Opti said:As far as doing more things than one. People seem to think resources are unlimited for our govt (which is part of the problem) but they arent, so any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
This one isn't exactly hard to chase though, right?
Opti said:any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
Where would you reallocate the resources for more benefit?
Opti said:Mr_Asa said:Opti said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to alfadriver :
It always amuses me how some people can get uptight over what the government says you can and can't do with cars that you drive on government roads, but are okay with, say, the NHRA telling you what you can and can't do with your car when you enter a race.
They aren't government roads, they are public roads, paid for by citizens tax dollars. If I took a bunch of money from you and built a clubhouse its not MY clubhouse its yours.
By your logic, the government is also ours. So if we own both what does it matter whether we say its the govts or ours?
For the exact reason you illustrated, you said "by your logic," no sir, its not MY logic, its a founding principle of this country, and people, like you it would appear, seem to forget that and then we find ourselves in these predicaments.
Founding principles, unfortunately, seem to have fallen out of favor in this country lately.
However, it doesn't negate the question
Opti said:As far as doing more things than one. People seem to think resources are unlimited for our govt (which is part of the problem) but they arent, so any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
This has always been my challenge with the forced march to EVs as well. Its a huge amount of resources directed at a problem that might be better addressed at single points of pollution like factories. It feels a little like the whole issue around single use containers again where corporations successfully shifted blame to consumers because costing them a lot of money is fine vs costing the corporations money. Even with EV incentives there is a huge undercurrent of people wanting it to be yet another social subsidy rather than target the largest polluters and get the most CO2 reduction per $ spent.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
Does the government do what you tell them to do, or do you do what the government tells you to do?
The people said "We want clean air and water."
And the best way to get there is to needle the everyday driver? Or is that just the easiest way to say you did something, justifying your existence, and the astronomical federal budget that makes it possible?
When you have an excess of solution, it will go out of its way to find problems to justify itself.
What everyday drivers are being "needled"?
Please explain why it is necessary to illegally modify a vehicle.
Better question is why is it illegal to modify a car? A parallel to your question would be "why is it necessary to illegally go to the park?" Some people want to go to the park, why should I care?
Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
Does the government do what you tell them to do, or do you do what the government tells you to do?
The people said "We want clean air and water."
And the best way to get there is to needle the everyday driver? Or is that just the easiest way to say you did something, justifying your existence, and the astronomical federal budget that makes it possible?
When you have an excess of solution, it will go out of its way to find problems to justify itself.
What everyday drivers are being "needled"?
Please explain why it is necessary to illegally modify a vehicle.
Every driver who is denied their registration because they have a visually non-stock item, or because their aftermarket tune doesn't align with the certification software has been needled by this nonsense.
No one said anything is necessary. My issue is with the nanny agency making these mods illegal. See my notes above: there are massive pollution drivers that seem to get an unreasonably LOW amount of scrutiny, while people driving hopped up Civics are forced to undergo testing...THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR...every 2 years, to have the privilege of driving on roads they paid to pave.
theruleslawyer said:alfadriver said:Once again, I will repeat this....
motorsports mods were overlooked even though they have technically been illegal for a long time. Until the brodozers force their hands. Can we get over that?
No, because it is a legit complaint. And also you're wrong. Well not completely right. There are non-road motorsports cars that were not emissions controlled. Its possible to currently import these cars today, legally. Previously it was possible to change a street vehicle into a non-road competition vehicle. In 2016 the EPA changed their interpretation. This happens all the time with administrative law and changes do not mean it was 'illegal' prior to 2016, just ignored.
Now for road cars that were tuned, yah those have been illegal and just ignored. Companies that were selling 'for offroad use only' equipment with a wink and nod were pretty much ignored. Now they are being asked to prove legit off road use. Still there are legit uses now and previously that aren't really being addressed.
Technically, there NEVER has been a legal way to make a road car into a race car. Ever. Read the rules. The law does not give wiggle room to pick and choose who to go after and who to not- if they are breaking the law, they are breaking the law.
And that is the core problem for this board.
We actually had the benefit of the doubt from the EPA and CARB to be good citizens, even though many cars had "motorsports only" modifications on them. Once the brodozers got out there and rolled coal, and average citizens started to complain- the EPA was forced to go after the companies who were selling the diesel "motorsports only" modifications that never saw the track or farm field. And that meant that they had no choice but to go after all of the previously overlooked gas "motorsports only" modifications.
This whole thing was in the books in the original CAA back in the '70s.
