accomodate a reasonably sized grapfruit?
I dont think the testing station will get too excited unless the DBA
Is clearly a social problem. my bike is a kitten below 10,000 rpm then it becomes a rampent screaming ninja.
last warrent I had the break test was most amusing I never get the same standard of test twice each one is different.
last one was a major hoot!
stop between the five meter lines.
at what speed I inquired?
at 30klms / hr first front then back brake.
yum I cant wait.
sanctioned stoppie/skiddie show.
The lady who gave me the warrent said we enjoyed the braking
I wish they would invest in some paddock stands even a 400 is hard to lift on your leg for bearing checks and I craked the fairing doing it.

Marmoot
4th June 2003, 23:12
So, there is STILL the QUESTION on
(1) contradiction between "Significantly louder" and "louder", (which in one means an ambiguous amount louder, and the other means any amount louder) than standard.
(2) HOW LOUD is SIGNIFICANTLY LOUD?

What a load of crap for a law.........can't we sue those lawmakers as incompetent in making law???

Antallica
5th June 2003, 06:44
Originally posted by Marmoot
So, there is STILL the QUESTION on
(1) contradiction between "Significantly louder" and "louder", (which in one means an ambiguous amount louder, and the other means any amount louder) than standard.
(2) HOW LOUD is SIGNIFICANTLY LOUD?

What a load of crap for a law.........can't we sue those lawmakers as incompetent in making law???

You'd be taking the govt to court then wouldn't you.

I would have to agree.... I think there should be a massive revolt about the laws that are coming out.

Coldkiwi
5th June 2003, 12:23
there is :)

anyone invloved in the motor industry connected in any way with exhausts is into this one.. I think LTSA are being a bit coy when they say they have had 'considerable input' on this.

I'd wager they've been getting inundated by submissions along the lines of 'you don't have a friggen clue so just pull ya head in you monkeys!' Mine certainly was :)

SPman
5th June 2003, 17:10
Driver magazine (OK, cars, but they mean well) is also getting stuck into the LTSA and the Police over the way the country is being screwed by more and more restrictive, controlling, thoughtless, unneccesary legislation and stand over police tactics, over the past 5 years.

They have the Drive club and reckon they need 20,000 members, to become an effective lobby group in motoring matters. The AA have abrogated responsibilty for standing up for motorists, in their opinion.:niceone:

bikerboy
5th June 2003, 17:25
:) Maybe a class action law suit on behalf of all N Zeders against the government.

The charge ? Misappropriation of tax payers money for the purposes of passing ASSinine legislation !:argh:

SPman
5th June 2003, 20:06
Ahhh....but its all in the name of "SAFETY"......: :angry2:

All part of the Brave New "wrap everyone in cotton wool" World !....&nbsp;&nbsp;:whocares:

Marmoot
5th June 2003, 22:33
They can put 12 cops doing booze-bus in front of the place where I work....but when my friend's house got burgled and he called the cops at 11pm, they turned up at 7am in the next morning!!!

:gob: :gob: :gob: :gob: :gob:

wkid_one
6th June 2003, 11:00
I myself question the proactive nature of the NZ Police.&nbsp; They are screaming that they are unresourced and crime is outstripping the ability to proactive prevent it - yet they allocate the police a 'quota' to attack low priority crime (traffic).

I would hazard a guess that most people have horror stories of the police not attending to 'real' crimes in a timely fashion.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet - we never fail to see them on the roads.

The NZ Police now appear to have to justify their worth to the Government in monetary terms....not criminal.&nbsp; They appear to have revenue targets.

Police provide a social service and are essentially only in existance because we as a society demand a minimum level of acceptable behaviour.&nbsp; The are put in place by the people we VOTE in to office.&nbsp; Does this mean we are at fault?&nbsp; Given that they provide a social service - there should be no endeavour to run the Police force at a profit - which appears to be the motive in the shift in focus to revenue collecting activities.

The Government in NZ seems to be focused on making social services such as health and police turn a profit.&nbsp; This is an impossibility - they should only be focused on maintaining the efficiencies.&nbsp;

How can the police put on 185 new highway patrol cars - yet not attend to a robbery for 10 days?&nbsp; Speeding is a relative low priority crime in the scheme of things - yet this appears to be the focus of the police.

