Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
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.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> EPA wants to outlaw your future racecar conversion, Time sensitive SEMA Press release
cpavlenko
post Feb 11 2016, 01:24 PM
Post #21


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 489
Joined: 19-April 12
From: North Arizona
Member No.: 14,400
Region Association: Southwest Region



QUOTE(Larmo63 @ Feb 10 2016, 06:49 PM) *

I say Eff the government.

Good luck on getting red blooded American men out of their Classic cars.

They'd have a revolution on their hands.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
horizontally-opposed
post Feb 11 2016, 01:34 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,430
Joined: 12-May 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 2,058
Region Association: None



Was thinking about this this morning, actually, as I walked by a taxi parked in a driveway from the night before. Kind of a fun job, I imagine. That's probably grass is greener thinking, but I could see enjoying it in some ways. However, I imagine it's a job that will be disappearing, what with Uber in the short term and autonomous cabs in the long run.

The future of the car probably has everything to do with safety and liability was my next thought. If driverless cars will truly replace driven cars in the next 10-30 years, my guess is people won't buy or own cars, or few will. All cars, or at least a great many of them (especially in population centers) will be taxis.

That may turn car manufacturers into "fleet" makers. If car sales become largely or strictly B2B, styling and driving dynamics will be far less important than sexy things like safety, passenger comfort, and efficiency. The biggest question and driver may be liability, and that may come down to insurance. Which makes me wonder about privately owned cars, and what that will look like. Perhaps they'll be just as legal to own and operate as they are today, but the insurance may become prohibitive.

I hope I am 100% wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DBCooper
post Feb 11 2016, 01:35 PM
Post #23


14's in the 13's with ATTITUDE
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,079
Joined: 25-August 04
From: Dazed and Confused
Member No.: 2,618
Region Association: Northern California



QUOTE(Elliot Cannon @ Feb 11 2016, 10:38 AM) *

So, the "black helicopters" are coming to take all our guns AND our cars?? OMG!! The sky is falling.

Quick, quick, gather up your family and your arms, flee to your nearest bird-watching refuge and occupy it by force!!

Seriously, read the ars-technica article referenced above, or any other level-headed discussion by non-interested parties. Absolutely NOTHING has changed. No harm in letting the government know it's not welcomed, that's what freedom of speech is for, but no need to take up arms in revolution, either.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
914_teener
post Feb 11 2016, 01:53 PM
Post #24


914 Guru
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5,193
Joined: 31-August 08
From: So. Cal
Member No.: 9,489
Region Association: Southern California



QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Feb 11 2016, 11:34 AM) *

Was thinking about this this morning, actually, as I walked by a taxi parked in a driveway from the night before. Kind of a fun job, I imagine. That's probably grass is greener thinking, but I could see enjoying it in some ways. However, I imagine it's a job that will be disappearing, what with Uber in the short term and autonomous cabs in the long run.

The future of the car probably has everything to do with safety and liability was my next thought. If driverless cars will truly replace driven cars in the next 10-30 years, my guess is people won't buy or own cars, or few will. All cars, or at least a great many of them (especially in population centers) will be taxis.

That may turn car manufacturers into "fleet" makers. If car sales become largely or strictly B2B, styling and driving dynamics will be far less important than sexy things like safety, passenger comfort, and efficiency. The biggest question and driver may be liability, and that may come down to insurance. Which makes me wonder about privately owned cars, and what that will look like. Perhaps they'll be just as legal to own and operate as they are today, but the insurance may become prohibitive.

I hope I am 100% wrong.



Wow...I think you are 80% correct.

Part of the reason for the revaluation of crude and uncertainty of valuation of capital. But...internal combustion isn't going away anytime soon.

I don't know about "sexy" and "styling" since it give us a sense of "importance". Who knows what that will look like 30 years from now.

The technology is certainly there already.

Used to be that everyone (that could afford it) had a stylish buggy with a fancy whip and fringe on the top.

Henry Ford thought of a way to market and produce the automobile that the "average" person could afford.

