Noise law/mufflers?

[kevnmcd]

I have read a lot about the new noise laws that go into affect Jan. 2005 but have not read anything about what we can do to fix our problem.
I, like many of you, have a big block with thru-hull exhaust. What is there on the market that will (guaranteed) cut the noise level down to a legal level? I have seen plenty of "silencers", but why should I spend all that money on them now if they will not be good next year?

[Rexone]

Hang tight Kevin your answer is coming. Just can't give you detail quite yet. I can tell you it will meet J2005 standards and be nice looking.
:)

[kevnmcd]

Mike - Is this an original Rex Marine design special? :rolleyes: When will you have something to show us? :) Oh....and price? :D

[Rexone]

It is original and new Rex design. I anticipate something to show you within 30-60 days. Price is undetermined but will likely be significantly less than currently is available in this type of silencer. I can't give more info at this point because I want the info I do give to be 100% accurate. :)

[kevnmcd]

Good news, Mike. Keep us posted.

[LeE ss13]

Hey Mike ... how about those Shot Gun mufflers I've seen at your store? You know, the ones with the spring loaded door that fit over the end of headers, stainless, good looking, pricey. How well to they work to reduce noise?

[Rexone]

Shotguns work pretty fair but won't meet the J2005 specs for most engines. And they are very pricey for what they are.
Several years ago we tested a bunch of different silencers. On a 496 that was 103 dBA WOT with open exhaust, the Shotguns blew 99dBA, a -4 dBA reduction. Not close to what's necessary here. That was a 50 foot test, not the J2005 dock test so the numbers aren't comparable at all. The best silencers we tested at that time (a long time ago) was 92 dBA @ 50 feet. Again not acceptable to pass the new shoreline test either, since that test can be administered from any distance LE chooses.
Shotguns might be accepted somewhere that isn't running you on the meter (just looking for mufflers). That's generally up to local LE in how they want to enforce or not enforce and I'd anticipate they'll be locales that don't employ the J2005 test when it becomes law.
Again, and I stress this. The new J2005 test standard goes into effect Jan 2005, not Jan 2004. We have a year before existing test standards change in CA. But we also know people won't want to invest in outdated silencer technology (which includes just about everything on the market today regardless of claim) which is why I'm pushing our new product so hard to get it finished. On the other hand I won't release it until I'm 100% sure it is everything it can be just for the sake of being a few weeks earlier.

[Cas]

Mike,
I'd just like to thank you and your company for all you do for high performance boating and actually, boating in general.
I'll be looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

[Jordy]

Originally posted by Rexone
It is original and new Rex design.
Yeah, it's a big sail with a Rex Marine logo on it. Guaranteed to pass. :D

[Rexone]

Originally posted by riodog
Mikey, are YOU working on or do you know if anyone else has anything in the works that will be useful for OT headers? Such as Bassetts.
Riodog
Rio I am looking at over transom next but it's a different situation for reasons I outlined here. (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37266) . It's going to require a different approach design wise because of lack of water and limit in size (and weight) relative to thru transom.
We've tested some of the stainless race car stuff on the market and it isn't close to J2005 specs. J2005 at about 3 feet away is a tough standard to meet. And with any water they become quite restrictive. As I've stated before we know how to kill noise. To do it without power loss on a large or blown engine though is the key. Simply plugging it up till the noise goes away is not the answer.
Jordy don't you have some work to do or somethin :D

[Mandelon]

So you're saying some 3" threaded caps screwed to the end of the pipes aren't going to work? :( :D :D

[Quality Time]

Mike,
What's the story on switchables? I hear they are not considered legal?
Thanks

[Havasu Hangin']

It'll be in the next catalog?

[Rexone]

Originally posted by Cas
Mike,
I'd just like to thank you and your company for all you do for high performance boating and actually, boating in general.
I'll be looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with.
Thanx for the thanx, Cas. :)
...................
QT, any switchable system that allows "unmuffled" operation as either option when switched will not be legal under the new law.
The only situation that will be legal as far as I can tell will be a Silent Choice "type" system (diverter) that chooses between through hub exit (legal), and approved silencers as the through transom exit (as opposed to open exhaust tips or silencers that don't pass). In this manner "either" of the switchable options would be muffled so I don't see it as being an issue. Therefore someone presently running Silent Choice or equivalent could purchase legal silencers for the transom exit to replace open exhaust tips and be legal, retaining the silent choice and thus making life a bit easier than having to remove the silent choice... make sense?
This area of the law isn't spelled out clearly or with any elaboration on the state's part. The above is my interpretation. All they specify is "in constant operation".
Any switchable thru transom silencers that allow unmuffled operation will NOT be legal under J2005 era testing.

[Quality Time]

Mike,
It makes sense.
Thanks Again & Happy New Year!

[kevnmcd]

Mike (Rexone) - Any update on your new product?

[beer hunter]

Please, inquiring minds would like to know:)

[Rexone]

Update.. Some final testing is occuring now and I anticipate beginning production within 2 weeks. Some material is already in process now. Finished product ready for sale is likely 60 days out, possibly sooner if everything goes smoothly. The silencer exceeds J2005 requirements right now and has no power loss. I won't release it for production though until I'm confident we're not leaving some noise suppression on the table so to speak. I'd rather be a few weeks later than be a dBA noisier than necessary. My focus since we started the project has been on quality and correct function, not market date. I do think that we will be inline with the time frame above though.

[beer hunter]

That's great news! :) Please keep us posted as I would like to have something hooked up before a Mead trip in June :)

[kevnmcd]

Mike - If you are looking for any test boats....let me know. I would be more than happy to try them on mine. Stock 502 Mag w/thru-hull. Tips are above the water line.

[Up 4 River]

Mike,
Please keep us posted. I talked to a couple of the Rex Marine guys this past weekend at the boat show and got all the pricing to bring my exhaust through the transom instead of the outdrive. I will be ordering everything from you guys but want to put the right stuff on the first time. Thanks for your help.
U4R

[Just Tool'n]

I am glad to see someone coming to market so quick with them. This is going to be all of the buzz for the next 1.5yrs, & the diehards who will not conform will be the ones getting all of the fines.

[Ducatista]

QT, any switchable system that allows "unmuffled" operation as either option when switched will not be legal under the new law.
The only situation that will be legal as far as I can tell will be a Silent Choice "type" system (diverter) that chooses between through hub exit (legal), and approved silencers as the through transom exit (as opposed to open exhaust tips or silencers that don't pass). In this manner "either" of the switchable options would be muffled so I don't see it as being an issue. Therefore someone presently running Silent Choice or equivalent could purchase legal silencers for the transom exit to replace open exhaust tips and be legal, retaining the silent choice and thus making life a bit easier than having to remove the silent choice... make sense?
This area of the law isn't spelled out clearly or with any elaboration on the state's part. The above is my interpretation. All they specify is "in constant operation".
I hope this holds to be true.....good info. Oh well, something else to spend $'s on!

[eliminatedsprinter]

The reason this wasn't spelled out clearly was because this law was drafted by people who know and care little or nothing about perfomance boating.:mad: The reason it's in there at all just shows how much contempt and distrust our state officials have for us...:burningm:

[Boatcop]

The reason this wasn't spelled out clearly was because this law was drafted by people who know and care little or nothing about perfomance boating.The reason it's in there at all just shows how much contempt and distrust our state officials have for us...
The state had nothing to do with setting the sound standards. That was determined by SAE, and was developed to make sound measurement on recreational boats more precise than was utilized before. The old method left too much discretion on whoever was doing the measurement. The new standards were put out with limited (if any) input by the state. They were based upon sound ranges and levels where hearing loss and/or damage would occur. Not just to the occupants of the boat, but to those within hearing range of the boats.
All that the state did, as has already been adopted by about 10 other states, was change the standards to what was recommended by SAE.
There was a lot of wiggle room on the part of the Officer under the old (present) standard. Now it's just pass/fail.
However we will still use a lot of discretion in applying the new standard (by "WE" I mean Law Enforcement in the areas that have the new standard, Arizona currently uses the 86db @ 50 feet, and there is no legislation pending to adopt the new requirements, YET)
There won't be sound Nazi's out there with the sole intention of writing tickets to boats that are 1 db over the limit. The attention will still be on those running open pipes, and boats substantially louder than the limit(s) set by law.

[Kindsvater Flat]

With the open header issue. If that person is running a type of baffle with water inj but do not pass would you be easier on that person for at least they tried to comply with noise?

[Boatcop]

I also want to commend Mike and the gang at Rex Marine for stepping up to the plate and devising a method to reduce noise, without loss of HP.
I've always said that the technology is out there, but it hasn't been developed or applied, since most falsely believe that "louder is faster". When in reality louder is just that - louder.
Thanks again Mike, and if you ever want to test the product(s) in a real world (read Cop-Applied) situation, just let me know.

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Boatcop
...if you ever want to test the product(s) in a real world (read Cop-Applied) situation, just let me know.
Are we gonna see a "Boatcop flattie" in Parker?

[Boatcop]

If that person is running a type of baffle with water inj but do not pass would you be easier on that person for at least they tried to comply with noise?
We've always been lenient with those who are trying to comply. Even since we got certified sound meters early last year, we didn't write anyone that was less than 94db (@ 50 feet). Several we wrote were in the 103-110db range.
Open (no water-no baffles) exhaust was a guaranteed cite, that sound levels had absolutely nothing to do with. Actually, the judge (here, at least) is more lenient with those with no mufflers. If they can show that they've installed some sort of muffling device, he'll dismiss the cite, with no fine.
However, if they get a subsequent ticket for the same offense, he'll nail their ass to the wall by throwing a Contempt of Court charge on top of the new ticket.

[Kindsvater Flat]

The local S. O. here is the same way with another factor. Time of day. There has been a few 10 pm passes and some real early running. Needless to say there is lots of camping at this lake so there is lots of complaints. Also if its after 9 am he has never received a complaint.
Thanks Alan.
http://www.v-drivevideo.com/mike/Untitled-1.jpg
Image stolen from the Rex Marine 1975 catalog:rolleyes:

[Sun burners]

We've always been lenient with those who are trying to comply. Even since we got certified sound meters early last year, we didn't write anyone that was less than 94db (@ 50 feet). Several we wrote were in the 103-110db range.
How about thru hull with silent choice through the prop.
Idle with the silent in the marina, WOT thru hull on the lake?
Would I still get tested on the DB's even though I am trying to keep down the noise?
Thanks Mike

[Kindsvater Flat]

Originally posted by Sun burners
How about thru hull with silent choice through the prop.
Idle with the silent in the marina, WOT thru hull on the lake?
Would I still get tested on the DB's even though I am trying to keep down the noise?
Thanks Mike
I believe this would be the same as exhaust cutouts which is a no no. Its one or the other but not both.

[Rexone]

Under the upcoming J2005 standards in CA and many other states (about 18 already employ the standard), any unmuffled exhaust or switchable unmuffled option is / will be illegal. The only way silent choice may be legal is if approved silencers are installed on the transom exits. I say "may be legal" because the CA law's wording in this area is vague. This is my interpretation and common sense assumption (care must be taken with common sense assumptions as they apply to government laws).
Alan it's funny you mention the assumption has always been that silencers must use horsepower. On one of our recent tests we actually gained 100 rpm after installing our prototype silencers... go figure. I don't have a scientific explanation for that but just assume the motor likes the backpressure ratio the silencers introduced or maybe clears the water better from the exhaust stream, in any case I didn't complain about it. Don't expect a power gain though, that would be a stretch and we only saw it that one time on one application.
KF it's important to note that the chart you have there is an older test, nothing to do with our current battery of testing on the new silencers or the J2005 standard. Those tests were approximated after the 50 ft J34 test standard that is becoming history. It is still a good comparison though of those silencer types.
BTW there is nothing on that list that didn't use up at least "some" horsepower and none of those devices will meet J2005 test standard at 39" off the transom. (all those tests were at 50 feet distance).
Thanks for that offer Alan on the testing. I may be in touch on that.

[BGMAN203]

How much $$ are we talking for these new mufflers??

