Usually their reason for that is to limit e-waste and unnecessary emissions. Thus I find it unlikely they wouldn't want this banned and fined.
I think this is an oversimplification at best. Right-to-repair has huge support amongst e.g. farmers, who are not homogeneously left-leaning by any stretch.
"He was initially completely against any restrictions by companies on farmers from repairing their equipment (which might have resulted in voiding the equipment's warranty). However, Rossmann later admitted that his opinions were not completely correct due to a lack of expertise in farming machinery; this came after he received mail from a John Deere employee stating how allowing farmers to tune their tractors can result in harm to themselves and possible violation of environmental laws.[14] "
This seems to confirm my point...
From what I can tell, the only relevant bit in that video is that he concedes he didn't know that tractor racing (tractor pulls) was a thing.
And thinking any environmental regulations should exist certainly doesn't place you on the left. Do you think Richard Nixon was a leftist?
Rossman spends about the same amount of time railing against regulation as he does supporting right to repair.
Right to repair is largely about protecting individual liberties and property rights.
What I'm saying is that by casting right-to-repair as leftist (or rightist) just muddies the waters of what leftism is without providing any guiding context about why people might be for or against the right to repair. In any case, there's very few parts of the governmental-regulation spectrum that are unambiguously left or right.
It's a bad legal concept, but it exists: The DMCA
Clearly, there is a legal concept of 'felony contempt of business model', as I did not coin that phrase myself.
People mentioned farmers in your sibling comments, are those consumers? I thought they are not.
Wanting more personal freedoms is generally considered a right-wing view. Creating a right to repair is about placing limits on corporations, not actual people. Try telling people that they can only use "original" parts in their guns and suddenly the entire NRA will be on the streets demanding a constitutional amendment in support of right-to-repair. This isn't a left-right political thing. It is a persons v. corporations issue, with government as the representative of the people.
The gun people in your example decided to use governmental regulation to protect their personal freedoms - which is definitely a leftist stance. Now they are on the right, but what you said moves them to the left.
The reason the gun people support the 4th amendment and still are on the right is because it's not a regulation that affects people, it limits the state.
Again, I'm not saying it's wrong to be a leftist. I support the right to repair too.
what does that say about the quality of what you have to say?
At the least I think the government could argue about selling in jurisdictions where it is illegal.
Recently saw a post on a diesel truck forum about a CA resident who had legal/registration issues because of an engine swap (post emissions engine into a pre-emissions vehicle) [1]
Am under the impression this particular vehicle would be fine in WA state by comparison.
It's frustrating to see consumer vehicles being so strongly targeted by regulatory shenanigans compared to "private jets" and the like
[1] https://www.oilburners.net/threads/california-diesel-convers...
Factor a second or third engine (whole new truck) and the energy and pollution to produce it and DEF looks not as great.
Vehicles and engines that last 25 years are easy to build yet they are rare outside of commerical and military.
The whole argument is disengenuous and proceeds from an unstated a priori desire by government to restrict movement of citizens and markets, rather than as a real requirement for a real benefit.
It's all so tiresome...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161740/
It has a boiling point of 135C. Something else was (I gotta say it, likely) causing your sickness.
The whole reason why DEF is used[0] is because it reduces nitrous oxides, which are thought to be a pollutant.
Whether they actually are an effective greenhouse gas or not is probably a completely different thing we could argue about, but what is undisputed is the mechanism of action in the hot catalytic converter during engine operation, since it's the entire point of using the DEF in the first place.
In the catalytic converter, the urea thermally decomposes[0] to form Ammonia and Isocyanic acid[1], which is "a colourless, volatile and poisonous substance, with a boiling point of 23.5 °C".
23.5C is 74.3F. So, basically at room temperature the isocyanic acid becomes vapor. On a hot day, it vaporizes quickly and all that isocyanic acid has to go somewhere.
This is nasty stuff[2].
Anyway, the EPA probably figures that poisoning someone who's operating a diesel serves you right in order to reduce nitrous oxides. I've operated other diesels that are pre-DEF and never got sick like that.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid
My last two vehicles lasted over 250k each, well, one is still going, I just don't own it any more. I feel the engine on the Toyota thats still running may last forever. It's replacing other parts outside the drive train that made it not worth it. Consumers are much more into toss and replace than full rebuild maintenance schedules.
What is their motivation for doing this?
But, at least in Europe, diesel options in passenger cars are mostly gone, most SUVs nowadays are either gas powered (with a particulate filter, of course, so another thing that can go wrong) or some kind of gas/electric hybrid.
