Jump to content


Photo

IM240 smog test


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

#1 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 April 2010 - 09:34

The IM240 smog test is about to be introduced in my state, Victoria (commonly referred to as the state of despair for car owners). The fear is that this test will eventually be applied to all modified cars, at a cost of $500 per test. What is the history of this test around the world and why is it used?

Advertisement

#2 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 13 April 2010 - 10:06

I/M240 stands for Inspection and Maintenance, 240 seconds. It's a chassis dyno ("rolling road") emissions test that lasts 240 seconds and not quite two miles. Was designed as a in-field equivalent to the U.S. EPA FTP procedure, which is longer, more rigorous, and requires rather extensive lab facility.

Reasonable synopsis:
http://www.aa1car.co...brary/im240.htm

#3 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:21

Thank you Mcguire for another informative link. I sometimes wonder if the people who impose these sort of extra tests ever consider the cost to real people!

Without it meaning to be political either way what amazes me about the article is that the very people with the lesser money have to carry the bulk of the testing cost because richer people will likely have newer cars with full OBD11 which only require a scan tool type test not a rolling road test. Then if peole who are defined as poor can get a waiver on repairs only mid income people will be caught by the testing process, the poorest being given a waiver and richer having newer OBD11 cars. Also as the fleet rolls over soon 99% will be OBD11 equipped and so all the special testing investment will have short and costly per unit life.

What is also interesting from an engineering viewpoint is that the legistlation in California appears to trust input values as a guarantee of compliance to the law. The ODB11 system does not measure Nox at all nor does it really monitor combustion temperature so the legal logic is " if it met Nox at start of lfe and there are no faults it must meet Nox now". However another set of cars must have an expensive test to be sure.

I would have thought a smart California lawyer could have driven a coach and horses through that peice of legistlative diconnection!!

#4 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:36

Actually the irritating thing for me is that I will have to put my self constructed car through this test. My car will use an ADR79/01 (euro 3) compliant engine, including all engine management and manifolding etc and yet I have to do the IM240...yet I can build a ladder framed hot rod with a 502 chev on carbs and would not have to do the test...madness.
Thanks for the link McGuire. What is the weakness of the test in your view?

#5 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 13 April 2010 - 12:03

Actually the irritating thing for me is that I will have to put my self constructed car through this test. My car will use an ADR79/01 (euro 3) compliant engine, including all engine management and manifolding etc and yet I have to do the IM240...yet I can build a ladder framed hot rod with a 502 chev on carbs and would not have to do the test...madness.
Thanks for the link McGuire. What is the weakness of the test in your view?


Technically the test is pretty good in measuring emissions compliance. It's not FTP but that would be incredibly more burdensome for everyone. Really the problem here is political -- in who must comply. The solution to your problem above is to make everyone compliant to the same standard going all the way back to year one but that's not fair either.

I don't know what the situation is in Oz but here, vehicles manufactured before some arbitrary date are exempt so they can remain unmodified for historical purposes -- and hot rodders employ the cutoff years as loopholes, of course. Would you remove the historical exemption, or would you remove the loopholes, or would you like to see your car also exempt for some reason, or is the regulation as it stands now the best compromise all things considered? Don't know, I'm asking.


#6 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 April 2010 - 12:56

Yes it is politics driving the change. The issue for me is partly as stated, but also that there is an additional $500 per test cost, per test. So you fail the first and then the second costs you another $500.

#7 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,323 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 13 April 2010 - 14:08

What is also interesting from an engineering viewpoint is that the legistlation in California appears to trust input values as a guarantee of compliance to the law. The ODB11 system does not measure Nox at all nor does it really monitor combustion temperature so the legal logic is " if it met Nox at start of lfe and there are no faults it must meet Nox now". However another set of cars must have an expensive test to be sure.


Well, they don't measure CO or HC emissions either. But there is a catalyst diagnosis function. Modern cars use at least two lambda sensors, one placed before the catalyst and one after. Since the air/fuel ratio is adjusted to keep the catalyst in an operation mode where the oxygen reserve is constantly filled and depleted, the first sensor will show a lean-rich-lean switching output. The second lambda sensor will not have this switching output, unless the catalyst isn't working like it should. So this is used to monitor the catalyst, and with it the exhaust emissions.

#8 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 April 2010 - 14:16

http://2gb.com.au/in...e...iew&id=4998

#9 dosco

dosco
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 April 2010 - 18:21

Yes it is politics driving the change. The issue for me is partly as stated, but also that there is an additional $500 per test cost, per test. So you fail the first and then the second costs you another $500.


