1 ... 3 4 5 6 7
Fueled by Caffeine
Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork
3/5/21 11:01 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

Was gonna point that out as well

You gotta put your trust in something.  In this case I trust the government and epa  based upon their continued improvement of the air and water quality of the nation. Individuals can't see beyond themselves,  see coal rollers. 

Fueled by Caffeine
Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork
3/5/21 11:03 a.m.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I don't trust anyone will do the right thing when no one is watching.  I'm hopeful they will but don't expect it. 

I agree.

I also don't trust regulating agencies to do the right thing, and expect them to take power grabs when they can.

Rules exist now, and the tools to regulate them do as well.  They should do their job and regulate.  They don't need more laws.  Especially if they won't enforce them.

You don't trust users, and you don't trust regulators.

So then what?

Kind of in a pickle there.

No pickle.  It would be much easier to trust regulators if they enforced the rules they create.

In this case they are.  It's a long standing rule. They are enforcing it by going after part manufacturers.  

STM317
STM317 UberDork
3/5/21 11:11 a.m.

I'd just like to point out to those concerned about the impacts this might have on our hobby that we now have half a dozen cars that meet modern emissions regs with over 700hp. There are completely stock cars running 0-60 in under 3 seconds on their factory street tires. Anybody can go buy them off the showroom floor. They have a factory warranty even. Same is true for trucks, where you can get a diesel with 1000ft-lbs that tows over 30k lbs. 

In the past, we had to spend a bunch of time and money on modifications that we hoped might eventually lead to specs like that. That's why we tinkered in the first place, because the factory stuff was slow. I'm not sure we really need to tinker anymore chasing power gains considering what's rolling off of assembly lines these days.

STM317 said:

I'd just like to point out to those concerned about the impacts this might have on our hobby that we now have half a dozen cars that meet modern emissions regs with over 700hp. There are cars running 0-60 in under 3 seconds on street tires. Anybody can go buy them off the showroom floor. They have a factory warranty even. Same is true for trucks, where you can get a diesel with 1000ft-lbs that tows over 30k lbs. 

Yeah, tinkering in the garage might get a little bit harder than it was 20 years ago, but I'm not sure we really need to tinker anymore chasing power gains considering what's rolling off of assembly lines these days.

Man, talk about turning this into a rich man's hobby. frown

The whole point for me is tinkering in the garage. The good news is smart people exist. Just like all regulations, there are ways around these too. The feds couldn't stop it if they wanted to. 

 

STM317
STM317 UberDork
3/5/21 11:23 a.m.

In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :

Having toy vehicles has always required money. A stock, 11 year old Camaro SS has 426hp these days and would meet any necessary emissions regulations. How much cash would it have taken to get a '3rd Gen' Camaro to those power levels back in the day, even if we ignore the emissions aspect? 

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/5/21 11:36 a.m.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

They are, and we are complaining about it.  They are enforcing the anti-tampering laws that have been on the books for a long time.

 

That's not what the lawsuit is about.

The lawsuit is about a plain language law (the CAA) which has been standing for 45 years, which the EPA has maintained a specific interpretation of for that entire time, and is now CHANGING their interpretation, contradicting their own previous 45 year long interpretation.

The law has existed.  The EPA's interpretation for an extended time has been clear and established in extended legal precedents.  Now they don't like how their own interpretation has been utilized, and they want to change their interpretation, instead of going through the process of changing the law, or enforcing the downstream users (through other agencies they have influence over).

I completely agree with your strong support of emissions equipment and standards in racing.  You are good at that, and right.  But I don't understand defending the EPA for their flippant and casual waffling on their own interpretation of their own law.

I'm betting that Keith can be more specific on what tipped this off.

But I STRONGLY believe that the EPA didn't just change their view on this randomly.  They are *required* to take pubic input for pretty much every move they make- none of this is done in a vacuum.  I know few here believe it, but they actually take into account the economics of the situation on a high and low level into this.

And what happened was there were enough public complaints that was leading toward a court battle (which nobody wants).  The easy outcome of that was to just enforce the law, as written, close the interpreted loopholes (that were very intentional).  And that's exactly what they are doing.

It's not that they "don't like it" or something that shallow.  It's that they were force to do it based on public input.  And they did previously enforce this rule- obviously more than anyone thinks- but the whole point of having a process to make a part legal to sell has been around as long as the anti-tampering law has.  

IMHO, why would the EPA want to put personnel toward enforcement when they can use the same group to work toward a more sustainable future???  Nobody there gets any of the money they bring in.  Doing it just to be mean makes zero sense to me.   And knowing how policy and laws are made, it makes less than zero sense to me.

In reply to STM317 :

A lot less than $15k. 

An $1000 LQ9 and a Chinese turbocharger will get you there for less than $2k.

 

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/5/21 11:42 a.m.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

Man, talk about turning this into a rich man's hobby. frown

The whole point for me is tinkering in the garage. The good news is smart people exist. Just like all regulations, there are ways around these too. The feds couldn't stop it if they wanted to. 

 

I sometimes wonder if people do things just to "stick it to the man".  

But the whole basis of the enforcement was to allow you to tinker in your garage.  (I'll take the time, once again, to point out EPA participation in the GRM challenge, as well as local motorsports)

However, when a company sells the equivalent of one years production run of diesel trucks of stuff that takes off vital emissions controls for vehicles that are not only being used on road, they are also trolling other drivers out there- yea, not so much.  That would be like an OEM making a cycle cheater where their real emissions were much worse... like VW.

We, as an enthusiast group, was given the responsibility to play well.  Part of that decided they did not want to, and now we are all dealing with it.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
3/5/21 11:46 a.m.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

In reply to STM317 :

A lot less than $15k. 

An $1000 LQ9 and a Chinese turbocharger will get you there for less than $2k.

 

What's the EO on that turbocharger?

STM317
STM317 UberDork
3/5/21 12:01 p.m.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

In reply to STM317 :

A lot less than $15k. 

An $1000 LQ9 and a Chinese turbocharger will get you there for less than $2k.

Seems like we're coming at this from different directions a little. I was referencing a person in say 2001 that had a 10 year old Camaro and was shooting for 426hp (Which is why I said "back in the day") vs a person in 2021 with a 10 year old Camaro. That would've required serious modifications and cash to get those power levels in the past, and now they're taken for granted. There were no cheap LQ9s and Chinese turbos back then.

Obviously, if you want to mix and match the best parts of today's tech with older stuff you can make lots of power for very little (provided you don't care about factory levels of emissions or reliability). But the cool thing about a lot of these regulations is that they don't keep people from swapping in newer, cleaner power trains at all. I'd imagine pretty much any regulatory body would happily let you install a stock LQ9 in a 3rd Gen without any issues because the LQ9 was sold in a year with tighter standards than the original powertrain. That's a net improvement. And you'd also be free to mod it any way you wanted, so long as it met or exceeded the emissions standards for the year of the LQ9.

Apexcarver
Apexcarver UltimaDork
3/5/21 12:04 p.m.

For those that think "for offroad use only" stickers are a fine and dandy solution, I'm curious if your reasoning crosses over.

 

There is a product out there for Tesla's https://www.autopilotbuddy.com/ 

The system in Tesla's in question are only designed for the envelope that the driver has hands on the wheel paying attention to react to hazards. This product circumvents the driver monitoring in Teslas (which is just a steering torque sensor) so that the normal operation which kicks it out of autopilot if it doesnt detect the driver's hands (for safety reasons). 

Another datapoint: I dont recall for sure, but I dont think the tesla can detect such things as pedestrians, cycleists, motorcycleists, cinderblocks in the road, parked police cars, etc.  So it would drive right into them. 

 

So, if you are driving down the road in your pride and joy and look over in the next lane and see the driver with hands off the wheel employing one of these products headed into a school zone or a school bus that was going the other way stopped letting kids off, how do you feel about that?  

 

It does say "for stationary use only".  

 

Feds have been paying attention, hence why the non-cellphone holder version cant be sold here and you dont see explicit text on the site about overcoming autopilots driver monitoring. I have a feeling that the feds are playing whack-a-loophole dueling with them trying to get the product off the market. Would you view the feds as in the wrong for even starting down the path its taken?  Should there not have been a limit on the origional product being marketed and sold as it was?  

https://jalopnik.com/the-autopilot-buddy-for-your-tesla-is-insidiously-dange-1826048861  <- more info

 

Tom1200
Tom1200 SuperDork
3/5/21 12:07 p.m.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

Man, talk about turning this into a rich man's hobby.  

Errr when hasn't this been a rich man's hobby. LOL

I think most of us playing with cars have a better than average income, even those of us doing it on the cheap.

 

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/5/21 12:11 p.m.
STM317 said:
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

In reply to STM317 :

A lot less than $15k. 

An $1000 LQ9 and a Chinese turbocharger will get you there for less than $2k.

