From: D Walford on 15 May 2010 22:33
On 16/05/2010 8:40 AM, John_H wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>> What's not easy about stopping a manual vehicle without using the clutch?
> What's the chances of an impending hydraulic failure being picked up
> by an annual roadworthy inspection in any case?
> A slave cylinder is likely to weep for a week or two before the
> reservoir runs out of fluid but a failed primary cup in the master
> cylinder is an equally common cause of failure and typically exhibits
> no externally visible signs whatsoever.
> With the bottom line being that the vast majority of those destined to
> die from clutch failure aren't likely to be saved by an annual
> inspection! :)
The only unroadworthy part of a leaking clutch cylinder is the fluid
leaking on the ground.
I can't even see why you need a working clutch for the car to be roadworthy?
A mate broke a clutch cable about 20klms from home and he called me
asking if I could tow him home, I explained to him over the phone how to
drive without the clutch and he got home safely without any drama, its
not something everyone could do easily but its not that difficult either
especially if you can teach someone to do it with a 5min phone conversation.
From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on 15 May 2010 22:43
D Walford wrote:
> On 16/05/2010 10:22 AM, Feral wrote:
>> Daz is almost as bad, he has no idea about my driving skills either, but
>> because he and Bighead are so elite at dealing with a possible encounter
>> with a problem, that they have no prior knowlege of, they can deal with
>> it and therefore *all* others should be able to as well (otherwise they
>> are "incompetant and should hand in their licence".
> If you think what an inexperienced driver would do in a situation where
> they needed to stop in a hurry and at the same time experienced a clutch
> failure what do you think would happen?
Having taught a few to drive I know they panic and fail to stop as
> My experience says they will hit the brakes hard resulting in the car
> stopping in the same distance but with a stalled engine so the clutch
> makes no difference whatsoever, if you think that's wrong please explain
> why in technical terms and try and do without your usual snide remarks.
no need your wrong
From: Feral on 15 May 2010 23:44
> The number of unscrupulous examiners would be a little higher than
> Feral is assuming but probably nowhere nearly as high as Noddy might
> be thinking.
I know they are out there Athol, I just required somebody
(that Bighead would regard as telling the truth) to verify the
position that they are a small minority. Ta.
> The reality is that some people see the dodgy guys as filling a real
> necessary role in the system, and won't dob them in. Hence, they will
> continue to get away with it for decades. I know of someone who used
> a dodgy place for about 6 years straight, then went to a proper place
> a month before rego was due and asked them to fix all of the stuff
> required for it to pass its pink slip... Over $2.5K later, they got a
> legit pink slip, but haven't said boo about the dodgy place, in case
> they need one again in the future.
I'd dob them in, but I'll never go to them. The bloke I go to,
for ten years now since we moved to Northern Rivers, is a one
owner, family concern and he takes pride in having a client
base that is faithful to him because of his thorough
practices. Not that I don't know what my two vehicles need to
keep them on song (despite opinion to the contrary).
I'm finished with the thread. What started out as a discussion
example (by silly me) of "drivers in general" facing a failed
slave cylinder situation under unforgiving circumstances,
turned into a personal attack (started by Bighead).
ps: You might explain Threshold Braking to Daz (especially in
the wet). He wouldn't believe it's better than stamping on the
stop pedal (as he stated as "basic").
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- :-P -/)
^^^ % ^^^
From: Albm&ctd on 16 May 2010 01:24
In article <nhpku558piiptq586klvrumajlu8l6i6qp(a)4ax.com>, john4721(a)inbox.com
> Scotty wrote:
> >"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
> >: Most of the vehicles that I see from QLD have QLD mod plates, and
> >: blatantly fail to comply with the ADRs or, in the case of modified
> >: trucks, VSB6. I'm not talking nit-picking fails, but major areas
> >: of failure such as a '60s Holden 186 in an '80s Hilux that was
> >: supposed to comply with ADR 27C, or a truck chassis where the
> >: extension joins didn't line up, so they welded a piece of steel
> >: square bar into the top flange to fill the gap - the bar was
> >: about double the thickness of the rail, the edges weren't aligned
> >: and there was no weld at all on the inside of the radius between
> >: the flange and web, where the square bar finished.
> >: I'm talking about national standards, including some written by
> >: Queenslanders. A big blue plate proclaims that the vehicle does
> >: comply with the rules, but it's obvious that it doesn't just by
> >: looking at it!
> >: Sometimes I also get the paperwork that goes with the blue plate,
> >: and it lists the ADRs that the vehicle is required to comply with,
> >: and is a declaration of compliance...
> >From what Ive been advised the Blue compliance plate is only for certain mods. You could have an
> >engine swap thats plated and then raise it 4inches swap seats, chop the roof and it would still be
> >plated, but only for the engine swap. Many vehicles sold have the mod plates but not for all the
> >mods. And some places even roadworthy them after viewing the plates as well.
> Which is no different to any other state. They all have similar rules
> on modifications.
> As I see it, the essential difference with the Queensland "approved
> person" system is those who do the mods that require a blue plate are
> frequently the same businesses as those that approve them. The end
> result therefore depends to a large extent on the standards of those
> who are engaged in the business of modifying vehicles.
> >Id like to see yearly testing for roadworthyness and a suitabel reduction in registration fees. Im
> >mean to say the $655 I pay now for a 4Cylnder is absolute bloody theft and thats without any
> >roadworthness factored in.
> There is absolutely no evidence I've ever seen that mandatory annual
> inspections of private cars does anything for road safety. Mechanical
> defects are a contributing factor in a very small proportion of
> crashes resulting in death injury and the difference between those
> states that have annual inspections and those that don't is SFA.
Not to mention the corruption where someone knows they can get a pass at a
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
From: Noddy on 16 May 2010 02:20
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
> That's the point, in Australia we have some states that have annual
> inspections and some that don't so we are able to compare the 2 different
> approaches and seeing as how there is sfa difference in accident rates
> attributed to unroadworthy vehicles in states with and without inspections
> its obvious they don't achieve all that much.
That's it in a nutshell right there.
If Feral, or anyone else for that matter, could turn around and say "Well,
here's the breakdown between NSW and Victoria and you can clearly see that
the number of accidents attributable to unroadworthy vehicles in Vic is
significantly higher than it is in NSW", then it'd be more than fair to
assume that annual inspections do indeed have an impact on crash numbers and
I'd be very much in favour of such testing being introduced here.
But he *can't*. That's the point. *No one* can show that it makes one iota
of difference at all, and in that regard the idea makes very little sense at
> If anyone can demonstrate that they achieve anything other improve some
> workshops bottom line then I will support them.