|
EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Had to alter the title because it wouldn't fit in the text box.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles into Racecars</span></span> Don't take this one lightly, look at what they've recently done to the Diesel market. ================================================== ================================ https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08...-into-racecars EPA SEEKS TO PROHIBIT CONVERSION OF VEHICLES INTO RACECARS -- SEMA to Oppose Action as Threat to Modified Racecars and Parts Suppliers -- Washington, DC (February 8, 2016) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.” The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate. “This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion.” SEMA submitted comments in opposition to the regulation and met with the EPA to confirm the agency’s intentions. The EPA indicated that the regulation would prohibit conversion of vehicles into racecars and make the sale of certain emissions-related parts for use on converted vehicles illegal. Working with other affected organizations, including those representing legions of professional and hobbyist racers and fans, SEMA will continue to oppose the regulation through the administrative process and will seek congressional support and judicial intervention as necessary. The EPA has indicated it expects to publish final regulations by July 2016. About SEMA SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association founded in 1963, represents the $36 billion specialty automotive industry of 6,633 member-companies. It is the authoritative source for research, data, trends and market growth information for the specialty auto parts industry. The industry provides appearance, performance, comfort, convenience and technology products for passenger and recreational vehicles. For more information, contact SEMA at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765, tel: 909-610-2030, or visit www.sema.org. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
The #1 target of the EPA has always been cars. Once conversion is prohibited they will next target and regulate existing race cars and "pre emission street vehicles".
That's our muscle cars folks. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Let's see, picture a balance scale with, on one side, Motorsports and the $ revenue made in all forms including money spent on the cars, crews, etc... On the other side of the scale put the EPA. Now, if the hobby and sport could just band together and have a one year moratorium stopping all $ generated by Motorsports as a whole, then let's see who would win, 'cause in this country, $ talks and B.S., well you know? The EPA would be shut down so fast 'cause it is our money (taxes) that keeps this leviathan running. Hit 'em in the pocketbook, something to consider. It is the only thing these folks understand.
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
This coming from an agency that produced John Beale, Sr. Policy Advisor. Oh, and claimed to be a CIA operator while bilking the EPA for nearly $1m that they actually could prove.
http://www.washingtonian.com/2014/03...ooked-the-epa/ For many years the EPA has been an agency that keeps just trying to make itself relevant by creating insane policies like the ones concerning ethanol fuel. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Changes to their policies have continued to occur as companies that produce products labeled as "race or offroad only" have been fined huge amounts and gone bankrupt already for producing these because vehicle owners installed on a street vehicle. Holding a company liable for how a product is used by a future owner has interesting consequences in many other areas. No good in my opinion.
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
So you mean the "slippery slope" is a real thing? Who'd a thunk it...
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The #1 target of the EPA has always been cars. Once conversion is prohibited they will next target and regulate existing race cars and "pre emission street vehicles".
That's our muscle cars folks. </div></div> They choose the easiest targets they can win against. They don't dare go after industrial polluters (with powerful legal teams and political allies) so they come after the little guy who cannot defend against this. Having said that, there's this: http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/...actually-means/ |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/...r-conversions/
http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story...ersions-020916 Looks like they are walking it back a bit.,. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
And it does not take long to connect the dots on new production of old cars with EPA approved drivetrains. The timing here is conveinant.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/08/n...-vintage-cars/ |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
From 2009 speculation:
https://www.motorists.org/blog/will-...lly-be-banned/ There is also an EPA position paper that I have read that sets fourth as early as 1990-ways to regulate old cars off the road and ways to nudge the population into compliance. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Plenty of double talk from the EPA going on: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2016/...ans/?refer=news
I will be the first to admit I was wrong about the EPA back in the 70's. Without the EPA mandates on car emissions, the automakers would have kept making cars the cheapest way possible. We might still have carbs on new cars. The EPA made the automakers find a way to build cars that pollute less. The automakers said it couldn't be done each time. Face it, because of the EPA we drive amazing computer controlled, more powerful, more fuel efficient, cleaner cars. That is the way it should be for mass produced vehicles for the masses. HOWEVER, the race car world and the pre-emission vehicles is such minuscule part of the big picture. The current approach simply makes no sense. Cars modified for off road use (and taken off the road) need to be left alone. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
And thanks to Ralph Nader being such a PITA in the 1960s we have seat belts, safety glass, air bags, collapsing steering columns, crumple zones, etc. Not only are cars more efficient and much cleaner, they are far safer than in the old days.
As for the latest flare-up over off-road cars, we must assume that SEMA (and other vehicular industry interest groups) will weigh-in and hammer-out a compromise that we probably won't notice. There's a lot of money in the aftermarket and if the EPA seriously tried to impinge on those profits there would be hell to pay. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
The EPA simply rigged the game in the 70's against the domestic automakers and then in the 80's against domestic manufacturing. The outcome was regulated globalization sending millions of US jobs to other countries.
The 2V and 4V Carb was finished as a design by the late 80's with the advent of Throttle body Injection as phased in during the early 1980's with Crossfire injection. The existence of the EPA does have a critical upside since we had to adapt to regulation 30 years ago to survive-and using computers finally perfect the fuel and emission standards to keep our V-8's alive and fast. An alternate future for others without an aggressive EPA: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2015/...ting-next-year/ The Race car thing is a simple trial balloon. Beware. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Not sure I buy into the "no progress without the EPA" narrative. Go drive a stock 50 Chevy and a stock COPO Camaro back to back and try telling me that the Camaro isn't a vastly superior car in practically every objective measure (short of maybe high speed impact protection).
Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear from anyone on either side that has a handle on the CAA as well as any subsequent, relevant legislation or court rulings. Could be SEMA crying wolf, or it could be the EPA re-interpreting existing law in order to help themselves to authority they never had to begin with. Either is entirely within the bounds of possibility. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Performance for the Small Block Camaro had statistically matched the late 1960's stock acceleration performance levels by 1987 with the 350 TPI in conjunction with top speeds-- the old cars could simply never hope to match. The Ford Roller motors were great for the time as well.
Super fast on board computers in conjunction with the LS redesign in the late 90's changed the rules permanently as to performance and emissions. Not at all uncommon to see a modified LS in a 4th gen hitting a 9 in the quarter. This is a burr in the EPA's saddle for sure. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
I personally do not like government intrusion,the free market would take care of most thru competition.
The EPA has cost jobs and drove up prices,in most of their rules,part of the reason we have 70000 dollar pickup trucks! |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Performance for the Small Block Camaro had statistically matched the late 1960's stock acceleration performance levels by 1987 with the 350 TPI in conjunction with top speeds-- the old cars could simply never hope to match. The Ford Roller motors were great for the time as well.
Super fast on board computers in conjunction with the LS redesign in the late 90's changed the rules permanently as to performance and emissions. Not at all uncommon to see a modified LS in a 4th gen hitting a 9 in the quarter. This is a burr in the EPA's saddle for sure. </div></div> Agree completely. After the Dark Ages between 75-82, by 1987-90 we had largely gained back most of the performance lost after 71 (or 74. Looking at you, 455 SD Pontiac). People don't realize how many cubic inches EFI and an aggressive roller cam can add to a little motor. To be clear, I was referring to a 69 COPO Camaro in my previous post. It's absolutely true that we've come miles in terms of technology over the past 50 years, but we came miles between 1945 and 1971, as well. There is no comparison between a flathead 6 and an LS-6 454; the latter is, technologically speaking, so far advanced from the former that there is no effective basis for comparison. So have we gotten where we are because of the EPA, or in spite of them? There's an argument to be made either way, but I know which side I'm on. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
All good points. No doubt the breed would have continued to improve. However, most improvements were to ride, handling and power. If car A handles and performs just as well as car B, but car B costs more ONLY because it burns cleaner, not very many of your average consumers are going to pay extra for car B. Just saying without some mandates, we wouldn't be nearly as clean as we are, because there is no "supply and demand" incentive. The comment on the carbs was simply hyperbole.
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
The <span style="font-style: italic">only</span> way to get me to give up cars for the sake of emissions is to shoot me. No way in hell am I going to take this lying down.
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRC99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The <span style="font-style: italic">only</span> way to get me to give up cars for the sake of emissions is to shoot me. No way in hell am I going to take this lying down. </div></div>
"out of my cold...dead...hands" |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
It's over for now. The EPA has agreed to redact the rule making.
We win....for now. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Paris just instituted a ban on old cars... Goes into effect July 1, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/0...intcmp=features |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
To be fair this is a weekday ban. Not at all surprising to see in European city centers...they have been contemplating banning internal combustion vehicles entirely in certain high density urban areas over there.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paris just instituted a ban on old cars... Goes into effect July 1, 2016 http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/0...intcmp=features </div></div> |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
There's always more to the story.
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Any ban is unacceptable.
If we accept anything like that here the operable part of the our hobby is placed at risk unless you like garage art. |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
I wonder who in Paris was waving the white flag -- seems to be a pattern here ... TAZ
|
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
It's PARIS for God's sake...but I'm sure SF is thinking about it too. I think the upper midwest is safe....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any ban is unacceptable. If we accept anything like that here the operable part of the our hobby is placed at risk unless you like garage art. </div></div> |
Re: EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars
Keep a sharp eye out this coming November for more on this topic. This excerpt comes directly from the UN agenda 2030 language on "Sustainable Transport".
<span style="font-weight: bold">"To develop concrete recommendations for more sustainable transport systems that can address rising congestion and pollution worldwide, particularly in urban areas, and are actionable at global, national, local and sector levels. The policy recommendations, to be developed by the HLAG-ST, are expected to be reflected in a global sustainable transport outlook report that will be released in a first international conference on sustainable transport in November 2016."</span> |
Update-Agenda 2030 is going effective now with a 10 year delay.
England is instituting its ban on Gas vehicles effective 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...vans-from-2040 France also has set 2040 as its date: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...vehicles-2040/ |
The above stores are NOT correct! Both France and the UK plan to ban CONVENTIONAL Gas & Diesel cars. What they want is HYBRID cars only:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...sel-cars-2040/ |
Lee,
If they are not planning to do this why do these stories keep on appearing? https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...ustion-engine/ Also Germany voted last October to maintain track to meet the 2030 agenda mandate with no delay: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...gines-by-2030/ |
The risk here is that performance cars as we know them will soon be regulated and thus banned.
And no I do not think an emasculated hybrid is a performance car on par with internal combustion technology stock or modified. I think we all want to hand this hobby down to the kids right?:) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here in the USA, we have a much greater tolerance for air pollution from cars. Plus only about 25% of the USA has access to mass transit. And what are you worried about? AFAIK one of the Tesla electric cars can kick the crap out of any of the 1960/1970s muscle cars hands down. BTW - spare me the argument concerning exhaust noise . . . Muscle cars are all about 1/4 mile ETs. |
Lee,
I am worried about this, and I think you should be too: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...rd-automakers/ In working with Hemmings, The HVA, and our partner groups that are all interested in the preservation of our automotive heritage - these developments are alarming. Oh by the way lets look at some Tesla facts: Trips take dramatically longer You are continually stopping to find a super charger so that means you have to plan your route around the infrastructure on an approved Tesla route which is sketchy. Right now an 8 hour trip in a Gasoline car on a Tesla approved route that has superchargers - installed takes 12 hours to complete in a Tesla. Finally that world beating performance that will "Kick the crap out of our cars" drops off as the battery discharges. You hit it once there is your best run. You hit it multiple times your ET drops quickly. Now just where did I get this info? Directly from a GM engineer up at the tech center in May. They had one plugged in and were studying it so I asked him about it. Back to topic, from the link above we should be concerned now here in the USA about California and their intentions concerning the Internal Combustion Engine.:) |
I am not worried at all. I am 66 years old. I will be dead before any of what you are linking to actually happens.
There are a few things to consider though. Current battery technology is not enough. There has to be a revolutionary, not evolutionary breakthrough. Plus you have the increased strain on electric grids which will have to be upgraded to handle the additional needs of electric cars. And BTW there are two parts to these bans: first is all new cars can't have an ICE. Then you have to deal with all the existing ICE equipped cars. It will take decades before they are traded in for a new model. And then you have Big Oil. You really think they will sit by and do nothing? California has always "lead the charge" when it comes to auto emissions. They had the A.I.R. system two years before it became mandatory. Yet CA is still today referred to as the "Smog State." Politicians can make great speeches but the voters control what happens. And if there is one state in the USA that is dependent on the car for transportation it's CA. Everyone likes "going green" until their life is disrupted by it. Then they holler and scream at the top of their lungs. |
I want to keep politics out of the thread, I simply want to keep you informed.
If you live in the states of: California Oregon Washington Colorado Arizona New Mexico Minnesota Illinois Michigan Vermont New Hampshire Rhode Island You live in a state that has decided to follow UN Agenda 2030 on a Voluntary basis. Keep a sharp eye on evolving legislation in these states concerning our cars. Within the country as a whole there are roughly 115 cities that are "Paris in waiting" meaning they are well along the path of placing plans that will attempt to ban or tax or place limits on when such a vehicle can be operated. For those wondering Agenda 2030 is the so called "Paris Accord". :) |
They are outlawing the sale of any NEW fossil fueled vehicles in 2040. It isn't much different than when the banned leaded gas and made new cars have catalytic converters. or how withing the next 6 years all cars will be required to get 50mpg. They told us that we couldn't buy a new car with a 12:1 compression big block that made 450hp and burned leaded gas. We conformed,and they even went so far as to remove the leaded gas that we needed to run our existing cars on. In 5 years you will be reading on Camaro forums about how to work on your electric hybrid supplimental motor on your 4 cylinder Z/28. Somehow or another we always end up conforming to their rules. No doubt that if by 2050 someone owns a petrol burning vehicle they won't be able to find fuel for it and will be mixing concoctions in their garages to keep them running.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.