Seems like we're coming at this from different directions a little. I was referencing a person in say 2001 that had a 10 year old Camaro and was shooting for 426hp (Which is why I said "back in the day"). That would've required serious modifications and cash to get those power levels. There were no cheap LQ9s and Chinese turbos back then.

Obviously, if you want to mix and match the best parts of today's tech with older stuff you can make lots of power for very little (provided you don't care about factory levels of emissions or reliability). But the cool thing about a lot of these regulations is that they don't keep people from swapping in newer, cleaner power trains at all. I'd imagine pretty much any regulatory body would happily let you install a stock LQ9 in a 3rd Gen without any issues because the LQ9 was sold in a year with tighter standards than the original powertrain. That's a net improvement. And you'd be free to mod it any way you wanted, so long as it met or exceeded the emissions standards for the year of the LQ9.

Usually you need to bring the emissions equipment over as well. That can get difficult especially in an OBD-II world. But it has been my experience that modifications that improve emissions are generally well received and everyone wants to make it possible.

As for what triggered this change - which is not what I would call "flippant and casual", more like "an evolution" - I don't know of a specific event. But given that the initial enforcement was of diesel trucks, I suspect it was the very obvious and large market for devices specifically intended to defeat emissions controls. The start of that was probably the installation of emissions controls on diesel trucks, which really did have an effect in how well they worked. Truck owners behaving badly would have supplied some public pressure but the sheer number of trucks getting DPF and EGR and cat deletes for whatever reason is a problem and the EPA had to step up enforcement because that is exactly why they exist. The racecar question was pulled in because vendors thought they had found a loophole and, well, it had to be addressed. Since there is no legal way to distinguish a work truck from a race car, that meant they had to be treated the same.

What PRI/SEMA wants to do is come up with a way to treat them differently. That does mean new legislation but that's because we need to create a vehicle classification that doesn't currently exist. And those who still street drive their "race cars" are probably going to discover that their race cars are really street cars. It's pretty clear that the transition from street car to race car will have to be permanent and complete.

After driving the 2015 Ford 6.7 attached to a 40 foot trailer I can see where people would want a little more power, I mean I could barely hold 100mph and almost had to set my beer down merging into the highway in Atlanta. 

I don't understand why people mess with the controls on that particular drivetrain. It's simply impressive. 14mpg at 70 for 3000 miles with the air on for half the drive. Oh and it's SIX WHEEL DRIVE! It's giant. 

Some times people go too far and this is the reaction for those actions. 

In reply to Tom1200 :

I was playing with cars and autocrossing long before I had a decent-paying job. I started with a $200 FB on all-season tires. IIRC I was making around $10/hr at the time. 

slowbird
slowbird UltraDork
3/5/21 2:02 p.m.

Guess we'll all just have to make our cars lighter and give them more grip, if we can't hack the computers to gain power. blush

Tom1200
Tom1200 SuperDork
3/5/21 3:34 p.m.

In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :

As was I; the Datsun was a $270 car and I was also making  $10 hr, which is about $21 hr in today's money, I did 4 scca club races (I could only afford to race Saturday of the double regionals) and 10 Autocrosses for just under $1000. That represented 6% of my annaul take home pay.

So back on the topic of the EPA; this is going to effect suppliers way more than racers.  If we had to race our cars with bone stock engines or mods that kept them compliant than we'd all still continue to race.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/5/21 3:56 p.m.
Tom1200 said:

In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :

So back on the topic of the EPA; this is going to effect suppliers way more than racers.  If we had to race our cars with bone stock engines or mods that kept them compliant than we'd all still continue to race.

I think eventually everyone else will figure that out as well.

Olemiss540
Olemiss540 HalfDork
3/5/21 4:06 p.m.
Tom1200 said:

In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :

As was I; the Datsun was a $270 car and I was also making  $10 hr, which is about $21 hr in today's money, I did 4 scca club races (I could only afford to race Saturday of the double regionals) and 10 Autocrosses for just under $1000. That represented 6% of my annaul take home pay.

So back on the topic of the EPA; this is going to effect suppliers way more than racers.  If we had to race our cars with bone stock engines or mods that kept them compliant than we'd all still continue to race.

But that baby has already been born for most of us. What about all of the racecars already modified to a point it can not be returned back to stock condition??

I mean I guess it depends on their enforcement methods for consumer cars. Since it is up to states to enforce vehicle inspections, how do they inspect racecars? Force the tracks? Does this mean that in states that do not have emissions inspections there would be no change whatsoever outside of lack of parts availability for repairs?

Legislation is only as good as the compliance enforced so I guess it depends on the states.

Tom1200 said:
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

Man, talk about turning this into a rich man's hobby.  

Errr when hasn't this been a rich man's hobby. LOL

I think most of us playing with cars have a better than average income, even those of us doing it on the cheap.

 

New cars being fast and clean doesn't mean that we're getting priced out of our hobby, it just means we get to enjoy those same cars in like 10+ years like we already do with the used cars we own and love. I wouldn't have bought my '99 Miata new, just like I'm not buying a '21 Miata now. 

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/5/21 4:24 p.m.
Olemiss540 said:
Tom1200 said:

In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :

As was I; the Datsun was a $270 car and I was also making  $10 hr, which is about $21 hr in today's money, I did 4 scca club races (I could only afford to race Saturday of the double regionals) and 10 Autocrosses for just under $1000. That represented 6% of my annaul take home pay.

So back on the topic of the EPA; this is going to effect suppliers way more than racers.  If we had to race our cars with bone stock engines or mods that kept them compliant than we'd all still continue to race.

But that baby has already been born for most of us. What about all of the racecars already modified to a point it can not be returned back to stock condition??

I mean I guess it depends on their enforcement methods for consumer cars. Since it is up to states to enforce vehicle inspections, how do they inspect racecars? Force the tracks? Does this mean that in states that do not have emissions inspections there would be no change whatsoever outside of lack of parts availability for repairs?

Legislation is only as good as the compliance enforced so I guess it depends on the states.

This is exactly why the EPA is going after the source. First, it's where they have authority. But also because it's where they can do the most. 

You know who inspects race cars? Sanctioning bodies. So if the EPA decides that production-based race cars need to have some or all emissions controls, the EPA could lean on the SCCA and NASA to modify their rule sets. I'm not expecting this to happen, but there is a clear mechanism that could be used to clean up race cars. And there are ways to deal with grandfathering. Really it's not that different from safety standards.

Note that you do need to have a catalytic converter in the stock location to run the Targa Newfoundland, even in open class. Don't ask me where the stock location is on my car, that's a hard question to answer :)

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
3/5/21 4:29 p.m.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

I was playing with cars and autocrossing long before I had a decent-paying job. I started with a $200 FB on all-season tires. IIRC I was making around $10/hr at the time. 

Making some assumptions about the timeframe, that's probably around $20/hr today.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/5/21 4:36 p.m.

I started autocrossing when I was in university. But mostly I just put on a set of sway bars and drove the car I had. Oh, I did run some dryer hose from the air dam to near the intake for cold air. You could do the same today.

Anyhow - the EPA and SEMA did a recent webinar on what's going on. For those who want to spend some time learning - including answers to my question about gatekeeping for competition-only parts - here it is on YouTube.

 

irish44j (Forum Supporter)
irish44j (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
3/5/21 6:05 p.m.
Maniac0301 said:

In reply to FatMongo :

According to fuel companies the EPA is going to destroy all motorsport since the 1970s.   We cheer them on because we don't allow these companies to lead us around the nose from fear.   The EPA doesn't give a E36 M3 about your  autocross car, or your circle track racer, or your spec miata.  Just like the FDA doesn't care about your vegetable garden.   But hey lets just listen to the industry folks about air quality they were certainly very gracious about going to unleaded fuel and did so without a single fight.

PRI and its ilk are to motorsports as the NRA is to gun owners - the sky is falling all the time because "the government is going to take your [insert product you like here]" in order to drum up sales NOW before the government purportedly will start enforcing this or that. Everything is an imminent threat to your liberty, even when it isn't. 

 

irish44j (Forum Supporter)
irish44j (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
3/5/21 6:14 p.m.
Olemiss540 said:
I guess it depends on their enforcement methods for consumer cars.

There will be next to no enforcement of consumer cars at the federal level, except in egregious cases. They'll go after the sellers and leave enforcing on consumer cars to the states and localities, some of which will try to enforce things (my county likely will since we already have both safety and emissions inspections annually), but most of which will ignore it just like they ignore the blatant, obviously-visible illegal giant light bars all over every Jeep and pickup these days (literally NONE of which are street legal). And checking emissions stuff is WAY harder than noticing huge LED lightbars (disclaimer, both of my 4x4s have a big lightbar on the roof rack,  but they have a cover on at all times on public roads, which is totally legal)

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7
Our Preferred Partners
AeqRi9nxDIdLr1hS4FqImvRwRRTIYZiJWusr0Je6JLBffLppv8nbWm9vkopVpnmq