SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

Jim G:

As Nate wrote above, all the clubs using Ft. Devens had no idea that complaints were being lodged until after they were almost kicked out.  They all thought their (lack of a) sound control program was working fine, or as you wrote, "Dude, we _have_ a plan to deal with the sound should a problem come up.  Its the same plan every region should have and it states 'do whatever the hell makes the lot owner happy'. "    But there are times when the lot owner is unhappy and doesn't tell you until the decision is made for you to leave.

I dunno about you folks, but we talk to our lot owners all the freaking time, before and after events.  If they're gonna keep a concern like that, big enough for them to want to shut down a site, under covers in that kinda environment than nothing I can do is going to eliminate the "site owner went bonkers" problem.  I'm not going to start lining up hoops to jump through just to practice for an event that may well never happen. 

 

Going back to an earlier point I made, subjecting corner workers to high noise levels is just not reasonable.  In addition to the discomfort, people end up holding their fingers in their ears and concentrating on the assault rather than on the cones.

On the planet I'm on, ear plugs are readily available and people have the ability to hold their fingers over their ears _and_ still use their eyes.  Painting this as a safety concern is completely ludicrous.  As a possible site retention issue?  Maybe.  Reasonable people could disagree on that one (even though you're wrong.  :-)  But as a safety issue?  Are you freaking kidding me?

We might as well ban waxed silver cars too, because if I look at them just right the reflecting sun blinds me and I could lose my vision.

Mark

Mark, I've read many of your posts on a variety of subjects on this board and you've always struck me as a logical and reasonable guy...but, on this issue, I just can't find a way to even imagine what thinking is leading you to the position you've chosen.

There's no downside to noise restrictions...nothing but upside...and if it has to be done at certain regional levels, it should also be adopted at a national level to insure parity at the largest events, i.e. all motors optimized for reasonable race mufflers in all regions. 

Besides, outside of a few inline sixes, nothing sounds good unmuffled besides a V8, anyhow

---

In slow, out fast.
In fast, out backwards.

Howdy,

mwood:

Besides, outside of a few inline sixes, nothing sounds good unmuffled besides a V8, anyhow

If you want to institute this rule, but have an exemption for v8's, then I'd support it more.  :-)

My position on this is simple.  Noise issues are highly variable depending on the particular situation.  Everything from totally insane limits to no limits at all.  It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever to take the most restrictive noise limits (and it would have to be that, or that parity you want still wouldn't exist) and apply them to everyone in the country. 

It would make just as much sense to find out what the size the smallest lot is in the country and force everyone to use only that area for their course.

Different locations have different benefits and drawbacks.  Sound is one of those issues, but so are lot size, whether you're allowed to run non-street licensed cars, time restrictions, and probably other stuff I'm not thinking of.  Sound isn't such a huge overriding issue that it should outweigh those other considerations.

Further, I continue to read plenty of stories by folks that have issues with sound enforcement... Now it seems a meter isn't enough... A turn up that allows a car to pass the meter is cheating.  Slightly different measurement procedures render dramatically different results.

Heck, at Runoffs this year wasn't Heinracy (sp?) dq'd for sound?  Despite not having any issues in practice all week?

And you want to force me to deal with this mess when my lot owner doesn't care?  Are you absolutely insane?

Mark

Mark, I don't know how, or even if its possible, to make you see things as I see them. All I can say is please remember that even if the rule is put in place for all national level events then anyone planning on running a tour or pro will know that it is in their best interest to make sure they'll pass sound. The trickle down effect will then spread to local events and regions everywhere will be able to tell current site owners as well as potential site owners "hey, look, we're so responsible, we've already instituted a national sound requirement AND WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO!". The minor headaches associated with a change like this at a national level are far outweighed by the benefits. You disagree and I respect that. However, your region wouldn't have to actually enforce the rule if they didn't want to. I think you're also being touch naive to believe that your site owners tell you everything and that they are the only ones that would get a complaint. What happens when the town gets all the complaints and nothing is said to the site owner until a politician who wants to make a splash decides to "shut down those rabble rousers!". Yeah, we kept Devens. Just barely. Are you really willing to gamble your region's Solo program?

ps. please stop using the site size argument. you won't loose a site because its too small and parity is only the tiniest factor in this whole thing. a handful of horsepower and 15lbs at the lowest point on the car isn't going to cost you a jacket. i apologize for confusing the discussion by mentioning that in the first place. site retention and acquisition is the #1 concern and if you can't see how a national sound restriction could help with that...

pps. absurdly low sound restrictions come about two ways 1) the issue was ignored for far too long and 2) turn outs and the like were not properly policed, so cars that were too loud passed sound but ruined it because the neighbors still complained (rightfully) and had the sound limit further lowered. The Devens restriction is 90db at 75'. You can still make great power and have an awesome sounding car and be under that number. The only guys that really struggle are the 2-stroke guys, and even they can get the sound down enough to pass. Oh, and tire squeal passes that sound limit too. Will that work for every region? Maybe not, some might have lower limits. It is significantly easier to get a car that is under 90db at 75' to pass at 89db then a car that blows 95db, and anyone who knows they're close to the 90db limit would know they need to bring an alternate muffler or the like to quiet their car down further if needed.

 ppps. Your concerns on measuring standards, site variables, measuring method, and enforcement are valid. They aren't as big of an issue as you're making them out to be though.

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

Howdy,

solo-x:

ps. please stop using the site size argument. you won't loose a site because its too small and parity is only the tiniest factor in this whole thing. a handful of horsepower and 15lbs at the lowest point on the car isn't going to cost you a jacket. i apologize for confusing the discussion by mentioning that in the first place. site retention and acquisition is the #1 concern and if you can't see how a national sound restriction could help with that...

If parity isn't a factor (!!!!), then why in the hell do you care about some other site's sound requirements?  Please don't try and "help" me by forcing me to do stuff I don't need to do.

I may well need to deal with this in the future at some other place.  And if I do, there are plenty of options for me to use to address the issue.  But forcing me to address it _because you needed to_ is not going to win you many friends.

 

pps. absurdly low sound restrictions come about two ways 1) the issue was ignored for far too long and 2) turn outs and the like were not properly policed, so cars that were too loud passed sound but ruined it because the neighbors still complained (rightfully) and had the sound limit further lowered. The Devens restriction is 90db at 75'. You can still make great power and have an awesome sounding car and be under that number. The only guys that really struggle are the 2-stroke guys, and even they can get the sound down enough to pass. Oh, and tire squeal passes that sound limit too. Will that work for every region? Maybe not, some might have lower limits. It is significantly easier to get a car that is under 90db at 75' to pass at 89db then a car that blows 95db, and anyone who knows they're close to the 90db limit would know they need to bring an alternate muffler or the like to quiet their car down further if needed.

 ppps. Your concerns on measuring standards, site variables, measuring method, and enforcement are valid. They aren't as big of an issue as you're making them out to be though.

Absurdly low sound restrictions come about primarily when there are neighbors who get annoyed at the autocross event.  I know its hard to believe, but many sites DON'T HAVE ANY NEIGHBORS.

Dude, seriously, please don't try and help me like this.

Mark

marka:

Dude, seriously, please don't try and help me like this.

Spoke like true Republican. 

--Andy

Nate, I understand the problems at Devens with regard to sound, and will not be bringing my car there this year because of the restrictions.  Having a non muffled car has made me very sensitive to site sound restrictions and I am more than willing to comply with those restrictions to retain sites.  However, if I can gain 6 inches on my SS competitors on a 50 second course then I'm willing to make the legal modifications to attempt to do so.  National allows non-muffled cars so I'm going to attempt to modify my car to the limits of legallity to maximize my chances to trophy.  Because I can run non-muffled locally I may have an advantage that others do not have available to them.  However, I realize that my driving ability will have much to do with my success, but 6 inches is 6 inches...Two events ago I just beat another SS car by 0.001 seconds...perhaps I wouldn't have topped him with mufflers on the car.

Locally I can run 3 of the 4 sites without worrying about sound.  One site I have to co-drive another car to meet sound requirements.  I have learned to adapt.

I'm not buying the site aquisition arguement.  A national requirement for sound restrictions will not sway a site owner who has already turned down the "we will restrict sound on this site and allow only muffled cars" offer.  Those owners are just looking for a reason not accept the event.  While you almost lost your site because of sound, what percentage of sites were lost last year over this sound issue?  Perhaps facts could change my opinion.

I do buy the arguement that this is an attempt to equal the playing field so that those members who can not run a non-muffled car, due to local restrictions, are not disadvantaged by those who can. 

I vote for leaving the rules as is until facts are presented that can persuade me to accept your point of view. 