[v-drive]

I'm trying to keep my 66 lavey as close to how it was built as I can, I just like it like that. So with the aluminum logs how is that going to effect me, and how or will these mufflers mount in my application?
:confused: :D :cool: v-drive

[jerry billet]

Do like I did. Run your exhaust through a couple of turbos. Quiet and does not kill the power. I expect there will be lots more turbos and less blowers on the lake in the coming years.
Why the switch. Not the boat cops, but a wife who was giving me greif about the noise. Not willing to lose the toys, just have to find a way to satisfy her, and go faster. ( And the faster I go, the more she's satisfied.) now were both happy.
and this from a guy who used to run zoomies at the lake. Only have 1 ticket from them.
Jerry

[Essex502]

Originally posted by Boatcop
The state had nothing to do with setting the sound standards. That was determined by SAE, and was developed to make sound measurement on recreational boats more precise than was utilized before.
Alan, I have to disagree with you for the first time....The state of California DID, in fact, set the "sound standard". The dB levels are written into the law. The legislators could have picked 92 dB-A or 90 dB-A or whatever they pleased - but no...they picked 88 dB-A. The SAE created the testing procedure NOT the level to be cosidered legal.
The following presents an example of comparable noises and the dB-A measurements:
0 dB Threshold of hearing
20 dB Rustling leaves
30 dB Quiet whisper (3 feet)
40 dB Quiet home
50 dB Quiet street
60 dB Normal conversation
70 dB Inside car
75 dB Loud singing (3 feet)
80 dB Automobile (25 feet)
88 dB Motorcycle (30 feet)
90 dB Foodblender (3 feet)
94 dB Subway (inside)
100 dB Diesel truck (30 feet)
107 dB Power mower (3 feet)
115 dB Pneumatic riveter (3 feet)
117 dB Chainsaw (3 feet)
120 dB Amplified Rock and Roll (6 feet)
130 dB Jet plane (100 feet)
Something to think about that our boats are limited to the same noise level at 50 feet (75 dB) as loud singing at three feet. This is the "shoreline" test that is still in the AB1555 law that will be in effect in 2005.
Partial text of AB1555 (CA):
SEC. 5. Section 654.05 is added to the Harbors and Navigation
Code, to read:
654.05. (a) A person may not operate a motorized recreational
vessel in or upon the inland waters, or in or upon ocean waters that are within one mile of the coastline of the state, in a manner that exceeds the following noise levels:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level of 90 dB(A) when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for Pleasure Motorboats).
(2) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1993, a noise level of 88 dB(A) when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for Pleasure Motorboats).
(3) A noise level of 75 dB(A) measured as specified in the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J1970 (Shoreline Sound Level Measurement Procedure). However, a measurement of noise level that is in compliance with this paragraph does not preclude the conducting of a test of noise levels under paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) A law enforcement officer utilizing a decibel measuring device
for the purposes of enforcing this section shall be knowledgeable
and proficient in the use of that device.
(c) The department may, by regulation, revise the measurement
procedure when deemed necessary to adjust to advances in technology.
Alan, Isn't the J1970 test still in use today?
And...what does the last sentence mean? That the department may change the standard without the legislature's approvel?

[LHC30Victory]

Perhaps this has been indirectly answered before but here goes:
I have an AZ built boat, purchased in AZ, Registered in AZ, Stored in AZ, Launched in AZ etc etc etc but used on the river (Havasu) which is a joint enforcement area (as discussed by BoatCop in earlier threads) by AZ and CA.
Can, or will, CA enforce its standards on the AZ boats/owners/operators ? What are AZ laws in regard to the noise levels? Is AZ planning to meet CA law in this area?????????
I can see CA enforcement of their laws on waters completely under their jurisdiction by visiting boats, but I don't plan to visit any of those. Just wondering to what extent CA will be looking at the joint authority areas.

[Essex502]

As I understand it...if the CA occifer (sp) wants he can enforce the CA noise laws on the river. Either side of the river.

[Boatcop]

I believe that J1970 is also a new standard. The current method (86 db @ 50 feet is from the SAE J34 (I think) standard.

