Ok so it sounds like this is really as bad as it seemed. Total ban on modified emissions for all vehicles/engines that ever carried certification.
I want to understand the intent. is the intent to prevent the off highway use of emissions except vehicles (it seems no given the allowance for competition vehicle to be produced without emissions). Or is the intent to cause all Vehicles capable of being street used to still be emissions complient?
Keith Tanner wrote: The fact that Alfaracer keeps referring to our sport/industry/lifestyle/livelihood as "entertainment" certainly illustrates the varying viewpoints here.
What is racing if it's not entertainment?
Racing lifestyle is the same as a golf lifestyle. Or football. Or music.
The heart of it is that people do it for fun.
All sport is entertainment.
I'm sure that's how many others see racing, too.
I suppose anything you don't need to do in order to survive could be classified as "entertainment", but quite a few people take it more seriously than that implies. Like I said, it illustrates a viewpoint and one that we all need to remember.
alfadriver wrote: And the EPA is accountable to the tax payer.
This is absurd on its face. They are accountable to the Executive branch, and given regulatory power at creation. How it can be that the executive branch can essentially propose and implement laws without a vote seems quite the conundrum under our constitutional system. Oh, we call them regulations pursuant to the act, which has already been voted on, but the effect is the very same.
The regulations are supposed to serve the act that created agency, but with just this amendment being 629 pages, and for what must be literally thousands upon thousands of regulations, it would be more than a full time job to attend all the meetings and open hearings that alfadriver suggests we all participate in.
Oh, well, the executive branch is subject to the taxpayer voting them in or out. But they still have the same practical problem that we the citizens do - an incredible number of regulations that would take far more than four or eight years to master.
By the time a regulation becomes a problem which requires a fix in the opinion of some, but not others, a horrendous amount of money will be spent on lawyers to curb an out of control agency. See the stories on the Clean Air Act regulation that just had a stay applied, involving some ridiculous number of states and other private plaintiffs.
If there were any accountability in the EPA at all, it'd have never gotten to the point where the Surpreme Court decided the stay.
As someone prior pointed out:
there are people out there that don't think that people should be allowed to work on their own stuff, and that modifying something in any way that deviates from the way it left the factory is something that should never, ever be done.
and some of those people work for the government. they are bureaucrats that live and work in their own little world, surrounded by like minded people, that have little knowledge of the ways that the stuff they dream up affects anyone else or how much it would cost to implement and enforce.
What problem are they trying to solve? How much of a factor are these things that are the "problem"? In a country of 300 million people, and 250 million cars, how much of a problem do these loopholes represent? .00001% of all emission?
At what point are they doing "good work for the sake of good work" with no practical impact, and whose rights are they trampling on in order to do it?
The same argument has been had over and over about the safety standards required in new cars - if there were a profitable market to produce a lightweight car with roll up windows, no ac, no 5mph bumpers, no air bags, and no anti lock brakes it would be illegal to produce.
Do I have the right to buy such a car? Do I have the right to produce such a car?
Ironically, that car describes what a lot of people on this board would drive (once some other sucker bought it and took the hit on depreciation so we could buy it for pennies on the dollar - yet another common argument on this board!).
As someone on the other thread termed it, I'd like to contribute to SEMAs "marketing effort".
alfadriver wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: The fact that Alfaracer keeps referring to our sport/industry/lifestyle/livelihood as "entertainment" certainly illustrates the varying viewpoints here.What is racing if it's not entertainment? Racing lifestyle is the same as a golf lifestyle. Or football. Or music. The heart of it is that people do it for fun. All sport is entertainment. I'm sure that's how many others see racing, too.
Except that to the people who get paid for it, it's a job and a career. They can't pay their bills and feed their family on "fun".
OldGray320i wrote:alfadriver wrote:Except that to the people who get paid for it, it's a job and a career. They can't pay their bills and feed their family on "fun".Keith Tanner wrote: The fact that Alfaracer keeps referring to our sport/industry/lifestyle/livelihood as "entertainment" certainly illustrates the varying viewpoints here.What is racing if it's not entertainment? Racing lifestyle is the same as a golf lifestyle. Or football. Or music. The heart of it is that people do it for fun. All sport is entertainment. I'm sure that's how many others see racing, too.
And the industries built around that entertainment. People who build race cars, engines, engine components, engine management systems, the magazines that cover that entertainment, and the forums for said magazines all employ people for "entertainment."
OldGray320i wrote:alfadriver wrote:Except that to the people who get paid for it, it's a job and a career. They can't pay their bills and feed their family on "fun".Keith Tanner wrote: The fact that Alfaracer keeps referring to our sport/industry/lifestyle/livelihood as "entertainment" certainly illustrates the varying viewpoints here.What is racing if it's not entertainment? Racing lifestyle is the same as a golf lifestyle. Or football. Or music. The heart of it is that people do it for fun. All sport is entertainment. I'm sure that's how many others see racing, too.
I'm not trying to start something here, but just because someone makes their living at it doesn't mean it's not entertainment. Plenty of people work in the movie industry, and make their living there, and would be out of work if it were to go away.
I can see that racing is, by definition, entertainment, because no matter how deeply you are involved with it or how important it is to your life and livelihood, it is a superfluous activity (that I love participating in).
Basically, if it's a thing that, when you watch the interview of someone who excels in that thing, and they say something along the lines of, "I'd like to thank the fans, because without them, I would not have the opportunity to make my living doing what I love," then it's entertainment.
I read some of what I believe (I could be wrong) to be the applicable language, and I found that: First off, under 86.1801-01 (Applicability) it states that Otto-cycle and Diesel-cycle light duty vehicles and light duty trucks fall under this regulation. Under -12, many of the prohibitions apply to people who would make modifications before the end user took possession, but some definitely apply to anyone, and it is said to be prohibited to produce and sell the parts. B.5 (the new part) actually removes any question that making the prohibited modifications for competition is not okay.
That's my take. Like I said above, I could be wrong. It's happened before.
Also, it appears that the whole damn show only applies to vehicles built after 2001.
If someone already said this, I apologize. I didn't read all 8 pages.
Keith Tanner wrote:WildScotsRacing wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: My Escort still has ALL of it's emissions gear still installed and functioning like new. The only real change is the location of the cat; light-off time, I know, but that metal matrix cat is better at being a cat than the OEM style. If the OEMs used better chemistry, they wouldn't have to use manicats and all the bad compromises that go with them.It's got a different cam, that's a change. I'm assuming you've messed with the computer as well. Both of those will have some effect on emissions. And metal matrix cats are compact, but they don't have the lifespan of a ceramic core. Remember, the OEs have to warranty emissions parts for 100,000 miles. I've got a ruined metal matrix cat core on my desk here. Light-off time is important. In fact, new cars do all sorts of odd things to get the cat to full temp - it's why they all sound weird for the first 30 seconds. There are a lot of really smart people working for the OEs.
Good talking points about the cam, the tune, and the cat. The tune left the cold start sequence as stock. Plus, the extra 2* of overlap should help the cat light off very quickly when combined with the high idle/retarded ignition warm-up. Also, the cat is mounted only 4 inches past the collector, so lots of heat going into it. The tune has the part throttle steady-state running OEM lean with the EGR function completely un-altered for plenty of O2 for the cat and cool combustion temps to prevent NOx emission. 75% to WOT runs between 12.5 and 13.2, both for best power and to keep the cat from overheating. Plus the evaporative is un-altered and fully functional. My car does run cleaner in all situations than Ford built it. I guess my point with all this is, it was easy to to do, and it works. Lot's of performance enthusiasts and performance businesses (Flyin Miata cough cough) do the same thing. And the cars ar clean-running. I will not be told, like a child, that I am not trustworthy enough to modify my cars in a responsible manner by un-elected, un-educated in the subject, un-accountable, irrational, emotional ideology driven, power mad zealots. We enthusiasts have NOT justly earned their wrath.
The 24 Hours of LeMons is getting involved in resisting this absurd legislation.
An Executive Summary of the Proposed EPA law.
Edit: Wow. I sure am late to the party.
rslifkin wrote:Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote: Question. Will running the shift points and firmness in an automatic trans equipped car affect emissions according to the EPA?Yeah, altered shift points would likely affect emissions in some way.
Not as far as monitoring standards are concerned. Under old standards, yes, as there were different standards for different load profiles. New standards is that engines have to meet the threshold amount no matter load conditions. For the record this isn't an issue if you don't mess with the current systems as gas engines today don't have a problem meeting it. Most are much cleaner. Diesels are a bigger issue...VW anyone?
WildScotsRacing wrote: I will not be told, like a child, that I am not trustworthy enough to modify my cars in a responsible manner by un-elected, un-educated in the subject, un-accountable, irrational, emotional ideology driven, power mad zealots. We enthusiasts have NOT justly earned their wrath.
Or you could think about it this way: why would we let someone modify their vehicle without the multi million dollar test facility required to make sure they pass all applicable emissions standards. I don't say I agree with it, but I am sure that's the other side of things.
I see title and vin tag sales going through the roof and a big boom in aftermarket body and chassis production for pre-CAA vehicles if this goes through. Where do I buy stock in some of that?
Production catalytic converters are not made to withstand continuous use at high temperatures such as what will occur on a racecar. The brick will disintegrate and the cat will require frequent replacement. Maybe we all will be racing cars that are over 25 years old which hopefully would be exempt.
What is the EPA going to do about all these states that don't require emissions testing for older (but still post Clean Air Act) vehicles? Or states that don't do emissions testing at all? In South Carolina, you could drive a brand new car off the lot, cut off the entire exhaust, and install a baby seal oil injection system, and nobody could say "boo".
Seems to me this is an excuse to create a bunch of new government jobs. And it's a huge money grab: all infractions are enforced with big fines. And, it only affects the grassroots motorsports people. Purpose-built race cars would be exempt. So, millionaires racing their NASCARS and F1 and LMP1s and what not would not be touched, but Joe Sixpack who wants to run his $500 Civic on weekend track days will be screwed.
Just another example of how disregard for anyone but the upper upper class is a hallmark of BOTH political parties. It's time for the Morlocks to come for the Eloi.
This talk of "entertainment" is entertaining.
So, limiting entertainment is fine?
How about the type of food you eat? The color of clothing that you can buy? The kind of computer OS you like. The route you take to get to work. Where you go on vacation.
Freedom used to mean something. Now, apparently, we're all willing to throw away all of it for basically nothing.
Rob_Mopar wrote:OldGray320i wrote:And the industries built around that entertainment. People who build race cars, engines, engine components, engine management systems, the magazines that cover that entertainment, and the forums for said magazines all employ people for "entertainment."alfadriver wrote:Except that to the people who get paid for it, it's a job and a career. They can't pay their bills and feed their family on "fun".Keith Tanner wrote: The fact that Alfaracer keeps referring to our sport/industry/lifestyle/livelihood as "entertainment" certainly illustrates the varying viewpoints here.What is racing if it's not entertainment? Racing lifestyle is the same as a golf lifestyle. Or football. Or music. The heart of it is that people do it for fun. All sport is entertainment. I'm sure that's how many others see racing, too.
Movies, music, baseball, football, hockey, etc, etc, etc, etc can all say the same thing.
But it's still done for fun.
You guys can elevate it all you want, but until you see your sport as the other side sees it, all you are doing is ranting and will not be listened to.
Working on cars, driving fast, painting wild looking cars, racing- all of it is done for enjoyment. And that means it is quite simple to trivialize.
And the rants and on line petitions do nothing. Data is what you need. Someone approached the EPA with data showing that this loophole does harm. Probably by noting the ratio of sales of hardware to actual racers.
What needs to be done is to show that the impact of air quality is not as much PLUS the market that supports this is significant.
That is how the EPA works. In spite of why old gray thinks, the EPA does operate looking at cost-benefit data.
SEMA is quite capable of doing that, but they seem more interested is crying over things instead of correctly working the system.
In reply to tuna55:
What gives you the right to pollute for fun?
This world we live in is a terrible place. Every day we have less freedoms because more rules go up every day because there's people out there who feel the need to control every aspect.
In reply to bruceman:
Aftermarket bricks are the same as OEM bricks. Just less materials on them.
In reply to chiodos:
So you think you are free to pollute however you want?
What about the people who want clean air?
Again, all of the anti government rant is going to fix nothing. If it makes you feel better, great. But at the end of the day nobody who matters is listening.
tuna55 wrote: This talk of "entertainment" is entertaining. So, limiting entertainment is fine? How about the type of food you eat? The color of clothing that you can buy? The kind of computer OS you like. The route you take to get to work. Where you go on vacation. Freedom used to mean something. Now, apparently, we're all willing to throw away all of it for basically nothing.
But think of all the extra Security you're getting!
alfadriver wrote: In reply to tuna55: What gives you the right to pollute for fun?
What gives you the right to choose how much of whatever thing you want to regulate is okay?
Ever take the long way to work for fun? You did too. Ever go to watch a movie? You polluted for fun, too. Ever go onto an internet message board to argue about politics when you could have the computer off instead? You polluted for fun, too.
How many of these things legitimately need to be regulated? This is why these things should be legislation instead of dictated by an unaccountable body of regulators.
We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people, after all.
In reply to OldGray320i:
So you never have seen EPA administrators in a congressional hearing, then.
You don't seem to know that the e10 mandate came from Sen Bob Dole and not within the EPA as they saw it as a bad idea.
volvoclearinghouse wrote:tuna55 wrote: This talk of "entertainment" is entertaining. So, limiting entertainment is fine? How about the type of food you eat? The color of clothing that you can buy? The kind of computer OS you like. The route you take to get to work. Where you go on vacation. Freedom used to mean something. Now, apparently, we're all willing to throw away all of it for basically nothing.But think of all the extra Security you're getting!
Dude, I feel so much safer and cleaner with the government regulating all of these things!
alfadriver wrote: Again, all of the anti government rant is going to fix nothing. If it makes you feel better, great. But at the end of the day nobody who matters is listening.
I agree with this. Complaining, outrage etc is the knee-jerk reaction, but we need to focus this energy and take this to the people who matter. None of whom are on this board.
You'll need to log in to post.
