SCCAForums.com

marka:

No, and here's why... The patchwork that exists now (and its got rather a lot of holes) exists because different areas have different sound requirements.  A nationally mandated limit of 94 dB at 75' or whatever doesn't matter a hill of beans when you _still_ get noise complaints from neighbors.  Being able to say "we're following national limits!" doesn't mean anything in that context.

The only way it helps is if it prevents the complaints altogether.  But that won't happen because noise is mostly just an excuse to shut down an event you don't like for some other reason (see also "damn hooligans", "damn ricers", "damn kids", "damn traffic", "damn closing my parking lot", etc. etc. etc.)

 Being pro-active here means trying to think up every reason someone might want to shut down our event and address that issue before hand, _and_ expect that you're able to address that to the worst complainer's satisfaction.  I maintain that that can't be done, and we're just stabbing ourselves in the eye for no decent reason if we try to do it.

 

This is not an all-or-nothing issue, for which there is some magic number at/below which there is a guarantee of zero complaints.  It's an attempt at setting a level at which there is confidence that at the very least there won't be any that a reasonable and independent observer listening at the remote location would agree had good basis.  Try to understand the difference between one complaint registered by the known neighborhood crank who complains about everything under the sun and having the phone jumping off the hook at the lot owner's office or the local police station.

One problem with having both "sound-controlled" and "sound-uncontrolled" venues is the possibility of competitors from uncontrolled areas even assuming 100% good faith intentions and efforts at meeting more restrictive sound requirements elsewhere failing to do so by just enough to cause complaints.  I won't even attempt a guess at what that threshold might be, but I will suggest that in that situation it won't be the uncontrolled area's club that takes the hit after violations occur early in the day before the need for individual mechanical fixes has been demonstrated.  To [apparently] ignore that possibility does sound a little selfish at least to me.

Residential development may be in a lull right now, but do you think it will remain at the current distance from your venue forever?

FWIW, I've never replaced an exhaust system with one that was OE-quiet.  But in almost 45 years of driving I've never been cited or refused an inspection sticker for noise or had such a complaint registered against me by a neighbor.  What's the problem with taking the sting off the worst of the noise?

Norm

Storm:

Anyone measure the sound level of an STS car spinning wildly or an HS car trying for all it's worth to get close to an apex? I'm thinking that "noise complaints" come in the form of not only engine noise, but any and all noise heard by our neighbors. Shreaking tires are just as annoying as that FM leaving the line. What would the club (want to) do in that case?

My $.02 anyway......

We have actually gotten that complaint at one of our sites.  There's nothing you can do there.  However, tires don't get nearly to the same sound level as some 4-cylinders I've heard.  I wouldn't be against implementing some sort of mandatory muffler policy, i.e. no straight pipes.  You have to have a cat or a muffler or a resonator or something that quiets the exhaust.  Then just actually test sound levels when the local course requires it.

You really can't make the argument that it's a big hassle for the region.  It takes one guy with a $60 dB meter. 

In Kansas City the Region's primary site is a huge lot at Arrowhead Stadium where the Chiefs and Royals loose games (!). Directly across the street is a neighborhood. In 2006 we almost lost the lot (which would have basically put us out of Solo business) due to noise complaints. We now have a 95dB limit. It has solved the problem. At our recent Divisional there were issues with two cars and the resolutions were easily accomplished. The 95dB limit is pretty liberal, but not too loud a few hundred feet away. We check sound at 100-125 feet where cars would be expected to be on the gas . Good dB meters should cost no more than $250-$300 plus a tone generator for calibration. I run a Sky Redline with a single 3" straight exhaust, and between the cat and turbo it is well under limit even at 100 feet.  

I am no "tree hugger", but it is part of being a responsible neighbor to keep noise generation under control. There will be a National Tour in KC two weeks before Nationals and the Region WILL be sound testing. Implementation has been seamless here and there really isn't a good reason not to do it nationally unless the site is a long way from anything/anybody. Places to race are becoming a hard commodity to maintain possession of.

Howdy,

Norm Peterson:

This is not an all-or-nothing issue, for which there is some magic number at/below which there is a guarantee of zero complaints.  It's an attempt at setting a level at which there is confidence that at the very least there won't be any that a reasonable and independent observer listening at the remote location would agree had good basis.  Try to understand the difference between one complaint registered by the known neighborhood crank who complains about everything under the sun and having the phone jumping off the hook at the lot owner's office or the local police station.

"a reasonable and independent observer"...

Sure.

Let's see... is someone who bought a house next to a racetrack and then complained about the noise, driving closing of the racetrack a "reasonable and independent observer"?  I'd tend to say no, as a reasonable person wouldn't buy a house next to a racetrack and then *** about noise.

You're trying to prevent something that's unpreventable.  Andy's point above about folks shutting down a motorsports venue that was built right next to a working airbase is right on target.  Being "proactive", to the level that will keep this kinda person off our backs, means just not having the event at all.

At an absolute minimum, all the different sound rules (developed to meet local needs) across the nation point out that this IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL PROBLEM!  Recommend a procedure for measuring sound in the book.  Even require that procedure to be used if sound limits are put in place.  But requiring the same limit across the board completely ignores that a limit that's appropriate for one facility won't be appropriate for another. 

One problem with having both "sound-controlled" and "sound-uncontrolled" venues is the possibility of competitors from uncontrolled areas even assuming 100% good faith intentions and efforts at meeting more restrictive sound requirements elsewhere failing to do so by just enough to cause complaints.  I won't even attempt a guess at what that threshold might be, but I will suggest that in that situation it won't be the uncontrolled area's club that takes the hit after violations occur early in the day before the need for individual mechanical fixes has been demonstrated.  To [apparently] ignore that possibility does sound a little selfish at least to me.

I'm not really even sure what you're saying here.  I don't know of a single region anywhere that has a sound control policy that doesn't allow someone to run first before determining there's a sound issue.  I don't see how that goes away with a nationally mandated limit, so your problem continues to exist.

Further, even with a nationally mandated limit, you will still have regions who locally mandate levels _under_ that limit (or, you'll mandate everyone to the most restrictive limit, which everyone here says they don't want to do).  So the problem continues to exist again.

 

FWIW, I've never replaced an exhaust system with one that was OE-quiet.  But in almost 45 years of driving I've never been cited or refused an inspection sticker for noise or had such a complaint registered against me by a neighbor.  What's the problem with taking the sting off the worst of the noise?

Neither have I.  What's the problem with leaving me the hell alone and not creating more meaningless rules and procedures for a region to follow?

Mark

Howdy,

snaponbob:

In Kansas City the Region's primary site is a huge lot at Arrowhead Stadium where the Chiefs and Royals loose games (!). Directly across the street is a neighborhood. In 2006 we almost lost the lot (which would have basically put us out of Solo business) due to noise complaints. We now have a 95dB limit. It has solved the problem. At our recent Divisional there were issues with two cars and the resolutions were easily accomplished. The 95dB limit is pretty liberal, but not too loud a few hundred feet away. We check sound at 100-125 feet where cars would be expected to be on the gas . Good dB meters should cost no more than $250-$300 plus a tone generator for calibration. I run a Sky Redline with a single 3" straight exhaust, and between the cat and turbo it is well under limit even at 100 feet.  

That's great.  Seriously.  You made a local rule to solve a local problem and it worked.  Though it would appear you spent way too much money, because all you needed was "one guy and a $60 meter from RadioShack".

 

I am no "tree hugger", but it is part of being a responsible neighbor to keep noise generation under control. There will be a National Tour in KC two weeks before Nationals and the Region WILL be sound testing. Implementation has been seamless here and there really isn't a good reason not to do it nationally unless the site is a long way from anything/anybody. Places to race are becoming a hard commodity to maintain possession of.

There are a hell of a lot of sites that are a long way from anything/anybody.  But.. You put that in the rules and at least you'd have something like an argument.  Something like "this only applies if there are residences within a tenth of a mile" or whatever.  You're still applying a blanket solution to a non-blanket problem however, and you're going to miss both the really restrictive needs as well as the other end of the spectrum.

Mark

Howdy,

DaveH:

Storm:

Anyone measure the sound level of an STS car spinning wildly or an HS car trying for all it's worth to get close to an apex? I'm thinking that "noise complaints" come in the form of not only engine noise, but any and all noise heard by our neighbors. Shreaking tires are just as annoying as that FM leaving the line. What would the club (want to) do in that case?

My $.02 anyway......

We have actually gotten that complaint at one of our sites.  There's nothing you can do there.

Sure there is.  Ban street tires.  Ban spinning on street tires.

Just stay home and knit.  I've yet to ever see someone get super p*ssed off at a kniter.

Mark

Howdy,

DaveH:

I wouldn't be against implementing some sort of mandatory muffler policy, i.e. no straight pipes.  You have to have a cat or a muffler or a resonator or something that quiets the exhaust.

Also...

I've got a '99 camaro with mid length headers, a Y pipe with gutted cats, and a dump. No muffler at all.  The car is fairly loud, but doesn't hurt.

This past weekend another camaro was at our event.  It was an '01 or '02 (can't remember) and it had cats and an SLP Loudmouth exhaust.  It was a decent bit louder than my car.

Your "mandatory muffler policy" wouldn't mean a damn thing in actual noise produced, even if you ignore all the issues with determining if something is a "muffler" or not.

Mark

Rather than going with sound limits some sites might be better off going with time limits. 

I ran with one group who kept their site on Sunday by not running the first car off until 11:30 when church let out.  If you delayed the first car off until 11 AM and last car off was set to 4 PM then the neighbors could sleep in, and have their family BBQ in the summer without any event noise ruining it for them.

marka:

Howdy,

DaveH:

I wouldn't be against implementing some sort of mandatory muffler policy, i.e. no straight pipes.  You have to have a cat or a muffler or a resonator or something that quiets the exhaust.

Also...

I've got a '99 camaro with mid length headers, a Y pipe with gutted cats, and a dump. No muffler at all.  The car is fairly loud, but doesn't hurt.

This past weekend another camaro was at our event.  It was an '01 or '02 (can't remember) and it had cats and an SLP Loudmouth exhaust.  It was a decent bit louder than my car.

Your "mandatory muffler policy" wouldn't mean a damn thing in actual noise produced, even if you ignore all the issues with determining if something is a "muffler" or not.

Mark

Do you have a mullit hair cut too. 

I can't believe this "debate" continues....

It is a no brainer, upside/downside calculation here, folks...there's nothing but upside in a coherent, pragmatic sound policy and significant downside in not getting in front of this issue.

OK, that settles that, you can lock the thread, now, Chris.

I guess I need to clarify a few things so they are more difficult to mis-interpret . . .

marka:

Howdy,

"a reasonable and independent observer"...

Sure.

Let's see... is someone who bought a house next to a racetrack and then complained about the noise, driving closing of the racetrack a "reasonable and independent observer"?  I'd tend to say no, as a reasonable person wouldn't buy a house next to a racetrack and then *** about noise.

That's not what I meant and you know it.  The person who locates next to a race track and then tries to shut it down was merely an example of what already happens.  Not that it's reasonable.  Just that it happens.  And will predictably continue to happen.

My take on a "reasonable and independent observer" would be somebody who does not have an agenda either way (IOW, not a competitor, spectator, non-competing club official, homeowner or visitor to a resident in the development, etc. - I'm sure there's a few more but the point ought to be clear enough), and who is reasonably tolerant of the activities of others without being overly lenient.

