SJK2

There are a lot of things in the works. We have contacted SEMA rep and 4cc's members and they are helping with support. It is a little too early to specify what will transpire at this point. Don and Jay may want to respond to this. Changes have been reccomended to the bill to make it more understandable but I have not seen them yet. As of now there is nothing scheduled. All of you should know that a bill is submitted by a representative but is reviewed/reworked by th Office of Legislative Review before everyone sees it. It is at that stage changes can or are being made. At least I think that is the way it goes!!

If changes can be made I have some suggestions that I believe will ensure we have a greater likelihood of success. What is the best way to discuss this? On the forum here? Via email? Or can we meet one night at the shop in Wallingford?

I guess it depends on how much time we have here?

EDIT: Just got Don's email... thanks!

As of Friday 1/19, Dave from the 4Cs ( CT Council of Car Clubs ) and Jason from SEMA have been in contact with RENEW1 and myself. Discussion is underway to see if the SEMA model legislation can serve both the combined interests of the Cobra community and the 4Cs. The Bill that was filed can have detail narrative added at a later date. Claire is aware of the alternative ( s ) Also, SEMA to take the lead in working with the House Transportation Committee and the General Assembly using their resources and experience with 15 other states.

Support for the Bill is still appropriate in meeting the objective on the permanent exemption on emission testing but might or could take another form by eliminating the Composite designation if the kit or replica models a previously manufactured auto. . Using the year the replica models as the registration year, i.e. 25 years or older ( Cobra 1965 & 1966 ) would automatically exempt the vehicle from emissions, which has been the primary focus. There could be other advantages, but more questions to be answered and clarification on the total impact of the SEMA Bill, both to the 4Cs and the Cobra owners. A combined effort would have more opportunity and leverage for success.

Should there in the final analysis be any unknown obstacles, the alternative of adding Composites to the legislated exemptions from emissions testing would still be a direction that could be taken.

Jason from SEMA is in LA next week , but will continue to devise and propose an alternative strategy.

The ultimate would be a WIN/WIN for everyone

RENEW1 and I have not compared the responses. might be some slight differences, but the intent is identical, the best solution for everyone.


http://ctccc.cctol.com/index.html

Don, RENEW1 & Jay,
Sounds good so far I'm here for whatever via pm, email or phone. Jay a meeting of strategy @ your shop sounds good. Trying to communicate on an open forum is tough. :MECOOL:

From a phone call I received from Dave , the 4Cs, I believe he would also be interested in a group discussion. Wonder if Jason from SEMA could travel to meet with us ? Or, at least join us in a conference call with a speaker system on the phone

Jason is in LA all next week

I emailed my local state rep, who returned by email acknowledgement and promised full support...keep the emails going (to your district rep).

When we faced a similiar bill here in Hawaii it was initially doomed due to interference from a few KEY but powerful players. What saved our bill was a concerted effort by 'kit car' owners (VW, Cobra, etc.) meeting with the law makers, testifying before the House and being pro-active in getting our message before the law makers. It took perserverance and a LOT of 'meetings' to make it happen.

Excaliber:

The legislation that passed:

* Used the SEMA model or SEMA w/ modifications or customized to your state ?

* Is there a web link for the Bill that was passed, for comparison purposes ?

...........thanks

Don

!!An Execellent Link!!
 

Permission and use courtesy of Connecticut Council of Car Clubs

"A Guide To Lobby Your Elected Officials"

http://ctccc.cctol.com/downloads/cct...s/000981D3.doc

Use Freely But Pls Credit "Connecticut Council of Car Clubs"

The Hawaii bill wasn't helped along by SEMA in our case. We actually met a fair amount of opposition from the "Hot Rod" crowd. Existing law made it easy to register anything that was older than 1949, even if it was a "kit". The "Hot Rodders" had theirs, why should they tolerate Cobra owners messing with their 'good thing'. The Hot Rodders had 'connections' with local DOT, who adamantly and openly opposed us. The basis of DOT argument was that 'modern' cars needed to meet FEDERAL standards for safty, etc.

So what constitutes a 'modern' car? Looking at the Fed standards (and trying to get along with everyone, SO important in politics) we determined that 1968 was a water shed year for Fed standards. Therefore we took the EXISTING Hawaii 'Hot Rod' law and simply sought to have the YEAR MODEL changed from 1949 to 1967. We had meetings with key 'Hot Rod' players and eventually won their support. The one change DOT got, we accepted, was SEAT BELTS for everybody, including Hot Rodders.

