340R -- Is the DMV on crack?

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by Aedo

I'm agree more with RoadDad than you Tpup here. I don't believe the rules are only in place to protect the environment and to make cars safer (lets face it - the 2.5mph rule has nothing to do with safety) although that is the horse they ride on. I believe that the federal rules are in effect a non-tarif trade barrier to protect the local industry (and therefore the politicians who get voted in by them etc). Australia has a very similar system - ADRs (Australian Design Rules) - these rules are so specific they prevent the importation of many cars.

Two funny things about the ADRs though - left hand drive is forbidden (so US cars largely fail to make it here but this also catches out the super cars like the Enzo, F40, etc) - but several 340R were imported and complied by Lotus so they are available here

We agree to disagree then. I think the emissions laws have worked very well in keeping emissions down in the largest auto market in the world. If we all drove 72 Cudas we would not be able to breathe in many US cities. Fortunately there are not may 72 Cudas left on the road so they are a rounding error in total emissions.

I agree that the 2.5 mph bumper is more about protecting consumers than it is about safety, however, that is one of many safety rules enacted (airbags, roof pillar design, etc). I also believe that those rules have had a measurable impact on safety in the US. Many accidents are survivable today that were simply not back in the 70s.

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

The story now? Do you see any posts here having been edited? You think I'm changing my intents because of you? Again, I refer you to post #17. I don't even have any plans to purchase a 340R, let alone drive it on the road.

I do wholeheartedly agree that the law as it is written makes no sense.

I find a guy who is researching driving a 340r on the street now claiming that he had no intention to do so unbelievable.

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Tpup, do you ever go even 3mph over the speed limit? You know the law is the law, right?

Yep, I do. The difference is that if I hit you going 3 mph over, my insurance will cover it. If you hit me in a 340r your insurance will be void because you are driving an illegal car on the street.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

I changed my post in order to tone this down but no problem, we can go on. Your post talked about these laws being about "politics" and money for politicians and insurance executives. That's your argument to prove buddy.

I'm not claiming that one of the cars you mention is safer than the other or that one is cleaner than the other. I will claim that a new car legal for sale in the US is safer and cleaner than any car you mentioned. That's the point, new cars must meet minimum standards. Older cars do not. The fact that older cars do not need to meet todays standards does not justify you driving an illegal car on the road.

So explain to me then why, if it is really about "cleaner and safer," the old cars are still legal, why in 25 years I will be able to purchase and legally drive around these same "illegal because of not being clean and safe enough" cars that we are discussing?

You are really stuck on me somehow driving an illegal car on the road, huh? I will write this for you here so you won't have to look back at the earlier post that I have referred you to: Actually, I will never buy a 340R. This is just for general informational purposes and edification of my knowledge base only.

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

That's a bunch of crap. If they didn't want them on the street when they were "safe and clean" based on current technology, then why can I in the year 2026 purchase, import and legally drive a 2001 340R on the street when their "safe and clean" technology is so far off from the 2026 standard? Yeah, that makes sense .

So wait 25 years and drive it on the road as well or move to Europe where you can register these cars for the road right now.


Which post exactly? The first one where I questioned whether what I was being told by my DMV office was true?

Again, you are not keeping the issues straight. The EPA and the DOT are ENFORCING the laws. That means that they are mandated to keep these cars off the street. If you have a problem with the laws go talk to your representatives...

And yes, your first post in which you were researching driving a 340r on the street. Something you would only research if you are interested in doing that or seriously bored...

[Aedo]

Originally Posted by Tpup

We agree to disagree then. I think the emissions laws have worked very well in keeping emissions down in the largest auto market in the world. If we all drove 72 Cudas we would not be able to breathe in many US cities. Fortunately there are not may 72 Cudas left on the road so they are a rounding error in total emissions.

I agree that the 2.5 mph bumper is more about protecting consumers than it is about safety, however, that is one of many safety rules enacted (airbags, roof pillar design, etc). I also believe that those rules have had a measurable impact on safety in the US. Many accidents are survivable today that were simply not back in the 70s.