---

Ted

2004 Z16/Z06 SS

I do buy the arguement that this is an attempt to equal the playing field so that those members who can not run a non-muffled car, due to local restrictions, are not disadvantaged by those who can. 

I can't/won't speak for other SEB members, but the reason that I agreed to send this out for member comment has nothing to do with parity.  Sound concerns are abound with site owners and site acquirers.  Looking at adopting something like this is a forward looking policy to help strengthen Solo's long term position.   And, quite frankly, if a National sound policy saves or helps aqcuire one site in the entire country, I am willing to have a little hardship of putting a bigger muffler on my car.   Pissing off Mark Andy is just a side benefit. :)

For the record, I've got an extremely noisy car and run at a local site with no neighbors.  I also don't buy that mufflers on a Z06 would cost .001 seconds. :)

DaveW

Howdy,

Andy Hollis:

marka:

Dude, seriously, please don't try and help me like this.

Spoke like true Republican. 

--Andy

Hardly.  If you were here with me, I'd be tempted to slap you.  :-)

Mark

(edit: I mean "tempted more than normal"... :-)

Howdy, 

TedDBere:

I vote for leaving the rules as is until facts are presented that can persuade me to accept your point of view. 

Yes, this is a good point that I hadn't gotten around to posting (too busy coming up with analogies... :-)

Let's see some data on this...  How many event sites nationwide have sould limits already?  What form do those limits take?  Is it a subjective limit or objective?  Is it enforced?  How many sites nationwide that have been lost in the last ten years can cite sound concerns as one of the issues?  The primary issue?

Let's see some data from all events across the nation.  So far this proposal seems to have a lot of support from folks in NER, SFR, and the CalClub area (if I'm guessing correctly), but that's three sites out of who knows how many total.

Show me the data, vs. conjecture.

Mark

marka:

Let's see some data on this...  How many event sites nationwide have sould limits already?  What form do those limits take?  Is it a subjective limit or objective?  Is it enforced?  How many sites nationwide that have been lost in the last ten years can cite sound concerns as one of the issues?  The primary issue?

 

Spoken like a true Democrat...just throw in a few public opinion polls and hire a few thousand bureaucrats to implement...that way we'll be assured nothing will ever get done

---

In slow, out fast.
In fast, out backwards.

marka:

Let's see some data on this...  How many event sites nationwide have sould limits already?  What form do those limits take?  Is it a subjective limit or objective?  Is it enforced?  How many sites nationwide that have been lost in the last ten years can cite sound concerns as one of the issues?  The primary issue?

Let's see some data from all events across the nation.  So far this proposal seems to have a lot of support from folks in NER, SFR, and the CalClub area (if I'm guessing correctly), but that's three sites out of who knows how many total.

Show me the data, vs. conjecture.

Mark

Here is a data point.  NWR lost a site at the Port of Seattle  (near a noisy rail yard)  because of a single noise complaint.

We also run in Packwood, population 300 +/- ( plus a big recreational population) We have heard of folks (recreational residents) not coming to town when we are there, because of the noise...  the site owner is happy that we contribute to the local economy, so we don't have too many worries.  But you never know.

---

Keith
'90 Miata with a really big roll bar
'07 MINI Cooper S with some sort of stripes

www.chaserace.com

www.tightntidyracing.com

Howdy,

mwood:

marka:

Let's see some data on this...  How many event sites nationwide have sould limits already?  What form do those limits take?  Is it a subjective limit or objective?  Is it enforced?  How many sites nationwide that have been lost in the last ten years can cite sound concerns as one of the issues?  The primary issue?

 

Spoken like a true Democrat...just throw in a few public opinion polls and hire a few thousand bureaucrats to implement...that way we'll be assured nothing will ever get done

Spoken like a true Republican... No damn clue what the data says, but they just know they're right anyway and are totally willing to f*ck everything up because of it.

:-)

Mark

motoring:

marka:

Let's see some data on this...  How many event sites nationwide have sould limits already?  What form do those limits take?  Is it a subjective limit or objective?  Is it enforced?  How many sites nationwide that have been lost in the last ten years can cite sound concerns as one of the issues?  The primary issue?

Let's see some data from all events across the nation.  So far this proposal seems to have a lot of support from folks in NER, SFR, and the CalClub area (if I'm guessing correctly), but that's three sites out of who knows how many total.

Show me the data, vs. conjecture.

Mark

Here is a data point.  NWR lost a site at the Port of Seattle  (near a noisy rail yard)  because of a single noise complaint.

We also run in Packwood, population 300 +/- ( plus a big recreational population) We have heard of folks (recreational residents) not coming to town when we are there, because of the noise...  the site owner is happy that we contribute to the local economy, so we don't have too many worries.  But you never know.

 Atlanta lost our primary site due to a single vocal resident.  It was also our cheapest site.  We now have to travel between 3 sites, all of which are more expensive and less convienient.

Sound issues are real guys.  I think that a sound limit that is common to all national events would be a properly proactive approach that would still let locals choose to have limits or not, but would pave a solid way to implement them if it is deemed necessary.  It would also lead to the fastest cars in the country being quieter, which will eliminate perception by second-tier builders that loud = fast. 

marka:

Howdy,

mwood:

marka:

Let's see some data on this...  How many event sites nationwide have sould limits already?  What form do those limits take?  Is it a subjective limit or objective?  Is it enforced?  How many sites nationwide that have been lost in the last ten years can cite sound concerns as one of the issues?  The primary issue?

 

Spoken like a true Democrat...just throw in a few public opinion polls and hire a few thousand bureaucrats to implement...that way we'll be assured nothing will ever get done

Spoken like a true Republican... No damn clue what the data says, but they just know they're right anyway and are totally willing to f*ck everything up because of it.

:-)

Mark

Nah...my action, sound limits, is to protect the constituency from themselves, so that excludes me from possibly being a true Republican.

Seriously, though, all "data" points ultimately point to a need to get in front of noise to more effectively protect and promote Solo II, going forward...no matter how you look at it.

---

In slow, out fast.
In fast, out backwards.

I've found this thread an interesting read.

I see, and understand both sides of the story. (massively simplified into two groups)

A: don't bother me we don't have sound regulations at our site.

B: we have sound regulations, everybody should as well for one reason or another.

 

I personally DO think that everybody should abide by some sort of sound regulation.

1. The site concerns are real, although not covering every club and every site, they have been an issue and i do feel it's proactive and responsible to make sure that the SCCA leaves as small of a footprint when we show up at a site. whether it's garbage removal, or noise pollution they are real things that affect the view on the club and the people that allow us to use their facilites.

2.  Personal safety! everybody has marshaled when that one car come around that leave your ear's ringing, usually it's a run group or a number of cars but it's the same thing only worse. This is not healthy for your body and will effect your short term and long term hearing, especially if it's every weekend. lets not be ignorant of these concerns people. There are other people at these events that we have to think about, and not just ourselves and our own run times. the noise isn't just when your racing, often in grid where people are within feet of your car. I like it when family members show up, it's fun seeing the looks on little kids when they watch cars go by. won't somebody please think of the children...

3.  This way everybody has the same things to deal with so it's puts everybody on an equal playing field. yea your club may not police the sound stuff as much as others, but when you show up to the closest tour, you know that you have to be in spec or else. done deal no surprises for anybody, and no disadvantage for the guy that had had to do a bit more testing to buy the quiet exhaust. There are lots of rules out there that have costed people more time and money, it's not much different then adding the minimum weight to the seat and mounting. people will get over it, there are readily available solutions, and it's better in the end.

4.  It's not that expensive or hard to run this as a station. 95% of the time you won't even have to measure the cars after the first couple events with the same group of people once you know the car you know until something changes drastically, and you'll know that as well. I'm assuming people don't have problems with automatic timing systems and displays, so i don't see why people don't mind a little sound gauge.
 

I think there are more pro's to adding the restriction then con's and that's why i would choose to support it. I don't know if i'll write a letter just yet, but if it comes up for member review then yes i probably would support it.

---

2008 BS something...
2007 SCCA National DS Runner-up
2006 CAC National DS Runner-up
Badlands SCCA
Pictures of my car
2007 Nationals Runs

Looking at the thread, it looks like it's about 8 to 1 for some sort of sound restriction. It also looks like more sites are in trouble or have been lost because of sound than I thought.

95@100 is not a bad place to start IMO.

Chris 

Some sites need it, some don't.

It should be suggested by the SCCA not enforced.  

Do we want to mandate equipment like this on what few mod cars that

are out there.  It should stay as a region only requirement.

Picture from SD Tour

 

Jojoo:

Some sites need it, some don't.

It should be suggested by the SCCA not enforced.