Interesting. When I lived in California you could have a "courtesy test" done where the shop would test the car but not report the findings to the state. This allowed you to figure out if anything was wrong and you could bring it to your favorite shop (or DIY).

For officical tests, if the car failed, it was not to be driven ... you were then basically hostage to the shop doing the test. Also, after the car was repaired and retested, you had to bring it to a "referee station" where the super-anal inspector would fail you for not having enough coolant in the reservoir. Or at least this is how it was described to me by some co-workers ... I was lucky and had 1 car registered out of state, and a new car.



#10 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 April 2010 - 22:49

http://2gb.com.au/in...e...iew&id=4998


And this link is for?? I am not a climate change sceptic. I would welcome the test if, as it is in NSW, free. The government choosing a commercial operator and handing a free print money procedure rankles, particularly when the test is not as good as the original emissions for the driveline.

#11 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 13 April 2010 - 23:21

I am not a climate change sceptic.


I am.

#12 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 13 April 2010 - 23:25

I don't know the ins and outs of ADR 79/01 but if it is indeed identical to Euro 3, and if your system is still fully functional -- post-cat 02 monitor active, calibration unchanged, no MILs illuminated and no DTCs stored -- it will pass I/M 240 with flying colors. If not, their machine is broke and you can tell them I said so. I will write you a note. :D

If you have changed the calibration, you can simply reflash the production cal for your test appointment, a minor nuisance. But you still have the matter of 500 bucks ($465 in our money). That's a lot of $$$ for a half hour on an inertia dyno. Is this really going to happen or is this proposal still in the listen-for-screaming-adjust-policy-as-necessary-stage?

#13 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 00:01

I am.


Current emissions regs barely address CO2. They're all about CO, HC, and NoX. These are all bad things to pump into the atmosphere even if you don't "believe" in climate change. (Sure, like that matters.) What are acceptable per-vehicle levels for the regulated pollutants? Good question. As of 2006 there are over 250 million passenger vehicles registered in the United States -- over 750 per 1000 population. (China has around 180 million vehicles and its fleet is growing 10-12 percent per year.)

The California regs are very stringent because the state has a genuine air quality problem, including photochemical smog. I hope you believe in smog because when you drive down the I-10 into the LA basin you can see it... about the same time you smell it and taste it. The rest of the states are by and large embracing the same standards because they don't want bad air either. If the automakers can build cleaner cars for California, why should the remaining states take dirtier ones? Tough logic to argue with.



#14 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 01:20

If the automakers can build cleaner cars for California, why should the remaining states take dirtier ones?


While I don't think it is worth going to the barricades for, LA's smog problem (which is real, no doubt) requires a higher standard of emissions regs than will result in acceptable air quality in most cities. At a guess it would be a waste of time imposing california emissions regs in Beijing, the air quality there is probably IMPROVED by running it through a standard cat. The money spent to get to California emissions regs would be much better spent sorting out their power stations( which they are doing).

It's no big deal either way for the manufacturers, if you want us to chuck another 500 bucks of rare metals in, and fancy seals on the filler (etc), fair enough. You pay for it, and our markup.








#15 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:41

Just saying: Society does not regard vehicle emissions in terms of maximums allowable (where the industry has had its mental phonograph needle stuck for lo these many decades) but in terms of the minimum attainable. After all, this is pollution we are talking about.

Consumers don't need 400 hp engines or twin DVDs in the back seat either, but they buy them, and as you suggest, we don't hear the industry objecting much. People may not "need" near-zero emissions vehicles either, arguably, depending where they live. But that doesn't mean they don't want them. So if the vehicles are available, practical, and economically viable in California, then New Hampshire and Wisconsin will have them too. And why shouldn't they?

It makes no sense to have multiple emissions standards within the USA's borders. So if there are going to be standards they need to be uniform across all 50 states, and they ought to reflect the best we can reasonably do, as opposed to the least we can get by with in the general case. I know this is not how auto industry people tend to view things, but that is only one more reason they should not be in charge. Of anything.


#16 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 03:29

Quick recap here:


LardAss: I don't believe in sasquatch.

McG: Well I hope you believe in bears. They've got big huge claws and sharp pointy teeth and they can eat you in one sitting.

LardAss:

Posted Image

#17 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 03:55

Just saying: Society does not regard vehicle emissions in terms of maximums allowable (where the industry has had its mental phonograph needle stuck for lo these many decades) but in terms of the minimum attainable. After all, this is pollution we are talking about.

Consumers don't need 400 hp engines or twin DVDs in the back seat either, but they buy them, and as you suggest, we don't hear the industry objecting much. People may not "need" near-zero emissions vehicles either, arguably, depending where they live. But that doesn't mean they don't want them. So if the vehicles are available, practical, and economically viable in California, then New Hampshire and Wisconsin will have them too. And why shouldn't they?

It makes no sense to have multiple emissions standards within the USA's borders. So if there are going to be standards they need to be uniform across all 50 states, and they ought to reflect the best we can reasonably do, as opposed to the least we can get by with in the general case. I know this is not how auto industry people tend to view things, but that is only one more reason they should not be in charge. Of anything.


Hard to know where to start here.

First, I guess, I don't think there should be different emissions requirements from state to state. It doesn't make sense economically. Along the same lines, I think there should only be about 3 or 4 different formulations of gasoline (hi alt., low alt., hot, cold) instead of the 20 or so that there are that creates artificial 'shortages' and drives prices.

There are diminishing returns on the development on any component. Emissions are no different. Right now, you can drive a SULEV car for a year and put out fewer emissions as your lawnmower puts out cutting an average lawn. Does it make sense to then decrease the emissions of the car further? No. It's not an effective use of resources. Should all cars be held to the standard of SULEV? Let the market decide. Right now, there are very popular cars that are meeting this standard. If a car company can sell more cars by going this route, then more power to them.

I feel the same way about smoking in restaurants. I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke in a restaurant. Ironically, perhaps, I don't smoke. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, then I would be less apt to be their customer than I would a restaurant who puts a stop to in on their own. It should be the restaurant owners decision, though, not some command from on high. McG and I just have a completely different way to look at life philosophically.

Auto industry people should not be in charge of anything, huh? So the government needs to control private industry to the extent of telling them what product to produce. And just where could we possibly be going here? Somehow, taking this approach, I see the modern interpretation of a Trabant in my future.

#18 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 April 2010 - 05:44

And this link is for?? I am not a climate change sceptic.


Just because your the OP doesn't mean it was aimed at you.

I happened to be listening to that while reading this thread and just popped it in for interest  ;)

#19 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 April 2010 - 05:57

As of 2006 there are over 250 million passenger vehicles registered in the United States -- over 750 per 1000 population. (China has around 180 million vehicles and its fleet is growing 10-12 percent per year.)


All public transport vehicles, bus and taxi are run on gas and only electric motorcycles are allowed into the city main. Makes a big difference.

The California regs are very stringent because the state has a genuine air quality problem, including photochemical smog. I hope you believe in smog because when you drive down the I-10 into the LA basin you can see it... about the same time you smell it and taste it. The rest of the states are by and large embracing the same standards because they don't want bad air either. If the automakers can build cleaner cars for California, why should the remaining states take dirtier ones? Tough logic to argue with.


So what your logically saying is that the Cali smog laws are giving Cali the dirtiest capital city but the other States with their cleaner cities want the same.

Advertisement

#20 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 14 April 2010 - 06:55

http://www.infrastru...df/cvestudy.pdf

#21 dosco

dosco
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 April 2010 - 09:02

So what your logically saying is that the Cali smog laws are giving Cali the dirtiest capital city but the other States with their cleaner cities want the same.


McG didn't mention the natural phenomena found in the west ... naturally occurring and pervasive inversion layer. It tends to trap any emissions and is the root cause of the problems with smog. The majority of cities on the east coast and central US do not have this atmospheric issue.

Also, LA as the "capital city?" Capital of drugs, violence, and the "me" culture, perhaps. Although I do have to say the coastline is pretty damned beautiful.





#22 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 14 April 2010 - 09:49

This is getting into climate change etc. which is a serious and emotive topic so I will try to make a point lightheartedly....

If I were a citizen of , say, Michigan in the USA and had spare time and cash I would be very tempted to launch a class action suit against the state of California and its CARB for knowingly increasing dangerous pollutants ( that is CO2) in the face of public domain information being available which warned of increased CO2.

How come, well way back in the 1970's when California began to address its air quality problems it was told clearly that reducing CO,HC and Nox would , with known technologoies increase fuel consumption. This was because at that time the only ways to meet its pollution rules were lowered CR, igntion ****** and EGR of of which drove up fuel consumption and led to 350 C.I V-8's having only 150 bhp with lousy BMEP. It is true that vested interests asid this but said it wasand the extra fuel consumption/CO2 did happen.

Today the US EPA has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and therefore must may controlled. I am not debating that argument but clearly today what California did in 1970's was to increase one pollutant to reduce another, it was not actually reducing its local pollution cost free. Now Nox etc remains largely a local problem which makes the LA basin horrible but higher atmospheric CO2 causes global damage. So if I was that Michigan resident I am suffering extra ( CO2) pollution due to the actions of the Californian state to cut local pollution and I should sue them!

The defence of course would be that California did not know in 1973 that CO2 was a pollutant but that is the very point - laws can, and are , made in ignorance and haste and others can suffer much later so the "lets make lots of pollution laws quickly" approach can be very risky because the full cost to society is sometimes very hard to determine.

#23 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 09:54

McG didn't mention the natural phenomena found in the west ... naturally occurring and pervasive inversion layer. It tends to trap any emissions and is the root cause of the problems with smog.


Sure, lungs are the root cause of lung cancer. Teeth are the root cause of cavities. Trees are the root cause of lumberjacks with bumps on their heads. Damn these trees to hell!

Look, this is simple. Vehicle emissions are a BAD thing. Not a good thing or an okay-sometimes thing. Sometimes the emissions cause visibly blatant problems like the photochemical smog in the LA basin, and sometimes the problems are more subtle and cumulative. But they are still a problem in most large American cities. You know, the air is not really supposed to stink. The other states will naturally look at California's standards and want them too. Rightly so.








#24 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 10:05

This is getting into climate change etc. which is a serious and emotive topic so I will try to make a point lightheartedly....

If I were a citizen of , say, Michigan in the USA and had spare time and cash I would be very tempted to launch a class action suit against the state of California and its CARB for knowingly increasing dangerous pollutants ( that is CO2) in the face of public domain information being available which warned of increased CO2.

How come, well way back in the 1970's when California began to address its air quality problems it was told clearly that reducing CO,HC and Nox would , with known technologoies increase fuel consumption. This was because at that time the only ways to meet its pollution rules were lowered CR, igntion ****** and EGR of of which drove up fuel consumption and led to 350 C.I V-8's having only 150 bhp with lousy BMEP. It is true that vested interests asid this but said it wasand the extra fuel consumption/CO2 did happen.

Today the US EPA has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and therefore must may controlled. I am not debating that argument but clearly today what California did in 1970's was to increase one pollutant to reduce another, it was not actually reducing its local pollution cost free. Now Nox etc remains largely a local problem which makes the LA basin horrible but higher atmospheric CO2 causes global damage. So if I was that Michigan resident I am suffering extra ( CO2) pollution due to the actions of the Californian state to cut local pollution and I should sue them!

The defence of course would be that California did not know in 1973 that CO2 was a pollutant but that is the very point - laws can, and are , made in ignorance and haste and others can suffer much later so the "lets make lots of pollution laws quickly" approach can be very risky because the full cost to society is sometimes very hard to determine.


As long as we are keeping it lighthearted, the state of California could rightly point out that photochemical smog was a more immediate problem than CO2, and still is; also that early remedies were those introduced by the automakers, not by the state of California; also that these early emissions systems were at most third-order increasers of CO2. I am glad we are keeping things lighthearted because the argument has no merit beyond the tongue-in-cheek.


#25 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 10:18

Quick recap here:


LardAss: I don't believe in sasquatch.

McG: Well I hope you believe in bears. They've got big huge claws and sharp pointy teeth and they can eat you in one sitting.


Bears were the subject here and you (and cheapracer) decided to talk about Sasquatch. I was on topic and it was you who wandered off.

You jackass. :D


#26 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 11:35

Auto industry people should not be in charge of anything, huh? So the government needs to control private industry to the extent of telling them what product to produce. And just where could we possibly be going here? Somehow, taking this approach, I see the modern interpretation of a Trabant in my future.


The auto industry requires adult supervision. The automakers insisted we were at the point of "diminishing returns" in emissions when they were forced to adopt the PCV valve. They fought regulation every step of the way. They have been slowly coming around but car buffs are still embracing the industry's PR stance from 30 years ago. Makes no sense to me. We get all wet in the knickers over hp per liter or cD, items that mean essentially squat in road car design, but low emissions are bad for some reason. No, meeting emissions standards are a key part of the design mission and a significant engineering challenge.

Edited by McGuire, 14 April 2010 - 11:35.


#27 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 April 2010 - 12:45

This test... do they test the fuel?

could run on ethanol or gas if that improves the emissions.

Im only thinking if you have a tuned up turbo car or something.