Nor are they promoting a very 'public friendly' image in NZ - they don't appear to be working with society in a protect and serve (yes I know this is an American Mantra) manner.

Yes speeding/road toll is important - however in the scheme of things - only 400 people died on NZ roads in 2002 (including cyclists and pedestrians).&nbsp; Is it not overkill to focus on something that is the lowest it has been in history - surely the police should shift their focus to a 'management' type focus to maintain this level.&nbsp; Also, statistically speaking, the road toll is never going to be zero - as accidents are going to happen for a variety of reasons.&nbsp; It has to be statistically accepted that so long as people drive - deaths will result from it.

NZ seems to place too much emphasis on traffic policing at the expense of every other form of policing - whilst this may not be the case behind the scenes&nbsp;- it is evident to the public in their actions and publicity.&nbsp; NZ Police are now only recognised as traffic cops (it would be interesting to undertake a survey to this end).

When you pass a cop car now - you don't think 'I wonder who he is going to arrest' - you think 'fuck, what is my speed'

As you can tell - my last day at work - bored.

Coldkiwi
6th June 2003, 12:31
:Offtopic:

good point but we need a new thread mate

if I wait till i've passed the car before worrying about my speed he's probably already thinking about turning around!

SPman
6th June 2003, 17:16
Last years Victoria(Aust.) Police figures (from Two Wheels, May 2003)

Crimes against the person -&nbsp;Target 1,442,000 hrs&nbsp;&nbsp; Actual - 928,000hrs

Road Traffic Enforcement -&nbsp;Target - 850,000 hrs,&nbsp;&nbsp; Actual - 1,095,000hrs!

I'm experiencing a Deja vu feeling here! The LTSA pride themselves on following Vicroads tactics.&nbsp; maybe to the extent of going where the money is!!!! Revenue from traffic fines in Victoria&nbsp;has increased 340% since 1999!

What are our figures? Quite a jump I would imagine! So it would seem we are not alone in having traffic take precedence over actual crime.!

&nbsp;:angry2:

&nbsp;

Fuckheads!

Marmoot
6th June 2003, 20:06
I think it is around 125% (or 350%?) Couldn't remember.
Anyway, it is all about "measurable performance".
They can't measure crime-investigation, but they can measure traffic infringements.
That was probably why a few months back there was a move from Police minister to try making "speeding" classified as Crime.

What an utter bollocks....

Kwaka-Kid
6th June 2003, 22:53
is speeding not crime?

it kinda is isnt it? :S:(

Marmoot
6th June 2003, 23:15
OF COURSE NOT!!!! :D
As W1ck has put it: It is a mere BYPRODUCT of riding a bike.
Crime has to be committed, therefore deliberately.
Byproduct is not.

Beside, it is fun :D :p :D :p :love:

Kwaka-Kid
6th June 2003, 23:38
Someobdy is just trying to get outta the responsibility of their worng-doing if you ask me :P feeling guilty there? or just dont want a ticket? or anything else, heh.

And Your Excuse is somewhat flawed if you ask me, as many things arnt deliberate but they happen and its still crime isnt it? i.e you slide off your bike on a corner going too fast and kill ya mrs on the back... Get done for man slaughter.&nbsp; You didnt kill her deliberatly did you? (hah well actually :P) but jumping up and down in jail saying your not a criminal and you didnt commit a crime wont help you none :)

I Shall stop here before i get flamed even harder by the KBNZ crew :Oops:

Marmoot
7th June 2003, 07:00
Sorry for being off topic. We shall get back to law discussion again :D

(But, there is a difference between accident and crime. someone among us seemed to have been consumed by our lawmakers propaganda :p )

P.S.
Is this the longest thread yet?

bluninja
7th June 2003, 10:07
Errr...aprat from traffic enforcement crime has to involve intent. if you walk out of the shop without paying for your goods they also have to prove that you intended not to pay. If you kill someone whilst acting in a manner likely to cause harm to others, then that's manslaughter...... but if you were acting in a reasonable manner and someone dies then you aren't responsible....eg someone runs straight in fornt of you on the road and there's no chance to slow or swerve, you hit them, they die, no manslaughter.