NOW it appears SEMA is more interested in helping than they were even a few years ago when we were passing our 'Cobra' bill. They offered virtually no support at that time.

This might be note worthy: A couple of years BEFORE the Cobra Clan started our campaign the VW Dune Buggy guys tried to get a law passed for their benefit. They used 'hard ball' tactics, pressuring people, arguing, being somewhat mean spirited about it all. They lost BIG TIME and left a very bad taste among politicians, Hot Rodders and the DOT. You MUST find a way to 'get along' and keep the parties happy. Arguing and finger pointing will get you nowhere. "Laws" are passed well before they get to the House or Senate. They get 'passed' on the Golf course, over coffee, at dinner, etc., 'cut a deal', even if its not exactly what you want. As fate would have it, the VW guys, late in the game, also were specifically included in our bill. "We" were not keen on having them 'tag along' with us. So you see, there are some 'car guys' that for various reasons will NOT want to help you.

Excaliber

Good advice. We are working with those that represent the Hot Rod/Street Rod groups. At this time I think we are open to suggestions from all. I think our most challenging thing will be the "Global Warming" crowd.

Should we contact our reps. if not on the transportation comm.,as they won't see this until it gets to the full house?

Excaliber..........thanks for the advice, there is a joint effort with the CT Council of Car Clubs, 4Cs

http://ctccc.cctol.com/index.html

Don

Update to HB5790
 

A group of us, RENEW1 , Peter from ERA, Dave and John from
the Conn Council of Car Clubs (4Cs) and myself met to discuss the
future direction of HB5790. Jason from SEMA joined in, he is in LA,
at the end with his thoughts and agreement, Jay from Backdraft Racing
will attend future sessions. We have a cross section of business
owners, individuals , Industry organization ( SEMA ) and representation of all the CT car clubs.

A suggested draft of the modifications to existing statues has been
finished, Basically, the intent is to permanently exempt an/or
eliminate the Emissions testing for all vehicles that are currently
classified as Composites. In addition, the Composite designation
would be eliminated and registrations would use the year and model
that the replica/kit car resembles. Designations for Hot Rods and
Custom cars would also be altered, specific naming guidelines to be
arrived at. The proposed changes would align the interests of the 4Cs
and the Replica/Kit car community as a single endeavor .

RENEW1 has forwarded the proposal to Claire Janowski seeking her
guidance and approval as to the next steps. Our desire is to meet in
person with the DMV and DEP and arrive at mutual agreement on the
proposed changes prior to the Public Hearing. Building consensus at
the early stages would be a plus in obtaining approval from the 34
House Members of the Transportation Committee. It is also accepted,
based upon the desires of both the DMV and DEP , there may need to be
adjustments to the proposed changes in order to gain their approval
and support, which is essential if there is to be any success.

Your continued support on HB 5790 will greatly assist in raising the
visibility and eventual passage of the Bill

I will continue to post updates to keep everyone informed.


PS: The value and support of Club Cobra, a " THANK YOU ' to Brent
for sending out the PM e-mail alert to all those in CT
registered on Club Cobra

sounds good....

A "sensible approach"!

Via a CA customer of ours. These are the measurements of a Roush 342R with 2,500 miles on it:

Idle Test 819RPM - CO² 7.4% - 0² 8.4% - HC 936PPM - CO 3.75%
Test 2500RPM - CO² 11.5% - 0² 4.1% - HC 128PPM - CO 1.13%

Jay, not knowing the CA emission standards, test was a PASS or FAIL ? Do you have the standards to compare to CT ?

2000: HC 484, CO 5.09
2005: HC 800, CO 4.00
2007: HC 220, CO 1.20

Are the CT numbers you post at idle? Or at a certain speed. The CA car was a PASS but also an exempt under SB100.

Jay, all references that I have noticed have been in regards to idle emissions.

The Agbar Vehicle Inspection Report for my last test uses the identical max standard for cruise @ 2500 RPM, and idle @ 1100 RPM

When testing, advantageous to have the idle RPM as high as possible, mine was tested at 902 RPM, correct or ?