Consultation on Post Registration Vehicle Modifications

TestTransmission

As if we didn't have the NCT to complain about... :pac:

As part of its efforts to improve the standard and roadworthiness of Irish vehicles, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) has launched a public consultation on Vehicle Modifications (PDF).

The RSA wishes to hear from all vehicle owners, road users, interest groups and members of the public who may have views, advice or suggestions on how to ensure that any modification carried out to a vehicle is fit for purpose, roadworthy, environmentally acceptable and safe.
What is the purpose of this consultation?

Vehicle modifications can range from simple cosmetic changes such as windscreen tinting to major structural alterations such as lowering a cars suspension, converting a van into a mini-bus or adding an axle to a Heavy Goods Vehicle.

A substandard modification can negatively impact a vehicle’s behaviour, posing a danger to the driver and other road users. Information gathered at roadside inspections has indicated that many substandard vehicle modifications exist.

Ireland currently has no system in place to control such activity. To tackle this issue, the RSA is proposing that preventative measures be introduced to better regulate vehicle modifications in this country and ultimately save lives.

The RSA’s preferred method to achieve this looks at:

how vehicle modifiers / owners would be legally required to declare a vehicle modification to an appropriate authority (notify a vehicle alteration)
the procedure that a modified vehicle would undergo to ensure a modification is of an appropriate standard (modification approval)
the minimum technical standard which a modification would have to meet before it can be approved (appropriate standard)
the penalties for a vehicle owner / driver if an unapproved modified vehicle is used on a public road
the control of the fitment of unsafe vehicle parts

The closing date for receipt of submissions is 20th March 2013.

Comments should be e-mailed to: modsconsultation@rsa.ie or posted to:

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Consultations/consultation%20on%20vehicle%20modifications%20-%20feb%202013.pdf

tossy

When are we going to have the public consultation on the state of Irish roads,the poor quality repairs and the absolute lack of decent driver education in this country.

Anan1

Sounds reasonable to me.

visual

Just reading RSA wording it seems that they are apposed to any modification and seeking public support.

I like 4x4's and would like to improve its off road capability. but I could see fitting a lift kit and bigger tyres could be a issue for RSA because they would use some untrained person in NCT to inspect and shoot it down.

fitting wider tyres and wheel spacers can reduce the risk of roll over but this isn't allow if the wheel project from the wheel arch. off road you don't want wide road arches. so there has to be a compromise

I expect that they are relying on most drive standard euro boxes and we should all fit the expected mold.

While I don't agree with strait through exhausts and unsafe modifications there is advantages to having some modifications.
winter tires is a quick win here as most will see its obvious advantage and if you can by them with rims then its a easy swap over when needed.

kona

I'd be all for it however from experience,its just smoke screen for wanting to bum**** the motorist somemore.

Anan1

The simple fact is that we can't trust owners to do as they see fit with vehicles used on public roads. The RSA are looking for suggestions on how to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of other road users. I would have thought that something like the German TUV system would work.

kona

Anan1 wrote: »

The simple fact is that we can't trust owners to do as they see fit with vehicles used on public roads. The RSA are looking for suggestions on how to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of other road users. I would have thought that something like the German TUV system would work.

What does it say for nct?

Anan1

kona wrote: »

What does it say for nct?

How do you mean?

kona

Anan1 wrote: »

How do you mean?

It's a road worthiness test, they check for dangerous modifications, environmental standards etc already?

Joe 90

kona wrote: »

What does it say for nct?

Indeed although I have heard about the NCT being excessively strict on modded cars, e.g. not liking the roll cage in a rally prepped car.

Eric Cartman

All non performance / safety mods should be DIY and non declare.

structural modifications should be engineer approved but still allowed to be DIY

performance mods should be insurance declared with a dyno sheet to show the cars output power but thats it.


I have a feeling the RSA is going to move into a PSA type capacity where even a car stereo fitter or window tinter needs to be SIMI approved and all mods will have to be registered with SIMI, then it will be some standard like 'e' marking for aftermarket accessories, protecting local motor factors and killing ebay , on the other hand it will end most of the halfords tat that appears on cars, but I still dont approve of any restriction on modification.

kirving

The quickest way to make your vehicle more dangerous is to fit poorer quality tyres. But hey, if they have the E mark....

I can't find the stats on the causes of accident, but I'm fair sure I remember vehicle condition accounting for well below 5% of accidents. That would include people who claim their brakes failed, I'm sure.

