Expert prognosis for the planet

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Bottom line is a low percentage of "off road only" equipment is used off road exclusively.

"do not attempt, closed course, professional [driver][actor][idiot]"

the terms have changed meanings. it's really there to absolve the manufacturer/reseller of the decisions and use of the purchaser/end user.

even the low-spec corolla ad's have that. i think they're indicating i can't use one for grocery shopping...

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

To some extent I disagree. You can't be all "we need to save the planet" and also "well, except over here where it's OK for me to do what I want".

Bottom line is a low percentage of "off road only" equipment is used off road exclusively.

To the first point, actual racing and other track events make up an extremely small portion of ghg emissions because of small population size. In fact, I would be willing to bet the on-road transportation to and from events by participants and spectators is actually worse for the environment than the actual racing. If we don't have some sort of moderation on the cause, then we should also stop boating, computer gaming/mining, travelling, etc. The goal isn't to save the planet from us, the goal is to keep the planet in a state we are comfortable with. Being comfortable includes leisure activities IMO.

I don't disagree with the second point, but I don't think that should be on the manufacturer to police.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

To some extent I disagree. You can't be all "we need to save the planet" and also "well, except over here where it's OK for me to do what I want".

Bottom line is a low percentage of "off road only" equipment is used off road exclusively.

Why not? California has been strict about emissions testing, and yet they have smog exempt areas, even if modifications are still illegal, and they allow 60’s cars with V8s and no cats. How can these double standards exist? Obviously it is a volume thing. A rich person can be an advocate for raising taxes on the wealthy, while still not doing philanthropy and still applying tax write offs to their returns.

The bottom line is the system isn’t effective at monitoring emissions or guaranteeing people don’t modify emissions equipment. Part of that is because they haven’t created an easy path for legal modifications that would comply with emissions standards. If people could pass visual easier and have an option to do a dyno emissions test and be able to pass irregardless of modifications then that would be better. If they could lower the price for CARB EOs then that would be better. It is like legalizing and regulating marijuana or something, where the benefits are that more users are complying with laws and the illegal use drops.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Why not? California has been strict about emissions testing, and yet they have smog exempt areas, even if modifications are still illegal, and they allow 60’s cars with V8s and no cats. How can these double standards exist? Obviously it is a volume thing. A rich person can be an advocate for raising taxes on the wealthy, while still not doing philanthropy and still applying tax write offs to their returns.

The bottom line is the system isn’t effective at monitoring emissions or guaranteeing people don’t modify emissions equipment. Part of that is because they haven’t created an easy path for legal modifications that would comply with emissions standards. If people could pass visual easier and have an option to do a dyno emissions test and be able to pass irregardless of modifications then that would be better. If they could lower the price for CARB EOs then that would be better. It is like legalizing and regulating marijuana or something, where the benefits are that more users are complying with laws and the illegal use drops.

As long as the emission devices(if any) are present and functioning per the year it was manufactured, it is pretty much legal. Even taking a car from 2000 it probably isn’t going to pass 22’ standards.


I wholly agree with your second paragraph. It would be nice if there was a way you could take your modified car to a certified shop and test it, and if it meets emissions for the model year it was manufactured it should be legal no matter what you have done with it. Unless a bunch of car enthusiasts want to pool money together for a lobbyist, it isn’t going to happen. Especially now.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

It would be nice if there was a way you could take your modified car to a certified shop and test it, and if it meets emissions for the model year it was manufactured it should be legal no matter what you have done with it. Unless a bunch of car enthusiasts want to pool money together for a lobbyist, it isn’t going to happen. Especially now.

That's because it's not about air quality, it's always been about money and political agendas.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

To the first point, actual racing and other track events make up an extremely small portion of ghg emissions because of small population size. In fact, I would be willing to bet the on-road transportation to and from events by participants and spectators is actually worse for the environment than the actual racing. If we don't have some sort of moderation on the cause, then we should also stop boating, computer gaming/mining, travelling, etc. The goal isn't to save the planet from us, the goal is to keep the planet in a state we are comfortable with. Being comfortable includes leisure activities IMO.

