Owner-Installed Drivetrain

[tigwelder]

Cshama,
Yes, my legal residence is in NH. I am their about 70% of the year, running the shop and office. Between myself, my brother, and other close family. We have homes in NH, NJ, VA, NC, and FL. So we get around too say the least. I also have seen a pretty broad range of American laws / politics having done business and spent considerable time in each state. What track are you going to on the 30th? Louden? I hear they have a pretty decent road course for bikes and karts, but I have never driven it. I live about 20 min from Louden. Also regarding your responses to a judge, that sounds good to me. That is to say, you wonâ??t lie, and you did everything asked of you correctly and in good faith. Unfortunately, IMO, that wonâ??t prevent the feds from potentially knocking on your door. I would expect that you would not be in any trouble, but they may say, â??Export or destroy in 90 daysâ?� I have know idea, I believe most of the Lotus guys were able to export, I personally did not hear of one car actually confiscated.


To all,
This may be a good example: Federal Law governs firearm suppressors. To my knowledge there is NO law on NH books regarding suppressors. I own a Class3 HK clone built by Vector arms / Gemtech (best suppressors in the world, IMO). It is semi auto / full auto, suppressed, and considered a short barrel rife. The day I bought it off the SELF, the only reason I could not leave with it after NH ran my records, (about 1 hour) was federal law. I had to wait about 4 months for BATF paperwork to clear, then I came back picked it up, and went quietly varmint hunting all weekend. So my point in telling you that I am a â??gun nutâ?� is that, I must obey all federal law first, then those of my state. However my uncle in NJ, can NOT own a suppressor, because it violates his state law.

The federal law comes first. Then state law. When the state and feds disagree, that is when the issue of states rights come up and most of the cases heard by the Supreme Court in some manor have an issue of states rights. Not to be political (haha) but that is what I think is GREAT about the basic structure of OUR system. If you donâ??t like the laws in your state, you can move, sometimes not far, and be in a place that is more to your liking. The whole time you are still an American subject to all the federal pros and cons.

So on the topic of the Atom, I am just the messenger. But read the material for your self. I have given you all you need. Go to www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr  along with 49CFR501-599 read your face off for about 5000000000000hrs and decide for your self. Do the same for the EPA. The whole issue simply revolves around whether or not Brammo can sell an Atom in the US as a turn key or kit car. Again I want to buy one, I am not to worried about the feds, they have some pretty big fish to fry these days, and it does come down to resources. But, IMO, they will NOT let a turn key vehicle go unchecked for very long. And the EPA is INSANE. You read the material; it is on the first page of this thread. Was that info hard to misunderstand? Just as NH allows me to own a suppressor, NY might allow someone to drive an Atom. The BIG difference is that my suppressor passed through the federal system first and legally, this is where the Atom has a problem. â??NEW motor vehiclesâ?� are federally regulated, just like my suppressor.

As I have said before, it does not mean Brammo can not get â??creativeâ?� and hire NHSTA and EPA experts to use a completely cool path to sell you an Atom.

As far as making progress, I think we have made some, however it is just not positive in terms of Brammo legally selling you a vehicle in the 2 formats they offer. NOBODY, unfortunately, is saying I am wrong. Despite what some might think, I would LOVE to see a write up or chapter and verse that allows for this car to be legally sold. There are so many cool car builders in the US and abroad that would love to sell here in turn key fashion.

Despite any negative, or authority like tone I might have, I am a capitalists, I think the Atom is great for our market in terms of pushing the envelope and out of the box thinking, but the dog still wonâ??t hunt under federal law, as I interpret it.

Keep trying,
TW

[patentshark]

tw,

now that i have spent a couple minutes reviewing the EPA regs, you do have some valid points, but brammo is not selling a "motor vehicle" or a "kit car" as it is being sold as a track car (ie, not for street or highway use - therefore taking it out of the EPA's definition of motor vehicle).  now, i am not sure if that clears the car entirely when it comes to the EPA because they still cover certain forms of off-road vehicles, lawn equipment, etc.  i haven't found out how a track car fits into the EPA equation. 

as long as the sale falls outside of the EPA jurisdiction, there's not much they can do to prevent you from registering the car in your state, assuming you pass any required state emissions. 

again - i am not an expert, this is not legal advice, do some research, be nice and avoid screwing it up for the rest of us, etc...

[cshama]

Tig

I will be at New Hampshire International Speedway. I have a friend who is a pro racer and he will be giving me a lesson.  I think the firearms comparison may be a little off base as the feds are getting very serious about those kind of guns. Its hard to shoot up a McDonalds with an Ariel Atom. But who knows.


The one thing I can't understand is why the car would fall foul of any epa/emmissions testing. The reality is that it is using an ecotec. Whats the big deal. Maybe you mentioned it before but my eyes glaze over where I start reading legalese( of course this excludes California and their weird scene). Its funny because I deal with a lot of legal  documents. I think I have just got into the habit of ignoring a good 95% of them- to no ill effect so far

[patentshark]

cshama,

the problem is that the entire engine combination, as used on the atom, is NOT the same as the one used in the cobalt and therefore, may not have a certificate of conformity.

[Hellooo Newman]

First I must say that Eric is a really great guy and bent over backwards to try and answer all my questions as best he could. Unfortunately he called me back and I was not at home but out at a store so I did not have a pen or paper to jot everything down. I don't think he would mind if I called him back at a later date once I have test driven the Atom.
He mentioned that to his knowledge he knows of only one registered Atom and that is the electric one which obviously did not have to go through any emissions test. He said that I should be very careful before I place my order and do all my due dilligence and try and get more than one person to agree with the procedure you will use.
He said that to pass emissions the engine will have to have the proper documentation decals which state that it passes CA emissions. He mentioned about going the route of the SPCNS which allow 500 spots, he said that last year all 500 were gone by 9:15am so you better get to the DMV and wait overnight if you have to.
He mentioned that an officer can pull you over at any time if he feels that the Atom is unsafe for the road. When I go out to Brammo and test drive the Atom I will go to the DMV in CA and speak to as many people as possible to determine the correct registeration procedure. Heck...I might not even like the Atom once I test drive it....yeah right, and my Porsche can drive underwater. Not bloody likely. I can hardly wait for the test drive.
For those of you who want to learn more, talking with Eric Benson was a real pleasure but before you call make sure you have a list of your questions at hand as well as a pad of paper to jot down his answers.
cheers
cheers

[dp35]

[quote="Hellooo Newman"]
He mentioned that to his knowledge he knows of only one registered Atom.... [/quote]

There's at least 3 non-electric Atoms currently registered in Calif.  All of these have SB100 smog exemptions, AFAIK.

IMO, the bigger problem is that if you buy a turn key car from out of state, you can't bring it into Calif.  There's strict laws against this.  If you try this the DMV will "red line" the car's VIN, which means that it is not allowed to ever be registered in Calif.  However, if you buy a "kit car" with no engine from out of state, and put the engine in it yourself, that's ok under the Calif specially constructed vehicle rules.

[Hellooo Newman]

those customers who are purchasing their Atoms from Brammo are also buying the drive train from the same place which I thought was a no no if you are trying to use the kit car (SB100 smog exemptions)procedure.
How can it be done if Brammo will not sell you a rolling chassis and you find your own drive train.
With more and more Atoms coming on line and being delivered to the customers, I am hoping that the registration process becomes more straightforward and commonplace. It is good news that there have been a number of Atoms registered because the precedence has been set and if the DMV gives someone a hard time they can say that x number of Atoms have already been registered.
cheers

[Karl]

From what I understand from reading some literature on kit car registration in California, Brammo would not be considered "manufacturer" of the engine if you can prove that it was actually sourced from someplace else - then they're just acting as a purchasing intermediary.  But not having gone through the procedure, I don't know the details.  Perhaps someone else can comment?

[glen_d]

I've been reading this forum for several months and would love to own an Atom. My wife drove Harleys and hot rods as a teenager, and we're both car nuts. My very first car was a Porsche that I purchased with money saved up from several years of teenage employment. I still drive a (newer) Porsche today.

Here in Alaska, the "nice car" season is from May to September, then the cars languish in the garage or storage for seven months. Despite the short season and cooler temperatures, both my wife and I were enthusiastic about purchasing an Atom. We drive somewhere just to drive, and that seems like what the Atom is for too.

Unfortunately, there are no road course type tracks up here where I can drive the Atom, so my driving would be limited to public roads. I've concluded (like at least one other person in this thread) that the Atom cannot be operated on public roads legally. Here's why . . .

Alaska state law describes certain requirements to register a vehicle. For instance, it has to have headlights and taillights at a particular height above the ground, a windshield, a defroster (except for open cabs), and so on. I could meet the state requirements to register an Atom, either by current design or through slight modifications. My local government requires adherence to an emission standard (that meets or exceeds EPA standards) that I could also meet. But federal law appears to be the sticking point. Title 49, United States Code, Section 30127 requires airbags for an Atom. That's not something I can engineer or install. To pay an aftermarket conversion shop to complete this task (and they would be extremely unlikely to agree to do the engineering and work and take on the associated liability) would be cost-prohibitive. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (authorized by Title 49) also require crash testing, another item I could not afford.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers and interprets Title 49, United States Code. See their web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ and their interpretation search engine at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/. Relevant search terms include â??kit carâ?� and â??replica.â?� Also see Title 49, Chapter 301 at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/sta ... pt301.html.

Many people have argued whether an Atom is a kit car or not, and whether it is thus subject to Federal law. NHTSA will tell you that a kit car is subject to Federal law and that they consider the assembler of a kit car the manufacturer. Here's an excerpt from a letter of interpretation from NHTSA to an interested party about just this subject:

"Under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle. The manufacturer would also have to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS."

See the complete letter at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/6320.jeg.html.

In another interesting letter of interpretation, NHTSA reverses a previous opinion and establishes what seems to be the earliest determination that kit cars are new motor vehicles subject to federal law. See http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19948.ztv.html. This reference includes the following paragraph:

"You [the private party] note that 49 U.S.C. 30112 states that, with certain exceptions, â??a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard . . . .â?? I would point out that driving a vehicle on the public roads would be considered an introduction into interstate commerce. Therefore, a person who assembled a kit car which did not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and then drove the vehicle on the public roads would be in violation of this section."

So just by driving on a public road, the Federal government considers that the car has been introduced into interstate commerce . . . presumably even in Alaska and Hawaii, locations that are not contiguous with other states (but receive federal highway funds). The introduction into interstate commerce brings Title 49 into force.

I had one more thought . . . how about a replica? Perhaps I could contrive an Atom as a replica of some other vehicle that would qualify for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), where a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old may be imported into the United States without having to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That doesn't work either - see http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17331.ztv.htm where the NHTSA letter of interpretation states that the date of assembly of a replica is the date of manufacture as a new motor vehicle. So that ended my hope of owning an Atom for use on public roads.

Title 49, Section 30103 authorizes states to enforce laws which are equal to or to a higher standard than Title 49 and associated federal motor vehicle safety standards. It even authorizes states to enforce federal law in the absence of their own state-specific laws. The laws of the state of Alaska donâ??t address the same areas covered by Title 49, probably for two related reasons. Alaska could enforce the existing Title 49 if necessary, and state law would have to match Title 49 anyway, so there is no need for a duplicate statute. I imagine that this condition is similar in many other states. Where the situation is different (perhaps California), the state laws would have to mirror Title 49 or be constructed to enforce a higher standard. Note that an absence of a state law does not remove the applicability of Title 49.

Of all the places in the U. S., you might imagine that NHTSA oversight in Alaska would be somewhat lacking. Thatâ??s probably so. Weâ??ve had state laws legalizing marijuana for years, but the U. S. attorneys have declined to enforce federal law prohibiting marijuana because it usually wasnâ??t worth their time. But Iâ??m not so much worried about a federal prosecutor knocking on my door as Iâ??m worried about civil liability. If I were ever involved in an accident in an Atom, I would expect to have a huge defense burden. After all, I was only involved in the (at this point, theoretical) accident after having broken federal law to get on the road in the first place. Even if I escaped criminal liability because I didnâ??t cause the accident, civil liability could easily turn against me. My house, my future income, and my retirement arenâ??t worth driving an Atom in violation of federal law. I hate that, because Iâ??d really, really love to have one.

Glen

[cshama]

[quote="Glen"]really[/i], really love to have one.

Glen

[/quote]

if you caused a major accident you will be sued for everything you have regardless whether you are in the Atom or not. Obviously if you are speading in a sports car it only gets worse. thats why you get $5 to 10 million Umbrella insurance

[tigwelder]

Even though I feel like most of the people in this forum are like blind folded loyal subjects of the crown of Simon, and debate things with blind passion and not as informed consumers or engineers, I still have a morbid attraction to continuing my participation.

I am just breaking chops, but some of you have to concede that the arguments set forth in many of these threads are all passion backed up with very little real world experience or even a neutral, open mind. I bring up an issue of side impact, and one person responded with the psychology of why Americans feel a need to drive heavy cars. Just say, â??Yeah the side impact value sucksâ?�. â??But I love itâ?�. Trying to argue that track accidents donâ??t often happen in a T-bone manor or that you need to drive smartly on the streets is obvious and irrelevant. Others suggest I should buy a Volvo. I already own 3 and that is not the topic, it is the response of someone that has no valuable information to add. I asked about crash data and opinion about the effects of the Atom in a side impact situation. I have been racing since 5yrs old (WKA) I have been involved in plenty of wrecks, and seen hundreds up close. They never happen in a predictable way. I think someone said the fiberglass nose cone of the Atom will act as a deformable crash structure. True, but what is it deforming against? A fellow driverâ??s ribcage?

Anyway, I thought I would bring you up to speed on the issues regarding the sale of this vehicle. First, Glens points are good and mostly accurate. Second, you can get this vehicle on the road. At least from a federal standpoint.

I have spoken to lead counsel for both EPA and NHTSA. I have also had an informal discussion with our attorney, a manufacturing law expert. Donâ??t get scared, I did not let the cat out of the bag, name anyone or company, etc. But, I did find a very legal way to get these cars on the road. It is what we do, this one no charge. You guys have gotten to know how big my heart is!

As additionally pointed out by our new well informed friend Glen, you can not be in total compliance with federal laws and drive this car on public roads at the same time. Or can you?

Ever wonder what allows all those NASCARS and CART to go around the track every weekend? How about the tens of thousands of race vehicles, from Karts to Drag that compete every weekend?

It is very simple. NHSTA and EPA guidelines as of this minute govern â??motor vehiclesâ?� for the â??primary purposeâ?� of operation on public roads, highways, etc. NOT RACE CARS. They have no jurisdiction over race cars. Although EPA is trying. Additionally, NHTSA, and EPA have no jurisdiction over used cars. Actually, they do, but in this case it is irrelevant.

There is no federal law to prevent a person from taking a USED race car and making application with their state for title and registration.

So if you were to buy a Atom and use it as a race car in GOOD FAITH, actually compete with it at a state recognized race track, like your local drag strip, road coarse, circle, dirt, whatever, then the vehicle is a GOOD FAITH used race car and the feds are out of the picture. Bye, Bye.

The rest is between you and your state.

Once this aspect of the law is used by many builders, they will change the language. But that should be at least a few years out, because such language would involve states rights, and many states with a heavy motor sports industry will fight with the feds. Very few â??good old boysâ?� are going to take kindly to having their race cars meet some federal standard. So as of today, there is no Federal law prohibiting the use of USED race cars on the street. GOOD FAITH, race it for a season and then make application for title.

For this language or lack there of, to protect you, Brammo does have to state the vehicle is a RACE CAR. Or some type of very clear language to that effect. IMO

Prove me wrong,
TW

[dp]

actually, as far as side impact protection goes, those beefy chassis rails are bound to be far better than a wimpy door beam in a regular car.  so the fact that the atom has no doors and has major structure at bumper height really works to its advantage in this regard.  granted, this is just an opinion not backed up by tests but it is an educated opinion of an engineer. take it as you will.  i definitely feel much safer in an atom than any lotus 7 type car, and i've owned one of those.

another minor point - you can apply for TITLE at any time, a title is just proof of ownership.  it has nothing to do with whether or not a car is road leagal or how it's used and you can perfectly legitimately have a title to a race car.  all you need is a certificate of origin and a bill of sale.  when i got the title to my elise 190 the MSO said 'race car, not for road use' all over it and the state had no issue with it whatsoever.  REGISTRATION is another matter, of course, and that is indeed between you and the state once the SALE is handled to feds' satisfaction.

[patentshark]

tw,

thanks for being careful and checking into the laws.  the difference between a track car and a "motor vehicle" was the point i was trying to make in my previous post about avoiding the wrath of the epa.  thanks again. 

as was said earlier, where there is a will there is a way.

[dp35]

tig -
Thanks for your insight and research.  I hope you're having discussions with Brammo about this stuff, because that's the only way your experience might make a difference. 

Posting it all on here is great, but if that's all you're doing, then I question your intentions.

[cshama]

Tig

You need to relax dude. Buy the car and take your chances or don't. Everything you have stated in your posts may or may not be correct technically  but it is totally over the top. ie making a mountain out of a molehill. If you go to youir local DMV and spout of all this gobbledygook you will probably be arrested and dragged away ( I can see you now screaming that you know the head of the EPA as you are dragged off)

You are way too nervous to buy this car- in fact I am writing a letter now to the DMV quoting Article 7, paragraph 17 of the Book af Standard Regs asking them to enforce a ban on you ever owning an Atom in any State.

This is one of those things that will just slip by the DMV if you are a little lucky and a little resourceful. If you tell them you know the head of the EPA and your car used to be a race car officially, and you know the rules back to front they will screw you to the wall as they pull out your teeth out one by one. Listen I am putting my deposit down next week- when I get my car I will personally drive it down to Loudon to track it. You will meet me there and buy me multiple drinks and then I will tell you how I did it