According to SEMA, newly proposed EPA rules could outlaw the modification of street cars to race cars.
SEMA says: "The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track."
SEMA is fighting for us, and the EPA has indicated that it expects to publish final regulations by July …
And view the discussion already in progress here. https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/this-is-not-good-wtf-epa/110292/page1/
Oooo, JG and Ed are gonna have a fight...
Keith Tanner wrote: Oooo, JG and Ed are gonna have a fight...
Nah. I fell for it, too, 25 years ago when I got their semi-annual press release about how the sky was falling and the bad men were coming to take your Holley Dual-Planes and Hedman Headers. In a few years after he has a stack of those press releases in his in basket he'll get numb, too.
Either way, it's good we have people fighting to keep us in racecars and guns. Rest assured, there are plenty of those who would take them away. Best not to get complacent.
1988RedT2 wrote: Either way, it's good we have people fighting to keep us in racecars and guns. Rest assured, there are plenty of those who would take them away. Best not to get complacent.
Eh, I'm not going so far as to say "they" want to take anything—whether it be guns, turbos, porns, or whatever. But checks need glances and balances need checks. As long as there's discussion—and, yeah, maybe even heated discussion—I think it's good for everyone because it educates. Ultimately it's not about control so much as it is fear of the unknown. I'm not a particular fan of using that fear as a marketing tool (I'm looking at you, NRA and SEMA), but ultimately I think it's good that each side has strong representation in the discussion.
As I said in another post, the best thing we can do in the hobby is to demand quality parts and support the companies that build them. And especially support suppliers that directly support your interests, whether through sponsorship or participation or whatever. The strongest and safest markets are those that look out for themselves.
JG Pasterjak wrote: "they" want to take ... porns
Wait a minute here. Someone is trying to take my porn?
Stampie wrote:JG Pasterjak wrote: "they" want to take ... pornsWait a minute here. Someone is trying to take my porn?
Nobody from the government can tell me what to do with my off-highway road-race pornography.
ssswitch wrote:Stampie wrote:Nobody from the government can tell me what to do with my off-highway road-race pornography.JG Pasterjak wrote: "they" want to take ... pornsWait a minute here. Someone is trying to take my porn?
Congrats, Margie, you're a pimp. 
Ed Higginbotham wrote: According to SEMA, [newly proposed EPA rules] could outlaw the modification of street cars to race cars.
No, it couldn't. Modifying a street car into a race car does not necessitate the removal, or defeating, of emissions control devices.
Driven5 wrote:Ed Higginbotham wrote: According to SEMA, [newly proposed EPA rules] could outlaw the modification of street cars to race cars.No, it couldn't. Modifying a street car into a race car does not necessitate the removal, or defeating, of emissions control devices.
Don't bring clear thinking and reality into this thread, or the other thread on this subject! Only emotional rants are allowed. This is strictly a no thinking zone!
The big issue I have is when they start banning high flow cats (like NY has already done) because they're not CARB approved (even though the EPA says they're fine). So then you're stuck with a stock cat setup, which on some cars can mean you can barely make more than stock power, no matter what you do.
In reply to rslifkin:
If the cats are real, and work, there will always be a way for them to be approved.
Btw, New York is one of the California states.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to rslifkin: If the cats are real, and work, there will always be a way for them to be approved. Btw, New York is one of the California states.
The problem comes in EPA vs CARB approval. There are plenty of high flows that meet the EPA requirements and will pass a sniffer test, but unless it's a stock replacement for the vehicle it's going in (same size, etc.) CARB won't put an exemption number on it, so NY and Cali won't allow you to run it. NY isn't checking for that at inspections yet, but they've made it illegal for a shop to install them or anyone to sell them within NY (even Summit won't ship high flows to NY addresses anymore).
In reply to rslifkin:
High flow cats are not banned. They have a more rigorous approval process in California and other green states.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to rslifkin: High flow cats are not banned. They have a more rigorous approval process in California and other green states.
Can you find me a high flow with a CARB exemption number on it? I've never been able to find one, and that exemption number is what determines if it's legal or not in a state that fully follows CARB stuff (rather than just requiring CARB specs on new cars but not caring after that).
In reply to rslifkin:
All you are telling me is that the makers don't want to go through the process to make them legal.
When I get back to work, I'll link the process from CARB.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to rslifkin: All you are telling me is that the makers don't want to go through the process to make them legal. When I get back to work, I'll link the process from CARB.
It's possible for them to do it, but it's cost prohibitive, as AFAIK, they'd have to certify the cat for each vehicle model it's allowed to be used on. I don't think they can do the blanket exemption as readily as MSD has managed for ignition coils, etc.
