Noise

[928]

having commented on one or two threads on here about noise I thought it deserves its own thread.
I feel that you racers out there are being lead along with noise readings being taken at trackside. these readings have no use at all. they are just numbers collected to use against YOU.
Noise is only a problem at the boundary of a venue where it can upset some of the general public. Inside the fence 99.8% of people are there to watch cars racing and making noise so by definition they give consent to the noise.
So why is it measured at track side? YOU go and ask the clerk of the course, if he cannot give an acceptable reason you have options.
Should you be told 'that is what msnz want then ask the steward of the meeting who represents msnz to explain why this is being done.
if you are happy good luck as you fall in line.
You should not be happy at all and ask for the noise meters and persons using them to removed from the premises before you will take your car on track. If you all stand together you will win against this unfair practise of condeming your self to and official that your entry fees are paying to be there.
Remember that without you MSNZ does not exsist so they do what you want not the reverse.
the owners of the venue have a vested interest in backing you (they want their fee) and the local council only has power in a public place.

Just my vent, but I have been through this senario twice before while overseas
928

[Rod Grimwood]

Well put cobber.

[crunch]

having commented on one or two threads on here about noise I thought it deserves its own thread.
I feel that you racers out there are being lead along with noise readings being taken at trackside. these readings have no use at all. they are just numbers collected to use against YOU.
Noise is only a problem at the boundary of a venue where it can upset some of the general public. Inside the fence 99.8% of people are there to watch cars racing and making noise so by definition they give consent to the noise.
So why is it measured at track side? YOU go and ask the clerk of the course, if he cannot give an acceptable reason you have options.
Should you be told 'that is what msnz want then ask the steward of the meeting who represents msnz to explain why this is being done.
if you are happy good luck as you fall in line.
You should not be happy at all and ask for the noise meters and persons using them to removed from the premises before you will take your car on track. If you all stand together you will win against this unfair practise of condeming your self to and official that your entry fees are paying to be there.
Remember that without you MSNZ does not exsist so they do what you want not the reverse.
the owners of the venue have a vested interest in backing you (they want their fee) and the local council only has power in a public place.

Just my vent, but I have been through this senario twice before while overseas
928

yep!
Measured at trackside is a historical thing that unfortunately some of the councils have picked up on and quoted as part of the resource-consent. Some circuits like Hampton Downs are at the boundary...far more logical

[crunch]

having commented on one or two threads on here about noise I thought it deserves its own thread.
I feel that you racers out there are being lead along with noise readings being taken at trackside. these readings have no use at all. they are just numbers collected to use against YOU.
Noise is only a problem at the boundary of a venue where it can upset some of the general public. Inside the fence 99.8% of people are there to watch cars racing and making noise so by definition they give consent to the noise.
So why is it measured at track side? YOU go and ask the clerk of the course, if he cannot give an acceptable reason you have options.
Should you be told 'that is what msnz want then ask the steward of the meeting who represents msnz to explain why this is being done.
if you are happy good luck as you fall in line.
You should not be happy at all and ask for the noise meters and persons using them to removed from the premises before you will take your car on track. If you all stand together you will win against this unfair practise of condeming your self to and official that your entry fees are paying to be there.
Remember that without you MSNZ does not exsist so they do what you want not the reverse.
the owners of the venue have a vested interest in backing you (they want their fee) and the local council only has power in a public place.

Just my vent, but I have been through this senario twice before while overseas
928

Just a couple of minor points 928. Your entry fee does not pay for officials to be at the circuit. I think you would find most are paying for themselves to be there. Noise Rule in manual needs to be changed...a good remit for conference!!

[928]

you mean the msnz officials do not get expenses from the promotors or organisers.

[RogerH]

Just a couple of minor points 928. Your entry fee does not pay for officials to be at the circuit. I think you would find most are paying for themselves to be there. Noise Rule in manual needs to be changed...a good remit for conference!!

Crunch - I thought MSNZ were already looking at this - if so, does a remit need to be put in?

We put in a "submission" to MSNZ a month or so back based on the debacle at Pukekohe where the track managers used (incorrectly) the MSNZ noise guidelines to send a competitor home early. It turned out that the methodology used was fundamentally wrong and the competitor should not have been excluded - I bet no one refunded that part of his entry fee that he was unable to use.

[ERC]

The MSNZ stewards claim petrol expenses and apart from them, the only other officials of the meeting who are paid are the timekeepers. All others officials and flaggies, safety car drivers, dummy grid and pit lane officials are volunteers.