Actually we do agree - The safety standards started in the '70s have saved countless lives and needed to be implemented just as much as the efficiency standards were needed to clear the air (and I lived in Sydney then - one of the top three poluted cities in the world at the time due to the geography and population density - LA, Tokyo and Sydney).

I am also pretty sure that using those restrictions to prevent the import of cars is more of a protectionist attitude than a safety and efficiency one.

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

So explain to me then why, if it is really about "cleaner and safer," the old cars are still legal, why in 25 years I will be able to purchase and legally drive around these same "illegal because of not being clean and safe enough" cars that we are discussing?

You are really stuck on me somehow driving an illegal car on the road, huh? I will write this for you here so you won't have to look back at the earlier post that I have referred you to: Actually, I will never buy a 340R. This is just for general informational purposes and edification of my knowledge base only.

Because it's the law. As to your second point, didn't you also say:

"You know, if I ever did get a 340R, I'm not telling anyone so you don't report me to the feds"

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

I agree that the 2.5 mph bumper is more about protecting consumers than it is about safety

That law wasn't to "protect consumers." It had to do with protecting insurance company profits.

Originally Posted by Tpup

I find a guy who is researching driving a 340r on the street now claiming that he had no intention to do so unbelievable.

Again, now claiming you say, like I changed something that I had written before you got here AFTER you started posting. Believe what you want. Remember that with the written word, particularly that on an internet forum, it is much more difficult to glean true intent than with the spoken word. Keep in mind, also, the "Is the DMV lady on crack?" question that started this thread.

Have you ever wondered about something and then researched it just for the sake of learning something new? If not, then you have a sad curiosity. Some of us, however, enjoy learning about things, even if we have no plans to act on that new found knowledge.

I will end my discussion with you, Tpup, by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with you that the current law as it is written doesn't make sense.

Have a nice evening.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

Because it's the law.

So is going no faster than the speed limit .

Originally Posted by Tpup

As to your second point, didn't you also say:

"You know, if I ever did get a 340R, I'm not telling anyone so you don't report me to the feds"

Yes, followed by a .

[mopho]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Morgan,

I am very much aware of the grandfathered nature of classic cars having owned many. When, however, the argument for not allowing an S1 Elise, Europa S or 340R is "EPA and safety standards" and "wanting to clean up the environment" I get confused. It would do much more "for the environment" and for road "safety" to get all of these grandfathered cars with their 1940s brake technology and spewing engines off the US roads than to limit the sale of many of the currently "illegal due to not meeting EPA and safety standards" cars.

That "grandfathering" that you mention is a rolling grandfathering. 25 years from now all of these cars will be US "road legal," again, when their EPA and safety technology are far below the "25 years from now" standard. That makes sense... Just wait until they are considered even more polluting and less safe then we can make them legal. YEAH! My Seven doesn't even have to have the state mandated annual "safety and emissions" inspection. I just had to "attest" that it is safe when I registered it.

You can't honestly tell me that you think that an S1 Elise, a Europa S or even a 340R without airbags and with its Rover motor (illegal here btw because of, yes, the "environment"...) is less safe and clean than a 1962 Morgan +4, can you?

If it really were all about the "environment and safety" then a lot of old cars would be yanked today. I just don't think that is really the case and the "environment and safety" argument just doesn't seem to hold water for me.

Dad

There is a big difference between not allowing new cars that don't meet the requirements in to the country and taking away classic cars from private owners (or from people who can't afford to buy a newer car) that are already in the country and being used or are being traded as collector cars

Additionally, such old cars are really just a drop in the bucket in the whole scheme of things. But if they suddenly allow people to bring in new cars that don't meet the requirements, well that will just open the flood gates.

As to the 25 year rule, I'd bet the rational is that is when the cars become a "classic", not that many people would want them anymore or go through the trouble to get them.


That said, I sort of agree with Aedo, that the rules have quite a bit to do with protectionism (as well as safety and environmental reasons), every country has their own set of rules (you can't even buy a car from Canada or vice versa). It seems to me that everyone should have the same set of goals as to environment and safety

That law wasn't to "protect consumers." It had to do with protecting insurance company profits.