One problem with having both "sound-controlled" and "sound-uncontrolled" venues is the possibility of competitors from uncontrolled areas even assuming 100% good faith intentions and efforts at meeting more restrictive sound requirements elsewhere failing to do so by just enough to cause complaints.  I won't even attempt a guess at what that threshold might be, but I will suggest that in that situation it won't be the uncontrolled area's club that takes the hit after violations occur early in the day before the need for individual mechanical fixes has been demonstrated.  To [apparently] ignore that possibility does sound a little selfish at least to me.

I'm not really even sure what you're saying here.  I don't know of a single region anywhere that has a sound control policy that doesn't allow someone to run first before determining there's a sound issue.  I don't see how that goes away with a nationally mandated limit, so your problem continues to exist.

Let me get more specific.  Suppose that a significant number of members from an sound-uncontrolled region show up at a Warminster event.  A number of those cars that normally run at 100+ dbA show up in the hopes that they have been made sufficiently quiet.  Remember that without a little experience a lot of folks would be guessing that their sound mods would be adequate.  IOW, I don't see any guarantees.  But maybe the wind is "wrong" that day, and they blow 99 dbA's on the first run.  They get their mechanicals, but the damage may have already been done.  Never mind if they don't make 96 or better on all subsequent runs.  If there are enough of those 99's right off the bat - who knows, all the noisy ones might happen to fall into heat #1 and run one right after another - the host region is going to have to cope with the complaints.  Not the out-of-towners.

(text moved so I can deal with it in one place instead of two . . .)

 You're trying to prevent something that's unpreventable.  Andy's point above about folks shutting down a motorsports venue that was built right next to a working airbase is right on target.  Being "proactive", to the level that will keep this kinda person off our backs, means just not having the event at all.

At an absolute minimum, all the different sound rules (developed to meet local needs) across the nation point out that this IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL PROBLEM!  Recommend a procedure for measuring sound in the book.  Even require that procedure to be used if sound limits are put in place.  But requiring the same limit across the board completely ignores that a limit that's appropriate for one facility won't be appropriate for another. 

Further, even with a nationally mandated limit, you will still have regions who locally mandate levels _under_ that limit (or, you'll mandate everyone to the most restrictive limit, which everyone here says they don't want to do).  So the problem continues to exist again.

I never said this would be an easy issue.  But we need to be working in common toward the best overall solution.  Allowing for a complete lack of uniformity is counterproductive. 

What's the problem with leaving me the hell alone and not creating more meaningless rules and procedures for a region to follow?

Don't take it so personal.  Your car may well not be an ear-bleeder, in which case anything that sounds like a complaint from me doesn't really apply to yourself now, does it?  That would mean that you don't have a dog in this fight, in which case there is no reason to defend the ear-bleeders.  And it's far from a meaningless rule/procedure, or has the concept of losing lots over this very item escaped you? 

Norm

jhue75:

Being someone from that area and one that HAS worked at BAX loading on the ramp ( belly and deck crew ), i know how loud it can get there. Still not as bad as some of the louder modified class or karts ( or any OTHER car running stupidly loud exhaust ) . We were only around the jets as they taxied in and we had ear protection. In autox you work the course or are in grid 5 to 30 feet away from these cars at full song in some cases. I bet they are louder ( how about the ears are subjected to more chance for damage)  than the jets if you hold a sound meter up at that distance.

 I think Andy Hollis makes great points. The residents are used to that noise. I do think there should be sound restrictions, and I think they should be enforced.

We (Central Florida Region )  have been involved with loss of sites here in Florida because of sound. Its a real issue. Be proactive before you lose a site. Be good stewards of the sites and the sport. It just makes sense.

I have also worked there (back when it was called Burlingtion Air Express).  Conveyers (<British accent> Yuu rememba Morien M dontcha luv?) and as an air marshal that air started the planes and marshalled them to the runway.  The cargo planes taxing in/out werent/arent nearlly as loud as the fighter jets and cargo planes taking off, heck I could even start and marshall out a DC8 without ear protection (simply because I forgot my ear muff's)....Anyhow, I'm sure the "new noise" to these neighbors gets there attention and I'm not doubting that, but nobody is complaning (that I know of, and we run there a couple times a year....when DCX is gone).  It just seems silly in an enviornment like that or something similar (what about a concrete pad in the middle of the desert?)  My point is that (obviously) some places need it, some dont.

