Bit of a problem with lift compliance

[Beachworm]

I've come across a bit of a problem that I would appreciate some advice on.

I have a 50mm lift kit installed in my SH Forester. I'm one of those strange people that likes to keep modifications strictly legal and I live in QLD where it seems to be harder than anywhere else to do that.

I have been doing a lot of research, communicating with Transport and Main Roads and consulting with 2 engineers they recommended and I have found out the following:

1. The Code of Practice for modifying light vehicles in regard to lifts other than using springs/struts/shocks does not cover unibody vehicles with ESC. This means that: a) If I want to lift my Forester to the 75mm limit permitted under the code I have to use springs/shocks/struts in combination with a 50mm increase in tyre diameter.
b) If I want to use strut-top spacers such as I already have installed I have to make application to TMR for their specific approval to go to 50mm and then I am not permitted to increase the tyre size.

OR use the services of an engineer to get approval for a high lift.

I am planning on applying for approval to TMR for the strut-top lift in the first instance and if that doesn't pan out I'll try a spring lift. I am aware that most comments on this site say a spring lift is not a good option.

What is your advice?

 

[Red XS]

The laws weren't really written for our style of vehicle, which probably contributes to so many of us choosing to take the risk. Lots of grey areas that you can choose to interpret how you like.

Issue with spring lift is there aren't any of the shelf lifted shocks to match so the travels won't match. Not a good option even if laws say otherwise.

Interesting to know how the cost of engineering compares to the cost of custom shocks. But in saying that most custom shocks probably break a dozen other laws.


Recommendation is to move to WA where there aren't the checks

 

[Beachworm]

There are lots of other vehicles in the same boat. Mitsubishi Pajero, Landrover Discovery, Nissan X Trail and other I don't know about. The difference is that aftermarket options are available for them to use springs and dampers. I was wondering if anyone has tried cutting and shutting struts to increase length or cutting and putting a bigger diameter tube over the whole lot. I've seen video of them being cut to take inserts. Perhaps there are some that are longer than standard.


We don't have regular checks in QLD either, it's just my preference to have it legal.

 

[Beachworm]

It also came to mind that there might be other struts from other models or other makes that will fit that are longer than the SH. This was one suggestion from the engineer.

 

[Red XS]

In WA "body blocks or lift kits" are allowed as per VSB 14 section 4.11. Nothing macpherson strut specific.

You also need to keep at least 2/3 of the original rebound travel. (In the same section) Which prevents people putting too tall a spring in a shock.
I prefer our laws...



But for you, the strut would have to have been designed for your vehicle otherwise you will need engineering anyway. Any modifications would certainly need engineering. If you some how find a strut that just happens to bolt in, they could still raise questions as to whether it's load ratings meet your cars standards. Getting a custom made coilover like my Hotbits is at least designed for the car. You'd have to make sure they can't be adjusted outside allowable height range and there will be other state specific laws like that to be aware off too.



Sounds like you are going to need engineering anyway, so you might as well find the setup that you want first.

 

[NachaLuva]

Uggghhhh!!!

My advice is to grab those 2 engineers & clunk their heads together like a couple of coconuts!

Seriously, they're engineers. They're meant to keep up to date with current laws. They must have been hiding under a big rock to have missed all the crap going on in Qld over the last 6-12 months

1. The Code of Practice for modifying light vehicles in regard to lifts other than using springs/struts/shocks does not cover unibody vehicles with ESC.

In Qld there is now NO difference between cars with or without ESC in relation to lifting laws. Refer back to clunking heads like coconuts

This means that: a) If I want to lift my Forester to the 75mm limit permitted under the code I have to use springs/shocks/struts in combination with a 50mm increase in tyre diameter.

b) If I want to use strut-top spacers such as I already have installed I have to make application to TMR for their specific approval to go to 50mm and then I am not permitted to increase the tyre size.

