Aftermarket Exhaust and New Rules

[bikerboy]

How will they know an aftermarket exhaust when they hear it/see it?

Do they know how every standard exhaust sounds?

Ducati bikes come with Termignoni pipes or Ducati sport pipes from the importer, but they don't say on them "aftermarket pipe" How do they know if they are louder or just different? ie chrome, carbon, titanium, etc., and that they aren't the originals.

This is something everyone needs to contest in court if stopped and ticketed. Innocent until proven guilty means they must prove the pipes on the bike are 1. not the originals, 2. if not original then louder than original, 3. how loud the originals are/were compared to what is on the bike now.

I think this is mainly for the big bore boy racer types. They are too lazy/cheap to use db readings so will only cite the really obvious ones.
If we all challenge it in court they will soon ease up on the harder or more borderline cases. The law is too vague and any decent lawyer would get you off unless it is ridiculously loud.

[Motu]

Here is the MTA stand.

The Motor Trade Association (MTA) is concerned that the recently introduced Boy Racer Act (Unauthorised Street and Illegal Drag Racing Amendment Act) will create huge difficulties for its members when it comes to the issue of inspecting noisy exhausts during Warrant of Fitness Inspections.

An Infosheet document issued by LTSA to all Warrant of Fitness Inspection Agencies this week outlining the inspection requirements for modified exhaust systems states a reason for rejection is "the noise output is noticeably and significantly higher than should be expected for the vehicle" when compared with the vehicle's original exhaust system.

The MTA believes that vehicle exhaust noise is primarily a policing issue and should not have been brought into the area of vehicle inspection in the way that it has.

"While the MTA accepts that the public has every right to be concerned over vehicle safety and excessive noise, we are worried that this issue is being dropped into the laps of our members to sort out - and with patently insufficient industry consultation," said MTA's CEO Stephen Matthews.

The first formal request for submissions from LTSA on the proposed exhaust inspection process was not made until Wednesday 16 April, with replies due Tuesday 22 April, an already short time made shorter given the Easter holidays - meant that MTA was unable to fully consult with members and prepare a substantial response. However, MTA did raise a number of concerns regarding the practical aspects of the inspection process, including the submission timeframe.

Mr Matthews believes that the political agenda to remove the problem of boy racers is not one that the motor industry is equipped to deal with, and nor should it be asked to as it primarily relates to how vehicles are operated.

"A matter which should be handled by police is largely being transferred to our industry, in a very rushed manner via very subjective guidelines to deal with the problem. What one inspector may consider to be a noisy vehicle, may not be considered excessive by a neighboring Warrant of Fitness Agent, who may pass a vehicle that has just failed." he said.

The suggested test procedure provided by the LTSA is rudimentary and subject to variation across a wide range of elements including the vehicle, the test environment and the experience and hearing levels of the inspector.

The outcome of this new regime affects not only vehicle owners and inspectors, but manufacturers and suppliers as well. Under the new rules virtually any aftermarket exhaust system could be deemed to be non-compliant.

The MTA believes the subject of noisy exhaust inspections needs further investigation and consultation and will continue to work with all interested parties to achieve a consistent process which can be used by both police and the motor industry.



The MTA believes that vehicle exhaust noise is primarily a policing issue and should not have been brought into the area of vehicle inspection in the way that it has.

[aff-man]

go the MTA!!!.I have never been tested for a loud exhaust at a testing station so what does it involve according to coldkiwi it's a lot more complex that the good old dB meter.

[Marmoot]

I totally agree with MTA.

It is not the matter about my bike, or car, or anybody else's bike/car. But it is the precedent that this law sets. If the government continues on its way in creating knee-jerk reactions to everyday troubles, where would this country go to?
Not only it is rushed, but also it is not clearly defined, totally subjective to executors, vague, baseless, and not adhering to scientific tests or even statistics!!!
What kind of lawmaking is that??

And not to mention that it will cost the industry millions of dollars, as logically ALL aftermarket exhausts are now illegal (since I believe all of them are louder than standard).

I hope AA would give a harsh reaction to the law as well.

[SPman]

Originally posted by Marmoot

If the government continues on its way in creating knee-jerk reactions to everyday troubles, where would this country go to?
............
What kind of lawmaking is that?? 

1) exactly where it is now ?

2) F**ked!

[wari]

... I hope AA would give a harsh reaction to the law as well.

I get the feeling the AA has become a govt beneficiary ... unfortunatley!

[twistymover]

We could always hope for a hard- of-hearing wof inspector.

[XRNR]

re: HD riders with slipons as mentioned earlier

I suspect some of those German Helmeted HD riders out for a ride with their mates, will have exausts so quite that Mr Plod on the roadside wouldn't even lookup ;-)

Just another law left up to individual discretion which will only target the sheep, not the wolves!

[bluninja]

Rule 32017 2.7(4) is the problem rule relating to exhaust noise. It is on page 9 of the proposed new rules- get to these direct at: www.ltsa.govt.nz/consultation/vehicle-equipment/rule-32017.pdfor go to the website and click on rule in 'constitution' box in bottom right of the page.

TO MAKE A SUBMISSION ON LINE (needed by June 3) go to the SUBMISSION FORM and scroll down to the exhaust system rule- enter that you disagree and give reasons, eg noisy exhausts not legal already, sports mufflers not necessarily too noisy, un policeable, decibel reading better?

Please send this on to other rev heads so that as much fuss is generated as possible.

.....this was sent to me......anybody else want to SUBMIT!!!

TTFN

BTW my submission FWIW

This proposal appears ill thought out, subjective and superfluous.

Traffic Regulations(1976) part 29 already sets down the maximum noise levels ( "no person shall introduce, manufacture or sell for first registration... a motor vehicle the noise output of which exceeds the levels specified in the First Schedule"). On that basis it would have been simpler, and more objective to set out the maximum noise levels.

I believe this proposal is unworkable since most people enforcing this law will be unable to discern the sound level of an original equipment exhaust on any given vehicle. It also appears unenforcable given that the word 'similar' would appear to have no specific, objective, legal parameters.

Finally, I wonder if compensation would be payable to vehicle owners where their exhaust meets the noise requirements of Traffic Regulations(1976)part 29, who are then given a green sticker for an exhaust which is still legal when tested.

[wkid_one]

I agree with everyone but for one point.  We are yet to see how this is going to be enforced - we too maybe making a mountain out of a mole hill.  The purpose of this law is to target a specific group of individuals, boy racers, not motorcyclists etc......until we know the implications of how this will effect us on a day to day basis - we are grasping at straws. 

I am going to the VTNZ testing station today to see what they say about the VTR - if any bike is going to fail it will be a big bore V Twin......we can then work from there.

Case in point tho - no one at VTNZ will know what a VTR should sound like with OEM pipes - so I wonder what their reference point will be

[bluninja]

Take your point WKID, but if we have the opportunity to alter/stop bad law and regulations we should take the opportunity, not wait till it bites in the bum a few years later.

As for me.....to my knowledge I have the only 2001 model RSVR in NZ, so what would the testers reference be (yeah I know there are a handful of 2001 RSVs around, but will the tester know there's no difference?). I actually picked the Akrapovic cos it sounds good, but is only just over the UKs draconian sound regs so I wouldn't get hassled by the police over there.

Just as an aside. I had a friend convicted under a 150 year old UK law to stop people frightening horses on the roads. He was walking drunkenly down a footpath by the road trying to hitch a lift home at night. There was no specific law against that (he wasn't disorderly, violent, or making a nuisance) bu there are lots of other specious old laws lying around that can be used instead.

TTFN

[Stephanie Shand]

Please dear god do not tell me that the addition of a modest Scorpion pipe to my humble SV650 will cause concern for the Government - how silly - it appears from reading the literature that it is not just that it is louder, rather that it is louder than on "original" - original to who ?  I purchased my bike from a LMVD dealer with the pipe on it - sounded great so I bought the bike - is that so wrong -

Will the "enforcers" be educated on whta is original and what is not ? or is it a matter of hrm - theres something to chase and make money from I will have that

 

Stephanie

[bluninja]

Stephanie, ANY aftermarket exhaust on an SV650 has to be louder than the OEM one

 

TTFN

[Coldkiwi]

I was thinking more about this last night and pretty much came up with that MTA article in my head. The only possible way to determine whether 'any aftermarket exhaust is louder than the original fitted by the manufacturer' would be to have a HUGE database of dB readings (driveby or stationary or whatever) for EVERY type and year of car or motorcycle on NZ roads.... which would be interesting given that most manufacturers probably don't have that data anyway or (and this is friggen imposssible by the way) have a carbon copy group of inspectors that know all of these sounds and can somehow (against the physics of our ear/brain) recognise a difference of less than 3 decibels.

...I do believe I will make my submission now!

What a piss poor piece of government dribble this is. Subjective, predjudiced and completely unenforcable.

[Motu]

I'm not sure,but I would say that most vehicles in NZ would comply with the ADR (Australian Design Rules),to pass the noise test they do a drive by,certain,gear,throttle etc,not something that can be replicated in a WOF test - unless you want to pay!

All reference to dBA levels have been removed from the WOF manual,or as the new one is called - Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual.Imposible for any WOF tester to check if the data has been removed.

In the Guide to Vehicle Standards I found this.

Moped.........77

M/C up to 125.....82

M/C over 125.......86

Car etc...........81.

That was dated 1 july 1978.

So a bike can be noisier than a car - but what's the difference between 81 and 86 - I don't know,without a meter no one will.