 If I think my ears are at risk, I'll plug 'em.  I dont think a region has ever lost a site because a worker complained of a loud exhaust (That's the whole point of this thread right?...losing sites)

-Just a regional guy giving input on one of your Pro sites-

Howdy,

Norm Peterson:

marka:

Howdy,

"a reasonable and independent observer"...

Sure.

Let's see... is someone who bought a house next to a racetrack and then complained about the noise, driving closing of the racetrack a "reasonable and independent observer"?  I'd tend to say no, as a reasonable person wouldn't buy a house next to a racetrack and then *** about noise.

That's not what I meant and you know it.  The person who locates next to a race track and then tries to shut it down was merely an example of what already happens.  Not that it's reasonable.  Just that it happens.  And will predictably continue to happen.

My take on a "reasonable and independent observer" would be somebody who does not have an agenda either way (IOW, not a competitor, spectator, non-competing club official, homeowner or visitor to a resident in the development, etc. - I'm sure there's a few more but the point ought to be clear enough), and who is reasonably tolerant of the activities of others without being overly lenient.

Norm, I understand the type of person you're describing.  My point was that that type of person isn't involved in any of these discussions.  You've got "I want these hooligans out of here!" on one side and "Hey, I like to autocross on the other".  Its great that some arbitrary reasonable person would agree with us that whatever sound limit we want is a good one, BUT THOSE AREN'T THE PEOPLE YOU NEED TO MAKE HAPPY.  The person you need to make happy is the one that thinks "I don't like these punk-ass kids and their racecars" and who then gets a few of their neighbors to agree, then they go talk to the lot owner.  Then the lot owner looks at the folks bitching at him and weighs the tiny amount of income he gets vs. the bad publicity and decides "sorry, you gots to go".  The "arbitrary reasonable person" never got involved.

 

One problem with having both "sound-controlled" and "sound-uncontrolled" venues is the possibility of competitors from uncontrolled areas even assuming 100% good faith intentions and efforts at meeting more restrictive sound requirements elsewhere failing to do so by just enough to cause complaints.  I won't even attempt a guess at what that threshold might be, but I will suggest that in that situation it won't be the uncontrolled area's club that takes the hit after violations occur early in the day before the need for individual mechanical fixes has been demonstrated.  To [apparently] ignore that possibility does sound a little selfish at least to me.

I'm not really even sure what you're saying here.  I don't know of a single region anywhere that has a sound control policy that doesn't allow someone to run first before determining there's a sound issue.  I don't see how that goes away with a nationally mandated limit, so your problem continues to exist.

Let me get more specific.  Suppose that a significant number of members from an sound-uncontrolled region show up at a Warminster event.  A number of those cars that normally run at 100+ dbA show up in the hopes that they have been made sufficiently quiet.  Remember that without a little experience a lot of folks would be guessing that their sound mods would be adequate.  IOW, I don't see any guarantees.  But maybe the wind is "wrong" that day, and they blow 99 dbA's on the first run.  They get their mechanicals, but the damage may have already been done.  Never mind if they don't make 96 or better on all subsequent runs.  If there are enough of those 99's right off the bat - who knows, all the noisy ones might happen to fall into heat #1 and run one right after another - the host region is going to have to cope with the complaints.  Not the out-of-towners.

Again, this is no different than what can happen today.  What if the Neon club shows up?  What if  ten other new folks show up?

If you're really serious that this is truely a problem, then you need to test cars away from the event site prior to them running on site.  A national sound limit doesn't help you.  Particularly not a national sound limit that has limits higher than what you want to run (and you can be sure that would be the case, if your lot is in danger from a few cars being over the limit on their first run).

