how low will you go?

[dickita15]

Well given the current situation at LRP and the ongoing discussion of needing to site a new track the topic of noise is timely.
when talking to town officials and neighbors the subject of noise comes up very early. Acording to engineers with wide open terrain we would need miles of buffer in order to not make any noise that would offend others.
at lrp we run at GCR 103. at NHIS we run at 100 dB. club days at lrp run at 89 dB.
in order to have a new track in new england how low can we run.
at what noise level will enough of you still want to race there
dick patullo

[Greg Amy]

The decibel level of my race car is irrelevant to how much fun I have; I got just as much kick out of Showroom Stock as I do in Improved Touring. If it means the difference between a new track and not, I am willing to go as low as reasonably possible to make it happen ("reasonably" meaning within current street muffler technology, no high-tech super-expensive stuff.)

Anyone who has to have noise to have fun racing is a wanker.

[mlytle]

but...
noise sometimes equals horsepower. if someone already has a 102db exhaust system tuned to their car and runs at multiple tracks that allow it, running at a track that requires 90db becomes either really expensive or a non-option.

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...noise sometimes equals horsepower.</font>

Sometimes, but everyone will have the same restriction. Some will also respond better to street mufflers, just as some respond better to open exhausts.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...running at a (sound restricted) track that requires 90db becomes either really expensive or a non-option.</font>

As is racing at tracks that charge $25,000 per day.

[MMiskoe]

Dick - start with no restriction & let the town grind you down. Regardless of what noise limit is set, someone will bitch and try to get it lowered.

Am I wrong? If so point out a track that has been able to raise its sound limits in the past 5 years.

Use the GCR limit as your basis for SCCA "races", leave the rest open.

Matt

[dyoungre]

I hate to get technical right off the bat, but to compare apples to apples, we have to know the distance between the microphone and the edge of the track. I've asked for that info from Waterford Hills, where the limit is 75 dB. Talking with their chief of tech, he said that his 75dB car measures 92dB at Mid Ohio - BIG difference (sound intensity measurements go down proportionally to the square of the distance to the source ). My 75dB Waterford car measured 83 dB at NHIS.
Tim brought up a good point, too, as far as the specifics of the rule/ordinance: He recommends "If they are being proactive, they may be able to tweak the rules in their favor, things like a single car may not exceed X vs. the track can't exceed X, that sort of thing" - two equal cars at 75dB passing the meter at the same time will register somewhere around 78 dB. That's where Waterford has some issues with the local authorities ...

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

[Scott Koschwitz]

Dick, just to clarify, when you say
"wide open terrain," do you mean relatively flat and lightly wooded? Would the size of the buffer be reduced depending on elevation, walled or heavily wooded buffers, or other buildings (ex., light-industrial buildings proposed as satellite developments of the track (good selling point is that they provide local jobs)).

Obviously, the larger the parcel for the track the better, because it allows for more flexibility in track design and larger buffers, which would ease restrictions on exhaust systems.

As for me, I run in SSM, so we're required to run the Mazda Motorsports exhaust, which I think can meet 89db without too much of a problem.

[RSTPerformance]

I will go to any DB level needed. I think the option of racing more is better than the option of racing less at a higher DB level. On another note someone said that this will increase cost... yes it will only for those major diehards who can afford it.

Most of us probably havn't (or cant afford to) perfected our exaughst systems yet, so how much of a difference will it really make compaired to current??? JMO

Also on another note... I think sound restrictions would have a less impact on giving cars "better potential" than the layout of any track we currently run at.

