'Illegal' Exhaust
25 April 2005 | 06:43 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,301
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by GC8
You have m at a disadvantage there as I only did 'O' Level Physics (Grade A though..) My understanding is that a measured 3 dB increase equates to a doubling of the sound pressure, however: perceived increase in noise level may be considerably lower.
Simon
Simon
25 April 2005 | 06:49 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Reading off my V5C document for a September 2004 WRX UK sourced it reads
stationary db(A) 81
engine speed (min-1) 4200
drive by db(A) 70
I should imagine if I fiited an aftermarket exhaust that was indeed far louder than 81, I would get nicked.....
I would also assume it won't be long before all V5's have noise limits....
stationary db(A) 81
engine speed (min-1) 4200
drive by db(A) 70
I should imagine if I fiited an aftermarket exhaust that was indeed far louder than 81, I would get nicked.....
I would also assume it won't be long before all V5's have noise limits....
25 April 2005 | 07:58 PM
#64
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
From the site I mentioned earlier, dBs relating to pressure are 10log(p2/p1), so if you double the pressure it equates to 10log(2) = 3.01dB (which is where the approximation of 3dB = double the noise comes from).
Apparently microphones (and presumable sound meters) measure the sound pressure, so this 3dB rule of thumb makes sense.
It will be very, very interesting to learn what sound meter the police used, and how they did it!!!
Apparently microphones (and presumable sound meters) measure the sound pressure, so this 3dB rule of thumb makes sense.
It will be very, very interesting to learn what sound meter the police used, and how they did it!!!
Originally Posted by Gary C
As i remember from my degree we should be using db(A), other measurements are db(m) and db(w) which relate directly to the power in watts.
25 April 2005 | 08:00 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
From: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Originally Posted by Iain McLaren
From the site I mentioned earlier, dBs relating to pressure are 10log(p2/p1), so if you double the pressure it equates to 10log(2) = 3.01dB (which is where the approximation of 3dB = double the noise comes from).
25 April 2005 | 08:08 PM
#66
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
You speak the truth!
My mate (who works on weapons systems and know a bit more about dBs than I do) says there's another rule of thumb that says perceived loudness only doubles for every 10dB (though this is purely subjective and very dependant on how good yer lugs are), which is perhaps what the police are alluding to in their letter...
My mate (who works on weapons systems and know a bit more about dBs than I do) says there's another rule of thumb that says perceived loudness only doubles for every 10dB (though this is purely subjective and very dependant on how good yer lugs are), which is perhaps what the police are alluding to in their letter...
Originally Posted by GC8
Does this mean that Im vindicated Iain?
25 April 2005 | 08:19 PM
#67
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
A guy at work used to be a traffic cop, so I asked him.
He said that the law can refer either to altering a component (eg by drilling holes or knocking out baffles) or changing the system (or parts of the system) that result in it being noisier. Which isn't exactly good news.
He had to rush off today, but I'm going to ask him tomorrow about noise meters and whether they're standard issue etc etc.
He said that the law can refer either to altering a component (eg by drilling holes or knocking out baffles) or changing the system (or parts of the system) that result in it being noisier. Which isn't exactly good news.
He had to rush off today, but I'm going to ask him tomorrow about noise meters and whether they're standard issue etc etc.
Originally Posted by RB5-107
The key wording here is "...shall not have been altered in any way which makes the noise of escaping gases greater".
The exhaust itself hasn't been altered - I think this refers to you taking any baffles out/ doing a chavvy-nova job of drilling out holes etc. I would argue that as long as you've not modified your Blitz, Afterburner or Ninja to make it louder (hard job I know) then if it falls under 90-something dbs (which I think is the legal max) then they can't do you for it.
The exhaust itself hasn't been altered - I think this refers to you taking any baffles out/ doing a chavvy-nova job of drilling out holes etc. I would argue that as long as you've not modified your Blitz, Afterburner or Ninja to make it louder (hard job I know) then if it falls under 90-something dbs (which I think is the legal max) then they can't do you for it.
25 April 2005 | 09:54 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
From: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Gary C - you are correct that it should be using db(A) as this is the dB scale "weighted" to reflect human hearing. The SVA test definitely talks about dB(A).
IIRC as well (degree in physics, but seems a long while ago), sound intensity increases as the sqaure root of sound pressure - therefore ~3dB is doubling of pressure, but ~6dB is doubling of intensity. Perceived volume links to intensity, so will double approx every 6dB. I'm happy to be proved wrong if my memory is failing.
Iain - I think that traffic cop in question is only stating his opinion. I have heard from other respected sources the complete opposite, which would make sense to me. Otherwise, a Kwik-fit exhaust fitted to a quiet car at +1dB could be much quieter than most new cars on the road, and yet technically illegal. People of limited expertise such as us could speculate all day, but it sounds to me like a job for a proper lawyer to confirm.
IIRC as well (degree in physics, but seems a long while ago), sound intensity increases as the sqaure root of sound pressure - therefore ~3dB is doubling of pressure, but ~6dB is doubling of intensity. Perceived volume links to intensity, so will double approx every 6dB. I'm happy to be proved wrong if my memory is failing.
Iain - I think that traffic cop in question is only stating his opinion. I have heard from other respected sources the complete opposite, which would make sense to me. Otherwise, a Kwik-fit exhaust fitted to a quiet car at +1dB could be much quieter than most new cars on the road, and yet technically illegal. People of limited expertise such as us could speculate all day, but it sounds to me like a job for a proper lawyer to confirm.
26 April 2005 | 12:34 AM
#69
Scooby Senior
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,600
Likes: 0
From: Essex
Originally Posted by Scooby-Doo
I am surprised Mike Wood or prodrive has yet to respond. If your father loses in court this would have massive implications on the tuning world in general.
Would be nice to know if I'm pulled by Mr traffic cop.
Dipster
26 April 2005 | 07:05 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
I'd like to know the situation as well (particuarly as I'll be in the Inverness area in a few months time and could do without a £30 holiday fine.. :/ )
Theres two things we need to be fully certain of
1) The section of legislation in question (and to be fair I wouldnt hold judgement for that point alone on an ex traffic cops view given the complexity of the situation- after all thats what information the nice Mr Plod has already told you
)
2) Then following on from that, the actual noise level of the car under formal test conditions.
I reckon the key thing is to get the car correctly sound tested, in line with how the procedure should be carried out, by an appropriate expert. Any ideas who to approach for that?
Once you've got that, great if it's less than the noise should be the police wont have a leg to stand on- problem solved. If however it's more you'd then have to start to dig further into the legality of the application of the legislation.
Theres two things we need to be fully certain of
1) The section of legislation in question (and to be fair I wouldnt hold judgement for that point alone on an ex traffic cops view given the complexity of the situation- after all thats what information the nice Mr Plod has already told you
)2) Then following on from that, the actual noise level of the car under formal test conditions.
I reckon the key thing is to get the car correctly sound tested, in line with how the procedure should be carried out, by an appropriate expert. Any ideas who to approach for that?
Once you've got that, great if it's less than the noise should be the police wont have a leg to stand on- problem solved. If however it's more you'd then have to start to dig further into the legality of the application of the legislation.
Last edited by stu_5; 26 April 2005 at 07:10 PM.
27 April 2005 | 11:22 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: Edinburgh
I too would be very interested to hear the outcome. I have a MY'05 WRX with PPP and use it everyday (Less than 2 years old and just had 60K service). If I am pulled over, I would like to know how to handle it.
I would also like to hear if your dad gets the case overturned which in my view, he should.
I would also like to hear if your dad gets the case overturned which in my view, he should.
27 April 2005 | 11:36 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
From: Newport, Gwent
Originally Posted by gods_dad
I too would be very interested to hear the outcome. I have a MY'05 WRX with PPP and use it everyday (Less than 2 years old and just had 60K service). If I am pulled over, I would like to know how to handle it.
I would also like to hear if your dad gets the case overturned which in my view, he should.
I would also like to hear if your dad gets the case overturned which in my view, he should.
I'd be interested in the outcome of this too though...
27 April 2005 | 12:08 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
From: here
Originally Posted by Scooby-Doo
I am surprised Mike Wood or prodrive has yet to respond. If your father loses in court this would have massive implications on the tuning world in general.
Someone give him a nudge
27 April 2005 | 02:40 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 24
From: Shropshire
Surely anyone getting tugged for having a std PPP fitment on their car needs swift recourse from Subaru (UK) - it is being implied that Subaru (UK) & Prodrive are selling an illegal product.
You would have full rights to claim back damages arising from them as it would be their fault in effect for selling this part illegally and not informing you.
*If* as a previous poster said, the PPP tailpipe is E marked then they (plod) haven't got a leg to stand on, as it has been officially homologated for legal use on the EU/UK.
Now anybody with a ninja/hyper dragger mega loud exhaust I can understand, as these really are antisocially loud - which I suspect is what this police force in question is trying to eradicate - but to fail a manufacturer supplied 'E' marked part - they are cruising for a fall!
You would have full rights to claim back damages arising from them as it would be their fault in effect for selling this part illegally and not informing you.
*If* as a previous poster said, the PPP tailpipe is E marked then they (plod) haven't got a leg to stand on, as it has been officially homologated for legal use on the EU/UK.
Now anybody with a ninja/hyper dragger mega loud exhaust I can understand, as these really are antisocially loud - which I suspect is what this police force in question is trying to eradicate - but to fail a manufacturer supplied 'E' marked part - they are cruising for a fall!
27 April 2005 | 08:18 PM
#77
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
Someone from Subaru (UK) phoned him yesterday to request copies of all correspondence to date. They thought it would be very difficult to get the police to change their minds...no surprise there though.
As has been said though - it's in their interests as much as anyones. How much would it cost them to recall their PPP-spec'd cars and fit a standard exhaust???
As has been said though - it's in their interests as much as anyones. How much would it cost them to recall their PPP-spec'd cars and fit a standard exhaust???
Originally Posted by Scooby-Doo
I am surprised Mike Wood or prodrive has yet to respond. If your father loses in court this would have massive implications on the tuning world in general.
27 April 2005 | 10:07 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Very good point.
Thing is though this applies to the whole aftermarket exhaust industry, it isnt just Prodrive products and it's not just Subarus it relevant to. How many non OEM exhausts are sold every year in the UK?
We really need to get this issue properly understood and clarifed before it starts to become a serious problem for all of us.
Thing is though this applies to the whole aftermarket exhaust industry, it isnt just Prodrive products and it's not just Subarus it relevant to. How many non OEM exhausts are sold every year in the UK?
We really need to get this issue properly understood and clarifed before it starts to become a serious problem for all of us.
28 April 2005 | 12:32 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
From: South Wales
How does this law apply to imports where the exhaust obviously isn't going to be E-Marked?
I'm now getting paranoid about getting a tug in my Legacy B4 (H&S backbox) and getting it compared to the closest UK model which would be a non-turbo 2 litre model.
Hopefully it'll just be a case that there will be no data available so they can't do anything.
Those of you with JDM STIs could be in for an interesting time, they should just be down as "Impreza WRX STI" without the "Type UK" bit, but you may want to get your log books updated to be sure.
I'm now getting paranoid about getting a tug in my Legacy B4 (H&S backbox) and getting it compared to the closest UK model which would be a non-turbo 2 litre model.
Hopefully it'll just be a case that there will be no data available so they can't do anything.
Those of you with JDM STIs could be in for an interesting time, they should just be down as "Impreza WRX STI" without the "Type UK" bit, but you may want to get your log books updated to be sure.
28 April 2005 | 02:16 PM
#80
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
News from Subaru!!!
Subaru have been in touch with my dad.
They are going to take his car down to Bedfordshire, to an independant testing center, and conduct noise tests based on the following:
Static and drive-by tests with his car (as per current legislation).
Same with a new PPP exhaust system fitted.
Same with a standard WRX exhaust fitted.
They're then going to remove the PPP and run all the tests again. This will give a definative set of results that says which component adds what to the sound output.
They've written to Northern Constabulary asking for their sound-testing procedures (LOL)
While all this is going on they're supplying a replacement car.
Now that's customer service!!!
Will keep you all posted.
Iain
They are going to take his car down to Bedfordshire, to an independant testing center, and conduct noise tests based on the following:
Static and drive-by tests with his car (as per current legislation).
Same with a new PPP exhaust system fitted.
Same with a standard WRX exhaust fitted.
They're then going to remove the PPP and run all the tests again. This will give a definative set of results that says which component adds what to the sound output.
They've written to Northern Constabulary asking for their sound-testing procedures (LOL)
While all this is going on they're supplying a replacement car.
Now that's customer service!!!
Will keep you all posted.
Iain
28 April 2005 | 02:49 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: enfield
Originally Posted by FirebirdUK
Top marks for Subaru!
,lets hope they dont have to do this too often 
,and to the other side 
.lets hope that subaru prove the case and stupid incidents like this are deterred in the future,goodluk
28 April 2005 | 03:12 PM
#85
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 14
From: To the valley men!
Originally Posted by SPIKE LIKE MIKE
top notch to subaru ,lets hope they dont have to do this too often ,and to the other side .lets hope that subaru prove the case and stupid incidents like this are deterred in the future,
goodluk
,lets hope they dont have to do this too often ,and to the other side .lets hope that subaru prove the case and stupid incidents like this are deterred in the future,goodluk
28 April 2005 | 05:02 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Nottingham
Originally Posted by GC8
Then it would be 8 times as loud as the standard fit exhaust (82dB-double, 85dB-double that, 88dB-double it again); which is bollocks. How was it tested? Some fat monkey revving the car whilst the other one stuck a cheap noise meter into the tail pipe? If this wasnt so serious it would be a joke. A test like this is worthless. How loud would the car be if these figures were accurate?
Simon
Simon
Have a look at :
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html
28 April 2005 | 06:32 PM
#89
Very pleasantly surprised that Subaru are taking this seriously. It bodes well for the outcome, as presumably Subaru will have some legal beagles who really know their stuff. Hopefully this will be resolved in such a way so that we know where we stand with aftermarket exhausts.
Last edited by Luminous; 28 April 2005 at 09:34 PM.
