http://musclecarmonster.com
William Jason has admired classic cars ever since he was a young child and you can read his blog at: http://musclecarmonster.com/
News and commentary from the world of high-performance street cars and racing.
[Federal Register: March 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 14117-14119]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr11-165]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2011-0028, Notice 1]
Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2005-2006 Porsche Carrera (997) Passenger Cars Manufactured Prior to
September 1, 2006 Are Eligible for Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2005-2006 Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to
September 1, 2006 are eligible for importation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2005-2006 Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to
September 1, 2006, that were not originally manufactured to comply with
all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are
eligible for importation into the United States because they are
substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for
sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer
as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of
the 2005-2006 Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior
to September 1, 2006), and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the
[[Page 14118]]
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The
docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of
this document notice. Please note that even after the comment closing
date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it
becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for
new material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
J.K. Technologies, LLC (``JK''), of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered
Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
2005-2006 Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to
September 1, 2006, are eligible for importation into the United States.
The vehicles which JK believes are substantially similar are 2005-2006
Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1,
2006, that were manufactured for sale in the United States and
certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2005-2006
Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1,
2006, to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to
be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 2005-2006 Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars
manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, as originally manufactured,
conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified
counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to
those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2005-
2006 Porsche Carrera (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to
September 1, 2006 are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts
with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift
Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and
Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood
Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212
Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush
Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel System Integrity,
and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls Telltales, and Indicators: Installation
of U.S. conforming instrument cluster and cruise control lever, and
installation or activation of associated U.S.-version software in the
vehicle's computer system.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Installation of the following U.S.-model components on
vehicles not already so equipped: (a) Front sidemarker lamps with
integral side reflex reflectors; (b) headlamps; (c) integral tail lamp
housings that includes rear side marker, rear turn signal, and brake
lamps, as well as rear and side reflex reflectors.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: Installation of a tire
information placard.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Installation of a U.S.-model
passenger side rearview mirror, or inscription of the required warning
statement on the face of that mirror.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a supplemental
key warning buzzer, or installation or activation of U.S.-version
software to meet the requirements of this standard.
Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: Installation or activation of U.S.-version software in the
vehicle's computer system to meet the requirements of this standard.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Inspection of all
vehicles and replacement of any non U.S.-conforming model seat belts,
air bag control units, air bags, and sensors with U.S.-model components
on vehicles that are not already so equipped; and (b) installation or
activation of U.S.-version software to ensure that the seat belt
warning system meets the requirements of this standard.
Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Inspection of all vehicles
and replacement of any non U.S.-certified model seat belts with U.S.-
model components.
Standard No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: Installation of
U.S.-model child restraint anchorage systems components.
Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: Installation of U.S.-model
interior trunk release components.
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal
[[Page 14119]]
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 9, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-5982 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
| Chassis | |
|---|---|
| Body Style | 2-passenger Roadster |
| Drivetrain | |
| Layout | Front engine, rear drive |
| Exterior Dimensions | |
| Length | 161.3" |
| Width | 64.4" |
| Height | 50.6" |
| Wheelbase | 88.7" |
| Track (F/R) | 52.3"/50.3" |
| Engine | |
| Type | Inline 4-cylinder |
| Displacement | 120 cu. in./1962cc |
| Bore & Stroke | 3.3" x 3.5" 84mm x 88.5mm |
| Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 |
| Valvetrain | Dual Overhead Camshaft (DOHC) |
| Materials | Aluminum block, aluminum head |
| Construction | 5 main bearings |
| Fuel System | Mechanical fuel injection |
| Horsepower (SAE Net) | 110hp |
| Torque (SAE Net) | 121 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm |
| Oil Capacity | 7.1 quarts |
| Cooling System Capacity | 2.5 gallons |
| Transmission & Final Drive | |
| Transmission | 5-speed manual |
| Differential | Limited Slip |
| Final Drive Ratio | 4.5:1 |
| Suspension & Steering | |
| Front | Indepedent w/inclined A-arms, coil springs, double-action shocks, anti-roll bar |
| Rear | Live axle, coil springs, double-action shocks, anti-roll bar, torque tee |
| Steering | Recirculating ball |
| Turns, Lock-to-Lock | 3.5 |
| Turning Circle, Curb-to-Curb | 34.5' |
| Brakes, Wheels & Tires | |
| Front Brakes | 9.84" disc w/power assist |
| Rear Brakes | 9.84" disc w/power assist |
| Wheels | 5.5Jx14 cast magnesium |
| Tires | 165 HR14 steel belted radial |
| Tire Pressure (F/R) | 24 psi/24 psi |
| Weights & Capacities | |
| Curb Weight | 2550 lbs. |
| Fuel Capacity | 12 gallons |
| Performance | |
| 0-30 mph | 5.1 seconds* |
| 0-40 mph | 7.3 seconds* |
| 0-50 mph | 10.4 seconds* |
| 0-60 mph | 14.3 seconds* |
| 0-70 mph | 19.3 seconds* |
| 0-80 mph | 26.34 seconds* |
| Quarter Mile | 19.2 seconds @ 73.0 mph |
| 30-0 mph | 37.9'* |
| 60-0 mph | 166.0'* |
| Power to Weight Ratio | 23.2 lbs./horsepower |
| Economy | |
| EPA Estimate | 18 mpg city/26 mpg highway |
| EPA Weighted Average | 21.0 mpg |
| Motor Trend 73-mile Test Loop | 23.2 mpg* |
| Price | |
| Base Price | $9,295 |
Vehicle Make / Model: Model Year(s):
FERRARI / 458 2010
Manufacturer: FERRARI NORTH AMERICA INC Mfr's Report Date: AUG 31, 2010
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 10V389000
N/A
NHTSA Action Number: N/A
Component: ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING
Potential Number of Units Affected: 303
Summary:
FERRARI IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 458 ITALIA VEHICLES. THE HEAT
CREATED BY THE ENGINE COULD CAUSE POSSIBLE DEFORMATION OF THE REAR RIGHT HAND
AND LEFT HAND WHEELHOUSE AND HEAT SHIELD ASSEMBLIES. THE ASSEMBLY COULD COME
EXCESSIVELY CLOSE TO THE EXHAUST SYSTEM CAUSING THE BONDING ADHESIVE USED IN
THE ASSEMBLY TO OVERHEAT AND PRODUCE SMOKE.
Consequence:
UNDER PARTICULARLY HIGH AMBIENT OPERATING TEMPERATURE THIS COULD CAUSE THE
ADHESIVE TO IGNITE, RESULTING IN A VEHICLE FIRE AND/OR RENDERING THE VEHICLE
INOPERABLE AND POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A CRASH.
Remedy:
DEALERS WILL REMOVE THE EXISTING HEAT SHIELDS AND BONDING ADHESIVE FROM THE
RIGHT HAND AND LEFT HAND REAR WHEELHOUSES, AND INSTALL NEW PROTECTIVE HEAT
SHIELDS ON THE RIGHT HAND AND LEFT HAND REAR WHEELHOUSES. THIS SERVICE WILL
BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING
SEPTEMBER 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FERRARI AT 201-816-2600.
Notes:
FERRARI SAFETY RECALL NO. 51. OWNERS MAY ALSO CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION'S VEHICLE SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-327-4236
(TTY 1-800-424-9153), OR GO TO HTTP://WWW.SAFERCAR.GOV .As much as NASCAR and its teams are criticized for sticking brand logos across every available square inch of everything they bring to the track, the economics of the sport require individual teams to find sponsorship to compete. It's not just the raw costs of running a car and a team that requires such sponsorship, not when the New York Yankees have a payroll of just over $208 million (ESPN.com). A fifth of a billion dollars would buy a lot of NASCAR-spec Impalas, a lot of wind tunnel time, pay for thousands of hours of team labor and still have enough money left over to hire a good driver, and the Yankees haven't had to replace the famed NY on their caps with a corporate logo to sign A-Rod's checks. Why is NASCAR different? Why is it that we can associate Amp with Dale Jr. and Aflac with Carl Edwards but many casual fans might not even recognize the logos of Hendrick Motorsports or Roush-Fenway Racing?
Think about this: in most other sports, each team has a home stadium where they sell tickets to the games. In NASCAR, nobody has a home field, and ticket money isn't collected by the individual teams. The Yankees have Yankee Stadium, whereas NASCAR teams run every race as an "away game." Prize money might cover the basic costs of running a race car, as shown by the start-and-park crowd, and you see how competitive they are. They don't even try to finish races, let alone try to win them. It takes a lot more money to actually compete in the series. Merchandise sales, while a big business to stock car racing fans, doesn't cover the difference between showing up and taking home trophies. Without the money from big corporate sponsors, NASCAR would be very, very different.
Sponsorships, to a stock car team, are about more than covering payroll. Why do teams feel the need to sell every available flat space on every team-owned object they bring to the track? Because sponsorship affects how a team operates on the track. When extra money can buy new testing equipment, or wind tunnel time, or be used to hire better engine builders, the competition for sponsorship money becomes part of the overall competition that is NASCAR racing. Increasing a primary sponsor's return on investment (to keep them signing on year after year) by finding new places to plaster their logo or increasing overall income by selling new spaces to new associate sponsors is just another thing a team can do to find a competitive edge on the other teams.
Thankfully, NASCAR has ensured that the race for money does not win races on the track all by itself, as evidenced by the wide variety of winners we've seen over the years. Otherwise, NASCAR might resemble Formula 1 of years past. While there's no shortage of sponsorship money available in Formula 1, the technology-dependent series rewards those capable of expensive research and development, and so the few teams with the most money have the best technology, the best cars, and can use those to draw the best talent, and with all three dominate the series, resulting in only two or three competitive teams and the championship often decided between the two drivers of the top team. When Brad Keselowski drove James Finch's car to victory at Talladega, followed up by David Reutimann's win for Michael Waltrip Racing, each beating so many teams with so many more resources, they proved that money alone can't ensure victory in NASCAR's top series.
Money certainly can help build a team, though, and the open availability of the corporate sponsorship ensures that almost anyone with talent can get the cash to build a winning racing program. Many of the top NASCAR team owners, such as Rick Hendrick or Roger Penske, came into the sport with their own money from the outside and used that to build their teams. But drivers, relying on sponsorship money given to them by corporations who wanted to associate themselves with top talent and believed in their knowledge of the sport helped drivers such as Michael Waltrip, Dale Earnhardt and now Tony Stewart put winning cars out on the track as owners.
What would happen if the supply of sponsors were dramatically reduced, or if sponsors were somehow discouraged from spending on the sport? After all, as I've mentioned, the start-and-park crowd can run a team on prize money, so why can't everybody else? What would happen is a few wealthy owners who can build better teams without big sponsorships would dominate the sport. The three or four recognizeable personalities would pull in the few funding sources available while the rest just go without. The top drivers would prefer to drive for a well-run and well-funded team, and given their choice sponsors will put their money on winning cars and winning drivers. The end result is the vast majority of money, talent, and sponsors concentrated in the hands of a few teams, reducing the level of competition to the point that few fans are still interested.
Once corporate sponsorships fled CART, the end of the series was a story of domination by a few teams that could still find funding, and Newman-Haas driver Sebastien Bourdais won the championship four times in a row from 2004-2007, and 8 of the 14 Grands Prix held the final 2007 season. Imagine most of the current NASCAR teams operating as two-car or single-car shadows of their current selves because they can't find proper funding for their current operations while one or two fully-funded teams operate as they do today. Think of what would happen if one driver not only won three championships in a row but four and possibly then a fifth (Bourdais and Newman-Haas were only prevented from a fifth by the IRL-CART merger), while also winning twenty-plus races a year for a half decade, and you can imagine what would happen to the fan base of NASCAR. Tired of Jimmie Johnson now? Imagine giving him a fourth championship and tripling his win total over the past three and two-thirds seasons and you have some idea of what the ChampCar World Series had happen to it...and why CART folded.
Big money sponsorship is an essential part of NASCAR. I believe it has helped the sport more than it has hurt it, and there's no way to get it back out without damaging the kind of racing that has built the sport into one of the most watched competitions in America. So it's just something to live with, and I'm sure by now most of us are quite used to it. I'll be "living with it" in a t-shirt with the logos of Amp and National Guard...which has something to do with the subject of part 2 in this series.
The original article, with pictures, is available at http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/articles/3813.php
When the visionary designer Colin Chapmen first set out to design the Lotus 7 he had lightness, speed and agility at the forefront of his mind. What he could not of know was that he was about to create a timeless design classic, which still has the ability to embarrass supercars costing over ten times as much.
The first Lotus 7 was released to the public in 1957 and cost £1000 pounds to buy new. However the simplicity of the design meant that Lotus could also offer the 7 in kit form where it would cost half as much. Chapman's constant aim throughout all of his cars at Lotus was to lightness, ensuring that the cars he produced had supreme agility and road holding.
As Lotus grew in stature Chapman realised that the company would need to shed its kit car image if they were ever to be considered a serious supercar manufacturers and so, in 1973, the designs and rights to the Lotus 7 were sold to Caterham Cars and the new Caterham 7 was born.
It is no surprise that the Caterham 7 has continued to be popular with enthusiastic driver throughout the decades, with its simple engine at the front, power at the back and two seats in the middle philosophy, this sports car was destined to be a hit. As is often the case when you have a winning design on your hands you often find others trying to copy it and Caterham is no exception, pursing several legal cases to protect the design rights.
The design of the Caterham 7 remained pretty static until, in 2000, the SV version was offered. This was Caterham's answer to all those drivers who found fitting in the 7 a tight squeeze, giving an extra 11cm of width to the chassis meant that a whole new group of drivers could experience the astonishing road holding and performance of the 7.
Unbelievably despite the car's lightweight origins Caterham continued to reduce the weight of its road racer, and this gave rise to the super light range of Caterham's. In 2004 Caterham released its most extreme version of the 7 yet, with the R500 Evo. This car could accelerate up to 100mph and then brake back to zero again in just over 10 seconds, a feat that placed it ahead of a seriously humbled Ferrari Enzo.
Caterham have continued on with the lightness theme by producing a new version of the R500, a car that utilises the very latest in carbon fibre and thin wall aluminium materials, and has enough of a power to weight ratio to worry a Bugatti Veyron owner. Nowhere is spared the weight loss program, even the windscreen is an optional extra, although thankfully the headlight bulbs still remain for those late night summer drives.
Whilst the flagship Caterham models offer incredible performance for their price, there is actually a Caterham 7 available for every performance and budget requirement. More importantly if you can face a few long nights locked up in your garage and build one from a kit you will be able to save money even further, and glow in the satisfaction that the sports car you have just created is all your own work.