Others who may be paid are generally service providers, but as the timekeepers are listed as Judges of fact, they therefore are officials even though they are also service providers.

As it was explained to me, it may be mandatory in the future for the race organisers to have noise monitoring and may well be required to submit a report at the end of each meeting, which will inevitably lead to a paid official and/or equipment hire, pushing up the costs yet again. Deep joy.

Remember Tony Roberts did a 24 noise monitoring exercise at Hampton Downs and the loudest noise recorded was the dawn chorus...

[rf84]

928 makes some very valid points.
1 Spectators who attend motor race events are fully aware that there will be noise involved. Some would argue that the noise is a part of the appeal. By attending they are giving their tacit acceptance that noise will not upset them.
2 The only people who have any right to object to the noise created by motor sport are those who do not attend but may be subjected to noise.
It is logical therefore that noise readings be taken at the point where the general public who choose not to attend race events may be subjected to such noise i.e. the boundary of the circuit or, even more logically, at the nearest neighbour's boundary.
It has always struck me as absurd that an organiser of a motor sport event could hold an event in a very remote area where no one can hear any noise (e.g. the Army training ground on the Desert Road) only to have it stopped because the noise 30 metres from the track is too loud!

[Limezed]

How does almost anything that runs the 1/4 mile pass noise limits? Is it a council by council limit thing.

[Kwaussie]

No Noise!

Great to see you fired up the boilers again Steve!
There was no noise for two days on the other side of the Tasman.

[Oldfart]

Crunch - I thought MSNZ were already looking at this - if so, does a remit need to be put in?

We put in a "submission" to MSNZ a month or so back based on the debacle at Pukekohe where the track managers used (incorrectly) the MSNZ noise guidelines to send a competitor home early. It turned out that the methodology used was fundamentally wrong and the competitor should not have been excluded - I bet no one refunded that part of his entry fee that he was unable to use.

And there is no refund for the enjoyment he did not get!

[ERC]

I gather that the some of problems at Pukekohe are from someone who inherited a house in the area (in other words, was gifted a house...).

We could hear the power boats yesterday on Auckland's upper harbour which seemed to be making one hell of a noise, especially as we are at least 1km away from the nearest patch of water. As it was during the afternoon, who cares?

We would only object to local partying teenagers who seem to be on the next street, only if they made any noise after midnight, being our bedtime, but the nearest neighbours on our street get up at 5am so are in bed by 9:30. Fortunately, they seem to cut the noise just before midnight, so no problem.

We have only ever had sleep disturbed in three places and it is always the overly loud doof-doof bass that rattles even the best of double glazed buildings. The three places were Taupo - the noise coming from a nightclub in town; Dubai (honest!) and Darling harbour, Sydney, Melbourne Cup day.

Maybe the noise restrictions should be along the lines of the Speedway - ie not after 10:30pm or a suitable time?

As rf84 states, it is only relevant to those outside the venue. Do rock concerts have to stick to 95db? Not from what I have heard and they are often so loud as to be painful.

[crunch]

Crunch - I thought MSNZ were already looking at this - if so, does a remit need to be put in?

We put in a "submission" to MSNZ a month or so back based on the debacle at Pukekohe where the track managers used (incorrectly) the MSNZ noise guidelines to send a competitor home early. It turned out that the methodology used was fundamentally wrong and the competitor should not have been excluded - I bet no one refunded that part of his entry fee that he was unable to use.

It is part of an executive inquiry happening this week. SO cant comment.
However; I WOULD put a remit to conference to make sure something happens!!

[rf84]

Thank heavens we have someone at MSNZ who actually LISTENS to common sense and is prepared to attempt some change.
I know you come on for some flak from time to time on this forum Raymond but at least you are well aware of the opinions of the "grassroots" followers of motorsport which unfortunately does not seem to extend to some of your colleagues in Bullshit Castle in Wellington. You are to be commended for your courage and willingness to actively address the issues. Pity you can't convince more of them to get on this site.

[Malcolm McLeod]

There is bound to be a lot of noise after this weekend due the speed of a certain Volvo straight out of the box in a certain category that has a 30 year wait until we can talk about it!

No Noise!

Great to see you fired up the boilers again Steve!
There was no noise for two days on the other side of the Tasman.

[Malcolm McLeod]

I understand that a BMW was DQ or meatballed at Pukekohe last Sunday due to noise.....yet to my ears some of the Alfa's were a lot noisier.
Conversely, the chap taking the noise readings had to move from our point at one stage due to being too close to the stables...

