Thanks for the address. We have had really good luck with SB-100 up here after the first three cars and the DMV learned what to do. The so called smog test was a joke and lasted about 10 minutes. The guy talked about the cars, put the sniffer in them, wrote down how bad they were and then attached the special construction smog exempt sticker to them. If they get that SB-708 bill through I doubt if there will be a replica of any kind in Calif. within a few years. No new ones for sure and they will start taking the already registered ones off the road because they will not meet the modern day emission tests. Stupid politicians and idiots that worship Davis and Flores. Davis got his re-election by signing SB-100 and then Flores immediately brought his previously written SB-708 to get rid of AB-100. Maybe a bill to do away with Davis and Flores would be a good way to go about it. I just wish the far North State had more voting power as neither of them would be around if our votes carried any weight. All we can do is keep trying and it is going to take a massive effort by the car people in Southern Calif. to stop this as we just don't have the voting power up here to do it.
This smog check requirement is for every vehicle EXCEPT those granted exemptions, which is what we get from SB 100/SB 1578. Does it say that SB100/1578 are null and void? I didn't read that.
Greg
__________________
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots"
I have a copy of the bill and have read it so many times I have it memorized. It is really vague as is most political bills. So I called three people that I happen to know a little and they all told me that yes, it will prempt SB-100 and Sb-1578. That is why I asked in one of my first posts for some of the legal people on the forum to read the bill and give their interpitation of it. God, I hope that you are correct as we have fought so long and hard to be able to have replicas and older cars.
Paragraph 4 Subsections B & C. Then below it in addendum (iii) it states the vehicle is being registered as a special construction vehicle. The way I read Subsection C any vehicle excepted by 4 (A & B ) shall be subject to testing and certification requirements as determined by the department.
If you can explain this to me in English then I would really appreciate it. This is one time that I would really like to be completely wrong.
That which follows is the text of the bill in its present form:
"SB 708, as introduced, Florez. Air pollution: smog check.
(1) Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program (smog check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs and the State Air Resources Board, that provides for the inspection of all motor vehicles, except those specifically exempted from the program, upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other
circumstances. Existing law exempts from those requirements, until January 1, 2003, any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the 1974model-year, and after that date, any motor vehicle that is 30 or more
model-years old.
This bill would delete the exemption for those motor vehicles, and would instead, commencing January 1, 2005, exempt any motor vehicle that is 45 or more model-years old."
I have a couple of thoughts...First, what smog standard could be imposed on a forty-five year old vehicle that at the time of its manufacture was not subject to a smog standard? I think the answer is "No Standard"
Second, the phrase "provides for the inspection of all motor vehicles, except those specifically exempted from the program"
Thus the question becomes does SB 100 "exempt" specialty cars from the smog requirements program ...if it does then SB 708 does not change the exemption as to specialty vehicles registered under SB 100.
And that which follows is the relevant portion of SB 100:
"The bill provides that in determining the vehicle
model-year, the referee must compare the vehicle to
vehicles of the era that the vehicle most closely
resembles. The referee must assign the 1960 model-year to
any specially constructed vehicle that does not
sufficiently resemble a previously manufactured vehicle.
The referee must require only those emission control
systems that are applicable to the established model-year
and that the vehicle reasonably accommodates in its present
form.
the language stating: "The referee must require only those emission control systems that are applicable to the established model-year and that the vehicle reasonably accommodates in its present form." seems to create a window of opportunity.
It appears that SB 100 creates a limited exception....the engine would have to conform to "model-year" systems OR systems that the vehicle would "reasonably accomodate in its present form."
Seemingly if the vehicle or the engine wouldn't accept certain smog systems catalitic converters or the like....as a specially build vehicle.....SB 708 could not force the installation of those systems.
Of course the real problem is to get the DMV or the referree to understand the language in the same way that a specially constructed vehicle owner would!
But I think Dirt Cowboy is correct on this one! Certainly by 3/25 we will know the answer......
I hope that all of you who have gotten registered under SB-100 get to keep your cars. But if the so called vague at best statement that any engine or car that can't be reasonable fitted for equipment applies to them then it certainly would have to apply to pre 1966 cars as none of them were built to accomodate any smog equipment, there is none made for them, and many of those engines would not have a way to install it. It would cost me thousands that I don't have to try and make my 1965 Comet meet these requirements and there is no emissions equipment for it on the market anyway. And if there was, the engine would have to be modified to try and accept it. And what about all the high performance cars in the 60s that could never in no way meet theres asinine requirements. After consulting at length with people in Sacramento who were there talking to Seantors and Assemblymen trying to get them to vote no on this bill, the concensus was that the bill is a done thing and that it will make the SB-100 registered cars be brought up to all others for fear of lawsuites if they don't. This bill should have been stopped before it was read into the assembly and they had the votes to pass it. As they take away our rights one by one it is this type of thing that will eventually lead to no one in this state being able to own land, vote, or do anything not regulated by the Emperor and his staff of Jesters. Just go look at the whole 700 series of bills that are coming up for vote. Do NOT think for a second that they can't do anything they want. They have been doing it for years by nibbling away at rights until they now consider themselves beyond any answering to the people for anything. I really do hope the AB-100 cars will be left alone as they will be the only Cobras allowed in Calif. Even the originals can't be registered unless their owners have enough money to purchase an exemption from the state.
