New EPA rules governing track cars
02-09-16, 09:09 PM
#1
New EPA rules governing track cars
Hey all,
I'm posting this in the general SC section. If we should move this to Performance and Maintenance since it does deal with the subject of driveline modification then I'll be happy to.
I don't want to rattle anyone with this, claiming the sky is falling or anything like that but everyone here should take a look at what's been happening between the EPA and SEMA regarding what is and is not regulated on what we all consider "track cars" converted from normal road cars.
The EPA buried "clarifying regulations to existing regulations" in a proposed bill mostly about truck emissions which in a nutshell are going to require nearly any car converted for track-only use (even if only trailered to the track) keep its original emissions equipment and tuning and would prohibit tampering with them-- just like any street registered car.
This has huge implications for SEMA and the aftermarket parts industry at large. This information has only just been discovered.
You'll find that it's extremely confusing how they define the few exceptions to the rule regarding engines that are specifically intended for track use only.
Side note-- they mentioned nothing about any internal combustion vehicle used for racing that has been electric converted, however in short the costs involved for 2JZ or LS1 style power are currently extremely high. Plus there is currently a weight penalty from batteries, not to mention abysmal range and recharging time as of the date of this posting.
Jalopnik wrote three articles on the subject in succession. SEMA is deeply interested in this and so far as the EPA have clarified to both SEMA and Jalopnik, they are mostly interested in cars that are built "for the track" but are also driven on the street. It doesn't affect any other modifications-- just engines and emissions controls.
It's controversial and I urge everyone to give these a careful read.
First Article:
http://jalopnik.com/is-the-epa-tryin...ars-1758013542
Second Article:
http://jalopnik.com/all-the-contradi...the-1758027610
Third Article:
http://jalopnik.com/the-epas-crackdo...ned-1758111546
Edit: To leave a public comment (not just an online petition comment), refer to Post #14
I'm posting this in the general SC section. If we should move this to Performance and Maintenance since it does deal with the subject of driveline modification then I'll be happy to.
I don't want to rattle anyone with this, claiming the sky is falling or anything like that but everyone here should take a look at what's been happening between the EPA and SEMA regarding what is and is not regulated on what we all consider "track cars" converted from normal road cars.
The EPA buried "clarifying regulations to existing regulations" in a proposed bill mostly about truck emissions which in a nutshell are going to require nearly any car converted for track-only use (even if only trailered to the track) keep its original emissions equipment and tuning and would prohibit tampering with them-- just like any street registered car.
This has huge implications for SEMA and the aftermarket parts industry at large. This information has only just been discovered.
You'll find that it's extremely confusing how they define the few exceptions to the rule regarding engines that are specifically intended for track use only.
Side note-- they mentioned nothing about any internal combustion vehicle used for racing that has been electric converted, however in short the costs involved for 2JZ or LS1 style power are currently extremely high. Plus there is currently a weight penalty from batteries, not to mention abysmal range and recharging time as of the date of this posting.
Jalopnik wrote three articles on the subject in succession. SEMA is deeply interested in this and so far as the EPA have clarified to both SEMA and Jalopnik, they are mostly interested in cars that are built "for the track" but are also driven on the street. It doesn't affect any other modifications-- just engines and emissions controls.
It's controversial and I urge everyone to give these a careful read.
First Article:
http://jalopnik.com/is-the-epa-tryin...ars-1758013542
Second Article:
http://jalopnik.com/all-the-contradi...the-1758027610
Third Article:
http://jalopnik.com/the-epas-crackdo...ned-1758111546
Edit: To leave a public comment (not just an online petition comment), refer to Post #14
Last edited by KahnBB6; 02-10-16 at 07:07 PM.
02-09-16, 10:27 PM
#2
Intermediate
This is huge news, even after reading the three articles I'm still slightly confused, heck even Jalopnik seems confused about it. Whats going through my head right now is what's going to happen to the aftermarket industry, this is such a huge blow to them. Will this be the end of performance enthusiasts? Or perhaps we will all just find another way..
I can understand why the EPA is doing it though, a lot of people have been abusing the law and have little care for emissions, so they try to bypass it somehow.
There is a lot of culture toward drag racing and who can go the fastest in a straight line, pouring money into engine performance, what will happen to all that now.. In racing suspension modifications are more important but the engine still needs to be tuned in a certain way regardless of EPA.
I may read it wrong, but this is deeply concerning for those who are starting out in modifying their vehicles.
I can understand why the EPA is doing it though, a lot of people have been abusing the law and have little care for emissions, so they try to bypass it somehow.
There is a lot of culture toward drag racing and who can go the fastest in a straight line, pouring money into engine performance, what will happen to all that now.. In racing suspension modifications are more important but the engine still needs to be tuned in a certain way regardless of EPA.
I may read it wrong, but this is deeply concerning for those who are starting out in modifying their vehicles.
02-10-16, 12:24 AM
#3
It is a confusing read. And earlier I was thinking about it and remarked, "Clever move."
I think you're right to be concerned about the aftermarket parts industry. That's what this is most likely targeting via "track cars". I'm not sure what provoked it on the EPA's end but that has to be the intent.
I don't think they are actually going to bother with anyone's cars. I think they want to pressure or legally scare aftermarket manufacturers who sell "off-road use only" parts. And that alone is annoying news for all but the priciest classes of racing. How they will attempt to enforce this amidst a near infinite number of performance parts companies remains to be seen.
The problem I have with it, and also as it relates to cars like the SC (although this applies to everything), is that it legally makes it much harder for 2nd and 3rd and even some 1st owners to correct a manufacturer's mistake of not having offered the correct engine or powerful enough engine in the car in certain markets. This would directly affect NA-T's and JDM swaps (I assume). Or just to make a track or drag car faster.
.....
It makes me feel the same way about new cars as I do about Apple products now: since you can't upgrade most aspects of them you need to buy them fully loaded as custom order machines and wait for them to be built for you. And if their specifications aren't enough from the factory-- they're garbage. Walk.
...Unless the specifications you want are simply out of your price range altogether.
The only trouble is that we have this awful system whereby you aren't allowed to order a car directly from the manufacturer in this country. Often you have to hunt around for the options you want from existing stock and woe be to you if you want a model with a rare high performance package which is usually subject to eyebrow-twitch-inducing markups... but that's a whole other topic not for this discussion.
An obscure note is that in some cases, USDM emissions components for some cars (the 2JZGTE included) are simply discontinued with zero aftermarket alternatives. You can GET them used but you still have FIND them and they won't be brand new. I find that to be a very rotten apple in light of this EPA news.
The over-arching problem more stringent non-modification rules create is the de-democraization of horsepower and performance for most people. We will always swap engines but it might have to lean towards pricier and more in demand engines that are stock or near stock to begin with. And none of those that are common and kind of affordable are going to go much farther past 300-400hp or so in stock form.
......
Yes, I know why they're doing it too with people skirting emissions by running totally catless. But ECU tuning and parts that make the engine more efficient do not necessarily cause the problems it seems they are reacting to. And it shouldn't matter on track only racecars anyway-- which again, I don't think are the actual intended targets of these regulations. The legal status of modified track cars are just the collateral damage.
The timing is interesting, however: recent legal news about what can and cannot be done to ECU's because of who legally owns the contents of the ECU (ie: flash tuning), pushing for EV technology amidst dismally poor current battery technology and the ongoing obsession with autonomous cars.
No, I do not feel it will be the end for performance enthusiasts. The engines are the only things affected by this measure. Everything else they don't care about.
It might mean that it gets more expensive and that your selection of engine upgrades becomes more limited to CARB-Approved parts or full USDM engine swaps. For instance, you can shoehorn an emissions legal LSx into almost anything RWD (although CanBus needs to be severely democratized for newer engines) but your options are much more limited in FWD cars.
I'm personally neutral on EVs and EV conversions and those will undoubtedly be what we hotrod with and race with in the future. To get even 300-400hp electric horsepower right now is roughly the same cost as an original MKIV TT 6-speed ($26K-$35K+) but the cost will come down. Something about the sound and nature of revving will be missed, however. I would still run an anachronistic manual transmission no matter what the car is powered by. Because whimsy and fun are one of the great things about cars.
As long as some technology exists to make vehicles fast under completely manual control there will be hotrodding. Power is power and speed is speed.
.........
At moment, however, I am not sure what this ultimately means for folks like us. Again, I don't think anything will change for individuals with their cars. I don't think it will affect all of the modifications we already have. I think the EPA wants to rattle some cages in the aftermarket parts industry.
A concession should be for the enormously high cost of CARB certification to be severely reduced. That's the biggest reason that there aren't so many meaningful CARB-legal parts beyond common dumb bolt-on intakes and headers.
Also, manufacturers should not be easily allowed to discontinue critical emissions components for any of their cars (I'm looking at you, Toyota) if this is how the EPA wants it.
Addendum: I should have noted that right now the EPA is hearing public comments on these proposed rules before they are finalized.
Correction to Addendum: According to the Ferrarichat link in Post #7, the public comment period directly to the EPA for this may have already passed. And the enthusiast community is undoubtedly only hearing about this in the last couple of days because it was buried in a 629 page document that took some time for anyone to fully read through when it was first proposed.
I think you're right to be concerned about the aftermarket parts industry. That's what this is most likely targeting via "track cars". I'm not sure what provoked it on the EPA's end but that has to be the intent.
I don't think they are actually going to bother with anyone's cars. I think they want to pressure or legally scare aftermarket manufacturers who sell "off-road use only" parts. And that alone is annoying news for all but the priciest classes of racing. How they will attempt to enforce this amidst a near infinite number of performance parts companies remains to be seen.
The problem I have with it, and also as it relates to cars like the SC (although this applies to everything), is that it legally makes it much harder for 2nd and 3rd and even some 1st owners to correct a manufacturer's mistake of not having offered the correct engine or powerful enough engine in the car in certain markets. This would directly affect NA-T's and JDM swaps (I assume). Or just to make a track or drag car faster.
.....
It makes me feel the same way about new cars as I do about Apple products now: since you can't upgrade most aspects of them you need to buy them fully loaded as custom order machines and wait for them to be built for you. And if their specifications aren't enough from the factory-- they're garbage. Walk.
...Unless the specifications you want are simply out of your price range altogether.
The only trouble is that we have this awful system whereby you aren't allowed to order a car directly from the manufacturer in this country. Often you have to hunt around for the options you want from existing stock and woe be to you if you want a model with a rare high performance package which is usually subject to eyebrow-twitch-inducing markups... but that's a whole other topic not for this discussion.
An obscure note is that in some cases, USDM emissions components for some cars (the 2JZGTE included) are simply discontinued with zero aftermarket alternatives. You can GET them used but you still have FIND them and they won't be brand new. I find that to be a very rotten apple in light of this EPA news.
The over-arching problem more stringent non-modification rules create is the de-democraization of horsepower and performance for most people. We will always swap engines but it might have to lean towards pricier and more in demand engines that are stock or near stock to begin with. And none of those that are common and kind of affordable are going to go much farther past 300-400hp or so in stock form.
......
Yes, I know why they're doing it too with people skirting emissions by running totally catless. But ECU tuning and parts that make the engine more efficient do not necessarily cause the problems it seems they are reacting to. And it shouldn't matter on track only racecars anyway-- which again, I don't think are the actual intended targets of these regulations. The legal status of modified track cars are just the collateral damage.
The timing is interesting, however: recent legal news about what can and cannot be done to ECU's because of who legally owns the contents of the ECU (ie: flash tuning), pushing for EV technology amidst dismally poor current battery technology and the ongoing obsession with autonomous cars.
No, I do not feel it will be the end for performance enthusiasts. The engines are the only things affected by this measure. Everything else they don't care about.
It might mean that it gets more expensive and that your selection of engine upgrades becomes more limited to CARB-Approved parts or full USDM engine swaps. For instance, you can shoehorn an emissions legal LSx into almost anything RWD (although CanBus needs to be severely democratized for newer engines) but your options are much more limited in FWD cars.
I'm personally neutral on EVs and EV conversions and those will undoubtedly be what we hotrod with and race with in the future. To get even 300-400hp electric horsepower right now is roughly the same cost as an original MKIV TT 6-speed ($26K-$35K+) but the cost will come down. Something about the sound and nature of revving will be missed, however. I would still run an anachronistic manual transmission no matter what the car is powered by. Because whimsy and fun are one of the great things about cars.
As long as some technology exists to make vehicles fast under completely manual control there will be hotrodding. Power is power and speed is speed.
.........
At moment, however, I am not sure what this ultimately means for folks like us. Again, I don't think anything will change for individuals with their cars. I don't think it will affect all of the modifications we already have. I think the EPA wants to rattle some cages in the aftermarket parts industry.
A concession should be for the enormously high cost of CARB certification to be severely reduced. That's the biggest reason that there aren't so many meaningful CARB-legal parts beyond common dumb bolt-on intakes and headers.
Also, manufacturers should not be easily allowed to discontinue critical emissions components for any of their cars (I'm looking at you, Toyota) if this is how the EPA wants it.
Addendum: I should have noted that right now the EPA is hearing public comments on these proposed rules before they are finalized.
Correction to Addendum: According to the Ferrarichat link in Post #7, the public comment period directly to the EPA for this may have already passed. And the enthusiast community is undoubtedly only hearing about this in the last couple of days because it was buried in a 629 page document that took some time for anyone to fully read through when it was first proposed.
Last edited by KahnBB6; 02-10-16 at 02:57 AM. Reason: Clarification and grammatical correction
02-10-16, 01:21 AM
#4
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorspo...ctually-means/
And from another forum that's been discussing this... I find this part extremely irksome if this person is interpreting it correctly.
http://www.trackhq.com/forums/f303/e...tml#post140616
And the response just below that post:
http://www.trackhq.com/forums/f303/e...tml#post140619
And the White House and Change.org petitions asking for the repeal of this measure:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...les-racecars-0
https://www.change.org/p/president-o...e-modification
And from another forum that's been discussing this... I find this part extremely irksome if this person is interpreting it correctly.
http://www.trackhq.com/forums/f303/e...tml#post140616
And the response just below that post:
http://www.trackhq.com/forums/f303/e...tml#post140619
And the White House and Change.org petitions asking for the repeal of this measure:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...les-racecars-0
https://www.change.org/p/president-o...e-modification
Last edited by KahnBB6; 02-10-16 at 01:32 AM.
02-10-16, 01:42 AM
#6
In so far as coal burning and other heavily polluting plants are concerned, yes. Same goes for the poisoned water in Flint, MI and other places and the huge ongoing Methane gas leak in southern California to name a couple more.
I understand the need for less vehicle emissions but the way this section of the bill is worded it has extremely far reaching implications beyond track cars no matter what state of tune they are in. I'm also concerned with the second link I put in post #4 of this thread-- IF the interpretation of the legal wording is correct.
02-10-16, 02:34 AM
#7
Some other clarified detail here:
http://hooniverse.com/2016/02/09/us-...urned-racecar/
And a Ferrarichat thread on the same topic (herein it's noted by someone that the public comment period directly to the EPA may have already passed):
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/oth...race-cars.html
And an extensive bit of research in this thread:
http://forums.24hoursoflemons.com/vi...291832#p291832
http://hooniverse.com/2016/02/09/us-...urned-racecar/
And a Ferrarichat thread on the same topic (herein it's noted by someone that the public comment period directly to the EPA may have already passed):
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/oth...race-cars.html
And an extensive bit of research in this thread:
http://forums.24hoursoflemons.com/vi...291832#p291832
Last edited by KahnBB6; 02-10-16 at 02:58 AM. Reason: Additions
Trending Topics
02-10-16, 08:10 AM
#8
GM just tried this also by trying to push a lawsuit that said they held copyright to all tech on their cars and you weren't allowed to alter it. They lost that one, but I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the big car manufactures are behind this current legislation to once again cripple the aftermarket parts business, so they can hold total rights to parts for they're cars in all aspects including track cars. Thus eliminating many older models by simply not offering parts for them, which would then force you to buy a new car. Captive market!
02-10-16, 12:59 PM
#9
Intermediate
Why not just make stricter emissions for cars that are newly made, even though new cars are becoming less pollutant. The majority of cars owned by people who use for daily driving are new already, they don't modify them or do anything to affect emissions. I have no statistics on this but I think the percentage of modified vehicles that do not meet the EPA standards must be so low to the total amount of vehicles used in the country. With newer stricter emission regulations means that manufacturers will find newer ways to make performance vehicles, which is great for the future but for those who already have older vehicles it doesn't matter. Eventually older cars will decrease in number due to countless reasons. We will see what happens in the future but for now much cannot be said.
02-10-16, 01:18 PM
#10
Whole thing is a joke. We drive our "modified" cars sparingly and don't put out anything near what daily drivers and other cars to. Will this go into the motorcycle industry as well? What about diesel trucks?
Steve K.
Steve K.
02-10-16, 03:00 PM
#12
Intermediate
Yeah pretty much, as soon as it comes to money and they see how BIG of a loss it will cause either the EPA will change the bill or drop it completely. The EPA does care about the environment, but companies have much greater influence than governments and the Auto Industry is no joke.
02-10-16, 06:50 PM
#14
Posted today:
http://jalopnik.com/how-and-why-you-...ace-1758288770
From the Jalopnik Article:
"To comment, you’ll want to go here, to the Federal Register, first. There you can find the full text of the proposal, and can find and cite the 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) section that’s hoping to exclude competition cars from the 40 CFR 1068.235 nonroad competition use exemption. It can’t hurt to be specific.
Then, you’ll go here, to Regulations.gov, and if you follow that link there that will take you to the specific page for the EPA document in question.
