Quebec bans 'Hellaflush'
11-07-14, 06:46 PM
#1
Friendly stalker
Thread Starter
Quebec bans 'Hellaflush'
No idea how I missed this before - maybe Quebec isn't so bad afterall.
Hellaflush cars get hella banned in Quebec, rest of Canada to follow?
This will be fun to enforce.
Hellaflush cars get hella banned in Quebec, rest of Canada to follow?
This will be fun to enforce.
11-08-14, 09:48 AM
#3
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
Oh, that's what that is called. I've just been referring to it is a "broken springs". I don't see too many of those around London but occasionally I catch a glimpse of a silver G35. Judging by the tire wear they must have to replace the rubber very week.
More regulation is the last thing we need however I will enjoy watching the gong show of morons complain that their "rights" have now been violated.
More regulation is the last thing we need however I will enjoy watching the gong show of morons complain that their "rights" have now been violated.
11-08-14, 07:08 PM
#4
Friendly stalker
Thread Starter
And yes, it always seems to be a G35 thing around Hamilton too. Sad because they sound like heaven.
Some ******* here slammed an MG GT. That man needs harm to come to him. Such a cool car, ruined.
11-08-14, 09:57 PM
#5
No idea how I missed this before - maybe Quebec isn't so bad afterall.
Hellaflush cars get hella banned in Quebec, rest of Canada to follow?
This will be fun to enforce.
Hellaflush cars get hella banned in Quebec, rest of Canada to follow?
This will be fun to enforce.
11-08-14, 11:09 PM
#7
Fast foward to 0.50 for the real action 
I noticed this was a going thing and still is really popular however, I find that making impairing the handling characteristics of a vehicle for looks really odd. I've seen someone spin out before like that on the 400 off ramp last summer and it really was not a pleasant sight.
Glad I keep the 2 finger gap for DD mode tho
I noticed this was a going thing and still is really popular however, I find that making impairing the handling characteristics of a vehicle for looks really odd. I've seen someone spin out before like that on the 400 off ramp last summer and it really was not a pleasant sight.
Glad I keep the 2 finger gap for DD mode tho
Trending Topics
11-09-14, 10:03 AM
#8
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
Wow, looking at that video it's obvious the type of person who would consider "hellaflush" to be desirable: the same douchebag who would merge in front of another vehicle when there is barely 1 car length of space, at highway speeds! One can hope that with the dashcam footage, the waste of genetic material got what he deserved and is now enjoying his prison cell.
11-09-14, 05:21 PM
#9
Rotary Enthusiast
This is what Hella makes me think of (other than lights for rally cars):
11-10-14, 02:29 PM
#10
Full Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I don't necessarily disagree with banning hellaflush cars. I do have trouble with laws worded like:
"In Addition, using suspension components that are too stiff or that have an insufficient travel range is prohibited."
"Using a combination of rims and tires that does not meet the manufacturers’ recommendations is prohibited"
I hope they clarify the law a little better and use some hard numbers. Those quotes are from SAAQ's website not from an actual law. I have never owned a car I consider hellaflush but every car I have ever owned would be prohibited by those two sentences.
http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road_s...ndex.php#_ftn1
"In Addition, using suspension components that are too stiff or that have an insufficient travel range is prohibited."
"Using a combination of rims and tires that does not meet the manufacturers’ recommendations is prohibited"
I hope they clarify the law a little better and use some hard numbers. Those quotes are from SAAQ's website not from an actual law. I have never owned a car I consider hellaflush but every car I have ever owned would be prohibited by those two sentences.
http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/road_s...ndex.php#_ftn1
11-10-14, 05:14 PM
#12
Friendly stalker
Thread Starter
11-10-14, 06:40 PM
#13
Exactly, I was fined for having tinted tail lights the 2nd day I started driving my fdThe fd taillights of course come oem with that look and when I fought it at court, I got off like it was nothing.
In other words, the cop can say whatever they want however, but at the end of the day they still are required to give you a proper explaination.
Still does not stop officers from playing the HTA book game but still gives you a valid way to fight back.