The thing here is that exhaust laws are not to do with public safety, they are to do with public nuisance. Whether your bike is on the road or not, legislation exists for council officials to come round and make you tone your noise down (from any source) if there's a complaint.....the police have always had the power to stop vehicles and ticket you if you are riding/driving stupidly, your vehicle is a danger, or you are causing a public nuisance. That's why this legislation is so arse.

TTFN

bikerboy
7th June 2003, 12:53
KK is just a product of his puritan heritage. Anything that gives pleasure is either immoral, illegal or both. This attitude has been instilled in the Anglo-Saxon phyche since the puritans killed the catholic king in 1640? and replaced him with the puppets William and Mary.

British law is infested with this attitude ( hence the Nanny state) to protect us from our (basically immoral) selves. People like Bikers are seen as a threat because we live outside the prescribed code; enjoying deviant behavior, like motorcycles (dangerous), speed, exhiloration, freedom, etc., all immoral sensations.

Hence KK's comment about guilt or trying to "get away with something". What "something"?, enjoying oneself without harming others is a concept alien to the puritan ideology. I'm sure this is why a lot of police have left, the conflict of freedom and the nanny state forcing them to choose, leaving is good for them, but bad for us. :done:

Kwaka-Kid
7th June 2003, 13:01
ahh it ould all be true...

or maybe i could just get my kicks out of trying to give shit or playing the opposite end of somthing.. in here most of your veiws are all one way, i just love to go against the grain and see what i kick up :) - and this time i learnt somthing about some african-sexist people i came from? or somthing like that anyway, it sounded kool. :rockon:

bungbung
30th June 2003, 10:43
My vtr has carbon arrow mufflers which are loud! The dealer I bought the bike from agreed that as these were a dealer fitted item when the bike was new, then they counted as OE items, therefore could be issued a WoF. Nice one shopman :)

Coldkiwi
30th June 2003, 12:19
thats still arse.. they haven't yet addressed the issue of it being completely subjective.

and another curiousty...who of us REALLY knows what to expect when standing behind a vehicle at half its redline?? I stood behind my bike and I would certainly be tempted to call it too loud.. but its fitted with a factory exhaust so it can't be!? (incidentally, i'm getting a louder one anyway... lets see them try and make a subjective assessment&nbsp;stick in court!)

Kiwi
2nd July 2003, 17:33
new infos

Exhausting issue ends
The threat of vehicles failing their warrant of fitness test due to an excessively noisy exhaust – and the possibility of dealers being forced to replace noisy exhausts – has been reduced.
Last month autofile reported how the LTSA had clarified the testing procedures for exhausts, leading to numerous failures by vehicles with aftermarket systems.


&nbsp;or not&nbsp; I don't know :o

Kiwi

Coldkiwi
2nd July 2003, 17:49
who's autofile? ]

What I see on that LTSA 'updated info' really doesn't clairfy the situation at&nbsp;all... other than putting beyond any doubt that the laws proponents haven't got a brain cell between them!!

Dave
2nd July 2003, 18:47
Surely a wof is intended to ensure that all vehicles on the road meet a minimum safety requirement-What the hell has noise got to do with safety?
what will come next-wof inspecters expected to fail any machine that can go over the speed limit or pull a wheely?

SPman
2nd July 2003, 20:46
Originally posted by Coldkiwi


What I see on that LTSA 'updated info' really doesn't clairfy the situation at&nbsp;all... other than putting beyond any doubt that the laws proponents haven't got a brain cell between them!!

Yeah, its still all airy-fairy vague, isn't it.

Kwaka-Kid
2nd July 2003, 22:42
well a noisey exhaust could scare the grandma beside you causing her to hit the pix and the nexdt car to pile into it - haha theres always a reason if you look, but yes coldkiwi i agree, just as i feel what the hell does treaded tyres have to do with saftey?&nbsp; :beer:&nbsp;:done:

Dave
3rd July 2003, 08:20
your one of a kind KK, I just don't know what kind!

Brian Riley
5th July 2003, 14:14
The regulations reffered to regarding aftermarket exhausts are nothing new they come from NZ vehicle regulations 1976. Some of the coments on this forum are correct in that the test for a wof is a subjective one and that the system fitted should be significantly louder than the standard system. Police and testing stations have simply been instructed to start paying atention to noisey exhausts, largely due to our boy racer friends and their antics on our roads. so unless your bike is rediculouly loud you shouldnt have much to worry about. Chances are a ticket for a noisey exhaust would more likely be a product of your poor atitude when stopped. So in short stop moaning about old legislation and go ride your bike.

bluninja
5th July 2003, 15:16
errrrr....read the 1976 regs and there is a very specicfic test method. the new rules have no reliable test method, and they have a to already resulted in people being pulled by the police and then passed at WOF.......waste of driver/rider, wof tester and police time. As for having&nbsp;to Kowtow to the police for fear of being served with punitive fines and conditions for having the temerity to speak back to them with the right attitude...that sucks.

As most of the people here I will continue to ride; I will also continue to work as a responsible citizen to protect my freedoms from poor legislation or rulesg that could affect my leisure and pleasure in the future.&nbsp;Do you consider this moaning?

TTFN&nbsp;

bikerboy
6th July 2003, 12:33
If these are Old Regulations as Mr. Riley has suggested, why has the Government gone to the trouble of the New regulations. Why do the police need to be told to enforce existing laws?

It seems to me the people moaning are the Gov't and police. "we need more laws to control these evil menacing boy racers. HELP"

People standing up for their rights should never be called moaners. Once this attitude creeps in we are on the slippery path to a Police state.:argh:
Believing that the only ones that need worry are the law breakers shows a distinct lack of knowledge of history, and those who don't know their history are doomed to relive it!:done:

MacD
18th July 2003, 10:01
The police have dropped the fine they gave the Whangarei "Mum-racer" after the car passed the "human-ear" test at a testing station.

Herald Story (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3513309&thesection=news&thesubsection=general)

However the article seems to miss the whole point that the final test to determine whether an exhaust is "too noisy" is entirely subjective and non-quantifiable. You've got to laugh at the final comment:


LTSA spokesman Andy Knackstedt said he understood police had been directed to carry out simple tests without meters to gauge noise levels. This would allow consistency between roadside and garage testing.

The LTSA obviously has no clue whatsoever about sound measurement.
:argh:

wkid_one
18th July 2003, 10:20
Does anyone know of any hearing impaired VTNZ agents in the lower North Island?

Slim
18th July 2003, 10:32
Originally posted by wkid_one
Does anyone know of any hearing impaired VTNZ agents in the lower North Island?
That was one of the points I made in my submission: are all VTNZ inspectors going to have 6-monthly or annual hearing tests to confirm they are qualified to do the exhaust testing???

:buggerd:

Motu
18th July 2003, 12:31
Hearing loss is just part of the job description for motor mechanics - my hearing is severely impared,the only time I've ever worn ear protection was when I worked on stationary diesels - compressors and the like.Test the hearing of every wof tester and I would expect them to be well below the national average.

Coldkiwi
18th July 2003, 13:08
from&nbsp; the herald story...

Mr Knight added the car noise restrictions had been in place since 1976, and were not new legislation under the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Act - more commonly known as the Boy Racer Act.

These idiots still don't know their arse from their elbow! the regulations ARE NOT THE SAME!! The new proposed limits are VERY different with no scientific basis for a claim that they have been in place since 1976!! (Trust me Mr Riley, I am qualified to comment (is this a Kiwibiker first!? :D ) and have researched that point very thoroughly!)

LTSA dickheads.

I should write the herald a letter:angry2:

Slim
18th July 2003, 13:56
Originally posted by Coldkiwi
These idiots still don't know their arse from their elbow! the regulations ARE NOT THE SAME!! The new proposed limits are VERY different with no scientific basis for a claim that they have been in place since 1976!! (Trust me Mr Riley, I am qualified to comment (is this a Kiwibiker first!? :D ) and have researched that point very thoroughly!)
The problem is that the 1976 Traffic Regulations have 2 different parts relating to exhaust noise: the first (which refers to the appendix re: testing methods & db levels) is how a vehicle is used and the 2nd (which the LTSA are updating in their "rule") is in regards to WoF-type fitness for use type noise.