Mind you, real EPA employees were using this overlook to modify their own cars and play with them- so they ended up hurting themselves, too- thanks to the brodozers forcing the enforcement.
WE, as the enthusiast entity, were given the responsibility to be good citizens, and were not. That is why the rules started getting enforced in 2016.
theruleslawyer said:Even with EV incentives there is a huge undercurrent of people wanting it to be yet another social subsidy rather than target the largest polluters and get the most CO2 reduction per $ spent.
As it relates to this thread, the EPA's stance has always targeted SMOG reduction over GHG reduction. That's why it's called the Clean Air Act. CO2 is a growing area of concern, but they've always prioritized local air quality (NOx, Particulates) over global environmental issues (CO2).
The EU took the opposite approach and ended up with dense cities full of diesel cars that had terrible air quality. They had lower CO2 production than the US, but their people couldn't breathe. As a result, they restricted access to the densest parts of major cities, and then changed course to promote EVs almost exclusively. EVs still have a carbon footprint, but the lack of tailpipe emissions means no SMOG forming pollutants.
4cylndrfury said:Every driver who is denied their registration because they have a visually non-stock item, or because their aftermarket tune doesn't align with the certification software has been needled by this nonsense.
No one said anything is necessary. My issue is with the nanny agency making these mods illegal. See my notes above: there are massive pollution drivers that seem to get an unreasonably LOW amount of scrutiny, while people driving hopped up Civics are forced to undergo testing...THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR...every 2 years, to have the privilege to drive on roads they paid to pave.
How many times do we have to repeat- the modifications to the car were NEVER legal. Ever. From the CAA on, anti-tampering laws have always been part of them. That's why previously adjustable carb screws got covered in wax in the '70s.
You call it nonsense, but the reality is that it's been the law for over 50 years now. Someday, it could be useful to come to terms with it. And the states who have emissions problems use it to keep the rule working.
And I will add (again) that every mod has a path to become legal. All of them. The company that sells the reflash could easily put the car on a test to demonstrate that the reflash is legal. What is not legal is to change any emissions device and not prove that it still passes the requirements for the aftermarket.
Opti said:
Better question is why is it illegal to modify a car? A parallel to your question would be "why is it necessary to illegally go to the park?" Some people want to go to the park, why should I care?
Because it modifies the certified emissions for a given vehicle. Is it really that hard to understand? I just posted this, but tampering has been illegal since the CAA hit the books.
You can legally modify the car if the maker of the modification proves that it doesn't change the emissions, but it's up to the maker and seller of the part to prove that.
SC FTW.
STM317 said:theruleslawyer said:Even with EV incentives there is a huge undercurrent of people wanting it to be yet another social subsidy rather than target the largest polluters and get the most CO2 reduction per $ spent.As it relates to this thread, the EPA's stance has always targeted SMOG reduction over GHG reduction. That's why it's called the Clean Air Act. CO2 is a growing area of concern, but they've always prioritized local air quality (NOx, Particulates) over global environmental issues (CO2).
The EU took the opposite approach and ended up with dense cities full of diesel cars that had terrible air quality. They had lower CO2 production than the US, but their people couldn't breathe. As a result, they restricted access to the densest parts of major cities, and then changed course to promote EVs almost exclusively. EVs still have a carbon footprint, but the lack of tailpipe emissions means no SMOG forming pollutants.
FWIW, CO2 is in the domain of NHTSA, and up until recently, the EPA just measured it for them. But a recent lawsuit over global warming forced the EPA into the GHG arena.
Also, EV's do have a SMOG impact as they do CO2 impact. The HC/NOx/CO from power plants is exactly how PZEV's were birthed in 2002. The impact has changed a lot over the last 25 years as more and more non combustion forms of energy generation came on board. And the EPA is very aware of the regional differences of that over the country. I've seen their data about it- which covers the effectivenss of BEVs. And very much why the EV mandate includes all versions of hybrid vehicles on top of BEVs.
alfadriver said:4cylndrfury said:Every driver who is denied their registration because they have a visually non-stock item, or because their aftermarket tune doesn't align with the certification software has been needled by this nonsense.
No one said anything is necessary. My issue is with the nanny agency making these mods illegal. See my notes above: there are massive pollution drivers that seem to get an unreasonably LOW amount of scrutiny, while people driving hopped up Civics are forced to undergo testing...THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR...every 2 years, to have the privilege to drive on roads they paid to pave.
How many times do we have to repeat- the modifications to the car were NEVER legal. Ever. From the CAA on, anti-tampering laws have always been part of them. That's why previously adjustable carb screws got covered in wax in the '70s.
You call it nonsense, but the reality is that it's been the law for over 50 years now. Someday, it could be useful to come to terms with it. And the states who have emissions problems use it to keep the rule working.
And I will add (again) that every mod has a path to become legal. All of them. The company that sells the reflash could easily put the car on a test to demonstrate that the reflash is legal. What is not legal is to change any emissions device and not prove that it still passes the requirements for the aftermarket.
How many times do I have to say it, it's stupid for these mods to be illegal because reflashed ECUs and missing cats are not a significant contributor of overall pollution compared to industrial scale contributors and other nations that we can't control anyway.
Maybe it's time you come to terms with it.
TravisTheHuman said:Opti said:As far as doing more things than one. People seem to think resources are unlimited for our govt (which is part of the problem) but they arent, so any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
This one isn't exactly hard to chase though, right?
Yes it is. Directed action against one company, who will inevitably fight back, casts a much smaller net with a small impact compared to something like industry-wide regulation. (which I understand is currently being debated wether its legal or not given the SCs recent decision)
TravisTheHuman said:Opti said:As far as doing more things than one. People seem to think resources are unlimited for our govt (which is part of the problem) but they arent, so any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
This one isn't exactly hard to chase though, right?
Yes it is. Directed action against one company, who will inevitably fight back, casts a much smaller net with a small impact compared to something like industry-wide regulation. (which I understand is currently being debated wether its legal or not given the SCs recent decision)
I'll point out again the absurdity of removing emissions equipment on a street car. I've dynoed my car, back to back, with and without a cat and the difference was within the error of the dyno. IE, NO measurable change in performance. The car doesn't run better, work better, nothing. The exhaust sound can change, but you can do that other ways without breaking the law.
So why do you want to take this stuff off? As I pointed out earlier, even if it does give a small performance gain, you're not going to feel it and who cares if you get to the store 0.01 seconds sooner?
Cobb and other tuners have gone through the effort to get their devices and tunes EO certified so they're 50 state legal. That's one of the main reasons I've got the Cobb on my 911 now. If Colorado starts to check for tunes via CVN or check sums, my car is still legal.
I don't see how enforcing laws that've been around for 50 years impacts our hobby or our lives. As alfadriver has pointed out, there are ways for companies to get their products tested and then made legal, they just have to do it.
STM317 said:Opti said:any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
Where would you reallocate the resources for more benefit?
Personally. If the EPA cant find an efficient use for its funds Id prefer the money go back to the tax payers.
If the government wants to keep the money, how bout we actually spend the money on something that could have a large impact, like fixing the water in Pensacola or any of the other major water or industrial contamination issues we have.
In reply to Opti :
You do realize that the EPA has an enforcement group, right? Which is different than the testing group, and is different than the modeling group, and is different than that law writing group.... Let alone they have groups for different industies, different source types, water vs air, etc.
They have multiple departments and are capable of doing multiple things, just like any company. Finding companies like Cobb isn't that hard.
Opti said:STM317 said:Opti said:any resources they spend chasing one company is resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and I, like many, would prefer the resources spent in places that might actually make a material difference.
Where would you reallocate the resources for more benefit?
Personally. If the EPA cant find an efficient use for its funds Id prefer the money go back to the tax payers.
If the government wants to keep the money, how bout we actually spend the money on something that could have a large impact, like fixing the water in Pensacola or any of the other major water or industrial contamination issues we have.
Your opinion that they should not enforce laws is countered by groups suing the EPA to force them to enforce the laws. If you think they should not enforce laws, sue them with data showing that it's pointless to do it.
4cylndrfury said:alfadriver said:4cylndrfury said:Every driver who is denied their registration because they have a visually non-stock item, or because their aftermarket tune doesn't align with the certification software has been needled by this nonsense.
No one said anything is necessary. My issue is with the nanny agency making these mods illegal. See my notes above: there are massive pollution drivers that seem to get an unreasonably LOW amount of scrutiny, while people driving hopped up Civics are forced to undergo testing...THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR...every 2 years, to have the privilege to drive on roads they paid to pave.
How many times do we have to repeat- the modifications to the car were NEVER legal. Ever. From the CAA on, anti-tampering laws have always been part of them. That's why previously adjustable carb screws got covered in wax in the '70s.
You call it nonsense, but the reality is that it's been the law for over 50 years now. Someday, it could be useful to come to terms with it. And the states who have emissions problems use it to keep the rule working.
