EPA Attack on Grassroots Racing

rslifkin wrote:

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.

Didn't make more power.

In reply to OldGray320i:

Playing devils advocate, what right do you have to pollute my air?

In reply to alfadriver:

Who says I am polluting your air?

The crux of the argument.

In reply to OldGray320i:

Are you polluting? If yes, then it's mine, too.

Knurled wrote:

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.

Not to turn this in to a gun debate, and I'll try to keep it in bounds - JG called it "NRA marketing".

I took it further to say that the gov't regs are all implemented in the name of "protecting the public" and as such it's less a marketing issue than it is a "rights" issue. In the case of gun control, imo, the notion that it "protects the public" is an idiotic one.

In fact, Alfadriver's devil's advocate comment is well placed - what is the proper dividing line between his rights and mine?

In context of the issue, I have serious trouble believing that 629 pages of regulation will have a marked impact on the emissions of the intended group as compared to the whole, never mind the possible side effects on our hobby.

I lived on SoCal in the glory days of smog alerts, I'm all for the advances that have improved the air quality in that region though I no longer live there (family still there, and we visit).

Modern cats are great, injection and timing advances making possible some really good cars (though I wish FORD in particular would offer lighter weight TWO DOOR models... and if a particular member of this board would make that suggestion to management - at least the two door part...).

But I'd like to see the intended benefit and weigh it's worth compared to its effects.

I'm not a fan of the gubment telling me I can't have a high flow cat or a high flow gat.

..But I was wondering why the hell I don't have a $100 magnaflow cat on our racecar while I was huffing exhaust in my cold garage a couple of weeks ago. I'm for greener racing, but I don't need the EPA involved. Let the clubs self-regulate. I wouldn't be upset in the least if they said I need a hi-flow cat, however I am concerned with the EPA saying that the configuration needs to be identical to a street car.

Interesting article about the false-alarm:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/02/motor-trend-hits-sema-hard-changes-mind/

Knurled wrote:

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 gun crime happens in large cities.

Yes, that's where the majority of animal poaching takes place. <--- Sarcasm

I read some of what I believe (I could be wrong) to be the applicable language, and I found that: First off, under 86.1801-01 (Applicability) it states that Otto-cycle and Diesel-cycle light duty vehicles and light duty trucks fall under this regulation. Under -12, many of the prohibitions apply to people who would make modifications before the end user took possession, but some definitely apply to anyone, and it is said to be prohibited to produce and sell the parts. B.5 (the new part) actually removes any question that making the prohibited modifications for competition is not okay.

That's my take. Like I said above, I could be wrong. It's happened before.

Snopes.com to the rescue...

http://www.snopes.com/epa-seeks-ban-racecar-conversions/

MotoIQ fell for it too:

www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/4120/Tell-the-EPA-to-Withdraw-Its-Proposal-to-Prohibit-the-Conversion-of-Vehicles-Into-Racecars.aspx

Snopes is wrong. The best summary I have seen on this, based on an actual read of the proposed regulations by a lawyer hired by LeMons says:

As a result, based on the statutory text and the legislative history, competition vehicle emissions have never fallen under the ambit of the EPA and the CAA, as amended. As discussed in the section below, the EPA shares this understanding and is seeking to end the emissions control exemption for competition motor vehicles such as the light-duty motor vehicles commonly used in motorsport.

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showpost.php?p=7866515&postcount=24 (hit the "here" link for the letter, I can't figure out how to post a direct link)

Here's a good analysis of the new regulations including input from the LeMons lawyer:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/epas-real-target-the-automotive-aftermarket/

So it would actually be apocalyptic for manufacturers of non-emissions-certified engine & exhaust parts.

I don't think the EPA's going to get away with lopping off a big chunk of the automotive aftermarket over a handful of street-driven race cars in states without emissions inspections. I bet this was inspired by coal-rollers.

Pretty sure the guy I know that rolls coal is doing it with a truck built before diesel emissions regulations.