[Rexone]

Originally posted by BGMAN203
How much $$ are we talking for these new mufflers??
Don't have a number yet because production is barely started but all estimates indicate they'll be substantialy less than many current prices for similar type devices.

[Rexone]

Originally posted by v-drive
I'm trying to keep my 66 lavey as close to how it was built as I can, I just like it like that. So with the aluminum logs how is that going to effect me, and how or will these mufflers mount in my application?
:confused: :D :cool: v-drive
The mufflers are 4" exhaust tip replacements so they will likely not fit well into your nostalgic look you're trying to maintain on the lavey with bell type 3.5" tips more than likely. However it's possible depending on horsepower level of your engine you may get away with some inline silencers (current product) without much if any power loss. And with logs and thur transom they will likely be quite enough or very close to it.

[Rexone]

Think about Alan's post above. Foodblender @ 3 feet. If your boat is louder than that you will not pass the new J2005 dock test. It's not alot of noise outside in the open.
Also, the J34 test is the current testing procedure. On Jan 1 2005 (in Ca) LE will have the choice of using either or both of two new standards J2005 (dock test), J1970 (shoreline test).
Here's a link once again to the thread that includes the noise law in CA. (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22813)

[Essex502]

Is that a food blender grinding ice when making a margarita? Doubt it.

[PerfectionDtail]

What about the gas powered blenders? Those might exceed the limits, they are pretty loud.

[Rexone]

Originally posted by PerfectionDtail
What about the gas powered blenders? Those might exceed the limits, they are pretty loud.
I'd keep it powered down during the dock test. A $300 fine for mixin margaritas would be one to remember though.

[PerfectionDtail]

Are they going to be testing as you put in at a marina? Is this the dock test? Will this be the common rule for Parker and Havasu?
If so, can I convert a 575 to electric, I'm never going to make it.

[Rexone]

Originally posted by PerfectionDtail
Are they going to be testing as you put in at a marina? Is this the dock test? Will this be the common rule for Parker and Havasu?
If so, can I convert a 575 to electric, I'm never going to make it.
That's the big benefit for LE is to test at the dock before you launch. It will be common wherever local LE chooses to enforce it. Remember this is not AZ law (yet) so I would expect to not see CA law enforcement standing on AZ ramps and docks doing a J2005 test. They can surely do a J1970 shorline test on you though close to AZ shoreline. And any CA ramps will be subject to the J2005 procedure.
Alan can correct me if my assumption on that is incorrect.

[Boatcop]

Mike's correct. Ca. Cops won't be hanging on the Az ramps checking boats as they're launched. And since we're still on the J34 testing, we won't be either, although some State Parks may refuse to launch boats with open headers or non muffled zoomies.
The CA LE will also probably only do the J1970 (Shoreline) test from the Ca. shore, rather than muddy up some jurisdictional issues or technicalities, based on who's shoreline it was measured from.

[Rexone]

Originally posted by Boatcop
Mike's correct. Ca. Cops won't be hanging on the Az ramps checking boats as they're launched. And since we're still on the J34 testing, we won't be either, although some State Parks may refuse to launch boats with open headers or non muffled zoomies.
The CA LE will also probably only do the J1970 (Shoreline) test from the Ca. shore, rather than muddy up some jurisdictional issues or technicalities, based on who's shoreline it was measured from.
Alan the only reason I threw the J1970 in there is that this test can be administered also from a platform or stationary boat, not just shoreline as the name would lead one to believe. So therefore if CA LE had a patrol boat sitting stationary on the AZ side of Havasu or the river my guess is they could easily and legally apply the J1970 test (after Jan 1, 2005).

[OutCole'd]

Can we take numbers for when these are going to be available?
I want #1

[PerfectionDtail]

The day I get pulled over for loud exhaust, and a drunk hits something or kills someone, I am going to go nuts. I would launch the most outrageous media complaint BS that I could. There are soooooo many people out there that do not know what they are doing and many get absolutely wasted then drive on Havasu or Parker. I know the police can't catch every one, but I myself never drink and operate my baot and always operate my boat in a safe manner. So to get a ticket for a loud exhaust would really eat at me. The only understanable situation would be driving the baot at 1 AM or 7 AM with houses around or if it was stupid loud like 160 dB.
I do think that it should be a secondary offense. If you get pulled over for being a jackass, then they could slap you with the noise law as well.

[Rexone]

So do you get pissed when you see a cop pull someone over on the freeway that was speeding or doing other dumb shiznit or has tires 2 inches too wide for his fenders, because you know someone's getting murdered somewhere that the cop should have been chasing?
Not being smartass, just asking... same principal. Not saying I like the noise law, just questioning the logic here.
160 dBA is well beyond human threshold for sound I believe so I guess that would definately warrant a ticket.
My point above is don't be mad at the cop. Vote the friggin idiots out of office that make these laws. Had everyone paid attention when I and others posted on this issue a year and a half ago when this was not yet law and squaked to their representatives we might have higher limits today. No one gave a shit then so now instead it's easier to whine about it after the fact.
Sorry that's how I see it.

[Havasu Cig]

Rex is right about that....I posted this topic a long time ago and nobody cared.:confused:

[PerfectionDtail]

Originally posted by Rexone
So do you get pissed when you see a cop pull someone over on the freeway that was speeding or doing other dumb shiznit or has tires 2 inches too wide for his fenders, because you know someone's getting murdered somewhere that the cop should have been chasing?
Not being smartass, just asking... same principal. Not saying I like the noise law, just questioning the logic here.
160 dBA is well beyond human threshold for sound I believe so I guess that would definately warrant a ticket.
My point above is don't be mad at the cop. Vote the friggin idiots out of office that make these laws. Had everyone paid attention when I and others posted on this issue a year and a half ago when this was not yet law and squaked to their representatives we might have higher limits today. No one gave a shit then so now instead it's easier to whine about it after the fact.
Sorry that's how I see it.
I agree with your reasoning. I have never had a problem with this in the past, and I am not getting on local law enforcement. I more than respect the job that they do. I think that they have a difficult job. I follow the laws completely and if I needed them, I would not hesitate to trust them with my life or anything for any situation that may occur.
I would have a problem however, if law enforcement was looking specifically for these citations while others could be happening. From reading the posts it has sounded like noise violations are the only and most tickets to be given in the future. Getting pulled over in the city is completely different IMO. On the lake or river there is a boundary that you must stay in, called the shore. For instance at Havasu from the Channel to Havasu Springs. There is a lot of boating between these 2 points and to get stopped as you drive by because your boat is loud, seems like a very petty thing. Honestly, my boat is stock and I have no idea what the dB is or would be. I have had a vehicle with a sound system in the past hit 152 dB, so I know how loud it is, but not at 50'. I was just throwing a # out like 160, I should have thought before posting it. I may be completely legal.
In the city there are endless boundaries. If there were boundaries in a city, like a lake (a lot less area on a lake to run and hide), I would expect murderers to be caught easily every day.
I guess what my issue would be is if I was at a lake that shares a border such as Havasu and I was an Arizona resident, registered in AZ, and launched in AZ, I would be really upset getting cited for a CA law.

[kevnmcd]

Rexone - Any update to your new product? When do you think they will be ready?

[Rexone]

Originally posted by kevnmcd
Rexone - Any update to your new product? When do you think they will be ready?
6-8 weeks on the 4" silencer tip model.
A little longer likely on the 4.5" clamp-ons
:)

[DogHouse]

Please be sure to post a pic of those clamp-ons as soon as they're ready... I think I know someone who will be interested!
:)

[GottaJet]

Originally posted by Cas
Mike,
I'd just like to thank you and your company for all you do for high performance boating and actually, boating in general.
I'll be looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with. HERE HERE!!!:D :D

[Moneypitt]

Does anyone remember the movement a few years ago concerning Loud Bikes? The point of the arguement was that "Loud bikes save lives"..... Can't we start a simular campagne here using the same idea? We need some bumper stickers with a ***boat and the save lives slogan.. Its true, loud boats let you know they're there, and I'll say again, lets get the Gov of Ca. out in Krazy Kolors, he just might see our point!!!
Moneypitt
LOUD BOATS SAVE LIVES!!!!!!