Here's another viewpoint:
http://www.snopes.com%2Fepa-seeks-ba...2F&h=PAQE89sVi
Here's another viewpoint:
http://www.snopes.com%2Fepa-seeks-ba...2F&h=PAQE89sVi
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views and opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR. thanks, Brian McCarthy, BOD area 9.
Originally Posted by budawe
This link might work better: http://www.snopes.com/epa-seeks-ban-...r-conversions/
"If they outlaw racecars, only outlaws will drive racecars."
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
The above reference makes one think that "our" EPA is coming after the racing community and simply preparing for an assault on all racers.... IMHO a broad interpretation could demand that ALL production engines manufactured for road use could be forced to use all pollution controls... hmmmm...
Last edited by racerdad2; 02.14.16 at 6:47 PM. Reason: grammatical
"An analog man living in a digital world"
Epa
I've got it... I'm changing my Duratec out for a VW TDI on Bio Diesel..... oh hold on, that won't work either.
Honestly the EPA needs to clean up what's happening in their own back yard before putting the squeeze on the racing community. It baffles me why governmental agencies go after some of the strangest topics to police while the obvious escapes them.
Linz
[QUOTE=John Nesbitt;499604]This link might work better: http://www.snopes.com/epa-seeks-ban-...r-conversions/
Changing the scope to which a law and/or regulation applies is in fact a change to that law and/or regulation. EPA's response is a bunch of double-talk. If EPA has no intent to apply the rule to cars that are driven only on a track it should state so unequivocally.
[QUOTE=Tim7175;499659]No - they should have it actually written into the law so that some future do-gooder cannot start enforcing the pertinent wording. As we all have seen in the past, if a laws wording can legitimately be "interpreted" a certain way favorable to the government's pocketbook or someone's idea of "correctness", it will eventually get interpreted and enforced exactly that way.
IMHO... I believe the good folks at the EPA are concerned with the growing number of Hot Rods, Street Rods, Customs, Low Riders, Ricers, Tuners, Drifters, Muscle Cars, Super Cars, Modified Street Cars that are ignoring the intent of the mandated emission controls on ALL autos & trucks sold in the US.
From Cat delete diesels, after market Turbocharged imports, Nitrous Injected engines, etc. I believe they see this rapidly growing trend of modified cars & trucks on our roads as defeating their pollution controls and the mandated safety improvements required by law...
IOW... Drive your cars and trucks on the public roads as they were delivered from the manufacturers or get them off our highways... Build a Race Car or Truck ? Keep it on the sanctioned track and off the streets...
I believe the good folks at the EPA feel as though we car guys and gals have snubbed our collective noses at their rules a bit too much for a bit too long....
And a question ? Is it still illegal in California to replace your polluting original equipment engine in your older auto with a far cleaner and far more efficient modern day engine ?
"An analog man living in a digital world"
The "good folks at the EPA" need to remember who they actually work for...
Is this a "Do you still beat your wife?" type question? I don't believe that was ever illegal.
You can replace the engine in your car/truck with a newer model from the same class (cars and trucks under 1 ton are all considered the same class for CA smog concerns) as long as ALL emission related components from the newer model are also swapped over....from the fuel tank to the OBDII port if equipped.
You also have the pleasure of dealing with a referee station every 2 years when you need a smog check. Somebody that is supposed to be well versed enough in such things to make sure your conversion is complete and properly functioning.
....new lawnmowers have to be CARB (California Air Resource Board) compliant. Dirt bikes that aren't "clean enough" get issued a RED sticker instead of the GREEN sticker. The months that you are allowed to ride those RED sticker off-road bikes are limited.
Can't wait to get out of this place.....it is 90 degrees and sunny though...
Come on over to Comminecticut Daryl. 25 year old and older cars have no safety or emissions inspection. Oh, it's -4 degrees and snowing by the way.
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
With respect, they don't work for the racing community.The "good folks at the EPA" need to remember who they actually work for...
Have to agree with racerdad a few posts back.
Jim
I wish I understood everything I know.
The way I read it formula cars will either need to retain the emissions controls or use non-production based engines. SRF Ford blocks, HONDA FIT blocks, Toyotas, Zetecs, Mazda FEs etc. You may need to use a pre smog block and potentially even using a newer head or other part. If it does not include grandfathering this could be devastating.
You can just sit all your parts to be cryo treated outside!