Raymond "what did you say?" Blethen

[dickita15]

Originally posted by MMiskoe:
Dick - start with no restriction & let the town grind you down. Regardless of what noise limit is set, someone will bitch and try to get it lowered.
Matt
well matt the problem with that approach is there does not seem to be a place in new england that does not either have current noise standard or a site plan review or both. in a site plan review you will need to set a standard and then prove that that will not be offensive. or you could do like the new track in arizona. stretcg the truth, get the permit, spend millions to build the track and then get shut down.
dick

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Scott Koschwitz:
Dick, just to clarify, when you say
"wide open terrain," do you mean relatively flat and lightly wooded? Would the size of the buffer be reduced depending on elevation, walled or heavily wooded buffers, or other buildings (ex., light-industrial buildings proposed as satellite developments of the track (good selling point is that they provide local jobs)).

yes flat and open is the worse case. 40 cars @ 103dB something insane like 2.5 mile to get to 70dB. Thick woods is much much better but still distance is needed.



Obviously, the larger the parcel for the track the better, because it allows for more flexibility in track design and larger buffers, which would ease restrictions on exhaust systems.
[/B]

well sure but we are talking big numbers. A track can be squeezed into 100 acres but if we have to buy 1500 acres to make it work we have to go to northen maine to afford or even find such a parcel.

so if a track opened that was 95db or 90dB would you build an exhaust system for that track or would you tend to go to other tracks only to avoid the hassle.
dick

[dickita15]

Originally posted by dyoungre:
I hate to get technical right off the bat,


dave
thank you for sending me the info you gathered. i will share it with my sound guy.
for the sake of this discussion though i want to stick to scca measurement methods as that is what most on this forum will understand.
dick

[Racer Chris]

I would be comfortable with a limit of around 95dB by SCCA standards. I currently run a single muffler on my Prod car at all events and never see readings above 93dB.

------------------
Chris Foley
www.tangerineracing.com (http://www.tangerineracing.com)

[gran racing]

I'm o.k. with the 89 db limit that LRP uses for HPDEs. (EMRA also uses this limit when racing at LRP.)

For these events, I just slip on a super trap extension to the back of my exhaust pipe and that takes care of things. Irronically the best lap times I've ever gotten have been with the super trap extension on. Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't take it off for SCCA days?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Scott Koschwitz]

Assuming a new track (preferably in northern Connecticut or central Massachusetts), if my current exhaust couldn't meet sound requirements, and assuming I could legally modify it to reduce sound, I would in a heartbeat.

Is it too early to start compiling a wish list of track features?

[MMiskoe]

Dick I was thinking more of the idea that regardless of what level you set, neighbors will try to have it reduced. Period. Don't stretch the truth, just tell them it is what it is. If you set it at 80dB someone would still complain.

Also just because us IT guys don't really mind lowering sound, doesn't mean that a big revenue generating event that would be otherwise willing to rent the track might turn away from it due to the noise restrictions (Bridgehampton come to mind???). Don't hamstring yourself.

Not likely I am telling you anything you haven't already thought of.

[moto62]

Originally posted by dickita15:
..in order to have a new track in new england how low can we run.
at what noise level will enough of you still want to race there
dick patullo

Considering that my car won't register any db at fifty feet from the meter, I would have to say that any db would be fine http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif.
Ray

[dickita15]

Originally posted by MMiskoe:
Dick I was thinking more of the idea that regardless of what level you set, neighbors will try to have it reduced. Period. Don't stretch the truth, just tell them it is what it is. If you set it at 80dB someone would still complain.


point taken


Originally posted by MMiskoe:
Also just because us IT guys don't really mind lowering sound, doesn't mean that a big revenue generating event that would be otherwise willing to rent the track might turn away from it due to the noise restrictions (Bridgehampton come to mind???). Don't hamstring yourself.
Not likely I am telling you anything you haven't already thought of.[/B]

It is kind of ironic that the only groups that need to run loud and do not draw crowds are us and vintage.
dick

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Scott Koschwitz:
Is it too early to start compiling a wish list of track features?

while i would still like more input on this thread a new thread would be fun.
dick

[John Herman]

One of the items which may make more sense to implement as sound limits become more restrictive is a stationary type test. Our current noise limits are influenced by many factors, all of which occur while the cars are moving around and in packs. SAE J1169 is a stationary tailpipe noise test which has been adopted in California (and a few other states that I'm not sure of)to limit the rice rocket exhausts. Basically, a microphone is placed at 0.5m @ 45 degrees, and the engine is raised to 3/4 the rated engine rpm. The sound can not exceed 95 dB(A) or the person is issued a citation. What I see as nice about this type of test, is a car can be tested before its raced, or in impound, etc. to determine compliance. A test like this may need tweaking for the various classes (the open wheel classes come to mind), but then you have a hard and fast rule that you can prepare for long before getting to the track.

