Bit of a problem with lift compliance

[jf1sf5]

There is provision in the code to increase track up to 50mm but it is unclear whether this applies to all vehicles or only those with body on frame construction. Other vehicles can have track increases up to 25mm. The only way to achieve this legally is by changing the offset as spacers are not permitted. So my guess is that you can increase the track by at least 25mm but whether they would permit this to compensate for a smaller reduction in track would have to be tested.

On SF Foresters, you can increase track with SG Forester control arms (front +20mm) and lateral links (rear +30mm)

 

[Beachworm]

On SF Foresters, you can increase track with SG Forester control arms (front +20mm) and lateral links (rear +30mm)

I was hoping that one of the later models (after SH) might have longer struts, control arms etc. but nobody has come forward with any information like that to this point.

 

[NachaLuva]

Thank goodness I don't have ESC is all I've got to say. :ebiggrin:

I wouldn't worry, as far as the lifting laws in Qld are concerned, there is no difference between cars with or without ESC for MC class vehicles like our Foresters & Outbacks
You will find the MC class on the top right corner of your VIN plate.
Here it is explained for you:
https://practicalmotoring.com.au/ca...d-classified-passenger-vehicles-in-australia/

The Qld lifting laws have all been discussed & fussed over long ago. The TMR has given it's official ruling, here it is highlighted for you.
NOTE: This is the most recent, updated laws for Qld

 

[NachaLuva]

Neither am I interested in getting into a slanging match.

I'm very glad to hear it, I don't want to either

Go back to my first post and you will see it is a call for help.

That is exactly what I am doing, for you & for others reading this thread

I need information about spring lifts for SH Foresters as an alternative to a strut-top lift which I now find is likely to need specific approval.

Not true. A 50mm strut top lift is completely legal for a MC class vehicle in Qld.

However, if you want to fit raised springs instead, you should know that the ride will be much harsher & the handling/steering won't be as good as raised springs don't have camber & caster offsets to compensate for the change in suspension geometry as it's lifted

I believe Lovells do raised springs for a SH

 

[Beachworm]

Thanks Nachaluva. I appreciate you posting this but it doesn't help. I've had this stuff for ages and if memory serves me correctly, I am the one who initially championed this cause.

Although you are convinced that this applies to Subaru vehicles, neither TMR not one of the engineers I am in contact with would agree with you. The second engineer has not gotten back to me yet and I am waiting on his information to make a final decision on what to do.

The TMR have ruled that vehicles with unibody construction, whether classified MC or not are to be treated differently. I haven't been able to find where this is in the Code of Practice (Qld) but I have only given it a cursory look at this stage. The first engineer, however, assures me their ruling is valid.

I have found that Dobinsons offer 30mm raised springs for SH Forester and they also have a camber correction kit. https://www.dobinsonsprings.com/subaru/sub-51/suspension

I take your point that ride and handling may be inferior but at least I can get some lift this way without having to get specific approval.

 

[Ben Up North]

The TMR have ruled that vehicles with unibody construction, whether classified MC or not are to be treated differently. I haven't been able to find where this is in the Code of Practice (Qld) but I have only given it a cursory look at this stage.

Would be great if you could provide more information on this ruling, because a google search doesn't find anything about unibody vehicles

 

[Kevin]

Maybe try "monocoque"

 

[NachaLuva]

The TMR have ruled that vehicles with unibody construction, whether classified MC or not are to be treated differently. I haven't been able to find where this is in the Code of Practice (Qld) but I have only given it a cursory look at this stage. The first engineer, however, assures me their ruling is valid.

Until they can show exactly where in the legislation it specifically states that monocoque chassis are exempt from the MC classification, their opinion is not valid, & certainly is not a ruling.

I have shown where it specifically states that MC class vehicles are legally allowed 75mm lift

I have also given a link that explains MC class, & even shows Foresters & Outback in the group of included vehicles

You can also see the MC class specification on your VIN plate.

These are all legal applications. Until the TMR shows a specific clause stating MC class does not include monocoque chassis, that opinion is invalid. I don't believe there is one!

It also goes against a previous ruling, in writing, from the TMR that there is no "softroader" subdivision in MC class, and that all MC class vehicles are legally the same. Unfortunately I don't have a screenprint of this, but I have seen the letter

I have found that Dobinsons offer 30mm raised springs for SH Forester and they also have a camber correction kit. https://www.dobinsonsprings.com/subaru/sub-51/suspension

Those are just camber bolts. To use them in the front, that means running double camber bolts, can be done but not ideal. The factory camber bolts in the top holes & aftermartket camber bolts in the bottom holes

I wouldn't recommend those though, very little product information. It is essential that camber bolts be grade 12.9, never 10.9 like some brands (eg Ironman is 10.9 - do NOT use these)

This is what I use:

https://www.nolathane.com.au/product_detail.php?part_number=44260

 

[Beachworm]

The issue is not whether monocoque vehicles are included in the MC class or not. This point is not in dispute. TMR is saying that the Qld Code of Practice for modifying light vehicles does not apply to monocoque vehicles. This means they are saying that sections LS9 and LS10 (which nachaluva has provided above) refers only to body on frame vehicles.

I have not been able to find any reference in the Code that mentions monocoque or unibody construction. I have asked them to provide me with the source document that leads them to this conclusion but no reply to date. The first engineer I consulted, however, said that TMR is correct so at this stage it is still unclear.

 

[Kevin]

I have asked them to provide me with the source document that leads them to this conclusion but no reply to date.

Maybe they can't find it either :iconwink:

 

[Beachworm]

Maybe they can't find it either :iconwink:

That is always a possibility. However, because they have provided, in writing, a statement that the Code does not apply to unibody vehicles, I have asked for a reference to support that view and until I get a response from them, one way or the other, I am not convinced.

Please keep in mind too that it is the method of lifting, using blocks on the top of struts that is in question. There is no debate with them about whether a Subaru can be lifted or not. Spring (suspension) lifts, though seemingly less practical are permitted. My initial inquiry to them was whether they regarded a strut-top lift as a suspension lift or a body lift because body lifts require approval.

Their response was, and I quote, "If your vehicle is of a ‘body on frame’ type construction then you will need to look at the LS9/LS10 code. A light vehicle lift that has been carried out by the fitting of spacers on the top of the suspension struts would be regarded as a component of the suspension and would require certification by a TMR approved person/engineer according to the requirements of the LS9/LS10 code of the QCOP (Queensland Code of Practice Vehicle Modifications)."

So, what they are saying is that a lift of this kind on a unibody vehicle would require specific approval as it is not covered by the Code. A lift of this kind on a body-on-frame vehicle would require engineer certification because the strut top spacer would be regarded as a suspension component (in the same category as a control arm or trailing arm)

 

[Kevin]

Interesting! Looks like I can only take my Triton into Queensland until this is resolved :iconwink:

 

[Ratbag]

Breaches s.92 of the Constitution - " ... trade, commerce and intercourse between states shall be absolutely free ... ".

 

[pbilz]

Their response was, and I quote, "If your vehicle is of a ‘body on frame’ type construction then you will need to look at the LS9/LS10 code. A light vehicle lift that has been carried out by the fitting of spacers on the top of the suspension struts would be regarded as a component of the suspension and would require certification by a TMR approved person/engineer according to the requirements of the LS9/LS10 code of the QCOP (Queensland Code of Practice Vehicle Modifications)."

That response is interesting... there's no mention of unibody construction in that statement? That statement reads that:
* it applies to all light vehicles, i.e. MC, NA, NB as defined in the QCOP.
* strut top spacers are a component of the suspension (so suspension lift not body lift)
* like all suspension lifts, strut top spacers require certification in line with the QCOP.

Reading the QCOP for vehicle mods s2.2 of LS9 and LS10 "Designs not covered by Code LS9/10"

Note that vehicle lift designs that do not exceed 75mm above the original manufacturer's specifications, and are achieved only from a lift up to 50mm from modified suspension and/or lift up to 25mm from larger tyres and rims do not require certification.

Whoever provided that response to you needs to read their own published standards and like you said, provide the exact reference.

 

[Beachworm]

It is all very confusing.