Checks and balances
[QUOTE=R. Pare;499662]No problem Richard, if the EPA oversteps the Supreme Court will keep them in check.
No - they should have it actually written into the law so that some future do-gooder cannot start enforcing the pertinent wording. As we all have seen in the past, if a laws wording can legitimately be "interpreted" a certain way favorable to the government's pocketbook or someone's idea of "correctness", it will eventually get interpreted and enforced exactly that way.
Lola: When four springs just aren't enough.
You're reading it wrong. Formula cars are not "motor vehicles" (they cannot be registered as either on- or off-road vehicles) and do not fall under the purview of EPA.
No, he's not. There are separate clauses for modifying a certified engine regardless of how it's used. I'm not sure what the boundaries are of a certified engine. If it's just shipping under a different SKU, that's no big deal, if it's a whole engine family, than that's a far bigger problem, and it's a problem for just about everyone not racing F1, LMP or IndyCars.
Similar to a lot of people, I suspect this is about going after the industry that puts "For offroad use only" on the box of parts that 99% of the time are used on the street. Whether it will inevitably be used to pursue race cars is different story.
I do agree that auto enthusiasts in general don't help themselves. Blatant disregard for rules, seemingly justified by the theory that they don't think the rules should apply to them seems to be the trend or that they're too small of a community to matter. And then irrational responses ("**** the EPA") just compound the impression of poor behavior.
And there's an educational component as well. Car/racing enthusiasts assume that everyone understands their thing, they don't. People in the US probably generally get NASCAR, some probably get IndyCar. One or two of the non-car people you know have some idea of high level drag racing. Club racing? LeMons? Drifting? Amateur drag racing? Yeah, they have no idea and probably think you're street racing. They have no idea what happens with the cars (just read the car blog posts about amateur racing and see how uneducated even car guys can be).
I doubt many of the lawyers at the EPA know much. It might be that they want to smite racing, or it might just be that they don't know better. Seriously, rather than getting pissed about this, reach out. Invite some of the EPA's people to a race weekend and explain why they exist. Host a couple of them at an autocross, whatever it takes.
Last, the EPA, CARB, what have you, may be unpopular. That said, I recently spent 2 weeks outside Shanghai. I now have some idea of what smoggy days in LA used to be like. I'm willing to deal with the restrictions to not have to deal with that level of smog.
Patrick Cleary
Let me start off with **** the EPA, followed by another **** C.A.R.B.
I grew up in Southern California in the 70's and remember many a "Stage 3 Smog Day"....you couldn't even go outside at recess. The SMOG levels are much better these days. I love an' old muscle car/street rod but I want to hear you a block away not smell your poorly tuned engine. So I appreciate the strides that have been made.
However, these proposals are a feel good measure. It's not really doing anything significant. More air pollution is created every hour at LAX than all the SCCA races in CA the whole season. They are focusing their attention in the wrong areas for all the right rea$on$.
We've made incredible gains in the power, efficiency and emissions of today's engines. The lowly lawn mower engine is one of the most polluting today. A bit mind boggling of just how many of these engines are out there. Add in the leaf blowers, weed eaters and chain saws...
We do need to reach out to our governing entities and make some friends.
"An analog man living in a digital world"
One of the things I know has changed in recent years is that more vendors are going to CARB for approval of their products. Look at all the performance website and you will see, headers, intakes, etc all CARB compliant.
These vendors are PAYING for testing and PAYING fees to CARB to get the product approved....
CARB for the most part is a more restrictive agency but they have been approving more and more aftermarket products.
BUT, technically, they violate EPA rules because the EPA rules say "no changes".
They don't say "no changes unless approved by CARB."
Could this be a pissing match between CARB and the EPA?
I've lived in the Santa Barbara area all my life and remember getting "your smog"
We felt it here. Don't think my kids ever experienced that.....
There is a difference between an old car and an old muscle car though.
I think the poorly tuned is a minority - especially with valuable cars.
My biggest complaint with CARB and the "bi-annual" smog process is that it has too big of tolerances. I have a v8 car that could be deemed illegal. When smog tested it is clean-clean-clean.
My neighbors kid drives a Honda with what I assume is a broken ring.
Smells like crazy but passes smog.
I spend money to keep my car clean running (pro tuneups, etc).
They spend ZERO on their 300k mi Honda.
I'm bad, they're good.