The fd taillights of course come oem with that look and when I fought it at court, I got off like it was nothing. In other words, the cop can say whatever they want however, but at the end of the day they still are required to give you a proper explaination.
Still does not stop officers from playing the HTA book game but still gives you a valid way to fight back.
11-13-14, 08:11 AM
#15
Friendly stalker
Thread Starter
Exactly, I was fined for having tinted tail lights the 2nd day I started driving my fdThe fd taillights of course come oem with that look and when I fought it at court, I got off like it was nothing.
In other words, the cop can say whatever they want however, but at the end of the day they still are required to give you a proper explaination.
Still does not stop officers from playing the HTA book game but still gives you a valid way to fight back.
The fd taillights of course come oem with that look and when I fought it at court, I got off like it was nothing. In other words, the cop can say whatever they want however, but at the end of the day they still are required to give you a proper explaination.
Still does not stop officers from playing the HTA book game but still gives you a valid way to fight back.
Alternatively there is Drive without proper rar light - motorvehicle, but that requires the officer to prove your tail lights aren't visible when lighted at 150 meters.
It's another case of someone only reading the short form wording (what gets written on the ticket) and not checking the actual section to see what it means.
11-18-14, 02:28 PM
#16
Last edited by rx7racerca; 11-18-14 at 02:32 PM. Reason: edited image tags
11-20-14, 09:34 AM
#17
Good for you. Are you an expert on the law side of things also? Just checking.
I stand by what I said. While innocent until proven guilty, most courts take the evidence and testimony of a police officer over what you say. So in practice, you almost have to prove your innocence, most of the time. If you can't get off on a technicality or show that you were charged with something ridiculous that is clearly obvious to the judge, then you're screwed. To fight anything more serious than a simple ticket, you better lawyer up to get full disclosure and have a good chance in court.
I'm on your side...but...did you have a lawyer? What proof did the cop use against you? What evidence did you use in your favour? I take it you at least took pictures of the markings on the taillights? Did you file paperwork to present this in court? Because I've seen people try to show pics. to judges and they refused it as evidence, since it requires the prosecutor to have those in advance and proof where and when they were taken.
Good points. Just to be clear, I am on the car enthusiast side. I'm no lawyer, and have only been to traffic court a few times. So I'm going based on my limited experience.
With all said, though, most people just pay the ticket, or plea bargain to a lesser charge or smaller fine. So even if you don't agree with the law, most will get screwed.
Going back to the hellaflush thing...those who say handling and safety is not compromised...how do you back these statements up, and to what degree? What you may consider ok, someone more qualified may consider not acceptable. A tire whose size (width) is not designed for a particular wheel, with the sidewall stretched and the tire not allowed to flex in turns? Springs and shocks that aren't designed for the low travel and high frequency (compression and rebound) they're operating at (most cases)? Low clearances that mean you'll rub if the wheel travels too far? How does a car like this (stanced) respond in an emergency lane change, compared to the same car with a good suspension setup and the same tires on proper sized wheels? Are you 'stance' people saying it will respond better? We're not talking at drift events, we're talking everyday driving on public roads.
I'm not a hater, just not buying the whole better handling thing.
I stand by what I said. While innocent until proven guilty, most courts take the evidence and testimony of a police officer over what you say. So in practice, you almost have to prove your innocence, most of the time. If you can't get off on a technicality or show that you were charged with something ridiculous that is clearly obvious to the judge, then you're screwed. To fight anything more serious than a simple ticket, you better lawyer up to get full disclosure and have a good chance in court.
Exactly, I was fined for having tinted tail lights the 2nd day I started driving my fdThe fd taillights of course come oem with that look and when I fought it at court, I got off like it was nothing.
In other words, the cop can say whatever they want however, but at the end of the day they still are required to give you a proper explaination.
Still does not stop officers from playing the HTA book game but still gives you a valid way to fight back.
The fd taillights of course come oem with that look and when I fought it at court, I got off like it was nothing. In other words, the cop can say whatever they want however, but at the end of the day they still are required to give you a proper explaination.
