Are F-Types Illegal in California?
https://bar.ca.gov/Consumer/Referee_Program/Vehicle_Exhaust_Noise_Level_Certification.html
I stood next to my V8 on the dyno, our stock exhaust is way louder than 95db, which is decribed as a motorcycle at 25 ft or a jetliner one mile away. Way louder. |
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019409)
https://bar.ca.gov/Consumer/Referee_Program/Vehicle_Exhaust_Noise_Level_Certification.html
I stood next to my V8 on the dyno, our stock exaust is way louder than 95db, which is decribed as a motorcycle at 25 ft or a jetliner one mile away. Way louder. Your link mentions "specified conditions" but doesn't specify what those are. The second California statue listed refers to an SAE measurement standard, and the link I found for that says it is "steady-state conditions" and "It is directed at the assessment of vehicle exhaust noise and is not intended to determine maximum vehicle sound levels." The most important piece of all this is that they are looking for modified or degraded systems. |
I reckon the get out is "when tested under specified conditions".
So a drive by test at some specified speed/revs (with the loud button off) and not by the side of the car while revving the bejesus out of it on a dyno. Edit - Steve got in first, as usual I type too slowly! |
The law is AB1824, it doesn't look targeted only at modified exausts to me, although they are targeted too...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1824 "Existing law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a muffler or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Existing law further prohibits the modification of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits." |
Originally Posted by lizzardo
(Post 2019415)
I don't think that standing next to the car during a dyno run is the official protocol :/
I'm not for banning loud things, as it would make jet airplanes and jack hammers illegal, which is obviously stupid and needless control freak behavior. This is just another assault on CO2, the vital substance that feeds everything green. |
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019420)
The law is AB1824, it doesn't look targeted only at modified exausts to me, although they are targeted too...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1824 "Existing law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a muffler or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Existing law further prohibits the modification of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits." |
Originally Posted by lizzardo
(Post 2019426)
The muffler was deemed adequate at the time of sale, so if inspection confirms that it's unmodified, the ticket should be dismissed. The troublesome part of all this is not the part you're focusing on, but the standards for issuing a citation. The officer doesn't have to make any measurements on the road, and puts the onus on the vehicle owner to prove conformance. I expect this will not lead to too many unfair citations, although some nuisance citations will certainly be issued.
|
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019424)
Put it this way, I had to stop filming due to the intense ear pain shortly after the airfoil deployed.
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019424)
I'm not for banning loud things, as it would make jet airplanes and jack hammers illegal, which is obviously stupid and needless control freak behavior. This is just another assault on CO2, the vital substance that feeds everything green.
Also, this is not an assault on CO2. It's a reaction to obnoxiously loud *modified* vehicles. |
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019430)
I get that, but the F-Type and many other gloriously loud cars predate the new testing protocol. And it is only recently being enforced as reported by many enthusiasts hammered with $1000 fines.
|
Originally Posted by lizzardo
(Post 2019431)
Why were you not wearing hearing protection of some sort? Seriously, why not?
The other shoe drops. We're back to this. <sigh> It is true that carbon dioxide is consumed by plants, but that's not the whole story. Also, this is not an assault on CO2. It's a reaction to obnoxiously loud *modified* vehicles. I don't care about my hearing, its long gone from military service. That doesn't make F-Types quiet. CO2 is absolutely vital to everything green, that is the whole story. The only anti-CO2 logic values the utterly selfish comfort of man over the health of all green life on Earth. |
Originally Posted by lizzardo
(Post 2019432)
Can you cite those reports, with certainty that the reporter is being truthful about the lack of modifications?
It also says no car may have a muffler bypass switch or similar, which seems to go after the common practice of manufacturers defaulting to a quiet mode to skirt the law. |
I found an edmunds.com noise test using equipment that couldn't register a noise louder than 100db. The F-Type R still managed 101.
|
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019433)
I already showed it definitely applies to all registered vehicles in CA. It also prohibits a bypass switch, which many F-Types have.
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019433)
I don't care about my hearing, its long gone from military service. That doesn't make F-Types quiet.
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019433)
CO2 is absolutely vital to everything green, that is the whole story. The only anti-CO2 logic values the utterly selfish comfort of man over the health of all green life on Earth.
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019438)
Mods are irrelevant to the primary law, which restricts all CA registered cars. The law goes onto say you cannot mod an otherwise compliant car to make it non-compliant.
It also says no car may have a muffler bypass switch or similar, which seems to go after the common practice of manufacturers defaulting to a quiet mode to skirt the law.