Based on probably sketchy internet data, Jet engines get about 10 passenger-miles per gallon than a good commuter car. They're up 55% from fuel mileage in the 60's. And I believe the FAA and the EPA can also require commercial airlines to update or ground aircraft. I suspect they're doing plenty to improve those fields. Airlines also have a very real desire to build highly efficient aircraft and they're definitely not modifying aircraft for the hell of it.
In this case the EPA presumably thought they could make an impact with the addition of one sentence. How are they making money off of this? Having followed a bro-dozer rolling coal the other day because he didn't like the fact that I didn't speed enough for him, I'm okay with it.
Patrick Cleary
Ah, missed that part then. Pretty aggressive of them. But at least some manufacturers make non-certified "crate engines" available, and you can buy just a short block which is obviously uncertified. So perhaps not as bad as it sounds at first glance, even if they are really going to be gung-ho about it.
Yeah but you have to look at the transport capability per pound of emissions. Those ocean freighters pollute like crazy but look how much they transport. I'm not saying that the numbers are better for passenger or even cargo travel by air, but it may not be as bad as all that. Even if the pollution is higher in an hour at LAX, look at the utility value vs the utility of all SCCA races combined (hinit: near zero).
That said I do agree with you that the focus is wrong. At any motorsports event there are so many emissions that come from people going to and from the game that it makes what happens on track absolutely insignificant. So football is just as bad if not worse (more in attendance) than any motorsports event.
The problem they have is they only have a blunt instrument. They probably don't care about motorsports per se but they also don't care if it is caught up in the dragnet. I think they are doing the right thing -- enforce as strictly as possible and let Congress sort it out.
The airlines care about miles per gallon. The EPA (and all of us should) care about pounds of harmful emissions per hour [or other unit].
At cruising altitude with a full plane. Doesn't factor in short trips where take-off consumption is a larger percentage of the total fuel usage.
As far as the football games go...depends on the team. The 49rs parking lot probably has a whole bunch of Prius in the lot, the Cowboys, not so much. However, those Prius owners sure feel good about not using gasoline, when their electricity was generated in a relatively dirty environment with fewer regulations. Then there's the matter of the battery production and later disposal. Again, I argue it's a "feel good" measure without much real net effect.
How about we fix the problem instead of treat the symptom. Only Congress is authorized to make legislation. If we have an issue with them, we vote them out or recall them. The EPA and all other agencies aren't authorized, Constitutionally, to make legislation. But yet they do it every day! Congress opened Pandora's Box by creating the EPA, and other agencies, and now we have to deal with it, not Congress. Passing the buck was never in their job description!
Now that the EPA has turned their sights on motorsports, maybe we should threaten the Congress to do their job and stop outsourcing it to far too many creative agencies. Sure, the EPA can do studies and make recomendations, but ONLY the Congress should make the legislation that effects any of us. That's why they are called "representatives". If we have an issue with their conduct, we have remedies. What recourse do we have with the EPA, IRS, DOE, or any other alphabet agency? We racers understand the KISS method. It's long past overdue to use it for government.
Our minority of sporty car types isn't going to get us far, but our fans in the roundy-round world could be a force to be reckoned with. I wouldn't want to be a representative when those ticked-off stockcar fans start talking of tar and feathers! Remember all the major corporations that sponsor racing. Those fans have a loud voice. You can bet the corporations will listen to them if sales are threatened. The corporate stuffed suits will make their way to DC also!
EPA and SEMA Race Car Conversion
I received this from SEMA this morning. It is an update to the EPA conversion of street cars to race cars.
By SEMA Washington, D.C., staff
SEMA is supporting Capitol Hill allies on legislation that will clearly exempt from the Clean Air Act street vehicles converted to racecars for competition-only use. As previously reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal.
“Despite recent indications that the EPA is considering a new rulemaking to request additional public comment on its proposed racecar rule, it is now clear that an amendment to the Clean Air Act will effectively end any debate over the exemption of motor vehicles converted for competition use. SEMA views congressional action as a decisive step to settle this issue once and for all,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “The EPA is attempting to write a new interpretation into the regulations. The racing community and parts makers need the certainty that legislation will provide.”
Graham
EPA Abandons Proposal
EPA Abandons Proposal to Ban Converting Street Cars for Racing
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorspo...rs-for-racing/
Jim
I wish I understood everything I know.
