Is the NHVR ute legal, sensible, or both?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- #NHVR #vehiclemodifications
You've all seen the NHVR ute with the very long service body. It's attraced a lot of negative commentary, and rightly so. But is it actually legal, and what about Ford's recommendations? Watch to find out.
PLEASE DO NOT OVERLOAD YOUR UTES...YOU END UP WITH CRACKED CHASSIS!!!
Post questions as comments!
Follow me on Facebook:
/ robertpepperjourno
Support me on Patreon:
/ l2sfbc
Buy my books:
l2sfbc.com/where-to-buy/ 
Авто/Мото
IS it legal? Yes
Is it sensible? Hell no!
My daughter works in compliance for a state government and according to her, pretty much everything government departments do is a case of do as I say, not as I do
Thanks for the upload. I have often wondered if the NSW Police paddy wagon is legal, the fibreglass has no reinforcing or roll bar there is no seats or seatbelts yet they transport people. Would be good to see a review of these vehicles.
An unrepeatable word that indicated deep scepticism. 🤣🤣🤣 Gold!
I’d also be questioning whether a vehicle with that much overhang would need some kind of underride protection like a semi does. I can see a car going straight under that in a big rear ender. Imagine a Getz or Yaris wedging underneath that, the driver would be cactus.
With a canopy over tub, the tendency will be to load heavier loads via the tailgate. Also the photo shows a distinct settling of the rear. A good chance that this unit loaded will not comply with distribution over axles and centre of gravity.
to be fair that looks like side opening doors, but yes agreed.
@@L2SFBC Fair comment Robert. We aren’t privy to the internal layout or load distribution. That said, a GVM upgrade suggests that they intend to potentially exceed the standard GVM or at best, is an attempt to counter poor weight distribution.
from a personal level I could not care about if this is legal or sensible as it does not affect me in any way as I don't or will never will do anything like this, that said as a technical content video this is outstanding work Robert really good to see you making content that makes sense and should be used by all concerned as a guide as to double check what you do in this situation.
Thank you, much appreciated, please share :-)
I hate those kunce. Unbeknownst I took a parking spot that an off duty NHVR officer was attempting to commandeer with a sign that wasn't able to be used privately in the CBD of Melbourne. I had company markings on the truck. He was enraged but I said simply, "Mate you can't commandeer a loading zone preventing a delivery driver going about lawful business." It was then he divulged he was an off duty NHVR officer. I simply said," Well I don't give a *uc*, you could be the queen of England for all I care." He just said, "Have it your way," and backed down, I parked up, did my delivery and about the time I left his mate's truck he was reserving the loading zone for rolled up.
Two mornings later around 4:50am shortly after leaving my place of employment I get pulled over by you guessed it NHVR. They audited the load, the load restraint, asked me about whether the rollers were load restraint rated (which didn't matter because I had a gates in front in front of every bay and every pallet had 2x straps and corners on it) so on and so forth.
I made a fatal mistake however. The morbidly obese compliance officer intentionally dropped her clip board and told me to pick it up. I simply said, "Go to hell, who do you think you are?" She looked like a giraffe bending down to get water trying to pick it up LOL.
I tried hard not to smile but couldn't contain myself.
Next thing they went through my log book. I told them they had no right as there was no log book requirement for today since I'm traveling less than 100km as the crow flies from base. I was unsure if I could refuse them access to it since it was in the truck. My error was that I was carrying it on a day I had no requirement to.
Anyway they got me for seven minor Work Diary irregularities like I didn't fill out the mirror page at the front where you have to duplicate address of employer and address of base - I only had address of employer and an arrow, forgot to sign one page, forgot to remove one yellow page somehow, didn't initial a change, stuff like that. $149 per infringement.
The very worst part of it was I was in a MR that day and they wrote the ticket up as it being an HR truck.
I fought the corrupt law and the corrupt law won!
Another point is, my hatred of authority gets me nowhere but I can't stand dictator nobodies using their power to tell me what I can and can't lawfully do. Where do these people come from?
Great report Robert. You have nailed it.
I’m a boilermaker who has more than 15 years experience building equipment for he drilling industry much of this has included mounting equipment to trucks all of which have to be inspected & compliant for rego . In my opinion the 60% of the wheelbase overhang rule works well for trucks & single cab utes but on a dualcab where 90%+ of the tray is behind the axle centre this rule should be revised because of all the bent chassis & extended towbar’s used to connect a trailer .