Still does not stop officers from playing the HTA book game but still gives you a valid way to fight back.
I can't imagine what the hell he charged you with - there's no actual charge for that. You would only be able to charge for 'no brake lights' but that applies to vehicles with NO signalling device.
Alternatively there is Drive without proper rar light - motorvehicle, but that requires the officer to prove your tail lights aren't visible when lighted at 150 meters.
It's another case of someone only reading the short form wording (what gets written on the ticket) and not checking the actual section to see what it means.
Alternatively there is Drive without proper rar light - motorvehicle, but that requires the officer to prove your tail lights aren't visible when lighted at 150 meters.
It's another case of someone only reading the short form wording (what gets written on the ticket) and not checking the actual section to see what it means.
With all said, though, most people just pay the ticket, or plea bargain to a lesser charge or smaller fine. So even if you don't agree with the law, most will get screwed.
Going back to the hellaflush thing...those who say handling and safety is not compromised...how do you back these statements up, and to what degree? What you may consider ok, someone more qualified may consider not acceptable. A tire whose size (width) is not designed for a particular wheel, with the sidewall stretched and the tire not allowed to flex in turns? Springs and shocks that aren't designed for the low travel and high frequency (compression and rebound) they're operating at (most cases)? Low clearances that mean you'll rub if the wheel travels too far? How does a car like this (stanced) respond in an emergency lane change, compared to the same car with a good suspension setup and the same tires on proper sized wheels? Are you 'stance' people saying it will respond better? We're not talking at drift events, we're talking everyday driving on public roads.
I'm not a hater, just not buying the whole better handling thing.
11-20-14, 01:42 PM
#18
I don't think there have been any "stance" people on this thread so far - although I've seen hellaflush and stanced discussions here on rx7club.com. But it really comes down to any car lowered too much is going to have problems with bumpsteer (steering angle changes midcorner resulting from body roll or bumps, due to changes in the relative geometry of the tie rods and the control arms), changes in roll centres leading to sudden and unpredictable responses in transitions, and twitchiness in general resulting from too little suspension travel and give to be able to deal with the bumps and holes of public streets.
11-21-14, 10:52 AM
#19
Friendly stalker
Thread Starter
Write your MPP/MP or other elected official. Your agreement or otherwise with the legislation makes you no less guilty of the offence.
As you pointed out, you are not a lawyer - if you were you would understand that a defendant has no responsibilty to prove that handling is not compromised - it is the prosecutors burden of proof to prove that it is. And they have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
11-21-14, 01:32 PM
#21
Yes I am. I'm an expert witness actually. Thanks for checking.
Incorrect. The Crown has to provide disclosure to the Defendant, the defendant has zero obligation to provide the crown with anything. I have defendants use photographs they've taken almost every trial I testify in. And likewise I use photos as often as I can to show mechanical defects.
Write your MPP/MP or other elected official. Your agreement or otherwise with the legislation makes you no less guilty of the offence.
As you pointed out, you are not a lawyer - if you were you would understand that a defendant has no responsibilty to prove that handling is not compromised - it is the prosecutors burden of proof to prove that it is. And they have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
Incorrect. The Crown has to provide disclosure to the Defendant, the defendant has zero obligation to provide the crown with anything. I have defendants use photographs they've taken almost every trial I testify in. And likewise I use photos as often as I can to show mechanical defects.
Write your MPP/MP or other elected official. Your agreement or otherwise with the legislation makes you no less guilty of the offence.
As you pointed out, you are not a lawyer - if you were you would understand that a defendant has no responsibilty to prove that handling is not compromised - it is the prosecutors burden of proof to prove that it is. And they have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
But where do you stand on the issue? Maybe you can elaborate a little on your specialty? Do you really feel these cars are completely safe to drive? Do you think they handle better than a stock car in an emergency? What about compared to a car with some good springs and shocks and wheels and tires (properly sized) without all the camber? Would we all be better off not having vehicles like this on public roads?
I say this, knowing full well there are prolly thousands of less safe vehicles driving around us every day, but that's another topic.
11-21-14, 06:13 PM
#22
Friendly stalker
Thread Starter
Thank you.
I'll answer this with your own reply - As an Enforcement Officer I spend my days patrolling Ontario's highways removing unsafe vehicles and drivers from our roads, with a focus on commercial traffic.
I don't care for the look and I would agree that there's less grip and traction than a stock or track setup, but that doesn't mean that these cars can't be operated safely in our regular driving conditions. I also think you'd have to be an idiot to track something with a suspension setup like this. Well, I sure wouldn't be doing it.
Like you said, there are cars on the road that are far less safe - I see them day in and day out.
I'd be curious to know how this whole push got started. Somebody somewhere had something happen to make them put forward the idea of banning this look and then they had to convince a lot of other people that this needed to be banned. The whole province didn't just wake up one cold winter morning and think "those cars are such a problem"
I'll answer this with your own reply - As an Enforcement Officer I spend my days patrolling Ontario's highways removing unsafe vehicles and drivers from our roads, with a focus on commercial traffic.
I don't care for the look and I would agree that there's less grip and traction than a stock or track setup, but that doesn't mean that these cars can't be operated safely in our regular driving conditions. I also think you'd have to be an idiot to track something with a suspension setup like this. Well, I sure wouldn't be doing it.
Like you said, there are cars on the road that are far less safe - I see them day in and day out.
I'd be curious to know how this whole push got started. Somebody somewhere had something happen to make them put forward the idea of banning this look and then they had to convince a lot of other people that this needed to be banned. The whole province didn't just wake up one cold winter morning and think "those cars are such a problem"
12-01-14, 12:25 PM
#23
Thank god, I really hope Ontario follows.
Yes its unsafe. Heres the main reason why; Which suspension angle is it which causes tires to wear out the fastest? Camber. Now when your running stretched tires, with -10 to -15 degrees. Not only is that extreme camber going to wear the tires out way faster than stock camber, but the tire is riding on the weakest part of the tire. (This is the shoulder of the tire between sidewall and tread)
So you could imagine how fast these tires actually wear out. The shoulder isn't designed to support full vehicle weight it needs to be evenly distributed across the tire. If your unfortunate and bought some cheap chinese tires, maybe you hit one big bump or pothole and boom there goes the tire. And who knows where the car ends up could easily kill someone. I know some cars are more forgiving then others, but say an RX8 will chew through those tires so fast its not funny, they already have issues with tire wear.
Yes its unsafe. Heres the main reason why; Which suspension angle is it which causes tires to wear out the fastest? Camber. Now when your running stretched tires, with -10 to -15 degrees. Not only is that extreme camber going to wear the tires out way faster than stock camber, but the tire is riding on the weakest part of the tire. (This is the shoulder of the tire between sidewall and tread)
So you could imagine how fast these tires actually wear out. The shoulder isn't designed to support full vehicle weight it needs to be evenly distributed across the tire. If your unfortunate and bought some cheap chinese tires, maybe you hit one big bump or pothole and boom there goes the tire. And who knows where the car ends up could easily kill someone. I know some cars are more forgiving then others, but say an RX8 will chew through those tires so fast its not funny, they already have issues with tire wear.
01-11-15, 01:16 PM
#24
re-amemiya body vert
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hella fools get hella legislated. Stickers, under-glow, altezzas, shogun kits, fart can mufflers etc were an assault to the senses for sure, but 1" contact patches and bottoming out suspension is just plain dangerous. Sad when punks take it so far that the gov't has to step in.
01-12-15, 09:20 AM
#25
I believe this would be the F355 in question, middle of September at an autocross in Red Deer - too low, too stiff, too much camber, too much throttle, not enough talent. Went over a curb and over a chainlink fence (ramped up by a post), to end up where it did - narrowly missing trees on either side.
It wasn't even his car, his girlfriends fathers owned it from what I was told...
Coming out to hot and trying to impress people... Instead of trying to improve his driver skill.
J.