Horse and buggy's went by the wayside.

Things change. Embrace it.

'Murican history (IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)

Porsche content:

Makes my teener more valuable and old....like me.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dave_Darling
post Feb 11 2016, 04:20 PM
Post #25


914 Idiot
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 14,974
Joined: 9-January 03
From: Silicon Valley / Kailua-Kona
Member No.: 121
Region Association: Northern California



QUOTE(Racer Chris @ Feb 11 2016, 06:28 AM) *

Much ado about nothing. Read the fine print.


I have read some of it, and I disagree with you. They are "clarifying" an existing rule in a way that contradicts the previous interpretations of it. So they can say, "Well you were breaking the law all along, we just never enforced it before." Much the same way that my home state does not require smog tests for 1975 and earlier cars, but they are all supposed to still meet all of the old requirements. So they can later say, "OK, we are testing again--and since the requirements didn't change, nobody is grandfathered out."

It looks like they are going to use this primarily to keep anyone from modifying any street cars, by going after anyone who makes non-certified parts for cars. So no more of getting "for off-road use only" parts though the mail--or if you do get them, they'll cost a whole lot more!

You might want to worry a bit more, Chris. That's your livelihood they appear to be after.

--DD
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
914_teener
post Feb 11 2016, 04:37 PM
Post #26


914 Guru
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5,193
Joined: 31-August 08
From: So. Cal
Member No.: 9,489
Region Association: Southern California



QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Feb 11 2016, 02:20 PM) *

QUOTE(Racer Chris @ Feb 11 2016, 06:28 AM) *

Much ado about nothing. Read the fine print.


I have read some of it, and I disagree with you. They are "clarifying" an existing rule in a way that contradicts the previous interpretations of it. So they can say, "Well you were breaking the law all along, we just never enforced it before." Much the same way that my home state does not require smog tests for 1975 and earlier cars, but they are all supposed to still meet all of the old requirements. So they can later say, "OK, we are testing again--and since the requirements didn't change, nobody is grandfathered out."

It looks like they are going to use this primarily to keep anyone from modifying any street cars, by going after anyone who makes non-certified parts for cars. So no more of getting "for off-road use only" parts though the mail--or if you do get them, they'll cost a whole lot more!

You might want to worry a bit more, Chris. That's your livelihood they appear to be after.

--DD



...or his custom closed track race oriented business will increase.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
horizontally-opposed
post Feb 11 2016, 05:25 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,430
Joined: 12-May 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 2,058
Region Association: None



QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Feb 11 2016, 02:20 PM) *


They are "clarifying" an existing rule in a way that contradicts the previous interpretations of it. So they can say, "Well you were breaking the law all along, we just never enforced it before." Much the same way that my home state does not require smog tests for 1975 and earlier cars, but they are all supposed to still meet all of the old requirements. So they can later say, "OK, we are testing again--and since the requirements didn't change, nobody is grandfathered out."

It looks like they are going to use this primarily to keep anyone from modifying any street cars, by going after anyone who makes non-certified parts for cars.

--DD


I tend to agree. SEMA's press release may or may not have been worded well, but this feels like getting ducks in a row to me, and is slipped into a bill that has nothing to do with light-duty trucks or cars—which always raises a red flag. Better to push back now and send a clear signal than to have no choice but to yield later.

To be honest, I am not against smog controls on track cars or even race cars in theory, but the EPA has far, far better things to focus on than that. Whether modified diesel pickups, escalators and hotel hall lights that run all the time, or... And Dave may be exactly right about going after the supplier side. Look at the fines: $3750 vs $37,500. The EPA representative R&T spoke to suggested that they're not all that interested in track cars, given their enforcement history, but her successor or bosses' successors can change all that if the laws are in the books. And they already are. So why the clarification, then?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
914_teener
post Feb 11 2016, 05:40 PM
Post #28


914 Guru
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5,193
Joined: 31-August 08
From: So. Cal
Member No.: 9,489
Region Association: Southern California



The law is the Clean Air Act....and the proposal is not a Bill. It is an enforcement propsal as an interpretation of the intent of the law.

The EPA is the enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DBCooper
post Feb 11 2016, 06:17 PM
Post #29


14's in the 13's with ATTITUDE
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,079
Joined: 25-August 04
From: Dazed and Confused
Member No.: 2,618
Region Association: Northern California



QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Feb 11 2016, 03:25 PM) *

And Dave may be exactly right about going after the supplier side. Look at the fines: $3750 vs $37,500. The EPA representative R&T spoke to suggested that they're not all that interested in track cars, given their enforcement history, but her successor or bosses' successors can change all that if the laws are in the books. And they already are. So why the clarification, then?

Pure speculation. There's no fine for selling parts, never has been and none proposed here, only for using them in ways that are prohibited. There's a LOT of misinformation and speculation swirling everywhere. Look for the analysis of disinterested parties, you're more likely to get a realistic evaluation, not those with stakes in the game.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
horizontally-opposed
post Feb 11 2016, 06:38 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,430
Joined: 12-May 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 2,058
Region Association: None



QUOTE(DBCooper @ Feb 11 2016, 04:17 PM) *

QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Feb 11 2016, 03:25 PM) *

And Dave may be exactly right about going after the supplier side. Look at the fines: $3750 vs $37,500. The EPA representative R&T spoke to suggested that they're not all that interested in track cars, given their enforcement history, but her successor or bosses' successors can change all that if the laws are in the books. And they already are. So why the clarification, then?

Pure speculation. There's no fine for selling parts, never has been and none proposed here, only for using them in ways that are prohibited. There's a LOT of misinformation and speculation swirling everywhere. Look for the analysis of disinterested parties, you're more likely to get a realistic evaluation, not those with stakes in the game.


Not pure speculation. We do, however, agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there. To that end, I found the following two items interesting, and for different reasons.

Road and Track was less sensationalist than the majority, and Laura Allen's remarks are particularly interesting, as are the comments.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/ne...actually-means/

And an alternate take, thanks to Jay Lamm hiring a lawyer on his own dime:
http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/images/EPA-...tm_medium=email

Of interest in the above:

The EPA’s approach reaches its zenith in two different sections of the proposed rule. 40 CFR 86.1854-12(b)(5)14 states that
Certified motor vehicles15 and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines...

The proposed rule is more draconian in 40 CFR 1068.10116, “What general actions does this regulation prohibit?” The answer is “don’t modify your engine, ever.”...

• Knowingly removing or rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in engines/equipment in compliance with the regulations after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser. Violation of same by a manufacturer or dealer comes with a civil penalty of $37,500 for each engine or piece of equipment in violation; violation by anyone else may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $3,750 per engine or piece of equipment;17
• Knowingly manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, or installing any component that bypasses, impairs, defeats, or disables the control of emissions of any regulated pollutant. Violation of same may draw a civil penalty of up to $3,750 for each component in violation;18
• Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of 1068.101(b): a civil penalty of $37,500 may be subjected for each engine or piece of equipment in violation by a manufacturer or dealer; violation by anyone else may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $3,750 per engine or piece of equipment;19
• Importation of uncertified engines or equipment is prohibited if it is defined to be “new.” The definition of “new” is broad for imported engines and equipment; uncertified equipment, including used engines and equipment, will generally be considered to be “new;” violators are subject to the manufacturer/dealer penalty of $37,500 for each piece of equipment in violation.20

Perhaps most troubling is the provision in 40 CFR 1068.101(a) that states that it is prohibited to sell, offer for sale, import, or introduce or deliver into commerce in the US any new engine or equipment after emissions standards take effect for the engine or equipment unless it is covered by a valid certificate of conformity for the model year and has the required label or tag...


Sounds to me like this may allow the EPA to trump CARB's current acceptance of later engines in earlier cars so long as all emissions equipment is present and functions as intended—but also that that's a small matter compared to the fines and enforcement structure. Or does the lawyer have it wrong? I'm not so sure...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
914_teener
post Feb 11 2016, 07:00 PM
Post #31


914 Guru
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5,193
Joined: 31-August 08
From: So. Cal
Member No.: 9,489
Region Association: Southern California



Ok, I'll go there:

What they are after is uniform enforcement.

If it weren't for the C.A.R.B enforcement actions, Volkswagen would not have been caught.

They VW... took a calculated risk that it wouldn't be caught.

That is a political black eye for the EPA. They are after the big guys here....not Chris Foley.

When a bunch of Cal Tech student on a grant loan from the University of Virginia (EPA) grant bust the biggest car maker in the world that is betting that no one in the government will catch them.......................

Something's up......

Ya think?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
914_3.0
post Feb 11 2016, 07:16 PM
Post #32


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 8-January 14
From: Central Cal Coast
Member No.: 16,856
Region Association: Central California



I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant Red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
We'll fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
914_teener
post Feb 11 2016, 07:46 PM
Post #33


914 Guru
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5,193
Joined: 31-August 08
From: So. Cal
Member No.: 9,489
Region Association: Southern California



QUOTE(914_3.0 @ Feb 11 2016, 05:16 PM) *

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant Red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
We'll fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime





(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) I love Rush.....

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smoke.gif)

Rant over.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
0396
post Feb 12 2016, 12:36 AM
Post #34


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,046
Joined: 13-October 03
From: L.A. Calif
Member No.: 1,245
Region Association: Southern California



QUOTE(914_teener @ Feb 11 2016, 03:40 PM) *

The law is the Clean Air Act....and the proposal is not a Bill. It is an enforcement propsal as an interpretation of the intent of the law.

The EPA is the enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government.


Yes, who do you think the EPA gets their directive from. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Matty900
post Feb 12 2016, 12:46 AM
Post #35


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,269
Joined: 21-February 15
From: Oregon
Member No.: 18,454
Region Association: Pacific Northwest



QUOTE(914_3.0 @ Feb 11 2016, 05:16 PM) *

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant Red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
We'll fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime

Too funny thatsong was goingthroughmy head on page one of this thread
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Elliot Cannon
post Feb 12 2016, 01:41 AM
Post #36


914 Guru
*****

Group: Retired Members
Posts: 8,487
Joined: 29-December 06
From: Paso Robles Ca. (Central coast)
Member No.: 7,407
Region Association: None



QUOTE(396 @ Feb 11 2016, 10:36 PM) *

QUOTE(914_teener @ Feb 11 2016, 03:40 PM) *

The law is the Clean Air Act....and the proposal is not a Bill. It is an enforcement propsal as an interpretation of the intent of the law.

The EPA is the enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government.


Yes, who do you think the EPA gets their directive from. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)


I'm sure the executive branch of our government has a lot more important things on its agenda than worrying about emission controls for race cars. Every so often organizations like the EPA, the FAA, the FDA etc. have to justify their very existence by showing the country that they are looking out for our best interests and are willing to take action. Weather it does any good or not is beside the point. That's why we have lobby groups like SEMA. On the aviation side we have the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association). These are all powerful, influential organizations that represent large groups of voters. They are also knowledgeable enough to be able prove that some of these proposals are total horse shit.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bulitt
post Feb 12 2016, 01:48 AM
Post #37


Achtzylinder
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,188
Joined: 2-October 11
Member No.: 13,632
Region Association: South East States



Anyways, they love making racecars, car parts, furniture, steel, and most everything in China! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
veekry9
post Feb 12 2016, 07:34 AM
Post #38


OldMember
****

Group: Retired Members
Posts: 3,068
Joined: 17-June 13
From: TO
Member No.: 16,025
Region Association: Canada




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RRznrb0A58


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnsk3sHZFqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7LoRpoz4MI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUTCz8BJxA

How the entire automotive industries of nations can be dismantled by dictate.
Who in the epa's administration has any regard for these people's livelihoods.
They must lose their office before they would come around to the idea of rights.
Polar bears,sealevel,greenhouse,green,red,bs.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 02:56 AM