I think you are confusing body lift spacers with strut top spacers

We can't do a body lift on a Subaru as it's a monocoque chassis. A body lift refers to lifting the body up off the chassis, which we can't do

The rear multilink spacers don't count as they don't provide any lift, they are simply there for suspension geometry

It's up to you. You can make things as simple or as complicated as you like. I suggest you make it simple. Either way is legal

 

[Beachworm]

Sadly, it isn't up to me. TMR are the ones saying that the Code of Practice does not apply to vehicles with monocoque. The ESC is being brought into it too. Initially, the two engineers I contacted didn't know anything about it. One got back to me yesterday to say he now had the information and the TMR is correct. The method of lifting is not so much the issue as the height as far as I'm concerned.

If I want to use anything other than springs and/or struts to achieve a 50mm lift I have to apply directly to TMR for their approval. This is a quote from their email: " Thank you for your enquiry regarding vehicle lift components.

If your vehicle is a ‘monocoque’ constructed vehicle then an application for modification must be submitted to TMR Vehicle Standards for approval, as this is not covered under the code of practice. Please refer to the link below for instructions in the “Specific modifications” section.
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/V...cle-modifications/Light-vehicle-modifications

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). For a list of approved persons/engineers in your area who hold LS9/LS10 accreditation please call 13 23 80.

Link to QCOP:
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/...cop-vehicle-modifications-v4_0-1018.pdf?la=en

I trust this information is of assistance.

The engineer told me I could have a 50mm suspension lift or a 25mm tyre lift but not both together without getting the vehicle tested for lane change/swerve/moose test, whatever you want to call it.

I am still waiting for the other engineer to get back to me.

 

[NachaLuva]

I call BS. I haven't seen anything where lift or modification rules specify monocoque or body-on-chassis

Look at LS9 & 10. Nothing about either chassis type

This IS up to you, you can make it as hard or easy as you like.
Did you explain to them that you have a MC class vehicle, which is classed EXACTLY THE SAME as a Landcruiser or Patrol? I bet not, perhaps you should mention that to them & listen for the sound their jaws make as they hit the floor

From the point of view of the law, there is no legal distinction between a MC class Forester and a MC class Landcruiser or MC class Patrol

You do need to be careful here. This isn't just you we're talking about. You need to do this carefully & wisely so you don't stir up trouble for the entire lifted Subaru community. There are literally 1000s of people who could be directly affected by the way you handle this

 

[Beachworm]

You are making an argument from passion and not logic and you are making assumptions about things you have no knowledge of. Let's get a few things clear.
1. I did provide them with all the information they need to give me the correct advice. They know I am talking about a Subaru Forester and I reminded them it is classified MC.
2. Interpretation of the regulations and codes of practice is not up to me. I spent the last 7 years of my working life as a compliance manager and I think I might know a lot more about this than you do. Government makes Acts, Regulations and approves codes of practice. TMR interprets and applies them and we live with that. We don't have a choice.
3. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the bare faced facts is not a suitable solution. Ignorance is no defence at law. The lifted Subaru community needs to come to terms with the reality of the law and it is up to each individual to decide whether they want to comply or not. At least if everyone knows the truth they can make a decision based on the facts and not on inaccurate opinions born from ignorance.
4. I am not responsible for what others choose to do but I am responsible for my own actions. Please don't make threats to me in regard to what you see as my responsibility to others. There are likely to be others, who, like me want their vehicle to be legal. They have a right to know the real facts, not just the ones that serve some people's self interest.

 

[Kevin]

I'll move this thread again to "Mods, Insurance, Local Compliance & you"

Not doubting at all what you've been told Beachworm and I know that Nachaluva has proved he has a great grasp of the law in relation to suspension, after all his business depends on that knowledge.

Also, I do not see Nachaluva's concern as a "threat", he is but trying to assist in a resolution here.

 

[scalman]

Would just harder spring lift be legal then?

 

[Beachworm]

I'll move this thread again to "Mods, Insurance, Local Compliance & you"

Not doubting at all what you've been told Beachworm and I know that Nachaluva has proved he has a great grasp of the law in relation to suspension, after all his business depends on that knowledge.

Also, I do not see Nachaluva's concern as a "threat", he is but trying to assist in a resolution here.

OK Kevin, you move it to wherever you like.