In reply to rslifkin:
So then you agree the parts are not banned, then.
Of course it costs a lot. BTDT.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to rslifkin: So then you agree the parts are not banned, then. Of course it costs a lot. BTDT.
Yeah, they're not explicitly banned. They're effectively banned because it's not practical / cost effective for anyone to sell an approved version outside of a handful of very specific, very common applications.
In reply to rslifkin:
Or the improvement is so minor that nobody would pay any kind of premium for the catalysts.
GRM did an article on a Miata showing that they don't do much.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to rslifkin: Or the improvement is so minor that nobody would pay any kind of premium for the catalysts. GRM did an article on a Miata showing that they don't do much.
Don't do much in what sense? Are you saying that on a built motor in some cars, keeping a stock 2.5" catalyst in the exhaust when the power level dictates a 3.5" would be more appropriate isn't going to cost a significant amount of power?
High flow cats aren't a bolt on power mod on their own, IMO. They're for when the entire stock exhaust is inadequate and you can't practically use a stock cat.
rslifkin wrote: So then you're stuck with a stock cat setup, which on some cars can mean you can barely make more than stock power, no matter what you do.
How much more power than stock is required to turn a street car into a race car?
I want poison air and polluted water, what's the matter with that?
Now that I've got that particular piece of stupidity out of the way, the EPA just had another process they tried to implement stayed by the Supreme Court.
Like all things governmental/bureaucratic, it's an incremental process, which nobody notices until somebody does and has to file suit to stop the over-reach. To paraphrase Alfadriver's comment, then it becomes really expensive.
To JG, whine about NRA "marketing" all you want, but if all it really is is just "marketing", explain to me why large swaths of (usually democratic, but in particular "liberal" areas) the country have prohibitions on gun ownership despite the 2nd amendment?
How is it that these localities can flaunt a violation of an enumerated right in the constitution?
All in the name of "protecting the public safety" - sure, which is why the cops always show up AFTER the crime as been committed and somebody is dead - some protection.
Our hobby is pretty small (http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/no-the-epa-isnt-making-it-illegal-to-turn-an-old-car-into-a-race-car/):
"Additionally, we're talking about a rather small-scale problem. There are roughly 28,500 racing-licensed members of the Sports Car Club of America and about 35,000 licensed competitors in the National Hot Rod Association, the two biggest sanctioning bodies in the amateur and semi-pro racing business in America by far. Meanwhile, there are about 253 million vehicles on our roads."
Even if you quadruple the number for hobbyists and enthusiasts, still pretty small. And the market is probably getting smaller, given how most young people today are less interested in cars (and by extension, modifying or racing them).
Add to it the "cost is just not worth the market size" catalytic discussion above - it's a cat, it's going to reduce emissions, why all the "extra regulation"? Somebody wanting to comply with the spirit of the law to enjoy their car more - nope, you're hosed.
"Net-net, racers have little to worry about. But nefarious aftermarket companies might." Right. Because nefarious aftermarket companies stay in business for such a long time....
Gosh, they're just clarifying an existing rule. Uh-huh. How is it enforced now? It's not, presumably... "After all, what would any kind of enforcement strategy look like across well over 1,000 racetracks across the country?" But with "clarification" perhaps comes a better method by which to make a determination? Easier to enforce?
It takes one really big fine for one individual or company, and guess what the rest of us are going to do (or not do)?
A really quick run through the regs, and it addresses a lot of different things, much of it related to "industry", so no, it's not geared toward racers. Having said that, I also seriously wonder how much of a real impact it's going to have in "industry" as opposed to adding tremendous cost.
If none of this is every really going to affect us, why get all bothered?
Because it's just like the people who build and buy residential property next to an airport or Air Force Base, and then complain about the jet noise.
Sooner or later, it's going to bite us, "reality" of the matter be damned.
I'd like to thank SEMA for their marketing efforts.
OldGray320i wrote: To JG, whine about NRA "marketing" all you want, but if all it really is is just "marketing", explain to me why large swaths of (usually democratic, but in particular "liberal" areas) the country have prohibitions on gun ownership despite the 2nd amendment?
Pretty much all major cities in the US are "liberal bias".
Pretty much all gun crime happens in large cities.
It isn't a liberal vs. conservative mindset, it's a rural vs. heavily urban mindset.
Not trying to flounder. This is just one of the peeves of mine - the gun control split in the country isn't a political issue, it's a population density issue.
You'll need to log in to post.