My understanding is they plan to re-word and re-propose later.
I think the motorsports protection act should continue their effort.
This article quotes EPA stating they are dropping it. Can you post a link to the source that reports otherwise?
Jim
I wish I understood everything I know.
Its all in the wording with politicians:
“Since our attempt to clarify led to confusion, EPA has decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.”
Meaning its gone from this 2015 rule. That's all....
A law needs to be passed so it's pointless for them to re-insert it into other proposals.
Went through this recently with a local RV parking regulation. The board in charge took public comment and agreed we shouldn't ban RV parking which was written into proposed muni codes.
The board asked the city staff to remove it and they kept dodging the issue and said they would come up with alternate wording later.
Finally, one of the board members said "Here's the only acceptable wording: RV parking is permitted."
Until someone gets the EPA to say "It okay to convert a production car into a race car and remove smog equipment", this will be back like a bad rash.....
No More Production Class Cars? Easy link to send letter
I'm not so sure that it's to late to tell your government representatives your thoughts so here is a link provided by SEMA that will let you send a letter directly to them. I think when you enter your info and zip code it populates your representative info and has a pre written letter that you can send off.
https://www.votervoice.net/SEMA/campaigns/45394/respond
Just so you guys know, SEMA is still trying to get the RPM act passed. If that gets successfully passed, it will protect us from this kind of thing in the future.
I have learned this week that the EPA has rescinded the ruling regarding modification of street cars for competition. SCCA through ACCUS and other organizations like SEMA have pursued this issue and got it changed.
Here's the link:https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views and opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR. thanks, Brian McCarthy, BOD area 9.
The clearest they've been on the issue:
I still think they are dancing around the issue: Race Cars (even converted production cars) should be exempt from pollution control....And EPA supports motorsports and its contributions to the American economy and communities all across the country. EPA’s focus is not on vehicles built or used exclusively for racing, but on companies that don’t play by the rules and that make and sell products that disable pollution controls on motor vehicles used on public roads. These unlawful defeat devices pump dangerous and illegal pollution into the air we breathe.
The proposed language in the July 2015 proposal was never intended to represent any change in the law or in EPA’s policies or practices towards dedicated competition vehicles. Since our attempt to clarify led to confusion, EPA has decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.
The Agency will continue to engage with the racing industry and others about ways to ensure that EPA supports racing and while maintaining the Agency’s focus where it has always been: reducing pollution from the cars and trucks that travel along America’s roadways and through our neighborhoods.
The law says it's illegal to remove factory/production pollution control devices.
It does not say ".... except for use as a non-road vehicle".
Basically they have always maintained that once the equipment is installed it can never come off.... and this does nothing to clarify/change that position.
I think the idea is they have clarified that their reach does not extend to competition-only vehicles. Therefore they do not need language excepting that.
Just like their reach does not extend to Canada or Mexico or ROW or to lunar landers so they don't need to list all the things it does not apply to.
I have always thought the EPA is concerned about modified street cars that continue to be used as daily drivers. While parts suppliers continue to have non-compliance statements in their advertising, the sellers of these parts make no provisions to prevent illegal use and the EPA is concerned about that issue. In states that have annual inspections, the cars are reflashed or returned to stock configuration for testing then remodified after passing.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views and opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR. thanks, Brian McCarthy, BOD area 9.
I think you're too trusting... and wrong...
Until they specifically say something, inferring it dangerous.
A race track is a factory. Call it a fun factory, call it R&D.
EPA regulates factory emissions...even cattle farts.
If it touches the air, water or ground, they want a say.
Why would they give up their reach to regulate anything?
They believe EVERYTHING is in their reach.
This is true. So how can they fix it?
I agree with the legitimate concern.
But putting the burden on manufacturers is another tax.
And considering the number of cars on the road and how many are modified, we would be better off spending our tax dollars buying hybrids for poor people driving pollution spewing - but legal - vehicles...
I've talked to manufacturers about CARB compliance. A large portion of products such as headers and intakes that maintain smog equipment are not CARB certified because of the cost of testing - not because they wouldn't pass.
Then there is the flip side to all this. We all look at CARB compliance as the universal stamp of approval, BUT, do you realize that CARB compliance does not make the product legal?
Go back to the Federal rules: You cannot alter factory pollution control equipment. It does not say "unless its CARB compliant"....
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote