conditions of sale

[bolus]

well, this was a little disappointing to see.  I can understand TMI wanting to put a disclaimer but having it right on the home page has led to registration problems before

http://www.arielatom.com/conditions-of-sale

[Heywood-Yablowme]

Disappointing. What I was hoping for,was better emphasis on helping people with registration needs. Certainly a public disclaimer like this is not going to help.

Make the car OBDII compliant and compatible.It is not difficult. Put in an ALDL plug,and make sure it will pass a systems ready test. Not a toughie.

There already is a full windscreen option if so needed in ones state,and most other required equipment.Fenders,parking brake,horn etc...

If they try to sell the Atom as an off road,track only vehicle..I am afraid of the consequences I see ahead...

[Bruce Fielding]

I think it's the tone that's disappointing rather than the content.

I guess with a litigious society you need to write things in a legal-sounding way, but it's not difficult to write it in a softer way that uses most of the same words...:

Road Use:

The Ariel Atom 3 is a very special car and can be built to a number of different specifications. The nature of the legislature of different states in the USA dictates that special cars such as the Atom may require different specifications in different states to qualify as 'road legal'. To allow road registration to be more easily accomplished, therefore, Atoms may be specifically ordered, equipped or built to help satisfy those requirements.

Indeed, many Ariel Atoms have been and are currently being registered by their owners for use on public roads and highways within various US and Canadian jurisdictions. However, we're unable to provide any assurance that any Ariel Atom 3 will be able to be registered for public road or highway use within any North American jurisdiction.

So, we need to point out that the base model Ariel Atom 3 is not necessarily road legal in all states and is therefore offered for sale by TMI AutoTech, Inc. as an off-road (i.e., "track day") vehicle only. Any subsequent public road or highway registration of any Ariel Atom 3 sold is the responsibility of the individual buyer/owner and not the responsibility or liability of TMI AutoTech, Inc.

[Wmcmanus]

I guess if they want to kill the market for their own product, there isn't a whole lot that any of us can do to prevent that from happening. 

[CalScot]

I am horrified at the TMI site TBH!
I think it is very poorly written from TMI's perspective and for prospective customers. It does no favors to those future (and current) California owners. Far to risky to everyone for me to explain in great detail why on the forum.

Suffice to say, most problems with compliance, state or federal, arise from "manufactured" automobiles which have to meet Manufacturers standards. No such thing as a limited production status in the US. The TMI site basically says they "manufacture" an automobile. This is opposed to the stance I would have preferred which would have been that of a custom assembler. Basically a "kit car assembler". The base product being a rolling chassis with "engine output" choices and such. An optional service form a "separate" company or division to complete the "kit" would be OK as well. As it stands, it's a gift to those in CA who have the desire, power and inclination to deny registration.

[bolus]

The state reg forum here is protected just like the clubroom forum.  that is why I put the post here so we can speak openly. 

I cant remember who it was, but someone had the DMV look up the car when Brammo was around and they denied registration because they had "off road vehicle only" on the brammo website. 

[Heywood-Yablowme]

^I believe the owner involved was trying to get the car registered in CT,and the RMV went to the site,and located the "off road only" passage,and refused registration because of it.

There really needs to be another classification for a vehicle like the Atom...it's not really a passenger car in the formal definition...and not quite a motorcycle.

[curt]

I agree with Bruce's point that the same legal protections can be achieved with more purchaser/driver-friendly language, if the language has to appear on the website at all.  The truly harsh disclaimer(s) can be made in private or only to those who are truly interested in purchasing and are ready to make the commitment. 

Specifically, TMI should 1) delete the reference to "an off-road (i.e., "track day") vehicle only", in favor of "Unfortunately, TMI cannot make any warranty or guarantee that the Atom can be registered in any state", and 2) publicly list all of the states that have registered Atoms already.

In my state, I KNOW the website was used to research the vehicle for registration purposes and by my insurer before issuing a policy.  I was the second in my state, and I had photographs of the plates and inspection performed on the first registered vehicle, which was very helpful.

Let's give TMI the benefit of the doubt and realize they, too, can change the language that appears on the website in a way that benefits all Atom owners. 

[WorkingOnIt]

[quote="Curator"]
Disappointing. What I was hoping for,was better emphasis on helping people with registration needs.
[/quote]
[quote="Bruce Fielding"]
I guess with a litigious society you need to write things in a legal-sounding way
[/quote]

I think in this case it's over-regulated rather than litigious society.  Manufacturers of non-compliant vehicles can be subject to expensive penalties.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/kitcar.htm

Paragraphs 1. and 6. are pretty scary.  If I were TMI, I wouldn't be creating any evidence of assisting road registration.

[CalScot]

There need be no mention of any of this on a website. All needed disclosures and disclaimers can be covered "offline" as condition of acceptance of a deposit to purchase. Understandably, the website needs to inform the public of certain things, but lets be real here. Anybody who is actually going to buy an Atom is going to be a genuine car nut who will do far more research and find out all he needs to know from direct discussions and disclosures with TMI.

This website should be specifically focused on assisting the acceptance of the Atom across as many States as possible. Purporting it to be a "manufactured" Automobile fuc*'s it up for California registration purposes. No if's about it! In order to be a "specially constructed vehicle", it has to be made from a kit or a collection of parts. This site FU*CK"S that up!! Sorry to be crude here but this is a major problem for anybody in California wanting to register an Atom. It also put's at risk all who have registered.

It's no exaggeration to say this puts CA Atoms at risk!

Homer Simpson is alive and well in VA

[bolus]

[quote="WorkingOnIt"]
[quote="Curator"]
Disappointing. What I was hoping for,was better emphasis on helping people with registration needs.
[/quote]
[quote="Bruce Fielding"]
I guess with a litigious society you need to write things in a legal-sounding way
[/quote]

I think in this case it's over-regulated rather than litigious society.  Manufacturers of non-compliant vehicles can be subject to expensive penalties.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/kitcar.htm

Paragraphs 1. and 6. are pretty scary.  If I were TMI, I wouldn't be creating any evidence of assisting road registration.

[/quote]

Got to love this country huh? You can only call a kit car if you put in a used engine.  Sure wouldn't want it to be a new well working engine but more likely one that is going to be poluting more. 

[Heywood-Yablowme]

It is a good thing all you current owners of Brammo Atoms in Ca. are Atom2's...which were assembled from a kit ,and complied with all regulations set in place at the time.

Atom3 TMI owners may be in for a rude awakening if they attempt to register for public road use in any state.

Why would they make it almost impossible to register?

Not many people would own a $60k track only car,and many of them would surely choose something more track focused, if that be the case.

  Someone is pissing in the punch bowl,I believe...

[bolus]

TMI is saying it the same reason that Brammo said it, they dont want to be a passenger car manufacturer.   They would need to spend millions on crash testing and put in air bags and antilock brakes and shatter proof glass and this and that until it is identical to what every single car manufacturer sells.  If they claim it is a passenger car then they'll get it trouble. 

But there is no reason to put it on the website.  the discussions about registration can be held offline.  Just like brammo did, they can foreward those types of questions to us.  I answered questions from prospective oregon owners for brammo in the past. 

still makes me want to develop a government specific avian flu virus to kill off some of the retards making our laws.   Like the retards that made the oregon law that wont let me register an Atom under the law even though it was made for the Atom. 

Sure a home made trike is fine but put on one extra wheel and it is an instant death machine that needs regulation. 

[Alec]

It sounds to me like TMI are going down the same route as Brammo when they decribed the Atom on their site as a 'race car' which ultimately resulted in some Atoms being difficult to register or not being registered at all when the DMV checked.

As in this case I quoted back then . . . .

[quote="Alec"]
[quote="rfmarz"]
. . . . .  He went as far as to say "you're trying to license a race car", as this is what he thought he saw on Brammo's web site. . . . .
[/quote]

He didn't think he saw it, he DID see it, so you won't have an argument against this reason for not getting your Atom licensed in the US unless someone can persuade Brammo to alter their web site to not describe it as a race car.

[quote="Brammo"]
The US built Atom is designed exclusively for racing and open track days, and performs as a true racecar should!
[/quote]
[/quote]

And the refusal in Massachusetts . . . .

[quote="grk"]
Massachusetts has concluded tha Brammo is a motor vehicle manufacturer and as such the vehicle must conform to the National Highway Safety Transportation Board's (NHSTA) National Motor Safety Standards. Airbags,bumpers...Even if I got the owner installed drivetrain this would still be their conclusion. The owners manual (which was online and the RMV read) statement "for off road use only " certainly didn't help.

Unless the state is advised by the NHSTA that the Brammo and the Atom does not fall under federal regulations they will not allow it to be registered under Massachusetts kit car regulations. Massachusetts wants the cover of the federal governments blessing if I kill myself or someone else so they are not liable. I'm not holding my breath that the feds will repond at all.

Massachusetts RMV's point on a motorcycle is that it is approved by NHSTA so even though it is more dangerous it is not their call that it is on the road.
[/quote]

[WorkingOnIt]

Didn't Brammo participate in lobbying for some federal specialty vehicle legislation awhile back?  With the current concern for small business stimulus it may be a better time to pursue it.

Not helpful in the next couple months, but perhaps the only long term solution.  I've gotta think with all their investment that TMI is investigating all possibilities.