Exhaust "Rule" Update ...

[Slim]

I have "unofficial" word that the LTSA are dropping the new wording on the exhaust "rule".

"Unofficially", the Police may have already been advised to not issue tickets or green stickers under this part of the law, but to use the other part of the Land Transport Act that deals with what manner a vehicle is used, instead.




I'd love to know how many submissions the LTSA got on that change!!!

Pat on the back, everyone.

[Sharkey]

I didn't know there were going to be any changes. What were they?

Boy I feel ignorant sometimes.

[Slim]

Check out this thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...=&threadid=358

You'll probably find the most useful stuff in the first couple of pages & the last 10 pages.

HTH

[Motu]

The new VIRM for WoF inspectors came into use on 8 sept - the exhaust rules wording is the same as it always was.

[Coldkiwi]

over 3000 submissions were made on the vehicle equipment rule and the technical editor at LTSA that I talked to hinted that the vast majority of those were regarding the new proposals for exhaust laws.

Motu... what was the original wording? I've seen the 1976 transport act wording and the bollocks police guidelines issued recently by this mongol Inspector James, but I don't know much about what you WoF people have had over the years.

 

[Marmoot]

Is it this one? Noise Regulation?

Check it out:
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.

Down to discretion, eh?

[Motu]

Actualy the wording has been changed,but not the intent.It's a shame,but a lot of the changes to our WoF manuals are wording changes to prevent an inspector misinterptering a rule - I don't know where they are coming from,but it seems testing station inspectors sit around the lunchroom table reinterptering rules to make a fail....for some reason only their little brains can know.It's a fucking safety check you wankers!

First wording change is that the exhaust must discharge outside the perimeter of the passenger compartment - the previous VIRM said perimeter of vehicle (a change) ,so some were failing things like trucks with no tail pipe - so we had to make a 3 metre tail pipe for a vehicle that never came with one! Brainless idiots!!!! now it says passenger compartment,which is the original intent,that any normal person could understand - but not testing station personell.

Here's the noise bit - ''The noise output is noticably and significantly higher than it would have been when the vehicle was manufactured with it's original exhaust system.''

The previous wording just said ''higher than should be expected for the vehicle.'' It's still a hearing test,but now we have a standard to apply - the original system! So,if I fail the exhaust....it's not up to me to provide proof that it's not significantly louder - you have to.That means you will have to supply me with proof - in the way of a decible figure and a way to test it,another identical bike with a standard exhaust system,or a standard system to fit to your bike for a comparason.I have to prove nothing - if I don't like your bike...or you...I can fail it,then it's up to you to prove your bike is nice and quiet.

Yeah...I'm an obnoxious little prick - but you know that already.

[Coldkiwi]

..and yet if someone brought a bike that made you go all gooey and you passed it... and the bike got subsequently hauled over for being noisy by a piggie who thought he knew his arse from his elbow and it went to court, if it wasn't thrown out, YOU would need to proove that it wasn't louder than the original to get yourself exempt from any liabilty.

double standards anyone?

 

[Motu]

Yep,that was the issue that was upsetting me - and the MTA - about the boy racer laws - that I could have a visit from the cops and be charged with issuing an illeagal WoF to a noisy vehicle - and the test being up to the discression of the inspector - or cop! I have been visited by the cops before - talking manslaughter...it's not nice being held responsable for the lives of others just for a 20min Wof test.$35 to hang myself.

While I'm in a grumpy mood and pouring my scorn upon testing station staff - I'm surprised I didn't hear about this one on this site......A couple of months or more ago a certain testing station refused a bike a WoF because they said it needed a mod cert for the panniers! - um...like these are original equipment guys....doesn't matter....we have new rules (that no one else knows about) you will have to take them off or get a LVV cert.After much heated discussions and phone calls it got a WoF,but this bike shop is now doing their own WoFs and never going back to the Gestapo in Gt/Nth rd.

Those rules finally came into use on 8 sept - and yes,you could misinterperate the wording - but you'd have to be a fucking idiot!

[Lou Girardin]

How could a WOF inspector possibly know what some early vehicles sounded like? For instance 1950's bike and cars.
You'd sure have a lot of margin for error if you had an early MV or similar. You could deafen the sod and still be legal.
Lou

[Motu]

Well,you could try me for a start - in the 70s I could sit inside and tell you make,model and year of the cars that started up and drove off down the road.Each starter,gearbox and exhaust system had it's unique sound.These days I walk around a car or bike and don't know even what brand the damned thing is!

Just quietly....the modern car or bike has no aural character - unless you do something about it.

[mangell6]

Motu

A good friend failed a late model car for a WOF because it did not have the factory approved seat covers, they were just cheapies the owner got from somewhere. I said to him that that was a bit rediculous and he said no because the front seats have airbags in them and those seat covers would have prevented them from opening correctly. The factory seat covers are designed to allow the airbags to deploy correctly.

The owner took the car away and returned with the seat covers off, he got his WOF, but my friend made a note about there being no front seat covers.

Mike

[marty]

i have it on VERY good authority that if the vehicle (eg bike) is OPERATED in a noisy manner, then you can expect a $150 ticket, but just because the exhaust is loud, it is not liable to be green stickered. a green sticker should only be issued if the exhaust is defective, that is, damaged or broken - NOT just loud. It should not be able to be easily/readily modified
the reality of the legislation is that it is targetted at the boy racer set, not us on our bikes (mine's not noisy anyway.......). the unecessary display of speed or acceleration, or street racing may apply though

If you're bored have a read of this..........

Traffic Regulations 1976 (as amended)


Reg.29. Noise—

(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.

(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.

(4)Where a motor vehicle to which subclause (2) of this regulation applies is modified, in a way that could affect the noise output of the vehicle, subsequent to being introduced, manufactured, or sold for first registration in New Zealand, [a sworn member of the Police or a traffic officer] may require that vehicle to be tested for noise output and direct that the motor vehicle shall not be operated until it complies with the levels set out in Schedule 1 to these regulations.



Reg.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.


and here's the test........................................

Schedule 1, Maximum noise output of new vehices.

2.When measured in accordance with test methods laid down in British Standard 3425 or in ISO Recommendation 362, the maximum permitted noise level shall be—

Vehicle Type

Noise level (dBA )



Moped
77 dBA



Motor cycle having an engine capacity of 125 cm3 or less
82 dBA



Motor cycle having an engine capacity of more than 125cm3
86 dBA

There is no mention of how/where this measurement is taken.

[Motu]

I have seen late model bikes with a label saying that they have noise test blah blah at 90 db.For a start that's more than they are allowd under the regs - and what is the test method?

[Lou Girardin]

You are right Motu, I remember how you could tell a Ford Zephyr from miles away and they even got the MK4 V6 to sound like the early ones. Times have changed, haven't they.
I guess todays kids can tell the brand of blow off valve by it's sound.
As for exhaust noise testing, I believe that the test requires the spl meter to be one meter behind and at 45 degrees to the exhaust outlet. The vehicle then has to be held at 50% of it's rev limit, followed by reving from idle to the 50% limit 3 times.
There's no mention of the environment that the test must be done in, which makes it pointless.
Lou