[dyoungre]

I too am good with 89 dB by SCCA standards.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

[tdw6974]

Originally posted by dickita15:
while i would still like more input on this thread a new thread would be fun.
dick
A new track in new England might be great idea BUT the facts would be it take YEARS before it could be operation. The legal hoops are unbelieveable. I think there was a track in new hampshire trying to get started but was running into difficulty with the "Paper Tiger" let alone the Legal hurdles and public objections. And what would the cost of land be??? Big dollars

[7racing]

I would be fine with whatever DB is imposed. I'll make my car fit and run it that way at other tracks.

Though I would prefer something in the low-mid 90's, as I suspect that a lot of off-the-shelf mufflers would only lower to low 90's (I have no data to back up this statement, BTW).

Jeremy

[benspeed]

I think it's much easier to reduce the sound of your car than might be thought. I just did the EMRA event at LRP and forgot they had the 89 db rule. Ran over to NAPA and bought a $50 muffler and $25 worth of clamps and a metal exhaust strap. Popped it on the car so it was paralell to the bumper and voila - I went from 103db to 84db. Took me 30 minutes to put it together. Man, does it look ugly!

[JackH55]

Dick,
Having a new track is the top priority.

Any db level would be ok. We would all be equal

Jack

[lateapex911]

Not exactly Jack...some cars are very sensitive to exhaust changes, others not. The cars were classed by the classing body with the assumption that all development efforts would be used.

Severe noise restrictions will upset the balance.

That said, who cares!? LOL.... Do the best with what we've got Dick!

Lime Rocks suggested rate increase, plus the yearly subsequent increases for the next three years could have us paying as much as $53,000 per two day rental if I understand the rate increase plan correctly.

I agree we need to be aggresive in our search.

I will offer to build sound fencing, plant pine trees, or whatever is requested of me!~

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited November 18, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I will offer to build sound fencing, plant pine trees, or whatever is requested of me!</font>

Make that at least two of us.

Summer weekends are at a premium in the Amy household, but I think a couple of gatherings of racing folks a year, sprinkled with generous tubs of Corona and pizza, could very well result in a lot of hands to do "stuff". This would be "our" track, and that sweat equity would pay us back in the form of reduced entry fees and a consistent place to play. - GA

[0100]

My father keeps his boat at a club and you can pay dues or work off the dues building piers, painting, work the bar, etc. Most people actually enjoy it.

Not saying we get rid of the NER dues actually thing we should raise it... maybe a good amount if we want to build a track.

I think we should also have work parties to do alot of the work on the track. Well thought out work parties. Not a bunch of people standing around because there is nothing to do.

I'll be in the party to run the 4 mile sound fencing around the entire site. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

I would love to help build our own track. It's like being a kid again building the dirt bike track(jumps and everything) in the back yard, and your MOM going balistic when she comes home from work. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif Worked like a dog on that track for no $ and loved every second of it. Why, because I was building a TRACK!

When I'm 80 and beat up, I'd love to take my grand kids to the track. You know kids back in the day, I helped build this track. "No way" I'll show you pictures when we get home.



[This message has been edited by 0100 (edited November 19, 2004).]

[Scott Koschwitz]

Good points about the sweat equity. I'm sure we have some really talented members who would be willing to donate their time and expertise.

I'm an attorney, but I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty and I'm not too proud to do the most menial work, especially for a new track.

Dick, while this thread is fun because it allows us to dream, can you provide an update as to progress of the New Track Committee? Are we close to finding a site?

[tdw6974]

Originally posted by Scott Koschwitz:

I'm an attorney, but I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty and I'm not too proud to do the most menial work, especially for a new track.

