MVI SURVEY

[Lil'monster]

In some cases it could be argued that a lift and larger tires increased performance in all areas. Less nose diver more rear tire friction by keeping weight over the tires, larger tires larger contact patch all providing better braking. There is no doubt a point of dimishing return where heavier tires simply overwhelm the brakes but most upgrade the brake components as part of their design plan. In essence we have as a group become self regulating as the current culture is best performing not necessairly tallest rig.

My draft letter to my MLA. Any comments to improve it are welcome.

___

Dear Ms Kent,

I am a recreational off-roader. My SUV is a daily driver and has been modified to add protection while going off-road and in order enhance the overall performance. The modifications include raising the suspension and larger tires. I am representative of the "weekend warrior" crowd and likely will not be affected by any legislation proposed in the discussion below as the modifications I have made to my vehicle are modest. I do however have concerns with the process currently being engaged upon and am writing to you to ask that you take these concerns forward as an honest broker on the discussion.

The current discussion regarding raised vehicles brings forth a number of concerns for me and many of my fellow enthusiasts as it has the potential to impact our sport. The basis of the current discussion seem to originate in supposition and an innate emotional appeal versus facts.

For myself my concern resides with what appears to be an invented problem or a theoretical exercise regarding a potential concern with respects to raised vehicles. To qualify this, there is a prevailing idea that there is a "A growing concern exists regarding the increasing number of raised" and a belief that it is intuitively correct that raised vehicles are less safe. Speaking from experience my raised suspension is a highly engineer system that is fully integrated into the safety systems of the vehicle and is an improvement in every way over the original equipment. I have better handing and control, less dive under braking which keeps the rear wheels more firmly planted allowing for more friction hence better braking, the suspension is less prone to roll therefore enhancing resistance to roll over. I do not believe I am a one off example.

The "CCMTA Best Practice For Regulating Excessively‐Raised" http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/pdf/ans-ccmta-b...ed-vehicles.pdf classifies excessively raised vehicles as:

"Excessively raised vehicles can generally be classified as light trucks that have been equipped

with after-market products (usually body and suspension lift kits and/or oversize replacement

tires) that increase the ride height. In many cases, these modifications compromise the vehicle’s

original design safety features."

The assumption is that "in many cases the modifications compromise the original design safety features" This is an opinion and does not seem to be supported by any provided facts. Most aftermarket kits are sold by companies that invest significant money in R&D to engineer products that meet the consumer demands for improved handling characteristic both on and off road. These suspension manufactures in many cases are the original parts suppliers for the car manufacturer and have intimate knowledge of the safety design specification of the vehicles.

Within the same document the following principals were used as guiding principles:

"Guiding Principles were established, in that the group intended to create a document which

was:

1. Reasonable

2. Simple to understand

3. Appropriately targeted

4. Technically supported

5. Practical to enforce"

Critically missing from these principals is principle that the work be 'factually support'. Factual support that would take this from a perceived problem to a problem based on factual concerns would be:

1. Are raised vehicles involved in more accidents then non raised vehicles of the same make/model?

2. Is the accident attributable to the manner in which the vehicle was raised?

3. Are aftermarket kits actually negatively impacting vehicle safety designs such as braking, handling and rollover risk?

My immediate reaction in reviewing the CCMTA Best Practices document was that a number of consultant had gotten together to come up with a project to sell the government in order to earn fees.

I believe there are legitimate concerns that are in part limited to "old school" practices by the off-road community to raise a vehicle but that these practices are not main stream and are mostly addressed by practicality and by current MVI processes.

There is a discussion paper that outlines the concerns http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/pdf/ans-discuss...regulations.pdf

as follows:

"According to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), raising the ride-height

of vehicles could:

- degrade braking performance;

- compromise fuel system integrity;

- create a mismatch in the geometric alignment of energy-absorbing structures between

excessively raised vehicles and multi-purpose vehicles and passenger vehicles;

- increase roll-over propensity; and

- change handling characteristics by altering the designed integration of the original tires, and the

steering, braking and suspension systems"

The key word is 'could' again if the facts are to be ignored then the process of investigating the concerns are flawed. "Old school" techniques such as extreme body lifts (six inches+) that lift the body of the truck from the frame to allow larger tires to be fitted may have used hockey pucks or wood as the spacer. Today rarely would you find more than three inches of body lift that utilizes the same or better material then the factory spacers and use far better grade fasteners then factory. This is due to there now being an aftermarket parts industry that is based on engineered designs and also because demand from the consumer is for integrated systems that enhance overall on and off-road performance. Like me, many use their off-road capable vehicles as a daily driver.

With regards to the mismatched "geometric alignment of energy-absorbing structures between excessively raised vehicles and multi-purpose vehicles and passenger vehicles" which in lay terms is to say a raised vehicle bumper may pass over a non raised vehicles bumper or may pass over the integrated metal part of a car door and impact the window, as in the compelling picture on the cover of the CCMTA Best Practices document. My concern is that the discussion is currently limited to raised vehicles and places the onus on the "raised vehicle" crowd but does nothing to address the issue of lowered vehicles, either lower by manufacture design or aftermarket equipment. I believe a larger and fact based discussion is required on this issue.

In closing much of the discussion appears to be based on a foregone conclusion regarding whether a raised vehicle is less safe due to it being raised and whether it is less safe not just in theory but in reality to other vehicles. I submit that the majority of aftermarket systems available are fully integrated systems designed by engineers and designed to work with the vehicles safety systems, furthermore the consumer is demanding more in terms of performance, a better ride, improved handling etc. I do agree excessive bumper heights due to raised suspensions could be dangerous in an accident with other non-raised vehicles but in light of there not being any facts presented that there are increased accidents between these two classes it is difficult to determine if it is a issue in theory or reality. Furthermore, and not addressed, is the need for a broader discussion to cover the compounding of the potential problem should a vehicle be lowered with aftermarket lowering kits or simply by having worn out springs.

My request to you is to ensure a valid process that addresses the broader issues of safety and is based on facts and an informed committee.

I think this is a well thought out letter and you should be reperesenting us on this matter

[Eastcoastcam]

:smiley-signs064: x2

I had a thought this evening. A friend of mine is an insurance adjuster ( you know, the guy who goes out and assesses whether or not a vehicle is a write-off or not). I was thinking about asking him and have him email around to some of the others he knows, to see if there is any frequency of accidents of "altered height" vehicles, raised and lowered. and of any of these was the altered height vehicle at fault, and if it was due to the modification. I think we all know what the answers will be, but I would like to see from their standpoint.

[90bronco]

Might not be a bad idea , i also agree with Lil'monster's last comment.

[sar4x4]

I wholly agree with the letter from XMan and if the club wants to support that. Also I wonder if there is another point. Tire size. I think it should be relative

to original tire size for that vehicle/axle. Allowing 35" tires on a samurai and only allowing 35 tires on a 1 ton is totally different. Ford Raptors come with 35!

[90bronco]

That's what is proposed in their paperwork , based on factory wheelbase , tire size and weight.

A samurai probably wouldn't be allowed but about 1" lift where as the burb would be closer to 6" (figurative speeking)

[liltoy]

Two more thoughts came to me, 1- The roll over test. I'm willing to bet my truck would take more angle to roll with my 36's then the stock 215/85/16's (30's). I may have to test this if the laws pass, lol. They may raise the truck(which should raise center of gravity) but they are atleast double the wieght of the stock tire so should keep the center low. The wieght should have more of an impact compared to the 3"+/- of lift gained by them. I'm sure someone smart with numbers could do the math for both senario's if they had all the info, I aint that guy so this is just a theory in my head.

2- I haven't heard boo one about this in public ie news, radio or anythying. No one seems to know about this going on, even some off roaders who don't frequent these sites. Almost seems like we were lucky to be allowed to know about all this.

The public may not give lifted trucks a second thought but seems like a waste of thier tax dollars, that might get thier attention. With all the political BS and money right now you think any sort of wastefull spending may be frowned upon publicly. There are many actual problems that this tax money could be spent on, roads ( how about in the name of safety), schools, hospitals etc. This could be starting out as a simple idea that may get out of control, similar to the gun control (that cost how many millions? and now may scrap it).

Is it just me or is this looking like it might and after the fact "We had the info up on our website with an area for the public to respond." type of thing.

[Eastcoastcam]

Is it just me or is this looking like it might and after the fact "We had the info up on our website with an area for the public to respond." type of thing.

You got it. The only ones on the lookout for it was those of us on the boards watching for it when someone found out about a release date for it. There is alot of things that go up on the gov.'s website that doesn't get publicized, so things can pass by and they just say, "it was put out there and few responded so here you go". Sneaky S.O.Bs.

Dave, you should forward a copy of your letter to Bill Estabrooks as well, he's the minister of transportation.

[RattX]

Been doing some thinking and think I have an idea as to why this has come up. Have you noticed in the past few years how many lifted trucks are on the roads? I don't mean trail trucks running down the road, the street queens/ mall crawlers with lifts that wouldn't do so hot off road but "I look bitchin ridin up here" trucks. It has become cool to drive a lifted truck, like it became cool to ride a sport bike a few years back. What happened there was insurance companies stopped giving insurance to sport bikes, because too many people went out and and bought a nice new shiny sport bike to look cool on then dumped it and put it through ins. This ended up geting most sport bikes black flagged with ins companies. Now we have people wanting to look cool so they build/buy these street trucks with no purpose other than to look cool. The more of these we haverunning the roads the more attention lfted trucks will get, be it lifted for off road or not. The more of them the more likely there will be accidents involving lifted trucks. Not saying street queens are the sole reasoning for this BS but definitly a part of it I think.

No offense but I don't think your arguement comparing lifted trucks to sport bikes is balanced. You admitted that the reason why the insurance companies started raising rates/banning insurance was because of a cause and effect scenario. As far as we know, this is not the case with lifted trucks. Actually, this is one point in our favour for opposing this... if lifted trucks did indeed pose an increased risk to having accidents, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Also, we shouldn't be elitist in our attitude of who is deserving of owning and driving a lifted truck. Unless someone is acting irresponsible with their vehicle, then drive and let drive...

[liltoy]

My point comparing to the bikes was the more popular the something gets the more problems arise. Which is why i said ..."The more of these we haverunning the roads the more attention lfted trucks will get, be it lifted for off road or not. The more of them the more likely there will be accidents involving lifted trucks.". Statistically speaking that is.

As for having an elitist attitude, I'm sorry it came off that way. I am no one to be judge of anyone or what they drive. Admitedly I love the look of some of these trucks, they just aren't for me as I'm a funtion over fashion guy.

[autumnwalker]

so I sent in a version of that letter to my MLA and received a response asking if it was a blanket email to all MLAs and that it would be better received by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations (SNSMR). My MLA has offered to take it to SNSMR on my behalf (which I asked him to do).

After responding to the email saying it was not a blanket email and that I would like him to bring it forward, I received a telephone call from his office stating that it would be brought forward next week. Sounds like my MLA is interested in what his people are saying!

[Lil'monster]

Sounds good