Suspension Height rules - (govco links included)

[SPArKy_Dave 8,863]

So because I was interested, I've been doing some research into the new VSB14 rules, and current editions of the ADR's.

I'll edit the thread, to include a bunch of links and extra info tomorrow.

On the Vicroads document VSI-8 'vehicle modification guidelines', I've found that there is no-longer a blanket minimum ground clearance rule of 100mm for all vehicles.
In fact, almost all vehicle 'lowering' information has been deleted from the document.

AND the 100mm clause has been deleted from the current ADR 43/04.........
(which covers ground clearance among other things)

6.4. ‘Ground Clearance’ The ‘Ground Clearance’ of a vehicle, other than an L-Group vehicle, measured from a horizontal road surface to any point on the underside of the vehicle except the tyres, wheels and wheel hubs must, under the conditions of ‘Maximum Loaded Test Mass’ loading as specified in the relevant braking rule, be not less than:
6.4.1. [This clause has been deleted]
6.4.2. for the mid-point between any 2 consecutive ‘Axles’, the dimension in millimetres obtained by multiplying the distance between those 2 ‘Axles’ in metres by 33.33; and
6.4.3. for any other point, ‘Ground Clearance’ is such that if the wheels of one ‘Axle’ are on one plane and the wheels on the next consecutive ‘Axle’ are on another plane which intersects the first so that the angle between them is 7 degrees 38 minutes the point will pass over the apex transverse to the vehicle formed by that intersection, as shown in Figure 1.


In place, there is a new clause, describing, that vehicles must comply with 'Running Clearance', -

6.6 The ‘Running Clearance’ of a vehicle, other than an L-Group vehicle must be not less than 100 mm.

(definition, cut and pasted from VSB14 below)

Running clearance, of a vehicle, means the distance from the surface on which an unladen
vehicle is standing to the lowest point on the vehicle excluding unsprung mass.

Vehicles built to comply with the Third Edition ADRs must comply with the ground clearance
requirements of ADR 43/.... Vehicles built to comply with ADR 43/04 must also comply with the running clearance requirements.

All other motor vehicles with more than 3 wheels must have a ground clearance of:

at least 100mm at any point within 1 metre of an axle; and

at least one-thirtieth of the distance between the centres of adjacent axles at the
midpoint between them (refer Figure LS1); and

at any other point — at least the distance that allows the vehicle to pass over a peak in
the road with a gradient on either side of 1:15, if the wheels of 1 axle of the vehicle are
on the slope on one side of the peak and the wheels of the next axle are on the slope
on the other side.
 

8]Note: Unsprung mass, is basically anything not held up by the springs. (axles, wheels, brakes, diff, etc.)

8]Also note, it seems each new edition of an ADR, 'Invalidates' the earlier versions to a degree -

8]1.3. REPEAL

7]1.3.1. This Standard repeals each vehicle standard with the name Australian Design Rule 43/04 – Vehicle Configuration and Dimensions that is

7](a) made under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Standard Act 1989; and

8] in force at the commencement of this Standard.

8]1.3.2. This Standard also repeals each instrument made under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Standard Act 1989 that creates a vehicle standard with the name Australian Design Rule 43/04 – Vehicle Configuration and Dimensions, if there are no other vehicle standards created by that instrument, or amendments to vehicle standards made by that instrument, that are still in force at the commencement of this Standard.

3.1.2. Vehicles certified to any of the “Acceptable Prior Rules” as shown below in the Applicability Table for a particular vehicle category are deemed to comply with this national standard:

I also plan to gather info from across the world, on what other 'Transport Departments' deem an acceptable minimum ground clearance.

California -
V C Section 24008 Modification of Vehicles
Modification of Vehicles
24008. It is unlawful to operate any passenger vehicle, or commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, which has been modified from the original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.


Amended Ch. 462, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985.

Canada -
Clearance height
7.091 A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4 500 kg must have a minimum clearance for all parts of it, other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway, that is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.
[en. B.C. Reg. 167/2006, s. (a).]

New York - no minimum ground clearance, but here's a link to their 'street legal' rules in general -
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/III/9

New Mexico - no minimum ground clearance either, and here's a link to their vehicle laws -
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter66

New Jersey - no minimum ground clearance rules, here's a link to their vehicle laws -
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/index.html

New Hampshire -
266:115 Equipment Required of Custom Vehicles. –
(i) Bumpers, fenders, and hoods.
IV. The ground clearance for a custom vehicle shall be such that the vehicle shall be able to be in motion and functional while on its 4 rims on a flat surface, and no part of the suspension, steering, or chassis shall touch that surface.
Their vehicle laws in full -
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXI-266.htm

Nevada - no minimum ground clearance rules, here's their vehicle and traffic rules -
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484.html

Nebraska - no minimum ground clearance rules, here's their vehicle laws -
http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s60index/s60index.html

Montana - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws -
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/61.htm

