If I'm going to err in one direction or the other, I'll err in favor of kicking the EPA in the teeth.
The 07 and 011 commercial truck emissions equipment result in approx 30% of the service calls and tows my business does. All of those costs get passed on to the consumer. You know the largest vehicular polluters in most urban areas? Those stupid legacy municipal buses(2 cycle in some cases!). Might as well just burn a pile of tires. S/F....Ken M
Burdizzo wrote:You would think an annual safety inspection and/or emissions test for vehicles on the street would be able to address this issue.
Negative. Those types of things are pure revenue sources for the state. (and local shops) It's been batted around here in NC to drop that useless crap, but there's too much money in it -- $6 to the gubment, and $23 to whoever does the inspection. That last part is why places want to be able to do as many inspections per hour as possible. So, as you might predict, the "test" isn't any actual test; for OBDII cars, the station simply asks the easily-programmed-to-lie ECU "are you in spec" to which it'll always say "sure, whatever." NC used to perform actual emissions tests (decades ago), but that was expensive (upkeep, calibration, etc.) and time consuming (20-30min to get a car in and out)
Perhaps my sarcasm didn't convey well. The EPA and the states with delegated authority could enforce this rule if they 1) adequately trained and staffed inspection stations, 2) weren't prey to corruption, and 3) didn't make it such a pain in the ass to the public. But they won't. The result is more over-reaching regulation that they already lack the staff to enforce. And then what happens is they'll single out a group of people and make examples out of them in an effort to scare the rest of the public into compliance. This rule will be poorly enforced and forgotten about until one day they show up at a crapcan race and write tickets to all the competitors, the organizers, the track owners, and all the non-compliant part suppliers. And all the rest of the sanctioning bodies will fall in line or shut down because they don't want to be hassled by The Man, and all the fun will be gone.
I think that's got basically no chance of happening. Aside from the legal and logistic issues (all of the stuff that will be illegal going forward has actually been illegal for years), this really isn't about us. Mostly because we're not the ones who buy the stuff that they're worried about.
For years, the aftermarket industry has sold products for street cars that were specifically intended to bypass emissions controls by labeling them as only for race cars.
Now the government either has to prove that the products were not used at a race track, which is practically (and logically) impossible, or they have to say that they care about race cars, which while untrue, will let them close the loophole and stop the manufacturers from making those products.
SEMA now has to say "THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR RACE CARS AWAY!!!!", because the truth, which is that "SOME OF THE MANUFACTURERS IN THE $36,000,000,000 INDUSTRY THAT WE LOBBY FOR WILL MAKE LESS MONEY!!!!!", is not really that great of a rallying cry, unless of course you are the lobbying organization for a multi-billion dollar industry.
I'm almost certain that the feds are not going to be at CMP to take the Duff car away.
Here's a good article about it:
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/no- … -race-car/
I doubt they'll make less profit, they'll just stop making parts for the oddball stuff that's not worth certifying with the CARB nazis. So I hope you like LS garbage because that's all that'll be available.
And the crap thing is that this is simply gov't overreach for minimal productivity. The total emission contribution from enthusiast cars running non-CARB parts is far less than the emissions from fly by night commercial truck companies still operating worn out 1990's Mack R types hauling local where they never have to cross scales or deal with DOT. S/F....Ken M
I like my stock motor.
As for the rest of it, nobody's saying that it's a good or productive idea. It's as good and productive as any other idea that comes out of a large government bureaucracy. But the idea that this will target or even significantly hamper us (low-budget endurance racers) is almost definitely wrong.
rmcdaniels wrote:cheseroo wrote:After all, this is a byproduct of the aftermarket parts suppliers who slap a "For racing use only" sticker on a part and market it to fit 2016 street cars and not the automakers.
Bingo! This really isn't about us. Nobody actually cares about street cars that are used on the track. For many years, the aftermarket performance industry has sold parts that are illegal to use on the street because they had a loophole; they just had to put a disclaimer that the product "is never to be used on a vehicle used on a public street", because the product could be used on a street car at the track. In almost all cases, they are used on the street. This is just an attempt at closing the loophole because it has been universally abused. There is a massive industry that makes products that are almost always used illegally. That industry is now trying to get the track community to pull their asses out of the sling that they have fashioned for themselves by flaunting the law. This will be used to go after the manufacturers, not the racers, although it will make some aftermarket parts more expensive and difficult to buy. I don't see this as the end of crapcan racing.
You would think an annual safety inspection and/or emissions test for vehicles on the street would be able to address this issue. That's probably too much to ask of some flunky making $15/hour.
