Solution to noisy vehicles

Harry K wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
> >
> > > > OK. Define "noise pollution" for us
> >
> > > Taking the manufacturer's (stock) muffler off and installing a
> noisier
> > > one.
> >
> > That's a nonstarter. If Chrysler will no longer sell me a muffler
for
> my
> > 1962 Dodge, and so I install a Walker or Goerlich aftermarket
> replacement,
> > and it's even fractionally louder than the original 1962 item, my
car
> > flunks your poorly-thought-out standard of "noise pollution". If I
> install
> > a muffler on my truck that's louder than the original BUT no louder
> than
> > some other vehicle with a factory muffler, my truck flunks your
> > ill-considered standard of "noise pollution".
> >
> > And if the standard is "no noisier than original equipment", then
> who's
> > going to collect and maintain the necessary database of noise
levels
> from
> > all the different OE variants of all the different models of all
the
> > different cars over the years? And what's the standard, is it "when
> the
> > car is brand new"? Is it "When the car is 3 years old"? Is it "When
> the
> > car is driven by at 30mph, measured at street level 10 feet away"?
Is
> it
> > "When the car is revved in Neutral, measured 2 feet from the
> tailpipe"?
> >
> > And what kind of sound meters are we going to equip cops with to
> measure
> > exhaust noise objectively? You and I both know what's too noisy and
> what's
> > not, but that's unconsitutionally vague and leaving it to the
> discretion
> > of individual cops is fraught with unintended consequences.
> >
> > Just to save you some time, here's another equally-useless attempts
> at
> > exhaust noise control laws:
> >
> > "No vehicle shall have an exhaust tailpipe or outlet that is of a
> larger
> > size than original equipment". Terrific, what if I install a system
> on my
> > '71 Volvo that has a 2-1/4" tailpipe, but is *quieter* than the
> original
> > system with its 1-7/8" tailpipe? Bzzt, doesn't work.
> >
> > Next idea?
> >
> > DS
>
> The standard should be 'not to exceed db--- (whatever) at --- feet.'
> Why it exceeded the level has no bearing on it. If it could pass
when
> new but now doesn't - fix it or pay the ticket.
>
> I agree that standards based on size or brand of original equipment
> would be a nonstarter.
>
> Harry K

OK, just to be argumentative, how would you allow for vehicles like an
Avanti (factory duals, glasspacks, no crossover) or a 60's Corvette or
Cobra with factory sidepipes? Whatever standard you picked, if it made
the busybodies happy, some stock vehicles would suddenly become
illegal.

I've always wondered, but never had the chance to find out, what
happens when you try to register an Avanti in a state where glasspacks
are illegal?

nate

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:45:18 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>> P.S. I see you're still trying to pick fights...
>>>>
>>>>Anyways, I noticed both you and Daniel (if that's your real name) dodged
>>>>the
>>>>question.
>>>
>>> I can't speak for C.R. - you'll have to ask him yourself.
>>
>>Wow. And here I thought that's just what I was doing before you jumped to
>>his defense. Where's all this hostility coming from, Scott?
>
> I see subtlety is once again lost on certain members of this group...

Is this what you call subtlety (your words below)?

>>> Irrelevant. USENET is not a professional forum, just as the locker
>>> room at the gym is not a professional forum. If someone uses the term
>>> "****forbrains" in a casual venue, so the **** what?

> This is USENET - anyone is free to jump in at any time and answer any
> question they wish. Don't like it? Then get the **** out.

That's about as subtle as a ball peen hammer. But hey, if that's the best
way you can express yourself, I ain't sweating it. Usually, most of the
noise comes from your muffler...

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:46:39 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>Just to save you some time, here's another equally-useless attempts at
>exhaust noise control laws:
>
>"No vehicle shall have an exhaust tailpipe or outlet that is of a larger
>size than original equipment". Terrific, what if I install a system on my
>'71 Volvo that has a 2-1/4" tailpipe, but is *quieter* than the original
>system with its 1-7/8" tailpipe? Bzzt, doesn't work.
>
>Next idea?

As I understand it, California has (or had) rules that actually would
prevent a user from making his vehicle pollute *less* than the stock
setup.
You can't (or couldn't) put on a dual exhaust with dual cats on a
vehicle that had a single cat as stock, because it modified the stock
emissions setup.
Germany also has very strict rules on replacement parts; there you
really can't put on a muffler that is deemed to not act as the stock
muffler. And don't try putting on different handlebars on your bike if
it's registered in Germany; that's stictly illegal.
Such rules do exist. :-(

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
wrote:

>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
>
>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud, then no
>one really cares why it's too loud.

That's a non-starter.
Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
> wrote:
>
>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
>>
>>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud, then no
>>one really cares why it's too loud.
>
> That's a non-starter.
> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.

How's this: "Noise level not to exceed X number of decibels at a distance of
X feet/meters/yard from the source of the noise." Example: 65 db at 75'.
It's just an example; don't jump on those numbers as gospel.

List exemptions, like military aircraft taking off from the airport, sirens
on emergency vehicles on call, etc.

Include landscaping and construction equipment in the restrictions regarding
time of day/length of noise duration.

Sign it, stamp it, implement it. Many communities already have restrictions
on the use of air brakes in residential neighborhoods, so it's not like
there's no precedent.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Harry K wrote:

> The standard should be 'not to exceed db--- (whatever) at --- feet.'

At idle? At 3000 rpm? When the gas pedal is floored for 1 full second and
released?

And what's going to be the actual dB standard? Either you set it so low
that some factory systems won't comply (e.g. that stupid mufflerless Neon
variant), or you set it so high that the law's meaningless (SEMA is always
on hand to make sure noise laws have uselessly high threshholds if that
organization can't kill them off altogether).

Don't get me wrong; I would *LOVE* to see restrictive vehicle noise laws
enforced against cars with needlessly loud exhaust systems, but writing
such a law in a way that is effective, enforceable and robust against
legal challenges is not as simple as it might seem.

One way to do it might be to look at the Federal noise standards (they do
exist), back off a little from those threshholds to account for
vehicle-in-use factors and allow for carefully-engineered aftermarket
exhausts, and codify based on that. Older Federal noise standards were
higher than newer ones, so the allowable noise level would vary with
vehicle year. But even that's not very easy, 'cause the Federal standards
don't address *EXHAUST* noise, but rather *DRIVE-BY* noise. That includes
noise from the exhaust, engine, tires, etc.

And what are we going to do about trucks and vans equipped with the Ford
PowerJoke diesel engine, which even when brand new sounds as if it's
taking a stinky, loud, wet and messy metallic ****?

The stereo noise ordinance would be much easier: If the stereo can be
heard outside the vehicle at all with the windows closed, or can be
distinctly heard 10 feet away from the vehicle with any window open, dink
'em.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, N8N wrote:

> OK, just to be argumentative, how would you allow for vehicles like an
> Avanti (factory duals, glasspacks, no crossover) or a 60's Corvette or
> Cobra with factory sidepipes? Whatever standard you picked, if it made
> the busybodies happy, some stock vehicles would suddenly become illegal.

The old-car problem is easy to factor out of the question: Cars made
before 19XX are exempt, same as is done with seatbelts, sidemarker lights,
airbags and all other now-mandatory equipment. They're not the ones
causing the problem; it's the kidzzz with their Honda Civiczzzz, Dodge
Neonzzzz, Chevrolet Cadavalierzzzz, etc.

BTW, Nate, go to my website and send me an e-mail.

DS

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in
roups.com:
>
>>
>> Furious George wrote:
>>> Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It would be nearly impossible to get objective measurements.
>>
>>> Why would any of that stuff matter? It either emits noise pollution
>> or
>>> it does not. If it emits noise pollution then ticket it. Humidity
>> is
>>> not a valid excuse.
>>
>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.

>
>Taking the manufacturer's (stock) muffler off and installing a noisier one.

So taking a quiet car and changing the muffler in a way that makes it
louder, but not as loud as some other car which comes stock with a
noisier muffler, is noise pollution?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

> The old-car problem is easy to factor out of the question: Cars made
> before 19XX are exempt, same as is done with seatbelts, sidemarker
> lights, airbags and all other now-mandatory equipment. They're not
> the ones causing the problem; it's the kidzzz with their Honda
> Civiczzzz, Dodge Neonzzzz, Chevrolet Cadavalierzzzz, etc.

And the harleys and modified jap bikes.

> Sign it, stamp it, implement it. Many communities already have
> restrictions on the use of air brakes in residential neighborhoods,
> so it's not like there's no precedent.

Aren't so-called "jake brakes" illegal for this reason?