Missouri - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws -
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c307.htm

Mississippi - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws -
http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/63/

Minnesota -
Minnesota Statutes 169.73 - Bumpers, Safeguards Subd.
3. Bumper restrictions.
;or b: has a suspension system or body so modified that the height of the vehicle or any bumpers varies more than six inches from the original manufactured height for the vehicle.
Link to their full vehicle laws -
http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/minnesota/mn-statutes/minnesota_statutes_chapter_169_vehicle_equipment_safety

Idaho -
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 9
VEHICLE EQUIPMENT

49-965. Modification of vehicle to reduce road clearance beyond certain limits unlawful. It shall be unlawful to operate any passenger motor vehicle which has been modified from the original design so that any portion of the vehicle other than the wheels has less clearance from the surface of a level highway than the clearance between the highway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the highway.
Link to their full vehicle laws -
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49.htm

Illinois -
625 ILCS 5/12-607) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-607)
Sec. 12-607. Suspension System.
(a)except that it is unlawful to operate a street rod or custom vehicle when the suspension system has been modified from the original manufactured design so that the horizontal line from the front to the rear bumper varies over 7 inches in height when measured from a level surface of the highway to the lower edge of the bumper.
625 ILCS 5/12-607.1) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-607.1)
Sec. 12-607.1.Frame and floor height.
No such vehicle shall be modified to cause the vehicle body or chassis to come in contact with the ground, expose the fuel tank to damage from collision or cause the wheels to come in contact with the body under normal operation.
Link to their full vehicle laws -
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ChapterID=49&ActID=1815

Hawaii - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws -
http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/hawaii/hi-statutes/hawaii_statutes_chapter_291

Texas - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws -
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/TN/7

Florida - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws -
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XXIII#TitleXXIII

 

Utah -

41-6a-1631.   Prohibitions.

 (1) A person may not operate on a highway a motor vehicle that is mechanically altered or changed:

            (a) in any way that may under normal operation:

            (i) cause the motor vehicle body or chassis to come in contact with the roadway;

© so that any part of the vehicle other than tires, rims, and mudguards are less than three inches above the ground;

Link to their full vehicle laws -

http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/chapter.jsp?code=41

 

Washington -
WAC 204-10-036 Suspension.
A motor vehicle must:
(1) Have a minimum ground clearance to allow the vehicle to be in motion on its four rims on a flat surface with no other parts of the vehicle touching that surface

Also see -

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.680

Link to their full vehicle laws -
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=204

[SPArKy_Dave 8,863]

Ok, I'm going to go as far around the world with this as I can, (not withstanding language barriers).

I'm still hunting down the specific UK rules, but there is enough evidence out there (people asking questions and being answered)

that says they don't have any minimum ground clearance either.

 

New Zealand is another one. They are ok with less than 100mm, but you just need the suspension system certified as being suitable.

I will later link their rules too.

 

Anyone notice a general pattern occurring yet?       (and there's still a few more US states to research...lol)

[n00bus m@x1mus 465]

Alright, so what the intention with this?  To prove or disprove our road laws against the rest of the world? 

Also i was of the understanding that the distance between the bump stops and there adjacent mating surface could not be reduced by more than 1/3rd of the factory distance and then its not allowed to be less than 100mm groudn clearance... so there was always 2 laws that applied.  Has the first been abolished now and its only ground clearance that has to pass?

[SPArKy_Dave 8,863]

I'm interested to see what the rest of the world thinks is 'safe' compared to our Hoon Law loving modified car hating governments.

 

I might forward the info onto the Gruntfile dudes, who are heading up the AMEP.

They might be interested, since modified vehicle 'enforcement' is a hot topic atm.

 

Plus it's interesting to see just how overbearing and unnecessarily complicated our vehicle regulations are,

when compared to our 'close cousins'.

 

I'll tidy up and refine the above thread, as I gather more info.

[Trev Vaa 1,185]

lol ive just printed this off, im taking it to the highway this week. gunna stir some shit after what we copped the other day.

we got told that the car we were in was too low when loaded, the cuntstable claimed "the vehicle fully loaded must not be less than 100mm from the lowest point" unloaded the car was 110. we measured it to make sure. copped a canary.

[wookie 45]

someone would make big $$ if they print out copies of the VSB's and gets a JP or police officer to sign off on them to carry around in our glove boxes for these idiotic cops

[xm-221 1,803]

Don't be surprised if there is a polite email from a Gov't employee asking for the Australian based information in this thread to be removed. Dave, if you have a look at the website you got the VSB14 information from it says clearly that none of it can be reproduced in any way shape or form without written permission.

 

How do I know this, I did the same thing in a thread on xfalc a few years ago. I posted information from an email I sent and also information from the same site you got your VSB14 info from and was politely asked to remove it, under threat of possible prosecution.

[SPArKy_Dave 8,863]

Kinda makes it hard to educate fellow car enthusiasts on how to follow the rules, if that's what happens...... O_o

I'm a member of the AMEP, so will ask for their advice, if it occurs.

(Or our resident legal eagle Gromet88, might be able to help also)

 

Got a link to the xfalcon thread?

Or PM me if no link?

[xm-221 1,803]

Check post #7 Dave, that's the bit I had to remove at request of Infrastructure Australia.

 

CLICK

 

It had information direct from the IA website and from the email I sent to them.

[PH351 314]

Kinda makes it hard to educate fellow car enthusiasts on how to follow the rules, if that's what happens...... O_o

I'm a member of the AMEP, so will ask for their advice, if it occurs.

(Or our resident legal eagle Gromet88, might be able to help also)

 

Got a link to the xfalcon thread?

Or PM me if no link?

I agree. They want us all to be good boys and girls and follow the rules but we can't post the rules. I guess you can post the link but still a bit silly. It's free info and you are sharing it for free. I wonder what they would reply with if you did ask permission to post the contnts here.

[SPArKy_Dave 8,863]

Check post #7 Dave, that's the bit I had to remove at request of Infrastructure Australia.

 

CLICK

 

It had information direct from the IA website and from the email I sent to them.

 

In a nutshell, what did they say to answer your question?

Did the earlier ADR still apply, or was it superseded by the later simpler ADR?

[Crazy2287 1,886]

Most likely reason is they have no control over currency of the information. If they make changes your thread will still have the old regulations. Could mislead people. That said. Stamping the data with "Uncontrolled copy. current as of the (insert date) not subject to update, refer (x) for most up to date info.)

We have to treat all our docs at work like this, nothing can get photocopied or reproduced unless it marked.

[MNTL.XD 3,831]

The cop that used to canary me every week used to say 100mm at the lowest part, which was whatever part he couldn't slide his 

 

100mm metal (home-made mind you) gauge under, regardless of whether it was a suspension component or an exhaust 'U' bolt,

 

he didn't care, he always told any passengers i had in the car to stay in there while he measure it. I made sure i was 110mm (empty)

 

at the lowest point so he said, 'Well, if i can't get you for that, i'll get you for having less than 1/3rd of your original shocker travel.

 

Fkng prick he was.

[gerg 10,871]

Meanwhile someone's house is getting knocked over and (by the cops) zero fucks are given.

[MNTL.XD 3,831]

Meanwhile someone's house is getting knocked over and (by the cops) zero fucks are given.

Precisely, what p!sses me off even more is the fact that i've never seen or heard of anybody being killed as a direct result

 

of someones car being too low, or their own car being too low. Meanwhile drunk drivers are the cause of the most fatalities

 

annually on our roads, yet don't run the risk of having their car impounded or crushed as a result of them drink driving.... 

 

..... Crazy isn't it?!!

[wagoon 2,429]

The cop that used to canary me every week used to say 100mm at the lowest part, which was whatever part he couldn't slide his 

 

100mm metal (home-made mind you) gauge under, regardless of whether it was a suspension component or an exhaust 'U' bolt,

 

he didn't care, he always told any passengers i had in the car to stay in there while he measure it. I made sure i was 110mm (empty)

 

at the lowest point so he said, 'Well, if i can't get you for that, i'll get you for having less than 1/3rd of your original shocker travel.

 

Fkng prick he was.

You can take this to court and if it's all from the same cop you can claim harassment. I know of interstate truck drivers that have been targeted by certain cops and after a few fines they take them to court and they get all their fines back.When the court looks at the cop's fine book and it's clear that they are targeting one person the cop gets a nice talking to from the judge and all the fines are thrown out.

Can't guarantee it will come out in your favour but I know of 4 guys that have done this and have won, although the cases where pretty obvious that they were being targeted

[MNTL.XD 3,831]

You can take this to court and if it's all from the same cop you can claim harassment. I know of interstate truck drivers that have been targeted by certain cops and after a few fines they take them to court and they get all their fines back.When the court looks at the cop's fine book and it's clear that they are targeting one person the cop gets a nice talking to from the judge and all the fines are thrown out.

Can't guarantee it will come out in your favour but I know of 4 guys that have done this and have won, although the cases where pretty obvious that they were being targeted

It all turned out ok in the end, after that last canary i went straight to the station and demanded to speak to his superior. He was really good about it,

 

i admitted to him that i had threatened the officer with assault, and that i promised i would make good on the

 

threat if he pulled me over again. (Yep, i was young and stupid too once, all balls, no brains)

 

His superior arranged it so if Cuntstable Cunty wanted to pull me over in the future he had to radio in and they

 

would send another officer to pull me over as they didn't want any assaults on their officers. Never really had

 

any problems after that. As you grow up you realize not all cops are dickheads, but this one sure was!

[bear351c 10,270]

Maybe an update from Sparky Dave.......?

 

Original thread was 2013, any movement on the rules, mate?