QLD Rules and ESC

[drizzt118]

Guys,

Apologise if this has been discussed previously but wanted to touch on something very specific in the QLD codes for vehicle lifts - ie LS9. I have just lifted my vehicle (thanks Ultimate) and was looking at tryes.

Firstly Quote " 1 Scope- Vehicle lifts that do not exceed 75mm, and are achieved by modification of the suspension and
fitting of alternate tyres and rims only (do not include a body lift) do not require certification under
the LS9 code"

Secondly Quote - "
1.2 Designs not covered by Code LS9
Designs that are not covered under Code LS9 are listed below:
• Design for vehicles originally equipped with ESC that have not been approved by the
vehicle manufacturer or proven through testing; "

My 2013 MN Triton GLX-R has Stability Control right, so based on the second quote from LS9, if you read the other blogs and forums they state that due to having stability control you have to revert back to the old standards and can only gain 15mm additional diameter on tyres, but the way I read this, ie the first quote "if i am less then 75mm raised, then LS9 doesn't even apply?"

What is the verdic ? Can I legally have 50mm increase in tyre diameter in QLD ( I think my suspension lift is 35mm/45mm) ??


Thanks
Adam

[fridgie]

ESC has caused a lot of headaches in this regard. There is a fair bit of info around here on this might take a little finding though.

I'm not across the rulings as I don't have it so never bothered looking into it. I do vaguely remember when they first came out that you weren't supposed to change anything, even tyre size.

When I get a chance I'll have a search on a pc unless someone else comes in first

[salt36]

There is some info here although is not QLD specific...

viewtopic.php?f=85&t=15229

[Cowboy Dave]

It would help to have links to where you got the quotes from and to whatever LS9 is. Dates of each document would also be relevant, the most recent document in time usually taking precedence over the older.

[drizzt118]

Thanks guys, sorry Cowboy Dave here are the links etc

I first saw it mention in this article on Micky Thomson website -
http://www.mickeythompsontires.com.au/i ... ad&Arg1=48

Then went looking for the codes:

Light vehicle mods - on below link, scroll down past the yellow box and click on the "link" in text "The light vehicle section of the Queensland Code of Practice (PDF, 405 KB) is available for download."

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Vehicl ... tions.aspx

There is also mention of VSI L19.0 – Vehicle lifts under the Queensland Code of Practice — Vehicle Modifications and there is a link above that text called "vehicle standard instructions" - but this references back to meeting LS9 but not requiring certification.

hope that helps.

[hvac guy]

My guess with the new mn having higher ride heights it should give us a bit of room.

[NowForThe5th]

LS9 is part of VSB14, although the latest version of that that I found (with a cursory Google search), only went to LS8.

However, I did find this extract:

High Lift - 50mm to 125mm (Design)
CODE LS9
1. Scope
Code LS9 provides for the preparation of designs that may be approved by Registration
Authorities for use by other signatories or modifiers. The designs under Code LS9 cover the
design of vehicle lifts in excess of 50mm but not more than 125mm.
Vehicle lifts that do not exceed 75mm, and are achieved by modification of the suspension and
fitting of alternate tyres and rims only (do not include a body lift) do not require certification under
the LS9 code. Any person performing this type of modification must ensure the modified vehicle
meets all the technical requirements of the LS9 and LS10 sections of this code, however no formal
certification or lane change test is required.

On the strength of that, a lift up to 50mm doesn't require the lane change test.

Going back to the original post, I'd see this as the most important:

• Design for vehicles originally equipped with ESC that have not been approved by the
vehicle manufacturer or proven through testing;

"or proven through testing". We know that ARB do testing and that they type comply all of their suspensions. I'd imagine that so would any other major suspension manufacturer. So, the way I see it, provided that you don't go over 50mm all you need to do is get confirmation from your suspension manufacturer that the suspension has been tested and complies.

hvac also makes a good point about the current model Triton ride heights. But, this hasn't yet filtered through to the "bible" listing of "standard" ride heights which still refer to the old heights. Nevertheless it does bring up the point that with a Triton, anyway, making reference to suspension as a 50mm lift or 75mm lift really has little relevance. Suspension height should be referred to as the final measurement from wheel centre to underside of wheel arch mould.

[Cowboy Dave]

I thought what he wanted to know was whether, having already had a lift, putting bigger tyres on was going to mean the height had gone too high and then needed certification.

[NowForThe5th]

Yes, but the overall height increase would put it in the 50-75mm category which means that he needs to be able to point to the suspension having been tested. The rules are very grey and appear to contradict themselves in a few areas. The way I see it he needs type approval from Ultimate, not actual certification. If the new ride heights have been included then his actual lift isn't going to be that much, shouldn't be a problem - only if they use the old ride heights.

[2ENIL8]

I am in the process of looking at tyres again, I have asked 1 tyres shop what size legally you can go in QLD above original with ESC and they said that it reverts back to 15mm above original size not 50mm.

I then spoke to another tyre shop and they said that you can go 50mm above original, so then I spoke to another shop and they thought that we could go 50mm also and hadn't really heard about the ESC rule reverting it back to 15mm.

It is such a grey area that it is only conducive to revenue raising.

[TUF909]

.

[TUF909]

.

[2ENIL8]

tuf909,

That is the question, do we honestly think that Mitsubishi will approve of this, in writing to say that it is OK.

Because I am so confused.

[TUF909]

.

[Bennys]

tuf909,

That is the question, do we honestly think that Mitsubishi will approve of this, in writing to say that it is OK.

Because I am so confused.

Funnily enough the Challenger runs 265/70/16 or 265/65/17 which are an inch bigger than the Triton to start with. Considering the similarity could never see the reasoning behind that. Couldn't be too much work for Mitsubishi to approve that size on the triton too. Wouldn't hold your breath waiting though.

[2ENIL8]

Thanks for the responses guys, it is such a grey area.

I am just going to go with 15mm of increase which limits the availability of tyres to next to nothing.

[Hymie]

tuf909,

That is the question, do we honestly think that Mitsubishi will approve of this, in writing to say that it is OK.

Because I am so confused.

Funnily enough the Challenger runs 265/70/16 or 265/65/17 which are an inch bigger than the Triton to start with. Considering the similarity could never see the reasoning behind that. Couldn't be too much work for Mitsubishi to approve that size on the triton too. Wouldn't hold your breath waiting though.

It's all to do with the load rating of the tyres. They won't approve antthing that goes against their engineering.

[fez]

the challenger does run a bigger tyre but the load rating is the same for the triton.