Forum

As agreed earlier in 2007, the rules "year" runs from November to November and any changes need to be defined before then.

It's been pointed out that I've got my "year" wrong and it is the calendar year with review happening in November!

The rules committee would like to hear quickly of any suggestions for alterations or additions to the existing rules for winch challenge events. Send your ideas to rules@4x4challenges.org.nz [Modified by: Peter Vahry on 24 September 2007 21:51:12 ]

"Please make sure you're suggestions are well researched and attach all appropriate information and specifications to your written email submission."

...taken straight from the rules page.

I'm sure someone from the rules committee can elaborate further if needed.

Yes ..... I have rules suggestion and I have done my research ! Its all here ON THIS FORUM. I recon you should have a class for anything and everything a competitor can think of, thus guaranteeing said competitor a more than likely first in class. Further more no DNF's and DNS's. Oh and don't forget a low budget class like a class for those that seem convinced that the more you spend gets you some sort of special place on the finish board. Finally a class just for me the poor spellers class! Cheers.

Lol. Seconded.

P.S Sorry if my last message came across wrong, what i meant was, Sure money helps but at the end of the day were all goin to come and play anyway.

Absolutely Arron , couldn't agree more.

It looks like most competitors are reasonably happy with the present rules as there's been no great flurry of responses to the option to make changes.
The idea of a minimum modification category seems to have some support and is certainly a possibility. Safety is a prime concern so rules and stage layouts will need to be adapted to ensure the risks are minimised. (Organisers are still the ones carrying the can if things turn to custard!)

If you've got suggestions for winch challenge rule changes, then get them to rules@4x4challenges.org.nz promptly.

Peter Vahry

Just wondering about the W.O.F. being less than 28 days old requirement? What is the purpose of this- is it an insurance issue?
Cheers

While the WOF being less than 28 days of is paon in the arse, it makes things much easier from a scrutineering point of view. It is also a way of making sure the LVV cert plate is up to date. With how many mods are done it is difficult to keep up and this combined with the new log system will make things much easier for potential event organisers.

yeah like Darin stated, from an organizers point of view it a basic statement that the truck is safe to use on the roads as there is sometimes transit stages involved in these events. it also makes the trucks try to stay identifiable to joe public as something that they can own and drive on the road as opposed to a trials based type truck which is trailered whenever it is on road, and can be 'buggy" type construction. you will see that the current crop of trucks are all readily identifiable with their manufactures stable apart from Darren Bells truck which for some reason became a landcrusier for the taupo 1000??? could that be the reason for a top 10 finish?

Yes I understand it probally makes things easier for organisers, but if there are more than 3 or 4 events next year its just gonna add more to the cost, admittedly in the grand scheme of things its only a extra $45 per entry but when you look at the trucks at a competition (on competion days) there are very few that would pass a warrant in racing trim

Tim, we could cut your WOF costs in half if there was a challenge every quarter of the year!

Peter

I don't know about others, but my truck is certified and is up to WOF in race trim. That is how it is most of the time. Tyres, bead locks etc must be certified. If your truck isn't at WOF standard ready to race then it isn't ready to race! The only thing that can be questioned is the rope horns on the bar.
Once the race starts then all beats are off due to damage!

I would like to see a rule strengthened to encompass the whole issue of the warrant of fitness; The senario is this, at scrutineering the vehicle must pass the test and have a less than 28day warrant, I want to see the top 5 finishers hold onto thier finish positions or loose the position if the vehicle does not pass the finish scrutineering of a warrant of fitness standard. I am tired of seeing 1-5th place (myself included) finishers throughing pieces of junk over the finish line. Year in and year out the 1st 2nd 3rd place guys are looking rougher and rougher.

Hey Darryn,Can i have some of what your on Mate?It must be good sh#t, seriously though i think the whole WOF thing could be relaxed a bit in that as long as you have a current wof and reg thats fine,As for proof of insurance Whats this for as i know my insurance co would roll around laughing if i was to put in a claim while in a comp.

How do you relax a basic vehicle standard? How do you do that, I need some more of that sh#t ! The insurance is for the third party claim of the land owner who's land you just damaged ie burned down somthing, ran into somthing oh and ran over somthing. Its not for the special stages as your are competing.When your travelling to and from stages on private land your not racing your transporting yourself on a clearly defined track in a safe and prudent manner. You most certainly are not carless in your actions and have not touched a drop of alcohol or any other mind atlering substance, you currently hold and are not disqualified from doing so a NZ drivers licence issued by the LTSA (not Kellogs)
I know sombody who claimed a whole lot of comp damage to his vehicle from an insurance company and they paid out to repair, I wonder if he told them he was racing at the time??
Seriously I want the top spots "teched" at the end we are supposed to be road users during the events and thus we should remain road legal at all times that has to include indicator lights, number plates, complete drivers doors (with glass) front screens, head lights that work and are not full of water.
Driving lights.... none of the competitors have mod certs for the big flash lights on roofs etc I know I havn't just another stupid point really must get some more of that sh#t ! cheers .D

I hear where your coming fron Darryn but as we are competeing in a event sanctioed by 4x4 challenges wouldnt we be covered by the NZFWDA insurance,As for keeping our trucks legal as soon as i bolt on the cable horns or change a flat tyre with a spare with the tread in the wrong direction im not legal,Also after talking to mr Plodd,He tells me if he see:s a truck driving on the road covered in crap and dropping it all over the road he would stop it and RED sticker it .as its a hazard to other road users..How many times have we been following trucks and seen just that Ive seen it heaps...

Stephen, the NZFWDA insurance is essentially for the organisers and only covers a competing vehicle if it was to leave the course and damage someone else's property. It certainly still should be a requirement that competitors also carry at least Third Party cover, as there's always the risk that the NZFWDA insurers might decide not to pay out on an incident and it would then fall to the individual. Maybe we should start a new section about insurance issues if there are questions.

Darryn's angle on having the vehicles remain WOF compliant over most of a challenge event would become very relevant if an event was run that used different locations that needed road travel to get to. He's got a point too about the wrecked state that many vehicles finish as. An organiser could set a final stage that includes a public road!

As has been said if your truck is too dirty it isn't road legal! So how do you police something like that? I think maybe saying a WOF 3 months old or something would be a good compromise.

Quote Tim Fensom:

Just wondering about the W.O.F. being less than 28 days old requirement? What is the purpose of this- is it an insurance issue?
Cheers

Hi Tim and all those who are interested in the history of this rule.

As with most of our rules they have evolved because someone has tried to exploit them. Most can be named after the offender who has brought about the rule change. I won't disclose who this one is named after. The original rule said the vehicle required a current warrant of fitness.The warrant was proposed as a known safety standard so that the organiser was not accountable for the standard. By having a warrant, the intension was that all that was required by the organisers was for them to check the validity of the certificate. This would give a simple safe system and all accountability being placed on the person who issued the warrant of fitness not the organisers. As Land transport rightly states, the warrant ensures it is safe to be operated on our roads.
At the second Winch Challenge competition here in NZ, Mr X turned out with a vehicle that he had done major modifications to since its previous warrant that only had a month to run before expiring. This caused an up roar amongst competitor's. They instructed the rules committee that this should not be allowed. The vehicle had mods that would not have been possible to get a current warrant of fitness without proper certification. To prevent anyone else doing the same this rule was introduced. Since the introduction of this rule after the second competition the rules have moved on to require certification plates. The rule still has some merit if competitors want to ensure fellow competitors don't modify their vehicles after a cert plate is issued and before their current warrant expires. There was some comment of removing the need for a warrant or only allowing testing station warrants. There is no perfect system but this gives us all a minimum standard and that is all we should be legislating for. If you as a competitor think that is not good enough then you can take your own personal precautions to give you the extra safety you desire. I hope that sheds some light on this one. Best of luck with your next warrant.

Hi John, I understand that in the past the warrent issue may have been a valid point, but I was under the impression that this was part of the reasoning behind having vechicle log books? If all the mods and previous damage/repairs are listed in the log book what difference is having a less than 28 day old warrant going to prove?

Hey Tim the warrent is for travelling the public road. The log book is for the event organisers to record non compliant issues at scrutineering for the next organiser to check. The log book also leads the way to random scrutineering, leaving some competitors out of the scrutineering process at some events based on an honesty and good scrutineering record presented in the vehicles log book.
I agree that the warrent of fitness may only need to be current as mods on the vehicle should be recorded on the cert plate.