In reply to 93gsxturbo :
Not selective enforcement. Military vehicles are exempt from the clean air act. They cannot enforce a law on something that is exempt from said law.
https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/vehicle/emissions/index.cfm?&printable=1#:~:text=Under%20CAA%20Section%20118(c,CAA%20are%20Military%20Tactical%20Vehicles.
Opti said:alfadriver said: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.
Again this is a cop out terrible answer. They have a finite budget, so every dollar that's allocated somewhere cant go anywhere else. So when they waste time going after small fish that will make no material difference in actual pollution, its prevents them from allocating those resources to something that might actually be helpful. Im not saying they can only perform one task, only that this is a waste of money and they should allocate the resources to something that might actually have a MATERIAL affect on pollution or emissions. As admitted earlier in this thread, this was all started because people got upset about coal rollers. So do we think its wise to waste vast resources because someone got coal rolled, because that's what started this ball rolling? Its vindictive not productive or efficient.
Hardly a cop out. Since there's a branch for everything, everything gets funding.
And yes, that's exactly how it worked. Can't pick and choose who you enforce the law on, so everyone gets the law applied. Otherwise, the brodozers would have gotten off, and that would have meant another law suit to deal with for the EPA by mad citizens.
If you want to worry about waste, the EPA isn't the place that I would be so concerned. Defense gets +$840B vs. the EPA's $12B. There's a much bigger budget to hide corruption in $840B than there is $12B. Especially with such a public target on your back.
theruleslawyer said:alfadriver said: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.
Yah, hard disagree there. If its not prohibited, its allowed. It was undefined, therefore allowed and the EPA chose to define it in 2016. Even if you think it ambiguous- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity
Look up the law from the original CAA. In there, it clearly states that tampering is not allowed. Tampering is required to transform a legal street car into a race car. It's always been prohibited.
The question was enforcement. And that's where enthusiasts were given some leeway. Until they weren't. And the reason they had to enforce were the brodozers that people were complaining about.
We've talked about this before. Even in this thread. People in the aftermarket have confirmed this is exactly what happened.
Since we have started to get back into the endless loop, there's more than enough explanation in the thread that I don't need add anymore. I've aready gotten repetative even in this thread.
Mr_Asa said:4cylndrfury said:In reply to alfadriver :
The EPA may not be allowed to accept donations, but the administration they report to certainly can... especially when they're running for reelection. I wonder how often those kinds of relationships impact the actions taken (or not taken) by a federal agency? We all see how the personnel who make up any given administration suddenly find private sector jobs in the industries they once oversaw once that tenure is up...and vice versa.
Why is it so hard for you to accept how things work...and how wrong it can be?
Man. This take is... something.
In today's political climate, if this was going on and it was any sort of open secret then we would be hearing about it constantly. It would be on half of the news networks on repeat
Its not a thing. It isn't happening.
You'd hear about it if you paid attention. Lots of corruption allegations about the EPA including whistleblowers saying they are intentional misrepresenting the danger of certain chemicals.
Opti said:Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 4cylndrfury :
How do you propose we address the public health threat that is nox and particulate matter?
Well tires and brake dust are a large contributor to particulate pollution from cars, I say we ban those. Or at least make it illegal to change them from OE, because performance tires and brake pads create the equivalent of 10x more normal tires and cars on the road.
The one tenth of 1 percent of cars on the road that have them are a major source of emissions and we should allocate large sums of tax payer dollars to go after the companies that sell performance brake pads and tires.
Do you see how stupid this sounds?
Actually. (Ackchually.jpg)
The fisheries in the PNW were having issues. I forget the exact details. But the point is, there was a chemical compound (copper based?) that they were finding in the fish and the water that they traced to brake pad friction materials.
Those materials were removed from brake linings, to protect fisheries.
Here, I found a reference that was the first search hit
One side effect having to remove lead compounds from fuel to protect catalytic converters was a decrease in violent crime. The lead compounds in the air were affecting peoples' rationality and reason.
There are dozens, hundreds of examples.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 93gsxturbo :
Not selective enforcement. Military vehicles are exempt from the clean air act. They cannot enforce a law on something that is exempt from said law.
https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/vehicle/emissions/index.cfm?&printable=1#:~:text=Under%20CAA%20Section%20118(c,CAA%20are%20Military%20Tactical%20Vehicles.
