The U.S. Government is trying to get rid of our racecars!

[Decay107]

I'm all for cleaner air, but what the EPA really should be doing is giving us maximum levels of exhaust gas emissions that must be met. Let us figure out how to meet the requirement. This BS "we're going to tell you exactly how to solve this problem because we know better than you" attitude stifles creativity and innovation, as an engineer I find this approach to regulation absolutely infuriating.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by VitViper

So what you're saying is it's OK for the EPA to go after modifying street vehicles for track duty as long as it fits in with your narrow view of what is fun for you?

However you missed my one and only pretty blunt point:

With their proposed regulations they can and will go after not only companies cracking and exposing stock ECU's for end-user tuning (as well as injecting "custom maps" type code), but companies making complete stand alone ECU's. The ECU is technically an emissions control device.

Most factory ECU's aren't tuned ("programmed") with track use in mind -- meaning you're missing on a lot of features (look up the capabilities of race oriented ECU's from MoTec, etc). Our platform actually has a "plug and play" MoTeC package available that actually retains all the emissions controls like the stock ECU (even down to the EVAP purge control working), however under the EPA's proposed regulations the ECU swap would be illegal because it's not a "certified configuration".

Some people may enjoy tracking a completely unmodified vehicle... some don't (from my experience, most don't). You're OK with the EPA telling you what you can and can't do (IE, imposing themselves on your freedoms)?

Surprisingly, I DO have an understanding of what you're concerned about, despite my over-simplified postings I do have a grasp of the nuance involved here. I just believe it's a rather black and white line in the sand: I'm ok with the EPA doing what they set out to do, regulate the things that cause damage to the environment, vehicles used on public roads are a not insignificant contributor.

I don't see the problem with street vehicles having to meet emissions regs. Tracking a streetable vehicle means that vehicle should be compliant with the law, shit ain't rocket science and it's been that way for a decade+. You won't sway me on this part, as much as I'd love to set an exception for you me and every other track rat who can't afford a towing rig it'd be impossible. Luckily emissions regs are a local issue and many places don't give a damn or your chances of actually getting punished are slim (even in Commiefornia, I bet 75% of tracked 86's are running with a catless header).

It's the guys that have been living in the gray area, knowing that the odds of getting pulled over to check for catalytic converters and OE turbos and such are extremely low, they're the ones who're afraid, that's the risk they took, don't come crying to me about it, again: this ain't new. And honestly, I don't think this will change no matter what happens to the regs, the big fear would be shutting down the aftermarket companies like you mention, someone like ECUtek shutting down would be a damn shame (although they do provide emissions legal products with the FI kits so they'd survive) but at the end of the day, if the enthusiast wants it, where there's a will there's a way. I've thought about it myself as SCCA regs allow for a non-catted header yet if I got pulled over without one I could get a slap on the wrist (or worse), installing it morning of, uninstalling after the day is over, flashing tunes back and forth. It's a pain I'm willing to take because I've been in smog choked cities, seen the side effects of that kind of pollution, it ain't worth it.

Track only? No public road usage? I'm with you, go hog wild, those kinds of cars rarely see >20 hours of usage in a year compared to your neighbors conventional sedan that chugs through 500+ gallons of gas a year. The EPA can fuck right off because those cars contribute less emissions per year than the number of hamburgers fried up today.



Do I wish I could slap a header on my 86 and run it for the next 3 years without worrying? Absolutely. Would I nuke the emissions laws in order to allow it for everyone? Hell fucking no. We live in a modern society, compromises have to be made, and loosing out on 20hp or not being able to dump $10k into a 400+whp FA20 isn't going to send me to some shithole where you get lung cancer just from being outside so I can "express my freedoms".

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI8q_wDTARE"]Turns Out You Can Make a Brick From China's Smog - YouTube[/ame]

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

You've pretty much already said this. I was specifically wondering what, as an insider, you think the right questions are.

I'm not a fan of yanking the emissions control devices from anything that is registered for street use but if it's a track rat, seriously? You don't find focus on this area as a bit absurd?

Right questions would be:

What is the goal of this proposed rule change, other than revising legal standing that the government may have?

Why now?
Why slip this into medium/heavy duty truck guidelines?
What are actual steps the EPA plans on taking to enforce compliance if the rule change is approved?
What will happen to the multi-billion dollar racing industry?
What is the impact of "nonroad" cars to overall emissions?

Things like that. Everyone wants to just get rid of the proposed rule change but no one is putting up alternatives. That's kind of where I was leading towards, because people thinking they can mod whatever they want (on a street car) has never truly read anything relating to federal emissions standards.

Absurd? Yes, I find it absurd. But I also find it absurd that in this day and age, we don't like this change yet we are okay with the status quo of "it is okay because the EPA is not enforcing an existing law, and as long as they don't care about us we don't care about them" mentality.

My stance is always the same: just because it's not enforced doesn't mean it is legal.

-alex

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Right questions would be:

What is the goal of this proposed rule change, other than revising legal standing that the government may have?

Why now?
Why slip this into medium/heavy duty truck guidelines?
What are actual steps the EPA plans on taking to enforce compliance if the rule change is approved?
What will happen to the multi-billion dollar racing industry?
What is the impact of "nonroad" cars to overall emissions?

Things like that. Everyone wants to just get rid of the proposed rule change but no one is putting up alternatives. That's kind of where I was leading towards, because people thinking they can mod whatever they want (on a street car) has never truly read anything relating to federal emissions standards.

Absurd? Yes, I find it absurd. But I also find it absurd that in this day and age, we don't like this change yet we are okay with the status quo of "it is okay because the EPA is not enforcing an existing law, and as long as they don't care about us we don't care about them" mentality.

My stance is always the same: just because it's not enforced doesn't mean it is legal.

-alex

I was knee deep in the OSHA sections of the CFR back in my Navy days so I'm somewhat familiar with how the sausage is made and especially the reality of selective enforcement.

Thanks for your clarification. In the first pass of reading your initial posts I only picked up on the disdain you seemed to have for "us plebes" who are upset by this news. Reading more carefully, I could see there was much more to it.

FWIW, I 100% agree with your position. Thanks again.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I don't see the problem with street vehicles having to meet emissions regs. Tracking a streetable vehicle means that vehicle should be compliant with the law.

Except it shouldn't. If you never drive the car on public roads then it shouldn't have to meet jack squat shit for any law concerning road vehicles. It doesn't matter if the car still has rear-view mirrors, headlights, indicators, brake lights, and bumpers (and whatever else makes it legal for street use, ie: "streetable"). The EPA's scope and reach is not, and should NEVER be, all encompassing. That goes for ANY bureaucracy.

In any case, this isn't rocket science. This EPA is the product of the current administration, and we all know what it thinks about anything fossil fuel related. And lets not go down the road of tracked road cars adding anything to air pollution on anything but a micro-scale. You're talking about what, 1% of all cars on the road that have been modified? Of those, how many actually have modifications that negatively effect emissions?

The funny thing is, most people forget there are counties in states where there is literally zero emissions testing for registering a vehicle. That is usually reserved for metropolitan areas (and for good reason).

[KR-S]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Except it shouldn't. If you never drive the car on public roads then it shouldn't have to meet jack squat shit for any law concerning road vehicles.

I don't think Strat was saying that at all. He's talking about modified vehicles that ARE used on public roads.

[DAEMANO]

De-regulation vs. Regulation. W.H.O. 2014 edition...




The Department of Defense can't be missed, the EPA is to the right of center if you can find it.


Defund freedom stealing alphabet agenices! We so smart! /s

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Except it shouldn't. If you never drive the car on public roads then it shouldn't have to meet jack squat shit for any law concerning road vehicles. It doesn't matter if the car still has rear-view mirrors, headlights, indicators, brake lights, and bumpers (and whatever else makes it legal for street use, ie: "streetable"). The EPA's scope and reach is not, and should NEVER be, all encompassing. That goes for ANY bureaucracy.

In any case, this isn't rocket science. This the product of the current administration, and we all know what it thinks about anything fossil fuel related. And lets not go down the road of tracked road cars adding anything to air pollution on anything but a micro-scale. You're talking about what, 1% of all cars on the road that have been modified? Of those, how many actually have modifications that negatively effect emissions?

The funny thing is, most people forget there are counties in states where there is literally zero emissions testing for registering a vehicle. That is usually reserved for metropolitan areas (and for good reason).

Paragraph 1: agree 100%
Paragraph 2: disagree, you cannot effectively create exemptions
Paragraph 3: agree, bully for those lucky people, I'm not here as the fun police (thought that was obvious from the post you quoted)

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

The funny thing is, most people forget there are counties in states where there is literally zero emissions testing for registering a vehicle. That is usually reserved for metropolitan areas (and for good reason).

The even more funny thing is, most people forget that the Clean Air Act prohibits you from removing emissions equipment.

Again: just because there is no testing does not mean it is legal for you to remove said emissions equipment.

That is the loophole EVERYONE is exploiting when modding.

-alex

[VitViper]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Surprisingly, I DO have an understanding of what you're concerned about, despite my over-simplified postings I do have a grasp of the nuance involved here. I just believe it's a rather black and white line in the sand: I'm ok with the EPA doing what they set out to do, regulate the things that cause damage to the environment, vehicles used on public roads are a not insignificant contributor.

I don't see the problem with street vehicles having to meet emissions regs. Tracking a streetable vehicle means that vehicle should be compliant with the law, shit ain't rocket science and it's been that way for a decade+. You won't sway me on this part, as much as I'd love to set an exception for you me and every other track rat who can't afford a towing rig it'd be impossible. Luckily emissions regs are a local issue and many places don't give a damn or your chances of actually getting punished are slim (even in Commiefornia, I bet 75% of tracked 86's are running with a catless header).

It's the guys that have been living in the gray area, knowing that the odds of getting pulled over to check for catalytic converters and OE turbos and such are extremely low, they're the ones who're afraid, that's the risk they took, don't come crying to me about it, again: this ain't new. And honestly, I don't think this will change no matter what happens to the regs, the big fear would be shutting down the aftermarket companies like you mention, someone like ECUtek shutting down would be a damn shame (although they do provide emissions legal products with the FI kits so they'd survive) but at the end of the day, if the enthusiast wants it, where there's a will there's a way. I've thought about it myself as SCCA regs allow for a non-catted header yet if I got pulled over without one I could get a slap on the wrist (or worse), installing it morning of, uninstalling after the day is over, flashing tunes back and forth. It's a pain I'm willing to take because I've been in smog choked cities, seen the side effects of that kind of pollution, it ain't worth it.

Track only? No public road usage? I'm with you, go hog wild, those kinds of cars rarely see >20 hours of usage in a year compared to your neighbors conventional sedan that chugs through 500+ gallons of gas a year. The EPA can fuck right off because those cars contribute less emissions per year than the number of hamburgers fried up today.



Do I wish I could slap a header on my 86 and run it for the next 3 years without worrying? Absolutely. Would I nuke the emissions laws in order to allow it for everyone? Hell fucking no. We live in a modern society, compromises have to be made, and loosing out on 20hp or not being able to dump $10k into a 400+whp FA20 isn't going to send me to some shithole where you get lung cancer just from being outside so I can "express my freedoms".

I'm with you there -- the local municipalities have always been the ones enforcing (or not) what's on the road. I don't see this changing. In fact in my area we get pulled over for a license plate bulb out, officer goes "dat dem turbos under da hood? sweet brah" and sends us on the way.

My concern stems from the EPA overreaching and going after suppliers of our race parts (going to be hard to get replacements for our drag cars.... which literally see a trailer and a track, nothing else).

The EPA has served it's purpose and done their job -- forcing OEM's to build cleaner vehicles. I don't want to smell the shit coming out of the motor on my daily driver with my kids in the back seat.

To top that off, they already have the authority to go after gross offenders as the current regulations sit (recall the DPF deletes that now basically do not exist and no ECU programmer in the USA is willing to offer programming for? Yeah that was the EPA going after the blatant offenders that just wanted to roll coal). With their new "interpretation" they are basically are giving themselves the power to go after whatever they want if they feel like it that day, regardless of how much manufacturer X or part Y contributes to emissions.

That all said, a hammer and a long stick worked well back in the day as a cat delete, no amount of EPA regs are going to stop someone from punching out their cat(s) in their garage... lol

[mav1178]

Relevant resurrection of thread:

http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...ar-conversions

For the lazy:

WASHINGTON -- The EPA said it will drop controversial language from a proposed heavy- and medium-duty truck rule that had sparked fears of a new agency ban on street-to-race car conversions and recent scrutiny from Republican lawmakers.

The language was tucked inside a 629-page proposal published last June to slash carbon emissions by medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In February, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a trade group for auto aftermarket companies, rang the alarm bell by saying the EPA sought to prohibit the type of modifications made to street cars converted for racing use that amateur racers have taken to the track for decades.

The EPA said at the time that, technically, tampering with emissions controls on road-going vehicles has long been prohibited, but the ban was aimed at companies selling sell parts and accessories that disable emissions controls, not racers who modify cars to race on the track. The proposed language was intended to clarify existing regulations, the agency contended.

“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,” the EPA said on its website. “Since our attempt to clarify led to confusion, EPA has decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.”

The EPA has received scores of public comments decrying any move to prohibit race car conversions.

On Tuesday, Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy letter seeking legal justification for the proposed race car modification language.

“We remain doubtful that this proposed policy change complies with Congressional intent, which we believe is to exempt racing vehicles from the Clean Air Act’s provisions,” committee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., Energy and Power subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield R-Kan., and committee member Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., said in the letter.

In a statement Friday, the congressmen said they were pleased that EPA ended their “gambit to regulate auto racing.”

[rice_classic]

Dear EPA,

Thank you for clearing that up, because racecar.

-rice_classic

[Packofcrows]

They need to tackle these guys



Driving my frs in San Diego and out comes a douche like this. Left cloud smears on hood and roof.

[themadscientist]

My GT-R is very green. It doesn't run so zero emissions and it's rusting so it's composting.