Excellent. Diesel brothers fined $850K plus $1.2m in fees.

DirtyBird222 said:

Gearheadotaku said:

Cars with huge power can be bought at the dealer, clean burning crate motors are just a catalog page away, but they cost so much that they are far, far out of reach for most people. I fear a regulation gets tougher and tougher, most of us will be pushed out of the hobby due to the rising cost.

You can buy a car at a dealer with tons of horsepower and torques that runs extremely efficient and clean these days; but, what is better for the environment as a whole? Buying a car second hand that's been on the road for years or purchasing a brand new car that required a ton of resources to build? This is a genuine question alfadriver and _, I just don't want you guys getting your panties in a wad and taking things personal again. 

 

It's a fair question. I own cars from each of the last six decades. The newest one is super-clean when operating because no combustion is (directly) involved, but even the 2010 diesel is pretty good. The oldest have no emissions controls at all. There's no question those old cars are filthy to run, you can smell it especially when starting. They also require more service - more frequent oil changes, more frequent parts replacement and of course more frequent repair. So they still require manufacturing to keep them on the road.

Alfa quoted 1996 as being a rough cutoff for "cleaner to replace than to run", but there was some uncertainty around that. One big thing about post-1996 cars is that the car can tell if something has gone awry with the emissions system, wheras earlier cars do not so they're more likely to be running in a less-than-optimal condition.

Brett_Murphy said:

For the "I don't like the government telling me what to do!" crowd, I'm with you. I'm generally one of you.

The flip side of the argument is that if you're doing harm to others, your right to do as you wish has ended. It's proven that emissions are bad for the planet and people with respiratory issues. Unless you deny science (which is a different discussion) you should really voluntarily be in compliance with emission standards.

I can't help but think something along the lines of: "ok if you really cared about other people's health, respiratory or otherwise, you wouldn't drive at all."

Ok, let's say a Camry emits 39% less pollution than my GMC. Does that automatically assume I care 39% less about other people's lungs than the Camry owner?

What if I have a 12 minute drive to work but he drives 60 minutes? How do we calculate how much we care about other people's health?

What about the guy that drives a hybrid but loves his coal stove? Does the Camry driver care about people's lungs only when he's commuting but then says "screw it" when he heats his home with an oil furnace?

Its REALLY hard to use this stuff to judge someone's mindset. 
 

I've cleaned up piles of dumped trash like tires, plastics, umbrellas, glass etc. in the woods. What if I cleaned up the trash dumped by a Prius driver but tossed it into my full-size 4x4? He cares about people's lungs up until he dumped it and I cared about other people's lungs when exactly? 
 

And how many of us are not guilty of harming other people while spray painting parts in the backyard? 

The GMC is a different vehicle than the Camry, built for a different purpose. So it's considered acceptable by society for it to emit more pollutants, because it can do things like carry big piles of trash. Now if you're driving it simply because you want Big Truck and don't need the extra capabilities, well, the argument could be made that you are putting your own desires ahead those of the community.

What we're discussing here is someone taking that GMC (or the Camry) and modifying it in such a way that it emits more pollutants than are considered acceptable by society.

Being part of a large group of people is harder than being a solo individual. At some point, the society overrides the needs/wants of the individual. The determination of where that line is the basis of someone's politics, in my opinion.

True.  Ethanol from corn is incredibly wasteful.  There are fantastic solutions though.  There are algaes that can grow in shallow ponds that contain as much as 35% fat and can replenish their population every three days.  I know of one algae farm in the southwest that is cranking out thousands of gallons of oil a day from just a few acres of ponds.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

You make your points very well!

I have to mention though:  I do drive the truck as my only vehicle and I very rarely use its capabilities. Someone needs to tell me where I fall in the "he doesn't care about his fellow humans as much as X" gradient.

I just want to know where I stand and does the fact that I heavily recycle affect my score?

Pretty murky waters we swim in!

