6 ms·

I’m curious why you reckon it wouldn’t stand a chance. In Australia and New Zealand I’d expect it to be fairly straightforward (meaning fiddly in places but per

I’m curious why you reckon it wouldn’t stand a chance. In Australia and New Zealand I’d expect it to be fairly straightforward (meaning fiddly in places but perfectly doable), so long as it isn’t too wide (it’s within half an inch of the US limit, by the sounds of it). I know one New Zealander making a fairly outrageously large, heavy and wide RV at present, and he knows all the details that will be required to get it road-legal (a family member has done something slightly less extreme before) and reckons it’ll be fine.

dylan604 5y ago
How does it getting approved in Australia or New Zealand help counter it being harder to approve in EU?
t0mas88 5y ago
Australia and New Zealand are also less busy and have wider roads than most of western Europe.
- p2t2p 5y ago
  > wider roads Surprisingly but not, at least compared to Russia (and Switzerland) Lanes here are narrower than in Russia and of my memory doesn’t fail me, when we were driving from Switzerland to Italy several years ago, the lanes there were as wide as in Russia.
chiph 5y ago
My understanding is that Australia can be pretty picky. Dick & Pip Smith drove an Earthroamer (a $500k offroading RV) around the world and when he got to his native Australia there were several things he had to alter, even though it was titled in Colorado, had Colorado plates, and had a 12-month Carnet from the government for it. The ones I remember were he had to install wider fender flares to ensure full coverage, and replace the red rear turn signals with amber ones. Being famous there apparently didn't help.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  The two things you recall are simple things that are only relevant when you’re bringing in a vehicle designed against different standards. When you’re making such a thing from scratch, you’ll consult with the standards documents (treating them as a checklist, to a considerable extent) and get it right from the start.
pvaldes 5y ago
Because is not safe to drive. Wouldn't never pass the technical exam for vehicles each 6 months. You can't drive a car in a public road without it.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  What specifically might they be likely to complain about? I’m unfamiliar with the idea of regular tests (in Australia I don’t think you ever need a roadworthiness check if you keep the vehicle’s registration) and don’t know what they’d be looking at. “Because it’s not safe to drive” is nebulous; I’m interested in details.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    The safety concept is pretty clear in fact: "Your extravaganza and attention craving, puts my life in risk". To start, all car makers must destroy several vehicles in crash tests before are allowed to touch any public space. The analysis of the damages in dummies proves that they are safe in the most common types of collisions. This car has not passed it. Would end the steering pedal buried in your belly in an accident? Nobody knows. Was built with 1950' technology. Technology from the Korean war!. Early 90's maximum. Totally outdated in terms of safety. The structure could accumulate easily 50 years of stress over the materials or even more. Wasn't designed to hold airbags or points able to support attachments for pyrotechnic seat belts. They would never work correctly with that structure. The airplane part don't includes modern extra weak points designed and arranged in the structure to bend in a safe way and absorb the energy. Is a total mess in this sense. The pointy end probably guarantees, in my non expert opinion, that the cabin would be stripped off from the truck and pushed back against the driver in a frontal crash. The brake system wasn't designed for this weight and center masses so could stop the vehicle too late, bend the brake disk or work in an unpredictable way. The center mass looks higher than normal. The vehicle could turn upside down in a closed curve In case of collision against somebody walking on the street the front of the vehicle is clearly unsuitable to protect human lives from serious injuries in spinal cord, head or legs. They wouldn't even see it coming with this tiny windows And is so ugly that even hurts my eyes. If you drive a sofa or a two-story bicycle you basically accept the risk over your life, not mine. A truckenstein is a different issue. I don't want this experiments allowed to be in the same road as me, ever. For more details ask an engineer

dylan604 5y ago

How does it getting approved in Australia or New Zealand help counter it being harder to approve in EU?

t0mas88 5y ago

Australia and New Zealand are also less busy and have wider roads than most of western Europe.

p2t2p 5y ago
> wider roads Surprisingly but not, at least compared to Russia (and Switzerland) Lanes here are narrower than in Russia and of my memory doesn’t fail me, when we were driving from Switzerland to Italy several years ago, the lanes there were as wide as in Russia.

chiph 5y ago

My understanding is that Australia can be pretty picky. Dick & Pip Smith drove an Earthroamer (a $500k offroading RV) around the world and when he got to his native Australia there were several things he had to alter, even though it was titled in Colorado, had Colorado plates, and had a 12-month Carnet from the government for it. The ones I remember were he had to install wider fender flares to ensure full coverage, and replace the red rear turn signals with amber ones. Being famous there apparently didn't help.

chrismorgan 5y ago
The two things you recall are simple things that are only relevant when you’re bringing in a vehicle designed against different standards. When you’re making such a thing from scratch, you’ll consult with the standards documents (treating them as a checklist, to a considerable extent) and get it right from the start.

pvaldes 5y ago

Because is not safe to drive. Wouldn't never pass the technical exam for vehicles each 6 months. You can't drive a car in a public road without it.

chrismorgan 5y ago
What specifically might they be likely to complain about? I’m unfamiliar with the idea of regular tests (in Australia I don’t think you ever need a roadworthiness check if you keep the vehicle’s registration) and don’t know what they’d be looking at. “Because it’s not safe to drive” is nebulous; I’m interested in details.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  The safety concept is pretty clear in fact: "Your extravaganza and attention craving, puts my life in risk". To start, all car makers must destroy several vehicles in crash tests before are allowed to touch any public space. The analysis of the damages in dummies proves that they are safe in the most common types of collisions. This car has not passed it. Would end the steering pedal buried in your belly in an accident? Nobody knows. Was built with 1950' technology. Technology from the Korean war!. Early 90's maximum. Totally outdated in terms of safety. The structure could accumulate easily 50 years of stress over the materials or even more. Wasn't designed to hold airbags or points able to support attachments for pyrotechnic seat belts. They would never work correctly with that structure. The airplane part don't includes modern extra weak points designed and arranged in the structure to bend in a safe way and absorb the energy. Is a total mess in this sense. The pointy end probably guarantees, in my non expert opinion, that the cabin would be stripped off from the truck and pushed back against the driver in a frontal crash. The brake system wasn't designed for this weight and center masses so could stop the vehicle too late, bend the brake disk or work in an unpredictable way. The center mass looks higher than normal. The vehicle could turn upside down in a closed curve In case of collision against somebody walking on the street the front of the vehicle is clearly unsuitable to protect human lives from serious injuries in spinal cord, head or legs. They wouldn't even see it coming with this tiny windows And is so ugly that even hurts my eyes. If you drive a sofa or a two-story bicycle you basically accept the risk over your life, not mine. A truckenstein is a different issue. I don't want this experiments allowed to be in the same road as me, ever. For more details ask an engineer