seschm1234 Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/small-volume-carmakers-get-big-break-motor-vehicle-safety-act With the passage of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, small-volume carmakers are exempt from Federal safety standards. http://hanabi.autoweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery-thumbnail/public/img_2701.jpg?itok=gSgusD7v http://hanabi.autoweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery-thumbnail/public/img_2702.jpg?itok=7gJ4TV04 http://hanabi.autoweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery-thumbnail/public/sema_low-volume1-002.jpg?itok=N85ULLXZ http://hanabi.autoweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery-thumbnail/public/sema_low-volume2-002.jpg?itok=nPfbTzQa [h=2]THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM NHTSA CRASH TEST STANDARDS AS LONG AS THEY MAKE 325 CARS A YEAR OR LESS[/h] Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/small-volume-carmakers-get-big-break-motor-vehicle-safety-act#ixzz3teAXYsLC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toedrag Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Wonder if this means the end of the DIY kit? Cutting kits out is an easy way for the mfg to recoup a substantial amount of unpaid time & effort spent supporting the builders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wemtd Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Increased awareness & sales & more smiles for se7ens ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Thanks for posting, as this is potentially huge news for this community. Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention if this legislation applies to the importation of foreign-made-low-volume car manufacturers (Zenos, Caterham, Birkin, Koenigsegg, and countless others) as well as some of the domestic manufacturers mentioned in the article. This could be a real game-changer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGTorque Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 great news for possible future wcm ultralites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blokko Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Sean posted about this on the L7Club. Did a bit of digging and came up with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanD3W Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I found what may be the wording of the bill that passed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2675/text As long as an engine from a brand new car, with all of its emissions equipment, or more likely an emissions compliant engine package like what is currently only offered as GM LS V8 e-rod packages, then the bill may have some positive effect. The zinger I see in the bill is "is manufactured under a license for the product configuration, trade dress, trademark or patent for the motor vehicle that is intended to be replicated from the original manufacturer, its successors or assignees, or current owner of such rights, unless there is a preponderance of evidence that such rights have been abandoned for at least three years." Does anyone know of a replica from a small manufacturer that has a license agreement with the original manufacturer its successors or assignees??? I don't think there are any. Does Factory Five need to obtain a license agreement with Shelby American in order to produce turnkey cars? Does any sevenesque car manufacturer that would like to produce turnkey cars need the same from Caterham and possibly also Birkin? I hope that provision was dropped in the bill's final wording, otherwise I see virtually no benefit. I couldn't find any confirmed final wording. I wish the articles written the past few days included more detail and a link to the final wording. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I read the language of the bill as intended for replicas, licensed or otherwise. The 3 year rule seems to apply where rights are not enforced. So that would cover say Factory Five, possibly Westfield, but not cover Ultralite (since it is not really a replica but an all new design), Atom, etc. Not sure where that leaves Stalkers? Anything a non-replica are plain out of luck. More study needed of the law and its associated regs which we have not seen yet. Also note that while States technically have to respect Federal Law they can frustrate it to the point where is it is irrelevant by the way they implement it in their local registration policies or even freer than intended by the Federal Law. This is only one step in a process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanD3W Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 With the wording about replicas being "intended to resemble" I think any of the 7 type cars could be considered a replica. Post litigation Westfields differ from Caterhams sufficiently to avoid further litigation. I think this puts Westfields, Stalkers and Ultralites and all the others in the same category. I think all will remain as kits though if this bill keeps the wording about licensing agreements with the original manufacturer or their successors. Maybe the bill enables Caterham to sell turnkey cars. Doesn't Birkin claim rights to the series 3 design? Maybe they could sell turnkey cars also, once someone starts selling 4 cylinder e-rod type of engine packages. Maybe you're right about the Cobra replica crowd. I think Carroll Shelby lost every lawsuit he brought against the replica manufacturers, so maybe it could be said that the original manufacturers rights were not enforceable. Would Ford sign a licensing agreement with a turnkey GT40 manufacturer? I wish the bill didn't include a requirement that the cars be replicas. If that requirement were dropped then Ariel Atom, Factory Five 818 and GTM, the Zenos, and others could all be sold as turnkey cars here. Does anybody know why the replica requirement was included? Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceBe Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 ...Does anybody know why the replica requirement was included? Dean Driven by the folks who pushed the legislation on the industry side, here in the USA. -Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceBe Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 From the legislation: "A motor vehicle engine (including all engine emission controls) from a motor vehicle that has been granted a certificate of conformity by the Administrator for the model year in which the motor vehicle is assembled, or an engine that has been granted an Executive order for the model year in which the motor vehicle is assembled subject to regulations promulgated by the California Air Resources Board, may be installed in an exempted specially produced motor vehicle, if..." That would imply that a Duratec-based engine/emissions package would not be legal for a 2016 motor vehicle, since the Duratec engine is not found on any current USA production automobile. Sigma-powered cars should be OK, assuming they are installed to be emissions compliant. -Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I suspected as much with the Duratec but.... Do any of the Ford Ecoboost engines meet this conformity criteria in a nice neat crate emission compliant engine package out of the box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceBe Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I suspected as much with the Duratec but.... Do any of the Ford Ecoboost engines meet this conformity criteria in a nice neat crate emission compliant engine package out of the box? Not sure - GM has been ahead of the curve on this, with their E-Rod packages. In either case, if a manufacturer sourced the engine from an OEM as a replacement, or surplus to production, for a compliant model, and then packaged it with the correct emissions package, I think that could work, based on the wording of the legislation. For the particular manufacturer with which we are both intimately familiar, my understanding is that EcoBoost presents additional packaging issues. -Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Road Ready Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 In NC, my '07 Caterham build is titled as an '57 Lotus Replica. As a '57, it's not required to be inspected, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceBe Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 In NC, my '07 Caterham build is titled as an '57 Lotus Replica. As a '57, it's not required to be inspected, ever. Right, but we're talking about recently passed legislation that allows low-volume manufacturers to import *complete* vehicles into the USA. Once the vehicle is imported or assembled from kit, the titling/registration process is defined at the state level - some states allow new Caterham Sevens to be titled as vintage Lotus Seven replicas. The USA is the only market in which Caterham offered a kit version of the CSR - it was *only* offered as a complete car in other markets. Cheers, -Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blokko Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I did a factory tour of a UK kit manufacturer a couple of years back and was told that they had been approached by Ford WRT supply of crated ecoboost engines. There were 2 big problems - the engine is too tall to fit in most 7 type cars unless you are prepared to live with a 'bonnet bulge' and (crucially) the cost was way, way over what they were paying for Zetec, Sigma and Duratec engines at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now