Never underestimate the potential for the government to suck all the fun out of a room.
That was easily defeated, especially when the states went to ODBII emissions inspections. All you had to do was reprogram the ECU to report all was well with the world and life was good. I used to own a heavily modified Corvette and never had a problem passing emissions even though I had long tube headers, new camshaft and a host of other go fast parts.
The computer reported that all was okay with the world so it passed with flying colors.
I like my stock motor.
As for the rest of it, nobody's saying that it's a good or productive idea. It's as good and productive as any other idea that comes out of a large government bureaucracy. But the idea that this will target or even significantly hamper us (low-budget endurance racers) is almost definitely wrong.
I think what people are arguing is that just because this new rule is meant to target someone else doesn't mean it can't or won't be used against a different group in the future. History and the law has plenty of cases where a rule designed to target one activity eventually gets broadened and used against other activities. Several arguments have been made that this rule as written is broad enough to catch a lot of fish, from parts manufacturers to weekend racers.
OTOH, this is 'Murica where we are all free to whistle past the graveyard.
Except that the stuff that racers do is already illegal. It always has been. The new rule doesn't change that at all. No new racer is targeted. No new activity is targeted. Unless your race car has a snowmobile engine, in which case you still probably don't have anything to worry about, but then yeah, you are newly targeted.
Here is my congressman's (Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, CA 11th District) response:
"Dear Mr. Bauman:
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue.
I share your concerns and support the use of evidence-based public policy to protect the environment and the public. I strongly support policies, such as EPA’s Clean Power Plan that will reduce the dangers of pollution and conserve the environment. As a member of the House Safe Climate Caucus, I support policies that promote environmental health, reduce the dangers of pollution, and conserve the environment for future generations.
As you may know, the proposed language in the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas rulemaking clarifies the distinction between motor vehicles and non-road vehicles such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Unlike motor vehicles — which include cars, light trucks, and highway motorcycles — non-road vehicles may, under certain circumstances, be modified for use in competitive events in ways that would otherwise be prohibited by the Clean Air Act.
This clarification does not affect EPA's enforcement authority. It is still illegal to tamper with or defeat the emission control systems of motor vehicles. Should this proposal come to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for a vote, please know I will keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I may be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office."
And my reply:
"Thank you for your reply, Mark. I can only assume that you support the EPA's classification of competition-only vehicles as being covered under the authority of the Clean Air Act ,although historical precedent, congressional intent and discourse, and EPA practices over the last thirty years have classified such vehicles as non-regulated under the CAA.
You mention your support for "evidence-based" public policy. Please cite the evidence that amateur motorsports is a credible, clear and present threat to the environment that necessitates removing the freedoms and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
If your position is that you support the EPA's hubris and creation of new legislation by reinterpretation of existing regulation, we'll have to be certain that the large numbers of amateur motorsports participants, hot rod and street rod builders and owners, and all the others in your district that support industries related to these hobbies are fully aware that you do not support their freedoms when it comes to building competition only vehicles.
These constituents vote. Please make sure they are fully informed as to your position in this matter that affects them directly and severely.
Thank you for your time and attention.
As you may have seen, H.R.4715 (and S.2659) were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (and the Senate) last Monday. The "Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016", a/k/a RPM Act, would amend the Clean Air Act at 42 U.S.C 7522 to clarify that competition motor vehicles, including those converted from street use to race-only use, are not regulated under the CAA. This would eliminate any question about jurisdiction of the EPA over race cars that started their lives as street cars.
The House version of the bill was assigned to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The first hearing on the proposed legislation is being held beginning at 10am EDT tomorrow by the Oversight Committee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. If you have any interest in watching the sausage being made, the hearing will be streamed live on youtube at these two links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJDTLoVQJGM
EPA is a no-show at this hearing. Shocker. Here is a list of members of this committee:
https://energycommerce.house.gov/about- … ee-members
Don't be shy. Contact these reps and let them know your position.
More news on the subject:
http://watchdog.org/259516/epa-car-racing/
Well, yay. Actual congressional action. I've emailed my congressperson and two Senators. Since the hearing was chaired by the Republican congressman who is the chairman of the committee that the subcommittee is part of - chances seem good it will get out of committee, go to the floor and get passed by both the House and Senate. Also, the title of the hearing seems to suggest the committee's mind is made up - "Oversight Subcommittee Hearing - Racing to Regulate: EPA’s Latest Overreach on Amateur Drivers."
Although, when did Congress start branding committee meetings like a bad PR agent? Seems... what the word? Stupid.