1 ... 5 6 7
irish44j (Forum Supporter)
irish44j (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
3/7/21 7:41 p.m.
Ranger50 said:

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

And that is called "creative rules interpretation". It does fit all the criteria listed. 

Wasn't the requirements from the challenge to have operational headlights? I seem to recall some clown with a 300zx bolted them to the trunk floor and wired them up to work. Completely legal.

If you want it to work as intended, you better say it. If you don't, don't get butthurt when someone games the rules and/or you didn't think of it first.

The difference with GRM challenge (or even autocross) and stage rally is: regardless of making cute arguments like that, tech WILL NOT pass you. I know the autocross crowd loves to get "technical" with rules wording, but letting rules in autocross slide results in someone hitting a cone. Or in Lemons, you can bribe Judge Phil with some cigars tactially placed in an inspection area (guilty, here). In rally the tech officials can fail your inspection for a million reasons not stated explicitly in the rules. And trust me, the techs DO NOT CARE if "someone gets butthurt" because they got failed for "literal interpretation of rules." You can argue all you want, and in the end, the event will just refund your $1000 entry fee and you can tow home on your own dime, and nobody will care one bit. Rally tech rules are fully at the inspectors discretion.

Side note: there are a only a few rally techs in any part of the country, and they most definitely remember people who try to cheat (or creatively interpret rules) and/or have poorly-prepped cars - and particularly those who make a fuss about it....and at the next rally "your car needs additional roll cage padding" or "your fire system nozzles aren't in an acceptable place." The rally community is relatively small. You don't want the reputation as that guy. You may have the same tech inspector at 4 different rallies in one year.

 

 

irish44j (Forum Supporter)
irish44j (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
3/7/21 8:00 p.m.
TurboFocus said:
irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

In either case, I'll be happy to give up aftermarket emissions bypasses for any and all of my cars to get rid of the brodozers. 

ha, all this says to me is "I'll shoot myself in the foot just so I can shoot you in the foot."
 

Except it doesn't shoot me in the foot. I have nothing done to my cars that the EPA would come after me for as an individual. My cars pass state emissions inspections (and my vintage cars don't have to), and always have.....whether or not I had "stuff done to them" regarding emissions (which of course I wouldn't be so dumb to post about on the internet)

In any case, I have two asthmatic daughters. I care more about air quality than to protect peoples' freedom to pollute. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranger50
Ranger50 UltimaDork
3/8/21 12:13 a.m.

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

So basically there is an subjective unwritten rule book? Got it.

irish44j (Forum Supporter)
irish44j (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
3/8/21 6:18 a.m.
Ranger50 said:

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

So basically there is an subjective unwritten rule book? Got it 

Name an amateur motorsport that doesn't, And I'll tell you you're wrong. Rules are always subject to the discretion (and supposed "expertise") of officials enforcing those rules, whether it's tech inspection for a course official black flagging you for some kind of driving etiquette violation. 

And the reason that discretion exists for rwxe officials is because people like Pete will try to install his catalytic converter to the cage by interpreting things literally. 

 

 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
3/8/21 7:06 a.m.
irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:
Ranger50 said:

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

So basically there is an subjective unwritten rule book? Got it 

Name an amateur motorsport that doesn't, And I'll tell you you're wrong. Rules are always subject to the discretion (and supposed "expertise") of officials enforcing those rules, whether it's tech inspection for a course official black flagging you for some kind of driving etiquette violation. 

And the reason that discretion exists for rwxe officials is because people like Pete will try to install his catalytic converter to the cage by interpreting things literally. 

 

 

Oh, *I* wouldn't do it.  I'm relating how poorly written laws get open to interpretation, and people try to go through the letter of the loophole and claim that it meets the law.

 

Where judges (legal and recreational) come into play, is looking at this creative intepretation, and determining if it meets the spirit/intent of the law or not.  This is where previous cases get cited, and in a perfect world, the laws get amended by the legislative side.

 

And this brings us back to page one... smiley

TR7 (Forum Supporter)
TR7 (Forum Supporter) Reader
3/9/21 1:54 p.m.
rslifkin said:
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I would like to see an exemption for "limited use" but that's just me dreaming. Similar to getting classic, hot-rod, whatever tags that are only a few k a year and only on sunny sundays.

Agreed.  Even if it's not a full exemption I'd be happy.  Give me some kind of basic test to have done on the thing every year or 2 to prove that it's at least making a reasonable effort to maintain decent emissions and confirm that it's not being driven more than X miles / year.  Maybe tie it to a minimum vehicle age as well.  Yeah, it won't be as good as doing the full suite of tests on it, but it wouldn't be too hard to arrange leaving it at a shop overnight so they can test from cold the next morning and then pick it up after. 

I would be behind this. Not looking for a free pass, but a reasonable amount of freedom for modification (limited miles, have functional cats). 

"Don't mess with the emissions on your (assuming modern) daily, run cats, don't coal roll." - Sure thing boss, no problem, makes sense.

"Don't put fuel injection on your wheezy 70s boat anchor thats infrequently driven." - Well now Im frustrated and unhappy. 

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
3/9/21 4:37 p.m.
TR7 (Forum Supporter) said:
rslifkin said:
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I would like to see an exemption for "limited use" but that's just me dreaming. Similar to getting classic, hot-rod, whatever tags that are only a few k a year and only on sunny sundays.

Agreed.  Even if it's not a full exemption I'd be happy.  Give me some kind of basic test to have done on the thing every year or 2 to prove that it's at least making a reasonable effort to maintain decent emissions and confirm that it's not being driven more than X miles / year.  Maybe tie it to a minimum vehicle age as well.  Yeah, it won't be as good as doing the full suite of tests on it, but it wouldn't be too hard to arrange leaving it at a shop overnight so they can test from cold the next morning and then pick it up after. 

I would be behind this. Not looking for a free pass, but a reasonable amount of freedom for modification (limited miles, have functional cats). 

"Don't mess with the emissions on your (assuming modern) daily, run cats, don't coal roll." - Sure thing boss, no problem, makes sense.

"Don't put fuel injection on your wheezy 70s boat anchor thats infrequently driven." - Well now Im frustrated and unhappy. 

Again, it should be pointed out that we did have that exception.  And it was abused.  So the exemption was lost.  

Except for some states, I doubt anyone will have a problem with putting EFI on a carbed or mechanically injected car. 

TR7 (Forum Supporter)
TR7 (Forum Supporter) Reader
3/10/21 11:14 a.m.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
TR7 (Forum Supporter) said:
rslifkin said:
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I would like to see an exemption for "limited use" but that's just me dreaming. Similar to getting classic, hot-rod, whatever tags that are only a few k a year and only on sunny sundays.

Agreed.  Even if it's not a full exemption I'd be happy.  Give me some kind of basic test to have done on the thing every year or 2 to prove that it's at least making a reasonable effort to maintain decent emissions and confirm that it's not being driven more than X miles / year.  Maybe tie it to a minimum vehicle age as well.  Yeah, it won't be as good as doing the full suite of tests on it, but it wouldn't be too hard to arrange leaving it at a shop overnight so they can test from cold the next morning and then pick it up after. 

I would be behind this. Not looking for a free pass, but a reasonable amount of freedom for modification (limited miles, have functional cats). 

"Don't mess with the emissions on your (assuming modern) daily, run cats, don't coal roll." - Sure thing boss, no problem, makes sense.

"Don't put fuel injection on your wheezy 70s boat anchor thats infrequently driven." - Well now Im frustrated and unhappy. 

Again, it should be pointed out that we did have that exception.  And it was abused.  So the exemption was lost.  

Except for some states, I doubt anyone will have a problem with putting EFI on a carbed or mechanically injected car. 

Understood, just unfortunate.

And while its unlikely that anyone would have a problem with my (yours, whoevers) EFI retrofit on whatever they are driving, what about the manufacturers of those retrofit kits/ECUs? If they can no longer legally provide the product, thats a big bummer. 

STM317
STM317 UberDork
3/10/21 11:33 a.m.
TR7 (Forum Supporter) said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
TR7 (Forum Supporter) said:
rslifkin said:
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I would like to see an exemption for "limited use" but that's just me dreaming. Similar to getting classic, hot-rod, whatever tags that are only a few k a year and only on sunny sundays.

Agreed.  Even if it's not a full exemption I'd be happy.  Give me some kind of basic test to have done on the thing every year or 2 to prove that it's at least making a reasonable effort to maintain decent emissions and confirm that it's not being driven more than X miles / year.  Maybe tie it to a minimum vehicle age as well.  Yeah, it won't be as good as doing the full suite of tests on it, but it wouldn't be too hard to arrange leaving it at a shop overnight so they can test from cold the next morning and then pick it up after. 

I would be behind this. Not looking for a free pass, but a reasonable amount of freedom for modification (limited miles, have functional cats). 

"Don't mess with the emissions on your (assuming modern) daily, run cats, don't coal roll." - Sure thing boss, no problem, makes sense.

"Don't put fuel injection on your wheezy 70s boat anchor thats infrequently driven." - Well now Im frustrated and unhappy. 

Again, it should be pointed out that we did have that exception.  And it was abused.  So the exemption was lost.  

Except for some states, I doubt anyone will have a problem with putting EFI on a carbed or mechanically injected car. 

Understood, just unfortunate.

And while its unlikely that anyone would have a problem with my (yours, whoevers) EFI retrofit on whatever they are driving, what about the manufacturers of those retrofit kits/ECUs? If they can no longer legally provide the product, thats a big bummer. 

Updating older vehicles with components that improve fuel efficiency and/or reduce emissions has generally been ok in the past. But it's likely to be up to the manufacturer of these products to prove that their product does that if they want to continue selling them. Some will spend the money to make that happen, while others won't.

MrFancypants
MrFancypants Reader
3/10/21 1:40 p.m.

It doesn't seem like it would be terribly difficult to make a convincing argument that a modern fuel injection system fitted to an older carbureted car would lead to a cleaner and more efficient vehicle. Any policy that prevents someone's ability to do that likely wasn't written by someone that knows anything about cars.

This is my general issue. I'm all aboard the "clean air" team, because it's entirely possible for me to have my fun with cars without crapping in the air I'm trying to breath.

Fun fact: school bus fumes give me headaches, why are fleets of these driving around without proper emissions equipment?

STM317
STM317 UberDork
3/10/21 2:43 p.m.

In reply to MrFancypants :

Improving fuel economy (and GHG emissions) is pretty straightforward, you just burn less fuel. But there's a balance between that and smog forming emissions like NOx, Hydrocarbons and particulates. It's not easy to improve one thing without making some other area worse.

For example, switching to a leaner air/fuel ratio will obviously use less fuel, but a common side effect of lean burn combustion is hotter temps, and that leads to increased NOx production. You can use things like EGR as a tuning lever if the vehicle is so equipped, but that's even more aspects to tune that need to be dealt with.

Leaving it up to Joe Schmoe to get it right in his garage, because the company that sold the part couldn't be bothered to develop or certify their product for an application isn't going to fly moving forward. "Making a convincing argument" that a product might make things better likely won't be enough without some supporting data, or evidence that the vehicle will only be used off road. If you want to sell a product that might impact emissions, you'll need to have some evidence that it passes the applicable standard, or strict processes to ensure the product isn't used improperly.

kevinatfms
kevinatfms GRM+ Memberand Reader
3/15/21 7:04 a.m.
MrFancypants said:

It doesn't seem like it would be terribly difficult to make a convincing argument that a modern fuel injection system fitted to an older carbureted car would lead to a cleaner and more efficient vehicle. Any policy that prevents someone's ability to do that likely wasn't written by someone that knows anything about cars.

This is my general issue. I'm all aboard the "clean air" team, because it's entirely possible for me to have my fun with cars without crapping in the air I'm trying to breath.

Fun fact: school bus fumes give me headaches, why are fleets of these driving around without proper emissions equipment?

One county here in Maryland just plopped down some ridiculous amount of money for all electric buses. Im quite intrigued to see how they do versus the "clean" diesel busses they use now which always have black soot around the bumper....

In reply to kevinatfms :

Our transit authority spent an enormous sum of money to buy electric busses to run the shorter downtown routes. Then found out they are too long to make many of the turns in the downtown area. So the downtown busses are still diesel. The electric busses have been moved to the longer routes outside of downtown. Unfortunately, they don't have the battery capacity to run those routes so halfway through the day they have to switch to the diesel busses. 

It's really a comedy of errors. And at $600k each for 4 busses, it was a crazy expensive error. 

Apis Mellifera
Apis Mellifera Dork
3/15/21 8:31 a.m.

A lot of these bus replacements are paid for through the VW settlement.  The only real stipulation in accessing the funding is to demonstrate NOx reduction and to replace an old diesel with a new electric or diesel.

1 ... 5 6 7
Our Preferred Partners
6DsgNTBUJhHGv32h8rzGAyI7MTzsvcP6pSM4VDeiW0BwQAGsOguwvGavGN0nPVIu