When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
a shop can not move the cats location or be fined by EPA. I have dealt with places that send you the headers and cats to put on yourself and then come to their shop for engine work or a tune. the owner can do what he wants with his car.
From teh R&T article:
"and more specifically with aftermarket manufacturers who sell devices that defeat emission control systems on vehicles used on public roads."
So, how is a manufacturer of an aftermarket item going to make sure it can't be used on a street legal vehicle? Other than not make or sell the item at all?
So, If EPA finds something on a street vehicle that manufacturer XYZ made, which may be advertised for off road use only, are they going to go shut that manufacturer down?
Doug
before manufactures would make items and label it "for off road use only". meaning that it was for race cars, and if you install it on a street car the liability is on the owner.
The thing that the EPA is changing is that it no longer cares if the vehicle is used off road. so that label of "for off road use only" means squat. the EPA can go into a manufacture, see how many race items where sold, fine them $35,000, and place the owner in jail for a year... per item sold. so brands like holley and K tech, would get shut down employees thrown into the street.
AS someone said earlier it becomes self-perpetuating. To keep the beaurocracy functioning they have to keep inventing problems so they can go "fix" them.
When you look at America about 1900 or so, we had steam locomotives belching smoke everywhere, steel mills and smelters had no controls on emissions, coke ovens blotted out the sun in many places with their smoke. Granted we did not have the number of cars, but overall we are FAR cleaner here today than back then.
We have changed to unleaded gas, we have tweaked and improved both the mileage that cars get, and the amount of emissions they make driving those miles. Industrial emissions are reduced like never before.
The EPA regs are no longer about preserving and protecting the environment. They are about preserving and protecting the EPA.
They may also be protecting our grandchildren.
A few facts:
World Population, 1900.................................... ....1.9 Billion
World Population, today................................... .....7.4 Billion
when 15 year olds are having babies and we have 30 year old grandmothers this is not doing much to solve this problem. birth control in the water supply would help.
Last edited by PAmotorman; 02-11-2016 at 07:56 AM.
So, If EPA finds something on a street vehicle that manufacturer XYZ made, which may be advertised for off road use only, are they going to go shut that manufacturer down?
Doug
Why yes they will. It's the lib mantra. You never blame the end user. The evil is never in the person or the end user but in the object they hold in their hand.
We would be better served if they instead preached personal responsibility, ethics, self-reliance and critical thinking skills. That might take care of part of the population problem and soaring energy consumption. And while they are at it maybe they can dream up a way to prevent volcanic eruptions, wild fires, bovine gastro-eruptions and other more significant contributors to green house gases and particulate emissions.
when 15 year olds are having babies and we have 30 year old grandmothers this is not doing much to solve this problem. birth control in the water supply would help.
funny enough, the best birth control for a population is to educate women. smarter they are the slower the population grows.
fun little fact.
Originally Posted by 427435
They may also be protecting our grandchildren.
A few facts:
World Population, 1900.................................... ....1.9 Billion
World Population, today................................... .....7.4 Billion
i personally like what the EPA does. i think there are some industry that need the microscope. the thing that troubles me. is this regulation for racing cars was hidden in a 600 page proposition for heavy duty trucks. The amount of c02 a race track puts off is peanuts compared to a small fleet of over the road trucks.
I'll burn 15gal of gas in a weekend in my race car once a month, maybe once every two months. My truck towing the car (with all the emissions stuff) will burn 30-60 gal getting to and from the race. the trade off for stopping such a small amount of C02 for all the jobs that will be lost, and people that will be killed is silly.
and then we have the safety aspect.
fuel cells will be outlawed. they don't meet the epa's guidelines. so now the chance for burning to death has increased. cats used in competition become insanely hot. they operate normally at 1000* at 1300* they will melt. in racing conditions they will get much hotter than 1300*. the epa wants us to race with questionable fuel cells and fire starters sitting next to the transmission.
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
I realize there is no single definition for "common sense", but common sense is what's required here. I don't dump my old oil in a creek nor set fire to a pile of my old tires - even if there were no regulations forbidding it. But to think we must immediately undergo all sorts of changes, restrictions and self-denial in the name of our grandchildren and their grandchildren is BS.
Banning race car modification across the whole country would not do a single damn thing for anybody no matter how many generations you look forward. One volcano blowing its top puts more carbon and dust into the air than mankind could do if we wanted to. We worry about some race cars on a weekend, when every day in third-world countries they set fire to piles of old computers to salvage the wire and whatever else?
It's time we stopped the guilt and self-flagellation, stood up straight and grew a pair. We are here now, we're the greatest nation on earth, an we should be proud of it. Let's not get so worried about lives 100 years from now that we fail to enjoy the ones we are living today. I have complete faith in future generations, they will do just fine without us allowing a bunch of political appointees to tell us how to live.
i personally like what the EPA does. i think there are some industry that need the microscope. the thing that troubles me. is this regulation for racing cars was hidden in a 600 page proposition for heavy duty trucks. The amount of c02 a race track puts off is peanuts compared to a small fleet of over the road trucks.
I'll burn 15gal of gas in a weekend in my race car once a month, maybe once every two months. My truck towing the car (with all the emissions stuff) will burn 30-60 gal getting to and from the race. the trade off for stopping such a small amount of C02 for all the jobs that will be lost, and people that will be killed is silly.
First, they came for the refineries, but i did not care much because i didn't own a refinery and my gasoline only went up 20cents/gallon. Then they came for the factories, but i did not care because i did not own a factory and the stuff I buy only went up 15%. Then they came for the power plants but i did not care because I didn't own a power plant and my electricity price only doubled.. Then they came for the car manufactures but i did not care because i was not a car manufacturer, and I didn't notice the car prices went up 30% over the years due to emission controls.
Then they came for me,and my car,and I did care, but now, no one else does, because they have all, already been shafted by the EPA.
With population growth being what it is, it will not be long until CO2 emissions from humans ( both from breathing and from methane gas emissions..... ) will be a primary source - if in fact it is not already.
How will the EPA propose to regulate that?
The proplem with the EPA is as much the manner in which they do things as it is the specifics of what they propose.
I realize there is no single definition for "common sense", but common sense is what's required here. I don't dump my old oil in a creek nor set fire to a pile of my old tires - even if there were no regulations forbidding it. But to think we must immediately undergo all sorts of changes, restrictions and self-denial in the name of our grandchildren and their grandchildren is BS.
Banning race car modification across the whole country would not do a single damn thing for anybody no matter how many generations you look forward. One volcano blowing its top puts more carbon and dust into the air than mankind could do if we wanted to. We worry about some race cars on a weekend, when every day in third-world countries they set fire to piles of old computers to salvage the wire and whatever else?
It's time we stopped the guilt and self-flagellation, stood up straight and grew a pair. We are here now, we're the greatest nation on earth, an we should be proud of it. Let's not get so worried about lives 100 years from now that we fail to enjoy the ones we are living today. I have complete faith in future generations, they will do just fine without us allowing a bunch of political appointees to tell us how to live.
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, but they are wrong relative to volcanoes (another scape goat from the deniers). The following is from:
- Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.
- Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production.
- Climate change skeptics have claimed the opposite.
Colossal, mind-bogglingly hot and capable of spewing billowing clouds of flight-grounding smoke and searing, molten lava, volcanoes are spectacular displays of the massive forces at work inside our planet. Yet they are dwarfed by humans in at least one respect: their carbon dioxide emissions.
Despite statements made by climate change deniers, volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities every year.
In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.
I do agree that emissions from race cars and modified vehicles are negligible-------except maybe for the rolling coal burners. They give all vehicle enthusiasts a bad name.
the 10 of thousands of airplane flights and diesel locomotives running down the tracks every hour has to be polluting more than all race cars but these companies have high paid lobbyists in govt. to look out for their wellbeing
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
Al Gore's mouth probably puts out more "climate changing" exhaust gases than all race cars put together.................
Fixed!
And someone mentioned locomotives. Railroads are dealing with a series of ever-stricter standards for new and rebuilt locomotives. Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3...each with tighter limits on NOX, particulate matter and/or whatever.
When you consider the difference between factory emission standards and what a modified race car puts out, the additional emissions have to be microscopic in the grand scheme of things. I think they literally search for areas they have not previously regulated, so they can preserve their bureaucracy and attempt to show their relevance. EPA has become a solution in search of a problem.
DO NOT underestimate the lengths that mentality will go to when it comes to telling YOU what they consider best for the masses. It happens a tiny bit at a time but it WILL affect every one of us if it is not halted.
DO NOT underestimate the lengths that mentality will go to when it comes to telling YOU what they consider best for the masses. It happens a tiny bit at a time but it WILL affect every one of us if it is not halted.
Yes, and they have been doing this ever since Nixon created this group.
Why don't they legislate planting of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide if they want to do something productive?
Too many people is a problem. Why doesn't the EPA ban large families that sooner or later will be polluting more and more. Why does the Feds give you a tax break for more dependents when more dependents will pollute more. I won't mention bonuses in handout benefits for extra dependents on the dole.
It's all a bunch of hypocritical BS.
Did I mention both major parties are trying to move the US toward one world government? This is what is really going on.
Let's park Air Force One (and two) for awhile and see how much emmissions we can eliminate? And turn all the lights off on all the government buildings at night that aren't being used.
Yes, and they have been doing this ever since Nixon created this group.
Why don't they legislate planting of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide if they want to do something productive?
Let's park Air Force One (and two) for awhile and see how much emmissions we can eliminate? And turn all the lights off on all the government buildings at night that aren't being used.
how about cutting welfare payments if you have more kids as that would be the same as a fine for increasing the pollution.
Last edited by PAmotorman; 02-11-2016 at 05:14 PM.
02-10-2016, 06:14 PM
Population is the scariest thing out there...its a geometric progression, not linear. 
) will be a primary source - if in fact it is not already.