Curtis73 said:

True.  Ethanol from corn is incredibly wasteful.  There are fantastic solutions though.  There are algaes that can grow in shallow ponds that contain as much as 35% fat and can replenish their population every three days.  I know of one algae farm in the southwest that is cranking out thousands of gallons of oil a day from just a few acres of ponds.

This should be more of a thing. That's genius. I also love the idea of recycling produce like Alfa suggested. That's brilliant. I've never heard of these things

DirtyBird222 said:I just don't want you guys getting your panties in a wad and taking things personal again. 

 

I understand you had your feelings hurt, but you're the one being personal here and elsewhere in this thread.

Curtis73 said:

True.  Ethanol from corn is incredibly wasteful.  There are fantastic solutions though.  There are algaes that can grow in shallow ponds that contain as much as 35% fat and can replenish their population every three days.  I know of one algae farm in the southwest that is cranking out thousands of gallons of oil a day from just a few acres of ponds.

Algae doesn't have as good representation as corn, though.

I am dumb when it comes to growin' things (verb and adjective).  Do you mean the algae has 35% fat (and is being converted to oil) or the water has 35% fat (and the algae is being brewed into ethanol)?

spandak said:

Curtis73 said:

True.  Ethanol from corn is incredibly wasteful.  There are fantastic solutions though.  There are algaes that can grow in shallow ponds that contain as much as 35% fat and can replenish their population every three days.  I know of one algae farm in the southwest that is cranking out thousands of gallons of oil a day from just a few acres of ponds.

This should be more of a thing. That's genius. I also love the idea of recycling produce like Alfa suggested. That's brilliant. I've never heard of these things

It is a thing.. just not commerically viable yet..   Oil and Natural gas will have to get much more expensive before this works.

In reply to Knurled. :

"There is no one strain or species of algae that can be said to be the best in terms of oil yield for biodiesel. But, diatoms along with green algae are the most promising."

In reply to alfadriver :

Thank you. 

DirtyBird222 said:

Gearheadotaku said:

Cars with huge power can be bought at the dealer, clean burning crate motors are just a catalog page away, but they cost so much that they are far, far out of reach for most people. I fear a regulation gets tougher and tougher, most of us will be pushed out of the hobby due to the rising cost.

You can buy a car at a dealer with tons of horsepower and torques that runs extremely efficient and clean these days; but, what is better for the environment as a whole? Buying a car second hand that's been on the road for years or purchasing a brand new car that required a ton of resources to build? This is a genuine question alfadriver and _, I just don't want you guys getting your panties in a wad and taking things personal again. 

 

And it's a great question.  Like Keith said, my off the cuff response has been '96 for a long time.  But the reality of it- it would be an excellent research project.  Almost all of my justification was about HC, CO, and NOx, and many of the manufacturing plants are very clean, were it struggles is making aluminum and steel.  Even for those, I don't think it's that much- so many new cars, when built, don't contribute a lot to the air quality.

Now people want to add in CO2 (agree or not, it's something people want to add)- and that balance changes a lot, as far as I can see.  To fairly do that, though, one does need to weigh the various gasses and their individual contribution to the environment.

That being said, a gross majority of new car sales are due to cars being permanently taken off the road- a decade ago, that was 12M cars a year in the US.  So the maginal gains area (as a system of the entire population) is more about the 6ishM cars that are sold that are not replacing cars and not accounting for population growth.

I'm betting someone could earn a PhD doing that research.

I find it hard to believe that all of you cheering about this decision have never deleted an ERG, Cat, cut a smog pump belt, done the spark plug antifouler thing on an O2 sensor, etc.  If so, hush up your hypocrisy.   And do you really think the modified trucks can come anywhere close to the crap that big business and their lobbyists and foreign companies and all the under the table side deals are puking out? Last i read (not 100% sure, admittedly) building a Prius makes way more pollution than driving a pickup.  I dont own a diesel but the folks that say this is bad for us all are right.  How about they start testing your racecars next?  I bet that turbo track car makes a good bit of the yucky stuff too.  Look up what a top fuel dragster puts out in a 1/4 mile

MrJoshua said:

In reply to irish44j :

Your neighborhood was built 40 years ago and likely mostly clear cut when it was built. 

