Unsafe Mods - Extreme Dubs / Drifters / Stance etc.
Discussion
lord trumpton said:
I wonder how it works with an insurance company. ..Firstly how would you describe the modifications?
Also if one of these dub characters were unfortunately involved in a serious accident could they be prosecuted?
Part one - there are a number of specialist brokers that understand the technicality of the mods. Also if one of these dub characters were unfortunately involved in a serious accident could they be prosecuted?
Part two - no more liable than someone running on bald Ling Longs.
KarlMac said:
Part two - no more liable than someone running on bald Ling Longs.
So, potentially liable then? In the CPS guidelines for death by dangerous driving:
"knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;"
Of course the onus would be on the prosecution to demonstrate that the modifications impeded the performance of the vehicle under emergency conditions to the point at which it could be considered faulty and dangerous.
Really interesting thread as I have run stretched tyres on my old cars 10+ years ago but wouldn't do so now.
The difference now seems to be that:
1. The stretching is extreme.
2. It is combined with camber on a front wheel drive car that results in increased danger of lift off oversteer and reduced contact patch with the ground generally.
3. The cars are run ridiculously low and no longer go around corners (whatever you say about air ride and running at different heights, most run as low as possible when rolling which usually means fouling the bodywork).
4. If you don't run high pressure in these tyres the car will run on the sidewalls and blow out, usually on the inside (this is relatively common).
As has been noted the modifying scene has changed massively. It's less about high performance engines and uprated brakes, and more about aesthetics and buying a diesel Audi on finance and making it look like everyone else in the dub scene.
I've attended many VW shows over the last 15 years, here and abroad, and it's got to the point where I'm just bored with seeing the same type of car all the time. There's no one really building cars anymore as the vast majority are on finance now so they can't modify them too much.
I knew things were getting ridiculous on the way to one show a few years back when I passed 2 Audi's (one S3 in white) running so low doing 50mph in the slow lane of the M25 with blue detailing tape around the arches to prevent the wheels hitting the bodywork.
Each to their own, but it's not for me.
The difference now seems to be that:
1. The stretching is extreme.
2. It is combined with camber on a front wheel drive car that results in increased danger of lift off oversteer and reduced contact patch with the ground generally.
3. The cars are run ridiculously low and no longer go around corners (whatever you say about air ride and running at different heights, most run as low as possible when rolling which usually means fouling the bodywork).
4. If you don't run high pressure in these tyres the car will run on the sidewalls and blow out, usually on the inside (this is relatively common).
As has been noted the modifying scene has changed massively. It's less about high performance engines and uprated brakes, and more about aesthetics and buying a diesel Audi on finance and making it look like everyone else in the dub scene.
I've attended many VW shows over the last 15 years, here and abroad, and it's got to the point where I'm just bored with seeing the same type of car all the time. There's no one really building cars anymore as the vast majority are on finance now so they can't modify them too much.
I knew things were getting ridiculous on the way to one show a few years back when I passed 2 Audi's (one S3 in white) running so low doing 50mph in the slow lane of the M25 with blue detailing tape around the arches to prevent the wheels hitting the bodywork.
Each to their own, but it's not for me.
neiljohnson said:
Here's my take
Lad I used to work with bought this needing an mot I done the test & condemned it as it was so unsafe it was laughable!! Some of the bodges done to achieve the camber were scary with smaller bolts in the front hubs to allow movement & lots of washers on the rear!!
All tyres were scrubbed bald on the inner edges brake hoses rubbed wheels hit the arches etc etc
As a result he have it back to the seller & I have seen it since on the rd looking the same & I assume it's now got an mot from elsewhere!!!!
I apologize for the n00b account. I had an account on here about 5 years back, but I've forgot/lost my log in details.
Lad I used to work with bought this needing an mot I done the test & condemned it as it was so unsafe it was laughable!! Some of the bodges done to achieve the camber were scary with smaller bolts in the front hubs to allow movement & lots of washers on the rear!!
All tyres were scrubbed bald on the inner edges brake hoses rubbed wheels hit the arches etc etc
As a result he have it back to the seller & I have seen it since on the rd looking the same & I assume it's now got an mot from elsewhere!!!!
I've just been linked this page by a friend of mine, wondering if it was my old van that'd 'featured' in this thread.
Well, yes, it is.
First of all, I have no issues what so ever with anybody talking about my van on a public internet forum. But please have the decency not to lie about it.
Okay, where do I start:
Front camber...
It was not achieved by running smaller bolts, and had you removed the bolts to check during an MOT, you'd of been breaking your MOT rules.
Had you made an assumption, then you assumed wrong.
The front Hubs, are actually from a Mk1 Clio Williams. Which have been professionally slotted by a friend of mine, who is an engineer by trade.
The front was only running a maximum of 2deg camber, it was 2deg adjustable up front. From 0 to 2.
The bushes in the lower arms had been released and re-set for the 100mm lowered ride height too, as to not twist, or split them.
As for the rear...
I'm not sure what on earth you were looking at when you spotted a stack of washers? Maybe it was the bin next to your ramp, or maybe you have selective vision. Because there is 100% no way I would use washers to camber the rear of a car.
In fact, if you even knew the first thing about Renault, you'd know that only the Mk2 Clio can be 'cambered' using washers (Not the right way to do it!).
As for the Kangoo, and Mk1 Clio, they both run a rear torsion bar, and to achieve neg-camber on these, it's quite involved.
I chased some advice from a Swiss Hill-Climbing team who compete in a Mk1 Clio, and had developed a camber kit for the rear.
Once again, my best mate took to his Lathe and CNC machine, and made me up a pair of adapters to trail on mine. Once we knew they worked, he then turned me out another 4 or 5 pairs to sell onto the Clio Williams boys.
The result, was a spigot ring, which allowed a 172 Clio stub axle, to bolt up to a Kangoo / Clio Mk1 rear beam.
The 4 bolt holes which once held the drum back-plate on, had to be re-drilled out from an M8x1.25 thread, up to an M10x1.25 thread, to run some 10.8 High tensile hub bolts to secure the whole assembly.
among this set up, was a custom made, adjustable camber shim, in each side.
Again, made up by my pal.
These shims were slotted. So set at the middle of their travel, would give 4 degrees neg-camber.
Rotating them forwards, would give slightly less camber (Down to about 3.5 deg), but would increase the rear toe-in, and then rotating them backwards, would do the same, but increase the toe-out.
(This is an assembled Mk1 Clio beam, ready to post out)
Seeing as I had come this far, it would have been a shame to bolt the old Kangoo drums back on, so I converted over to Clio 172 rear discs and calipers:
Hand brake cables were sourced from a Renault Megane Scenic (Monaco as it has rear discs).
Ref the bald tyres...
I told Rich (Your ex-colleague), that it needed 4 new tyres. They were bald because they had done 15k miles, check the MOT records, all the work was done just before the previous MOT.
As for the brake hoses. The rear was on solid lines, and the fronts were brand new.
And regarding your very last comment. That is another lie. As I returned the van to stock suspension to sell it. I also put a larger set of tyres on it too - 195/45-16.
I actually wanted to put it stock for Rich, but he insisted I left it 'dub' for him.
Not that it cost him anything anyway (Ropey old Corsa B van, and a clutch, probably lost in your system, for my other van).
A couple of other things what I have gotten up to in the past, as I enjoy putting square pegs in round holes.
Here is an adapter kit, to fit a Hope MTB front brake setup, onto a Monkey bike (It's actually my Honda Chaly), front end:
And another adapter (Sprocket carrier). To run a Montessa 430 pitch rear sprocket, on an Aprilia SR125 scooter wheel. It is my current side project. Rotax 123 powered road legal pit bike.
I'm not a C*nt. Please dont talk about me like I am one.
Regards
Ben
C.A.R. said:
Remember the 'smoothing' phase?
I remember one car which had been 'smoothed' to the point where the wingmirrors had been removed, but not satisfied enough that he went on to remove the windscreen wipers. Not just the blades, the whole mechanism.
...
Yet this still had a valid MOT.
No, it didn't. Not unless he could open the windscreen.I remember one car which had been 'smoothed' to the point where the wingmirrors had been removed, but not satisfied enough that he went on to remove the windscreen wipers. Not just the blades, the whole mechanism.
...
Yet this still had a valid MOT.
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s08000201.htm
KarlMac said:
Remember what I said earlier owners been obsessive about suspension details?
Plus, I needed to know, in case I needed to change something.
I stated the measurements to show that I didn't achieve it using bloody washers.
Just a shame somebody needs to have a go at slandering it publicly.
Edited by binge on Thursday 12th June 18:25
binge said:
I apologize for the n00b account. I had an account on here about 5 years back, but I've forgot/lost my log in details.
I've just been linked this page by a friend of mine, wondering if it was my old van that'd 'featured' in this thread.
Well, yes, it is.
First of all, I have no issues what so ever with anybody talking about my van on a public internet forum. But please have the decency not to lie about it.
Okay, where do I start:
Front camber...
It was not achieved by running smaller bolts, and had you removed the bolts to check during an MOT, you'd of been breaking your MOT rules.
Had you made an assumption, then you assumed wrong.
The front Hubs, are actually from a Mk1 Clio Williams. Which have been professionally slotted by a friend of mine, who is an engineer by trade.
The front was only running a maximum of 2deg camber, it was 2deg adjustable up front. From 0 to 2.
The bushes in the lower arms had been released and re-set for the 100mm lowered ride height too, as to not twist, or split them.
As for the rear...
I'm not sure what on earth you were looking at when you spotted a stack of washers? Maybe it was the bin next to your ramp, or maybe you have selective vision. Because there is 100% no way I would use washers to camber the rear of a car.
In fact, if you even knew the first thing about Renault, you'd know that only the Mk2 Clio can be 'cambered' using washers (Not the right way to do it!).
As for the Kangoo, and Mk1 Clio, they both run a rear torsion bar, and to achieve neg-camber on these, it's quite involved.
I chased some advice from a Swiss Hill-Climbing team who compete in a Mk1 Clio, and had developed a camber kit for the rear.
Once again, my best mate took to his Lathe and CNC machine, and made me up a pair of adapters to trail on mine. Once we knew they worked, he then turned me out another 4 or 5 pairs to sell onto the Clio Williams boys.
The result, was a spigot ring, which allowed a 172 Clio stub axle, to bolt up to a Kangoo / Clio Mk1 rear beam.
The 4 bolt holes which once held the drum back-plate on, had to be re-drilled out from an M8x1.25 thread, up to an M10x1.25 thread, to run some 10.8 High tensile hub bolts to secure the whole assembly.
among this set up, was a custom made, adjustable camber shim, in each side.
Again, made up by my pal.
These shims were slotted. So set at the middle of their travel, would give 4 degrees neg-camber.
Rotating them forwards, would give slightly less camber (Down to about 3.5 deg), but would increase the rear toe-in, and then rotating them backwards, would do the same, but increase the toe-out.
Regards
Ben
So, Ben seeing as you have gone into detail on the technicalities is there any chance you could explain a bit about the look you went to so much trouble to create?I've just been linked this page by a friend of mine, wondering if it was my old van that'd 'featured' in this thread.
Well, yes, it is.
First of all, I have no issues what so ever with anybody talking about my van on a public internet forum. But please have the decency not to lie about it.
Okay, where do I start:
Front camber...
It was not achieved by running smaller bolts, and had you removed the bolts to check during an MOT, you'd of been breaking your MOT rules.
Had you made an assumption, then you assumed wrong.
The front Hubs, are actually from a Mk1 Clio Williams. Which have been professionally slotted by a friend of mine, who is an engineer by trade.
The front was only running a maximum of 2deg camber, it was 2deg adjustable up front. From 0 to 2.
The bushes in the lower arms had been released and re-set for the 100mm lowered ride height too, as to not twist, or split them.
As for the rear...
I'm not sure what on earth you were looking at when you spotted a stack of washers? Maybe it was the bin next to your ramp, or maybe you have selective vision. Because there is 100% no way I would use washers to camber the rear of a car.
In fact, if you even knew the first thing about Renault, you'd know that only the Mk2 Clio can be 'cambered' using washers (Not the right way to do it!).
As for the Kangoo, and Mk1 Clio, they both run a rear torsion bar, and to achieve neg-camber on these, it's quite involved.
I chased some advice from a Swiss Hill-Climbing team who compete in a Mk1 Clio, and had developed a camber kit for the rear.
Once again, my best mate took to his Lathe and CNC machine, and made me up a pair of adapters to trail on mine. Once we knew they worked, he then turned me out another 4 or 5 pairs to sell onto the Clio Williams boys.
The result, was a spigot ring, which allowed a 172 Clio stub axle, to bolt up to a Kangoo / Clio Mk1 rear beam.
The 4 bolt holes which once held the drum back-plate on, had to be re-drilled out from an M8x1.25 thread, up to an M10x1.25 thread, to run some 10.8 High tensile hub bolts to secure the whole assembly.
among this set up, was a custom made, adjustable camber shim, in each side.
