Hacker News Reader

Comment by asteli | Hacker News Reader

i have a lifted truck but i'm cheap so i just wrapped a length of chain around the cat, secured with shitty padlocks i had laying around. doesn't actually have to be secure, just look like enough of a PITA to remove that the thief moves on.

View on HN

I cut mine out of my trucks and put a straight pipe in. Sold them myself. Only able to do that in a state that doesn't regulate citizens to poverty.

it is good practice to keep emissions equipment in place. this way you can avoid paying to replace your cats if you have to move to a state that tests/inspects. it also reduces the amount of air and noise pollution that people in your community experience.

My rural community of 380 people don't experience a lot of air and noise pollution.

If I need to replace them, I know where I can buy them used. Plus, I don't have to replace them if someone else removes them unasked.

Pretty dick move to pollute and make your exhaust annoyingly louder. You should really reconsider.

Context: I did this, and it was stupid as hell. I could smell and taste my exhaust at stop lights.

> I could smell and taste my exhaust at stop lights.

I'm sure his estate sale will probably discount his truck when it's sold.

> Only able to do that in a state that doesn't regulate citizens to poverty.

Which state is that, out of curiosity? I'm going to feel just a little better if I can support changing those regulations someday, knowing how callously some people treat negative externalities

How exactly does cutting the catalytic converter out of your truck keep you out of poverty?

I don't agree with his sentiment, but some people find it unfair that California basically requires every car sold in the US to come with a $1000 part to control pollution. The argument is that California regulations shouldn't set the price of cars in Mississippi.

I am quite literally astonished to learn today that there is any first world country where catalytic converters are not required equipment.

Cats are required everywhere, but in CA they need to contain much more precious metals to meet the state standards than they would for just the national requirements. Most automakers choose to standardize on CA emissions standards nationally.

> The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is stricter on their regulations. CARB requires more precious metals and rigorous testing which is why they cost more than EPA catalytic converters.

https://autoquarterly.com/best-catalytic-converters/#Federal...

Not only are they required but CA requires $pecific ones with their CARB seal of approval. I had an older car from outside CA that never needed to comply with CA’s rules. When I moved to CA I tried to do the right thing by installing a working cat and tuning my car so it did not pollute. Got it to blow clean as a whistle but the state still failed me because it wasn’t one of their expensive approved devices. Ended up having to sell it out of state because CA labeled my car as “tampered.” You cant win with these guys.

I can’t believe people are stupid enough to think california regulations set the price of cars in other states, because they literally don’t.

They do, because of market size effects and standardization.

Automakers, textbook writers, etc cater to the largest state they serve (or the lowest common of several large markets), then distribute the same version to multiple locations.

In the case of cars, which have to adhere to California regulations to be sold in California, that can drive up the price in other markets due to expensive parts required for compliance and auto-manufacturers standardizing.

It’s also more constructive to explain why people are wrong (eg, why you think car regulations one place can’t impact the price in others) than just call them stupid.

California isn’t doing anything to anyone else. The sellers are making choices, and the market is doing what it does and allocating resources accordingly.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause disagrees with you.

How does it disagree? How do California’s state laws prevent a product from selling in other states?

The way interstate commerce clause is used is to give federal government ability to intervene, not another state government.

The biggest markets set the price for the smallest

Tough luck? Sounds like people complaining about big government requiring them to have catalytic converters want big government to regulate markets so they don’t have to have catalytic converters.

Quite impressive cognitive dissonance.

Aren't catalytic converters installed to meet federal emission standards? They might not be explicitly mandated, but in practice you can't meet the standards without one. In which case it's just a factually false statement.

California standards are harder to meet than federal.

OK, but can you meet federal standards without a catalytic converter?

You need a catalytic converter that meets a special requirement in CA. There are in fact cars with catalytic converters sold in other states that will not pass smog test in CA without upgrading the catalytic converter. They’re not all the same.

Yeah and if it weren't for those pesky Californians and their regulations we would be free to use leaded gasoline like true blue-blooded Americans.

Indeed, because toxic gases generated in one place can by no mechanism pollute another. And if while standing under this tree in the rain I get wet, I will simply move to another tree and be blissfully dry.

That really proves how oftrn "unfair" is narcissistically defined as "bad for me with no regard to the larger system even in its effect on them".

The reverse of say California not being able to define limitations because they have too many people that would agree it becomes a logistical standard would be a bizzare illogic and pretty hypocritical.

It is, however, a federal crime.

So rather than waiting for someone to steal it.....you stole it yourself?

Problem: thieves steal mandatory cats

One solution: Less government meddling, make cats not mandatory

Second solution: More government meddling, i.e. actually do something about the thefts

It absolutely blows my mind that people out there think #1 is the better solution

I grew up in Los Angeles during the worst decade of pollution it ever experienced and suffered serious childhood asthma as a result. The decrease in smog after catalytic converters were invented and required in new cars was significant.

After the changes, my ability to breathe improved drastically, and I know I’m not alone. I, for one, strongly support reasonable environmental regulations as a result.

https://www.kcet.org/history-society/how-los-angeles-began-t... is a great history of those times.

>i.e. actually do something about the thefts

When that time comes I'll change my position on the matter.

Besides being an idiotic asshole move, what you did is illegal in every state because it violates the Clean Air Act.

Pollution concerns aside, your valves are timed and the manifold ports are shaped to work with the back pressure provided by a working cat.

If you didn't compensate for this during the modification you've likely cut the working life of you head(s) by half.

>ports are shaped to work with the back pressure provided by a working cat.

This is a 100% urban legend BS myth.

There's a partial exception for two-strokes where if you tune the system right you get a resonance wave that lets you pack a little more mixture in on the intake/exhaust stroke. Literally no 4-stroke ICE benefits from back-pressure in any way. It's just that sometimes the things done to reduce back-pressure (small exhaust pipes being the primary one) seem like they would increase it and vice-versa hence the urban legend.

Edit: Who the heck is downvoting this? This is how ICEs work. Google it if you don't believe me.

As though requiring the ownership of a five-figure polluting death trap simply to live and work isn’t its own form of wealth-based oppression.

Downvote me all you want but let’s not miss the forest for the trees: you wouldn’t need to have an expensive car part if you didn’t need a car that has to have expensive parts.

I've heard similar arguments about government regulated safe disposal requirements of used motor oil, old paint and unused pesticides. How dare the government not allow us to just dump that down the drain or pour it into the local creek.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com