Now if you were not being so cynical and anti-govt, you might see that keeping costs down for insurance companies keeps the cost down for the consumer

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

And yes, your first post in which you were researching driving a 340r on the street. Something you would only research if you are interested in doing that or seriously bored...

So here is your problem then. You are completely ignorant of the events that led to my "researching" the 340R on the street, yet somehow you are qualified to pass judgment on me and "guys like you."

Here is the background for my asking the question which btw was not "how do I get around the law and illegally drive a 340R on the street?" but was "Is this DMV lady correct that I could drive a 340R on the street?":

I was talking to a dealer about a potential car purchase for my wife. He and I were chit chatting about cars in general and the conversation led to antiques. We began to talk about the different antique cars that he and I had owned. When I mentioned my current antique Seven he said, "You have a Lotus?" I replied, "I have two right now and will probably get more in the future." He then said I assume seeing another sales opportunity, "we have a 340R for sale." I said, "Wow, that's pretty neat. I wish they could be driven on the street. I wish I could drive a 2-11 on the road also. I'd get a 2-11 if it was road legal." He said, "you may be able to register the 340R. It is titled. It is not road registrable here in my state but it may be in yours. You should call your DMV and check it out." That sparked my curiosity and confusion, particularly having been under the assumption that they were not registrable in any state, and I called the DMV. I became slightly more confused when the DMV lady said that I could indeed register and legally drive the 340R here in VA. So, in order to avoid hours of digging through VA DMV legaleez I started a thread here, where many members have much more knowledge than I.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by mopho

Additionally, such old cars are really just a drop in the bucket in the whole scheme of things.

That depends on where you are. Come hang out with me for a week. I will give you a pen and paper and you can count the cars that are older than 25 years vs younger than 25 years that we see driving around. If neither of us are sure about the age, we'll just plop it into the younger category. We'll then see if it is really just a drop in the bucket or if in some places the junkers out number the newbies .

We had a local antique car show here last weekend. The evening before the show there was an unofficial "drive" for anyone who wants to participate even if you aren't "showing" your car the next day. 15,000 "old cars" drove down that street (no I didn't count them, but a local newscaster did -- the same guy that counted them last year and the year before that, as a matter of fact.). The street is not closed to regular traffic for the "drive" and wasn't particularly more congested than normal. Perhaps 3% were really what I would call "road worthy." They were all registered (or at least had some VA plate on them). Of those 97% that weren't "road worthy" I'd say I have seen at least 50% of them driving around town regularly.

Originally Posted by mopho

Now if you were not being so cynical and anti-govt, you might see that keeping costs down for insurance companies keeps the cost down for the consumer

I know that keeping company costs down can keep down costs for the consumer. In the case of the 2.5mph bumper mandate, however, it was originally driven solely by insurance company "profit" issues not cost cutting, solvency, or protecting the consumer's pocketbook issues. Insurance rates did not drop because of that mandate and they also did not slow in their rate of rise because of it.

We are, OTOH, seeing the opposite with the Elise/Exige in that the lack of a "bumper" and people requiring a full clam replacement for repairable cracks has driven the insurance rates up for these cars...

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

Originally Posted by Tpup

I'm not claiming that one of the cars you mention is safer than the other or that one is cleaner than the other. I will claim that a new car legal for sale in the US is safer and cleaner than any car you mentioned. That's the point, new cars must meet minimum standards. Older cars do not. The fact that older cars do not need to meet todays standards does not justify you driving an illegal car on the road.

The basic point I thought everyone agreed on was that he does not have to justify it. As long as he paid for it, the law is just one factor in a sea of them.

[mopho]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

That depends on where you are. Come hang out with me for a week. I will give you a pen and paper and you can count the cars that are older than 25 years vs younger than 25 years that we see driving around. If neither of us are sure about the age, we'll just plop it into the younger category. We'll then see if it is really just a drop in the bucket or if in some places the junkers out number the newbies .