That certainly used to be the case, but it changed recently, and the EPA has been aggressively going after anyone who sells them for any purpose.
If you're in the US and sell things that can modify emissions stuff, they're coming for you. Period.
Omitting wear and reliability concerns, some tunes gain their effect by not controlling for things like NoX and unburned hydrocarbons.
The worst offenders? "Coal rolling". It would be one thing to do this to help spool a turbo or for some other performance reason, but it's literally running the motor as rich as possible to dump unburned fuel out the tailpipe to make a visual effect. At the expense of everyone around you.
Examples are Green Diesel Engineering (Who did a TON of dyno time and used to work for a major OEM on emissions stuff) and Banks (who are virtually an OEM at this point)
ok, it's just a single datapoint, but motocross racetracks in New England, already built in the woods away from civilization, started requiring mufflers about 50 years ago, early 1970's
The parts may even be more efficient and less polluting, the government bureaucracy everyone here is worshipping doesn’t give a rats behind.
Except I had all sorts of aftermarket parts in there from years of repairs, none of them with the all-important California CARB seal of approval on them, so even though it blew clean, it still "failed emissions" and I had to sell it to someone out of state. I'm still bitter about it.
Further, and most people don't know this is a thing, you CAN tune your car as much as you want and have it certified with all of those parts as a one off for about $5,000 and a six-ish month wait. This is how you can legally import overseas vehicles and get a California title and registration, but it's $5,000 per test, and it usually takes more than one if you aren't super prepared. After the certification the entire engine (including all modifications) are regarded as that being the SMOG compliant form.
One other major loophole is kit cars; SB100 allows for non-SMOG vehicles to be built as a kit. Not everyone's cup of tea, but you can build things like the Superlite GT-R [0] or SL-C [1] and never SMOG it.
You are barely correct. A filter alone is insufficient to be an issue, but a cold air intake will mean you don't pass smog in CA.
In the case of gasoline cars, there are mechanisms for controlling intake air, recirculating exhaust gas, and filtering emissions directly out of the exhaust gases. All of these impact carbon emissions.
These defeat devices allow drivers to modify some or all of these attributes in favor of gaining engine performance.
A misfire is raw fuel being expelled.
They can lead to the popping sound you're describing, but they don't always, and they're far from the only cause, and muffler deletes aren't necessary for those either. Unburned fuel hitting oxygen in the tip of a hot exhaust and immediately burning is the direct source of the noise, and causes for that are numerous.
I saw this analyzed on a Chevy Silverado that would randomly misfire. Everything else checked out: fuel pressure, spark plugs, firing timing, and fuel injector pressure. The remaining item: muffler delete.
But the incomplete ignition of fuel can occur in both stock and modified vehicles. My car is completely unmodified, but can very easily have a low quiet popping noise during downshifts. With e removal of my muffler, it would be quite loud.
A modified engine can do this to a much greater extent, depending on the modifications. Some do so intentionally with what is known as a "burble tune", which is quite annoying in my opinion. It is inspired by rally cars that would intentionally inject fuel during the exhaust stroke and fire the spark plugs to keep exhaust driven turbines spinning even when under deceleration.
If you’re a wealthy politician with a private jet you can pollute as much as 10,000 modified diesel trucks and the EPA might even give you an award or something.
This is insanely hyperbolic.
A Cessna Citation I carries 564 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~1,500 miles - 2.7mpg.
A Ford F-250 carries 48 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~700 miles - 14mpg.
It's not even 10x.
No amount of cherry picking is gonna get you to the 10,000x number upthread.
Just searching the article for "lead" only gets this quote: "The possibility of environmental legislation banning the use of leaded avgas (fuel in spark-ignited internal combustion engine, which usually contains tetraethyllead (TEL), a toxic substance added to prevent engine knocking), and the lack of a replacement fuel with similar performance, has left aircraft designers and pilot's organizations searching for alternative engines for use in small aircraft."
Also a reference to "Planemakers challenged to find unleaded fuel option - The Wichita Eagle" a 2009 article which has a dead link.
Curious to me why you would cite an article that says the opposite of your assertion and then repeat the definitive statement. I must be missing something.
The planes you are thinking of are mostly used for hobby flying or some short haul commercial flights, e.g. float planes. These have piston engines, more like your car ICE.
I cherry-pick "5 miles in a F-150" vs "5000 miles in a Citation."
Cherry-pick complete.
Similarly, my chain saw probably pollutes nearly as much as my new Honda truck even though it only gets a few gallons of gas per year.
> In the fifty years following the 1969 first flight, more than 7,500 [Cessna] Citations were delivered, forming the largest business jet fleet.
The math is similar for a Gulfstream, if you prefer.
What if the little person and the wealthy person travel a different # of miles?
I'd also add that two wrongs don't make a right, and while not strict enough there are emissions regulations for aviation.
If you were one of those rich people you'd be complaining about the certification of airplane parts causing them to be so expensive.
And if you're in the US, it's likely you could take dozens of flights per year if you wanted to, if you fit in the techy HN pay grades.
The relevant text regulating the sale and manufacture merely allows the EPA to exempt products "that you intend to be used solely for competition, where we determine that such engines/equipment are unlikely to be used contrary to your intent."
> but a part of me does not like the idea that every vehicle owner is beholden to the OEM for parts in perpetuity.
I don't think the regulation requires OEM parts, Dorman and MagnaFlow sell bolt-on Catalytic converters without any trouble from the EPA. I think there is a real problem when it comes to more complex parts like ECUs but right to repair laws can help solve that by requiring documentation and restricting arbitrary locks of electronic components.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U...
But there’s a risk with living with a check engine light. Some vehicles disable stuff like traction control in that state, and you won’t know when a new unique code has hit that you should deal with for other reasons.
(The disabling of traction control is insane to me here: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/25383/why-does... ). A catalytic converter problem is zero reason to do this.
It would always come on after I got off the interstate and coasted up the on-ramp, so I am not sure if it came on after getting hot enough on the interstate or if it was just the coasting that caused it.
> It would always come on after I got off the interstate and coasted up the on-ramp, so I am not sure if it came on after getting hot enough on the interstate or if it was just the coasting that caused it.
I suspect you may have had a very regular time/distance in the repetitive sequence of [reset code, drive some amount, code comes back]. For low-priority codes (unlike major engine emergencies) the ECU will use a "fault frequency" counter to suppress nuisance check engine lights that don't actually need fixing (like if a sensor was briefly out of range just once, a fluke rather than indicating a problem). So if it increments the fault frequency counter for that particular problem once every 10 miles of the fault actually happening continuously, and doesn't throw a check engine light until it counts to 6, then the light will come on after 60 miles. Just making up numbers but you get the idea... so if you always reset it that much driving before the same on-ramp, then it will always light up at that point. Also, the fault frequency counter might reset with every drive cycle, rather than just at the point that you cleared the code. Taking a detour during the same drive cycle as the on-ramp (as opposed to relying on variance of how long ago you did a reset) would be a good experiment.
But if you know that the drive cycles weren't so regular, then it could indeed be related to overrun fuel cut (coasting) or whatever.
A lot of the big name exhaust companies have stopped producing catless products; and others require all of your information to be on file if you’re buying a catless race downpipe.
A lot of the install shops around here in Maryland that run a legit receipt paper trail of work type of business won’t even touch catless installs anymore.
HKS silently discontinued their “catless” downpipes in the U.S. around 2021 for mentioned reasons above.
The loophole is that it doesn’t apply if you never take it off private property.
You can't modify the factory emissions output to go below the required output.
People like the Diesel Brothers from the Discovery Channel settled for like $3 million USD with the EPA for selling and promoting emissions defeat devices like tunes and straight pipes.
I or a family member has acquired a few vehicles where the catalytic converter was cut out by thieves, and I've done both so I can tell you from experience that it's the difference between $15 and $800 (parts and labor).
Having grown up extremely poor, sometimes families make those decisions because they don't really have a choice. Thankfully nowadays I do so I tend to err on the side of being a good citizen but personally will not judge anyone who choose s to weld a pipe in place rather than spend the exorbitant amount necessary to replace it, especially considering it might just get stolen again.
How does a manufacturer enforce the use of a device in that way?
"The Clean Air Act does not contemplate removing emissions controls from an EPA-certified motor vehicle in order to convert it into a competition vehicle. As a matter of enforcement discretion, the EPA’s longstanding practice has been not to take enforcement action against vehicle owners for removing or defeating the emission controls of their EPA-certified motor vehicles, so long as they can show the vehicles are used solely for competition events and no longer driven on public roads."
https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a36482793/sema-e...
I would never want to say that people should be able to defeat emissions, but a part of me does not like the idea that every vehicle owner is beholden to the OEM for parts in perpetuity. The "right to repair" people should be all over this fight. Restrict cars to only their original emissions parts and that becomes yet another lever for manufacturers to pull when they want to sell new cars/trucks/tractors. I say let people use the parts they want to use, then properly inspect and test the resulting vehicles once they are on the road.