Is your imported off road coupling compliant?

[muzza01]

We have invested a substantial amount of money/resources into the process and have been selling against noncomplying hitches for more than 5 years.

There is only 2 laboratories in Australia with sufficient equipment to facilitate the testing.
As the testing methods and laboratory is commercial in confidence, I am not allowed to elaborate any further.
In other words, MDC doesn't want to discuss the methods and know how (intellectual property) on what is required to manufacture ADR 62/02 compliant couplings. This would just make it too easy for other companies to copy.
Happy Camping
MDC Insider

I think it is great that there is an alternative hitch that has been tried and tested. It is a relief to know that MDC are ensuring their hitches are compliant. Its a shame other companies aren't doing the same.

I understand that you cannot disclose too much information about the tests as you dont want your design to be copied but is your design copied from Trigg or have they copied their design from MDC? The two hitches really looks almost identical.

[Market Direct Campers]

Hi Muzza,

Thanks for your comment.

Our coupling is of similar design and looks the similar to many of the couplings available in the market today.

Trigg has been around for much longer than MDC, so no, they have not copied our MDC Coupling.
Our coupling also has differences to the Trigg Coupling.
MDC owners with a keen eye, will be able to spot the differences.

Happy Camping
MDC Insider

[Footy Shorts Shane]

The claim of self regulating is utter bull**** IMO.
Copy from VSB1
If you intend to manufacture your own coupling, then you will need to consult ADR 62/01 or ADR 62/02 and conduct physical testing to ensure compliance.

ADR 62/02 is here.  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153

14.1 12.4.1 (thanks Danny )is where you'll find if your coupling is compliant (or claims to be  )

9.1.1 and 10.1.1 is also interesting. Ball couplings DON'T require the AS cast into them.

Shane.

[DaveR]

I wonder if the unsuspecting owner of a dodgy coupling (regardless of type) which has failed, has taken the time to gather the evidence and made contact with the local transport authorities to make formal notification of it. Without the evidence, not much can be done to remove these things from our roads.
That is a great way to get on top of the poorly made junk out there

[DannyG]

The claim of self regulating is utter bull**** IMO.
Copy from VSB14
If you intend to manufacture your own coupling, then you will need to consult ADR 62/01 or ADR 62/02 and conduct physical testing to ensure compliance.

ADR 62/02 is here.  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153

14.1 is where you'll find if your coupling is compliant (or claims to be  )

9.1.1 and 10.1.1 is also interesting. Ball couplings DON'T require the AS cast into them.

Shane.

And the plot thickens! It seemed a bit far fetched for my liking as well. I think it only came about because I copied and pasted that statement from the Mchitch website.

Vehicle Components are members on here, they would be able to tell us with absolute certainty what they had to do to get compliance.

[DannyG]

The claim of self regulating is utter bull**** IMO.
Copy from VSB14
If you intend to manufacture your own coupling, then you will need to consult ADR 62/01 or ADR 62/02 and conduct physical testing to ensure compliance.

ADR 62/02 is here.  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153

14.1 is where you'll find if your coupling is compliant (or claims to be  )

9.1.1 and 10.1.1 is also interesting. Ball couplings DON'T require the AS cast into them.

Shane.

Just having a proper read of that document Shane and 14.1 talks about drawbar and coupling strength and the testing involved or more to the point the forces it must with stand for so many seconds etc. VSB1 doesn't require us to meet these standards when manufacturing a trailer as far as I am aware??  Its all getting far too complicated lol

[DannyG]

I think its probably wise to understand that like so many products on the market that require to be a certain standard for whatever reason can still fail.

Just because lets say Mchitch, or the D035 or MDC's branded coupling has had the required tests to meet ADR compliance does not mean that every other coupling from that day on that they manufacturer or import will be of the same quality of the one that was tested for compliance. Yes they should be and yes some companies quality control would be FAR better than others but all it really means is that the company in question is now putting there backside/reputation on the line by saying every coupling we sell is up to the standard.

So, it comes down to each individuals choice as to who they would TRUST to have the quality control to manufacture safe couplings. I use Mchitch and would also use vehicle component products.

[Footy Shorts Shane]

And the plot thickens! It seemed a bit far fetched for my liking as well. I think it only came about because I copied and pasted that statement from the Mchitch website.

Vehicle Components are members on here, they would be able to tell us with absolute certainty what they had to do to get compliance.

You are correct.  It is 12.4.1

Shane.

[muzza01]

Hi Muzza,

Thanks for your comment.

Our coupling is of similar design and looks the similar to many of the couplings available in the market today.

Trigg has been around for much longer than MDC, so no, they have not copied our MDC Coupling.
Our coupling also has differences to the Trigg Coupling.
MDC owners with a keen eye, will be able to spot the differences.

Happy Camping
MDC Insider

Love to know what the differences are. Can anyone with a keen eye enlighten me?

[woolgoolgaoffroad]

Love to know what the differences are. Can anyone with a keen eye enlighten me?

sorry mate... i cant... maybe the number of teeth that the handbrake can catch on ??

[evans52]

sorry mate... i cant... maybe the number of teeth that the handbrake can catch on ??

It's obvious to Blind Freddy - they're spelt differently (in brail).

[har05l]

All very confusing , if all it takes is a retailer saying its compliant then the system is flawed.Why have a AS system in the first place?

I have taken a lot of interest as I am awaiting delivery of my C/T(no names yet) & after reading this thread I contacted the supplier to be told that there hitches are NOW compliant. I hope this is true but if all it's takes is there say so !!!!

Still am still very keen to take delivery.

Cheers

MDC has shown their certification as proof so just ask your C/T supplier to show theirs

[Marschy]

This is a beatup by the Aussie CT manufacturers guild. The boat I recently sold had an override coupling on it with nothing but the AS number on it. The boat (and presumably the trailer) were built in 1986, well before the appearance of imported trailers into Australia.

[MattNQ]

This is a beatup by the Aussie CT manufacturers guild. The boat I recently sold had an override coupling on it with nothing but the AS number on it. The boat (and presumably the trailer) were built in 1986, well before the appearance of imported trailers into Australia.

Probably depends on the rules at the time. My trailer was built by Track Trailers circa 1997 I think. No stamps whatsoever anywhere on the override coupling. There is a plate elsewhere on the trailer tub with the VIN no. & a statement saying it complies with Australia Design rules. That must have been all they needed back then as it was good enough for the military that bought the trailers at the time.

[BigJules]

Sure, the rules have changed, often driven by a requirement for better regulation.


Julian

[Footy Shorts Shane]

This is a beatup by the Aussie CT manufacturers guild. The boat I recently sold had an override coupling on it with nothing but the AS number on it. The boat (and presumably the trailer) were built in 1986, well before the appearance of imported trailers into Australia.

ADR 86/00 came into effect 1st July 1991 for trailers. Any with a manufacture date prior to that, does not need to comply with that particular ADR.

A 1986 built trailer needs to comply with the ADR's as at 1986. Same with vehicles.

Shane.

[sunfan]

MDC has shown their certification as proof so just ask your C/T supplier to show theirs

har051 the name of the independant tester and the results have been blacked out. So who's being upfront and showing certification? the independant engineer might be in China or gone out of business if he is an Australian so its no peace of mind at all for the consumer.
Just my 5c worth Josh

[Market Direct Campers]

har051 the name of the independant tester and the results have been blacked out. So who's being upfront and showing certification? the independant engineer might be in China or gone out of business if he is an Australian so its no peace of mind at all for the consumer.
Just my 5c worth Josh

So what are you trying to say here Josh.
That MDC has an illegal hitch? You are so far from the truth

The hitch is certified by an Australian business that is still operating.
We are not giving out the details, because we have spent the time and money on the engineering and certification.
This is not something we are prepared to give away to our competitors for free.

As stated in this thread, our hitch was brought into disrepute by Big Jules, who sells another brand of camper trailer.
This was just a quiet dig at MDC, and that is fine. It was going on at the Camper Trailer Australia Magazine, Camper Trailer of the Year awards in Robe also. We are the new guys on the block, playing with the well established brands now.
Its all fun and games.

Happy Camping
MDC Insider 

[Swannie]

 I don't think Bigjules was having a dig at you, I think you are being a little paranoid.
Swannie

[Followme1]

The hitch is certified by an Australian business that is still operating.
We are not giving out the details, because we have spent the time and money on the engineering and certification.
This is not something we are prepared to give away to our competitors for free.


 What are you talking about MDC it's nothing new it's just a copy of Tregg that has been around for years

[DannyG]

I don't think Bigjules was having a dig at you, I think you are being a little paranoid.
Swannie

I agree with this. The big fellas integrity is in tact in my eyes!

[Malcolm Tugless]

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm assuredly not trying to have a dig in any way at Big Jules. But regardless of whether or not he was trying to have a dig at a competitor or not, this thread should probably be locked about now. Its run its race, and is now starting to enter rather murky waters. To leave it open would seem hypocritical to the charter of this fine establishment. I for one think that more than enough mud has been thrown.

[Swannie]

Agreed. Lock another thread

[muzza01]

I don't think Bigjules was having a dig at you, I think you are being a little paranoid.
Swannie

X2

I agree with this. The big fellas integrity is in tact in my eyes!

X2

[evans52]

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm assuredly not trying to have a dig in any way at Big Jules. But regardless of whether or not he was trying to have a dig at a competitor or not, this thread should probably be locked about now. Its run its race, and is now starting to enter rather murky waters. To leave it open would seem hypocritical to the charter of this fine establishment. I for one think that more than enough mud has been thrown.

The suggestion of locking a thread because there's healthy general discussion about the legality of hitches and whether they're copied or not. Yet people are allowed to call Telemarketers "Elephant Washers" (on numerous posts and different threads) and there's no suggestion of locking that thread or even a mention to watch the racists remarks? 3 times it's mentioned. 3 chances for someone to read a public forum, get their knickers in a twist (quite rightly) and seek legal advise, resulting in a letter regarding racist remarks.

I'm no way am I saying you used the term Malcolm and yes they annoy the sh|t out of me too, but locking a thread for no apparent reason except for the fear of a potential legal threat, likely because of another 3-letter manufacturer getting their knickers in a twist, is ridiculous. Especially, as all I can see is MDC being happy to discuss their brand on this Forum, clearly they love advertising their product too, but I can't see how someone has overstepped the boundaries requiring it to be locked?