We had a local antique car show here last weekend. The evening before the show there was an unofficial "drive" for anyone who wants to participate even if you aren't "showing" your car the next day. 15,000 "old cars" drove down that street (no I didn't count them, but a local newscaster did -- the same guy that counted them last year and the year before that, as a matter of fact.). The street is not closed to regular traffic for the "drive" and wasn't particularly more congested than normal. Perhaps 3% were really what I would call "road worthy." They were all registered (or at least had some VA plate on them). Of those 97% that weren't "road worthy" I'd say I have seen at least 50% of them driving around town regularly.




I know that keeping company costs down can keep down costs for the consumer. In the case of the 2.5mph bumper mandate, however, it was originally driven solely by insurance company "profit" issues not cost cutting, solvency, or protecting the consumer's pocketbook issues. Insurance rates did not drop because of that mandate and they also did not slow in their rate of rise because of it.

We are, OTOH, seeing the opposite with the Elise/Exige in that the lack of a "bumper" and people requiring a full clam replacement for repairable cracks has driven the insurance rates up for these cars...

There are a lot of old clunkers here too, but again, there is a big difference between taking cars away from people and not letting new cars that don't meet the rules in.

15,000 is a drop in the bucket, there is an interchange here that sees 580,000 cars a day, and that is just one interchange among many

Now you are wasting your breath complaining about govt rules, it's not going to change and there is nothing you can do about it. That is the way it is, so you can either buy the car and take your chances or buy something else ( I hear there is a really nice 67 Lotus Elan for sale here in SoCal, I know the owner )

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by mopho

There are a lot of old clunkers here too, but again, there is a big difference between taking cars away from people and not letting new cars that don't meet the rules in.

Don't take them away. Mandate emissions and safety upgrades. Get rid of the front drums. I was talking to the owner of an Allard this past weekend. 2200lbs, 525hp and drums on all four corners. His car is road legal due to age. I asked him about stopping with the drums. He really laughed pretty hard. "I can get the car up to 200mph really fast but d@mn that thing won't stop." Mandate 3 point upgrades. Don't take the cars away from the current owners just crush 'em when the owner dies .

Originally Posted by mopho

15,000 is a drop in the bucket, there is an interchange here that sees 580,000 cars a day, and that is just one interchange among many

That interchange sees more than 2 cars per resident of the population of not only my city but the 4 neighboring counties all totaled.

Here 15,000 cars is not a drop in the bucket.

Originally Posted by mopho

Now you are wasting your breath complaining about govt rules, it's not going to change and there is nothing you can do about it. That is the way it is, so you can either buy the car and take your chances or buy something else ( I hear there is a really nice 67 Lotus Elan for sale here in SoCal, I know the owner )

Funny thing is, and I'm sure Tpup still doesn't believe this, I really am not purchasing a 340R nor will I be.

You know I'd love to have your car and kestrel's, too. I gotta get the job situation situated first.

[mopho]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Don't take them away. Mandate emissions and safety upgrades. Get rid of the front drums. I was talking to the owner of an Allard this past weekend. 2200lbs, 525hp and drums on all four corners. His car is road legal due to age. I asked him about stopping with the drums. He really laughed pretty hard. "I can get the car up to 200mph really fast but d@mn that thing won't stop." Mandate 3 point upgrades. Don't take the cars away from the current owners just crush 'em when the owner dies .

Your argument here is just silly.
You can't ask people to pay to have their old cars updated to modern standards and again, there just isn't that many old cars in the whole scheme of things. Additionally, old cars die and are taken off the road, new cars keep getting produced.

That interchange sees more than 2 cars per resident of the population of not only my city but the 4 neighboring counties all totaled.

Here 15,000 cars is not a drop in the bucket.

And the govt is not looking at just your neighborhood or mine, it is looking at the country as a whole. And it is not just how many cars there are, but how much they are being used.

I gotta get the job situation situated first.

Find one for me too

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by mopho

Your argument here is just silly.

It was supposed to just be silly .


Except for the part about the Allard, that was serious.

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

Let's get this thread on a much more serious subject!

Has anyone converted an S2 Elise to a 340R lookalike?

[RoadDad]

Perry and Neil's cars both at one point looked pretty close, at least with the missing bits.

[mopho]

Found this pic from one of the local Sunday morning car meets here