To my knowledge nobody has ever been defected in Queensland for a 50mm strut top lift. I wouldn't expect TMR or police would attempt to defect a vehicle (other than a heavy vehicle) with interstate registration so I would think tourists with a 50mm lift are pretty safe.

I will continue to drive my lifted car until I get a definitive response that is fully supported by published, official documents. If I get pinged, my defence will be that the TMR bulletins do not differentiate between body on frame and unibody vehicles and there is no clear statement from TMR indicating otherwise.

When the smoke clears I'll decide what to do. In the meantime, I'll keep you posted.

 

[NachaLuva]

That response is interesting... there's no mention of unibody construction in that statement? That statement reads that:
* it applies to all light vehicles, i.e. MC, NA, NB as defined in the QCOP.

Yep!

Note that vehicle lift designs that do not exceed 75mm above the original manufacturer's specifications, and are achieved only from a lift up to 50mm from modified suspension and/or lift up to 25mm from larger tyres and rims do not require certification.

Whoever provided that response to you needs to read their own published standards and like you said, provide the exact reference.

Spot on!!

It is all very confusing.

It's pretty simple from where I sit. Foresters & Outbacks are MC class & are subject to all the laws of MC class vehicles. End of story

To my knowledge nobody has ever been defected in Queensland for a 50mm strut top lift.

I don't believe so either

If I get pinged, my defence will be that the TMR bulletins do not differentiate between body on frame and unibody vehicles and there is no clear statement from TMR indicating otherwise.

Exactly

 

[Beachworm]

Yep!

It's pretty simple from where I sit. Foresters & Outbacks are MC class & are subject to all the laws of MC class vehicles. End of story

Perhaps you would like to comment on this section from the National Code of Practice Section LS Tyres, Rims, Suspension and Steering

"4.2.4 Overall Nominal Diameter The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to a passenger car or passenger car derivative must not be more than 15mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that model. The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to:  4WD passenger vehicles specifically designed for off-road use (typically MC ADR category). All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles including those AWD vehicles that may be certified as MC ADR category, (also commonly known as soft roaders) are not included in this category;  4WD goods vehicles and their 2WD equivalents if the chassis and running gear are essentially the same as the 4WD version (N ADR category); or  any medium weight goods vehicle (NA2, NB ADR category). Must not be more than 50mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that vehicle.

TMR are saying "In the National Code of Practice for Light Vehicle modification, it states in Section LS Tyres, Rims, Suspension & Steering, Paragraph 4.2.4, that:
• “All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles including those AWD vehicles that may be certified as MC ADR category, (also commonly known as soft roaders) are not included in this category;

"As this requirement is documented for one attribute, it must be applied to all attributes of vehicle modification."

 

[Ben Up North]

Try this: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/...vsi-minor-modifications-v19_11-1218.pdf?la=en

from here: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/V...andards-and-modifications.aspx#differenttyres

No need to make mountains out of molehills I reckon.

 

[pbilz]

Beachworm...

QCOP and QLD VSI L19 trump the NCOP for light vehicle lifts in QLD.

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/V...cle-modifications/Light-vehicle-modifications

Please Note: Not all parts of the NCOP have been accepted for use in Queensland, with variations applied for certain sections. For further information about these variations, please refer to the following Vehicle Standards Instructions:

VSI L19—Vehicle lifts under the Queensland Code of Practice — Vehicle Modifications

 

[Beachworm]

Try this: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/...vsi-minor-modifications-v19_11-1218.pdf?la=en

from here: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/V...andards-and-modifications.aspx#differenttyres

No need to make mountains out of molehills I reckon.

This is from the second document you referenced.

I have been told I can put 50mm large diameter tyres on my 4WD, they do this in other states and territories, is this permitted in Queensland?
Yes, the following types of vehicles can have their tyre diameter increased by up to 50mm or reduced by no more than 26mm from any tyre diameter designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that vehicle:
4WD passenger vehicles specifically designed for off-road use (typically MC ADR category), or
4WD goods vehicles and their 2WD equivalents if the chassis and running gear are essentially the same as the 4WD versions (N ADR category)
Please note: All wheel drive(AWD) vehicles, commonly known as soft roaders,are not to be considered as one of the above mentioned vehicles.