I don't disagree with the second point, but I don't think that should be on the manufacturer to police.

According to the article I posted earlier, one of those cheat devices makes a diesel truck equivalent to 300. With that said, I agree that the smog from true off-road use is really small compared to emissions/miles from passenger vehicles. Along the same lines, CO2 isn’t inherently bad, right, so CO2 in small amounts for motorsports isn’t really an issue. Smog is worse for air quality, but the volume isn’t bad enough for off-road use. It is the volume potential of on road use that is the issue, which is why the EPA was really after cheat devices.

They probably know that the vast majority of people will not modify a car illegally just to swap parts every two years, even if it is only two years, so cheat devices allow greater and greater modifications without risks. Those devices also are bad news for states that don’t fail cars based on visual inspections and rely on emissions readiness or dyno testing.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

That's because it's not about air quality, it's always been about money and political agendas.

Money and political agendas aside, it’s not like some random politicians are going to say “you know what? Why don’t we put legislation and a legal process in place to allow people to modify their cars and certify them.”



It’s probably never occurred to them.

[soundman98]

how many politicians even so much as install aftermarket wheels on their cars? lol

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by soundman98

how many politicians even so much as install aftermarket wheels on their cars? lol

They don’t drive. They are too busy flying around the world and doing the bidding of the grays and the lizard people.

WHY DOES NOBODY LISTEN TO ME.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

As long as the emission devices(if any) are present and functioning per the year it was manufactured, it is pretty much legal. Even taking a car from 2000 it probably isn’t going to pass 22’ standards.


I wholly agree with your second paragraph. It would be nice if there was a way you could take your modified car to a certified shop and test it, and if it meets emissions for the model year it was manufactured it should be legal no matter what you have done with it. Unless a bunch of car enthusiasts want to pool money together for a lobbyist, it isn’t going to happen. Especially now.

I agree with manufacturers that all emissions equipment needs to be present and functioning like the EVAP, but as an example, Flying Miata sells a CARB legal turbo kit, where CARB approved the process of cutting off the stock catalytic converter and installing it on the downpipe. I can’t do that and get a tune and prove it is within emissions standards. Well I can, but not without paying a huge price.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I agree with manufacturers that all emissions equipment needs to be present and functioning like the EVAP, but as an example, Flying Miata sells a CARB legal turbo kit, where CARB approved the process of cutting off the stock catalytic converter and installing it on the downpipe. I can’t do that and get a tune and prove it is within emissions standards. Well I can, but not without paying a huge price.

and there it is.

that's why.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I agree with manufacturers that all emissions equipment needs to be present and functioning like the EVAP, but as an example, Flying Miata sells a CARB legal turbo kit, where CARB approved the process of cutting off the stock catalytic converter and installing it on the downpipe. I can’t do that and get a tune and prove it is within emissions standards. Well I can, but not without paying a huge price.

That’s what I am saying too. Any smog testing shop can put a exhaust gas analyzer on the car and if it’s levels are within limits for the model year, it should be legal. Not everything needs to go to a company like TSG for certification testing.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

and there it is.

that's why.

I tend to be a little less cynical about these things and believe they have their reasons. For instance, if the reason there is a high price is because it reduces modifications and reduces paperwork on their desk then that is one thing, but if it results in more illegal modifications then the rationale needs to change.

I bring up marijuana again, even though I don’t smoke it…they legalized weed, but then they overtaxed it, so street weed is apparently still cheaper to produce and sell enough to maintain an illegal market. If they hadn’t been so aggressive then the illegal market probably couldn’t compete enough to justify the risks. Similarly, a legal and feasible path to legal modifications would really cut down on illegal modifications. Ultimately, EVs will make these changes mostly unnecessary.

[soundman98]

it's a bit like speed limits. they're designed around the lowest common denominator. modding vehicles and their emissions systems is the exception instead of the rule.