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

[phm14]

The broader point is that the EPA is out of control. Bureaucracies constantly strive to expand the scope of their control, justifying expansion and ever increasing budgets. Consumers and property owners pay thorough higher costs and loss of liberty. Big government is not your friend. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ver+regulation

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by phm14

Big government is not your friend.

As long as we agree free market isn't either than we're cool.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by johan

Why not stand up for your civil liberties?

Normally I would, but then I see all these guys running catless on the streets... makes me less inclined to support those guys.

-alex

[johan]

I'll take one step back and admit that it's very clear from reading the document that the original intent and motivation behind this Proposed Rule is in response/reaction to the VW scandal. The wording in large parts of it is so clearly targeted at the abuse of defeat devices or improperly handling diesel engines - and imposing severe and specific rules/fines related to modifying or even FIXING the issues with them. Of course this impacts not just diesel cars, but also heavily targets large diesel trucks/semis.

That said, much of their "clarification", since it does not single out diesel explicitly, would also cover the conversion of on road vehicles to off road vehicles. Their wording would easily make it possible for them to completely ban aftermarket ECU solutions for cars, including standalones and stock ECU reflashing methods.

Then of course there is the removal of emissions equipment itself, which is the largest issue of contention - one that the EPA already "claims" was illegal - but the current law does not say that explicitly due to the wording used... and now they would be changing the wording to make it explicit.

I know that they're not just "making a toothless law" on this, as I have lots of friends in the ECU business... the EPA has been clamping down on US aftermarket ECU companies over the last 2 years - threatening them with litigation / fines over specific functionality they've added... even if their solutions are sold as "off road use only". So much so that they've ceased adding certain pieces of logic to the ECUs to avoid the EPA's wrath. Then there is ECUTEk which is not a US company, and they're still writing logic with a YOLO attitude since they can't be touched currently.... BUT with this Proposed Rule, the EPA could ban import of ECUTek's hardware into the US unless they made certain changes to their logic that I guarantee 95% of their customers would hate.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by phm14

The broader point is that the EPA is out of control. Bureaucracies constantly strive to expand the scope of their control, justifying expansion and ever increasing budgets. Consumers and property owners pay thorough higher costs and loss of liberty. Big government is not your friend. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ver+regulation

EPA?
I'd start with the US Department of Defense if you want to complain about "big government"

-alex

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by johan

I'll take one step back and admit that it's very clear from reading the document that the original intent and motivation behind this Proposed Rule is in response/reaction to the VW scandal. The wording in large parts of it is so clearly targeted at the abuse of defeat devices or improperly handling diesel engines - and imposing severe and specific rules/fines related to modifying or even FIXING the issues with them. Of course this impacts not just diesel cars, but also heavily targets large diesel trucks/semis.

That said, much of their "clarification", since it does not single out diesel explicitly, would also cover the conversion of on road vehicles to off road vehicles. Their wording would easily make it possible for them to completely ban aftermarket ECU solutions for cars, including standalones and stock ECU reflashing methods.

Then of course there is the removal of emissions equipment itself, which is the largest issue of contention - one that the EPA already "claims" was illegal - but the current law does not say that explicitly due to the wording used... and now they would be changing the wording to make it explicit.

I know that they're not just "making a toothless law" on this, as I have lots of friends in the ECU business... the EPA has been clamping down on US aftermarket ECU companies over the last 2 years - threatening them with litigation / fines over specific functionality they've added... even if their solutions are sold as "off road use only". So much so that they've ceased adding certain pieces of logic to the ECUs to avoid the EPA's wrath. Then there is ECUTEk which is not a US company, and they're still writing logic with a YOLO attitude since they can't be touched currently.... BUT with this Proposed Rule, the EPA could ban import of ECUTek's hardware into the US unless they made certain changes to their logic that I guarantee 95% of their customers would hate.

... and yes, I agree with you on all these points.

But the plain simple fact is, if you modify your car so that there is an increase in emissions, it is in violation of the Clean Air Act. People need to move beyond this part, first and foremost.

The key element at stake here is whether or not parts and vehicles sold/modified for off-road use is granted an exemption from the CAA. The current situation has a lot of people saying that the government wants to ban race cars, which is not the case.

Granted, no one wants to run a race car with stock-everything in the drivetrain, but the wording being tossed about is giving everyone the wrong idea to start with...

-alex

[phm14]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

As long as we agree free market isn't either than we're cool.

Given history, I tend to favor "free market...less tyranny, genocide and other fun stuff like that. Sure, the industrial revolution required some corrections, but those atrocities pale in comparison. No bigger government than a communist/socialist/fascist government...kum ba ya:
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...y+of+communism

[Ultramaroon]

It's getting kinda political up in here, kids. I'm only mentioning this because this topic is interesting and relevant. It would be a shame if this thread was locked because it turned into a shitstorm.

[IceFyre13th]

PANIC PANIC AHHAAAA!!! THE WORLD OF RACING IS ENDING

.................I think NOT......read this-----> http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorspo...ctually-means/

[Decay107]

Originally Posted by IceFyre13th

PANIC PANIC AHHAAAA!!! THE WORLD OF RACING IS ENDING

.................I think NOT......read this-----> http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorspo...ctually-means/

From an actual lawyer, rather than someone paid in weed based on how many clicks their articles get.

http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/images/EPA-Memo.pdf

Edit: Not that I have anything against R&T, it's just that internet journalism puts a lot more emphasis on getting noticed (most of the time through bullshit sensationalism) than informing.

[johan]

Originally Posted by Decay107

From an actual lawyer, rather than someone paid in weed based on how many clicks their articles get.

http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/images/EPA-Memo.pdf

Edit: Not that I have anything against R&T, it's just that internet journalism puts a lot more emphasis on getting noticed (most of the time through bullshit sensationalism) than informing.

Oh thank god someone put this together. Confirms everything I took from reading it myself and now I refuse to hear anyone else argue with me about it.

THIS MUST BE SQUASHED.

[Decay107]

You know what else I gleaned from a second read

(5) Importation. You may not import
an uncertified engine or piece of
equipment if it is defined to be new in
the standard-setting part with a model
year for which emission standards
applied. Anyone violating this
paragraph (b)(5) is deemed to be a
manufacturer in violation of paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. We may assess a
civil penalty up to $37,500 for each
engine or piece of equipment in
violation. Note the following:
(i) The definition of new is broad for
imported engines/equipment;
uncertified engines and equipment
(including used engines and equipment)
are generally considered to be new
when imported.
(ii) Used engines/equipment that were
originally manufactured before
applicable EPA standards were in effect
are generally not subject to emission
standards.

Wonder how everyone would react to never being able to import R34s...

[johan]

Originally Posted by Decay107

You know what else I gleaned from a second read

(5) Importation. You may not import
an uncertified engine or piece of
equipment if it is defined to be new in
the standard-setting part with a model
year for which emission standards
applied. Anyone violating this
paragraph (b)(5) is deemed to be a
manufacturer in violation of paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. We may assess a
civil penalty up to $37,500 for each
engine or piece of equipment in
violation. Note the following:
(i) The definition of new is broad for
imported engines/equipment;
uncertified engines and equipment
(including used engines and equipment)
are generally considered to be new
when imported.
(ii) Used engines/equipment that were
originally manufactured before
applicable EPA standards were in effect
are generally not subject to emission
standards.

Wonder how everyone would react to never being able to import R34s...

Or JDM engines... that should completely freak out the entire Nissan and Honda world of modders / racers.

[chaoskaze]

Bye cruel US of A, moving back to Canada & become a true hippie with my JDM engines & weed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk