SCCAForums.com

*****BUT, the competitors WILL know that at National events and Pros, there is a consistent sound policy that will be enforced. Ultimately, most will adopt that policy, so that the participants aren't scrambling for muffling solutions two weeks prior to Topeka, having been there, seen that, done that (sound) at a regional level. And all this nonsense about it being hard to enforce or requiring a ton of $$ outlay is just that, nonsense.*****

---

T3 S2000
E46 M3 OLOA Project

mwood:

Heck no, leave the Eastern Blumenberg region alone, they can do what they want...if they want to lose the site, when the environmentalists believe the loud noise is too much for the horned desert chihuahua, that's fine. The regions that don't give a shxt, for whatever reason, would not be forced to give a shxt.

BUT, the competitors WILL know that at National events and Pros, there is a consistent sound policy that will be enforced. Ultimately, most will adopt that policy, so that the participants aren't scrambling for muffling solutions two weeks prior to Topeka, having been there, seen that, done that (sound) at a regional level. And all this nonsense about it being hard to enforce or requiring a ton of $$ outlay is just that, nonsense.

For the record I never said that it was hard to enforce or expensive to do. Inconsistent maybe, but not hard or extremely expensive.

---

Brian "Big Enos" Burdette

BigEnos:

For the record I never said that it was hard to enforce or expensive to do. Inconsistent maybe, but not hard or extremely expensive.

I hear ya...my comment wasn't directed at you, but to others in this thread who suggested that measuring sound was somehow complex. I think the only real inconsistencies would be atmospheric or meter calibration related, which could be addressed in a coherent rule or policy.

---

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

Sound requirements are a local issue and should not make it into the National rules.  The regions that have sound concerns should address the issue on a local basis.  Please don't try to turn this into a safety issue either, workers getting hit by cars is much more of a safety issue (happened at Nationals this year at my station!).  The OD of the event or the SSS has the right to refuse any car they feel will endanger someone in the event, loud sound included.  All the rules that are needed for safe sound levels are already in place, the OD or SSS just has to be willing to take action.

 

Earlier in this thread some people scoffed at turn downs, but they are very effective at dissipating sound.  I have an 02 Camaro with cats, no muffler, but my exhuast comes just over the axle and turns toward the ground.  If you stand 5 feet from the car went it launches it can be loud, but at 40 feet it's really not that loud at all.  The sound waves from the stock exhaust get thrown straight back at you, while with my turn down the sound waves hit the ground, greatly dispersing them.

---

Phil K.
2002 Camaro SS, #68 ESP

pk - don't underestimate the contribution toward sound reduction that your converters are making.  On at least one occasion I drove for an extended length of time, as in several months, with only the cat in place and exhaust tubing where the muffler (which had failed at the inlet connection) used to live.  That's part of my experience that I alluded to previously.  Unfortunately, that episode is far enough back in the past that I do not remember whether I ever attempted to run it through the then-annual NJ inspection in that configuration or not.  But I do know that I have never been failed or cited for any muffler/noise issue, and it's not because I drive around using minimal throttle and/or rpms either.

 

I can agree that the detail numbers of sound requirements is ultimately a local issue.  But there still should be some sort of overall limit/numerical guideline backing that up, such that the club as a whole can be seen as having a more uniform and consistent direction on the matter.  I don't know, maybe a 98 - 99 dbA national limit with individual Regions free to set lower limits would be easier for more folks to swallow?  I do think that 100 probably represents too big of a psychological hurdle for the folks we want to be buying into this as lot neighbors, since that third digit makes it look like so much more.

We go out of our way to define Solo as NOT being racing when it comes to acquiring lots, insurance coverage, administrative procedures, etc.  Noise is a part of the appeal of spectator racing events, perhaps a large part.  But again, Solo is primarily NOT a spectator activity.  IOW, there is no club benefit - financial, gate attendance, or otherwise - to be had from Solo being needlessly loud.

Norm

---

seat time is where you find it (semi-retired) weenie CP '79 Malibu, (no longer ST/SP legal) '95 626

Ok....  Many of you know that my Camaro isn't quiet.  It needs to be more quiet and it's a project I'm working on.  I too have cats like Phil does, and in fact we dynoed together the day we tuned and my car was WAY louder, mostly because his dumped under the car vs. mine that goes out the rear.  We have the same thing for exhaust, headers and race cats. 

I think that it would not be a bad idea to have strongly worded recommendations for sound, Nationally.  My car is too loud, and I would dare not bring it to anywhere that's a concern because I don't want to cause trouble... but not everyone is like that. 

 The biggest cause for a loss of a lot is noise.  Why not try and get out in front of it?  Tell a the folks @ a new site that we have sound limits and that it won't sound like the Daytona 500....

 

---

Sam Strano
Owner--Strano Performance Parts
800-729-1831

pknowles:

 

Earlier in this thread some people scoffed at turn downs,

Turn downs are good, turn aways are bad. They just point the sound away from the meter. Any rule should allow turn downs but not turn aways IMO.

 

I'll agree regions need there own supplimental rules to fit there needs (including sound)....but the disconnect I'm seeing in this thread (I may have overlooked it if it was mentioned already) is that fact that tours and pro's are located at a regions normal site.  If a region imposes a sound limit of 95db (just throwing numbers out here) on site for there own reasons, it wouldnt make sense to me to have some "across the board" national limit that is higher (99db?).  If a site was lost because a national limit was too high, well, the national or pro site is gone AND so is one of the regions prime sites.

my .02

CHRISFP78:

pknowles:

 

Earlier in this thread some people scoffed at turn downs,

Turn downs are good, turn aways are bad. They just point the sound away from the meter. Any rule should allow turn downs but not turn aways IMO.

 

Agreed.  Turn-Downs are an effective way of dissipating the sound energy. Turn-Aways are for cheating the meter.

redsts2:

I'll agree regions need there own supplimental rules to fit there needs (including sound)....but the disconnect I'm seeing in this thread (I may have overlooked it if it was mentioned already) is that fact that tours and pro's are located at a regions normal site.  If a region imposes a sound limit of 95db (just throwing numbers out here) on site for there own reasons, it wouldnt make sense to me to have some "across the board" national limit that is higher (99db?).my .02

That's kind of the flip side of what Mark has been saying - must a national limit be set to the lowest known local/regional limit in order to avoid that happening.

I think we need to first decide whether any national position in this matter should be a hard limit applicable everywhere as per the above (presumably sidestepping the need for any supplemental site/event regs involving numbers) or a softer guideline that allows for some regional/site flexibility (at the cost of supplemental db regs being necessary at some venues and a greater risk on the part of a few competitors of not meeting them without mechanical "fixes").

Norm

---

seat time is where you find it (semi-retired) weenie CP '79 Malibu, (no longer ST/SP legal) '95 626

Norm Peterson:

That's kind of the flip side of what Mark has been saying - must a national limit be set to the lowest known local/regional limit in order to avoid that happening.

I think we need to first decide whether any national position in this matter should be a hard limit applicable everywhere as per the above (presumably sidestepping the need for any supplemental site/event regs involving numbers) or a softer guideline that allows for some regional/site flexibility (at the cost of supplemental db regs being necessary at some venues and a greater risk on the part of a few competitors of not meeting them without mechanical "fixes").

Norm

You don't need an objective limit.  You just need a few national event chairs with the cajones to enforce the following rule the way it used to be enforced:

3.5 MUFFLERS
Adequate mufflers are required for Solo events. The criterion of
“adequacy” is not what the exhaust system consists of, but the
sound level. Any car deemed by the Event Chairman or his
designated representative to be excessively loud shall not compete
without acceptable modifications installed on the car.

Just rid us of the "ear-bleeders".  Right now, there is no sound output that will be deemed "excessively loud" at a national event unless there are specific site-related supplemental rules in place.  Yet, we have this rule above which is being ignored.  From there, we get trickle-down to the regional level ("ok at Nats means ok everywhere.").

We have the rules, we just need enforcement.  We don't need bureaucracy, we need leaders with balls.

--Andy

 

Andy Hollis:

Norm Peterson:

That's kind of the flip side of what Mark has been saying - must a national limit be set to the lowest known local/regional limit in order to avoid that happening.

I think we need to first decide whether any national position in this matter should be a hard limit applicable everywhere as per the above (presumably sidestepping the need for any supplemental site/event regs involving numbers) or a softer guideline that allows for some regional/site flexibility (at the cost of supplemental db regs being necessary at some venues and a greater risk on the part of a few competitors of not meeting them without mechanical "fixes").

Norm

You don't need an objective limit.  You just need a few national event chairs with the cajones to enforce the following rule the way it used to be enforced:

3.5 MUFFLERS
Adequate mufflers are required for Solo events. The criterion of
“adequacy” is not what the exhaust system consists of, but the
sound level. Any car deemed by the Event Chairman or his
designated representative to be excessively loud shall not compete
without acceptable modifications installed on the car.

Just rid us of the "ear-bleeders".  Right now, there is no sound output that will be deemed "excessively loud" at a national event unless there are specific site-related supplemental rules in place.  Yet, we have this rule above which is being ignored.  From there, we get trickle-down to the regional level ("ok at Nats means ok everywhere.").

We have the rules, we just need enforcement.  We don't need bureaucracy, we need leaders with balls.

--Andy

 

IMO excessively loud needs to be changed from the vague verbage  to a hard db number at a given distance.  95db @ 100 ft. or 101db @ 50 ft. Start at the Pro and Tour events first to get people accustom to what those values equate to in the real world.

Chris 

I agree with Chris...it has to quantified, otherwise we get in to the realm of Justice Potter Stewart...see if anyone can come up with that obscure reference...

---

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

Andy Hollis:

Norm Peterson:

That's kind of the flip side of what Mark has been saying - must a national limit be set to the lowest known local/regional limit in order to avoid that happening.

I think we need to first decide whether any national position in this matter should be a hard limit applicable everywhere as per the above (presumably sidestepping the need for any supplemental site/event regs involving numbers) or a softer guideline that allows for some regional/site flexibility (at the cost of supplemental db regs being necessary at some venues and a greater risk on the part of a few competitors of not meeting them without mechanical "fixes").

Norm

You don't need an objective limit.  You just need a few national event chairs with the cajones to enforce the following rule the way it used to be enforced:

3.5 MUFFLERS
Adequate mufflers are required for Solo events. The criterion of
“adequacy” is not what the exhaust system consists of, but the
sound level. Any car deemed by the Event Chairman or his
designated representative to be excessively loud shall not compete
without acceptable modifications installed on the car.

Just rid us of the "ear-bleeders".  Right now, there is no sound output that will be deemed "excessively loud" at a national event unless there are specific site-related supplemental rules in place.  Yet, we have this rule above which is being ignored.  From there, we get trickle-down to the regional level ("ok at Nats means ok everywhere.").

We have the rules, we just need enforcement.  We don't need bureaucracy, we need leaders with balls.

--Andy

 

  

 Dave Hutter has Cajones :-)

I remember the Last Ft Myers Tour when a certain BMW was disqualified because the event organizer thought it was loud.  I can also still remember the amount of comments about a subjective finding of to loud.  If we are going to do sound it has to be spelled out with a criteria that is repeatable from site to site. 

 

Peter 

---

T3 S2000
E46 M3 OLOA Project

 

I agree with Chris subjective limits are very hard to enforce.  Whats too loud?  Would it be applied equally? Or would a multi-time nat. champ get a free pass and a novice get sent home when their cars were making the same volume?

  I think the nat. limits should be high enough to pass easy for most cars but low enough to get rid of the ear-bleeders.  Sites that needed could set a lower limits.

 If my car was boarder line too loud I would want to know what the target was (right now it has stock exhaust).

 

Robert

If you have stock exhaust, your probably around 82 @ 100.

Club Racing Sound Control rules are being altered for 2009.  Details are/are not final - See Feb 2008 fasttrack.

I suggest Solo watch that as you move forward.

Similar rules with appropriately different limits would make sense to me.

I Do support the notion that loud soloists should be as miserable as loud racers.

 

Wayne Hill

DA, Sound Control, SOWDIV

---

SCCA 1966-82,93-now
Sound Control, DA, SOWDIV
Sr. F&C, ex crash-rescue

I just got back from the Deven NT and they announced they are most likely losing the site next year.  Devens is one of the sound restricted sites in the NE with a 90 db restriction.  Loss of the site, however, has nothing to do with sound but rather the site is being developed by a developer.

I make this post to point out that loss of good sites should not be always blamed on sound but rather there are a myriad of reasons sites are loss, and having a restrictive sound restriction on this site did not save it for us, only perhaps delayed the inevitable.

---

Ted

2004 Z16/Z06 SS

TedDBere:

I just got back from the Deven NT and they announced they are most likely losing the site next year.  Devens is one of the sound restricted sites in the NE with a 90 db restriction.  Loss of the site, however, has nothing to do with sound but rather the site is being developed by a developer.

I make this post to point out that loss of good sites should not be always blamed on sound but rather there are a myriad of reasons sites are loss, and having a restrictive sound restriction on this site did not save it for us, only perhaps delayed the inevitable.

As the one who was the New England Region Solo chairman when the sound complaints at Devens began happening, I can say that without a doubt, implementing sound regulations saved the site for us.

When the first complaints came in we were then presented with a site contract that stipulated only street legal, registered, and insured cars would be allowed to compete. NER-SCCA has more non-street-legal cars than most of the clubs that use the site, so this would have been a huge problem for NER. To salvage the site for us, we did research and did what was necessary to get us in compliance with state regulations for sound levels, and that's how we ended up where we are. It got us, and all the other clubs that use Devens, at least 5 more years than we would have had. For any organization which has lost a site, it's critical to find out why and to share that information with other clubs.

As for 2009, we really don't know whether Devens will be available for autocross- nothing is definite at all.

-Chris