Of course they are exempt that's what's being commented on.
I'm trying to rationalize why they are exempt. Probably because the government says that E36 M3 is expensive and unreliable (same thing people that remove it are saying) and that a very small group of vehicles that don't meet emissions standards dont have a material effect on actual emissions (that sounds oddly familiar to what's being said in here)
Military vehicles are also expected to be able to run on damn near anything flammable, which is basically what US military fuels are, which is why they even had Diesel powered Kawasaki dirt bikes. (And I have some interesting videos of spark ignition, jet-fueled Wankel engines, developed to sell to the miltary for small unmanned aircraft, almost 20 years ago)
The US military knows deep down that logistics is the key to pretty much everything and having all vehicles able to run on barely refined crap is a logistical benefit.
They also deliberately made the seats uncomfortable in certain vehicles to prevent people from driving off road too fast. Is anyone complaining that their Silverados are too comfy compared to military trucks? 
That said there is a push for "sustainable" jet fuels, which I have been watching off and on, mostly off. It's interesting all the same.
I can't believe I read through this entire thread.
Let's look through all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth for a moment. The main consequence of requiring aftermarket modifications in the form of parts/tunes/whatever to be EPA compliant is going to be higher prices and the extinction of smaller companies who may not be able to afford to continue operations in a legal fashion.
Flyin' Miata, Cobb and others are already producing emissions compliant go-fast parts. You *can* modify your car to go faster. Nobody has made that illegal, it's just not as easy nor as cheap to throw some B.S. parts and put a third-rate tune on your car. The good news is that the odds or suffering a catastrophic failure to the the bad parts or bad tune is also reduced.
Hell, let's take all of the energy we're expending having a SeRiOuS InTErneT arGUmEnT about it and instead go drive a bit. That usually clears my mind, anyhow.
Opti said:Mr_Asa said:4cylndrfury said:In reply to alfadriver :
The EPA may not be allowed to accept donations, but the administration they report to certainly can... especially when they're running for reelection. I wonder how often those kinds of relationships impact the actions taken (or not taken) by a federal agency? We all see how the personnel who make up any given administration suddenly find private sector jobs in the industries they once oversaw once that tenure is up...and vice versa.
Why is it so hard for you to accept how things work...and how wrong it can be?
Man. This take is... something.
In today's political climate, if this was going on and it was any sort of open secret then we would be hearing about it constantly. It would be on half of the news networks on repeat
Its not a thing. It isn't happening.
You'd hear about it if you paid attention. Lots of corruption allegations about the EPA including whistleblowers saying they are intentional misrepresenting the danger of certain chemicals.
Uh huh. Sure.
In reply to Opti :
No. He said selective enforcement. There is no selective enforcement in this case.
if you or he is butt hurt about it. Then that's different.
alfadriver said:Opti said:alfadriver said: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.
Again this is a cop out terrible answer. They have a finite budget, so every dollar that's allocated somewhere cant go anywhere else. So when they waste time going after small fish that will make no material difference in actual pollution, its prevents them from allocating those resources to something that might actually be helpful. Im not saying they can only perform one task, only that this is a waste of money and they should allocate the resources to something that might actually have a MATERIAL affect on pollution or emissions. As admitted earlier in this thread, this was all started because people got upset about coal rollers. So do we think its wise to waste vast resources because someone got coal rolled, because that's what started this ball rolling? Its vindictive not productive or efficient.
Hardly a cop out. Since there's a branch for everything, everything gets funding.
And yes, that's exactly how it worked. Can't pick and choose who you enforce the law on, so everyone gets the law applied. Otherwise, the brodozers would have gotten off, and that would have meant another law suit to deal with for the EPA by mad citizens.
If you want to worry about waste, the EPA isn't the place that I would be so concerned. Defense gets +$840B vs. the EPA's $12B. There's a much bigger budget to hide corruption in $840B than there is $12B. Especially with such a public target on your back.