There, you’ll see this comment button:
How And Why You Can Weigh In On The EPA's Proposed Race Car Rules
Click there, and it’ll take you to the comment page. Follow the instructions from there, and feel free to copy and paste from our articles on this if that helps. At this moment, the document has nearly 225,000 comments, so let’s try and get that number up even higher so there’s no way the feds can ignore this.
Hopefully, if enough of us express concern at this proposal, and the overall lack of respect for small-scale racing that it represents, we will be able to stop this in its tracks before it can potentially cause the racing community any harm."
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ty-engines-and
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...-OAR-2014-0827
http://jalopnik.com/how-and-why-you-...ace-1758288770
From the Jalopnik Article:
"To comment, you’ll want to go here, to the Federal Register, first. There you can find the full text of the proposal, and can find and cite the 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) section that’s hoping to exclude competition cars from the 40 CFR 1068.235 nonroad competition use exemption. It can’t hurt to be specific.
Then, you’ll go here, to Regulations.gov, and if you follow that link there that will take you to the specific page for the EPA document in question.
There, you’ll see this comment button:
How And Why You Can Weigh In On The EPA's Proposed Race Car Rules
Click there, and it’ll take you to the comment page. Follow the instructions from there, and feel free to copy and paste from our articles on this if that helps. At this moment, the document has nearly 225,000 comments, so let’s try and get that number up even higher so there’s no way the feds can ignore this.
Hopefully, if enough of us express concern at this proposal, and the overall lack of respect for small-scale racing that it represents, we will be able to stop this in its tracks before it can potentially cause the racing community any harm."
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ty-engines-and
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...-OAR-2014-0827
Last edited by KahnBB6; 02-10-16 at 06:56 PM.
02-10-16, 10:27 PM
#15
Arstechnica article on the proposed rules:
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/...to-a-race-car/
Quote: "...Net-net, racers have little to worry about. But nefarious aftermarket companies might."
Hmm...
The comments on this article's page are very interesting.
Among them, this one stands out to me. It's actually very similar to the situation that some face in California already when performing engine swaps. And this guy is talking about a kit car / restomod:
Article quote:
.....................
ihavethemelody wrote:
"The more interesting question is how it applies to kit cars and the like, or a restoration of an older car to a modern engine (often done for drag cars)."
Ravant Reply:
"This is a major issue I'm struggling with at the moment with my local regulatory body.
I removed an engine that polluted considerably more than the new engine I installed. Despite going from an old, polluting monstrosity to a modern, clean system that tests at a fraction of a percent of the emissions the old engine did, the car is still not "legal" since the catalytic converter is not in the stock location for the old motor. Not only does it run two cats now, the first metal substrate cat has been moved closer to the header so it can heat up sooner and act as a more effective catalyst sooner in the warmup cycle, thus reducing emissions further.
In the spirit of the law, this car should not only be allowed to exist in the competitive circuit and on the street, this kind of swap should be outright encouraged to bring old vehicles into the 21st century and pollute less. But because of the letter of the law, the vehicle is not legal. Yet another way the EPA's short-sightedness is hurting more than it helps. They really need to use a scalpel when a scalpel is required, not a sledgehammer."
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/...to-a-race-car/
Quote: "...Net-net, racers have little to worry about. But nefarious aftermarket companies might."
Hmm...
The comments on this article's page are very interesting.
Among them, this one stands out to me. It's actually very similar to the situation that some face in California already when performing engine swaps. And this guy is talking about a kit car / restomod:
Article quote:
.....................
ihavethemelody wrote:
"The more interesting question is how it applies to kit cars and the like, or a restoration of an older car to a modern engine (often done for drag cars)."
Ravant Reply:
"This is a major issue I'm struggling with at the moment with my local regulatory body.
I removed an engine that polluted considerably more than the new engine I installed. Despite going from an old, polluting monstrosity to a modern, clean system that tests at a fraction of a percent of the emissions the old engine did, the car is still not "legal" since the catalytic converter is not in the stock location for the old motor. Not only does it run two cats now, the first metal substrate cat has been moved closer to the header so it can heat up sooner and act as a more effective catalyst sooner in the warmup cycle, thus reducing emissions further.
In the spirit of the law, this car should not only be allowed to exist in the competitive circuit and on the street, this kind of swap should be outright encouraged to bring old vehicles into the 21st century and pollute less. But because of the letter of the law, the vehicle is not legal. Yet another way the EPA's short-sightedness is hurting more than it helps. They really need to use a scalpel when a scalpel is required, not a sledgehammer."
Last edited by KahnBB6; 02-10-16 at 10:50 PM. Reason: Added article quote & formatting correction