F-You Colorado! more emission headaches, I may loose my registration |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
F-You Colorado! more emission headaches, I may loose my registration |
newto914s |
Jun 29 2009, 02:07 PM
Post
#1
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 561 Joined: 16-February 04 From: Thornton, CO Member No.: 1,663 |
With the help of some of the great Colorado 914 guys(notably Mike and Chris W) i got my car to pass the e-check. Read about it here.
I thought everything was fine and dandy. With my 5 year collector plates on it I never have to worry about emissions again(bring on the SBC). But in Colorado they have these white child molester looking vans that sit on the highway entrance ramps. They use a laser to measure the emission of all the car entering. I drove by one and got a letter in the mail. Now I have to bring my car to a state inspector for another evaluation or my registration will be revoked and a $100 fine imposed. Their's no way I'm going to pass now, with no Cat an no smog pump. The irony is my car runs better than it ever has. F-U CO |
orthobiz |
Jul 4 2009, 01:57 PM
Post
#2
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 8-January 07 From: Cadillac, Michigan Member No.: 7,438 Region Association: Upper MidWest |
Please explain: how does some roadside sniffer detect your emissions with a ?laser? And doesn't have to pull you over to go right to the tailpipe? How far away can they accurately do this?
Just seems beyond high tech. Too bad that govt guy Scott met wasn't at the BBQ. We coulda swayed him over to the collector's side of things! Paul |
Gint |
Jul 4 2009, 01:58 PM
Post
#3
|
Mike Ginter Group: Admin Posts: 16,083 Joined: 26-December 02 From: Denver CO. Member No.: 20 Region Association: Rocky Mountains |
Please explain: how does some roadside sniffer detect your emissions with a ?laser? And doesn't have to pull you over to go right to the tailpipe? How far away can they accurately do this? Something I dug up. I haven't even read it myself yet. http://www.motorists.org/emissions/home/ho...-sensing-works/ |
ArtechnikA |
Jul 4 2009, 07:01 PM
Post
#4
|
rich herzog Group: Members Posts: 7,390 Joined: 4-April 03 From: Salted Roads, PA Member No.: 513 Region Association: None |
Something I dug up. I haven't even read it myself yet. http://www.motorists.org/emissions/home/ho...-sensing-works/ I read most of it. Salient points are - they claim they can test a car a second. With "better than 10% accuracy." (The way I read that, it means it's right 10% of the time. maybe they mean each reading is within 10% of its actual value - but that's not what they say.) Any way you look at it, 10% accuracy is pretty sucky - but they also claim "Inspect & Measure" programs have the same "10% accuracy" rating, so something is wrong with the reported data... Something I have an issue with is tailpipe height - I get the IR absorption spectrosopy. I don't see how they can sense a raised 4x4 with a tailpipe 3' off the ground one second and a lowered 914 the next. |
jhadler |
Jul 6 2009, 02:00 PM
Post
#5
|
Long term tinkerer... Group: Members Posts: 1,879 Joined: 7-April 03 From: Lyons, CO Member No.: 529 |
With "better than 10% accuracy." (The way I read that, it means it's right 10% of the time. maybe they mean each reading is within 10% of its actual value - but that's not what they say.) No, that's exactly what they say. 10% accuracy means that an indicated reading of 3500 ppm could be anything between 3150 ppm and 3850 ppm. QUOTE Any way you look at it, 10% accuracy is pretty sucky - but they also claim "Inspect & Measure" programs have the same "10% accuracy" rating, so something is wrong with the reported data... 10% is really not that bad. If you look at what they are measuring, and how they are doing it, 10% is really quite an impressive accuracy. As for the mobile system having the same claimed accuracy as the permanent testing stations? I don't know, it's possible that the they both have the same accuracy, but are based on different principles. I would hazard a guess and say that the mobile system is more maintenance intensive, and that there is more work required to keep it operating at that 10% level. The QUOTE Something I have an issue with is tailpipe height - I get the IR absorption spectrosopy. I don't see how they can sense a raised 4x4 with a tailpipe 3' off the ground one second and a lowered 914 the next. They're not looking at the pipe itself, but the cloud behind the vehicle. Granted, a lifted 4x4 is likely to measure less than the 914 as the system no doubt is designed to look at passenger cars, and not big rigs. Note: While I'm impressed with the design of the system, I'm not necessarily supporting the way it seems to be used. -Josh2 |
ArtechnikA |
Jul 6 2009, 02:18 PM
Post
#6
|
rich herzog Group: Members Posts: 7,390 Joined: 4-April 03 From: Salted Roads, PA Member No.: 513 Region Association: None |
No, that's exactly what they say. 10% accuracy means that an indicated reading of 3500 ppm could be anything between 3150 ppm and 3850 ppm. What you have described is not 10% accuracy - it is 10% error. But it's semantics, mostly... QUOTE They're not looking at the pipe itself, but the cloud behind the vehicle. But that's quite an issue. THE cloud behind THE vehicle - at 1 vehicle a second. How much of the leading vehicle's cloud is still in the air when I pass through right behind him? |
jhadler |
Jul 6 2009, 02:41 PM
Post
#7
|
Long term tinkerer... Group: Members Posts: 1,879 Joined: 7-April 03 From: Lyons, CO Member No.: 529 |
No, that's exactly what they say. 10% accuracy means that an indicated reading of 3500 ppm could be anything between 3150 ppm and 3850 ppm. What you have described is not 10% accuracy - it is 10% error. But it's semantics, mostly... In metrology, "accuracy" a crude term used in the statement of the uncertainty of the measurement. "error" is not a generally used term, although that is what it is widely interpreted as. What I would really like to know is what is the basis of their 10% number? 1-sigma? 2? 3? Makes a BIG difference on what the REAL uncertainty of the measurement is. And I wonder if they would even release that information. My guess? It's a 1-sigma statement, and at that point, 10% is not so great. QUOTE But that's quite an issue. THE cloud behind THE vehicle - at 1 vehicle a second. How much of the leading vehicle's cloud is still in the air when I pass through right behind him? Agreed. And if a car is right in front of you belching a cloud of mosquito killing smoke, how well does the system compensate for the leading cars' contamination of your measurement? I would hope the sampling rate is high enough that it can average multiple measurements per vehicle pass, and be able to set a background level prior to the next vehicle passing by. Getting back to the original topic, the numbers the system displayed on the vehicle in question showed a really high HC value. It didn't say if there was a background correction, but it did seem to have a radar gun measurement coupled with it, and it indicated that the car was -slowing- not accelerating. Okay, looking at the data, it did say that there were 8 samples for the given measurement, but how fast was the sampling rate? And it does not indicate if there's a background correction. I dunno, I just plan to avoid the stations for time being... Right now they're not like photo radar (which can be placed anywhere), they are placed at specific locations, at specific times (check the website). Just don't go there... A good idea, but may not be well executed... -Josh2 |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th June 2024 - 11:16 PM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |