| LocostUSA.com http://locostusa.com/forums/ |
|
| California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design http://locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8758 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | dan52001a [ March 28, 2010, 3:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
The California SB100 law allows licensing a kit car for the year of the design, easy with a lotus 7 clone, but a hard sell with a transverse rear engine design that wasn't invented until the mid '90's. So I want to build one, but I need the smog exemption rules based on a early '60's car. Anyone in CA tried this? |
|
| Author: | 98 gt [ March 28, 2010, 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
say its a corvair... with the extremely rare tubular frame option |
|
| Author: | KB58 [ March 28, 2010, 4:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
There's a whole thread here regarding SB100 which I suggest reading. In short, you won't have any problem. |
|
| Author: | dan52001a [ March 28, 2010, 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
""get yourself one of the 500 SB100 exemptions. That's how the At-om owners are doing it, along with..."" So I have my sequence number, all taken care of, but I was just worried that there weren't any transverse engine/transmissions except for the mini until maybe 20 years later, with the corollas and such. I also have 4age silvertop locost SB100 exemption, half built, miata based, a shoe-in for the 1960 year replica. Thanks for the leads! |
|
| Author: | cheapracer [ March 29, 2010, 6:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
Dan, we have to know what your building this time ....... 5 wheels maybe? |
|
| Author: | dan52001a [ March 29, 2010, 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
Oh, come on. I either use 3 or 4 wheels, never 5. My concern with SB100 is like the movie back to the future, I show up with a car claiming it is a replica dated 20 years before it was invented. Maybe I just need to act really crazy like the professor, and jabber on about gigawatts. |
|
| Author: | cheapracer [ March 30, 2010, 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
dan52001a wrote: Oh, come on. I either use 3 or 4 wheels, never 5. Well that answer tells me you thought of it once lol! There plenty of cars you could replicate from ions ago, whats your intentions and Ill throw some models at you... If you want something unusual start with a 70's Bolwell Ikara, it used a VW golf rear assembly and the GM Chev Chevette front end (later updated to Pontiac Fierro) http://theikaraproject.com/  
|
|
| Author: | carguy123 [ March 30, 2010, 9:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
After reading the article I'm a bit surprised at the bodywork. A company that had already produced a good looking car and who had considerable expertise in fiberglass work designed that body? So the Midlana was originally built in 1979? |
|
| Author: | KB58 [ March 30, 2010, 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
Huh? No, Midlana is in the process of going from my head into a book and onto a chassis table. 
|
|
| Author: | pdwalsh59 [ March 30, 2010, 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
carguy123 wrote: After reading the article I'm a bit surprised at the bodywork. A company that had already produced a good looking car and who had considerable expertise in fiberglass work designed that body? If my memory serves me right Bolwell wanted something radically different from the Nagari, and a body that allowed for easy repair - hence multiple bits. I loved the look. Regards Paul |
|
| Author: | carguy123 [ March 30, 2010, 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
It looks like a High School student built a mold for it in their garage - out of wood. |
|
| Author: | cheapracer [ April 1, 2010, 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
carguy123 wrote: It looks like a High School student built a mold for it in their garage - out of wood. Remember it was late 70's and it looked better in the flesh than pictures or than a Purvis Eureka for example or a host of other air cooled VW powered kit cars and beach buggies around at the time. Square headlights were the thing then too. I have no doubt they did build the buck out of wood, I think the nose is ordinary but otherwise it looks trick for it's age. |
|
| Author: | dan52001a [ April 3, 2010, 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
So here is the real story, I want to turn this contraption into a car with Miata spindles and A arms, it is already done, debuged and on the road. But I need a early 1960's smog exemption to get it through with a Toyota silvertop engine and a late '80's MR2 back end. I already have my SB100 exemption sequence number for this, do I need to time travel to get my SB100 smog inspection? What is this a plausable replica of? Does it matter? My monster 300 HP Cadillac trike has taken the limelite for absurdity, insanity and a lifetime membership in the Mad Max hall of fame. I would like to take this opportunity to put an ugly rumor to rest. People have claimed that they have found rebar welded into my cars. False! I always grind off the little nubbies so it doesn't show |
|
| Author: | KB58 [ April 3, 2010, 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
Why haven't you gone and read the SB100 rule yourself? Anyhow, it'll be smogged as a 1960 "car", so whatever emissions was appropriate for then is what you'll need. Don't worry about what the car looks like. |
|
| Author: | dan52001a [ April 3, 2010, 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California SB100 smog exemption vs. At-om design |
[i]"shall be inspected by stations authorized to perform referee functions. This inspection shall be for the purposes of determining the engine model-year used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year, and the emission control system application. The owner shall have the option to choose whether the inspection is based on the engine model-year used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year."[/i] So, the engine is from the early 90's, and the car design is from the mid '90's. And I'm going to claim it is based on a 1960 year design??? I did read it, that is my problem. Read it yourself. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|