This is not good.... WTF EPA?

So seriously though... Whose right about this? The sky is falling sema? The sema is lying folks? Internet lawyers who word searched a 4000 page document?

I'm honestly torn on this. I think it is patently rediculous that the EPA is going to try to regulate actual competition use of cars even if they were originally designed for highway use. That said I think it is reasonable for them to enhance enforcement of laws and clarify that off highway parts/tunes/mods that increase the emissions of a vehicle cannot be used on highway. There is admittedly much abuse of using parts "designed" for racing by people who use their car for commuting.

If the law is saying that all cars ever certified by emmisions are subject to a 37.5K fine if they are modified for use as a race car, or that the use of a engine manufactured for use in a certified highway vehicle in a race car without all emmisions controls is subject to the same fine that my outrage is massive and I will start writing my legislation.

If the law says that parts manufactured for off highway use can't be used on cars for highway use or that modifying emmissions for highway use cars is illegal I'm ok with that.

Im torn as well. If the EPA is really trying to get full.blown competition cars to meet emissions regs thats just asinine. If it is only applying to road going "racecars" it still sucks but makes slightly more sense. Ill still run catless but I live in a non-inspection state anyways.

It's a tricky subject because Clean Air is Good. And automotive performance and motorsport in general is a multibillion dollar industry.

Fitzauto wrote: Im torn as well. If the EPA is really trying to get full.blown competition cars to meet emissions regs thats just asinine. If it is only applying to road going "racecars" it still sucks but makes slightly more sense. Ill still run catless but I live in a non-inspection state anyways.

Though that said if they perhaps established some reasonable level of emmisions equipment for race vehicle I could get behind that.

Something that is reasonable and relatively simple to implement as an aftermarket to any engine. It would also have to require minimal burden for certification. Really just something like requiring high flow CATs and PCV systems. The idea would be lets get rid of the 80% of bad emmisions while still allowing for reasonable freedom to modify and race. Again for off highway use.

I'd have no problem putting a high flow CAT on my MG even if it has a cost.

For what it's worth, international level stage rally requires cats on pretty much anything that ever came with it from the factory. Granted they are typically mounted at the tail end so they don't slag, but they are there. (Group A Escorts had them, so this is nothing new)

They've been required in US rally for quite some time now, too.

Karacticus wrote:

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: And to think, we are just pissed about 90+% of all new tractors requiring DEF.....because "ZOMG, we don't have enough clean air in the middle of nowhere" SMDH.

That starts getting to another "ZOMG" issue that gets raised out here in the middle of nowhere-- that the EPA is going to use the clean air act to regulate the particulates (dust) raised by ag operation. Now I'm sure equivalent claims about industrial air pollution (soot, etc) were raised in the past, but it's pretty hard to till the ground, harvest, etc, without raising dust, sometimes a whole hell of a lot of it. Heck, out here in the middle of nowhere, you can't drive down a gravel road without raising an immense amount of dust.

That wouldn't really wouldn't surprise me, the sad part is that the particulate kicked up actually seeds clouds and thus forms rain....which cleans the air of said particulate. The biggest difference is our particulate doesn't make acid rain.

When dry, the dust alfadriver is referencing is a very serious issue, and I am not immune to it. I firmly believe it is to blame on the push towards no till farming as being friendlier towards the environment.....which it isn't(more chemicals, less energy efficient, more waste, etc)

Stephan, I found your reply quite amusing, which I fear wasn't your intent. You stay classy

Move along people, nothing to see here

40 CFR part 1068 only applies to medium and heavy duty trucks.

40 CFR part 86 is the light duty section.

Race cars converted to off highway use are covered under 40 CFR part 86. One CFRs section is not applicable to another without being entered into the other CFR being updated.

In other words this is a way for the EPA to crack down on emission defeat devices being sold for "off-road use only" in medium duty and heavy duty trucks. Coal rollers if you will.

Not sure why everyone is losing their minds over this. If it's registered as an on road vehicle you should be retaining that equipment because otherwise you're a dick. If you want a dual purpose vehicle, well there's a price to be paid then.

In reply to The0retical:

At this point the EPA themselves have clarified that they are doing much more than that.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/09/epa-racecar-emissions-illegal-update-official/

According to this statement, it's already against the law to perform any modifications to a vehicle that result in the tampering or removal of emissions control systems, even for competition. In other words, if you have removed a catalytic converter from your racecar, you're already afoul of the rules. Conversely, if your vehicle is old enough that it didn't come with emissions control equipment in the first place, you're seemingly free and clear. Further, the EPA claims that the new wording of its regulations only seeks to differentiate nonroad vehicles from "motor vehicles." Two nonroad vehicles specifically mentioned by the EPA include dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Any vehicle that was sold with a certificate of conformity that allows them to be used on public roads, however, are "motor vehicles" and therefore must have all their emissions controls intact. And that's regardless of whether or not the motor vehicle in question will ever actually be used on public roads.

