BretD 88GTA

Latest on the smog situation:

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/t...80102788952001

MorrisL03

Sooner or later we will be walking.

leeperryracing

what these morons don't get is that 1/3 of the world's greenhouse gases are produced by coal burning mines in china! but america can't get on china no time soon because they own almost 60% of america's debt so all we are doing is chasing our tails.

brandotron

iTrader: (2)

This kinda makes me think...has anyone tried putting an electric motor in a third gen? Or used another type of fuel in a third gen?

Jason89RS

iTrader: (2)

Maybe we could get the CA quacks to sue China.

leeperryracing

we're sucking up to china right now...america is nowhere as rich or powerful as it was even 20-25yrs ago, just the hard, cold reality and with everything thats worth decent revenue sent overseas, the worst is yet to come.

injdinjn

leeperryracing is right.

Want to know who started this suit.
Remember me mentioning how since LA mayor villawhatever had lost his top spot on the democrat list for our next Governor. Well, the next in line, now #1 choice, is the complete eco idiot, our own exgoveror and currant atty general THE ONE, THE ONLY, THEE Jerry Brown.
First you hear the drum roll then La Quince Bragatta(sp), no quarter, all CA cars will be recycled into Chinese made bicycles and commuter trains. Single family housing will be outlawed and only these new business/office/residence multi story ugly buildings will be allowed.

Me thinks its time to give this State back to the Mexicans and watch the reverse "dust bowl" exodus from east of the Mississippi.

MorrisL03

No **** Inj. Its getting ridiculous, luckily I'm young and have a chance to go where I want. Was born and raised in this state but cant STAND it anymore. The smog laws aren't going to do jack **** for the environment. Like what was mentioned. Check out Chinas air quality and ask them if they give a rats *** about the environment...Now...which state doesn't have the smog laws!?

micktroup

Patience, Grasshopper- CO2 accounts for less than .03% of 'Global warming gasses'(water vapor is 97% by the way) so any day now, some small child will point out that 'Al Gore has no clothes!' and the world will realize that GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE CROCK!!, and we can get back to driving Big Block Chevys again!
Or, the PC police will win and this website will be renamed 'Schwinn.org' and the world will end!

BretD 88GTA

Not to mention all the lead-based paint they like to use.

I just found out today that there is a big recall on the Alpine Design brand aluminum drinking bottles — made in China using lead-based paint.

Sports Authority has pulled the product from their shelves.

MorrisL03

all these smog laws make me just want to rip the motor/trans out and go get myself a pre 75 car. Or...just rip the 305 out and find someone to do the 305 tbi to 350 tpi shuffle for me,and be fine with the stock power.

roc-e

I've thought the same myself. The thing is, it's getting harder to keep even stock cars passing smog with the new tests and stricter requirements.

Too bad it's not a "tailpipe only" thing. Lots of non-stock cars make more power than stock...and run cleaner than stock.

MorrisL03

I don't get why the visual even matters if the car passes the sniffer.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

That's an easy answer. The state makes money from the aftermarket companies having their parts certified as California legal. I heard it was something like $35,000 per test. Now you know why 50-state legal parts cost so much more.

MorrisL03

Jesus christ...Never knew that, thanks Kevin

cali92RS

Im sure Jesus Christ was aware of that fact

Russ-So Cal

This suit is just a publicity stunt for Jerry Brown at Cali taxpayer expense. Cali will not only loose this suit, I suspect it will be thrown out of court. It is one thing for a state to require tighter standards of pollutants that are already controlled, but there is no way the courts are going to allow a state to dictate new pollution controls on a byproduct that isn't even considered a pollutant. If they reallky want to reduce co2 emmissions, outlaw exhaling!

Imadude_134

iTrader: (9)

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

I'm not going to defend it, these are just the facts.. Their "rationale";

The sniffer test only accounts for emissions during two very controlled events with the car at operating temperature. The emissions polluting our air don't only come from the tail pipe of a car at operating temperature at 15 and 25 mph.

Cars when new have much more stringent emissions tests to pass than the California sniffer to get EPA certification. Start up emissions, decel emissions, evaporative emissions, crankcase emissions, emissions for transient weather changes, etc. This is actually the most cited rumor/fact for the non existence of an L98 5 speed car. Decel emissions were not good.

In their eyes, the only way to realistically account for all those emissions variables is to ensure that all of the factory components are there and not tampered with or modified in any way. They don't have the means, time, money, to do a full EPA certification test on your vehicle when you bring it into the smog place.