Brilliant insight thank you, and I agree.
EXCELLENT. (as ALWAYS)
I can say no more.
Maybe someone should build a replica and put it through some thorough testing. Thanks for the breakdown
Nice job Robert. Definitely love the Cowboy Tuned mention. Although, I wish you had have mentioned the clearly seen weight distribution issue, the fact it's not sitting level, the front it pointing up in the air, this means the steering will be increadably light. It may not turn well through a roundabout in the wet or pass the "swerve/moose test" for example. They probably haven't adjusted the headlight angle to stop oncoming drivers being blinded. Hence likely not compliant with road laws. It shouldn't be on the road. I can't wait to see it looking like a banana so we can all laugh and say "we told you so."
I thought about it but that may just bethe camera angle. But yes with significant weight in the back, which I presume they intend given the GVM upgrade, I can't see it handling well. I think it's bitumen-only but regardless, a poor example to set when I and others are trying to educate to combat overload and mis-load.
@@L2SFBC
Especially when they have zero sympathy for a truckie making a clerical error in their logbook, which has no impact on road safety.
Thanks special share this details video as great watching every time here
Glad you enjoyed it
As someone who drives a 10plt truck with a significant overhang I can tell just how dangerous it is to have too much weight behind the rear axle without weight in front of the axle to balance it out. Nothing but freaking hypocrites these see you next Tuesdays.
Thanks for addressing this.
Hi Robert, I have a theory on the wheelbase discrepancy you highlighted....and it doesn't help the NHVR's case.....
on live axle setups, the vehicle's axle does not move in a straight line but in an arc as the suspension goes through its travel....for leaf sprung vehicles, it will move towards the swing shackle end under compression, and the fixed shackle end under extension.....my guess is that the wheelbase on this vehicle was measured at the ride height pictured, where it is noticeably down in the rear, causing the wheelbase to extend slightly over the factory figure, which is no doubt measured at normal ride height when the vehicle is unladen....
Interesting point! Not sure it'd be 20mm though.
@@L2SFBC 2 Ford Rangers sitting in my driveway at the moment - measurements for one 3225 and 3235, the other 3220 and 3230. Any variation in the front suspension bushes and where the eccentric bolts/nuts (used to set the castor etc) are will give you this variation. The 3220 specified by Ford would be very nominal.
Did you use a certified tape measure 😉
@@andrewr886 Thanks Andrew, don't have a leafsprung vehicle handy atm to be able to test my theory....hadn't considered the front end but that also makes sense....
What also makes sense is a simple measuring error somewhere along the way, or slight variance in manufacturing where all the rangers out there are 3220 +/- 20mm or so....
I'd like to see a front on shot with the positive camber of the unloaded front axle.
I somehow Don't think this is the sort of Publicity that NHVR desired from this Photo 🤣 but God they deserve it. Well put together vid and facts seem spot on
Thank you. It offends me that the work I am trying to do in sensible vehicle use and modifications is being undone by no less than a government vehicle regulator.
@@L2SFBC tbh I don't blame you, there's a definite smell of "do as I say, not as I do" to it, but guess most govt agency have that mentality now
The onus is still on the operator to stay within the weight limit of the vehicle. They may be carting feathers, in which case, cubic capacity is maximised. However a single cab/ extra cab or even a van would have been a far better option. Nobody has ever accused a government department of practicality.
Well said.
Excellent thank you!
Glad it was helpful, please share :-)
Wondering if the truck had a tow hitch too, thanks for the review
One bump from our ever increasing potholes will bend the chassis rails …. Australian condition will test if the overhang is deemed sensible ..
The only way that canopy could have the centre of gravity as per Ford’s recommendation is if the front of the canopy is full of depleted uranium inside a thick walled lead box 🤷♂️
I’d also like to point out that if it has the gvm upgrade in that photo it certainly isn’t carrying the wait on that rear axle well
Agreed and it is an axle sum upgrade so no change to the rear axle load
Imagine this: in 2 or 3 years time this vehicle is end-of-life, the decals and other bits and pieces are removed, and the truck is sent off to Pickles or Manheims auctions or whatever. You buy it, go out and drive it around, get pulled over by NHVR or the police and defected. Further still, imagine you deck it out as your tourer, solar panels on the roof etc etc. You merrily speed along with the front end pogo-sticking in the air, blinding oncoming traffic at night with flashes from your lights, hit the gravel, understeer off the road at the first corrugated corner you come to, and crash into a camp of innocent holiday makers. Who would have questions to answer?