[Malcolm McLeod]

I understand that a BMW was DQ or meatballed at Pukekohe last Sunday due to noise.....yet to my ears some of the Alfa's were a lot noisier.
Conversely, the chap taking the noise readings had to move from our point at one stage due to being too close to the stables...

[928]

who did this chap represent? organisers,council, msnz,drivers, or just himself? I do hope you asked him?

[crunch]

I understand that a BMW was DQ or meatballed at Pukekohe last Sunday due to noise.....yet to my ears some of the Alfa's were a lot noisier.
Conversely, the chap taking the noise readings had to move from our point at one stage due to being too close to the stables...

I find the science of noise interesting. When I was a flaggie at Manfield, the Mini 7's were awfully noisy and hurt the ears, whereas the deep growl of a V8 would trip the 95 limit. It is the pitch of the sound that our ears perceive, not the loudness as such. Sort of like if the soundwaves travel faster and closer .

They did a sound test on Rally cars once at an NZRC round 15+ years ago. It was done at the scrutineering venue, which was a workshop with a corrugated iron fence around the outside carpark where the test was happening. The guy wondered why every car was over the limit. I kindly informed him that due to the surroundings he was wasting his time, and it would be more productive for everyone if he came and joined our team for a beer to discuss the Doppler effect. Great night and actually not a bad dude...for a council worker!:cool::rolleyes:

[ERC]

Council. Which begs the question. Did he pay to get in or alternatively, is he allowed access to private land without permission, or, as the council have coughed up a few bucks for improvements, are council employees exempt from paying?

As HRC booked the track, are they obliged to let council officials in?

[crunch]

Council. Which begs the question. Did he pay to get in or alternatively, is he allowed access to private land without permission, or, as the council have coughed up a few bucks for improvements, are council employees exempt from paying?

As HRC booked the track, are they obliged to let council officials in?

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 year

[RogerH]

Council. Which begs the question. Did he pay to get in or alternatively, is he allowed access to private land without permission, or, as the council have coughed up a few bucks for improvements, are council employees exempt from paying?

As HRC booked the track, are they obliged to let council officials in?

When we as a club hire Puke for events we have to pay an additional fee for the noise control monitoring guy.

[928]

Who does this "noise control guy" belong to. do you ask, for and get, a copy of his recordings. How much does he cost?

[Racer Rog]

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

[Racer Rog]

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

[RogerH]

Who does this "noise control guy" belong to. do you ask, for and get, a copy of his recordings. How much does he cost?

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.

[RogerH]

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, …….
Roger

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.

[Racer Rog]

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

[RogerH]

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.

[Racer Rog]

So really what MSNZ need to do is insert that clause, or has that horse bolted?

Roger

[Jac Mac]

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.

[Racer Rog]

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

[928]

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.

[Jac Mac]

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.

[crunch]

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.

What do you mean?

[928]

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

[crunch]

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.

[928]

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

[crunch]

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. :o

[928]

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.

[crunch]

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.


I know years ago at Manfield, if noise testing was done, the results were on the noticeboard at the circuit

[bry3500]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbjXanOFE7g

[Carlo]

A small group of residents damn near succeeded in closing Timaru over noise issues and it is not only about noise created by cars, it included the cheering of the crowd, the PA system, anything that can emit noise. One of the issues I remember well was that there were some race horses stabled nearby and when our announcer got a bit excited about what was happening on the circuit the horses picked up on that and started to behave as they would just prior to racing. Relocating our speakers so that they were directed away from them got rid of that issue but getting rid of the resource consent that we are locked into, well that is another matter all together.

Noise testing is done every time you are on the circuit at Levels, if you are over then you are personally advised. Fortunately today it appears that it is only when something has been damaged that the need to talk to people occurs. It is a very long time since anyone was black flagged for excess noise

[rogered]

Im constantly offended by the noise coming from the vocal minority, who grizzell about noise from the circuits.

[928]

a voice of sanity in this pc world

[Rod Grimwood]

So right Roger. 'Loud, vocal outspoken minority', just listen to dick wick Rob Norman he will solve all.

How the F&^% was the world or anything on it originally built without some noise.

Why people listen to these pathetic dicks amazes me.

[RacerT]

So right Roger. 'Loud, vocal outspoken minority', just listen to dick wick Rob Norman he will solve all.

How the F&^% was the world or anything on it originally built without some noise.

Why people listen to these pathetic dicks amazes me.

Rod!!!
You are being so harsh. Even the Greenies have a place - fertiliser!

[John McKechnie]

Tony- you are being too kind:if its Brown, then flush it.

[crunch]

Im constantly offended by the noise coming from the vocal minority, who grizzell about noise from the circuits.


...especially the ones who move in way after the race circuit was built! They buy the property for a lower value because of the track (circuit or speedway) and then want to close the track so they can sell the property for a higher value. Also happens around Gun clubs that use to be in the country big are now on the outskirts

[crunch]

I know years ago at Manfield, if noise testing was done, the results were on the noticeboard at the circuit

Sorry 928, I missed your question.
The President is making equiries via his position in local Govt and is reporting back to the April Exec meeting with those findings. As for the specific Exec enquiry regarding the placement of the noise meter at Pukekohe, I think that is happening next week and the result will be on the MSNZ website

[928]

thanks Crunch. I will keep an eye out

[RacerT]

Tony- you are being too kind:if its Brown, then flush it.

Are you alluding to Len Brown?

[Rod Grimwood]

Sadly RacerT he (Len Brown) would come back as Queen Ann Chocolate, he shore can duck the crap.

[RacerT]

Yes, greasy little lawyer!
95% of lawyers give the rest a bad name!

The best mayor we had in a while was Les Mills, no PC rubbish, honest and hard working.

[John McKechnie]

Are you alluding to Len Brown?

It was a poster on the door of gentleman racer whose office is just down the road from me in Ellerslie- ever seen it?

[RacerT]

Yes, A top bloke!

[Grant Ellwood]

And now we have not enough noise- the Oz F1 race was rightly criticized for the pathetic sound of the new V6 turbos. My better half comments I make more noise in the shower.

[AMCO72]

Australian GP organisers claim their contract may have been breached because the F1 cars were not loud enough.

Quieter cars detract from the 'sexiness' of the race, and Melbourne didn't get what it paid for.

They commented that they sounded like 'harpsichords in a chamber orchestra' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bill Brown]

Isn't noise an interesting subject.
I was President of the South Canterbury Car Club when we had to spend large sums of money fighting a 3 year battle to get a resource consent. The 2 main issues were noise and Usage.

Firstly the noise clause in the motorsport manual is seriously flawed and Crunch it is not how it was originally printed because the height and angle of the meter has been deleted at some stage.

Here are the flaws in the rule as I see them:

1. There is no height or angle for the meter origanly it was 1.5m high and angled at 15 Degrees.
2. It does not say whether the 95dba is L10 or Lmax one refers to 10 percent of the time and one is for spikes.
3. To have no consideration for weaher conditions allows readings to be taken in high wind conditions which wrong, even Timaru's
strict consent allows for maximum wind speeds, 5metres per sec from memory.
Motorsport has only succeeded in policing this rule by hiding behind the Judge of fact senario, because the rule as it is, is not right.
Some expert advice is needed to put a policable rule in place.

[GD66]

True Bill, but you need to put the expert in place yourselves, otherwise THEY will install one which is not what you want.
There are so many variables in sound measurement that you can really only get a mean average reading anyway, and the installed expert should take these variables into account when making his analyses.
I rather like the idea of the measurement of sound being taken at the perimeter fence, rather than trackside. The dragstrip here in Perth was built into a V in the ground, so that the sound travels upward, rather than cross-country.

[bry3500]

The quiet gutteral hiss of the F1's trackside was deeply disappointing - the Shannons historic demonstration was more exciting ( and twice as loud)

[Jac Mac]

True Bill, but you need to put the expert in place yourselves, otherwise THEY will install one which is not what you want.
There are so many variables in sound measurement that you can really only get a mean average reading anyway, and the installed expert should take these variables into account when making his analyses.
((((((((I rather like the idea of the measurement of sound being taken at the perimeter fence, rather than trackside. The dragstrip here in Perth was built into a V in the ground, so that the sound travels upward, rather than cross-country.))))

Stock car tracks enjoy a similar benefit ( albeit on a smaller scale ) from the spectator embankments and usual 'wall' around the track.

[Michael Clark]

I was at Melbourne with a fellow TRSer and a mutual friend who tried to have us believe that the new sound of F1 was more "responsible"

It wasn't great - but as a confirmed tragic, it didn't deter my enjoyment too much - and I will go back for more, possibly even in 12 months time.

[Rod Grimwood]

Not about noise but similar, Back on the PC brigade, rumour has it that the drift boys can not go to Pukekohe for final round because ONE, yes ONE neighbour complained about the 'Smoke' so that's that. Bit of a bonus in some ways as they will run at Mt Smart for last champ round and get a crowd closer to city.

But 'said' neighbour was apparently made pretty good offer, but still would not budge, (for one day the miserable piece of----) this is what is stuffing a lot of things up, ONE arse*^&% stuffs it for hundreds or thousands of others and they get away with it. Its time a stand was made and they were told to pull their head in as they are only ONE.

Also mutters about track to fast and now dangerous with no run off areas, (concrete walls) so could be a bonus to some car owners as less damage and that's got to be good. So maybe a favour done in some ways by the 'ONE'

[ERC]

Probably the same person who complained about the noise... The one who inherited his house?

[RacerT]

ban lawnmowers - Len Brown should issue one sheep to each household, then we could eat it for Christmas!
Sheep are very quiet and tasty!

[ERC]

Or in Remmers, goats, Pukekohe cows as they have more land, then we can swap BBQ invites - but you'd better not create any smoke!

[RacerT]

Mmmmm yes smoke and excrement - maybe a lawnmower is less pollution, especially if Loosehead Len issued hand mowers!

[nzeder]

hand mowers - next we will have to race flintstone style and the crowd better not cheer or there will be trouble.

[crunch]

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.

Hi 928, just a follow up.

As a result of the Pukekohe noise issues, the following has been done by the circuit in conjunction with a "noise consultant" ..(think my 2 year old could do that job!) and with the appropriate council representation. The point of measuring has been moved to the back straight about 50m from the hairpin, and the appropriate number of metres back. There are two alternate positions, but they look as though they are only a few metres apart on the diagram.
This fits within the current rersource etc. consents for the venue. There was a very lukewarm response to the suggestions of aligning with the NZ Standards suggestions by the parties concerned.
The above is NOT to be considered an OFFICIAL report from MSNZ, but as an information only personal response:rolleyes:

[928]

Hi Crunch,
thanks for reporting the results.
It still seems as if motorsport is getting the rough end of the stick. Who am I to complain, just another walk away ex race professional who is concerned about standards that are not being properly applied and no one seems to care.

[928]

just renewing this thread to get the tulloch camaro thread back on track

[928]

It would seem to me that democracy is dead in NZ when a few can stop the pleasure of many by lodging a noise complaint. Someone needs to remind len brown that a lot of rate payers pay good money to watch speedway at the spring and he and his cronies look after a few complaining people who must have bought their up on the hill homes knowing that people raced cars at the springs. prior use should be the starting point for any complaint.
the same applies to all race tracks in nz. noise should only be measured at the boundary and noted. some tracks in the uk have levels of 106 Db for test days I think Mallory has reopened with a 105Db limit and in nz we have a 95 Db stupidity. come on manz do some thing or get of the pot and let a person who is interested in motorsport try,remember, without motorsport you lot do not have jobs

[Jac Mac]

I wonder if this should be approached at government level rather than via local bodies and as you suggest with readings being taken at venue boundary as a 'blanket' rule for all fixed motorsport venues.

[928]

not just motorsport but all venues where the public has paid to attend rugby, concerts, just a couple that come to mind

[Bryan]

not just motorsport but all venues where the public has paid to attend rugby, concerts, just a couple that come to mind

Auckland Council noise rules for stadiums, including Western Springs and Eden Park http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Images/Printable%20PDFs%20-%20September/Part%203%20-%20Rules/Chapter%20K/Auckland%20wide/1.10%20sports%20and%20showgrounds.pdf

[928]

thanks for that. i will read and digest but at a quick glance things do not look good

[Kwaussie]

I don't want to be a smart arse but if you apply and are granted a planning permit for the noise level you want to make then there is stuff all people can complain about after the permit is granted.

[928]

I don't want to be a smart arse but if you apply and are granted a planning permit for the noise level you want to make then there is stuff all people can complain about after the permit is granted.

in NZ or AU? does make a difference

[ERC]

Agree, people will complain regardless.

What I can't understand is why it is OK for a club to have music blasting out at 120db - with the doors and windows open so that you can hear/feel the bass reverberating half a kilometre away until 2am or later. Happened to us in Taupo a couple of years ago.

Race track noise (except Western Springs or Speedway) is usually all over by about 6pm anyway and as most races are about 11 or 12 minutes with tiny grids, (at tier 1 level anyway!), I think any genuine disturbance from the race track, is grossly exaggerated.

There is a huge difference in being able to hear noise and it interfering with day to day living.

[Kwaussie]

in NZ or AU? does make a difference
Resource Consent in NZ

[Jac Mac]

I've just quickly scanned thru the noise limits in relation to Teretonga Park as administered by the Invercargill City Council, They have three categorys of Noise Limits 'A. B. C.' and those refer to the number of days per annum that those limits apply with those readings being for a minimum of 15 minutes and within 20 meters of any dwelling ( rural in the case of Teretonga ) and outside of the Teretonga property/boundary. Therefore the reading taken at the track to check actual car readings is that imposed by the Club and MSNZ, not the local council who's monitoring points are all outside the venue boundaries. I would venture suggest that the same situation might apply to most if not all tracks in NZ...... Hope I've got that right, if I can figure out how I will edit and add the link to the document.

[Bryan]

thanks for that. i will read and digest but at a quick glance things do not look good

Results of the noise monitoring for Western Springs are on the council website
Springs speedway noise monitoring (http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/LICENCESREGULATIONS/NOISECONTROL/Pages/springsspeedwaynoisemonitoring.aspx)

[Bryan]

What I can't understand is why it is OK for a club to have music blasting out at 120db - with the doors and windows open so that you can hear/feel the bass reverberating half a kilometre away until 2am or later. Happened to us in Taupo a couple of years ago.
That would likely have breached Taupo's noise rules (http://www.taupodc.govt.nz/our-services/a-to-z/Pages/noise-control.aspx), but it's up to the "subjective assessment" of the Noise Control officer.


Excessive noise is any noise that is under human control and of such a nature as to unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort and convenience of any person. Examples of excessive noise may include a loud party, stereo, band practices, audible alarm or machinery.

iirc Levels was the first circuit to get in trouble, because a local lawyer had a neighbouring lifestyle block and got schooled up on the RMA before the car club did. It's these same lifestylers who used to complain to Franklin council about the noise from working farms:rolleyes:

[Oldfart]

Resource Consent in NZ
Generally a resource consent is applied for and issued BEFORE any activity, however they are being applied retrospectively, and that is where the issue starts.

[Kwaussie]

Generally a resource consent is applied for and issued BEFORE any activity, however they are being applied retrospectively, and that is where the issue starts.
Very similar to what happened with the venue I was involved in but as land owners were able to build a very strong case for future operations.
The benefits that resulted far exceeded the noise level settings and hours of operation.
One example was the generous noise contour that was applied retrospectively to the surrounding land; the inner where no further building could take place and the outer where land owners could apply for a building permit but had to acknowledge that they were building in a high noise area and they would have to specify and install triple glazing, extra insulation as well as tree planting to soften the noise impact.

[ElCoyote]

Very similar to what happened with the venue I was involved in but as land owners were able to build a very strong case for future operations.
The benefits that resulted far exceeded the noise level settings and hours of operation.
One example was the generous noise contour that was applied to the surrounding land; the inner where no further building could take place and the outer where land owners could apply for a building permit but had to acknowledge that they were building in a high noise area and they would have to specify and install triple glazing, extra insulation as well as tree planting to soften the noise impact.

Thankfully you did not have to pander to Len Brown and his NIMBY sycophants nor shag a colleague at rate payers expense.

[Bryan]

Forest could muffle racetrack noise complaints (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/north-west/10499980/Forest-could-muffle-racetrack-noise-complaints) (nice photo of Pilette F5000:D)

Residents living near Ruapuna Raceway want the city council to plant a forest to reduce noise coming from the track.
...

[Jac Mac]

Very similar to what happened with the venue I was involved in but as land owners were able to build a very strong case for future operations.
The benefits that resulted far exceeded the noise level settings and hours of operation.
One example was the generous noise contour that was applied retrospectively to the surrounding land; the inner where no further building could take place and the outer where land owners could apply for a building permit but had to acknowledge that they were building in a high noise area and they would have to specify and install triple glazing, extra insulation as well as tree planting to soften the noise impact.

I hope the club members of Southland Sports Car Club are investigating this avenue, with the recent moves to freehold the camping ground and restaurant land to the north of the Teretonga Circuit it would be prudent to have similar measures in place along with an understanding by future property owners of the noise limits that apply. Local body members come & go and it seems like every new bunch of recruits needs to be educated to this stuff.