lift blocks on trade me

[muttly]

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motor ... 198081.htm are they legal in new zealand or where could i find some in nz thanks

[KiwiBacon]

Urethane is very rubbery, it's not a good material to make lift blocks from.

The description is 1" of lift and 60mm diameter. The photo looks 60mm long and 1" diameter.

[rowinz]

also body lifts require certification under LVV rules.

[Weemsy]

p.m. me your number and il get my mate to give you a call. he made my body lift blocks from steel tube and they are spot on.
weemsy

[lanky]

the title says "Polyurethane" lift blocks, this stuff isn't rubbery its more like a tuff plastic, mine were made from this stuff, I bought a kit off steve but you can make your own easy enough.

[KiwiBacon]

the title says "Polyurethane" lift blocks, this stuff isn't rubbery its more like a tuff plastic, mine were made from this stuff, I bought a kit off steve but you can make your own easy enough.

The red PU40 polyurethane used in those is the softest commonly available form of polyurethane. It is very rubbery, it is 30,000 times more flexible than steel, 10,000 times more flexible than aluminium and
1700 times more flexible than the nylon which many people use for body lift blocks.

[gary_in_nz]

also body lifts require certification under LVV rules.

now is this certain?? i was talking to a guy who did a 50mm body lift on a Hilux here in Gisborne and told me it didnt need to be certified. i'm real confused, no dramas to get certed but if i didnt have to, well thats $400 bux i save for someone saying what a wonderful job i have done.

[rangimotors]

also body lifts require certification under LVV rules.

now is this certain?? i was talking to a guy who did a 50mm body lift on a Hilux here in Gisborne and told me it didnt need to be certified. i'm real confused, no dramas to get certed but if i didnt have to, well thats $400 bux i save for someone saying what a wonderful job i have done.

yes it legally has to be certed, you may get away with it with your wof guy but if its not certed your truck will be illegal. up to you if your happy with that.

[NJV6]

Muttly, head into Blackwood Paykels on Yarrow st (or it might be Spey - I get them mixed up) and get a length of UHMDPE in 60mm diameter and then you can cut it to the heigth you want. That is a good material to use.

NJ

[Steve_t647]

It is classed as a body mount modification and if you have an accident you will be liable if you were or were not at fault, a case in chch that went through recently where a car was run into stoped at a red light, the insurance colmpany found modfications that required a cert in the stopped car and its owner was liable for all damage as if it wasn't there the accident would not have happened.

It is your level of risk but most insurance companies have an aggident investigation team and get cars inspected where there is a chance to pass the bill on they will.

[muttly]

njv6 thanks for that i will give them a call also my truck is a 1994 landcruiser prado i have just had a set of 33 12.5 15 maxxis bighorns fitted the only thing i had to do was adjust the bump stops a litle. i was looking at lifting it 20 mm can i do this with out changing anything else. as i have never done this before.

[KiwiBacon]

It is classed as a body mount modification and if you have an accident you will be liable if you were or were not at fault, a case in chch that went through recently where a car was run into stoped at a red light, the insurance colmpany found modfications that required a cert in the stopped car and its owner was liable for all damage as if it wasn't there the accident would not have happened.

Any half decent lawyer would have a field-day with that insurance company.
Sure they can decline cover for mods they don't know about, but they have no power to change who is liable in an accident, the law is very clear about rear-ending a stopped car.

[pagar]

It is classed as a body mount modification and if you have an accident you will be liable if you were or were not at fault, a case in chch that went through recently where a car was run into stoped at a red light, the insurance colmpany found modfications that required a cert in the stopped car and its owner was liable for all damage as if it wasn't there the accident would not have happened.

Any half decent lawyer would have a field-day with that insurance company.
Sure they can decline cover for mods they don't know about, but they have no power to change who is liable in an accident, the law is very clear about rear-ending a stopped car.

Law is also clear about cars not legally allowed on the road, any vehicle not of a wof standard, no rego or uncertified mods illegally parked etc is automatically at fault only way around is to go to court and get a judge to over rule and proportion blame which would require engineers reports and all sorts. also any insurance you have weither they know of the mod or not if it is not certed and they find out you will have no cover, it is in the fine print there somewhere acording to my ins. broker.

[KiwiBacon]

Law is also clear about cars not legally allowed on the road, any vehicle not of a wof standard, no rego or uncertified mods illegally parked etc is automatically at fault only way around is to go to court and get a judge to over rule and proportion blame which would require engineers reports and all sorts. also any insurance you have weither they know of the mod or not if it is not certed and they find out you will have no cover, it is in the fine print there somewhere acording to my ins. broker.

That's incorrect about an illegal vehicle automatically being at fault. I've no idea who you got that from.
I have been given an example by a vehicle crash investigator who works for LTNZ, he was specifically speaking about a muscle-car which rear-ended a car which had neither registration or warrant, nor was it in a WOFable state.
That crash was clearly and legally the fault of the muscle-car driver, who died as a result. His car bounced off the other car and hit a tree.

[lneil]

Kiwibacon is correct.

There are two issues. The car running into a stationary object cannot be absolved of blame simply because the object shouldn't have been there. Consider that you may be driving down the road and have a catastrophic mechanical failure so that your vehicle ends up stationary, on a bend, blocking the lane. You can reasonably expect any careful prudent driver to be able to stop behind you, rather than turn you into paste and smear you alng several dozen meters of roadway. That is the reason for the legal requirement to be able to stop in the length of clear lane visible (laned road).

While not liable for the accident, the vehicle not up to legal road standard commits different offences and would probably be declined insurance. Most reputable insurance companies, however, will only decline for something like a WOF issue if it is contributory to the accident, although they do have a clear mandate to decline under the terms of the policy.

No competent and self respecting cop, prosecutor or judge would consider the rear-ending driver to be in any way less responsible just because the car he rammed wasn't up to the legal road-going standard.

(Of course, they aren't all exactly 100% competent.)