Lightweight Sva

[Guest swizz]

ahh but you didnt see the deleted posts

 

 

I was first pointed towards this forum & thread a couple of days ago & have seen a deleted post which contained some baaaaaaaaaad language but to be honest haven't been back through to look for any more.

 

I run our club forum & am of the opinion that a forum within the public domain has to be moderated to the extent of maintaining the integrety of the club.

 

However, as the forum exists primarily for members of RHOCAR, IMHO:-

 

* non-members should respect the forum & not abuse the priveledge of being able to use it. Having been at the end of a stick for moderating our forum a while back & upsetting a non-member i'd say that sometimes you have to accept theres a reason for a thread being moderated, even if its not clear at the time. That said, i'll also stick my neck out to suggest;

 

* re: the current situation with the Lightweight & SVA, RHOCAR should respect that as an Owners Club they are there to serve the interests of its membership, not the company who manufacturers the kit cars they drive. As unpalletable as this may seem should the Company/Club relationship be a strong one, its the members building the kits that earns the company its crust - in the situation we are all discussing here & from the point of view of an outsider looking in i'd say "Wake up & smell the Coffee"

 

As already shouted out though - I hope i'm wrong & really do want to see a line of Lightweights at a showground real soon. A kit company going wrong reflects on kit cars as a whole to the outside world, and as an owner and someone who represents other owners - I hope it all goes well

 

Swizz...

[Mitch]

Well said Swizz

 

a lot of this talk is not doing the Marque any favours,

Yes maybe RHSC should be in contact with the worried parties, but sorting out with VOSA WILL take time,unfortunatly its not going to be sorted quickly,

Maybe the lightwieght owners should see the CIB to see where they stand,

But remarks on here are spreading through the kitcar websites and causing spectulation on the trading of RHSC will only harm there reputation for kit manufacture

And making silly sugestions of sending mass emails to them will not help.

 

Let the parties involved sort it out, with legal help if need be, but lets stop this slanging match, its not doing anyone any favours

 

Mitch

[Guest dbs]

can i just point out , that the technical line is not richards personal mobile .

 

Perhaps if somebody has an urgent question they need answering , they could PM me , and ill do my best to answer them within a reasonable time .

[Guest ScotMac]

Hey Dave, thanks. I am sure all the L/W builders, myself included, are relieved to see someone from RH responding to this issue.

 

However, i don't think that each and every one of us sending you a PM is the most expedient approach, since the most pressing concern is likely to be common to each and every one of us. As far as i can tell, that would be: What exactly is RH planning in the way of response to the issue raised by VOSA concerning the structural integrity of the L/W?

 

Cheers, -sm

[Guest DRC7]

the matter is in hand wheres the coffee

[Guest lightweightian]

Does anyone know why the RHSC web site has been suspended ????

 

ian

[Guest stu205]

see all the conspiracy theorys here

 

http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=12954

[Guest DRC7]

just call them ask them

[Guest lightweightian]

just call them ask them

 

 

Sorry you cant leave a message at the monent.. dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

 

great !!!!

 

ian

[Guest DRC7]

What is the latest on the lightweight situation

[Guest Bob's Babe]

trev is on hols this week so not in touch with anyone on either side,

 

SUE

[Guest zoomzoom]

Well no news is ...... well no news.

 

I am on hols in sunny lake garda and i have lasted until day 11 of my holiday before i have looked this up on the net.

 

Wish i hadnt bothered

 

Gonna go back and sit in the sun and turn even pinker

 

 

 

Marcus

[Guest timswait]

At the risk of wandering slightly off topic....

There was talk earlier in the thread of the 2B being failed at Southampton due to top seat belt mounts. Do you mean bottom seatbelt mounts? I'm interested because my 2B failed twice and passed once at southampton, one of the failure points being the lower seatbelt mounts and the fact they were attached to a spreader plate (2" angle iron!) under the floor rather than the chassis.

IMHO Southampton is one of the harshest test centres (not having had personal experience of any others, just the word on the street!) They've clearly changed attitudes on some areas, when I failed on sharp projections on the screw holes in the indicators on my first test the examiner actually suggested using silicon sealant to fill them, and it passed like that!

Veering back on topic.....

I've been away for a while, so have only scanned this monster thread, but best of luck to Trev for getting his car on the road as soon as is possible.

[Guest Whitworth]

Hi

 

Linked to this interesting thread from somewhere else.

 

Unless RHSC can persuade VOSA to change their opinion, it's now a contractual issue between the builder and RHSC. Fax a letter to RHSC setting out the problem, ask for a positive response within 7 working days. Back it up by recorded delivery.

 

If no reply, write again stating that RHSC entered into a contract with you to provide an SVA-compliant kit. State that you have built the kit to RHSC instructions but it is not SVA-compliant. Ask RHSC to confirm that the kit is advertised as SVA-compliant. Ask RHSC to confirm that the kit is fit for purpose. Ask for a positive response within 7 working days. Fax and back it up by recorded delivery.

 

Seek legal advice.

 

Solicitor's letter.

 

Small claims court.

 

Buy a Caterham

 

Good luck, RHSC should have all the calcs that VOSA need. Otherwise, how do RHSC know that the kit is safe?

[Big Jim]

you were doing fine until you got to this line!!!!

Buy a Caterham