I can see this as just a reason for further testing, for anyone who so much as debadges their car.

Eric Cartman

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The quickest way to make your vehicle more dangerous is to fit poorer quality tyres. But hey, if they have the E mark....

I can't find the stats on the causes of accident, but I'm fair sure I remember vehicle condition accounting for well below 5% of accidents. That would include people who claim their brakes failed, I'm sure.

I can see this as just a reason for further testing, for anyone who so much as debadges their car.

I believe the stat was actually 1% , and it was some RSA sheet saying that

Ronnie Beck

This is going to work out fairly expensive for alot of the boys up in mayo. If it gets rid of the sh;te blue headlights of the road I'm all for it.

If the NCT were stricter on dodgy suspensions and headlights that would cover most of it.

Anan1

kona wrote: »

It's a road worthiness test, they check for dangerous modifications, environmental standards etc already?

They don't really. For example, the NCT have no way of knowing whether the cheap aftermarket parts some people put on their cars are prone to disintegration at speed - a system like the German one would help with that.

visual

there is a difference to saying can't trust motorist and imposing a very strict policy that will make it almost impossible to modify your vehicle for your needs.

I will give a quick example. A farm tractor can and does use the roads it often pulling overloaded trailers that damages the small country roads. Its tyres are huge and project from the body and exposed front and back and doesn't have air bags with high ground clearance.

But under the proposed laws I wouldn't be able to fit a winch bumper raise my suspension and fit larger than standard wheels on my Jeep. put a locker in my axles because some numpty considers it doesn't fit the mold. yet during the bad snow two years running it was these vehicles that kept going and pulling the euro boxes out of snow.

I spend a bit of time in rural areas and there is pot holes 2 foot deep. I don't see the ROAD safety authority doing anything about this. But I can see these busy bodies dreaming up ways to impose penalties on motorist.
Why can't they turn the NCT in to a proper road fitness test instead of what it is.

Eric Cartman

Just reading the document, page 14 starts talking about the NSAI , so what the RSA are actually campaigning for here is for even some lad who fits car stereos on the weekend would need approval and inspection from the NSAI , if the PSA and cctv cameras are anything to go by , this would mean that anyone who wants to start out day 1 doing anything to cars at all (painting, installing stereos etc... in a professional capacity will have to dole out somewhere in the region of 3-5 grand before they even touch a car, and after that the NSAI / SIMI could still say no )

then they talk about approved test centres, more quangos and government red tape , this is all a protection racket to keep the SIMI boys happy and keep the lad down the road / polish etc... out.

page 20 , talking about telling the gardai with ANPR which cars are modified.

well george orwell would be mighty proud of the RSA.

dgt

If it gets rid of those arsewipes with HID in reflector lamps then go right ahead. These muppets tar the rest of us with the same brush, something had to give somewhere.

As usual, others ruin it for the rest of us :rolleyes:

langdang

Isn't this the way it is in several Euro countries as it is (I know, very vague - I'm thinking France, Belgium, maybe germany?) - engineers reports needed for all sorts of mods.

Anan1

visual wrote: »

there is a difference to saying can't trust motorist and imposing a very strict policy that will make it almost impossible to modify your vehicle for your needs.

I will give a quick example. A farm tractor can and does use the roads it often pulling overloaded trailers that damages the small country roads. Its tyres are huge and project from the body and exposed front and back and doesn't have air bags with high ground clearance.

But under the proposed laws I wouldn't be able to fit a winch bumper raise my suspension and fit larger than standard wheels on my Jeep. put a locker in my axles because some numpty considers it doesn't fit the mold. yet during the bad snow two years running it was these vehicles that kept going and pulling the euro boxes out of snow.

I spend a bit of time in rural areas and their is pot holes 2 foot deep. I don't see the ROAD safety authority doing anything about this. But I can see these busy bodies dreaming up ways to impose penalties on motorist.
Why can't they turn the NCT in to a proper road fitness test instead of what it is.

The choice isn't between no modification and no regulation, there is a middle way.

kona

Anan1 wrote: »

They don't really. For example, the NCT have no way of knowing whether the cheap aftermarket parts some people put on their cars are prone to disintegration at speed - a system like the German one would help with that.

Some parts manufacturers put on cars are prone to disintegration at speed too. A system like Germany's would help, but this is Ireland and looking at the stats it seems to be motivated by greed and one mans agenda against anything that isn't a diesel corolla and is under 30.

Anan1

kona wrote: »

Some parts manufacturers put on cars are prone to disintegration at speed too. A system like Germany's would help, but this is Ireland and looking at the stats it seems to be motivated by greed and one mans agenda against anything that isn't a diesel corolla and is under 30.

So you're in favour of a system like Germany's?

kona

Joe 90 wrote: »

Indeed although I have heard about the NCT being excessively strict on modded cars, e.g. not liking the roll cage in a rally prepped car.

Roll cages are illegal on road cars, you need to wear a helmet with one.

H3llR4iser

By all means, please come down on the clowns - too much ridiculous stuff on the Irish roads. The prize would probably go to the proud owners of fake performance cars - baseline Civics, Lancers and Imprezas fitted with all sorts of plastic to make them look like a Type R, an Evo VIII or a WRX.

On a more useful note, it might help getting rid of ridiculously powerful headlights (although it looks like 50% of the drivers in Cork just decide to drive with their full beams on all the time), blue neons, wheel-arch-banging tyres and the SOB that wakes the enitre block up every night with his crappy, Helfords-exhaust-equipped Starlet.

visual

Most aren't aware that fitting projectors lenses can solve the problem with HID and its not that expensive.

Fitting a self leveling is BS as its not what people think it is.
It only compensates for the load in the vehicle just like the switch inside your car than you can set the light beam level with. Its not live reactive system reacting to bumps in the road and quickly adjusting the beam to suit. It just means you put a few bags in the boot and couple of passengers in the rear it automatically adjusts the light beam. just as you can do manually with the switch fitted to most if not all cars.

why aren't they helpful to the motorist on the HID issue.

• HID must be equal to 5000K or less in temperature
• HID must be fitted in either projector housing or approved headlamps and pass alignment (99% of approve headlights are projectors)
• Washers must be fitted although I don't think this make much, if any difference and should be reviewed.
• HID fitted to reflector halogen headlamps made be illegal.

Even a person with limited knowledge can tell the difference between reflector and projectors lenses and asking a person to switch off and back on the lights can tell they are HID because they take a short time to reach full brightness so its easy to identify.

This would set the guide lines for those who want to use HID how to fit them correctly.

Cungi

While it may get rid of the badly modded skangermobiles its just an excuse to drag more money out of motorists. Another test? So RSA are saying NCT and Garda inspection isnt worth a crap?

And saying every modification has to be declared? So if a buy a bulb thats different from the one used by a manufacturer, it has to be declared?

What if i get a replacement cup holder from a scrapyard that came off a higher spec model and is chromed. Technically that's a modification.

What about debadging? So if a badge falls off, that has to be declared?

Fcukin RSA

galwaytt

kona wrote: »

Roll cages are illegal on road cars, you need to wear a helmet with one.

Really ? Where does it say this ? (link ??)

kona

Anan1 wrote: »

So you're in favour of a system like Germany's?

Obviously if done right it's good. This is Ireland it will be done for greed not for what it's ment for . If they did it right I'd be delighted, no more being blinded by crap cars with hid conversions. But do you really think these clowns can do this right?

Anan1

Cungi wrote: »

And saying every modification has to be declared? So if a buy a bulb thats different from the one used by a manufacturer, it has to be declared?

What if i get a replacement cup holder from a scrapyard that came off a higher spec model and is chromed. Technically that's a modification.

What about debadging? So if a badge falls off, that has to be declared?

Fcukin RSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

kona

galwaytt wrote: »

Really ? Where does it say this ? (link ??)

Don't have one but if having a 2 inch steel pipe inches from your head is safe in the event of a crash is be amazed. Plus altering the dynamics of the car in a crash.

visual

Anan1 wrote: »

The choice isn't between no modification and no regulation, there is a middle way.

tyres is a simple one it must be 70% of original or no bigger than the biggest fitted by manufacture.

This would give me 3 tyre sizes with the biggest being questionable as it wasn't sold here with the biggest tyre although it is in all other markets.

again this is poorly thought out.

what if i want to lift my jeep a couple of inches and fit larger tyres to enable it have better off road capability. this would impose I get speedo re-calibrated and then still rejected because it is taller and tyres are bigger then what the manufacturers originally fitted.

this is a one size fits all.

