Featured Sham: The Government is Trying to Ruin Racing

If the customers and installers of emission defeat devices for race cars weren't also using them on street cars, the EPA wouldn't have felt a need for this.

 

I frequent car forums where one of the most frequent posting subjects is asking about devices to defeat or eliminate pollution control devices. Cat delete, intake mods, throttle bodies, how to defeat the O2 sensor, how to chip the car to change the ECU settings, etc.

They aren't talking about converting street cars to race cars but about $600 in parts to gain maybe 5-8HP. I think it is bragging rights they are after because it doesn't make much difference on the road.

For those that same car, there is a class of race cars where all the pollution control stuff must remain, the engines are of the lowest stock HP for the model. In that class, it is driver ability that is the challenge. And the cars are often driven to the track legally pulling a trailer full of spares and race tires.

 

You can engineer and build a fast and powerful race car with full emissions equipment. Sure you can usually make it slightly faster and slightly more powerful with no emissions equipment but why are people angry about this?

You have a race car, you have a daily driver. Race car is modded out, daily driver is modded within legal limits. If you are using your daily driver at the track on race days, then why is it so hard to understand that it needs to be a road worthy compliant car first, and a fun day at the track second? If you really care that much, then buy a second vehicle to be the race car. Those idiots that take their daily's to the track probably don't understand the harsh abuse that race cars get. You don't want your daily driver to suffer that abuse so it strands you at the side of the road when it breaks down.

And more to the point, just buy the right car. Most of these idiots are buying old American crap with huge engines that have no power. I have more than enough fun driving a 458 Italia around, bone stock. Well except for the radar and laser jammers lol. Shhhhhhh....

 

The reason is these seldom used cars probably contribute very little to pollution. The rules just make sure only older vehicles can race.

My idea is you meausure the milelage. If you are driving the 1970s pos 10,000 mileas in LA each year you should have to pay a big fine. If you are driving a moded car a few thousand miles a year on race day, why not. The trouble is the old cars in the polluted cities not these racing modifications. CARB and the EPA like to let these old polluters slide, but jack up the price for real hobbiests. I don't know why regulators can't have a carve out. In texas they take your mileage every year, its pretty easy to implement in a state like mine. I'd much rather have them declare a $5000/year tax on pre 1996 diesels (these don't get emissions tested in texas because all would fail) then to not allow racing mods.

Bob ripping out the emissions stuff and running it on the road is illegal in most states, and has nothing to do with racing.

 

I recall last summer a very nicely restored '70's muscle car went by us in the left lane, then back in front. Caught up to him at the light, and when it went green: ugh, just a reek of unburnt gas. Probably with adjustment that could have been mostly fixed, but frustrating, when the world is trying to get green.

 

Those are the cars that racers will be limited if this goes through. Restored or unrestored pre 1980 cars pollute a lot and are legal. There pollution control doesn't work right because they didn't know how to do it back then.

Let's let some cleaner cars race and get these old cars off the road.

 

Sure and until the state government cares, the epa rules won't matter. This new rule probably won't hurt race cars in alabama ;-)

I'm not sure what that is, but yikes it looks like the lawnmower when it started when I was a kid not a car.

Remember when race cars used meethanol? That dropped all the emissions then the epa seemed to decide methanol bad, after carb decicded methanol bad. Nothing to do with the environment, but methanol came from natural gas, while ethanol had a lobby and came from corn.

 

That's just the cabin heater, it's a little touchy.

 

You don't need a 780 cfm Holly double pumper carburetor sitting on top of a high rise manifold to reek of unburnt exhaust gas. Many 1970's cars are still on the road because that's all some can afford. Couple that with poor areas - you get poor enforcement. Example; Montana. The big sky has turned to brown sky in many counties. Between forest fires - wood burning stoves - and cars with exhaust systems removed (no enforcement) - it's a recipe for lung aching, and eye burning.

Still . . . ever since formula 1 entered to world of hybrids - I began to hold out hope for clean racing ... eventually.

.

 

solution: electric racing

 

Itshould be noted that said tax was set in 1934, but has never been adjusted for inflation. While the legal machinegun supply was frozen three decades ago, inflation has now made that same tax on suppressors affordable to many, so the market for the later has recently expanded greatly.

A $200 tax in 1934 dollars would be roughly $3600 today.

 

I am not so sure about this. I read someplace that a 4-stroke lawn mower without a catalytic converter puts out more smog gases in 1 hour of operation than a California-compliant car puts out in a year of operation. So if a lawn mower is that polluting, running a car w/o emissions stuff for an hour is probably at least a few times worse.

 

I don't see a problem with that. If the vehicle needs to go to the public road it needs to meet the regulations. In EU that is ofc expected. Now if I misunderstood and even the track-only vehicles will have to have emissions devices, that is funny. Imagine F1 with catalytic converter.

 

Meh.

Tempest in a teacup.

I'm not much of a fan of oppressive governmint regulations upon regulations, and it would seem to me that the system that we currently have in place serves us well.
"Collectable" cars usually aren't driven much, because if you have a six-figure vintage Mopar, it's usually a trailer queen.
Off-road exceptions are just that....."off road." I've never seen a VET station at a race track.
Most of the goobermint enforcement takes place at the DMV, and if you're lucky enough to live in places where the air is already clean, then you don't have to face VET inspections, which is a good thing - but then again you also have to put up with cheap used cars dumped into your state by people who live in more (*ahem!*) "progressive" places.
Everywhere I've ever been, there have been vehicles that perform double-duty as mosquito control devices, so I like the fact that in some places you can also benefit from not having to pay fees and get an inspection at a site that might or might not actually perform an inspection.
See also: Safety Inspection.
The regulations, if they're passed, will be more mattress-tag laws.

I do like the ability to pay a tax stamp if I want to "legally" modify my vehicle.

As a shooter, I can avail myself of a Class-III weapon by paying for an investigation (waived, because I already have an enhanced permit) getting a LEO endorsement (also waived) and getting a tax stamp.

As far as the affordability of Class-3 weapons, it's a non-issue for most shooters.
AMMUNITION is why most people do not invest $2,000 into a full-auto rifle.....and most military people already know that outside of movies most professional shooters eschew the "spray and pray" method of small arms combat.

As far as sawed-off shotguns, that's mostly a construct of Hollywood too.
People shoot pistols with their arms extended, which means that a legal (18") shotgun barrel offers no more restriction to mobility and only a little more concealability than the 11 or 13" models.
It's like flash suppressors or bayonet lugs.
States ban them because they "look" mean......understanding little about what or why they're regulating these items.

Kinda like race cars.

Suppressors occupy a middle ground.
(only non-shooters call them "silencers" because they're only silent on film)
They're somewhat useful for varmint control with a rimfire cartridge, but if you're close enough to disturb others than you probably need to restrict your shooting to daytime hours anyway.

Interestingly enough....suppressors ARE cheap, but I've only used them a few times as a curio item.
It's fun.....for a while, but mostly just makes the weapon dirtier and..........harder to conceal....and aim for some people.
It's like living in a state where there's no VET.
You always have to give to get.
When I was in GTMO, the squids used a suppressed .22LR rifleperson to "suppress" the bananna-rat population.

I used a HMMWV.

PS. If you use a suppressor, use subsonic ammo.

 

There is a push to relax suppressor regulations on the grounds that they are hearing protection. Without the subsonic ammo, you will still need a good set of ear muffs for a day at the range even with one.

And we probably should say no more on the subject here.

 

Oh crap.
Sincere apologies for the political insensitivity!