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019445)
I found an edmunds.com noise test using equipment that couldn't register a noise louder than 100db. The F-Type R still managed 101.
|
We have a thread on the Pantera owners forum regarding this ordinance because so many of our cars exceed the law's limits and so many of us are in CA. It's a problem though most think that police agencies have enough on their hands to put much effort into enforcement We'll see soon enough as my Pantera makes an F-type sound like a pussycat, so if anyone gets pulled over first, it will most likely be me, unfortunately.
|
Originally Posted by tberg
(Post 2019449)
We have a thread on the Pantera owners forum regarding this ordinance because so many of our cars exceed the law's limits and so many of us are in CA. It's a problem though most think that police agencies have enough on their hands to put much effort into enforcement We'll see soon enough as my Pantera makes an F-type sound like a pussycat, so if anyone gets pulled over first, it will most likely be me, unfortunately.
I found another test rating the F-Type R at 104db. After a little more research, several States are more restrictive than CA. Michigan is has a noise limit of 80db maximum. Sweet Jezzus, control freaks everywhere. It seems like a bad strategy to depend on arbritrary enforcement of the law. It would be better to fight it. People love to complain about others having fun, then they hop on a jetliner that's 10 times louder. But who cares anyway? A better law would be, no one shall waste State money on stupid. |
We elected Moonbeam Brown as governor twice and now Gruesome Newsom, there will be no way to fight this back successfully in this state. It will be 4th gear driving at low speeds for in town driving to keep rpms and therefore noise down. California ought to be called the SNOWFLAKE STATE not the SUNSHINE one.
|
Originally Posted by tberg
(Post 2019458)
We elected Moonbeam Brown as governor twice and now Gruesome Newsom, there will be no way to fight this back successfully in this state. It will be 4th gear driving at low speeds for in town driving to keep rpms and therefore noise down. California ought to be called the SNOWFLAKE STATE not the SUNSHINE one.
|
That argument doesn't work in this state or New York. Leadership doesn't believe it.
|
Originally Posted by tberg
(Post 2019462)
That argument doesn't work in this state or New York. Leadership doesn't believe it.
|
Ladies, Just use a bit of discretion. Avoid downshifting to 2nd gear at 60 mph in front of a hospital. Here in the People’s County of Montgomery Maryland, the noise is limited to 55 dB at night as observed at the property line in residential areas (65 commercial). State law specifies 90 dB anywhere. When you see the gendarmes out there with the boom mike, don’t be gettin’ into the throttle. This is not an issue, Chicken Little. |
Originally Posted by Unhingd
(Post 2019505)
Ladies, Just use a bit of discretion. Avoid downshifting to 2nd gear at 60 mph in front of a hospital. Here in the People’s County of Montgomery Maryland, the noise is limited to 55 dB at night as observed at the property line in residential areas (65 commercial). State law specifies 90 dB anywhere. When you see the gendarmes out there with the boom mike, don’t be gettin’ into the throttle. This is not an issue, Chicken Little From the official CA Exaust Noise Referee website (referee centers are located "within state certified community colleges, " so good luck with that): .... What happens if I get ticket for too loud exhaust?If your vehicle exhaust is too loud, you will be ordered to take it to an official Referee Center – Bureau of Automotive Repair Smog Check Referee Program.
There will be financial costs incurred even if your vehicle is compliant. It’s best to avoid getting a traffic ticket altogether. In case the Referee Center determines your vehicle’s exhaust noise is not over the legal limit, the court can dismiss your citation. How much are exhaust ticket fees?Penalties for illegal exhaust depend on type of exhaust modifications and your location. Minimum fine for a first conviction is $25, with a total fee of $193. Fees can climb up to $1,105 in some cases.You can view exact fines and penalties for unlawful exhaust modifications in California’s Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules(PDF document; see page 26). Are mufflers required in California?California Vehicle Code 27150. (a) requires all vehicles to be equipped with a muffler at all times. If you can keep your vehicle’s exhaust noise low enough you may be able to avoid attention from police. However, if you do receive a ticket you will be required to install a muffler before your vehicle can be compliant with California exhaust laws.From the CA Referee website: How loud is 95 decibels?For comparison, vacuum cleaners or chainsaws operate at about 70 dB. 95 db is an approximate sound of:
Noise meters for phones are generally not very accurate, but can be helpful in determining approximate noise levels. For accurate noise level meter you can see BAFX Decibel Meter on Amazon. Unfortunately it costs $20, but it’s a small price to pay for avoiding a $1000 traffic ticket. |
Wow. The country is falling apart and they waste time and taxpayer $$ on this nonsense.
If the factory exhaust system is operational and intact, that should be the end of it. All manufacturers comply with federal law and EPA standards. But no,the nanny state knows better and will force you to do what they deem good for you. |
Originally Posted by Prange
(Post 2019582)
But no,the nanny state knows better and will force you to do what they deem good for you.
First, CA implemented the "Emissions Referee" and now you have "Noise Referees." If you let this clamp-down go, you'll have the "Smell Referee" and eventually the "Pursuit of Happiness and Fun Referee." Bottomline: the anti-ICE actists are far more effective than auto enthusiasts. So say goodbye to cars that green-up a plants with life-essential CO2, as long the EV cult lives in extreme fear of the ICE, even if that turns out to be a wrong concern. I know I make light of the "green" movement irrationally lashing out at everything green to assuage their abject terror of future air conditioning bills, but they are effectively ruining our the automarket with this barrage of absurd anti-ICE regulations, so auto enthusiasts better wake-up soon. |
:icon_troll:
|
Are F-Types illegal in California? One would have assume the answer is yes if one pays attention to the news and social media these days. It appears from all reports that the only thing still legal in Commiefornia are illegals. As someone else posted recently on this forum: WAD.
|
I'll be moving to South Carolina in about a year when I retire. Thank God!
|
I am in no way worried.
|
If your car is stock, life is dandy in California.
Seriously, think this through, do you think the entire state of California (home to Silicon Valley and Hollywood) have legitimately made all sports cars illegal? C'mon now. |
Bingo. The ol' noise ordinance has been there for over 40 years. We are also "required" to run front plates, can't tint our side windows to any reasonable level and the speed limit is 70 on I-5. I haven't run a front plate this century, my side windows are tinted to 30% and I have had CHP flash their lights on me to move over when I had the cruise control at about 80 mph.
|
This is how they test
|
Rev to 3500 with the exhaust in quiet mode....not a problem.
|
Originally Posted by eeeeek
(Post 2019831)
Rev to 3500 with the exhaust in quiet mode....not a problem.
|
Originally Posted by Jaggyx
(Post 2019692)
If your car is stock, life is dandy in California.
Seriously, think this through, do you think the entire state of California (home to Silicon Valley and Hollywood) have legitimately made all sports cars illegal? C'mon now. |
I'm still not worried. The sky is not falling.
|
So much misinformation about this law.
Regardless, my SVR measured 124 dB from 3 feet away during cold-start with VAP catted downpipes. :) |
Originally Posted by SVR
(Post 2019899)
So much misinformation about this law.
Regardless, my SVR measured 124 dB from 3 feet away during cold-start with VAP catted downpipes. :) How did Californians let this go so far into the gutter without a fight? And sadly, as the world's biggest former-sports car market goes, we all go. |
So much misinformation in this thread. Willful ignorance and trolling, too, with perhaps some artificial outrage.
I'm going to go grab a Cold One that's calling my name. Cheers! |
Originally Posted by JIMLIGHTA
(Post 2019883)
What changed is that as of January 1st 2019, if you get cited for noise, using the cops ears only, you have to get through the referee's test or you cannot register your car.
|
Is this for real??
I live in California & I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket on a stock car for loud exhaust. I think that would get thrown out of court in a heartbeat. The State of California signed off on the car as meeting all expectations or else it wouldn’t be on the road. I see F types every day out here. If anyone would get targeted it would be the younger guys with the “rice burners” that put the loud exhaust on that just sounds awful. This is one messed up state though, if someone did get screwed it wouldn’t shock me. |
Originally Posted by lizzardo
(Post 2019969)
So much misinformation in this thread. Willful ignorance and trolling, too, with perhaps some artificial outrage.
I'm going to go grab a Cold One that's calling my name. Cheers! Now the new law is quite confusing as written, but the operative verb in the legal requirement for citation is "modified". Found this thread pasted below in another forum that is directly on point. Sorry for the length, but poster "jps" is an attorney that clearly has dissected this new law and has figured out the lack of applicability to vehicles with unmodified exhaust... If you happen to get cited by an officer, take your car to the dealer first, and have them certify or otherwise put in writing that your vehicles' exhaust system is as designed and manufactured by Jaguar for sale in California; that no modifications have been made to the exhaust system; and the stock exhaust indeed contains a muffler and the entire system is in excellent working order. Internet_Ghost 2 months ago You need to read the statute carefully. It doesn't just include modified exhaust systems. It also includes any system that exceeds a certain noise limit. “No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 27150 or exceeds the noise limits established for the type of vehicle in Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200). You need to find out if your exhaust violates those particular statute sections. jps_ 2 months ago Not to be picky, but it appears to me that the statute first requires a person to modify the exhaust system (literally the first seven words), all the rest are the conditions that such modification must not cause. Isn't the burden on the state to prove that the exhaust has been modified? If he brings certification from a competent mechanic that it hasn't been modified, and the state brings nothing but the officer's inexpert opinion, I would think the state would fail its burden. Internet_Ghost 2 months ago “Not to be picky, but it appears to me that the statute first requires a person to modify the exhaust system (literally the first seven words), all the rest are the conditions that such modification must not cause.” But the portion of the statute I highlighted shows that there is a standard level of noise that each vehicle must be below depending on the type of the vehicle. I haven't gone searching through the statutes, but most likely there's another statute it violates rather than the modification statute which is why I told OP he needs to check to see if his exhaust violates those particular statute sections. It's not uncommon to be written up for the wrong statute section but another one apply. jps_ 2 months ago Just for giggles (because it's Sunday), I did look up the statutes. OP could be cited by 27150 or 27151. A citation under 50 can be neutered by evidence that OP did not make any modifications. 51 requires an adequate muffler, properly maintained. In my opinion a mechanic's certificate that the exhaust is factory equipped and functioning properly should be sufficient to rebut the charge. jps_ 2 months ago Again, I'm going to disagree. The state's claim must then be that a stock car exceeds the specification. The burden of proof for that claim still rests on the state. A trier of fact can take notice that cars manufactured for sale in the US must demonstrate that they meet these standards, otherwise they are not allowed for sale. Therefore there is a rebuttable presumption that as long as the car is 'as manufactured', it meets the specifications.The state would need to bring evidence that the noise levels were in fact exceeded. I strongly doubt this evidence exists. "It was very loud" is unlikely to be as compelling as "Here is a certification from the dealership that the exhaust is original and functioning according to manufacturer's specifications". Internet_Ghost 2 months ago There is no such rule that makes that a rebuttable presumption. It’s just the standard weighing of the evidence. jps_ 2 months ago I said specifically that the trier of fact can take notice, a rule is not required. If such notice is taken, a vehicle that is operating according to a manufacturer's specifications could be presumed to be operating within the proscribed limits, which presumption could be defeated with evidence to the contrary... should such evidence exist. We can disagree whether a mechanic's certification versus a police officer's untrained ear is sufficient. The point is that once it gets arguable, the case does not hinge on a balance of probabilities, but on reasonable doubt. It is entirely reasonable that a perfectly functioning stock exhaust is functioning close enough to, but not beyond, the legal limit that an officer's untrained ear may mistake it for "too loud". Internet_Ghost 2 months ago I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore because you’re all over the board. I said getting a mechanic to specifically test his vehicle was the best defense he could have many posts ago. jps_ 2 months ago I told OP he needs to check to see if his exhaust violates those particular statute sections.And I am disagreeing. Specifically, Article 2.5 commencing with section 27200 requires a measurement of sound level at 50' from the center line of travel. Presumably the car is manufactured after 1985 and the limit is 80 db. This is not an uncomplicated measurement, and will undoubtedly be expensive. OP can't just use some App on his iphone, and there are very few garages that measure sound levels to 0.1 db.I am suggesting that he just gets a mechanic to certify that the exhaust is factory installed (neutering the specific charge leveled against him that he modified the exhaust), and functioning properly (defending against the officer's untrained inexpert opinion that it fails the test cited above), on the reasonable assumption that a device working to specification is also within specifications mandated for its use and sale, leaving it to the state to prove that it doesn't. Internet_Ghost 2 months ago How is that any different from what i’ve said? You can presume all you want, but the judge doesn’t have to take that into consideration. They have to take into consideration that you have specific evidence that the car alleged to be in violation isn’t in violation. jps_ 2 months ago Sigh... How is that any different from what i’ve said?You suggested to measure sound from the muffler is in accordance with a specification. I am suggesting to state that the muffler is original, and not defective. Measurement of sound requires a bay of at least 100 feet wide with non-reflecting walls in which the sound level emitted by the vehicle can be measured with reasonable precision. There are probably a handful of labs in all of California equipped to do what you suggest.Any Fiat dealer in California can do what I suggest. the judge doesn’t have to take that into consideration. They have to take into consideration that you have specific evidence that the car alleged to be in violation isn’t in violation. A mechanic's statement that a factory installed device is original, and is not defective is evidence that the device is operating within noise limits that are part of its design specification. Although not direct. Judges are not idiots. When faced with the fact that OP is not guilty of modification, the '51 charge on its face must fail. This leaves only your worry that OP could be found guilty of '50 (proper maintenance), which a mechanic's statement of fit function would also defend adequately. OP cannot be charged with manufacturing a vehicle improperly. So yes, I am not at all recommending that OP attempt to measure the actual sound emitted by his muffler. I think that's an overcautious recommendation. It will of course suffice, just like swatting a fly with a hammer will also suffice. It just isn't necessary to use the whole hammer when a piece of paper will do. Swagsturbate 2 months ago Completely agree, which is why Fiat does it's own due dilligence by decibel testing the car before selling it to the public.A manufacturer wouldn't sell a car that violates state law in that state before ensuring it met all legal requirements to be driven/sold in that state. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands