street legal ?

[gorillaxj]

the book to look for yourself.... http://publicsafety.utah.gov/safetyinspections/docs/X2009-2010 SI PLT ManuaL.pdf

hydro steering is illegal. assist is not as stated above. you MUST have a mechanical link for hydrolic failure. its viewed as the OEM steering is still present and not altered in function but has a power assist. full hydrolic is altered and bypassing the oem steering which is a fail.

B. RAISING VEHICLES
1. Check the braking and steering system components.
a. REJECT when:
1) Braking or steering systems have been altered, modified, disconnected or changed in any manner that may impair the safe operation of the vehicle.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Law versus enforcement. UHP makes the Safety Manual, which is their interpretation of the law, it is however not the law. Beadlocks fall in the same conundrum.

 

[gorillaxj]

very true. i only know what i read from the book and was taught when getting my licence. there are a lot of loop holes and blaketed statements that could or could not be considered a fail.

 

[Coco]

Right. What gorillaxj was saying. It does say in the book it is a fail, but your right, uhp makes the book, and enforces the law. So if you get the Utah law books, you can look through it yourself there.

 

[reddman]

Nothing in the steering section says hydro is illegal:

SECTION 3 - STEERING
The steering system must be inspected to determine if excessive wear and/or maladjustment of the linkage and/or steering gear exist. Vehicle must be on a smooth, dry, level surface. On vehicles equipped with power steering, the engine must be running and the fluid level, belt tension and condition must be adequate before testing.
A. LASH OR FREE PLAY
1. Measure lash at steering wheel.
a. REJECT when:
1) Steering wheel movement exceeds:
a) Power - 2 inches (51 mm)
b) Manual - 3 inches (76 mm)
c) Rack and pinion - 0.4 inch (10 mm)
Steering Lash
2 in. (51 mm) Power
3 in (76 mm) Manual
Figure P-1
B.
SIZE
1.
Check size of steering wheel.
a. REJECT when:
1) Steering wheel is less than 13 inches in outside diameter or is not of full circular construction. (SAE Recommended Practice SAE J287).
PLT Safety Inspection Manual, Effective January 1, 2009 21
STEERING - Continued
C. TRAVEL
1. Turn steering wheel through a full right and left turn, checking for binding or jamming conditions. (Brakes should not be applied during this test.)
a. REJECT when:
1) Steering is incapable of being turned fully from right to left.
2) One wheel turns before the opposite wheel.
D. POWER STEERING
1. Check condition and tension of steering belts.
a. ADVISE when:
1) Steering belts are cracked or are not properly adjusted.
b. REJECT when:
1) Belts are frayed or torn.
2. Check the condition of the steering system, hoses, hose connections, cylinders, and valves.
a. REJECT when:
1) Hoses or hose connections have a dripping leak.
2) Cylinders or valves have a dripping leak.
3. Check the condition of pump. Check for secure mounting and proper fluid level in reservoir.
a. REJECT when:
1) Pump mounting parts are loose or broken.
2) System is inoperative.
3) Reservoirs have a dripping leak.
4) Fluid level is below minimum fluid level indicators.
PLT Safety Inspection Manual, Effective January 1, 2009 22
STEERING - Continued
E. STEERING COLUMN
1. Check for separation of shear capsule from bracket and general "looseness" of wheel and column.
a. REJECT when:
1) Shear capsule is separated from bracket.
2) Wheel and column can be moved as a unit.
2. Check movement on "tilt" steering wheels.
a. REJECT when:
1) Adjustable steering wheel cannot be secured in all positions.
2) Steering column has 3/4 inch or more movement at the center of the steering wheel when locked in position.
F. IDLER ARMS AND TIE RODS
1. Check the idler arms and tie rod ends for looseness in excess of OEM specifications.
a. ADVISE when:
1) Tie rod grease seals are cut, torn or otherwise damaged to the extent that lubricant will not be retained.
b. REJECT when:
1) Has looseness in the tie rod ends in excess of OEM specifications.
2) The tie rod is bent causing the vehicle to be out of alignment.
PLT Safety Inspection Manual, Effective January 1, 2009 23
STEERING - Continued
G. RACK AND PINION
1. A thorough inspection of the complete system is needed.
a. REJECT when:
1) Has any looseness in excess of OEM specifications.
2) Has any looseness in the tie rod ends in excess of OEM specifications.
3) Has a dripping leak.
H. GEARBOX
1. Check steering gear box for proper function.
a. REJECT when:
1) Has looseness at frame or mounting.
2) Has cracks.
3) Mounting brackets are cracked.
4) Fasteners are missing.
5) Has a dripping leak.
6) Any welded repair is present.
*NOTE: Manual Steering is an ADVISE when the gear box has a dripping leak.
PLT Safety Inspection Manual, Effective January 1, 2009 24
STEERING - Continued
I. PITMAN ARM
1. Check pitman arm.
a. REJECT when:
1) Gearbox output shaft has movement inside pitman arm.
2) Any welded repair is present.
J. WHEEL BEARINGS
1. Check all wheel bearings for looseness.
With the vehicle lifted, grasp the top and bottom of the tire, rock tire in and out to determine looseness.
a. REJECT when:
1) Bearing has movement of more than 1/8 inch (measured at the outer circumference of tire).
K. COTTER PINS
1. Check steering components and axle nuts for required cotter pins.
a. REJECT when:
1) Cotter pins are missing or ineffective.



And to quote the same excerpt you did:

B. RAISING VEHICLES
1. Check the braking and steering system components.
a. REJECT when:
1) Braking or steering systems have been altered, modified, disconnected or changed in any manner that may impair the safe operation of the vehicle.


That statement does not in any way prohibit hydraulic steering, just unsafe steering setups. If full hydro is stronger and more reliable than the original design, it's totally legal according to that statement. It never says it cannot be altered, modified, disconnected, or changed at all, only that and alteration, modification, disconnection, or change cannot impair the safe operation of the vehicle. Read it again carefully.

BTW I'm really not wanting to look like a dick (although some of you probably think otherwise), I hope it's not coming off that way. I just want other wheelers to see the truth about the law. It's wording may throw you off, but it's crystal clear if you read it carefully.

 

[gorillaxj]

if you don't have a drag link or steering linkage hooked up it is DISCONNECTED. = fail

 

[hoosier]

gorillaxj is right. I asked a buddy that owns an inspection station. he said "full hydro is a fail. there is no way to accuratly operate the steering system is the vech dies. Just telling you what he said. but on the other hand there are plenty of vechs out there that are not EVEN close to legal with plates on them. just a few weeks ago I got stoped for to dark tint, tinted tails, out of state license (he could not ticket me for that one-active military ID) mod suspention, tires stick out. and all this was in my car

 

[gorillaxj]

i am not arguing that you cant get away with it, just that it is infact a fail. the UHP officer who instructed the class showed a picture of full hydro steering and said this is a fail. period. lol only reason i am being saying its for a fact fail. but it doesnt mean some kid at jiffy lube wont pass you.....

 

[reddman]

B. RAISING VEHICLES
1. Check the braking and steering system components.
a. REJECT when:
1) Braking or steering systems have been altered, modified, disconnected or changed in any manner that may impair the safe operation of the vehicle.

if you don't have a drag link or steering linkage hooked up it is DISCONNECTED. = fail

gorillaxj is right. I asked a buddy that owns an inspection station. he said "full hydro is a fail. there is no way to accuratly operate the steering system is the vech dies. Just telling you what he said. but on the other hand there are plenty of vechs out there that are not EVEN close to legal with plates on them. just a few weeks ago I got stoped for to dark tint, tinted tails, out of state license (he could not ticket me for that one-active military ID) mod suspention, tires stick out. and all this was in my car

Guys, quit asking your buddy and read the law for yourself. It's right ^ there at the top of this post. Pay special attention to the bold section. It doesn't say it can't be modified, just that the modifications must be safe. If you do a quality job setting up your full hydro system, using the correct components, smart hose selection and routing, and well built mounts, it's certainly stronger than stock, which makes it legal.

Oh and BTW, hydro is not disabled when the steering pump dies. It still can be turned manually just like a steering box.


If you guys are so confident it's explicitly illegal, head over to pirate and be the first person in the nation to claim the $500 prize for showing them the law. Just because a lot of people misunderstand the law after reading it (even a UHP), doesn't make the common misconception true.

 

[rockreligious]

I did a triangleated 4 link with swayaway air shocks on a CJ for a friend of mine(cant see shocks due to full body unless suspension is being cycled), and he got it to pass inspection in utah, hydro assist steer... I claim to know nothing about full hydro being legal, always heard it was not.

 

[gorillaxj]

ok, be in denial. I do it for a living. have been to the classes, have no need to go flex my nuts on another site, your just twisting it to fit your argument. the representative for utah who teaches the class and has been for 6 years would know the law. if there is a hydrolic leak and you lose all the fluid does it work? nope. thats why it fails.

 

[rockreligious]

ok, be in denial. I do it for a living. have been to the classes, have no need to go flex my nuts on another site, your just twisting it to fit your argument. the representative for utah who teaches the class and has been for 6 years would know the law. if there is a hydrolic leak and you lose all the fluid does it work? nope. thats why it fails.

I would think that loss of hose/fluid would render the steering system unsafe therefore fail, legal or not I wouldnt run full hydro on anything other than off-road only rig.

 

[Coco]

I too have been to the classes, I am a safety tech. Full hydro is illegal, going through the classes, they told us, full hydraulic steering is illegal, along with beadlocks. The problem with full hydro steering is it is VERY touchy and super sensitive. In a panic situation, you will react so fast, it will probably cause more harm than you are trying to avoid, and yes, you can't operate it if a line breaks, or the system fails, etc.

My dad had a jeep that he did full hydro on, and just driving around Moab heading out to the trails and such, he was having a hard time keeping it in a straight line, and he was only going 45 mph.

Hydro assist is legal, because even if you blow a hose, you can plug it, and still have manual steering. A hydraulic ram, will not allow you to do that. It is simply an offroad only system.

 

[Corban_White]

The law does not state that full hydro is illegal. Neither does it state that beadlocks are illegal. The Utah safety inspection manual (which is not the law but rather the interpretation of the law made by a select group of UHP hellbent on overstepping their bounds as law-enforcers and becoming law-makers) explicitly states that beadlocks will cause a vehicle to fail inspection (not that they are illegal) but it does not state anywhere that full hydro will cause a failure nor does it state that lack of a mechanical link for the steering will cause a failure.

I have no doubt that in the safety inspector classes it is taught that these items will cause a failure. However, the fact of the matter is that neither the law (written by the real law-makers, the Utah State Legislature) nor the Utah safety inspection manual (written by the law-enforcers who wish themselves to be law-makers (members of the UHP who sit on the safety inspection panel)) state that full hydro is illegal. Now, I myself am not a law-maker or a law-enforcer so don't cite me as reason why your vehicle should pass inspection. I am simply advocating that we all know what the law is and where the rules come from and the difference between them. I would also argue that if the UHP wants to teach that full hydro will cause a failure to pass safety they should include it in the document they themselves write which governs the safety inspection procedure. Otherwise-I would argue-the safety inspector cannot fail someone who has it unless the inspector can and does prove that the installed system is in violation of an existing law.

 

[cannoncrawler]

ok, be in denial. I do it for a living. have been to the classes, have no need to go flex my nuts on another site, your just twisting it to fit your argument. the representative for utah who teaches the class and has been for 6 years would know the law. if there is a hydrolic leak and you lose all the fluid does it work? nope. thats why it fails.

but what about HYDRAULIC systems?

The law does not state that full hydro is illegal. Neither does it state that beadlocks are illegal. The Utah safety inspection manual (which is not the law but rather the interpretation of the law made by a select group of UHP hellbent on overstepping their bounds as law-enforcers and becoming law-makers) explicitly states that beadlocks will cause a vehicle to fail inspection (not that they are illegal) but it does not state anywhere that full hydro will cause a failure nor does it state that lack of a mechanical link for the steering will cause a failure.

I have no doubt that in the safety inspector classes it is taught that these items will cause a failure. However, the fact of the matter is that neither the law (written by the real law-makers, the Utah State Legislature) nor the Utah safety inspection manual (written by the law-enforcers who wish themselves to be law-makers (members of the UHP who sit on the safety inspection panel)) state that full hydro is illegal. Now, I myself am not a law-maker or a law-enforcer so don't cite me as reason why your vehicle should pass inspection. I am simply advocating that we all know what the law is and where the rules come from and the difference between them. I would also argue that if the UHP wants to teach that full hydro will cause a failure to pass safety they should include it in the document they themselves write which governs the safety inspection procedure. Otherwise-I would argue-the safety inspector cannot fail someone who has it unless the inspector can and does prove that the installed system is in violation of an existing law.

well said!


also:
$100 liftlaws.com Bounty- Anyone that provides us documentation showing that full hydro steering is illegal (in states other than Tennessee) or sends us a copy of a fix-it ticket that they received for having a full hydraulic system will have $100 donated to the Blue Ribbon Coalition in their name.