?
Scot how about doing the legal work required for the track? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

[mlytle]

wdcr has a fairly substantial track fund and we have work parties in the winter at summit point. efforts have paid off in some nice improvements over the years that make scca races happen better and provide better work environment for the workers and safer track for drivers. (eg. registration bldg, start/finish bridge shelter, tire walls, etc.)

[tdw6974]

Anyone know a current status on this contruction? http://www.rauschcreekracing.com/rcmp/modu...order=0&thold=0 (http://www.rauschcreekracing.com/rcmp/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=95&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

[Scott Koschwitz]

I was actually working informally with Doug Holmes, former chairman of the New Track Committee, for a while to locate property. I also worked with Rob Goldfarb before his unfortunate death.

My firm is based in Hartford, and we do a fair amount of real estate and land use work. (I'm primarily an environmental attorney.)

At the time, I contacted the members of my firm for leads on parcels of land in New England, and I was working with a member of our lobbying group to contact the owners of the former dog track in Vermont (Tamville?) on behalf of Rob.

Unfortunately, nothing became of that land for us, partly because so many people were interested in it, and the sellers had their choice of buyers.

In Rob, we lost a dedicated, highly enthusiastic supporter of a club track. It seems developments in locating land for a new track haven't been on the same pace since we lost him.

As for donating my legal services, that becomes kind of difficult with my firm. As attorneys, we have an ethical obligation to do pro bono (i.e., free) legal work, but that is intended for the poor, the elderly, and the underrepresented. Donating my time for a club racing track isn't entirely consistent with that.

Another issue arises because my firm does not take kindly to donating work that would otherwise be billable. I have discussed with a partner providing NER a reduced billing rate. That could certainly help reduce costs for NER.

Sometimes, I think it would have been better to be a small-town attorney, like Atticus Finch.

It's been a few years since I sought leads on land from members of my firm. I actually should contact the New Track Committee to see if they still need leads on land.

[tdw6974]

Here is another possiblity I know Glen region was trying trying to be actigve in getting the road circuit underway here and of the expesive paper work is done. 980 acres. http://www.adirondackspeedway.com/MainPage.../trackfacts.htm (http://www.adirondackspeedway.com/MainPages/trackfacts.htm)

[tdw6974]

Originally posted by Scott Koschwitz:
I was actually working informally with Doug Holmes, former chairman of the New Track Committee, for a while to locate property. I also worked with Rob Goldfarb before his unfortunate death.

My firm is based in Hartford, and we do a fair amount of real estate and land use work. (I'm primarily an environmental attorney.) Thats a big help as environtmenttal issues are big hurdle.

At the time, I contacted the members of my firm for leads on parcels of land in New England, and I was working with a member of our lobbying group to contact the owners of the former dog track in Vermont (Tamville?) on behalf of Rob.

Unfortunately, nothing became of that land for us, partly because so many people were interested in it, and the sellers had their choice of buyers. I'm sure that this is probably the Normal situation for lots of land in that area.

In Rob, we lost a dedicated, highly enthusiastic supporter of a club track. It seems developments in locating land for a new track haven't been on the same pace since we lost him.

As for donating my legal services, that becomes kind of difficult with my firm. As attorneys, we have an ethical obligation to do pro bono (i.e., free) legal work, but that is intended for the poor, the elderly, and the underrepresented. Donating my time for a club racing track isn't entirely consistent with that.

Another issue arises because my firm does not take kindly to donating work that would otherwise be billable. I have discussed with a partner providing NER a reduced billing rate. That could certainly help reduce costs for NER. I'm certain that would be appreciated by NER

Sometimes, I think it would have been better to be a small-town attorney, like Atticus Finch.

It's been a few years since I sought leads on land from members of my firm. I actually should contact the New Track Committee to see if they still need leads on land. It would be interesting to see if anything was somewhat available but would probably need a benefactor such as the ones that did Barber Motorsports park or VIR.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Scott Koschwitz:
Dick, while this thread is fun because it allows us to dream, can you provide an update as to progress of the New Track Committee? Are we close to finding a site?
well we are working on it. all sites are long shots until we get a permit. at this time there are 2 sites that have a chance. these are sites that we have had some discussion with town officials and were not thrown out. one is Ct and one is western Nh. a propective Ma sight came to my attention yesterday and I have made a couple of calls.
The problem with conflicts with employers has made it hard to get free help. I certainly could use help from any friends we have that can answer legal or enviromental questions.
right now I would like to talk to someone who knows NH wetland regulations.
anyone who thinks they can help even to level of answering questons by email or phone you can let me know at [email protected]

dick patullo

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks Dick for the hard work!!! I don't know anything about wetlands, other than maybe we could just pay a fine later http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif LOL.... but I did think you deserved a thank you for the continued efforts.

Raymond

[Scott Koschwitz]

Dick, thanks for the update. Connecticut sounds really good to me . . . .

I last contacted members of my firm in August 2001 about available parcels of land. I'll try again -- perhaps we'll come across something this time.

Let me know if I can help in any other way. My e-mail address is [email protected].

[mtgmanracing]

Just perusing these articles because I really plan on getting out there and running next year and I have a few thoughts:

1) Has anyone thought about the soundwalls they use on the sides of interstates when they run through residential areas...those work amazing and are just concrete walls that basically force the sound to travel up and out instead of across your yard...

2) I was at a festival a few years ago on private land...we stayed up all night drumming out in the woods around a bon-fire...the neighbors complained, The next day we brought in a ton of bales of hay and stacked it amplitheater style against the direction of neighbors...never heard another word...a pretty cheap proposal for a track with neighbors on one side (ala LRP).

There is some 300 acres of land up here near Saratoga Springs for 600k...the land is hilly but that just makes it more fun!

Lastly, just an offhand question...why is it easier to build a dirt track that runs AT NIGHT than to have a road course that generally stops at sundown?...and in an underhanded attempt...how about a very large dirt oval with a real road course in the middle...(just a joke!) (but one that would probably get approved)

[p99ro]

Tunnulling Yes an under ground track.
40 degree banking and loop de loops.

No Db problem. Besides nobody watches anyway.
Scott May not be yellow next year ITA Crxsi

[Bill Miller]

Lots of good thoughts, so I hate to come off like a wet blanket. However, you have to consider the other categories (GT, Prod, SR, etc.). Many of those cars would have problems meeting 89db limits, or that doing so would choke down their performance too much. Getting cars that run 14:1 or 15:1 CR's down to 89db will either cost a lot of money or choke the cars.

Question about LRP, why does SCCA get 103db and everyone else (pro races notwithstanding) get 89db?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited December 12, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Question about LRP, why does SCCA get 103db and everyone else (pro races notwithstanding) get 89db?</font>

Local zoning regs. As part of the original deal, there's only X number of open-muffler competition days available. I think it started out as open, then went to 103dB later in its history.

This is one reason why 103dB competition days are so expensive at LRP: lack of supply.

[pgipson]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Question about LRP, why does SCCA get 103db and everyone else (pro races notwithstanding) get 89db?</font>

Laguna Seca has the same issue (except 92 db). The unrestricted days are limited and most of the club days run at 92 db. Might be some useful information in learning how SFR racers cope with those restrictions.

Our recent experiences with noise in AZ could also be instructive for those devising ways to deal with potential noise issues (mostly as a "don't do this" sort of approach). When the county planners included a requirement for the track to monitor noise as a condition of continued use, they mandated a system that would measure average noise over a 2 minute period. The limits were to be 78db at the property line at the closest point to the track. Turned out to not be an issue when the county supervisors decided to rescind all use permits instead.

Now the track owner has reapplied for a use permit. The track's newest permit application calls for weekday operating hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and weekend and holiday hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. It also would require vehicles to be equipped with mufflers and would restrict noise levels to 100 decibels, measured from a single monitoring station 50 feet from the track's edge. I would doubt that the county would approve those limits, based on past comments from the supervisors.