US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
The Canadian government has some secret spat with Xiaomi cellphones and got eBay, newegg and Amazon to stop their sale. They weren’t approved for sale in Canada, but I suspect some other reasoning for targeting a Chinese manufacturer in particular and not all the other unapproved products.
However, eBay just blocked anything with “xiaomi” in the title, so their scooters, vacuums, android TV hubs and everything were no longer available for sale.
I had an old Mi Box (TV hub) listed for sale that became shadow-banned: after it didn’t sell for a while (duh, nobody could find it), I went to lower the price and it gave some vague error. I called eBay and they said it was due to gov regulation but had no further info, so I just took “xiaomi” out of the title and voila!
If they’re actually so harmful to public health.
Though I wonder if our telecoms were behind this; they prefer you to buy your device from them.
If they were causing harmful interference, I’d like to think they would be harder-headed about it.
It's not about health effects, there are none.
It's about the risk of interference.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-detai...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
Can be a handy tool to selectively remove vendors from the market (which may be what occurred here).
If there was a problem with interference, I really wished our regulator would require the telecoms to disable them from the networks to force migration to non-interfering devices.
These are likely just out of an abundance of caution just in case, not because they actually think harm will come. Frankly that's just fine, I wish they'd do that more - especially with new chemicals.
> If there was a problem with interference, I really wished our regulator would require the telecoms to disable them from the networks to force migration to non-interfering devices.
Agreed.
Then some regulatory body ossifies into some role, and then we end up with some regulations.
Some useful but not doing enough (lead, fly ash from powerplants, plus basically any emissions regulations via the EPA, huge political battleground, insane lobbying, etc), some that have benefits but are doing too much and in a very wrong way (environmental reviews and zoning regulations which make construction permitting process a non-deterministic nightmare with bonus added possibility for endless legal challenges, but no outright bans of course ... you can try to apply for whatever you want, and local democracy, council, judiciary will just happen to say no. how fair, right!? ... of course, makes no sense, since persistent/rich builders end up getting approved eventually. democracy, fairness, yey!) And again, of course, public good projects, from railways/subways to nuclear power plants, where there are no special interests pushing for (and plenty of against), that simply don't get built (or carry an enormous premium of wasted time and "reviews").
And then chemicals and RF. Since there's a clear and obvious good in having nice radios (in phones, laptops, headphones, doorbells, etc) and a very obvious problem of interfere, it very quickly got the FCC to manage it. (And sometimes it's too slow to allow or free up spectrum for non-exclusive usage, and there are sometimes conflicts, but in general it's clear, fine, easy to measure, great.) And then the health concerns are added on top of it, and it's very much not clear WTF should happen. How to prove safety? With 5G we have had a total crusade by motivated folks trying to prove it does at least something bad. Kills/warms insects, tracks each and every one of us, and of course causes cancer. And ... it seems the sheer momentum of functionality simply marched through this soup of uncertainty.
And it seems something very similar happens with "chemicals". Obviously working with them in factories almost always causes a lot of harm, but we allow it, because it's very useful (and weak labor laws, and no compensatory tariffs), and there's simply no clear way to prove safety.
When they pick and choose who they target for RF and somehow end up focusing on a Chinese cellphone manufacturer, it suggests something is going on beyond RF reasons.
What evidence is there that anyone is picking and choosing?
https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=gsm+gps+tracke...
https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?&_nkw=cell+phone+booster
I'm sure I can find wifi access points and other cell phones that aren't certified, but I'm too lazy to check against what vendors' models bothered getting Canadian approval or not.
The real reason everyone does RF certification is to make sure the radio isn't screaming in others' bands.
There’s also tech relations issues due to huawei shenanigans and back doors.
Or just google it. Pretty common knowledge that the too cheap to be true chinese phones, amazon fires, etc all trade on your personal data to subsidize the device, either overtly with amazon, or less openly in the case of xiaomi, huwei, and dozens of smaller brands of phone, television, and other connected devices.
According to the government? Yes, of course.
This is what happens when the penalties are high and users are motivated to evade keyword filtering.
I doubt it's what eBay wants to do, but if the law is unclear about how filtering must be done then companies will over-filter to stay safe.
If you ask "what is the quickest way to filter X" someone is going to do a keyword search.
You could then actually put forth the effort to properly filter but generally once the fire is out no one cares anymore.
Unless those other products added up to enough revenue to impact numbers of course.
But who am I to question the wisdom of the free market…
Rewarding this kind of greed also isn't exactly pushing society in a positive direction, longer term.
> Rewarding this kind of greed also isn't exactly pushing society in a positive direction, longer term.
Call it what you want, but they're the ones making and providing goods we all agree are necessary :) money is the tool our society uses to incentivize more of that behavior.
Bullshit. The owning class doesn't make anything, and the actual workers won't see a cent of that surge pricing.
Ok lol. I see I'm not revolutionary enough.
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.
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.
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 wish they did the same about modifications done to increase the noise.
I've got 2 people living nearby that both have straight-piped their car and I literally cover my ears when they pass by.
My Watch literally tells me that a noise peak happened when they drive by.
And teslas but only when they drive behind. For whatever reason tesla lights blind when seen in the mirror.
They are also good for deflecting debris :)
The best thing ever!
Can't tell you the amount of times I've seen people in the other lane flash their highbeams at him while I've been riding in the passenger seat, because they think he's doing the same.
That gives max range for high beams and the low beam down and right (for right drive countries) is then also very close to optimal.
I mean yeah if they never get complains about a given area and they get one call about a loud car driving they're not going to come in lights and sirens to search for them. But if they consistently get complaints it will absolutely guide their decision-making around where to patrol, how often, etc.
Of course this assumes that the political leadership in your municipality hasn't decided that cops don't need to enforce laws (rare outside of a few large cities) and they're not busier with much more serious crimes, underfunded and understaffed, and just not able to spend time on noise complaints (rare but a common talking point).
Though sometimes this double-responsibility just means finger-pointing instead of action.
Management (the courts) do not find it lucrative enough (political capital) to pursue weak cases (lax laws passed by the legislative branch).
In order to fix you must bring awareness in your local community to the problem (lax laws) and petition change (raise political capital). The courts and byproxy, enforcement, will follow. The larger the city, the more difficult this becomes.
> Before the American city could be physically reconstructed to accommodate automobiles, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where cars belong [..] Until then, streets were regarded as public spaces, where practices that endangered or obstructed others (including pedestrians) were disreputable. Motorists’ claim to street space was therefore fragile, subject to restrictions that threatened to negate the advantages of car ownership.
Or maybe they're just assholes.
Cops don’t ticket cars because they also own a car
Cops don’t stop people with guns because they also own guns
Cops don’t go after bikers because they factor in if the offense is worth the risk, to both themselves and the public. There’s also a whole thing with outlaw motorcycle gangs that plays into it. Most non entry level bikes can out maneuver and outrun cop cars with ease, yes, even those slow looking Harley’s. Starting a chase over loud pipes would put a lot of innocent people at risk and for what? It isn’t worth it and it’s safe to say if the biker is running modified pipes they are not on an entry level bike.
Story: a buddy of mine had a gsxr 1000 and would purposely screw with cops on the freeway and as soon as they’d light up he’d be gone and doing 200mph within a few seconds, fitting between cars easily. Within 30-60 seconds a bike can be damn near a mile away from a cop car. Radioing ahead won’t help if you don’t know where they went and they were never running a plate to run… most cops know it’s pointless to chase and often immediately call it off. Public safety is more important. Those types of bikers have a way of making the issue go away all on their own eventually. You can’t temp fate that much and not eventually meet yours.
>> Story: a buddy of mine had a gsxr 1000 and would purposely screw with cops on the freeway and as soon as they’d light up he’d be gone and doing 200mph within a few seconds, fitting between cars easily. Within 30-60 seconds a bike can be damn near a mile away from a cop car. Radioing ahead won’t help if you don’t know where they went and they were never running a plate to run… most cops know it’s pointless to chase and often immediately call it off.
It's still kind of amazing to me that race-tuned liter bikes are even legal in the US. Even a starter 250 likely has a faster 0-60 than most cars on the road. I believe you need a little extra power to spare when riding, so that you can suddenly speed up if you need to, but not so much extra power that a quarter-turn on the throttle gets you from 70 to 100 MPH in 1 second.
I've heard big bikes described as "ride to survive" because even a small mistake can be fatal when you are dealing with that much performance. Full disclosure, I ride a big, fat Kawasaki touring bike (1993 ZG1200, right about 760 pounds wet) and while the engine is big, it's geared to a max of 113 MPH. It's big enough I have to respect it when riding, but powerful enough that if I need to I can spur it a bit :)
Interestingly enough I passed a cop on the highway doing 150 once. He was merging on from the on ramp. I stayed in it thinking I was fucked anyway but to my surprise he took the very next exit and got right back off the highway. There’s no way he didn’t notice me blow past him. The only thing I can think of is he got a priority call or he saw my speed and said fuck this my shift is about over and noped on out of running me down.
An idiot friend used to do similar (in the UK), then one day he did it and the Police turned up at his house 1 minute after he had stopped and put his bike away. He'd gotten away with it loads of times but this time he did it with a Police helicopter in the air less than a mile away and easily able to track a bike all the way back to his house. A top sports bike may be able to do 200mph but not everywhere, and helicopters are fast, can see for miles with very good tracking cameras, and can fly in straight lines.
They then used all of the footage from the Police cars of previous incidents to tie them all to him (similar clothing, similar bespoke exhaust, etc). I think he got 8 years in prison with all of the totting up that went on (and previous offences taken into account).
A video that opens from a news helicopter and a reporter stating "we've been tracking him for ten minutes" that continues to track for another 3 or four minutes.
The police helicopter pulls off towards the end for lack of fuel .. and the news helicopter says that they are having trouble keeping up (despite having done so for at least 13 minutes).
I'm going to guess this is more a resources ran out thing than a car outran helicopter thing.
( FWiW "The speed of a police helicopter can vary depending on the make and model. However, most police helicopters have a top speed of around 130-145 miles per hour (209-233 kilometers per hour)."
The car was peaking at 110 mph, the helicopters may have been hitting headwinds, even so the statement was explicit that police helicopter had low fuel. )
The police rig was probably easily keeping up - but was low on fuel, the news helicopter likely had less grunt and|or started to exceed budget burn rate | run low on fuel itself.
The follow through on that wasn't given but there's a fair chance the car was tracked down - being distinctive and the police capturing the plates.
3:20ish "We're having trouble keeping up with this guy"
3:30 "We are currently going 120MPG and he is losing us. We're at the maximum speed right now." [news anchor after speaking to pilot]
3:50 "This is the first time the vehicle has outrun the chopper" [studio host?]
So I think you are correct in the 130-145 MPH max speed and them just hitting 120 due to wind or hardware.
I got pulled over for noise (in the UK) as my ZX6-R had a hole in the downpipes and it was obviously a bit too noisy. I was trying my best to keep the noise down and (genuinely, provably) on my way to drop the bike off to have it repaired.
The Cop that pulled me over was happy to chat about it when I explained that it was on its way to get fixed he let me off.
Then a Harley that was twice as loud went past and the cop says "Cor, doesn't that sound lovely!" I asked him if he was going to pull it over for being louder than mine and he suddenly got very grumpy with me again. I didn't push any further as I didn't want to end up with a fine.
What's the old line?
"Harley's are probably the most efficient machine to turn gasoline into noise without that pesky by-product of horsepower."
But I did talk to them. Turns out he lives with his mom, and she just bitched me out.
To be fair (to those who think that's excessive), they also (on two occasions) chased down and cited/arrested people who tried to run me off the road on my bicycle there (commuted via bicycle for years), and I've had many other great interactions with them.
I'd personally rather have a fast, but quiet vehicle. Most vehicles people make loud don't really have enough displacement to warrant that much sound so it's usually loud AND slow lol
This kind of thing for people who were wondering
What's crazy to me is I hear it on cars that aren't even turbo - they're just running super rich with no muffler/resonator, so it pops/burbles more than normal. Can't be good for the car (the catalyst in particular, assuming they've bothered to keep it).
There's also "DSG farts" which actually have a performance benefit, but sound truly awful with aftermarket exhaust systems.
1) Look up your city ordinances on sound, there should be copies of this is the reference section of your city's public library. Identify the ordinance and paragraph that the people nearby are violating. Record/video one or more violations on your phone.
2) Call the police, don't "complain about the noise", tell them you want to "swear out a complaint" for violating ordinance x, paragraph y. They are obligated to take your complaint and forward it to the District Attorney[1].
3) You will probably be called as a witness if the folks with the noisy cars choose a trial.
[1] When a police officer hears a complaint, they can "investigate", and then "cite" the offender. It is up to the officer's discretion. That citation is the sworn complaint from the officer of the offending behavior. When the police refuse to do their job, everyone has the right to "step in" to that role and swear out a complaint. The downside is that retaliating against an officer is 'scary' but retaliating against a neighbor isn't. This can result in a variety of negative externalities that may be criminal but hard to prove (car getting 'keyed', tires slashed, rocks thrown through windows, feces on your porch, Etc.)
Because taking on the job of enforcement when the cops let you down incurs significant personal risk, I usually suggest people make an appointment with their representative on the city's governing body, city manager, or district attorney and encourage them to actually do their job. Editorials in the local paper are good to, but projecting soft power as a voter in that way is less likely to blow back directly on you. I can also take longer and be less successful but sending emails to the DA with repeat infractions over and over can often convince them of the need for enforcement.
Good luck getting them to pick up. At least where I live (Seattle), I don't think its possible to get someone on the phone unless you call 911. Daytime phones automated system defers everything to online.
Where I live, these citizen comments are beloved by wingnuts who hate their neighbors and are trying to convince the city to harass them. So - you know - try not to come off as one of those.
That saves waiting for your turn at the podium in the meeting and it avoids the wingnuts labeling you as the person "out to get them." Both are good things IMHO.
I thought that being able to connect to a live human operator / police dispatcher outside of 911 was ubiquitous in America.
US is all about freedom, and concern for neighbors is a necessary prerequisite to practicing freedom.
PS: I ride a motorcycle as well, there's no problem making it reasonably quiet.
Then, review your town's ordinances and see if there's anything about passenger vehicles requiring properly maintained and baffled exhaust system.
Then, write to your city coun, mayor, and police chief (all in one email) asking why this ordinance isn't enforced? Can it be struck from the ordinances if it will never be enforced?
Finally, ask them whether or not citizens should be able to enforce the code or ordinances amid willful police negligence to do so? If not, why not? If not, csn they add "City X does not issue tickets to noisy vehicles" to their marketing material.
Ask if you have fewer rights than someone who knowingly bought or modified a vehicle to disturb tens or hundreds of people all around them at any given moment during the day without recourse?
Ask them to provide at least two good points on why a passenger vehicle should be allowed to have a noisy exhaust system.
If they can't provide a solid solution, then ask them all to step down.
(I'm on your side, btw. Not sure if that was clear from my post.)
So literally the EPA did the exact opposite of your complaint. Or you meant to say DOJ.
I mean... if you're building a race car, which is offroad use, and legally allows you to defeat emissions devices, but the EPA has taken enforcement actions against everyone who makes them or sells them, where are you supposed to buy them? I can do my own exhaust work, but I can't sit down and build my own ECU programmer that bypasses the encryption that the manufacturer puts into their product and debugs their proprietary CANbus protocol to reconfigure the fuel system mappings. I mean, I probably /could/, but we're talking about years of dedicated work on my part, and I'm sharper than the average racer when it comes to technical things. Typically you get at most 4-5 months to prep a race car for the following season.
The PR twit at the EPA can say whatever they want, but the proof is in the pudding and actions speak louder than words. The EPA fucked over everyone who does amateur motorsports in this country, point-blank.
It is always amusing to see the evolution of "code names" for things that sellers use to try to get around algorithmic detection.
And bottom line, I expect businesses operating in the country of origin will likely become the sellers of choice here.
As cars get more advanced, sometimes you’re just overriding a sensor that broke and there was nothing wrong with the vehicle or its emissions. But fixing the faulty sensor would be a $$$$ fix and a defeat device is far cheaper.
Other devices can be used for other situations.
Of course, if a racist makes any racial reference, it's generally racist.
>The Department of Justice said eBay illegally allowed the sale of at least 343,011 aftermarket "defeat" devices that help vehicles generate more power and get better fuel economy by evading emissions controls.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-and-com...
"sales of defeat devices for certain diesel trucks after 2009 and before 2020 resulted in more than 570,000 tons of excess NOx and 5,000 tons of excess particulate matter (PM) over the lifetime of the trucks."
"defeat" devices are not aftermarket ECUs for your eighties Honda, they are DPF/EGR/SCR deletes for Diesel trucks.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/ta...
Here is an example of asshole coal rolling supplier: https://www.rpmmotorsport.net/blogs/technical-help-center/sc...
EGR Delete
DPF Delete
ADBlue SCR Delete
Swirl Flap Delete
On newer vehicles I would expect it to be possible to upgrade the infotainment system to have all this built in to change on demand. Fuel efficiency mode. Smog inspection mode shout-out to VW. Whistlin Diesel Mode For rollin coal and melting tires. All of this should be an open source USB image file that also strips out any remote telemetry and remote control capabilities from the vehicle and unlocks all subscription services giving ownership back to the owner.
These are comparatively cheap ways around that.
If you spent $100k on a truck, and you could spend $2k more to 'delete' some emissions equipment to prevent $10k+ worth of repairs in the future, would you do it?
At least cars have cabin air filters. I get to suck it straight in unfiltered.
At least cars have smog equipment to reduce the emissions. Motorcycles mostly don't.
Otherwise, you do it to make your street car faster (and maybe also pollute more), or worse, just generate a bunch of diesel soot to annoy other people with.
Many states and localities have "visible emissions" rules, where even if your vehicle doesn't have to pass emissions tests, you can still get pulled and cited for actual smoke. I've never been pulled for it (smoke means you're wasting fuel) so I don't know if it's an inconsequential fine or just not enforced generally.
Edit: people generally don't do things for the "sole purpose of polluting more" it's often functional. Many diesel drivers don't like others who roll coal as the image is bad in general - heavy equipment will often produce black smoke because the engine is being worked for a purpose and it's literally just being given fuel.
I remember turning it off in Europe because trying to start from a dead stop with the engine off in a stick shift is a whole new world of fun I didn’t need.
> Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act makes it a violation for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, any part or component (i.e., “defeat device”) intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to ...
So, I guess I can see how ebay is at fault. But if that is literal text then it seems that both the end users (buyer and seller) are also at fault and should be parties to this lawsuit.
The big problem is the lack of emissions regulation (or even proposed) on the commercial vehicles. However, that isn't something the legislative branch can do by themselves (either EPA or DoJ), requires congressional action.
Is this an admission?
Haven't looked for a while, but it used to be fairly common to be able to find them on both Amazon and eBay, usually listed as "lawnmower mufflers", with pretty un-subtle hints:
"This lawnmower muffler fits a 9mm exhaust and you can bang around your back yard all morning without disturbing your neighbor."
The sound they make in movies couldn't be further from reality.
You need to get a threaded barrel, $250, available online.
Then you fill out paperwork, pay the ATF $200, wait, and then you'll get permission to buy one.
Hollywood and video games have convinced the population a suppressor is impossible to hear and you can shoot people in public without anyone knowing. Ridiculous, to say the least.
1) In most of this country it's entirely legal to own and use a suppressor - so there's plenty out there "in the wild" and few if any are used for crime.
2) These listings are usually predatory BATF Honeypots (designed to catch only the dumbest among us) - but even if they aren't, there's still little if any crime committed with them. So, why even worry?
The only real violation that might have occurred here is not removing listings for these devices where they are explicitly marketed for illegal purposes. Short that, they need to actually justify passing a law outlawing these devices, or they need to enforce the existing laws against deceptive use of these devices.
> New nonroad engines/equipment you produce that are used solely for competition are excluded from emission standards. We may exempt (rather than exclude) new nonroad engines/equipment you produce 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.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U...
They're never free in terms of your time, either.
(But note that I agree with the sibling comments by cool_dude85 & undersuit, in this case. But they are a regressive tax.)