Can we please relax the automotive regulations?

This is a subject I'm interested in. I wanted to bring my Panda back from Europe but ran into issues. (Mad Scientist Matt was trying to help me find a way of adapting an OBDII system to the Panda's management because that's a requirement for emissions now. But that's another story...)

The differences between the NHTSA and the Euro-NCAP are (as summarized by This website ):

NHTSA:

• Full frontal impact into a deformable barrier at 35mph
• Side swipe by an SUV/Pickup at an oblique angle at 38.5mph
• Side swipe by a 25cm pole at a 75deg angle at 20mph
• Rollover test: car is tipped till it rolls. Angle is measured (not strength)

Euro NCAP

• Frontal= 40mph into 40% of frontal area
• Side swipe is done at 90deg into a "narrow" pole at 18mph
• Side swipe by a car at 31mph
• All tests done with a rear facing baby seat and a booster seat. Child safety is evaluated.
• Pedestrian strikes are evaluated for pedestrian safety rating.
• Whiplash rating for rear strikes evaluated.

So there ya go.

There is also the International Institute for Highway Safety (ran by insurance agencies, but not gov mandated)

• 40mph/40% frontal
• again with 25% frontal area
• Side impact with SUV @ 31mph
• Roof structure must hold 4x the vehicle weight before deforming 5-inches (crush)
• Drivers seat on sled test for whiplash. (simulated 20mph rear end)

I honestly think this is really a case of "Can't we all just get along?". I mean there are subtle differences in the NHTSA versus Euro NCAP, but reading the requirements I think this should be filed in the "As near as makes no difference" bin.

JMHO

Keith, I think you have more faith in the bureaucracy than I do.

Toyman01 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I suspect the reason the Elise was mentioned earlier is because they were given a waiver to come in to the US. They were exempted from some bumper and light regulations for the first three years.

I wonder how many bureaucrats/legislators you have to blow/buy off, I mean wine and dine, to get that deal? Lotus must have had some well paid lobbyists.

I remember reading that the deal was that Tesla gets to use the Lotus chassis, since it would be used for EV development Lotus got a break.

I mentioned the Elise as an example that demonstrates you can get a light, no frills, bare bones vehicle to pass the regulations. I thought the thread was about how we can't have the cool cars because they won't pass regs. The actual laws are another argument. I'm just saying the vehicle could be built and meet all requirements. The U.S. market just will not support such a vehicle. The number of people who actually drive off road is tiny and most of those subscribe to the "bigger is better" mentality.

I'm in an emissions testing county in middle Tennessee, and somehow, guys are getting their RZRs registered. Street tires, plates, and good to go. Apologies for the threadjack.

Toyman01 wrote: Keith, I think you have more faith in the bureaucracy than I do.

I have a sister in law in the Corps of Engineers. Thanks to that peek insides, I don't have faith in the bureaucrats. But I have faith in the bureaucracy. Paperwork works. I've been told a number of times how difficult things are by people who haven't tried them, but found they weren't really that hard when I actually did it myself.

nocones wrote: Have you wrote your letters? We do live in a representative government.

That we do on paper at least, but unfortunately, our rulers do not represent the people's interests in the least. Thanks for the laugh - I needed that today.

The market drives what is available in each market. There are barriers to entry everywhere, the U.S., Jamaica, Mexico, Russia. There is more to running a successful business than just selling a small number niche off road vehicle to some enthusiasts. Granted, there are some additional safety, emissions and fuel economy standards that have to be met in the U.S. But, those are only part of the equation. There is a lot more investment required to enter a market than meeting these standards, you have distribution and delivery of the vehicles, dealer network, service, sales and marketing, etc. These costs are far higher than crash testing and emissions testing, seriously. These vehicles aren't here because there isn't a big enough market to make the investment worthwhile. If you can't understand this, you need a better grasp of economics.

bmwbav is right. As I said earlier, meeting US standards is a big part of the costs and must be weighed along with everything else. Another good (bad?) example: in 1974 MG had an 'intermediate' model of the MGB which had really ugly square bumper overriders which temporarily met the US 5 mph crash standards. In 1975, the cars were raised 1 1/2" and had the big rubber bumpers added to complete that. At the same time, emissions regulations killed the horsepower output and the margin was so close that the GT would not pass, that's why there are so few rubber bumper MGB GT's here in the States.

At the time, BL had an established dealer network, training facilities, etc already in place. But from an economic perspective the only way to make it work was to make ALL the cars for EVERY market to US standards. The magazine test articles of the day made that clear.

The point is: the costs associated with having to meet the new US standards (their biggest market) hit BL square in the (financial) balls and was instrumental in the eventual failure of the company. If that could happen to a company their size, imagine what it's like for the 'little guys'.

That's also a reason why the 'cottage industry' for cars is alive and well in England but nearly nonexistent over here. Ariel, Galek, Ginetta, etc: all available for street use there but not over here.

parker wrote: That vehicle in the top picture may still be in production, but it's got to be a 50's or 60's design. When was the last time you saw external hinges?

bmwbav wrote: The market drives what is available in each market. There are barriers to entry everywhere, the U.S., Jamaica, Mexico, Russia. There is more to running a successful business than just selling a small number niche off road vehicle to some enthusiasts. Granted, there are some additional safety, emissions and fuel economy standards that have to be met in the U.S. But, those are only part of the equation. There is a lot more investment required to enter a market than meeting these standards, you have distribution and delivery of the vehicles, dealer network, service, sales and marketing, etc. These costs are far higher than crash testing and emissions testing, seriously. These vehicles aren't here because there isn't a big enough market to make the investment worthwhile. If you can't understand this, you need a better grasp of economics.

A large barrier is the added cost of meeting federal regulations. For instance, the Elise's 2006 redesign, to meet regulations, cost Lotus $27M. When you sell 1000 a year, that's a tough pill to swallow. Probably part of the reason Lotus is constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and has had to ask for waviers several times over the last decade. Adding thousands of dollars of regulatory cost to each unit drives it out of a price point and out of the market. If you can't understand this, you might need a better grasp of economics and business.

TLDR. What will sell at $15K, won't sell, with thousand in added regulatory costs, at $20K. So, the manufactures just tell the US consumers to kiss off and peddle their products in more reasonable countries. That's the entire point my wanting them to relax the regulations. Especially on low volume niche vehicles, like the ones in the first post.

Curmudgeon wrote: That's also a reason why the 'cottage industry' for cars is alive and well in England but nearly nonexistent over here. Ariel, Galek, Ginetta, etc: all available for street use there but not over here.

Case in point. Even the stuffy Brits get it.

Every manufacturer that sells vehicles in the US has engines that meet emissions and bodies/chassis that meet crash standards. How is not adding a locking center diff and low range the fault of regulations? It won't affect emissions or crashworthiness. Take a RAV4 or CRV, add center locking diff and low range. What regulations are preventing this?

I just don't see your argument.

In reply to parker:

If they did that, it would have to be retested for emissions and fuel economy. This is part of why you don't have a choice of 5 engines and 4 transmissions when you go buy a car anymore.

On another forum I saw some discussion of the Mazdaspeed Miata. It seems that the reason there is not a metal tube for the intake is that to do so would have meant crash testing several cars and it wasn't economically smart for such a low production vehicle so Mazda chose the cheap way out using plastic.

A lot of emissions testing is done with a given weight of the test vehicle. Anything which significantly changes that weight means another round of emissions testing and that costs money. That is what killed the MGB GT: the GT was heavier than the roadster and couldn't be made to pass.

There's also the different gear ratios for the Subaru low range box which can substantially change the engine speed per mile and since emissions are measured in grams per mile, bingo, more emissions testing with the possibility of additional modifications to make the car pass. At some point the manufacturer has to balance the loss of a few sales due to no low range transfer case against the added cost of the testing. So yes demand and testing costs both come into play, on low production cars it just isn't worthwhile.

Lotus did get the three year exemption from crash standards but obviously not the emissions standards, the Rover 1.9 was going to have to be tested extensively since it isn't used here at all. That's where the Toyota engine came from, it was already US EPA certified from its use in the MR2 and already a mid engine design thus making emissions testing and installation much easier and cheaper. Not that that was a bad thing; it wasn't. It made the car considerably quicker. The downside: Toyota no longer produces that engine in a mid motor spec so Lotus would have to go back to the drawing board for that on top of the crash standards. Once the supply of US spec engines dried up, so did the supply of US spec Elises. They are still being produced for overseas markets to this day and a track only version is available here, can't be licensed for street use.

Remember also Lotus was developing the Evora too with the US market in mind. That's the basket they chose to put their eggs in. If it sells well enough, who knows? maybe the Elise will come back. A fella can hope...

By the way, the $27,000,000 cost Toyman mentioned worked out to $4500 per car.

CGLockRacer wrote: Headline on CNN.com this morning: "Kids are dying in hot cars: Who should step in?" Umm...how about the parents?!?!?! I can see regulations now where cars must be able to detect someone in it and run the A/C at all times someone is detected. I feel bad for the kids, but mainly because their parents were too dumb to have common sense of not leaving them in a hot car.

Too late already started.

http://m.autoblog.com/2014/07/14/kids-group-wants-white-house-address-hot-car-deaths/

to bmwbav:

The economics works both ways. If a vehicle were competitive at a particular price point allowing "proper" margins, the incentive to set up the dealer network, etc., would exist. Hyundai could do it back in 1987, Yugo before that, because those cars could be competitive at a price point. Taking the example of $4500 a car, for example, would've meant they could never have sold those cars.

By the way, bmwbav is fine voting to have any consumer (but especially me, I suppose) pay extra money for any feature he deems appropriate to mandate on a vehicle.

Some of the things we talk about will be done away with by market forces; I'm accepting of that. I may not like it, but that's the way it goes. Market forces (and a little Mazda magic) also gave us "the answer is always...".

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop with the automobile. Your land is already in perilous jeopardy, and so is your ability to be socially conservative (and if you think I'm blowing smoke, why did the Oregon bakery outfit get hauled in to court and told they must provide a gay wedding cake?).

When I was a kid, a history professor told us our choices would be more limited in the future. I didn't think so, and the Reagan revolution provided a respite. Deregulation Reagan put through meant the end of civilization to his critics back then; but of course, it was a huge boon to growth. I think the country has tipped, though, and I don't think we'll see anyone bold enough and with enough common sense take us in that direction.

I think the automotive industry could benefit along the same lines with some dereg. But, good luck in the brave new world of "everybody gets a trophy" (heck, maybe that's my problem. I was on the second place team. We always said we'd beat The Bankers next game and take first place. We practiced like snot to achieve it - even if we never made it...).

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to parker: If they did that, it would have to be retested for emissions and fuel economy. This is part of why you don't have a choice of 5 engines and 4 transmissions when you go buy a car anymore.

Not true- it's a matter of writing a paper for simple changes. BTDT.

engine changes are a different animal. But the realistic cost of certifying an engine is a very small part of how much a new engine costs to make.

In reply to OldGray320i:

Realistically, what actual regulations would you scale back? Bear in mind, one can't treat a small company different than a large company- else some small firm will ask to skip air or water quality laws that big companies have to meet. How one really decides between large and small is going to be a problem. if your neighbor decides to start fracking in his back yard, and claims that he's a single person company- does he get to pollute your yard? He's small, and trying to "help".

As for we need de-regulation- I fully and 100% disagree. Even regulation where the regulators work with business to come to a good set of rules is what is needed and is happening now. To the point where it's quite easy to use your skill at regulation to be better and make more money than the other guy.

As far as I can see, de-regulation helped nothing. Although, it does point out that companies will consistently choose money over worker, the environment, customer safety, etc. Which is why there are regulations in the first place.

Again, the key is even regulations for all. Then you can use them to your advantage.

Seems like a lot of the terrible posts in this thread are coming from a place of whining about how it is someone else's fault that something they want isn't falling into their lap as easily as they wish and then trying to find an interpretation of reality that supports their view of being held down by the man.

Likewise it also seems like the good posts are coming from people who arent conflating their views on regulations with their want of a particular type of vehicle.

In other words, it APPEARS that objectivity improves the quality of discourse.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: Realistically, what actual regulations would you scale back? Bear in mind, one can't treat a small company different than a large company- else some small firm will ask to skip air or water quality laws that big companies have to meet. How one really decides between large and small is going to be a problem. if your neighbor decides to start fracking in his back yard, and claims that he's a single person company- does he get to pollute your yard? He's small, and trying to "help". As for we need de-regulation- I fully and 100% disagree. Even regulation where the regulators work with business to come to a good set of rules is what is needed and is happening now. To the point where it's quite easy to use your skill at regulation to be better and make more money than the other guy. As far as I can see, de-regulation helped nothing. Although, it does point out that companies will consistently choose money over worker, the environment, customer safety, etc. Which is why there are regulations in the first place. Again, the key is even regulations for all. Then you can use them to your advantage.

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with driving my 1983 320i? Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the vehicles that Toyman01 pointed out?

In either case, they lack many of the "modern" engineering and safety features that cars have in the current US market. But I already choose to drive a car without them. And did for 20 years prior to the new Focus.

You work directly in the industry - what are the differences, and how much non recurring engineering has to be recouped at a given profit margin, and how much for the reporting required to meet whose ever regulations have prompted the differences between the cars Toyman01 and I like and new ones?

How much for the recurring cost for everything mandated or regulated on new cars that is not found on my 320i?

You and AT could probably get this data, lets put some real numbers to it.

Are the cars that I like so fundamentally unsafe as to be a danger to others? If I cannot buy a new car without these features, why should I be allowed to drive an old one without them?

Why arguments devovle in to the stupidity of "no-regulation" and the oil fracking neighbor is beyond me (which, besides the point, if my neighbor is fracking and making money at it, it stands to reason there's oil underneath my ground too. Then we can embroil ourselves in lawsuits about who is stealing whom's oil, but I digress...).

I'm simply pointing out that the automotive industry and the consumer could both benefit from a relaxing of standards.

In reply to OldGray320i:

Some of the points have been that small car makers should be able to bring in cars that don't meet all of the requirements, because they are small and should have no impact. which is the same as your neighbor deciding to do something, and not have to meet the requirements and polluting your land.

There is a big difference between bringing in new cars vs. old cars. Can't change old cars to bring them up to date- there are laws against that. But to justify bringing in a new car as it's better than an old car isn't good either.

If you moved into a place that drilling was happening vs. new drilling happening in your neighborhood- that's like that. Grandfathering keeps old stuff in play, but does not allow new stuff to be just only that good. If so, where do you draw the line? 1980, 1985, 1996, 2001, 2010? Where?

I don't see our industry getting better with fewer regulations. Or even relaxing of standards. I'd much rather tighten them up some more- so we can use our acquired skill better than other companies do.

(i may be able to get data, but there's no way I can post it)

Let me take some cracking as far as what has changed and when...

Brake systems changed 9/1/00
Tire standards for MPV/trucks changed 9/1/05 cars 9/1/07
Stability control added 9/1/11
TPMS added 9/1/07
Side impact protection changed 9/1/96
Child restraint anchorage (LATCH) 9/1/00
Trunk Release (inside trunk) 9/1/01 (frunks 8/30/02)
Advanced airbags (sensing if a child is in the seat) 9/1/07

9/1/17 will see new regulations on ejection mitigation. (see FMVSS 226, its already on the books)
5/1/18 for backup cameras. (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/07/2014-07469/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-visibility)

the actual regulations...
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=42d099f62fff4a5485d053fb0074b75e&node=49:6.1.2.3.38&rgn=div5

I can understand, but I do have to say that my objection to TPMS fades as time goes on. I have yet to own a vehicle that has it, but I see too many people running around on flat tires that could easily lose control and sideswipe me on the highway. Hell, I would consider adding it to a trailer in a heartbeat. Nice to have a warning before just losing a tire, but yeah its one more thing to maintain.

(hell, imagine if they mandated the brake pad/light bulb warnings that E30's have!)

Backup cameras... Yeah, I have yet to warm on that one.

Remember when they started adding airbags? Most people hated them then. EFI? hated, OBDII? Hell, now that lots of it is opened we can pull some pretty cool information from our cars. I think there is a lot of knee-jerk reaction to change overlaying feelings in this thread.

As best I can tell, the following questions have not been answered:

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with driving my 1983 320i (or even a brand new equivalent)?

Are the cars that I like so fundamentally unsafe as to be a danger to others?

If I cannot buy a new car without these features, why should I be allowed to drive an old one without them?

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the vehicles that Toyman01 pointed out?

"Can't change old cars to bring them up to date- there are laws against that." - what prohibits a law from being changed? In California, it used t be that cars 20 or 25 years old were exempt from emissions (on a rolling basis); now it will be cars 1980 and older. Why did they change it? Was there anything fundamentally wrong with the law as it existed?

"I don't see our industry getting better with fewer regulations. Or even relaxing of standards." Industry will always come up with better products; better faster cheaper sells more. You seem to imply that change and improvement and a better product is dependent upon regulation. It's not. It's market economics. iPod anyone?

"I'd much rather tighten them up some more- so we can use our acquired skill better than other companies do." So, you'd prefer to drive other companies out of business via regulation?

OldGray, you forget what I call the WallMart Principle.

The majority of people will always buy the cheapest thing that gets the job done, no matter if it isnt as durable or as safe as a modestly more expensive product.

With the popularity of chinese made toxic toys that break instantly, Harbor Freight tools that all eventually become hammers, and other things like that... You think cars wont go down the same track?

Let me insert here what deregulated cars would be like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D827IxEJVS4 (misrepresentation of a crash test, but reality could be that bad quite easily with no controlling regulation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ULm6QrC428 Chinese sedan vs modern BMW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U Old chevy vs new chevy.

An argument that things can still improve. 2000-2005 neon http://youtu.be/J6mzVJwRTCs

There would be a LARGE death toll on the roads if vehicles such as that were allowed to be sold new. And sell they would! We are the exception, most people dont care at all about their car, its just an appliance and they are going to buy the cheapest one they can!

I get what you're saying, you love your 1983 BMW, but the deaths per miles traveled is now LESS THAN HALF of what it was in 1983. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

I know this may seem like a diversion, but do you feel similarly and strongly about the regulation of food products? (ex salmonella prevention) I say this because I suspect that if you think on it you may come to realize that you are a bit blinded by how close you are due to your love of cars. They are not a commodity to you, but that can make you ignore some of the more sweeping concerns in favor of your love for your older car.

My greater concern has more to due with added complexity of vehicles leading to shorter and shorter practical service lives of vehicles. I think that is an area that is not publicized by environmentalists. (why? because the bigger money is in touting the newest hybrid that saves you a few MPG even if it will last half as long and take a ton more resources to replace than a simplier vehicle that would have lasted twice as long) But hell, I could be wrong there, Cars regularly seem to last to 200k now, which in your 1983 example was considered an insanely long service life. (another example of not seeing the forest for the trees)