I want to make it clear that I am trying to find what QLD TMR requires of ME in regard to modifying my vehicle. I am not interested in "stirring up trouble" and I have approached this matter with TMR in exactly the same way I did when resolving issues with the same authority as an accredited operator of a scheduled bus fleet which was part of my responsibilities as a compliance manager. I have been through several audits with TMR and have always found them to be helpful and constructive. I have no fear that they are going to come after me or anyone else as a result of my inquiries. I have found that if you honestly try to do the right thing you get the best results.

To suggest that my efforts to find out what the truth is will have an adverse effect on thousands of others is ridiculous. I would suggest that anyone who has an interest or an obligation, as Nachaluva has, seek the interpretation of the code of practice in use by their relevant jurisdiction as provided by that authority and not by someone who has a bias or pecuniary interest to protect.

I started this conversation with the intent of finding a solution to MY problem by gathering ideas from this forum. It was Nachaluva that turned the topic in such a way that attempted to put the blame on me. I didn't make the problem. I am affected by the problem and I am seeking a solution, not criticism.

 

[Beachworm]

Would just harder spring lift be legal then?

As I understand it, yes but just making the springs harder won't provide a lift.

The problem lies with Subaru suspension. Any kind of lift messes up the camber and caster. Just fitting longer springs isn't enough you would also need to increase the effective length of the lower control arm and, in the case of Subies with multi-link rear ends, the trailing arm as well.

It may also be an issue that lifting the front, even with corrections for camber and caster, without also lengthening the lower control arms, results in a narrowing of the vehicle track which is strictly forbidden by the Code of practice.

The more I find out, the more I am leaning to the conclusion that it is impossible to legally lift a Subaru in Queensland without a fully engineered suspension revision.

 

[Red XS]

The more I find out, the more I am leaning to the conclusion that it is impossible to legally lift a Subaru in Queensland without a fully engineered suspension revision.

My opinion too.



The narrowing of track issue in VSB 14

None of the codes in VSB 14 allow for the raising of any vehicle where the wheel track has also been reduced. These vehicles are subject to individual approval on a case-by-case basis

So an issue for all independent suspension 4wd's in numerous states...


Wonder if wider offset rims count as a solution?

 

[Beachworm]

My opinion too.



The narrowing of track issue in VSB 14

So an issue for all independent suspension 4wd's in numerous states...


Wonder if wider offset rims count as a solution?

That's a good question but I have no idea as this aspect has not been raised with TMR. It would have to be determined by an engineer.

 

[Ratbag]

Unlikely. Increase in angular force on wheel bearings, ball joints, etc.

 

[NachaLuva]

TMR interprets and applies them and we live with that. We don't have a choice.

"TMR" don't interpret anything, individuals, actual people from TMR do.

This is what you're forgetting. You can get 3 different interpretations from 3 different people

3. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the bare faced facts is not a suitable solution

Mate, there's no need to be insulting

4. I am not responsible for what others choose to do but I am responsible for my own actions. Please don't make threats to me in regard to what you see as my responsibility to others.

What the hell! Are you serious?

What threats lol. I made a point, one that has been made to me by MANY people on the FB page where you have posted about this. People who are getting upset by you stirring the pot.

Going by your defensive reaction, you obviously realize this is a valid point!

What I actually did say was to be careful how you approach this. There are many ways something can be phrased, and they way that is done will produce different outcomes. With your experience in this field, as you state you have, you would know this is true

It was Nachaluva that turned the topic in such a way that attempted to put the blame on me. I didn't make the problem. I am affected by the problem and I am seeking a solution, not criticism.

Oh mate, stop it with being a victim. We're all adults here!

What is wrong with constructive criticism? Without it, we would all continue making mistakes, it's what we should all be getting from the day we are born

I'll repeat what I've said all along. Please be careful how you approach this as your actions definitely can affect 1000s of others, including people on this forum

 

[Beachworm]

Unlikely. Increase in angular force on wheel bearings, ball joints, etc.

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.

 

[Beachworm]

I have no intention of continuing to develop this into a discussion about compliance even though legal compliance was what I was paid to do for 7 years working for a large corporation, giving advice on legal liabilities, rights and obligations to the CEO, board of directors and all staff. Neither am I interested in getting into a slanging match.

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

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.

 

[Ben Up North]

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