#28 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 14 April 2010 - 13:15

"As long as we are keeping it lighthearted, the state of California could rightly point out that photochemical smog was a more immediate problem than CO2, and still is; also that early remedies were those introduced by the automakers, not by the state of California; also that these early emissions systems were at most third-order increasers of CO2. I am glad we are keeping things lighthearted because the argument has no merit beyond the tongue-in-cheek."

Of course the lawsuit argument was tongue in cheek and I am sure if anybody tried it the "CO2 was not a delared pollutant in 1973" defence would be sound but the underlying point remains true. I have in front of me a UK mass circualtion motor review listing "over 1000 new green cars" So you might think this is about new cars today with low CO2. Wrong it is dated 1990 and "green" refers to the mass introduction of catalysed cars in Europe that year due to new EU regulations. The preamble contains the following about the introduction of catalysts " Carbon Monoxide is changed to carbon dioxide..Thus the converter is a catalyst for changing bad to good". I.E. as late as 1990 Co2 from cars was seen as "good" by the press just 6 years before the IPCC issued its first CO2 driven climate change warning.

I am not advocating nil action just to say that instant lawmaking does not always produce the best results. I do not personally know the exact social cost of one kg of Nox versus one kg of CO2 to society but it might be that if the Californians had waited a bit on Nox etc then the cumulative cost of a bit more Nox etc. for a while but less Co2 ( since both are declared pollutants today) would have been better than what happened.

#29 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 13:59

The auto industry requires adult supervision.



Is this the point in the thread where you post the bar graph of the national deficit on a yearly basis? OH, RIGHT....We won't be posting that any time soon, will we?

#30 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 April 2010 - 14:33

Look, this is simple. Vehicle emissions are a BAD thing. Not a good thing or an okay-sometimes thing.


In all seriousness and without stick poking, how can you write this and go to your job each day? Surely Hot Rodding is as opposed as you can get to this stance?

#31 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 April 2010 - 15:15

In all seriousness and without stick poking, how can you write this and go to your job each day? Surely Hot Rodding is as opposed as you can get to this stance?


hot rodding is recycling. :D

At least here in Norway were new frames is illegal as it is a new and unoriginal part that needs to be crash tested. with complete car.

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 April 2010 - 15:15.


#32 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 15:22

This test... do they test the fuel?

could run on ethanol or gas if that improves the emissions.

Im only thinking if you have a tuned up turbo car or something.


Mariner and I deny any knowledge of such an underhanded ploy to evade compliance with the law and would never stoop to such a thing.


#33 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:00

Of course the lawsuit argument was tongue in cheek and I am sure if anybody tried it the "CO2 was not a delared pollutant in 1973" defence would be sound but the underlying point remains true. I have in front of me a UK mass circualtion motor review listing "over 1000 new green cars" So you might think this is about new cars today with low CO2. Wrong it is dated 1990 and "green" refers to the mass introduction of catalysed cars in Europe that year due to new EU regulations. The preamble contains the following about the introduction of catalysts " Carbon Monoxide is changed to carbon dioxide..Thus the converter is a catalyst for changing bad to good". I.E. as late as 1990 Co2 from cars was seen as "good" by the press just 6 years before the IPCC issued its first CO2 driven climate change warning.


Climate change or not, CO2 is always preferable to CO. First, carbon monoxide is far more toxic -- undoubtedly the most common form of atmospheric poisoning in the world. (And a common route for suicide via car.) We have carbon monoxide detectors in our homes rather than carbon dioxide detectors. In the USA, over a hundred people a year die in their homes courtesy of CO poisioning from malfunctioning furnaces, etc. CO causes urban pollution both photochemically and by depleting NO (contributing to "ozone alerts" in big cities). Also, while CO is a weak greeenhouse gas in direct terms, it reacts with OH radicals in the atmosphere rather like methane, upsetting the greenhouse balance. There is no scenario in which we would willingly choose to swap CO for CO2 emissions. There is some limited irony in your above material but nothing more. Really it shows that in terms of atmospheric impact, nothing terribly good ever comes out of a tailpipe, as much as we might like to think so.

As a "pollutant," CO2 is different from HC, CO, and NoX in this way: in an IC engine the latter three are products of less than ideal combustion. However, in ideal combustion the only exhaust products are CO2 and H2O. So in effective terms there are no bandaids to be slapped on or screws to be tweaked. Really, the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is by reducing mass, reducing power, reducing vehicle miles. Or by reducing the carbon uptake with BEVs, hybrids, non-hydrocarbon fuels, etc.