Cobra Make, Engine: E.R.A. FIA #2088 1964 289 w/Webers
Posts: 2,151
Not Ranked
Seems to me that their efforts could be better spent on transportation systems. For those of you who aren't here in Southern California it is quite remarkable to when you first move here to see how many new cars are on the road in the LA area. I would venture to say that the ratio of new cars (5yrs. & newer)to older cars on the road as compared to any other major city in the US is probably 3x in Los Angeles & the surrounding counties as compared to others. People can't survive here without a newer vehicle unless they have a strong background in mechanics & as we know that is even less applicable with the onset of computer controlled systems in cars these days. The reason for this is that it is nearly impossible to get from place to place here. If you want to survive you need reliable transportation! So with such a small % of gross pullutors I don't see how they think their efforts will make any difference at all! It's just plain Stupid! The only way I see to improve on our air quality(as far as vehicle emmisions are concerned) is to improve our transit & transportation systems.
Cobra Make, Engine: Lone Star Classics, LS 427, 302 cid @ 370 HP, T5 and 8.8" rear end, 99.99% complete
Posts: 135
Not Ranked
Did SB-708 Pass?
Turk or anyone:
Did SB-708 pass? If so what's the deal? I not good!!!
Cobrachuck
Quote:
Originally posted by Turk
They had the "Million Men March".....They had the "Million Women March"....recently they attempted "Million Modem March"....,
It may be time for the "MILLION CYLINDER MARCH"!!
Let's see 1,000,000 divided by 8...that is 125,000 cars. Nope that won't work.
Let's try for MILLION VALVE MARCH.
What a bunch of weenies.
There is absolutely no question in my mind this state is not only business hostile, but they just hate cars here at the government level also.
They love the Federal Highway Fund, They love the taxes collected on Sales, Plates, Registrations,toll booths, and gasoline...
But they just plum hate automobiles.
SB-100 did allow the owner to pick whether he registered the car by motor year or model year and the referee had no say about it. If he didn't think the body style resembled anything close to the year you choose all he could do was change it to a 1960 model which was even farther back from smog. ( 1966 ) But with all of the new revisions to SB-708 there seems to be no distinction at all between a special construction car and a car manafactured by any of the licensed manafacturers. The latest changes giving the counties the right to put emission testing along with sobriety testing at any point they set up for the day means any vehicle driven according to the few people I have managed to talk to that seem to know a little about this. The only solution to this mess is have SB-708 voted down, get rid of Davis and Flores and get some intelligent people in Sacramento. Of course they would have to be imported from out of state. I just looked at the web site and they read the bill a second time but are still stalling as they hope the peple will stop calling and writing and they can slip in it without losing any votes. If you can get any more clarification of this abortion from anyone please post it for all of us.
Cobra Make, Engine: Lone Star Classics, LS 427, 302 cid @ 370 HP, T5 and 8.8" rear end, 99.99% complete
Posts: 135
Not Ranked
Ron
Thanks for the update and I will begin calling and writing.
Cobra Chuck
Quote:
Originally posted by Ron61
Sheppard,
SB-100 did allow the owner to pick whether he registered the car by motor year or model year and the referee had no say about it. If he didn't think the body style resembled anything close to the year you choose all he could do was change it to a 1960 model which was even farther back from smog. ( 1966 ) But with all of the new revisions to SB-708 there seems to be no distinction at all between a special construction car and a car manafactured by any of the licensed manafacturers. The latest changes giving the counties the right to put emission testing along with sobriety testing at any point they set up for the day means any vehicle driven according to the few people I have managed to talk to that seem to know a little about this. The only solution to this mess is have SB-708 voted down, get rid of Davis and Flores and get some intelligent people in Sacramento. Of course they would have to be imported from out of state. I just looked at the web site and they read the bill a second time but are still stalling as they hope the peple will stop calling and writing and they can slip in it without losing any votes. If you can get any more clarification of this abortion from anyone please post it for all of us.
You can see the revision history of the bill. The version amended on 3/26/03 removes all language related to pre-1974 cars. This bill is now simply about providing smog-related repair assistance to low-income individuals. The initial version looked pretty scary, but we're out of the woods - for now. Thanks to all who called/wrote in.
A man that is young in years, may be old in hours, if he have lost no time. But that happeneth rarely. Generally, youth is like the first cogitations, not so wise as the second. For there is a youth in thoughts, as well as in ages... Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Cobra Make, Engine: B&B 408W, TKO 600, 9" 4-link Truetrac, 13" X 1 3/8" curved vane frt disks
Posts: 205
Not Ranked
joea,
I can deal with a short window, it's the possibility of no window that gives me heartburn. Where do you find out how many numbers have been used? Why do you think it will be worse next year?
Is to "float" an attempt such as this bill, to "warm up the frog" and get all of the potential opponents tired. After all, you are all busy with actually living life and not political activists. Then it will re-appear next year or two and it will all start over again. Eventually "they" will pass it. Just a matter of time. Sorry to be a downer, but I saw it time and again down there. As long as you have a full-time legislature, (full time career politicians) the money and power will be too much for "ordinary" citizens to oppose.
__________________
James Madison, father of the Constitution, said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." He also said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.standdown.net/index.htm
Cobra Make, Engine: E.R.A. FIA #2088 1964 289 w/Webers
Posts: 2,151
Not Ranked
Recall Gray Davis??? What a waste of time that is!!! They found the President guilty...Couldn't even get him out of office...! These people working on this recall have just found themselves a nice way to not have to do something that would really benefit the state! Sure, a state state minus Gray Davis would benefit us all but doing a recall isn't going to get him out of office. Try "NOT" voting for him next time!!! Let's get to work on more important things for now.
"The Tao of Kalifornia Politiks"
Linear Mode
