Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay635703
NOx emissions on a 100mpg car that 1% or less of the population uses are IRRELEVENT.
Laws need to be adjusted to start necessary industries, as much as you think having NOx regulations as they are is terrific these laws are mainly used to isolate the US market and strangle innovation, exceptions MUST be made if we ever want anything viable to get a start in the market.
Since you bring up NOx I assume the roughly 70 million 1990 and earlier cars that are still on the road make much less NOx than an Insight like 3 cylinder in lean burn right?
Sometimes common sense is lost AND THIS IS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE< IT IS A MOTORCYCLE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO MEET CAR STANDARDS, it can put out over 3x the most lienient car (light truck actuall) standard and be legal.
At the end of the day the pollution associated with producing 1 gallon of fuel and transporting it 5000 miles to your car makes more pollution including NOx than you car could ever make burning the fuel (heck more than a 1960's car can make), the most critical concern of our country must be to conserve fuel in any way possible first (while using common sense)
It is not that I disagree with pollution standards but in the case of anything revolutionary they must be disregarded IFF it creates a more viable energy efficient product.
Heck 50cc motorcycles still don't have active emissions, apparently someone in government does agree at least in part with what I said, just so long as it doesn't have 4 wheels.
Ah well.
|
I don't disagree that emissions laws seem to do as much (or more) harm than good. Burning extra fuel to try and keep down seems downright stupid.
But you were stating that a car running lean wouldn't need a catalytic converter, which it most certainly does to met today's standards. Maybe it doesn't need one to meet the standards you've made up as important to you, but that doesn't change what the actual requirements are.