Mr Knight was correct in pointing out that the exhaust noise is NOT part of the "Boy Racer Act", and he's also partly correct in pointing out that the 1976 Traffic Regulations (the 2nd part I've referred to) cover exhaust noise levels.

I'm just trying to find the link to the site so I can point out what I mean ...

Slim
18th July 2003, 14:09
Originally posted by Slim
I'm just trying to find the link to the site so I can point out what I mean ...
Here we go ...

Part 2 (Driving Rules):29 Noise (1)
(1) No person shall operate any vehicle which creates noise which, having regard to all the circumstances, is excessive. In determining whether any noise is excessive, regard may be had, in addition to all other relevant matters, to the manner of operation of the vehicle, the condition of the vehicle, the time of the day when the noise is created, the locality where the noise is created, and the likelihood of annoyance to any person.

and (2) refers to the Noise Levels & testing:
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subclause (1) of this regulation, after a date to be fixed by the [Authority] by notice in the Gazette, no person shall introduce, manufacture, or sell for first registration in New Zealand a motor vehicle the noise output of which when tested by a method approved by the Director], exceeds the levels specified in Schedule 1 to these regulations.

(3) For the purposes of subclause (2) of this regulation, the Method for the Measurement of Noise Emitted by Motor Vehicles published by the British Standards Institution, British Standard 3425, or ISO Recommendation R 362, Measurement of Noise Emitted by Vehicles, shall be deemed to be [an approved] method of test.



And the 2nd noise section that the "rule" is updating is:

Part 7(Equipment):81 Exhaust system and silencer

No person shall operate any motor vehicle having an internal combustion engine, unless it is equipped with an exhaust system and a silencer which are effective and in good working order, and unless the silencer is so constructed or adapted that it is impossible to interfere readily with its operation or effectiveness at any time.

You can find the traffic regulations document at http://www.legislation.govt.nz then click on "Statutory Regulations" and use the search function, enter "Traffic Regulations 1976"

Coldkiwi
18th July 2003, 17:38
yes, they are part of the 1976 regs. They made sense too and were inline with what levels are allowed in other countries.

What he's saying is full bollocks. the limits they are trying to put in place now (on the rare occasion they DO actually use&nbsp;a meter) are so far different from the '76 regulations that it is GROSSLY misleading to imply that they are even vaguely similar. The only similarity is the use of a sound level meter.. the procedure, limits and quality control are in different dimensions.

If you're really interested, I'll send you my submission to the LTSA explaining why the new limits (and they ARE new) are all screwed up.

&nbsp;

Marmoot
18th July 2003, 22:30
(this is exactly the point why I raise the thread. The new regulation does not have any METRIC or EXACT FIGURE to determine black and white. Any regulation that is not black and white is Gray. And Gray regulations can always be used to eat you anytime by the fuzz)

Motu
19th July 2003, 09:12
I do a WOF training course once a year - at one such course a couple of years ago the instructor said - the new regs are no longer written in black and white - pass/fail....they are full colour wide screen,you can interpret them any number of ways - but the most important thing is we have to be able to open our manual at page X,and point our finger at a ruling - and say this is why your vehicle fails.If what is written can be read as a fail - you fail.

Duke of Rogan
19th July 2003, 09:54
has anyone failed a WOF yet because of their after-market muffler or de-cored OEM can?
(possibly its written somewhere in the 12 pages of this thread :o )

Big Dog
19th July 2003, 22:13
All of this chin wagging leaves us with;
choice one, live with it,
Choice two, do something about it.
Does any one know of any petition about this subject?
Are any groups making submissions to parliment about more realistic and enforceable rules?

Im quite happy with my stockies but I value my freedom of choice.

Big Dog
19th July 2003, 22:19
Originally posted by Marmoot
(this is exactly the point why I raise the thread. The new regulation does not have any METRIC or EXACT FIGURE to determine black and white. Any regulation that is not black and white is Gray. And Gray regulations can always be used to eat you anytime by the fuzz)

Does this make the logic that ditates pass or fail Fuzzy Logic just because the fuzz are making the call.:confused2 :confused2

Marmoot
19th July 2003, 22:38
I'd be happy to sign (and get some more signatures) on any petition on that matter.

wkid_one
20th July 2003, 08:14
Hey Duke - go in the User CP and change the number of posted per page to 40 - reduces the pages you have&nbsp;to filter through.....

Just a handy hint

wkid_one
20th July 2003, 08:15
PS - I would sign also

Coldkiwi
21st July 2003, 12:51
dunno about a petition, but many people and interest groups put submissions in to the LTSA before the June 3 cut off date when the proposals were out for comment. As far as I know, they are churning through the submissions now before making a final call on it. I'm also a little unsure of the legality of enforcing the changes given that they are still 'a proposal' at this stage (hence the submissions process). I think the reason the cops are busting people for having noisy exhausts is because they THINK it is all covered by the 1976 Transport Act.

But that act doesn't talk about exhausts being louder than that fitted by the manufacturer.. only gives pass-by levels&nbsp;to be met in Schedule 1 and thats not the basis that they are currently using to assess and green-sticker vehicles.

basically, the cops are legally impotent on this and from what I hear of court cases getting thrown out, they are taking a pasting from the lawyers too. While sensible cops with their ear to the ground WON'T be pulling drivers over for driving sensibly with aftermarket systems on, it doesn't mean that the law changes are going to do their job and curtail boy-racer noise making activity.

&nbsp;

What?
21st July 2003, 15:03
CK is right - a petition is worthless unless you have got over 150,000 signatures on it, and even then may not be worth the paper it is written on. But a few hundred submissions is a lot of noise, especially when copied to your local MP and any other relevant MP's.

And if you get a pull for noisy exhaust, go to court to defend it. The more cases that get thrown out, the better the odds of the proposed rules getting thrown out. Even a Hogly with straight pipes could be defended if you could produce noise meter evidence of said Hogly versus a V8 Cat with jacobs brakes on full.:angry2:

Coldkiwi
5th August 2003, 21:33
I think some dickhead plod must've decided that 'close is good enough' and that when the draft rule came out, it was therefore enforcable and proceeded to tell all and sundry (ie the politicians) that they had a wonder solution and 'show the media how wonderful we are'... without realising the usual legislation rigmorole (sp?) that it has to go through. Now all the piggies (including our local plod in Howick/pakuranga, according to&nbsp;his spurt in the local paper) think they can go dishing out fines willy nilly and are getting wasted when people fight them.

it really is a 3rd world country sometimes....

Marmoot
5th August 2003, 22:43
CK: worse.....it's not a 3rd world country, but it is GOING DOWN to 3rd world country. That's worse than anything.....

cranker
13th November 2003, 13:53
Hey Guys, just for everyone's info in terms of noise testing there is NO, I repeat NO facility either here or in Australia that can test dB levels to a given Standard, all of that sort of stuff comes under design rules of original manufacturer. To the best of my knowledge the only facility able to test is in Europe whih is where manufacters go to test their vehicles for that reason.

To set that sort of facilty up here is in the region of billions of dollars- even australia doesn't have one.

Because db levels have to be measured relative to a standard the standard has to be a fixed value. the only true fixed value is an anechoic chamber & a sealed one at that. If you test in open air you come up against relative air density density and proximity variables as well as air temperature variables all of these values are constantly changing so there can be be no standard. also background noise comes into play as well.

Motu
13th November 2003, 15:01
It's all muddy water as far as I'm concerned,so everything is invalid.My exhaust supplier says all their NZ made systems comply with blah,blah,blah at so many decibels - that's nice,but what have they got making the noise? a sidevalve Dodge with 5:1 compression or or a high comp engine with a radical cam? what goes in effects what comes out.

You are right,there is no way we can replicate the compliance test,so just bin the whole rule.

Jackrat
13th November 2003, 16:05
I don,t know about anybody else but the nice man that I get my warrants from don,t even ask me to start the bike,he sees bike a half dozen times a week anyway.He also gives my brother warrants for his stroked an poked hog that would wake the dead
so who bloody knows aye!!.Some times it,s good being a hay seed:2thumbsup .

Coldkiwi
13th November 2003, 16:56
I dunno about that testing facility. You don't actually need a certain building or anything, just the measuring equipment (two microphones, a few laser trip sensors, a little datalogger on the vehicle and some processing equipment you could easily buy or hire in) and a nice quiet old airfield or closed road. Its not really rocket science, just requires a bit of setting up (I read the standard for measuring).

I'm not surprised there's no dedicated test facility in Australasia because it would only be used by manufacturers releasing new vehicles. I'd say there will be a couple in Japan, America, at least one in Britain and a few in Europe.

Motu, I'd say most suppliers doesn't know what they're on about. You're on the money about those systems&nbsp;normally done with a ceertian car and the manufacturers standard system. You can bet your backside that most exhaust suppliers don't get a ISO362 standard compliant test done when they release a new system for a particular machine. After all, half the reason people put new systems on is to make them louder and I'd doubt whether a louder system would pass because the average bike/car manufacturere isn't going to plug up their machine more than is needed to pass the reg's.

having said that... my Zx-6 is friggen quiet compared to the GSXR!

cranker
14th November 2003, 11:08
The previous thread I sent re db testing levels I sent comes from a person who is involved directly with noise level standard ie he is responsible for new Truck compliancing for a New Zealand New Truck Importer/distributer. Truck Standards are much tougher than cars or bikes.

Coldkiwi, the things you mention in your thread are exactly what causes spurous readings, why? because you can't test in an open air environment to get an acuurate reading because of the reasons mentioned in my previous thread- air is varying in temp, air density and presuure constantly.in fact if you did a noise level test with equipment all set up outside and did two level tests 15minutes apart the two individual tests would have different readings, also standing wave reflections affect tests- bottom line is that if you get halled up for noise even by your local council from a stereo., in court they have to proove that they tested to a standard, they can't test to a standard because there is no standard achievable

Coldkiwi
16th November 2003, 21:10
Cheers for the points cranker, but fret not. The ISO 362 standard is as anally retentive beyond belief. The acoustic consultants and people submitting to it must've argued for years and I can assure you all of those factors are VERY well covered. There are strict limits on background noise, areas of tarmac, air temperatures/ humidity/ nearby obstacles and you have to get&nbsp;within 2db for each run or throw the result out... and then get 4 readings within those 2 db... twice (because you have to run the vehicle the other way too). I copied all the juicy bits down at the library when putting my submission in to LTSA&nbsp;but really wished I was allowed to copy it because of the plethora of information.
The standard isn't impractical from a manufacturers point of view if you're only talking about small volumes of vehicles; in fact I'd say its really good because its thorough and as accurate as it needs to be to assess exhaust noise. The only downside is that its not quick and easy to put a large volume of cars through and hence not suitable for every car on our roads.What&nbsp;I think&nbsp;is needed is a similarly&nbsp;set up test that is far less thorough but is coupled to limits with sensible tolerances and limits to take&nbsp;inaccuracies into account.

btw, I'm curious how you get a standing wave formed in an outdoor environment. mmm yes :confused2:

also confused as to where you'd spend billions of dollars to set one up. I know Bruel and Kjaer equipment isn't cheap but its not that bloody bad! I think I could build a nice B&amp;K equipped anechoic&nbsp;stadium for that sort of wedge.



&nbsp;

cranker
17th November 2003, 08:16
OOps coldkiwi .. er standing wave, I actually meant reflected wave sorry, as you would know from your acoustic eng background standing wave occurs inside a building not outside,

Haven't read the standard, but last post you sent probably re latest in Iso at least seem to recognise that there needs to be some give & take

Re the problem of air density and background noise, Our man down here with the wind generater has just been shut down because he can't come within noise limits at night and yet he can meet them during the day , just goes to show what cool air at night does for noise!

Had the same problem exactly years ago when noise limits were envoked at Western Springs, I was riding solos there when it came in axactly the same thing happened between afternoon & early evening readings.

Hey by the way good to see a Howickian on the board- i'm an ex-pat one myself, born & bred there actually

Coldkiwi
17th November 2003, 09:31
at a guess I'd say your turbine mans problems were not the air temperature but rather that different noise limits are introduced during the night time (as appointed by territorial authority in all areas, farm/city/suburbs/industrial etc.) I wouldn't think the air temperature is going to make too much difference although there is an effect that can cause&nbsp;reductions/fluctuation on hot or cold days over long distances (but not the 7.5 called up in ISO 362).

&nbsp;