Spot on!
That means these vehicles shouldn't be allowed in a 3t restricted area yet I've seen a lot of them there.
It might be technically legal but for a heavy vehicle regulator I don't think it's best practice at all. They should either get a single or extra cab, or if they must have a dual cab, upgrade to a small truck like what Fuso, Isuzu or Hino make. They can be had on car licences but is it really that much to ask that the Heavy Vehicle Regulator has experience driving a heavy vehicle.
Completely agree!
Size doesn't mean anything! weight is everything!! As an ex truck owner 60% of the loaded weight should be forward of the rear axle! That vehicle could be loaded to the max with light weight stuff which won't mean anything.
It seems that the NHVR have since removed this post from their Facebook and instagram pages. I wonder what would have been the reason for that.................
It is almost like thay know that it isn't a good look.
several thousand people have told them so...and yet they just say up to 60% of wheelbase is legally permitted. Which it is. What was that about the intersection of legal and sensible again???? And from a vehicle regulator too!
For it to sit the way it is, with the nose in the air when it has an SSM GVM upgrade fitted, suggests there is a significant load on board, I would be very curious as to how it would go on a weighbridge. I can't imagine there is much weight on that front axle.
Agreed!
If they load the canopy carefully I think the overhang would be okay but if they load heavy items right at the back I definitely think the vehicle would be unsafe on the road. I also wonder do they need a dual cab would a single/ extra cab work as then you would obviously have less overhang behind the rear wheels.
One is suspicious that the rear seats are never occupied by coworkers. I'm no longer up to date with the fringe-benefit guidelines for tool-of-trade work vehicles, but suspect someone viewed having a rear seat as desirable!
thanks
You're welcome!
Great video Robert. Just wondering how much crap the safety guys really need to carry?? If it’s so much that they need to put a sketchy service body on the vehicle, then surely they should be using a F series truck??
Yes, or tow, or get a 6-wheel conversion, or a van, or extend the wheelbase...
Agreed!
I feel like all they need is a bloody ruler, calculator, and fine forms haha. No seriously they dont need that much shit
Safety gear they need... As this is an ex NSW mermaid vehicle, there would be a minimum of 6 PAT SAW portable scales in the back, they are 18 kg apiece. A lot of traffic cones, height stick, printed legislation, first aid kit and a few other odds and ends.
My big question though... if both of the side doors are open at the same time, are they under the 2.5 metre width limit???
They carry scales in the back, that is why the reference to mermaids!
Why not just use a single cab? Do they really carry more than 2 people?
I thought this was a Triton till I got a better look at it. Triton dual cabs have long overhang as well. This is crazy and they could learn a lot from 4wd enthusiasts. This NVHR ute is fine if the loads are light, so common sense is greatly needed here.
I thought it was a Triton too as those are usually the worst for extended bodies!
Then there would be no need for the upgrade.
They are a private corporation and not lawfully enacted to give fines it’s about complying do as we say do not enter into any verbal contract with them
I’ll solve it for you!! Emergency vehicles are exempt including them.
Is it an emergency vehicle? And why would it be exempt?
I see the problem here, they forgot to fit the 3rd axel.
Was there photo of it a few weeks later of it snapping?
No... not yet
@@L2SFBC there is probably a good chance they won't post it
I would suggest you're right!
I would of pushed a 2nd rear axle or movement of the rear a tire/tyre length behind to support the weight on the chassis a bit better...
I think it is more the case of grey are of legality where state can say and do shit outside the bounds of the law yet we do the same thing and we get a right royal serving
I'm tipping Ford will not warranty diff, tailshaft, rear axle, chassis, etc when this idiotic vehicle breaks in said places. Even the "allowable" overhang is ridiculous, more so given it would be impossible to load the weight just behind the cab - beyond the reach of most arms.....
The fact the body is outside their guidelines is probably cause for disclaiming related warranty issues.