Things like crankcase emissions and evaporative emissions matter a lot in the grand scheme of things. For example the PCV valve was the very first emissions device. After some investigation by the GM Research Laboratory it was discovered in 1958 that the road draft tube (an open vent instead of a pcv valve) was a major source, (about half) of the hydrocarbons coming from the automobile. So the pcv alone was/is a major component of the emissions system is not measured by a tailpipe sniffer.
On a car with moderate blow by and malfunctioning or removed pcv system you can easily have a vehicle that contributes a lot of pollutants to the atmosphere while still passing the sniffer test.
The evaporative system is the same way. Temperature and pressure changes cause expansion of gasoline molecules and can encourage evaporation. If you you throw some gasoline on warm pavement it will quickly disappear. Now imagine millions of cars on the road with a large open container of gasoline year round. This is what an unsealed gas tank and vent tube would essentially do.
When you get your emissions test thats why they test your gas cap and the filler neck hole and make sure your evap system is in place.

I can sit here and explain all day what each emissions component does and why it cannot be realistically tested by the sniffer.. but at the end of the day the conclusion that must be drawn is not that we need more stringent visual inspection.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that our current test that relies on the tailpipe sniffer does not take an accurate measurement of a vehicles total emissions "footprint" it also ignores and makes assumptions about the effectiveness of the emissions system as a whole.

IMO remote sensing is the only answer. How you implement it is certainly open for debate. But there isn't any other method that I know of short of an EPA certification test that can take a better sample of a vehicle's total pollution "footprint" from evaporative emissions to pcv emissions, to tailpipe emissions.

It also happens to eliminate the need for visual inspection since whether or not something is there or not does not matter if you can take an accurate measurement of an automobile's total emissions.

With any test you will have to make assumptions because the test environment cannot duplicate all of the conditions the car will ever run in. But taking a total view approach and encouraging freedom (freedom from oppressive visual inspections and draconian parts replacement laws) can only be an improvement over our current system.

The cato institute put together an excellent paper on this very subject that I highly recommend reading.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-249.html

injdinjn

The problem I see with remote testing is the variable of the driver and under the conditions they are testing it.

All the remote sensing equip I have seen is at the end of on ramps where vehicle are normally under acceleration. In acceleration mode the vehicle is outputting mode than normal emissions. I am sure that they are positioning these devices to inflate the results in order to make the units a standard procedure. Most of these tests are done by the device mfgr and not State employees, so its in the interest of the mfgr to make the results appear that the State needs to buy the sensors on our dime.
And drivers never accelerate the same, so end of ramp tests are a waste of time.

The ideal test would be to require a vehicle to drive a section of road at various posted speeds with sensors to record the emissions, but this would require about two miles of roadway for a single purpose. Personally i would like it better, but only if I can drive my car and not subject it to someone elses abuse.

micktroup

Ah, screw it- I want my MPH! If I am being demonized by some 'greenie', I am not going to feel guilty and drive some japanese jellybean until the world runs out of oil!
Let's convert our cars to run on methanol (natural, and increased horsepower to boot) and put the peddle down!! This is AMERICA!

Bigger guns; faster cars; YOUNGER women!!

injdinjn

x2

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, like I said.. the implementation is open for debate. The cato paper makes some interesting suggestions and points about this. The fact that a small percentage of cars are responsible for the majority of automobile emissions is their rationale for using the remote sensors to only nab gross polluters. The bar for a remote test would be set lower than a car capable of passing the standard sniffer to give a fair amount of leeway to the situation that you describe; Different drivers under different conditions.

I think the engineers can figure out a fair grade and speed that must be maintained on that grade for the vast majority of vehicles on the road.

In my mind i see an on ramp with specific instructions to the driver to maintain x amount of speed between two points where the sensing equipment is monitoring. You can have them at various grades and places randomly through the city at random times.

Used properly this will only slightly inconvenience motorists every now and then (like tolls or on ramp metering lights). The other option is a test track or facility of sorts like you suggest. The only problem with that is it is an announced test and with that you will have people easily cheating the test.

I realize that remote sensing equipment can be abused by tree huggers that want to just clamp down on any one even a little over the line. Used correctly though, I think it would be our best friend and the best friend to the environment. If we invested as much effort and money that is into test only I think every last detail could be worked out and there would be money left over.

Yes, business will always try and "cook the books" to inflate the need for their product. Its no different than the test only lobby demanding we need more test only testing. I'm sure the manufacturers of test only equipment are hard at work in Sacramento too..

So at the end of the day you have to acknowledge that all of your options are going to be affected by those outside variables and thus you have to just pick the one that makes the most sense. Right now, with test only it's almost as bad as it can get and it's not going to get better because the entire system is flawed. There is no potential for improvement. With remote sensing there is huge potential for improvement.

Guest

In your mind, but not the state's.

The engineers, as you say, will have NO say in how the program would be implemented. You have to remember the BAR is a govt entity under pressure from the state and the EPA to be viewed as effective, regardless of how they get there. Thats why the remote sensors they've been using so far are located where they are at, they're artificially inflating 'test' results by locating the devices in an area where it appears that cars are polluting more than they really are on a normal basis. What this does is take the average pollution level and increase it (propping up their bs story that gas powered cars make up most of our pollution), and also any car thats not running entirely right will pollute like mad in that instance. So they compare these results by license plate to the last smog check results, and... oh my! Remote sensing is a great idea because look how much more these cars actually pollute, and lets blame it on faulty testing programs! Rather than reading junk from Cato yet again, go read the publications from the state. All of them. You'll find that their interest does not lie in accuracy, or pollution reduction, but rather propping up their own department and trying to give everything a feel-good twist.

Remote sensing is nothing but a bad idea gone awry. And you already stated that the tests they perform are just a snippet of the entire pollution profile of a vehicle, so what advantage does a remote testing device provide that we dont already have? None.

Anyway its just more misguided attempts and useless regulations by the state and the feds to resolve a problem they know nothing about. There were previously zero regulations on diesel engines because... hey... they dont pollute anything we measure so they're ok! Whatever. I guess those jokers in the govt didnt bother to notice that this photochemical smog they're looking at as a problem requires some amount of particulates (read: soot) to even form. Nevermind none of the particulates required to form it come from a gasoline engine. So lets ignore half the problem because we dont want to upset the trucking industry ($$$$$$$$$$$$), or the industrial ($$$$$$$$$$$$$), lets go after the little guy (-$) and spew a bunch of worthless statistics and make people think we're actually doing something worthwhile so we can steal more money from their pockets.

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

So what you are saying is you are for continuing the status quo of test only stations and visual inspections?

Whatever motivation the state has is neither here nor there. If they are going to try and eliminate the internal combustion engine they will do it with test only bi-annually, or annually, or every 6 months.. or without testing at all. If we are going to assume that numbers are just going to be made up then why even bother taking any of their information at face value. You said read all of their papers, I know you didn't read all of their papers.
Even if you did it would contradict your own philosophy that they lie. Now you are taking their information at face value. Only you ignore the information that doesn't support your preconcieved notions. So which is it, are they liars? or are they telling the truth? You call the cato paper junk but the papers from the state are not junk? I don't get it. The cato paper is not policy or hard data. It is a suggested policy change. You place more stock in the hard data that you have previously claimed was false than a suggested policy change which I can tell you have not read. The fact that you instantly get bent out of shape about it tells me you are interjecting emotions into the issue.

The advantage that remote testing has over test only and visual inspection is that it promotes free enterprise and reduces bureaucracy. The need for a huge portion of gov't determining what parts are legal or not legal is eliminated. All of the advantages of not having a visual inspection can be a reality. Since the test is not fair anyway a remote test that automatically measures all emissions besides tailpipe emissions is a much more fair method of accomplishing things. Can it be implemented unfairly? Sure.. but that is only a possibility. The current state of affairs is a visual test that IS implemented unfairly.. not only is it in the realm of the possible, it's reality! It is also inefficient in that it encourages cheating and outright fraud. A random test is much harder to cheat and defraud.

Like it or not we are going to need testing.. sounds like you want more visual inspections, more individual parts testing, a higher bar for tailpipe emissions... and the inconvenience placed on EVERYONE as opposed to the small segment of the population actually producing the pollution.

p.s. Calm down.. getting so emotional hurts your credibility.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

This story in the OC Register today:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/risk-...istrict-diesel

83% of the cancer causing smog is formed by Diesels. But they have a bigger lobby than we hot rodders do, so the state doesnt bother them.

Guest

You post up that Cato article every time this discussion comes up as if its cast in stone and cold hard fact. The only hard fact is that garbage in=garbage out. The remote sensing is no different, no matter what Cato or the state says about it. Rather than going with status quo and applying BS testing methods, how about thinking outside of the box and doing away with all the current stupid ideas and methods?

Go read what the state publishes. There's so much contradiction from one article to the next its hard to find fact from fiction. One thing you will see is they constantly prop up their programs, and they skew data to do it. The remote sensing is no different, they are going to apply it in whatever manner they need to so they get the data to report what they want it to, not what it really should be.
----------
This is exactly why remote sensing will not be a single testing method on its own.

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

I don't post that paper because it is "set in stone". I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Thinking outside of the box is exactly what that paper proposes.
Sounds to me like you will put a negative spin on any form of testing whatsoever. That isn't very constructive because we are going to have testing either way. So you can either reach a compromise with those that want testing (and in reality, it's not a bad idea if implemented correctly) or you don't compromise and lose. You are in the minority if you wish to just abolish testing period. Average folks -for better or for worse- want it to exist.

So now the ball is in Governor Madmax' court.. what do you do? Complain about every test method but offer no solutions? What is your solution?

Guest

Thinking outside the box is what that paper proposes? By using a test device designed to monitor a single car in completely controlled conditions in a highway interchange acceleration area in a trapped airflow area? Sure, great idea. I could really care less what that Cato article might suggest, the state is implementing the remote sensing already and I guarantee you the method they are using now is what it will ultimately be. Sorry if I dont agree with using poor test methods even more poorly implemented to solve a problem they know nothing about. The Cato Institute is far from a useful place as far as I'm concerned, I bet I could search some more but someone there apparently thought MTBE was fine, and blamed leaks on bad storage tanks. Hardly. I saw them pull out tanks that were less than 5 years old that were designed to handle MTBE and were 'top of the line' at the time, that were leaking fuel and MTBE into the soil. But Cato says its the fault of the tanks, so that must be true. As I said before, garbage in=garbage out. I dont see how a potential 15% error (and thats in controlled conditions) is doing us any favors. A .01% error in the overpolluting area on a smog test sends you right to smog jail, so at that point in time a 15% error is a glaring issue.

It would not be that difficult or expensive to install and remotely report emissions output over the entire operating range of the vehicle. In fact, its already been done before. With the cost involved to vehicle owners of having a test done every 2 years, the cost of the equipment is easily offset. But, this would reduce if not eliminate the use of a bunch of people at the state level, so you'll never see it.

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

So what you are saying is that you don't like the cato institute for whatever reason. Sounds like you are just angry to be angry. That organization just publishes papers from a variety of authors. Saying a technical error in another article invalidates their credibility is like saying an error in a book in the library means that all library books are completely false. Nevermind that the example you bring up is completely irrelevant to this topic.

If you are suggesting a device that stays with the vehicle and monitors its pollutants then finally we are getting somewhere. How do you prevent fraud and tampering? You know as well as anyone that a device placed on a car to monitor emissions is going to be tampered with. Look at post cat o2 sensor simulators. They are all over the internet.

Anyway, if you want to dog on the application of the technology, lets see some hard test data rather than just "my best friends cousins dad said". How about some links to the engineering analysis of it all. Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me being that we can track and shoot down even low temp emitting planes with shoulder fired weapons since the 60s. You are saying we don't have the technology to take an area and calibrate the sensor baseline for given conditions and see deviations from that baseline? Dunno about that.. how about some links.

injdinjn

The basic idea of smog testing cars is ok, the problem is it falls into the hands of a govt buraucy that has one agenda, and that is to inflate its budget and make the govt agency, in this case BAR, look important.
Any time something ends up in the hands of a govt agency the process and final reports are toilet paper.

A friend recently bought a new truck with Fed mandated tire pressure sensors. What a joke. They go off in the morn until he drives a few miles and heat up then they are ok. I cant wait for his first trip to the desert in Jul or aug they will heat up and the sensors will go off again. Another dumb Fed law.

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

Yes I totally understand where you are coming from. If that is the main problem Chris is trying to get at then I agree, that can be a problem.

Unfortunately we do have to play the cards we have been dealt or figure work arounds. IMO anything that has the potential of making underhood inspections obsolete, and eliminating the burden on all motorists but the few high emitters.. is a step in the right direction.

Will corruption skew how things work out? Sure... let the test only lobby fight the remote sensing lobby. Don't you think that both of them want the other out of the picture? The real benefits of one might just be enough to convince the couple of members in congress that are actually worth a damn. And that might be enough of a tipping point.

BTW the technology itself is not new or flaky at all. Implementation of any technology can go awry but the reality of its effectiveness cannot be denied. I use a form of this technology every day when I analyze samples of hydraulic fluid and it is unbelievably consistent. Think about it like this; The test bottle is like the road.. some residue of hyd fluid and dust inside. The fluid I put in the bottle is like the emissions from the automobile that just passed. The volume of the hyd fluid I put in is so much greater than the volume of old fluid and dust in the bottle that it renders its effect statistically insignificant in the measure of contaminants as a whole. You can still F' up the test with a really dirty bottle. But it's not like you need a completely sterile environment to still get very accurate results.

Look up us patent 7,301,148, 5,726,450 and about a hundred others, plenty of information on how it works.

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

BTW tom

this is from patent 5,726,450

describing the functions of the unit and speed sensor in the unit;

"If the speed sensor determines that the vehicle's acceleration and/or speed exceed certain levels, indicating that the vehicle's emissions control equipment are disabled, the recorded data is invalidated. "

That addresses your earlier concern I think.