-which amuses me because it satisfies your "HOA's have trees", Aaaaaand bigben's shaking his fist at HOA neighborhood construction because "they are evil because they cut down all the trees"

Nope my family has lived in this neighborhood since it was brand new. These 60-ft oak trees didn't grow up in 40 years.....it's always been this way 

And don't get me wrong I hate HOAs. I am thankful because the one in this neighborhood is very hands-off, which is specifically why we bought a house here.

Justjim75 said:

I find it hard to believe that all of you cheering about this decision have never deleted an ERG, Cat, cut a smog pump belt, done the spark plug antifouler thing on an O2 sensor, etc.  If so, hush up your hypocrisy.   And do you really think the modified trucks can come anywhere close to the crap that big business and their lobbyists and foreign companies and all the under the table side deals are puking out? Last i read (not 100% sure, admittedly) building a Prius makes way more pollution than driving a pickup.  I dont own a diesel but the folks that say this is bad for us all are right.  How about they start testing your racecars next?  I bet that turbo track car makes a good bit of the yucky stuff too.  Look up what a top fuel dragster puts out in a 1/4 mile

That's true for the top fuel cars, but the numbers don't scale up.  Top fuel cars are incredibly expensive to run (They consume gallons of fuel to run that 1/4 mile) so at any given event counting both Dragsters and Funny Cars no more than 35 - 40 will show up, and that's at a big meet like the Gatornationals or the U.S. Nationals.  Each car will get 4 runs to qualify, then 32 of those cars (16 for top fuel and funny car each) will get 1 run, then 16 will get a run and so on, down to the final four (2 top fuel and 2 funny cars) so 4 rounds of competition.  So the most milege that 4 of those 35-40 cars will run is 2 miles each.  Add that up over 22 (or 23) races and it's less mileage than the average person commutes to work/school in a couple of days.  It's not even a blip on the radar.    

TBH, the rubber dust from slicks is probably worse than the nitromethane.  I don't wear white t-shirts to the drags anymore.. 

Never understood diesel soot blasts from brodozers.  Gave Gale Banks money when I owned my diesel Ram based largely on that reason.  

In reply to 06HHR :

But we're discussing individuals not caring about other people's health and individuals doing harm to other humans via making his or her  individual car put out x amount of pollution.

To that end, Top Fuel drivers/owners must be complete shiny happy people.

Some of the 20 gallons of nitromethane gets into the 4 GALLONS of motor oil for every 1/4 mile run. Of course some in burned fuel atomizes into the air but those huge flames are awesome (actually I think they are!).

We can't really be serious about using the "considered acceptable by society" measuring stick. 

This site goes on and on about "consumables" related to the motorsports scene which to me includes tires, brake pads, brake fluid, brake rotors, engine oil, gear oil etc. My truck doesn't go through sets of pads, rotors, and tires every season. 
 

At least I know I care more about society than people that own and drive race cars.

In reply to Justjim75 :

There is just a small difference between someone limping a POS along with a rear O2 spacer, and someone selling modifications so people can intentionally pollute in order to get a reaction out of people.

Justjim75 said:

I find it hard to believe that all of you cheering about this decision have never deleted an ERG, Cat, cut a smog pump belt, done the spark plug antifouler thing on an O2 sensor, etc.  If so, hush up your hypocrisy.   And do you really think the modified trucks can come anywhere close to the crap that big business and their lobbyists and foreign companies and all the under the table side deals are puking out? Last i read (not 100% sure, admittedly) building a Prius makes way more pollution than driving a pickup.  I dont own a diesel but the folks that say this is bad for us all are right.  How about they start testing your racecars next?  I bet that turbo track car makes a good bit of the yucky stuff too.  Look up what a top fuel dragster puts out in a 1/4 mile

They can test my race car all day. it puts out exactly the same emissions as a stock 1994 BMW 525. Maybe even less since it's lighter.

nobody's arguing that there aren't things that pollute a lot more than bro'd out pickup trucks. But the fact is a jet airplane or a large piece of construction equipment are not built with the intent to pollute more than they absolutely have to (we could argue all day about trying to make things profitable via limitations on pollution control equipment). Whereas these coal rolling idiots are making a dedicated effort to pollute more for absolutely no tangible gain other than because they think polluting more is cool and blowing smoke on Prius drivers is fun. Neither of those things has any upside for society. A tractor trailer hauling 50 tons of food to a supermarket has a benefit and a tangible purpose.

It's like saying a"who thinks rape is bad is a hypocrite because hey,you stole a pack of gum once." They are unequal comparisons in terms of impact and the cost to either individuals or society. Stealing 10,000 packs of gum is still not as bad as raping somebody. 

I'm using the laws as a yardstick for "considered acceptable by society". The emission laws are the result of how society is structured, an agreed-upon set of rules that we have decided to live by. And of course this can veer wildly into floundering territory, but it's the closest metric we have.

It is pretty hard to figure out what benefit to society there is from a wheel-driven vehicle that can accelerate to 300 mph in 5 seconds. But they get sponsors, which is a measure of sorts of approval. It's entertainment and that's how society values it. And at the moment, society is willing to accept the pollution.

Meanwhile, fuel efficiency and even emissions are becoming more of a factor in other motorsports because that's from societal pressure.

In reply to Justjim75 :

I can't agree with that.  I did some of those things a quarter century ago a)not understanding the impact and b) misguidedly thinking I would make more power.  If I could go back and change that I would.  Also we didn't understand anywhere near as well back then the effects on the climate on public health.  But as has been said before there's a world of difference between and individual doing something thinking as I did and a company setting out to deliberately increase emissions, make money off of selling it to the public, making a TV show about and encouraging smoking out hybrid drivers.  If you can't see that I give up.  

Knurled. said:

Curtis73 said:

True.  Ethanol from corn is incredibly wasteful.  There are fantastic solutions though.  There are algaes that can grow in shallow ponds that contain as much as 35% fat and can replenish their population every three days.  I know of one algae farm in the southwest that is cranking out thousands of gallons of oil a day from just a few acres of ponds.

Algae doesn't have as good representation as corn, though.

 

I am dumb when it comes to growin' things (verb and adjective).  Do you mean the algae has 35% fat (and is being converted to oil) or the water has 35% fat (and the algae is being brewed into ethanol)?

The algae grows with a 35% fat content.  The fat is extracted and converted to bio diesel.

In reply to ebonyandivory :

Well, some would say most of the Top Fuel drivers/owners are complete shiny happy people, especially this guy, god love him!

Justjim75 said:

I find it hard to believe that all of you cheering about this decision have never deleted an ERG, Cat, cut a smog pump belt, done the spark plug antifouler thing on an O2 sensor, etc.  If so, hush up your hypocrisy.  

never done any of those things...  not once... why would I.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

spandak said:

Curtis73 said:

True.  Ethanol from corn is incredibly wasteful.  There are fantastic solutions though.  There are algaes that can grow in shallow ponds that contain as much as 35% fat and can replenish their population every three days.  I know of one algae farm in the southwest that is cranking out thousands of gallons of oil a day from just a few acres of ponds.

This should be more of a thing. That's genius. I also love the idea of recycling produce like Alfa suggested. That's brilliant. I've never heard of these things

It is a thing.. just not commerically viable yet..   Oil and Natural gas will have to get much more expensive before this works.

Plus, even using 2008 numbers (from a book I read), even if we converted every ounce of surplus (not food) grain and biomass into biofuels, we could only meet about 1/7th our gluttonous energy consumption in the US.

A book that was partially and ironically read while sitting in stopped traffic in Los Angeles surrounded by huge SUVs with one person in them all frustrated that traffic wasn't moving and probably complaining about smog.