The U.S. Government is trying to get rid of our racecars!

[mdm]

Originally Posted by fumanchu1

I can see where you're coming from but I don't think you are correct in this specific instance, and here's why:
I you post an thread about cancer and someone creates one about curing cancer are they the same thread? no, they are based on the same general subject, but the discussion is not going to be the same and the finer points are going to be different.

I just see how the same points (like what vehicles does this actually apply to) have to be repeated again and again.


I see your point, but if the OP at least read that other topic, maybe he would have a better understanding of the issue BEFORE he recommended the petition. There is enough misinformed clicktivism on the internet already.


Also, I meant it in a more general sense, this thread is only an example, and not the worst one. When the end of the Scion brand was announced, there were at least 4 threads about that, if I am not mistaken.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

I really wish people would actually read legislation before posting paranoid clicky threads like this linked to blogs like Jalopnik. It's every forum, every time. Why?

Thanks @mav1178 for keeping the sanity around here.

Because ain't nobody got time to spend fifteen minutes to read and comprehend each separate relevant paragraph and clause in the bill and look up definitions and such.

Anybody who wasn't breaking the law before is still not breaking the law now, but personally I'm looking at SCCA ST(x) autocross classing rules which currently allows for removal of a catalytic converter in a class designated/designed for street purposed vehicles...

They are strengthening the language and they absolutely could use this to pursue enthusiasts and manufacturers and penalize where they see fit. No big deal to some of us who were always mindful of it, big deal to the guys who live in like Oklahoma who straight pipe all their cars because nobody gave a fuck.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

I really wish people would actually read legislation before posting paranoid clicky threads like this linked to blogs like Jalopnik. It's every forum, every time. Why?

Thanks @mav1178 for keeping the sanity around here.

You do realize that what he posted did basically say the sky is falling like Jalopnik and other blogs are saying right? Cars are not nonroad vehicles and therefor cant be modified (off road use only parts are not exempt as the vehicle is not a nonroad vehicle). They say nothing changes but they mean the wording not the interpretation and likely the enforcement.

And fwiw Jalopnik posted excerpts of the law (more than what mav posted even) with discussion on the wording. And they got comment from the EPA. I generally agree with you but sometimes media can give good info if you look at it hard enough.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by finch1750

You do realize that what he posted did basically say the sky is falling like Jalopnik and other blogs are saying right? Cars are not nonroad vehicles and therefor cant be modified (off road use only parts are not exempt as the vehicle is not a nonroad vehicle). They say nothing changes but they mean the wording not the interpretation and likely the enforcement.

And fwiw Jalopnik posted excerpts of the law (more than what mav posted even) with discussion on the wording. And they got comment from the EPA. I generally agree with you but sometimes media can give good info if you look at it hard enough.

I don't think you understood my post. Could have been my wording of it, or could have just been a quick reading. Others did get it, in any case all good.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by finch1750

You do realize that what he posted did basically say the sky is falling like Jalopnik and other blogs are saying right? Cars are not nonroad vehicles and therefor cant be modified (off road use only parts are not exempt as the vehicle is not a nonroad vehicle). They say nothing changes but they mean the wording not the interpretation and likely the enforcement.

And fwiw Jalopnik posted excerpts of the law (more than what mav posted even) with discussion on the wording. And they got comment from the EPA. I generally agree with you but sometimes media can give good info if you look at it hard enough.

I highlighted the relevant parts in my original post, however I really would like to emphasize the key point:

Basically, what they are saying is the Clean Air Act has never allowed you to remove or tamper with emissions equipment since its inception. I think a lot of people overlook this simple rule... Non enforcement does not mean it is legal.

The proposed change is updating what is defined as a "nonroad" car.

As for the proposed rule itself and possible enforcement? They've had 4 decades to try and enforce it. Given yesterday's SCOTUS stay on the EPA's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, I doubt this will have a resolution in our natural lifetimes, if at all.

-alex

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

I don't think you understood my post. Could have been my wording of it, I don't believe I am perfect (or could have just been a quick reading). Others did get it, in any case all good.

When Jalopnik does proper research it's one of the best automotive sites out there imo. They have their clickbait sure, but they're probably the least Gawker out of all the Gawker sites.

I like this article over the Racer one mav posted, which imo is a little too casual and trusting, the EPA absolutely is shifting it's stance even if the heart of the law is not changing and if they actually enforce it the aftermarket header industry could be choked out at the source.

http://jalopnik.com/the-epas-crackdo...=1455053744356

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

When Jalopnik does proper research it's one of the best automotive sites out there imo. They have their clickbait sure, but they're probably the least Gawker out of all the Gawker sites.