I never said this would be an easy issue.  But we need to be working in common toward the best overall solution.  Allowing for a complete lack of uniformity is counterproductive. 

How is it counterproductive?  Seems to me it gives the regions the freedom they need to tailor their local event rules to their local requirements.  There is no "best" solution here that applies to everyone... The "best" solution may well be different from site to site.

Not to mention, the only want to "make them all the same" is to adopt the strictest sound control policy in the nation (what is that, btw?  San Diego's?  Elsewhere?).  Doesn't sound like even the supporters of this goofy idea are in favor of that, and that by itself negates half the arguments to have a national sound limit!

Don't take it so personal.  Your car may well not be an ear-bleeder, in which case anything that sounds like a complaint from me doesn't really apply to yourself now, does it?  That would mean that you don't have a dog in this fight, in which case there is no reason to defend the ear-bleeders.  And it's far from a meaningless rule/procedure, or has the concept of losing lots over this very item escaped you? 

Norm, I don't know anything about you, but I've put on a decent number of autocross events and been involved as an official in more of them.  More rules & procedures that need to be followed is a PITA.  That, by itself, isn't why I'm opposed to this.  I'm opposed to this because the PITA isn't offset by any gain.  Sites that have sound issues already have a way to address them and many are doing so in whatever way makes them happy.  They may or may not like whatever national solution you come up with.  Sites that don't have sound issues certainly aren't going to want to deal with whatever national rule you come up with.  There's no gain here, except that a bunch of folks that ought to know better can say stupid things like "we're getting in front of the issue by proactively responding to the potential for future complaints".

You guys need to proactively work on taking a damn pill and leaving us folks that don't need your sound restrictions the heck alone.

Mark

(being more serious, lots get lost for a whole crapload of reasons.  Sound might be one (I tend to think its a scapegoat as much as anything else).  Fear of liability is another, cost, other uses, etc.  Just because sound is important to _you_ doesn't mean its everyone else's top priority)

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/noise_levels.htm

a helpful perspective for me, as it is environmentally focussed

also provides a good scale with examples, and underscores the logarithmic nature of db

Hi Mark,

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. 

Noise, per se, isn't as important to me as the fallout that comes from it.  Short of it hitting the threshhold of pain if I'm working a station, anyway (and these days, since my hearing isn't what it used to be it bothers me less).  Truth be told, I don't think about it much until it happens.  Or when I see a topic title on a marque forum where some teen/twenty-something wants the loudest exhaust system he can find, for the explicit purpose of making as much noise as possible.  I don't normally get involved in the latter, as there are guidelines in place dealing with it already, and it doesn't particularly affect sanctioned automotive competition.  But in this more narrowly defined version, it does or at least has the potential for doing so.

Mostly, I think that "out of sight, out of mind" applies to autocrossing, except for the noisy few.  Hooliganism off-site is a separate issue (and is frequently mentioned locally at the drivers' meetings - we do need to be good neighbors in that respect as well).  The problem is that "out of sight" isn't "out of conscious awareness" due to the sound(s).  You can't turn your ears to only listen from the other direction, or shut them off, so there's inherently less that off-site people can actively do about what they hear vs what they choose to [not] see. 

Maybe a nationally recommended maximum sound level is the direction this needs to go at this point.  Nobody NEEDS to run a comletely unmuffled modified Wankel, for example.

With respect to louder cars belonging to other than members of the host club, I actually edited something very similar out of my previous post, I think before initially submitting it - whether this might ultimately come down to needing some sort of off-site pre-run testing.  Facetious?  Maybe, maybe not.  But for sure, that would be a much bigger encumbrance than running a sound station, particularly for smaller Regions.

I know there are lots of other reasons that lots are lost - construction/lot redevelopment/owner financial issues, facilities closing, and local political issues not particularly involving noise (as far as I know) account for three that I know of.  Those you either don't see coming or are entirely outside anything that you can do about them . . .

Norm

(edited to remove an inadvertent re-post of Mark's last reply)