And I will add (again) that every mod has a path to become legal. All of them. The company that sells the reflash could easily put the car on a test to demonstrate that the reflash is legal. What is not legal is to change any emissions device and not prove that it still passes the requirements for the aftermarket.
How many times do I have to say it, it's stupid for these mods to be illegal because reflashed &CUs and missing cats are not a significant contributor of overall pollution compared to industrial scale contributors and other nations that we can't control anyway.
Maybe it's time you come to terms with it.
So, not all pollutants are equal. They generally break down into two groups:
1) Smog forming pollutants like NOx, VOC and particulates. These come primarily in the form of tailpipe emissions. They stay low to the ground on the local or regional level. They're carcinogens, and impact breathing issues directly. So these impact humans more than they impact the planet at large.
2) GHGs like CO2 rise into the atmosphere and cause issues on a more widespread scale. These have less impact on humans, and more impact on the environment/o zone layer, etc.
The EPA, and anybody who tests at the state level, has always prioritized reducing Smog forming particulates over GHGs. They don't particularly care about what happens in China because it doesn't directly impact the Americans that they work for. That's why illegally modifying emissions controls is an issue that they choose to enforce by going after the sellers of these products.
I can sympathize with somebody who's facing a large bill for an OEM catalytic converter after theirs was stolen. They're a victim of a criminal act. I have less sympathy for somebody that intentionally alters or removes emissions hardware. They're victimizing others, even if it's to a small degree. And I say that as somebody that owns a modified vehicle.
4cylndrfury said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
Does the government do what you tell them to do, or do you do what the government tells you to do?
The people said "We want clean air and water."
And the best way to get there is to needle the everyday driver? Or is that just the easiest way to say you did something, justifying your existence, and the astronomical federal budget that makes it possible?
When you have an excess of solution, it will go out of its way to find problems to justify itself.
What everyday drivers are being "needled"?
Please explain why it is necessary to illegally modify a vehicle.
Every driver who is denied their registration because they have a visually non-stock item, or because their aftermarket tune doesn't align with the certification software has been needled by this nonsense.
No one said anything is necessary. My issue is with the nanny agency making these mods illegal. See my notes above: there are massive pollution drivers that seem to get an unreasonably LOW amount of scrutiny, while people driving hopped up Civics are forced to undergo testing...THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR...every 2 years, to have the privilege of driving on roads they paid to pave.
Just because you don't see the EPA going after other things does not mean it isn't happening. Maybe you don't see it happening because the people in charge of those industries don't entitledly whine about it on social media.
And you answered your own question re: modifications. You don't need to mod a car to get to work.
The emissions failure that I corrected yesterday on a 23 year old truck was the equivalent of leaving an open gas can out.
Bear in mind that emissions standards are so tight that a vehicle's entire lifetime HC emissions is about the equivalent of spilling a little gas when you fill your lawnmower. We have come a long way emissions wise and the corollary to that is that emissions related defects have a much larger effect relative to a properly functioning vehicle.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:4cylndrfury said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
Does the government do what you tell them to do, or do you do what the government tells you to do?
The people said "We want clean air and water."
And the best way to get there is to needle the everyday driver? Or is that just the easiest way to say you did something, justifying your existence, and the astronomical federal budget that makes it possible?
When you have an excess of solution, it will go out of its way to find problems to justify itself.
What everyday drivers are being "needled"?
Please explain why it is necessary to illegally modify a vehicle.
It would be just as easy to argue why is it necessary to have a vehicle that can travel faster than the speed limit?
In reply to z31maniac :
Except it wouldn't. If you have an emissions defeated vehicle, it is polluting more all the time no matter how you are driving it.
In some cases, it may be polluting more just sitting in your garage. A car with deleted evaporative emissions systems will pollute more shut off than any properly functioning car made in the last 25 years does when hurtling down the highway...
4cylndrfury said:How many times do I have to say it, it's stupid for these mods to be illegal because reflashed ECUs and missing cats are not a significant contributor of overall pollution compared to industrial scale contributors and other nations that we can't control anyway.
Maybe it's time you come to terms with it.
the difference is that your is an opinion, the other is the law. And the law is based on data, not opinions. It's not my point to come to terms with the law and how it works- I did that a few decades ago.
If you *really* think that you are right, assemble all of the data, go to the appropriate federal judge, and demand that the laws be removed. Given the number of what would be considered small companies have surely used that route and never gotten anywhere, I have little faith that you will manage to delete the anti-tampering law.
People forget that things like NOx kill people. It's proven time and time again.
example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661030/
You'll need to log in to post.