Of course they get funded that's not in question. They all get funded from the same FINITE EPA budget. If your positions is they never allocate resources to issues that don't solve anything and that never affects their ability to do things that actually matter, then your position is the EPA is funded absolutely perfectly to the dollar every year and they do EVERYTHING they are supposed to as fast and efficiently as possible from the smallest to the biggest and there is zero waste. That is a ridiculous thing to allege about any government agency. Its okay to admit the EPA does dumb stuff and that means that they don't always allocate resources properly. Its hard for me understand how the answer to the EPA is wasting at least some of our dollars on things that don't make a difference is "there is a branch for everything, everything gets funded."
Also the law doesn't always get applied, there is discretion used and allowed at pretty much every step of our enforcement and judicial system. It equally ridiculous to assume or allege that the law always gets applied for everything. We have tons of laws that aren't enforced or are selectively enforced.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
You got it. Military vehicles run on many types of fuel and the emissions stuff would clog up if run on the really garbage stuff.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
You got it. Military vehicles run on many types of fuel and the emissions stuff would clog up if run on the really garbage stuff.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:Opti said:Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 4cylndrfury :
How do you propose we address the public health threat that is nox and particulate matter?
Well tires and brake dust are a large contributor to particulate pollution from cars, I say we ban those. Or at least make it illegal to change them from OE, because performance tires and brake pads create the equivalent of 10x more normal tires and cars on the road.
The one tenth of 1 percent of cars on the road that have them are a major source of emissions and we should allocate large sums of tax payer dollars to go after the companies that sell performance brake pads and tires.
Do you see how stupid this sounds?
Actually. (Ackchually.jpg)
The fisheries in the PNW were having issues. I forget the exact details. But the point is, there was a chemical compound (copper based?) that they were finding in the fish and the water that they traced to brake pad friction materials.
Those materials were removed from brake linings, to protect fisheries.
Here, I found a reference that was the first search hit
One side effect having to remove lead compounds from fuel to protect catalytic converters was a decrease in violent crime. The lead compounds in the air were affecting peoples' rationality and reason.
There are dozens, hundreds of examples.
Great. The brake pads and tires we have still produce lots of particulate emissions and when people like us put more aggressive ones on it increase particulate emissions, so you didnt really respond. We should make it illegal because it follows the same logic the EPA is using, and is being defended in this thread, even though it's a tiny percentagr of the vehicles on the road
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I can supply sources if you'd like, but "uh huh. Sure" doesn't sound like you are willing to have an intellectually honest discussion
In reply to Opti :
In the situation I pointed out, they found a problem first (fish were dying) then traced that problem to a source, then worked to mitigate that source.
They didn't hold a board meeting over cigars and brandy and come up with someone new to lord over. It was a well reasoned and researched reaction to an issue that cropped up.
One interesting thing is that when a vehicles emissions are measured, EVERYTHING that the vehicle emits is measured. So, really, in addition to paint and interior fumes (notice new-car smell had changed over the years?) the tires evaporating and wearing while on the rollers actually is something that is being taken into account currently.
Chrysler switched to R1234yf very early on (2016 or thereabouts) because it gave them an emissions credit so they could make slightly dirtier cars and trucks, too.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Opti :
No. He said selective enforcement. There is no selective enforcement in this case.
if you or he is butt hurt about it. Then that's different.
You are right, if you looked to the term "selective enforcement" for the legal definition and not the colloquial one. It doesn't meet the legal definition when the people writing the laws decide they are exempt from it, but my point still stands. Their reasoning to be exempt is the same reasoning used by people deleting these components and the same reasoning used for people stating this enforcement is dumb
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Opti :
In the situation I pointed out, they found a problem first, then traced that problem to a source, then worked to mitigate that source.
They didn't hold a board meeting over cigars and brandy and come up with someone new to lord over. It was a well reasoned and researched reaction to an issue that cropped up.
One interesting thing is that when a vehicles emissions are measured, EVERYTHING that the vehicle emits is measured. So, really, in addition to paint and interior fumes (notice new-car smell had changed over the years?) the tires evaporating and wearing while on the rollers actually is something that is being taken into account currently.
Chrysler switched to R1234yf very early on (2016 or thereabouts) because it gave them an emissions credit so they could make slightly dirtier cars and trucks, too.
I'm aware it all gets measured and brakes and tires are a large part (studies have said over half) and when we modify them it gets worse, but for some reason the EPA decided that's okay, even though as someone mentioned particulate emissions is a real problem.
Just a thought. Who remembers 1980s interior plastic that cracked horribly? Hell I have one of the poster childs for interior cracking, most pre-1984 RX-7s had dashboards that split apart while the car was still being paid off.
Notice how that doesn't happen anymore? The interior materials used don't evaporate and shrink like they used to, partly because that is a form of emissions that the test sniffers can measure.
Opti said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Opti :
In the situation I pointed out, they found a problem first, then traced that problem to a source, then worked to mitigate that source.
They didn't hold a board meeting over cigars and brandy and come up with someone new to lord over. It was a well reasoned and researched reaction to an issue that cropped up.
One interesting thing is that when a vehicles emissions are measured, EVERYTHING that the vehicle emits is measured. So, really, in addition to paint and interior fumes (notice new-car smell had changed over the years?) the tires evaporating and wearing while on the rollers actually is something that is being taken into account currently.
Chrysler switched to R1234yf very early on (2016 or thereabouts) because it gave them an emissions credit so they could make slightly dirtier cars and trucks, too.
I'm aware it all gets measured and brakes and tires are a large part (studies have said over half) and when we modify them it gets worse, but for some reason the EPA decided that's okay, even though as someone mentioned particulate emissions is a real problem.
The EPA didn't say it's okay. If anything, rubber compounds and brake materials ARE changing in part for emissions reasons.
It's obviously not an easy question, to be sure. I am not a tire engineer, but what of the balance between, say, tire life and fuel economy? Is there a tradeoff?
I will allow an interesting statistic, that the first half or so of tread depth loss is due to evaporation, not mechanical wear. I am not sure how this plays out re: fuel economy and I am sure it is a rather nuanced subject matter.
Certainly the Continental ECS wears like iron, and my average fuel economy goes up by 20% when I switch them back on from my winter tires
I definitely found the outrage of the week this time.
Opti said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
I can supply sources if you'd like, but "uh huh. Sure" doesn't sound like you are willing to have an intellectually honest discussion
Ive been willing to do so this entire thread.
It got old. I no longer care.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:Just a thought. Who remembers 1980s interior plastic that cracked horribly? Hell I have one of the poster childs for interior cracking, most pre-1984 RX-7s had dashboards that split apart while the car was still being paid off.
Notice how that doesn't happen anymore? The interior materials used don't evaporate and shrink like they used to, partly because that is a form of emissions that the test sniffers can measure.
Except it still happens
Pete. (l33t FS) said:Opti said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Opti :
In the situation I pointed out, they found a problem first, then traced that problem to a source, then worked to mitigate that source.
They didn't hold a board meeting over cigars and brandy and come up with someone new to lord over. It was a well reasoned and researched reaction to an issue that cropped up.
One interesting thing is that when a vehicles emissions are measured, EVERYTHING that the vehicle emits is measured. So, really, in addition to paint and interior fumes (notice new-car smell had changed over the years?) the tires evaporating and wearing while on the rollers actually is something that is being taken into account currently.
Chrysler switched to R1234yf very early on (2016 or thereabouts) because it gave them an emissions credit so they could make slightly dirtier cars and trucks, too.
I'm aware it all gets measured and brakes and tires are a large part (studies have said over half) and when we modify them it gets worse, but for some reason the EPA decided that's okay, even though as someone mentioned particulate emissions is a real problem.
The EPA didn't say it's okay. If anything, rubber compounds and brake materials ARE changing in part for emissions reasons.
It's obviously not an easy question, to be sure. I am not a tire engineer, but what of the balance between, say, tire life and fuel economy? Is there a tradeoff?
I will allow an interesting statistic, that the first half or so of tread depth loss is due to evaporation, not mechanical wear. I am not sure how this plays out re: fuel economy and I am sure it is a rather nuanced subject matter.
Certainly the Continental ECS wears like iron, and my average fuel economy goes up by 20% when I switch them back on from my winter tires
Yes but somehow it's legal for me to take a car that has LRR tires and put dot legal track tires on it and massively negatively impact my emissions, particulate and otherwise. Yet its considered acceptable because it's a small chunk of the actual pie. Same as deleted diesels except some Prius on Sport Cups hasn't coal rolled a senator and got this admittedly vindictive crusade going.
Imagine hating America so much that you want to pollute it unnecessarily
You'll need to log in to post.