These people that work for NHVR or police are clueless about anything other than what a book teaches them, so I'm not surprised one bit that they don't know what sensible is. Surely someone who enforces the law shouldn't have a vehicle themselves that sits in a grey area. Cracked frame, dodgy steering if they don't load it right. Look at the weight distribution of it already and we don't even know if it's loaded with everything they'd normally carry. Surely that ute is constantly running with too much weight on the rear axle. I would find it very difficult to trust them on weight distribution laws when their own ute is nearly doing a mono.
Madness
Down the track they'll be auctioned off to private buyers to use.
Does anyone know what all the memes are about? Where did it all start etc.
watch the video. Original post has now been taken down.
@@L2SFBC I did watch the video, so the memes were just due go the photo of the car or was it the response? Either way it's golden, who would've thought a governing body could get it so wrong 😉
The NHVR put up a photo of the car, I screenshotted it and that's in the video. The original post is now gone. My goal is not to mock them but to highlight the fact that it is a poor example to show, and to prevent other people copying it and running to problems...something I see *all* the time. It is really disappointing that no less than a government regulator is setting such a poor example undoing a lot of work, and hiding behind the "well 60% is legal" rule is not acceptable especially when it exceeds Ford's own guidance.
Do as I say, not do as I do.
Ford engineers have been sent link waiting for a response but first thing was said surely not but photos are worth 1000 words
They surely did!
The internet will blow up if that thing ends up in a ditch. 🤣
Why didn't the NHVR choose the Iveco Daily? The Ranger is a dumb choice for a vehicle with such a service body.
Good question...
Should be for our politicians and the rest of them
Designed by a committee?
Hilarious. This won’t end well…
These vehicles would have mod plates fitted, therefore it is certified!.....
So it has been privately certified by an Independant party....
That's all people need to know....
Just needs a 3rd axle!
Yes!
I thought it was prisoner transport at first
That's hilarious!
Makes sense! They usually view Australian truckies as criminals
You put the big bikies up front, then the child crims at the rear.
Imagine getting the thing, and you have to do a service on it and only 2 post hoists are available........Rangers arn't best known for great drivetrain longevity and that setup will cause all sorts of dramas. And id be surprised if Ford them self would even warranty that vehicle
While it maybe legal it looks bad, and NHVR should feel bad.
What an absolute storm in a teacup. Who cares?
People that have to deal with cracked chassis and overloaded utes care.
I'd replace the word "sensible" with common-sense. It maybe legal now but when it's sold, will the new owner be harassed by the police etc? Or will the vehicle be returned to standard? Bureaucrats!
So after all that the vehicle is legal. It doesn't matter if something is sensible or not. Sensible doesn't get you fined, sensible doesn't get you in court, sensible doesn't get your ass in jail. Legal does, so it doesn't matter if you think something is sensible or not. Simple.
Sensible is where safety, standards and laws start from. I'm sure you would agree the law in many areas hasn't caught up with common sense.
@@jasonbennett7002 I agree, however the law is all we have to work with whether we like it or not. I think there is a bit of good old aussie authority bashing going on, but they comply with the relevant standards so no more to said.
@@tonygersbach375
I'm sure those standards were probably meant for overhanging long materials so you can legally carry some planks of wood home.
This video needs subtitles 🤔
Maybe headphones will help. 🤔
@@jasonbennett7002 Musicians read Notes ♫
@@bvward Thankyou for not whipping me on this. I just realised why (as if I didn't know) many people need subtitles. Pardon my idiocy.
@@jasonbennett7002 pax vobiscum
The NHVR has never had any common sense Do as we say not as we do nothing surprises me from this group
Fraud Danger Ranger, A law for them, a law for the rest.
love it!
Looks like a typical ford. Underperforming and under engineered
It's been happening for eons. I have been booked for over length by 15mm in a truck. The reason being, the nuts that held the bullbar up. Mind you, the unit passed rego inspection 2 months prior. And yes, same trailer on the back. The NHVR is only rebadging the old inspectors to a point. So the same attitude with a different shirt. Government bodies have different rules to the public. Ask any truckie. We are classified as professional drivers, but have the same license rules as a car driver. Same points system. Taxi's don't apparently. We drive how many more k's a year than a normal motorist? Training and education have gone out the window in all forms of driving. As you say, you would think that the government would lead by example? No. Monkey see, monkey do is real. Different rules for us and them. And it won't change in a hurry because they don't care.
Education is key. Common sense is not common anymore.
Truck on.
🤟😎👍🚛🚛🚛