Karacticus wrote: ... the EPA is going to use the clean air act to regulate the particulates (dust) raised by ag operation.

They already have the rules, and enforce them for construction. Why not AG?

pointofdeparture wrote: In reply to The0retical: At this point the EPA themselves have clarified that they are doing much more than that. http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/09/epa-racecar-emissions-illegal-update-official/

According to this statement, it's already against the law to perform any modifications to a vehicle that result in the tampering or removal of emissions control systems, even for competition. In other words, if you have removed a catalytic converter from your racecar, you're already afoul of the rules. Conversely, if your vehicle is old enough that it didn't come with emissions control equipment in the first place, you're seemingly free and clear. Further, the EPA claims that the new wording of its regulations only seeks to differentiate nonroad vehicles from "motor vehicles." Two nonroad vehicles specifically mentioned by the EPA include dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Any vehicle that was sold with a certificate of conformity that allows them to be used on public roads, however, are "motor vehicles" and therefore must have all their emissions controls intact. And that's regardless of whether or not the motor vehicle in question will ever actually be used on public roads.

I think that would pretty effectively rule out most motor swaps, and perhaps some upgrades to OEM motors.

If you enlarge the exhaust, you would no longer be able to use the factory CAT.

Sounds pretty silly. They are spending a lot of energy passing laws they can't enforce.

SVreX wrote: If you enlarge the exhaust, you would no longer be able to use the factory CAT.

This is already a problem in NY and California, where you can't buy a cat that's not a CARB approved stock replacement. It's almost like they'd rather we just go catless when modding, as the only way to get a high flow is to have it shipped to a friend/family out of state and passed on from there.

In reply to pointofdeparture:

Doesn't matter right now though. The update as written doesn't apply.

In order for it to apply another update would have to be written and submitted for public comment. At that point it is going to be freak out write your congressman time. It's a moot point until then.

SVreX wrote:

Karacticus wrote: ... the EPA is going to use the clean air act to regulate the particulates (dust) raised by ag operation.

They already have the rules, and enforce them for construction. Why not AG?

How would be the key term......nothing I can think of aside from wasting craploads of water would prevent it, and wasting craploads of water would just lead to massive amounts of runoff, loss of fertile topsoil, and erosion which are all more serious issues than dust.

The0retical wrote: In other words this is a way for the EPA to crack down on emission defeat devices being sold for "off-road use only" in medium duty and heavy duty trucks. Coal rollers if you will.

So my spiddie sense WAS tingling.

To bad, bro. berkeleyers did it to themselves.

I don't have a problem with requiring all production based racecars (not registered for street use) within the EPA emissions exemption age (21 years) being required to meet tailpipe emissions standards for the year in which they were built. I would probably even be willing to concede the idea of ALL production based racecars being updated to meet tail pipe emissions for the year in which they were built. Class rules change all the time. Racers would adapt to meet the rule changes resulting from these requirements, just as they have done with all the other rule changes. And considering 100% emissions compliant production cars are capable of making 700+ horsepower with a 5 year/60k mile powertrain warranty, I further have no concern over production based racecars within the legally required EPA emissions equpiment warranty time period (8 years) being required to have all emissions control related devices remain fully functional and intact.

However, I do certainly take issue with any overreaching attempt to require cars outside of these windows to maintain the same level of OEM emissions control device compliance, if for not other reason than the subsequent lack of federally mandated guarantee of compliant parts availability.

.

Yes this does very much seem to be every other pro vs anti fight, where the so-called 'leadership' of both sides collaborate to inevitably force each other to extremist polar opposites...Because being rational, compromising, and simply working together for the betterment of all involved doesn't help the 'leaders' of both sides to maintain their strangle hold of power.

Driven5 wrote: I don't have a problem with requiring all production based racecars (not registered for street use) within the EPA emissions exemption age (21 years) being required to meet tailpipe emissions standards for the year in which they were built. I would probably even be willing to concede the idea of ALL production based racecars being updated to meet tail pipe emissions for the year in which they were built.

The idea of trying to apply street car emissions limits to race cars doesn't really make sense. Street cars spend 90+% of their time at idle or steady state cruise, and most of the rest of that 10% is accelerating at less than 20% throttle. Race cars spend almost no time at a steady state cruise and a huge percentage of their time is at WOT.

AFAIK, there are no emissions regs for WOT. The cat is still in the exhaust stream, yes, but it's going to quickly use up any stored oxygen. Gasoline engines go rich at WOT (you pretty much have to if you want them to not grenade), so it's going to be spewing HC and CO through the cat. At least, it'll be spewing them until the cat clogs up due to all the unburned fuel.

Basically the emissions system is sized for making steady-state 30 hp with occasional bursts to 300. It's not going to work if it's making 300 at 50% duty cycle like you would on a road course.

A lot of the reason they go overrich at WOT is to both keep EGTs low (cooler combustion keeps things from melting) and to make SURE that all of the oxygen is used, so the catalyst doesn't catalyze. A non-catalyzing cat is a cool and non-slagging cat.

This is why RX-7s generally ran at around 10:1 not only at WOT but generally anything over 3500-3800 or so. Protect the cats. They needed all the help they could get!

Maybe, just maybe, someone at the EPA is tired of seeing this.

nocones wrote: So seriously though... Whose right about this? The sky is falling sema? The sema is lying folks? Internet lawyers who word searched a 4000 page document? I'm honestly torn on this. I think it is patently rediculous that the EPA is going to try to regulate actual competition use of cars even if they were originally designed for highway use. That said I think it is reasonable for them to enhance enforcement of laws and clarify that off highway parts/tunes/mods that increase the emissions of a vehicle cannot be used on highway. There is admittedly much abuse of using parts "designed" for racing by people who use their car for commuting. If the law is saying that all cars ever certified by emmisions are subject to a 37.5K fine if they are modified for use as a race car, or that the use of a engine manufactured for use in a certified highway vehicle in a race car without all emmisions controls is subject to the same fine that my outrage is massive and I will start writing my legislation. If the law says that parts manufactured for off highway use can't be used on cars for highway use or that modifying emmissions for highway use cars is illegal I'm ok with that.

I suspect this is the real issue here. I'm not a fan of the EPA jumping in to racing, but the real issue is the "For off road use only" (wink, wink, nod, nod, giggle, giggle) way emissions defeating parts are sold. I mean, do the manufacturers really believe the 4 inch catless brodozer exhaust is being used off road only? Of course not. They've been actively skirting the law for years now. ("Really? Biff put our exhaust on a street vehicle? Naughty, naughty Biff. Totally did not see that coming.") Unfortunately, if history is any guide, the response will be a knee jerk over-reach that will make things impossibly complicated for people who are willing to obey the law. Meanwhile, the true violators will figure out a way around the law, or just ignore it.

codrus wrote:

Driven5 wrote: I don't have a problem with requiring all production based racecars (not registered for street use) within the EPA emissions exemption age (21 years) being required to meet tailpipe emissions standards for the year in which they were built. I would probably even be willing to concede the idea of ALL production based racecars being updated to meet tail pipe emissions for the year in which they were built.

The idea of trying to apply street car emissions limits to race cars doesn't really make sense. Street cars spend 90+% of their time at idle or steady state cruise, and most of the rest of that 10% is accelerating at less than 20% throttle. Race cars spend almost no time at a steady state cruise and a huge percentage of their time is at WOT. AFAIK, there are no emissions regs for WOT. The cat is still in the exhaust stream, yes, but it's going to quickly use up any stored oxygen. Gasoline engines go rich at WOT (you pretty much have to if you want them to not grenade), so it's going to be spewing HC and CO through the cat. At least, it'll be spewing them until the cat clogs up due to all the unburned fuel. Basically the emissions system is sized for making steady-state 30 hp with occasional bursts to 300. It's not going to work if it's making 300 at 50% duty cycle like you would on a road course.

WOT is an interesting thing in the rules. And it is in the rules.

Two things apply- 1) driver demand- it's assumed that if a driver goes wide open, they really need it. So the rules allow that power under all circumstances. All modern engines run best fuel for a few seconds, before:

2). Component protection- the rules also allow the engine to protect itself. Gas engines run very rich to cool the exhaust stream down a lot- all parts. Catalysts don't fill up with fuel, it just passes through. What kills them is when the engine runs so rich that the engine misfires. That kind of energy quickly breaks things.

I see somebody's started a petition on the White House website over this:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/tell-epa-withdraw-its-proposal-prohibit-conversion-vehicles-racecars-0

captdownshift wrote: Move along people, nothing to see here

Oh hey a clean diesel....

So ... if you like your race car, you can keep your race car?

At times like these, one thinks, "OK, what's next"? Because the rule makers want to be seen as progressing ever onwards. It's not too hard to imagine that the ultimate goal would be "all engines everywhere". So, no more dedicated race engines (unless they meet certain standards), no more smoky lawnmowers, et cetera.

I don't usually indulge in paranoia, but.......