Aftermarket Exhaust and New Rules

**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!

**bikerboy** · 26th May 2003, 14:44

Apathy is going to be a bigger obstacle.

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".

**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

but im in a happy mood as i own an RVF400

**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.

**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

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

eg

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...p?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 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!

**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

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) 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

**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 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.