I can see where some guy lowers his car fits wheels too big that they catch on the body or chassis has fitted HID into his halogen reflector lamps but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

dar83

I wouldn't be completely against this, if it meant Irish insurers didn't crap their pants and straight out decline you for a policy at the first mention of 'modified'.

Anan1

visual wrote: »

what if i want to lift my jeep a couple of inches and fit larger tyres to enable it have better off road capability. this would impose I get speedo re-calibrated and then still rejected because it is taller and tyres are bigger then what the manufacturers originally fitted.

this is a one size fits all.

I can see where some guy lowers his car fits wheels too big that they catch on the body or chassis has fitted HID into his halogen reflector lamps but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Lifting a jeep a couple of inches may well make it a lot more unstable on a wet road.

serious3

all they are trying to do is make sure that modified vehicles in all classes are roadworthy, some of the modified/bodged motors around are downright dangerous, how is an a4 thats designed to have 110hp on 16" wheels with 60 profile tyres can be modded by a spotty oik in a shed to be some 50mm lower coilover suspension, chipped to 150hp and running 18" rims with 20 profile tyres all this after audi spent millions developing it? my reading of the proposals is that they are not outlawing modding just trying to make sure there is a process that says that the modification has been fitted correctly and safely. i personaly think that its a good idea BUT AND ITS A BIG BUT it needs to be implemented properly and fairly however this is ireland so that won't happen so ill be voting against it!!!

oh and visual the locker you'd fit to your "jeep" would be unlocked in normal road use, like the detroit i have or the arb's some others use;)

serious3

Anan1 wrote: »

Lifting a jeep a couple of inches may well make it a lot more unstable on a wet road.

as a survivor of such a crash involving the above i'd agree totaly, the only reason to lift a jeep is to fit bigger tyres, you gain no ground clearance under the axles at all.

Cungi

Anan1 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Really? :rolleyes:

According to what they're proposing. You have to declare any modification and then pay for the priviledge.

Don't get me wrong if this was done fairly and properly i'd be fine with it but it isnt and wont be

RSA wrote:

This consultation discusses two options for the regulation and control of vehicle modifications:
1. Self-declaration by vehicle owner
2. Introduce a dedicated approval process for vehicle modifications

1. Self-declaration by vehicle owner
A self-declaration control procedure would legally require a vehicle owner to notify the
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport’s, Driver Vehicle Computer Services Division
(DVCSD) of any vehicle modification, and the DVCSD would be required to enter the
modification details in the relevant National Vehicle and Driver File (NVDF) record. The vehicle
owner would also be required to declare that a vehicle modification is of an appropriate
standard and be responsible for having the necessary documentation to support this.

2. Introduce a dedicated approval process for vehicle modifications
A dedicated approval process would place equal responsibility on the vehicle owner and
vehicle modifier to ensure any modification is of an appropriate standard. It would legally
require a vehicle modifier / owner to notify the DVCSD of a vehicle modification. The modified
vehicle would then have to undergo an inspection and certification procedure to gain approval.
It will also provide clear guidelines as to the appropriate standard for a vehicle modification
along with a clear process to have it approved. There would be a further requirement that only
parts which are fit for purpose, safe and in compliance with Road Traffic regulations can be
fitted to a vehicle.

visual

there we go some one make a call without knowing

Lifting the Jeep by 2 inches with stiffer springs doesn't negatively impact its performance and with bigger wider tyres it can be safer
but you can only know this if your are into off roading jeeps.

yes lifting a jeep on its own doesn't increase axle clearance but taller tyres do.

as I said once size doesn't fit all and I really don't want a euro box especially a 1 liter little euro box that isn't safe on any main road.

but as there are so many who just want to be the same as everyone else in there car that looks just like every other car out there I can see the RSA getting away with this.

This has become a witch hut for the RSA how many modified cars that where done incorrectly or dangerous made up the 1% of defects found to be cause of accident. Much higher would be doggy repairs or manafacture defects like toyto sticking trottle

ShadowHearth

Supergurrier

I'm all for it if it sets a standard for modification and makes it easier to declare mods in an honest and straightforward manner.

Hid bulbs and cut springs will become a thing of the past

serious3

visual wrote: »

there we go some one make a call without knowing

Lifting the Jeep by 2 inches with stiffer springs doesn't negatively impact its performance and with bigger wider tyres it can be safer
but you can only know this if your are into off roading jeeps.

i beg to differ..... lifting the jeep will alter its roll center and raise the centre of gravity, it also introduces positive camber which reduces self centreing on the steering, bigger wider tyres can and do effect braking and steering, my 35" tyres and rims weigh 40kg each!! the effectiveness of the brakes is reduced by the gyroscopic/rotating inertia effect of all that weight.

i would not drive this on the road as its a pure pig of a thing, however i've seen and know lads that do.

Chris_Heilong

I have already sent an email to the RSA. They are looking for our input and the address to send our grivence is at the bottom of the link one the first page. i usually dont bother emailing on these kind of issues but look at how bad things have gotten here in ireland this would just be the last nail in irelands motoring coffin.

ianobrien

kona wrote: »

Roll cages are illegal on road cars, you need to wear a helmet with one.

If roll cages are illegal, then how come Ford, Peugeot, Toyota, Skoda will sell you a brand new rally car that they have built, never mind the Citroen, VW and the odd Bini that compete in the world chanpionship?

IIRC, there is no EU vehicle class for a "rally car", they are all private motor vehicles.

visual

Anan1 wrote: »

Lifting a jeep a couple of inches may well make it a lot more unstable on a wet road.

serious3 wrote: »

as a survivor of such a crash involving the above i'd agree totally, the only reason to lift a jeep is to fit bigger tyres, you gain no ground clearance under the axles at all.

serious3 wrote: »

i beg to differ..... lifting the jeep will alter its roll center and raise the centre of gravity, it also introduces positive camber which reduces self centreing on the steering, bigger wider tyres can and do effect braking and steering, my 35" tyres and rims weigh 40kg each!! the effectiveness of the brakes is reduced by the gyroscopic/rotating inertia effect of all that weight.

i would not drive this on the road as its a pure pig of a thing, however I've seen and know lads that do.

Sound like a cheap lift, probably had death wobble too.
camber can be adjusted even on solid axles with off set adjustable ball joints. Brakes are impacted but there is also the opportunity to change or upgrade your calipers and disc's. Roll resistance can be improved with wider tyres plus the use of spacers. center of gravity isn't going to get any better the higher you go but this is a given for all jeeps. they aren't track cars and never will be. If you Jeep or 4x4 passed the current NCT then they should have picked up the issue with brakes.
There is alot army trucks on the road and they are lifted quite high yet spend most of their life on the road legally.

your probably very much aware there is some very reputable companies producing lift kits and some of the better lift kits preform well on the road considering they are raising the vehicle as much as 6" above original

I've seen a few badly lifted 4x4 with spring from scrap yard and body lift spacers fitted on the cheap just enough to get the clearance to stick large wheels in wheel wells with no consideration for drivability on the road at 120kph. But this is more back street modification.

the problem we will have no matter how well something is done some idiot will say your vehicle isn't fitting euro box norm so must automatically be bad.

A new one liter car is capable of well exceeding the maxim speed limit with its bicycle tyres and rear drum brakes light enough to bounce off the road. unable to stop when its got 4 adults on board yet it will have great NCAP rating for its class but yet no one survives the crash, because there is no rear crash testing. have you ever wondered why its all young people who die on the roads is it because they have modified cars or that they are forced into little tins that in reality are safe at all.

sogood

Anan1 wrote: »

They don't really. For example, the NCT have no way of knowing whether the cheap aftermarket parts some people put on their cars are prone to disintegration at speed - a system like the German one would help with that.

I have known of very expensive, main dealer, genuine parts disintegrating also. And not always at speed. Just hit a pothole with your alloys and see how you fare out. Where is the regulation when it comes to the roads we have to drive on?

I once saw some council workers, filling potholes with tar, in the rain while the holes were still full to the brim with water! Don't get me started.

And what happens when the consultation is finished and the stats are in and it finds that only a tiny % of cars are modded. Will they proceed if it isn't cost effective to police or egulate such cars, ie; if there's no profit in it for them?

Like the carbon tax. All sounds good in theory, clean up the environment, rake in extra taxes, then sell your carbon credits to another country!

What a joke.

visual

I feel that no one wants to make the road unsafe and some modifications can enhance a vehicle if done correctly.

Safety modification can include film tint if not too dark. as it acts like a laminate windscreen, A lot of older cars had poor headlights from new and HID if fitted correctly is a benefit and takes advantage of modern technology as used in newer cars.

While modification should be tested it needs to be done in a fair way that doesn't create a financial deterrent or block and take account that we need want to modify our vehicle to suit purpose be it work, hobby or improve the car.

Cars that are chipped are done for many reason, improved MPG is one and because some one increases the BHP this isn't the RSA concern as higher BHP is usually available in that range of car anyway. while Nitro boosting should be RSA concern as it poses a greater risk of fire. RSA need to get out of bed with insurance companies your not in the same industry

There are some examples that a tester wouldn't be as familiar as enthuses
while some would like to modify their 4x4 for better off road capabilities too strict a condition would make this impossible. restricting tyre size and lift height. while it does have a impact in handling it should not atomically be consider bad, if bigger tyres don't rub the body or chassis through full turning and suspension travel it should be allowed. Not hard to test
Lift height should also be allowed as it is in other counties of course the vehicle should be capable of passing all the road tests but consideration needs to be given.

I seen air scoops listed as one of the baddies to avoid buy yet some cars come with air scoops from new.


I do question the bigger modification like taxi's that obviously started off as vans because the rear seats are in the rear crumple zone and if you see the original minibus version the seats are in front of the rear wheels not behind as in the conversions. nearly all the wheel chair taxi's seem to have been converted with no consideration for the safety of passengers.

But if the RSA want to really get serious why allow new cars into this market that are obviously not fit for purpose. how many 7 seater's have rear seats in the rear crumple zone offering no protection in a rear end collision. why are you allowing vans be converted into taxi's when the rear seats are against the rear window and in the crumple zone when the original minibus version clearly has the rear most seats in front of the rear wheels leaving the crumple zone for luggage.
Why promote a 1 liter box being safe for young drivers knowing they have the lease chance in a crash and their handling is seriously compromised when 4 adults are on board.


Most of all why are our road so poor and dangerous and where they where wider allowing drivers recover from a small error is there ramp bollards and every other obstacle put there so its like threading the eye of a needle all the time.

RSA would be better off introducing NCAP for the roads and realise quickly that bad roads take lives

what is up with planting trees on the side of road and lamp post on the edge of roads. Then there is a heap of people who don't want tyre marks on grass between their property and the road so have bricks and stones place at road verge. then there is the hedges if someone plants a hedge it should not hang over the road and block visibility on corners

Finally penally points should be reserved for bad driving not use for NCT or 101 other things someone dreams up. Fine is sufficient

RSA should be the motorist friend not some goverment body that see the motorist as a moving target that should be punished with a vengeance

kona

ianobrien wrote: »

If roll cages are illegal, then how come Ford, Peugeot, Toyota, Skoda will sell you a brand new rally car that they have built, never mind the Citroen, VW and the odd Bini that compete in the world chanpionship?

IIRC, there is no EU vehicle class for a "rally car", they are all private motor vehicles.

I didn't say they were illegal, I said they wouldn't go thru a nct. No rally car would pass a nct

McP2011

This is some bull****.

They should be trying to sort out our 'roads' first, most of them are a disgrace.

They should also sort out there nct regulations before introducing more trash. They have no set standard for what passes and what fails, it is a definately a money racket.

I also notice daily that alot of people give out about cars that are low,have bigger alloys etc etc.

For one most 'modifiers' who have there car lowered actually take more care in driving imo as naturally they don't what to damage there car, also it tends to slow them down in the process.

It's just typical of them to harass the motorist, most of them who come up with these new bright ideas have probably never even sat in a modified car before.

Rant over.

JerCotter7

Just have a bit of cop on for the NCT and I don't see how this would even be needed. Once all modifications are TUV approved I don't see how the mod could be bad. Everything I have added to my car is TUV approved. Am I supposed to go over all the mods and make a list, register them and pay someone for the privilege?

Joe 90

kona wrote: »

I didn't say they were illegal, I said they wouldn't go thru a nct. No rally car would pass a nct

If no rally car would pass a nct how the hell do you run a rally car in Ireland?

ianobrien

Joe 90 wrote: »

If no rally car would pass a nct how the hell do you run a rally car in Ireland?

You NCT it......

I know of plenty of rally cars with NCT's (and plenty more without because the owners didn't bother). The only problem can be with the rear tyres of the Manta 400's being too wide for the brake rollers.......

Anan1

McP2011 wrote: »

For one most 'modifiers' who have there car lowered actually take more care in driving imo as naturally they don't what to damage there car, also it tends to slow them down in the process.

Don't we know it when they bring traffic to a crawl for every speed bump.;)