Mokesta wrote:
The way I read those ADR applicability tables is that the X means that the ADR applies to the category. So I read it that class LC (motorcycles above 50cc) don't have to comply with ADR79.
Manufacturers are unlikely to undertake a test to prove compliance to a standard that is not applicable so it will be hard, unless an overseas test result for equivalent standard is available, to prove compliance of a bike engine to ADR79.
With no test evidence, you can be denied permission to install a bike engine into a car.
M
Dan,
Fully understand what you are saying. I spent nearly 12 months arguing with the Qld Dept Transport over this very issue, and they finally conceded the point about emissions on the grounds that:
a) Even though specific bikes do not have to comply with ADR's as currently dictated by statute law, they do have to comply with statute emission laws in other countries
b) These emission regulations in other countries are far more stringent than our own (case in point -Euro 3/4 vs ADR79)
c) if these said bikes then pass the other emissions testing regimes and comply under the emission laws, ipso facto they would then comply with our current laws.
d) A bike chosen that complies with any emissions laws that are more stringent than our own, in another country, cannot be demied usage in this country no matter what the application.
e) Written compliance evidence would, and did, forego any further argument from the QLD Transport Dept. on this issue.
However, they then came back and said "Ok, we understood that we cant hang our hat on emissions, but the engineering side...." And this is the battle I am currently fighting, as it would have to be an ICV, and come under heavy scrutiny. A lot of engineers ran for the hills and didnt want any part!
A small digression if I may - I am fighting a similar battle with the department on grafting a Mk2 jag IFS into a 1956 F100. They say its not a commercial front end, even though the Jag front end is designed to carry more weight than the F100 I-beam axle setup. It would give better ride and handling, allow bigger brakes and tyres,and be far more safer - but still the Department have not stamped it due to it not being a commercial setup (but they will allow a Mitsubishi L300 - dont figure).
Its a case of beurocarcy - with no-one willing to stick their neck out even though its a far better result. Same with the use of bike engines.
Quote:
Of course being QT, the rules change depending on the phase of the moon, who you talk to, what the authorised officer's relationship with QT is like plus many other random variables.
Never a truer word spoken Dan!!!!
Quote:
Tricky, this one doesn't seem to have reversing capability. Is Quaife the only mob who does reversing diffs?? $6k is sh*t expensive! I took a guess at like $3k but not double that!!!
I agree with the rotating intertia idea. bike weights approx 250kg'ish.. we're trying to propel a 700kg hunk of metal. Trying to mate this to a AWD GTiR gearbox in my mind is not good this adds a lot more weight to a already bad situation. Chain drive seems the goer to keep mass to a minimum
Pubs,
As I see it, chain drive is the only way to go. Bike engines produce oodles of HP for their size, but very little torque. Excessive rotational inertia cause by excessive rotating mass (tailshafts, diffs, axles etc) from a car is
not the way to go. Keep it light, and keep it lighter! Chain drive with either a quaife or TRE diff is the way to go (IMHO). The problem of the reversing gear has been discussed and I think that the best way to solve this is with a geared sprocket on one axle, connected to a car-size starter motor, operated by a pushbutton switch on the dash, and only being able to be engaged while the vehicle is in neutral (considering a bike gearbox). This deemed to satisfy all of the Departments requirements with regards to a reversing gear for a vehicle. David - my Engineer did not say that drive force has to come from the primary engine. You are correct with the engagement from the drivers position though.
Another thing that not anyone has commented on, and that Matt and I have discussed at length, is the ease of which you can change gear ratios with chain drive. Within say, half an hour, you could change gearing to suit a particular application by simply changing one, or both sprockets (driver and driven). Imagine being able to swap between very short ratio gearing for say a hillclimb event, or very tall gearing for a long-straighted track circuit, within half an hour - bloody unreal!!!
Matt and I have spent a lot of time and effort exploring many possibilities with a bike-engined Mini. We have dsicussed at length engine location, drive system, brakes, body, compliancing, registerability (is this a word
), wheels, aero package etc, and we keep coming back to the same formula - mid-engine, chain drive, rear diff, lightened registerable door-slammer. Matt, your views bud........