#34 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:01

In all seriousness and without stick poking, how can you write this and go to your job each day? Surely Hot Rodding is as opposed as you can get to this stance?


If Mac was outed to his readership, he'd be out of a job in short order. The heathens that buy Hot Rod are gun-totin', Bible thumpin', red necks and they wouldn't look kindly on his type.

#35 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:04

Mariner and I deny any knowledge of such an underhanded ploy to evade compliance with the law and would never stoop to such a thing.


Well your alky burning cars are killing polar bears in the artic because they make more CO2 than a petroleum fueled car when you look at the entire supply chain.

Polar bear killer. What shame!











#36 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,826 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:08

I'm a believer in climate change: since the earth was formed the climate has constantly been changing and of course will continue to do so. I do not believe that human activity has any significant influence on the process.

I do not believe in so-called "global warming." In any case the earth has been cooling for more than the past ten years, something Al Gore might call "an inconvenient truth". And the earth was historically hottest around the 13th/14th centuries - Chaucer wrote of vineyards in northern England. This inconvenient truth was one of the facts that those vested-interest scientists in the Climate Research Unit wished to keep hidden from us.

Don't forget also that governments are most likely delighted to have found something new (carbon) to tax; expect more hard-selling techniques from the politicians.

Meanwhile this site is excellent if you are sympathetic to the sceptical view!

#37 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:12

In all seriousness and without stick poking, how can you write this and go to your job each day? Surely Hot Rodding is as opposed as you can get to this stance?


Well first, which job? I have around three at the moment.

Next, who says I can't be a hot rodder and concerned about environmental issues? Does this mean I can't also be an absolute ass about safety while seriously into motorcycles and other useless instruments of death and injury? I can't be a gun nut and also in favor of strict gun control regulations? That I can't be a fervent capitalist and also dedicated to the equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity? This would be very disappointing to me.

#38 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:16

As a "pollutant," CO2 is different from HC, CO, and NoX in this way: in an IC engine the latter three are products of less than ideal combustion. However, in ideal combustion the only exhaust products are CO2 and H2O. So in effective terms there are no bandaids to be slapped on or screws to be tweaked. Really, the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is by reducing mass, reducing power, reducing vehicle miles. Or by reducing the carbon uptake with BEVs, hybrids, non-hydrocarbon fuels, etc.


Ergo the reason behind the EPA defining CO2 as a pollutant. It's impossible for an animal to not create CO2. It's part of our biology. We emit it with every breath.

So since we can't change it, it's the perfect thing to tax. They're already taxing cow farts in Europe (although that might be for methane, not CO2...I'm not sure). It's not like I'm some sort of crazy alarmist (or, hell, maybe I am); it's already happening. If you drive, which pretty much all of us have to do, then you'll be taxed on the CO2 you produce. If you breathe, then you'll be taxed on the CO2 you produce. There is literally no way around it. And what are these taxes meant to go towards? Stopping a boogie-man that is unproven at best and completely conjured at worst. I hate this crap.



#39 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:17

I'm a believer in climate change: since the earth was formed the climate has constantly been changing and of course will continue to do so. I do not believe that human activity has any significant influence on the process.

I do not believe in so-called "global warming." In any case the earth has been cooling for more than the past ten years, something Al Gore might call "an inconvenient truth". And the earth was historically hottest around the 13th/14th centuries - Chaucer wrote of vineyards in northern England. This inconvenient truth was one of the facts that those vested-interest scientists in the Climate Research Unit wished to keep hidden from us.

Don't forget also that governments are most likely delighted to have found something new (carbon) to tax; expect more hard-selling techniques from the politicians.

Meanwhile this site is excellent if you are sympathetic to the sceptical view!


It's intentionally ignorant to think we don't affect the environment we live in. And by environment I mean the whole thing, not just the weather patterns. Global warming and climate change are too narrow of topics. It's about everything fundamentally. The biosphere specificially is very adaptable but the problems come if we introduce changes at a greater rate than it can adapt, acidification of the oceans and the like could turn into big problems. But no one will care because they'll be clutching their newspaper reports showing how that particular week was the warmest of the decade ergo the whole thing must be a sham.

Advertisement

#40 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,826 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:27

It's intentionally ignorant to think we don't affect the environment we live in. And by environment I mean the whole thing, not just the weather patterns. Global warming and climate change are too narrow of topics. It's about everything fundamentally. The biosphere specificially is very adaptable but the problems come if we introduce changes at a greater rate than it can adapt, acidification of the oceans and the like could turn into big problems. But no one will care because they'll be clutching their newspaper reports showing how that particular week was the warmest of the decade ergo the whole thing must be a sham.


My contention is that human activity does not have a significant effect on the climate. I might concede that there may be an effect but I should say it's minuscule.

That's the great things about forums - differences of opinion :)


#41 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:34

Well first, which job? I have around three at the moment.


Editor of Hot Rod Magazine

Next, who says I can't be a hot rodder and concerned about environmental issues?


Me. It's kind of like racing cars and being fervent on environmental issues. When the object of the game is to burn at many dead dinosaurs as you can in the shortest time period possible, it kinda runs against the grain of the 'Green' agenda.

Does this mean I can't also be an absolute ass about safety while seriously into motorcycles and other useless instruments of death and injury?


This I can agree with.


I can't be a gun nut and also in favor of strict gun control regulations?


Depends.


That I can't be a fervent capitalist and also dedicated to the equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity?


Nope. Doesn't work. The entire idea of capitalism means winners and losers. Much like racing, it's not an equitable arrangement.

#42 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:47

It's intentionally ignorant to think we don't affect the environment we live in. And by environment I mean the whole thing, not just the weather patterns. Global warming and climate change are too narrow of topics. It's about everything fundamentally. The biosphere specificially is very adaptable but the problems come if we introduce changes at a greater rate than it can adapt, acidification of the oceans and the like could turn into big problems. But no one will care because they'll be clutching their newspaper reports showing how that particular week was the warmest of the decade ergo the whole thing must be a sham.


In all fairness, Ross, during warm years the 'Warmers' were holding up the newspaper every week. Now that we're in slightly cooler years, the 'Non-Warmers' are holding up the newspaper. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. These time frames are meaningless to talk about, however, and anyone with marginal intelligence knows it.

What bugs me about 'Warmers' is their data collection methods and the massive manipulation that has happened to put it in the direction they want. If this was truly a scientific endeavor, then the scientists would log the data and present it. That is just not what has happened, though. The deck has been stacked, mainly by politicians, to produce the desired outcome. When the same type of thing happens with cigarette companies and their 'studies', there is a public outcry...and rightfully so.

I really start raising my eyebrows when the talk of global climate computer models comes up. I've spent enough time with racecar simulations that I know I can make it do whatever I want to make it do. What lap time do you want? I can make a Formula Vee run a 2 minute lap around Le Mans if you let me tweak enough variables. Now some racecar simulations are pretty damn complex. How complex would a global climate model need to be to valid? How easy would it be to bury some bias' in the code to make the sim do what you want it to do. Pretty easy.

I'm not from Missouri, but I've spent enough time there that people have to show-me. So far, they haven't.

#43 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:52

Me. It's kind of like racing cars and being fervent on environmental issues. When the object of the game is to burn at many dead dinosaurs as you can in the shortest time period possible, it kinda runs against the grain of the 'Green' agenda.


That's just buying into the arguments of the tree-hugger extremists and their stupid-ass absolutism. If the entire sport of motor racing had a measurable impact on the environment, there might be some reason to ban it on those grounds. But there isn't, so we here are. And I like it, so I'm in. As long as tracks other motorsports entities obey environmental laws and behave as conscientious corporate citizens, responding to real problems as they arise, what is the problem?

Beware of absolutism in all cases. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds -- I don't think many grasp the meaning of that adage. Nothing wrong with abstinence either, when practiced in moderation.


#44 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 14 April 2010 - 16:58

My issue with models is I worry they aren't accurate enough, but on the other side of the curve and that the consequences are higher. All things being equal I'd rather be a pessimist than an optimist. If you're right I look stupid and you can all make fun of me. If I'm right we're going to be floating on a raft somewhere and I'm going to be mighty ****ed off with you.

I do agree about the people who picked up the ball and ran with it, but I think you have to seperate the issue from the responses. I was in Europe when it all took off and I was bemused by the amount of traction Al Gore was getting because I was immediately reminded of the early 90s and I'm thinking "we've been through this already". So yes most green efforts at the individual level is little more than plenary indulgence, corporately it's a tax wheeze or marketing gimmick, and politically its a modern form of sabre rattling to keep other countries from catching up.

All of which just makes getting to the bottom of it far worse. Purely from a human nature angle I got nervous about it in 2007 when it really was "Omg we're all going to die" everyday because there wasn't anything genuinely serious going on in the world. I figured they'd get to the point where people ignored them because they thought they were crying wolf and when we got to an actual problem they'd have shot their last bullet. Once the recession came along it put those sorts of issues on the back burner because the primary motivation is keeping companies afloat and yourself employed. And when you lose your place in the news cycle, you can never really get it back.

The issues with the East Anglian reports/computer science is troubling not because of what went on but the reaction to it, it gave oxygen to not just the skeptics (which needed to be heard and not shot down) but to the crackpots who end up dominating any argument like this. So any chance of figuring out what's really going on is becoming harder to reach.

As is often the case, I think you have to follow the money. And in these types of things I'm far more skeptical of deniers than promoters. There's a lot more money to be lost than there is to be made, so while there are snakeoil salesman and opportunists, I'm not yet convinced there's any great conspiracy out there. Scientists tend to be smart not clever and have their noses buried so deep in books they can barely dress from the right decade. I don't buy that there's more fiddling or signal noise than in any other study, and the opposition to it is far better funded and has a lot more to lose.

#45 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 14 April 2010 - 19:17

Speaking of CO2 and methane etc. reminds of a story that a dutch friend told me a few years ago. In Holland agriculture is very intensive and highly productive but space is at a premium so most livestock is kept in barns. They are big into dairy products and veal etc. so the farming generates large amounts of cow and pig effluent which the farmers traditionanaly sprayed on the fields. This raised the nitrate levels in the water table badly so a limit was imposed as to how much effluent ( or to put it crudely s**t) that each farmer could spray.

This became a limiting factor for expansion minded farmers. However farms tend to pass from generation to generation and it turned out that if a daughter from farm A which was in decline married a farmer's son from farm B which was looking to expand the effluent permit could be transferred to farmer B. So a joke arose in the dutch countryside that the old cash dowry concept that modern times had eliminated had been replaced by "s**t dowry and boys would politely ask their new girlfriends how big an effluent permit their dad held as part of the courtship.

#46 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,519 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 14 April 2010 - 20:27

All things being equal I'd rather be a pessimist than an optimist.

I don't think you - we - have much choice in the matter, you are naturally one or the other, to a greater or lesser degree. I firmly believe that ones attitude to the problems of the World are coloured by this basic characteristic. I am an optimist. This does not mean that I worry much less about possible climate change, nuclear war, plague or pestilence, but that I believe eventually mankind will overcome or adapt. This is in direct contrast to the pessimists, who tend to worry, like me, but panic, scream doom and gloom, and jump on any available bandwagon to not only express their anguish and anger, but to force we the optimists to join their World view. Optimists do not do this.

Given time, most problems go away, or change. Nothing is forever. The Earth has been here in one state or another for a very long time. We cannot destroy it, but only make it less comfortable for ourselves and some other species. It will outlast us and get better, or worse, in cycles.

I recommend Olaf Stapledon's 'First and Last Men', a 'future history' of mankind for the next two billion years. There is always the possibility that we will not survive our own folleys or the chance natural event, but there is every possibility that we will.

#47 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,826 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 April 2010 - 20:53

[...] There is always the possibility that we will not survive our own follies or the chance natural event, but there is every possibility that we will.



Not if the population continues to increase however...

The earth would be just nice with about 4,000,000,000 people I think.

#48 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,519 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:15

Not if the population continues to increase however...

The earth would be just nice with about 4,000,000,000 people I think.

You are obviously a pessimist...

#49 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:58

I don't think you - we - have much choice in the matter, you are naturally one or the other, to a greater or lesser degree. I firmly believe that ones attitude to the problems of the World are coloured by this basic characteristic. I am an optimist. This does not mean that I worry much less about possible climate change, nuclear war, plague or pestilence, but that I believe eventually mankind will overcome or adapt. This is in direct contrast to the pessimists, who tend to worry, like me, but panic, scream doom and gloom, and jump on any available bandwagon to not only express their anguish and anger, but to force we the optimists to join their World view. Optimists do not do this.


Me too. I believe most all conditions are susceptible to improvement.


#50 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 April 2010 - 23:52

Here's a couple of interesting links which take opposing, but sensible views on this stuff

I disagree with this guy on the necessity of what he is proposing (although conservation and efficiency are worthwhile), but if as a society we decide to do it then his approach is much better than the the sort of ad hoc silliness that means the tax payer will pay for people's lightbulbs, and windmills.

http://www.inference...acontents.shtml

and a good one for winding up the tree huggers, his emphasis is on the distortions in the presentation of the material, although he also makes some salient points about the science as well. Warning, this is death by powerpoint.

http://rps3.com/File...AGW.Science.pdf