Again, made up by my pal.
These shims were slotted. So set at the middle of their travel, would give 4 degrees neg-camber.
Rotating them forwards, would give slightly less camber (Down to about 3.5 deg), but would increase the rear toe-in, and then rotating them backwards, would do the same, but increase the toe-out.
Regards
Ben
As a boring 40yr old I really struggle to 'get' the idea with these type of cars. Obviously the work put in is to create a look and not improve drivability or performance. But what exactly is the attraction with lowering the car to such an extent that the wheels disappear into the arches and have very little, if any suspension travel?
The camber is also really ott - what is this all about? Where does the look or stance originate from?
Also, the roof rack - these seem quite popular on these type of cars. Like an old fashioned rack usually adorned with some old luggage. Do you carry stuff in the luggage or use the rack for anything?
Is the bonnet bra to stop stone chips? If so surely a layer of Paint protection film is the better option? Its very flexible and almost invisible.
Has the engine been modified also?
Your answers would be appreciated
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.6080480894612...
believe they are trying to make them look like this
lord trumpton said:
So, Ben seeing as you have gone into detail on the technicalities is there any chance you could explain a bit about the look you went to so much trouble to create?
As a boring 40yr old I really struggle to 'get' the idea with these type of cars. Obviously the work put in is to create a look and not improve drivability or performance. But what exactly is the attraction with lowering the car to such an extent that the wheels disappear into the arches and have very little, if any suspension travel?
--- I started building the van a couple of years ago. I picked it up for scrap value, as it had a cracked head. Ended up sourcing a low mileage engine, and then rebuilding it anyway, replacing everything along the way. So it was more or less a zero mile lump. No mods, just a healthy 50mpg.
The camber is also really ott - what is this all about? Where does the look or stance originate from?
--- Although it may look OTT, it's the stretch on the tyres, and little arch gap, along with the 'poke' that give the illusion. It's only 2deg up front, and up to 4deg on the rear. Rally / Racing cars have been known to run more.
Purely for aesthetic reasons though, in my case.
Also, the roof rack - these seem quite popular on these type of cars. Like an old fashioned rack usually adorned with some old luggage. Do you carry stuff in the luggage or use the rack for anything?
--- Used it a few times. But again, was just kinda for the look.
Is the bonnet bra to stop stone chips? If so surely a layer of Paint protection film is the better option? Its very flexible and almost invisible.
Bonnet Bra, was to cover up stone chips.
Has the engine been modified also?
--- Nope, just rebuilt.
Your answers would be appreciated
As a boring 40yr old I really struggle to 'get' the idea with these type of cars. Obviously the work put in is to create a look and not improve drivability or performance. But what exactly is the attraction with lowering the car to such an extent that the wheels disappear into the arches and have very little, if any suspension travel?
--- I started building the van a couple of years ago. I picked it up for scrap value, as it had a cracked head. Ended up sourcing a low mileage engine, and then rebuilding it anyway, replacing everything along the way. So it was more or less a zero mile lump. No mods, just a healthy 50mpg.
The camber is also really ott - what is this all about? Where does the look or stance originate from?
--- Although it may look OTT, it's the stretch on the tyres, and little arch gap, along with the 'poke' that give the illusion. It's only 2deg up front, and up to 4deg on the rear. Rally / Racing cars have been known to run more.
Purely for aesthetic reasons though, in my case.
Also, the roof rack - these seem quite popular on these type of cars. Like an old fashioned rack usually adorned with some old luggage. Do you carry stuff in the luggage or use the rack for anything?
--- Used it a few times. But again, was just kinda for the look.
Is the bonnet bra to stop stone chips? If so surely a layer of Paint protection film is the better option? Its very flexible and almost invisible.
Bonnet Bra, was to cover up stone chips.
Has the engine been modified also?
--- Nope, just rebuilt.
Your answers would be appreciated
binge said:
Stuff...
Regards
Ben
Regards
Ben
brilliant post. A lot of the old grumpy PHeders will be scrathing their heads at this one.The dub scene is not for me at all, but a few are my friends are very involved in it. And the lengths they go to (similar to yours) to achieve the look is astounding. I often ask why they don't use their skills to make something... decent (IMO of course) but they aren't interested.
More about the asthetics than performance, which is why cars/vans like these get such a negative response on PH (who are more about performance than asthetics)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff