I think you will find as part of the resource consent for the circuit to operate, that access for council/ govt officials is a given. Another one we use to see a lot of was a Govt. dude who would check the radio channels you were using in the driver communication systems. Happened to use in the Supertourers a tPuke last yearOriginally Posted by ERC
When we as a club hire Puke for events we have to pay an additional fee for the noise control monitoring guy.
Who does this "noise control guy" belong to. do you ask, for and get, a copy of his recordings. How much does he cost?
Last edited by 928; 03-01-2014 at 11:24 PM. Reason: addition
What a lot here fail to understand, its the RMA, that controls the limits on noise, and really has sod all to do with MSNZ or the circuits, and you have have the NIMBY following, which puts the dampeners on over "limits' noise. I think Hampton Downs is the only circuit that has taken a good look at how to go about this when applying through the RMA to set their levels, even Highland Park have restrictions placed on them.
Roger
What a lot here fail to understand, its the RMA, that controls the limits on noise, and really has sod all to do with MSNZ or the circuits, and you have have the NIMBY following, which puts the dampeners on over "limits' noise. I think Hampton Downs is the only circuit that has taken a good look at how to go about this when applying through the RMA to set their levels, even Highland Park have restrictions placed on them.
Roger
I think he works for the Puke track and supplies the results of monitoring to Auckland Council. The cost (from memory) is $150. The results were supplied to us after the completion of the event but I understand he wasn't too keen to even discuss matters with the competitor who was excluded at our last meeting - I suppose he was just following instructions.
This is not the case with Puke under the current regime. Auckland Council regulations specific to the Puke track state that noise monitoring shall comply with "industry standards". Auckland Council have interpreted these industry standards as the being the MSNZ noise regulations and they are the ones imposed at Puke. That is a big part of the problem as MSNZ noise monitoring criteria is inconsistent with NZ Standards noise regulations and noise monitoring procedures Auckland Council use at other motor sport venues such as Western Springs Speedway.
Hi Roger, I always thought that the Springs had grandfather rights, and that this was their great defense to the Council and the RMA, and they have stood their ground while making some small concessions. But Speedway never seems to make the noise while still producing god awful amounts of power.
Roger
The main issue is that MSNZ regulations state at Schedule A 3.8 that "No vehicle may exceed 95 db(A). The measurement shall be taken 30 metres at a right angle from the track at a point where the vehicle is at maximum power. No compensation for differing climatic conditions shall be applied".
The important section is that I have underlined as NZ Standards state on a number of occasions that climatic conditions are crucial and that, for example, noise monitoring should cease if wind speed exceeds specific levels. Additionally, Auckland Council regulations with respect to Western Springs state that "…. in addition to noise monitoring, meteorological conditions such as wind speed are observed. This is essential information to collect as weather conditions have a significant impact on noise levels".
Against this, MSNZ state that all climatic conditions should be ignored and this would seem to place doubt on the validity of MSNZ's monitoring regime.
So really what MSNZ need to do is insert that clause, or has that horse bolted?
Roger
Don't have horse in this race other than being on the sharp ends of many requests on how to reduce noise without reducing power. BUT it would seem to me that MSNZ as 'your' representatives/agents to local bodies & the RMA etc need to go back and renegotiate this whole subject, its too much of a moving target to not allow compensation when climate & immediate terrain/structures can affect the readings taken. One thing that has always annoyed me in relation to rules etc surrounding motorsport is that when it is realised that a rule cannot be sensibly obeyed or enforced that neither party seems to have the sense to remove the offending rule and start again. Adding extra sections- addendums etc usually just compounds the original problem creating a nightmare for all concerned.
Yes you are right about that Jack, but its not just motor sport that suffers from that, I think there are a few who can rewrite the whole noise section to reflect ACCEPTED procedures
here was me thinking that msnz was on the side of the competitor.AFAIK 95db is also the limt for LVVTA but measured a lot closer.
Gets tricky when you try to compare LVVTA vs MSNZ requirements.
IIRC the LVVTA is at a lesser distance and lower speed on a drive by basis whereas MSNZ is at max power & larger distance, on that basis you cannot really assume that a road legal car with a WOF would necessarily comply with MSNZ regs since it wont have been checked at the higher speed/throttle/RPM level.
What do you mean?
see post #29 crunch.
sorry jac mac, I did not intend what I said to be a comparsion. more a point of reference as to noise levels the LVVTA measure in a static location now and have an RPM level for most engine types I understand
Thought the solution had been suggested by putting a remit to AGCM.
If you want to lay blame, then blame me as I was on the Manfield Board 20+ years ago when we were the first race circuit in NZ to actually have to introduce noise control. The system that was agreed at that time with local councils has by de-facto been the one that other councils have referred to...probably because all the work and paper-shuffling had been done and it was easier to just pick that up. That original system is the one that is in the MSNZ book today.
At the time it cost Manfield the equivalent of resealing a third of the track, big numbers...but had to be done otherwise the residents would have shut us down.
Crunch,I am not looking to blame anyone. All I want to do is wake people up to the fact that the system now in place needs to be looked at and changed if possible. msnz is the national body and they should be proactive and suggesting things to members not sitting on their hands waiting for a remit. msnz are paid to run motor sport in nz as I understand, but from what I have read, on here and on other boards, they would appear to be afraid to suggest anything. Not what I call good management at all.
For openers lets have all noise readings and relavent weather conditions published so comparisons can be made over the years and between events.
928
Remit option is the best, because all circuits are involved. I understand that Timaru has the most stringent set of rules, whereas through clever thinking, Hampton Downs have the easiest. No one is afraid of making decisions. What you could remember is that what you read on public forums are personal opinions, more often that not slagging the sport because they don't have the full story, or one side of the story. As I said previously, the is already an Exec inquiry in place which involves the noise situation at Puke, and the sport is already dealing with the council and their noise contractor up there. I probably have said too much already on that. But in the interests of changing rules of the sport, most of the sport needs to be involved and at the moment; that can only happen at conference. The only rider to that should be rules for safety that arise out of real situations.
thank crunch, when will the enquiry results be published. Oh anything I read anywhere or am told is suspect unless proven otherwise.
still like to see msnz or ANY of the powers that be publish the results of noise tests, or,m the way I think says they did not happen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote