EPA Prohibits Conversion of Road Cars to Racecars?

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

Well it's what: the Camry and Impala right now? If they are presumably super modified street cars, then they would be forced to use stock engine/intake/exhaust right? If they don't count because they are specially manufactured for racing then just ignore this I guess

They are tube frame specially built race chassis cars with whatever MFR sponsor fiberglass bodywork is needed placed over them.


NASCAR race cars stopped being production based road cars a really long time ago.

[KR-S]

What would this mean for automotive series like Formula D if the EPA got their way? Most of the cars in competition started out as production cars.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by go_a_way1

Yeah but what about all those guys who spent 100K + on full track builds and then all those enthusiasts that are 30k ish into track build and all the drag guys ect. They would have to allow existing modified cars to remain the way they are already or they are going to have a lot of upset people.

Like Tcoat said at best they give a pass for cars that were modified before the rule or are older the "x" amount of years.

Then again.... This is the US Government we are talking about. They could very much bring down the omega hammer and ban anything and everything with 4 wheels running engine mods

Government could care less of the .001 percent of drivers who tune their cars

[TheVoiceOfReason]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

Well it's what: the Camry and Impala right now? If they are presumably super modified street cars, then they would be forced to use stock engine/intake/exhaust right? If they don't count because they are specially manufactured for racing then just ignore this I guess

Toyota Camry, Chevy SS, and the Ford Fusion. Impala was a few years ago. They are not street cars in any way any more. They just make the grill look sort of like the production car, and the engines are small block V8's from their respective manufacturers. The bodies are mostly metal like street cars though.

[TheVoiceOfReason]

I feel like this is one of these things where the people making these decisions don't actually look at the logic behind it. The emissions caused by people modifying their cars is probably even less than under inflated tires.

I see it similar to drone regulations. I have to 'register' all of my remote control planes and helis with the FAA now because of a knee jerk reaction to the drone fad (everything RC is now miraculously a drone to people who make these decisions). Not a single person who is using them do do things they shouldn't is likely to register.

I wonder how these regulators would feel if their hobbies were under attack by people who don't understand them.

[Toyarzee]

Originally Posted by TheVoiceOfReason

I wonder how these regulators would feel if their hobbies were under attack by people who don't understand them.

Further support to your own username good sir! Now drop that mic like a boss

[cdrazic93]

*drops it for him*

[TheVoiceOfReason]

[strat61caster]

An actual article on the subject instead of a SEMA press release:
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/09/e...sema-official/

Interesting and totally not worth the enforcement cost, like someone else said, they'll take their shoestring budget and attack a couple of large manufacturers selling exhausts and tunes as "off road/competition use only" that clearly the vast majority of the product ends up on road cars.

Because it was snuck into a bill with otherwise good intentions it will likely go through. It's a damn shame because it's such a minute portion of emissions, you grab all the emissions from all the cars at any given track day and it probably isn't even 10% of the emissions from the shipping trucks that pass within 25 miles of the track over the course of the day.

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

Assuming this is legit it could literally end motorsports as we know it now. Only cars specifically built for racing(like F1) would be able to run catless or with custom tuning. Possibly click bait, even if it's not I don't see it getting passed

lmao not even close. There may be a power drop in US based series that use production cars as they retune to emissions legal specs, but it'd be super easy to get around by just making a run of vin-less "non-certified" vehicles for off-road use only. The wording is pretty clear and if manufacturers are supporting the effort they can supply teams with vehicles that are never road legal and as such are exempt.

If anything this could be a good thing long term as we watch the end of ICE as manufacturers must link their sporting vehicles even closer to their road going vehicles and we see the return of true sport packages back to the market like in the 60's (when NASCAR was holding onto the last vestiges of 'stock car' racing and our own versions of Touring cars (Trans-Am & SCCA and others) was gaining momentum).

What this could hurt is the club racer and autocrosser with a dedicated cheap car as non emissions legal parts dry up the series will have to find a way to prevent the classes from dying out as chips/custom ECU's and tunes and exhausts become unobtanium (as I don't think the EPA is going to knock on a guys door with a trailer parked out front and say "excuse me sir we need to emissions test the vehicle you use for a grand total of 40 hours a year") and organizations will be faced with the decision to let costs skyrocket as manifolds and tunes get passed around as black market commodities under a grandfathered in rule or vote to be compliant and let their cars take hits on power and reliability and creating another market demand as people go searching for 30 year old emissions equipment.

In any case, every once in awhile someone tries to get California to start smog testing cars built pre-'75 and someone at the Bureau shows them the cost analysis and weighs it against the benefit and the outrage quickly evaporates. I bet this will be similar in that it may exist but for most of us we won't see any effects other than some warning labels like "really don't use this on public roads, there will be a big penalty if we catch you but we're not actively looking for you because we can't afford that, but we mean it... grrr!"

Edit: Jalopnik articles below

http://jalopnik.com/all-the-contradi...the-1758027610

http://jalopnik.com/is-the-epa-tryin...ars-1758013542

Edit: This may be the first and last time I have any positive feelings towards a Republican controlled congress.

[mav1178]

No one bothers to read the actual proposed text from the EPA... instead of relying on SEMA (a gigantic lobbying firm, no matter how you look at them in the interests of "enthusiasts") and a bunch of media sites reposting...

Actual text from EPA:

"EPA is also proposing two minor amendments related to highway motorcycles. First, we are proposing to correct an error related to the small-volume provisions for highway motorcycles. The regulation includes an inadvertent reference to a small-volume threshold based on an annual volume of 3,000 motorcycles produced in the United States. As written, this would not consider any foreign motorcycle production for importation into the United States. This error is corrected by simply revising the text to refer to an annual production volume of motorcycles produced “for” the United States. This would properly reflect small-volume production as it relates to compliance with EPA standards.
Second, we are proposing to clarify the language describing how to manage the precision of emission results, both for measured values and for calculating values when applying a deterioration factor. This involves a new reference to the rounding procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 to replace the references to outdated ASTM procedures. EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) to clarify that the Clean Air Act does not allow any person to disable, remove, or render inoperative (i.e., tamper with) emission controls on a certified motor vehicle for purposes of competition. An existing provision in 40 CFR 1068.235 provides an exemption for nonroad engines converted for competition use. This provision reflects the explicit exclusion of engines used solely for competition from the CAA definition of “nonroad engine”. The proposed amendment clarifies that this part 1068 exemption does not apply for motor vehicles. "

actual 1068 exemption:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-20...ec1068-235.pdf

[paiceyfan]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

Wow, that is some bUuUuUllshiiit. This is the ultimate shitty way to keep people from installing catless headers and the like to their street cars. What percentage of the drivers do they think that involves? Meanwhile, coal-fired powerplants and leaky natural gas reservoirs...

Fuck these hypocrites.

Actually, banning feedstocks to cows that increase the amount of methane produced should be tackled first...a different kind of exhaust problem.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by FRSBRZGT86FAN

So I did more research because I have a snow day off

This is the official bill:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2015-15500.pdf

If you take a few minutes and read the proposal, you'll see that it applies to "heavy duty" highway vehicles with a GVWR above 8500lbs.


Page 40527 "As noted above, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, already apply for heavy-duty highway engines. EPA is proposing to add a clarification that the exemption from the tampering prohibition for competition purposes does not apply to heavy-duty highway vehicles. This aligns with the statutory provisions for the racing exemption."

So it's a proposed ban on setting up heavy-duty highway vehicles (eg semis and HD trucks) for racing, while clarifying that other vehicles can indeed be modified for racing.


"This proposed action would affect
companies that manufacture, sell, or
import into the United States new
heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b
through 8 trucks, including combination
tractors, all types of buses, vocational
vehicles including municipal,
commercial, recreational vehicles, and
commercial trailers as well as 3⁄4-ton
and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The
heavy-duty category incorporates all
motor vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 8,500 lbs or greater, and
the engines that power them, except for
medium-duty passenger vehicles
already covered by the greenhouse gas
standards and corporate average fuel
economy standards issued for light-duty
model year 2017–2025 vehicles"

Additional context:

The existing prohibitions and
exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068 related
to competition engines and vehicles
need to be amended to account for
differing policies for nonroad and motor
vehicle applications. In particular, we
generally consider nonroad engines and
vehicles to be ‘‘used solely for
competition’’ based on usage
characteristics. This allows EPA to set
up an administrative process to approve
competition exemptions, and to create
an exemption from the tampering
prohibition for products that are
modified for competition purposes.
There is no comparable allowance for
motor vehicles. A motor vehicle
qualifies for a competition exclusion
based on the physical characteristics of
the vehicle, not on its use. Also, if a
motor vehicle is covered by a certificate
of conformity at any point, there is no
exemption from the tampering and
defeat-device prohibitions that would
allow for converting the engine or
vehicle for competition use. There is no
prohibition against actual use of
certified motor vehicles or motor
vehicle engines for competition
purposes; however, it is not permissible
to remove a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine from its certified
configuration regardless of the purpose
for doing so.
It is relatively straightforward to
apply the provisions of 40 CFR part
1068 to all engines subject to the criteria
emission standards in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, and the associated vehicles.
Manufacturers of comparable nonroad
engines are already subject to all these
provisions. Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty
vehicles subject to criteria emission
standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart
S, are covered by a somewhat different
compliance program. EPA is therefore
proposing to apply the provisions of 40
CFR part 1068 only as described in the
next section for light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, medium-duty
passenger vehicles, and chassis-certified
Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles.

[Ashikabi]

So... is it about semis or motorcycles? Seeing two different excerpts posted both claiming to be the original text

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

So... is it about semis or motorcycles? Seeing two different excerpts posted both claiming to be the original text

That's my point.

Many people (including SEMA) are taking it out of context.

-alex