To be perfectly clear, I am calling you out, Gorrillaxj and going up! Go claim your prize and report back! Enough of the E badassery.

 

[reddman]

The law does not state that full hydro is illegal. Neither does it state that beadlocks are illegal. The Utah safety inspection manual (which is not the law but rather the interpretation of the law made by a select group of UHP hellbent on overstepping their bounds as law-enforcers and becoming law-makers) explicitly states that beadlocks will cause a vehicle to fail inspection (not that they are illegal) but it does not state anywhere that full hydro will cause a failure nor does it state that lack of a mechanical link for the steering will cause a failure.

I have no doubt that in the safety inspector classes it is taught that these items will cause a failure. However, the fact of the matter is that neither the law (written by the real law-makers, the Utah State Legislature) nor the Utah safety inspection manual (written by the law-enforcers who wish themselves to be law-makers (members of the UHP who sit on the safety inspection panel)) state that full hydro is illegal. Now, I myself am not a law-maker or a law-enforcer so don't cite me as reason why your vehicle should pass inspection. I am simply advocating that we all know what the law is and where the rules come from and the difference between them. I would also argue that if the UHP wants to teach that full hydro will cause a failure to pass safety they should include it in the document they themselves write which governs the safety inspection procedure. Otherwise-I would argue-the safety inspector cannot fail someone who has it unless the inspector can and does prove that the installed system is in violation of an existing law.

Thank you for more clarifying my point more eloquently than I am capable of.

To be perfectly clear, I am calling you out, Gorrillaxj and going up! Go claim your prize and report back! Enough of the E badassery.

Not trying to stir up more s#!t, but I have to say that just because someone is a certified inspector, they aren't necessarily the absolute authority on the subject. Attending a 2 hour class and passing a test with 80% or better accuracy isn't exactly going to throw me back in my seat and make me say, "Wow, there's no way this guy could be wrong!"

 

[Coco]

Takes a little more than 2 hours... But no worries, if you guys get your full hydro and beadlock'D vehicles, to pass, good for you! I know what I was taught, I will continue to do it the way I was taught. I won't lose my license, get fined, or in the worst case scenario go to jail for passing a vehicle with full hydro, or beadlocks. I won't be responsible for passing a vehicle with with full hydro, then having that person kill someone, or themselves because there system failed, or they swerved to miss debris in the road, and rolled the vehicle, because the system reacts so fast.

If you guys could see it from our perspectives you would know why it isn't exactly a "not in the rules, must be ok" move.

 

[gorillaxj]

Thank you for more clarifying my point more eloquently than I am capable of.






Not trying to stir up more s#!t, but I have to say that just because someone is a certified inspector, they aren't necessarily the absolute authority on the subject. Attending a 2 hour class and passing a test with 80% or better accuracy isn't exactly going to throw me back in my seat and make me say, "Wow, there's no way this guy could be wrong!"

I wasn't trying to make it sound as though since I've been to a class I know all, because i don't. just saying I am not Joe Blow who heard from some guy who know someone at a tire shop... I am interested in debating things, hence why i was. and also trying to show what I was shown and how it was explained to me in the "Utah state inspection class". I am not a bench Mark or level of the "law" or even an enforcer of it, just inspect them as taught by the enforcers.... I could care less if someone gets away with it or not. but I also don't think its a good approach to tell people its perfectly fine and legal, when it could be a red flag and expensive to redo when they "could" fail inspection. thats my only point. it isn't clear and doesn't state yes, or no in the book. however they do state it is illegal in the class to have full hydro steering on passenger cars and light trucks.

 

[Coco]

Well said gorilla!

 

[Ima9er]

in my defense just driving around my neighborhood, i WOULD never want to drive my jeep on the freeway or going high speed. just like a lot of people have said... its so fast or touchy. all i care to do is just drive it around on the streets in moab so i don't get pulled over by the fine police officers down there, and i also just want to cruise to the nearest gas station or what not. i don't have a rear bumper on my jeep as of right now, in time ill be building one with a tire carrier. i'm still gonna try to get it to pass just for the moab reason... but in defense of the guys saying its not illegial, the laws in utah are all messed up. i used to have an eagle talon that was dropped 2 inches with low profile tires. i got pulled over by a sandy cop and he tried to tell me that my car was to low to the ground. and if im correct the law states that you have to be 1 to 2 inches above the bottom of your rim. i know this has nothing to do with this topic but im just putting my 2 cents in that the law is stupid on little tacky things.