[Cobra Chuck]

Unfortunaely Johanessen was replaced in November or whenever the last election was. He was the only true Hot Rod advocate. He had several rods including a Cobra replica. He did a lot to get SB-100 passed. As soon as he was gone the whackos went to work undoing everything he did.

Cobra Chuck

Originally posted by jimveta


Hello from a non-cobra owner!!
First, just a little background, I plan to register my specially constructed vehicle, a tube chassis fiberglass bodied prerunner/stadium type truck--under SB100 as well (yes, someone has actually done it before, and going by the engine at that: body "resembles" an F150 but engine was completely custom including block , so it defaulted to 1960) .. anyways..

I too am worried about this SB708. I have no knowledge or experience in politics, but it seems to me that arguments need to made to supporters of this bill that although the "intention" may be good the problem is not being correctly addressed and would end up hurting CA more than helping.

In other words, let me give an example:

If Mr. Out-of-shape is never exercises, smokes all day, eats junk food all day, ..
and just so happens to have a routine of eating a cup of ice-cream once a week, pointing to his ice-cream regiment and saying, "Ah ha! there's your problem!" and forcing him to simply stop his cup of ice cream a week, without addressing anything else isn't going to solve anything. Moreover, that kind of approach would ruin his health even further with extra stress.

Now compare this with Mr. Healthy who also happens to have the same weekly ice cream regiment as Mr Out-of-shape above. ".. hey, what gives? why is he still in perfectly good health?"

So it is with this SB708. The problem of pollution won't be solved or even reduced by simply attacking the hobbyists. The problem of most of pollution currently comes from POPULATION DENSITY combined with a lack of trees dispersed throughout the area. This is what happens when you clump all the inudstrial/factories and urban neighborhoods and downtowns all in one spot. YET, the solution is hampered by a very misguided left-wing mindset of an ignorantly refusing any comprimise of expanding onto forested land. Of course, we don't want habitats destroyed, but a perfect comprimise between nature preservation a human habitat can be reached and it is through this that I believe any polution solution can be made. After all, the trees are our air filters.

California is still rated right in the middle as far as pollution goes even with all the super stringent of laws. Mainly, I believe due to these pockets of concentrated polution. Now, what about the other ~25 states that are ranked cleaner than us? who definitely have much less stricter/bueracratic laws and probably a higher percatange of older autos/ hot rods (compared to current autos)? -- This goes back to my example above.

This is just going to hurt CA businesses even more than they are now. In fact, if the politicians like Flores and crew want to force this tact, and truly want to reduce pollution via *this method*, then every single owner of a vehicle in the exempt years need to get $300,000+ to pay companies to do R&D on coming up with a one-off custom solution on retaining the performance for their application while still conforming to current auto standards (i.e. OBD2, EEC5, EGR, etc. etc) .. again, per car.

Examples of this kind of economy-eating bureaucracy in action:

* CARB EO: an replacement air filter alone is ok; however, as most of you I presume probably know just to sell that air filter with a replacement air intake tract/hose that's just slightly different in design requires an EO # and is deemed not "smog legal". Even though it would most likely IMPROVE emissions. And since it costs $1200 per lab test to get CARB approval, most smaller aftermarket companies would just be satisfied with EPA approval and go for the rest of 49 states.

* regarding forestry: Yes, I do NOT approve of indiscriminate logging. But I think emotions and ego need to be kept apart from reasoning and logic (just like seperation of church and state): there was a sizeable patch of land burnt down in one of the forest fires not long ago (sorry , forget where, could be colorado or cali), where all the trees where burnt down and soil became infertile. In fact, it was hot enough to sterilize everything which means the burnt foliage could NOT become any kind of fertilizer anymore. Of course, the moment the radical lobbyists (read: more democrat votes) heard the word "logging" associated with the companies, .. well that land will just be sitting there--dead--forever. Instead of letting those companies come in, reap the burnt trees, and *plant new ones*

Anyways, I apologize for your time but my rant is over for now... and all this coming from a democrat (however, I'm planning on chaning to libertarian. this war was the last straw for me for the left)

P.S. I couldn't find any Sen Johannessen entry listed anywhere on the senate website. All I could find was Sen Aanestad for the Redding district #04 which is the same as Johannesen. ?? and history of SB100 2001-2002 proceedings with Johannessen name.

And of course, like with everyone else I would appreciate any updated info and am definitely crossing my fingers this doesn't get passed.......