wagner Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 I know some people seem to think there was no teeth in this, but they were VERY wrong. Now, I get it that the EPA has a place, and there is a need, however that agency's attempted overreach is always scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Never.ever.gonna.happen.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRTurbo04 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Could never happen, too much money spent on it in the U.S. each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airwg2189 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 There are no teeth in this. I present my case: NASCAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 There are no teeth in this. I present my case: NASCAR. Well.... The big money NASCAR races don't use converted production cars, so they would be exempt. But I'm sure there are NASCAR sanctioned feeder series that do use production cars. And frankly, if the NASCAR BoD wants to have any semblance of credibility, they should fight this regardless if it impacts their cash cow or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 There are no teeth in this. I present my case: NASCAR. Know how I know you have read nothing about what is happening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Know how I know you have read nothing about what is happening? Doesn't nascar run like 11 different series besides sprint cup and don't some of them still use converted street cars? or have I really fallen off on my knowledge of hillbilly sports I don't regularly follow? I know street stock is still a racing class I just don't know if it is still nascar supported. But back to the original topic: Again, I don't think the EPA had any malicious intent to "ban all race cars" with the original legislation. They are government organization and like nearly every government organization they word things poorly sometimes (ok a lot of the time). It's what you get for paying lower than the private sector and never firing anyone no matter how bad they are at their job. I am happy SEMA managed to get them to change the wording of the bill. Was it as big a deal as they made it out to be? I still don't think so, but they needed to get the ground swell of support to get the EPA to change the language (again, because gubment) so they made it seem like the EPA was going to come for your race cars like Obama was going to come for your guns (I guess he's waiting till his last day in office to do that since it hasn't happened already). There is too much money wrapped up in "racing" for it to ever go away...or at least go away rapidly through federal legislation. Is it possible to ramp down? sure....it's already happening on a local level and not driven by the EPA with the closure of every local track. My point is: if you are worried about the future of racing, take action to support your local tracks and events and fight against local legislation that seeks to harm tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) I think it was a big deal to make them change the wording. Whether their original wording was intentional or otherwise, we're all aware "poor wording" can and will be will be taken advantage of at some point. Given the propensity for our misuse of loopholes, you'd think people would be a bit more selective with their language. Especially, when passing new laws, etc. Edited May 16, 2016 by ImUrOBGYN Irony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I think it was a big deal to make them change the wording. Whether their original wording was intentional or otherwise, we're all aware 'the wording' can, and is often the issue in other cases of 'bad or unintentional wording', will be taken advantage of at some point. It was a big deal in the sense that 1) it was the right thing to do to clarify, 2) they actually got the government to do something. But given how government regulations are normally written the likelihood it would get used as a "loophole" in the way SEMA was selling it was very small. Given the propensity for our misuse of loopholes, you'd think people would be a bit more selective with their language. Especially, when passing new laws, etc. It's the government, quality is not assured. To be fair, not all lawmakers draft the laws, sometimes private companies with an interest in the law draft the law. and then nobody reads it because government. In the case of the EPA, it is a regulating body so it usually writes its own regulations and again - it's done with all the care and consideration the government does everything with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airwg2189 Posted May 16, 2016 Report Share Posted May 16, 2016 Know how I know you have read nothing about what is happening? Feeder leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUMBLER1647545517 Posted May 16, 2016 Report Share Posted May 16, 2016 I quit watching after the opening sentence. Never the EPAs intent that I've ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted May 18, 2016 Report Share Posted May 18, 2016 If they ever get this successfully pass, street racing will roam and ultimately be their downfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.