I like this article over the Racer one mav posted, which imo is a little too casual and trusting, the EPA absolutely is shifting it's stance even if the heart of the law is not changing and if they actually enforce it the aftermarket header industry could be choked out at the source.

http://jalopnik.com/the-epas-crackdo...=1455053744356

Agreed, the article itself is fine. Still, I'd say the same is true for any journal. Do good research, present the facts in a non-editorialized manner and the result is typically informative and "good". What bothers me are salacious clickbait type headlines that blogs post to get pageviews and people mimick in forums. I know the art of crafting a headline is as old as the newspaper business. Still, you have to admit, things are getting out of hand. Example...

The title of this post:
The U.S. Government is trying to get rid of our racecars! - Really? No.

Now look at the headlines currently on Jalopnik's site right now. It's about cars right?

Racer Scott Tucker Arrested In Apparently Massive Payday Lending Scheme - Editorialized headline, unnecessary.

Craziness Ensues When Your Engine Bay Looks Like This - Lifestyle stuff, I get it.

Unprecedented U.S. Air Force Jet Deployment To Finland Is Sure To Upset Russia - What does this have to do with cars? Also editorialized.

Today's Best Deals: EAS Protein, Valentine's Jewelry, Kindle Unlimited, and More - Make your money Gawker Media Inc. Do you have to format the ad look exactly like another story to get people to accidentally click it though?

Shirtless Dude On Flight To Paris Sticks His **** Between Seats, Pees - Un-editorialized yet still funny. Why? readers can figure out the funny themselves. Still has nothing to do with cars.

Salacious headlines that are just one of the reasons bloggers are derided by journalists. Bloggers deserve it. Generally poor research is another, and as you say, sometimes the research is not so bad. Many times though, it's leaves much to be desired.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

I don't think you understood my post. Could have been my wording of it, or could have just been a quick reading. Others did get it, in any case all good.

I saw it as just writing off any media on this as click bait and considering you named Jalopnik by name when they had one of the most informative articles just seemed funny imo. But like you said it's all good.

Originally Posted by mav1178

I highlighted the relevant parts in my original post, however I really would like to emphasize the key point:

Basically, what they are saying is the Clean Air Act has never allowed you to remove or tamper with emissions equipment since its inception. I think a lot of people overlook this simple rule... Non enforcement does not mean it is legal.

The proposed change is updating what is defined as a "nonroad" car.

As for the proposed rule itself and possible enforcement? They've had 4 decades to try and enforce it. Given yesterday's SCOTUS stay on the EPA's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, I doubt this will have a resolution in our natural lifetimes, if at all.

-alex

Correct. Maybe I dont give people a lot of credit but when they see the EPA says nothing changes people think its all good since everybody puts on their car what they want anyway. The change in interpretation is important to make clear IMO and was all I was trying to say. Basically they want to enforce the $37,500 fine from what it sounds like. But maybe it is just a bunch of chest puffing

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Salacious headlines that are just one of the reasons bloggers are derided by journalists. Bloggers deserve it. Generally poor research is another, and as you say, sometimes the research is not so bad. Many times though, it's leaves much to be desired.

Viewership determines content, if detailing car articles got more views than clickbait it'd be top of the page. Just gotta not click on the crap and make fun of the people who do, been awhile since I've seen a motoring.au "article" linked here come to think of it...

It's also easy to skew the data, current top three articles on Jalopnik:

Japan's Automakers Could Merge Into Three Groups Or Less By 2020: Report
Rally Flashback: Rally Sweden 1999
Putting The Biggest Sportbike Motor In The Smallest Motorcycle Is The Best Worst Idea Possible

How is the Scott Tucker headline editorialized? 'Massive' was a quote from the Reuters report it's based off of, so no more editorialized than Reuters or AP does.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Viewership determines content, if detailing car articles got more views than clickbait it'd be top of the page. Just gotta not click on the crap and make fun of the people who do, been awhile since I've seen a motoring.au "article" linked here come to think of it...

It's also easy to skew the data, current top three articles on Jalopnik:

Japan's Automakers Could Merge Into Three Groups Or Less By 2020: Report
Rally Flashback: Rally Sweden 1999
Putting The Biggest Sportbike Motor In The Smallest Motorcycle Is The Best Worst Idea Possible

How is the Scott Tucker headline editorialized? 'Massive' was a quote from the Reuters report it's based off of, so no more editorialized than Reuters or AP does.

The question has always been should "the audience determine the art?" E.g If the audience loves Katy Perry, Lay's Potato Chips, Top 10 Lists, and Liveleak then why give them Miles Davis, tasting menus, NPR, and To Harper Lee? Asking for quality is not making fun. It's a plea for those with half a brain around here to both stop falling for the same base headline ploy and also to not attempt to use it themselves in forum thread titles.

The likely reason why your top 3 are different from what I've listed isn't selective or skewed but probably has more to do with the internet filter bubble.

Eli Pariser gives an interesting TED talk on it
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s"]Eli Pariser: Beware online "filter bubbles" - YouTube[/ame]

If "massive" is in headline of all 3 sources you cited, then all 3 headlines are editorialized. The definition doesn't change as "massive" is a relative term and thus contributes to the editorialization of the headlines. What AP and Reuter's use of the term may suggest is the pressure they experience (and always have) to appeal to readers emotions rather than present the story and let the reader decide how they feel about the scale and/or scope of the reported fraud (in this case).

[johan]

Originally Posted by mav1178

I highlighted the relevant parts in my original post, however I really would like to emphasize the key point:

Basically, what they are saying is the Clean Air Act has never allowed you to remove or tamper with emissions equipment since its inception. I think a lot of people overlook this simple rule... Non enforcement does not mean it is legal.

The proposed change is updating what is defined as a "nonroad" car.

As for the proposed rule itself and possible enforcement? They've had 4 decades to try and enforce it. Given yesterday's SCOTUS stay on the EPA's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, I doubt this will have a resolution in our natural lifetimes, if at all.

-alex

I disagree. I see the EPA's "response" as hyperbole intended to manipulate and dissolve our collective dissenting opinion. They are "claiming" that it has always been illegal to modify road cars for racing as it relates to emissions equipment. BUT that is their now chosen interpretation of the current law... Which does not correlate to the spirit of it or the enforcement of it, nor the way it was viewed by congress or even the EPA itself in past years. They are changing their "opinion" of the "interpretation" and trying to turn that different interpretation into a clear law that they can then enforce. This is a very, very bad thing, and will go downhill fast.

Don't be deceived, what they are trying to do will actually be very malignant to motorsport as we know it.

[johan]

And who cares about jalopnik - you guys need to get back on topic - this is far more important than talking about the merits of a news site.... seriously. ADD much?

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by johan

I disagree. I see the EPA's "response" as hyperbole intended to manipulate and dissolve our collective dissenting opinion. They are "claiming" that it has always been illegal to modify road cars for racing as it relates to emissions equipment. BUT that is their now chosen interpretation of the current law... Which does not correlate to the spirit of it or the enforcement of it, nor the way it was viewed by congress or even the EPA itself in past years. They are changing their "opinion" of the "interpretation" and trying to turn that different interpretation into a clear law that they can then enforce. This is a very, very bad thing, and will go downhill fast.

Don't be deceived, what they are trying to do will actually be very malignant to motorsport as we know it.

Erm... It's well within the EPAs power (and any state or federal agency) to determine their interpretation of law and the rules they make to enforce them. Agencies must notify the public when proposing any changes in this so the public can discuss the issue and respond. SEMA has highlighted their interpretation for their members and the public. Other interested parties will too. Everyone who has a vested interest should. I agree that the proposed changes could lead to problems OR they could lead to nothing at all for motorsports enthusiasts. That's what the discussion is for. No one is being deceived, we are openly analyzing the issue to try and predict the outcome (just as you are).

Originally Posted by johan

And who cares about jalopnik - you guys need to get back on topic - this is far more important than talking about the merits of a news site.... seriously. ADD much?

The issue with headlines, titles, and blogs speaks to the way we discuss important issues such as this. This is just as relevant as the issues themselves. Topics gets derailed in the way this one has because of it. If we are not presented issues in a straightforward manner (headlines and titles), it leads to confusion in the discussion. Please try to understand that.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

The question has always been should "the audience determine the art?"

The likely reason why your top 3 are different from what I've listed isn't selective or skewed but probably has more to do with the internet filter bubble.

If "massive" is in headline of all 3 sources you cited, then all 3 headlines are editorialized. The definition doesn't change as "massive" is a relative term and thus contributes to the editorialization of the headlines.

This isn't art, it's the press, the modern methods of dissemination of information. It hasn't changed since the printing press was invented, the FCC stepping in 90 years ago to legally restrict biased broadcasts on the radio and disclose sponsorships. It's not a new problem that publications that are driven by capitalist motives in order to survive and put food on their plates yield to the almighty dollar instead of what's right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission

Jalopnik to my knowledge doesn't operate a filter bubble, they post their "articles" as planned and they are displayed in chronological order, just past the three I listed are the five you listed, and since my post 3 or 4 more articles sit on top. My point was that as easily as you found a string of trashy articles I could find a string of quality articles.

Thanks, wasn't sure if it was the descriptor or not, at least Jalopnik put it in quotes unlike Reuters.