Are TEIN Flex Actually Illegal on the MX-5?

Rival · Postby **Rival** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:29 pm

(I have done some searching and thought we needed a thread that could finally end the confusion)

I have heard conflicting reports that the TEIN Flex coilovers are illegal for road use because of some camber adjustment bracket (from what i understand this is called a \"clevis bracket\") that the Flex has which doesn't comply with ADR's.

From my understanding the Flex on the MX-5 (and the Soarer/Supra for that matter) just has the standard (or pillow ball) top mount and then a single \"knuckle\" joint at the bottom that attaches to the standard coilover mounting point with a single bolt. there is no adjustment of camber, caster, or toe on the coils to my understanding...

Where is this dodgy part that makes the Flex illegal on NSW roads?

I am asking this because I am obviously in the market for some coilovers but would like some clarification before i make any decisions.

are some people on this forum just regurgitating the \"TEIN Flex are illegal on the road\" from what they have heard from other forums or people out there with cars that have different suspension mounting options and therefore possibly having some Flex's Illegal and not others?

Any advice would be great, lets got to the bottom of this!

vrmmmpshhh · Postby **vrmmmpshhh** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:23 am

sorry cant help you with NSW.

when i was getting a road worthy check after compliancing my car here in SA my Japanese bilsteins even at the highest perch did not pass. The inspector asked me if i have coilovers and to just use them to raise the car.

Rival · Postby **Rival** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:21 am

Just to clarify, I am not referring to the ride height of aftermarket coilovers. I am interested in what specifically makes the Flex illegal and if this specific item even features on the MX-5 model of the coilovers.

Reason being both my MX-5 and my Soarer have coilover suspension and there is no way there is any adjustment of camber, caster, or toe on them as they end at the lower wishbone with a simple knuckle.

However I think from memory that the Nissan and Honda coilovers mount to the car and suspension differently and might therefore have this adjustable bracket only on these models?

Matty · Postby **Matty** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:03 pm

If you're talking about the legality of adjustable strut-top camber plates, it's an irrelevant point because the MX-5 doesn't have them nor does it need them. The MX-5 has double wishbone suspension with full factory adjustment of the camber and caster provided at the lower wishbone. The top of the shock (NB not strut) does not do any locating of the wheel, other than vertically.

The Flex does however have adjustable shock tube length and adjustable spring preload, either of which possibly might be illegal, though it'd be more to do with the set ride height and available travel (I believe, don't quote me).

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:20 am

Matty wrote:The Flex does however have adjustable shock tube length......

That's the reason they aren't road legal - as told to me by Fulcrum reps.

Matty · Postby **Matty** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:44 am

JBT wrote:
Matty wrote:The Flex does however have adjustable shock tube length......

That's the reason they aren't road legal - as told to me by Fulcrum reps.

Any reason given why?

Rival · Postby **Rival** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:24 am

Off Topic:
Good to see all the replies from the 170+ views of this forum are from owners of sexy red MX's.

AJ · Postby AJ » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:57 pm

Rival wrote:Off Topic:
Good to see all the replies from the 170+ views of this forum are from owners of sexy red MX's.

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:24 pm

Matty wrote:Any reason given why?

At the time, yes. It was along the lines of the bottom part of the adjustable shock tube not meeting Qld Transport (and ADR?) rules. OK for a track only car though.

I can't remember the exact reason because I was so disappointed my eyes probably started to glaze over and I could only hear blah, blah, blah.

The SS is fine though.

Rival · Postby **Rival** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:40 pm

Can anyone confirm this (specifically in NSW would be best but otherwise is going to be beneficial to the club regardless.

jules · Postby **jules** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:29 am

Is plod really going to notice, or is there another reason you ask?

Jules

Juffa · Postby **Juffa** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:22 pm

While it does not explain why, the instructions for my Japanese Spec Flex coil-overs does state that they are not legal for road useage.

J

Rival · Postby **Rival** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:22 pm

jules wrote:Is plod really going to notice, or is there another reason you ask?

Jules

i think thats more my point, is it something that is going to be blatantly defective, or is it one of those things thats just a technicality and a non issue. i am starting to think its just one of those technicalities that is a non issue.

i think from the 290+ views on this thread and the 10 poll results stating that nobody knows for sure answers my question...

still interested in anyone elses input regardless as i we need a thread to end the confusion.

Garry · Postby **Garry** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:16 pm

Ring up the RTA and ask them then report back. Hopefully someone at the RTA will know, but being the RTA you will probably get a different answer from everyone you talk to.

Could they be illegal because they allow the car to be lower than the mimimum legal ride height?

CT · Postby CT » Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:14 pm

Why does it matter? Any aftermarket part is technically illegal unless it comes with a stamp stating ADR approval. If you are worried, don't use them - bit like fitting a pod filter really. The statement on the Tein paperwork is more for litigation than anything.