Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 410 posts

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#241

Post by rumblerock »

plagiarist wrote: post #117
kjkjadksj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention good old fashioned overpowered unfocused led lighting. Its been a meme with the truck bros for years, but now these products have entered the general lighting supply. Now your landlord replaces the garage light with one thats brighter than the sun and shines into your bedroom. You will end up like Kramer in the chicken roaster episode of Seinfeld .

It is somehow every single vehicle on the road with these. People should lose their license for operating a vehicle with the blinding LEDs tilted up higher than highbeams would be. It is unsafe that approaching drivers cannot see past them as they drive by.

I've been looking into transparent windshield films to reduce glare for this reason.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#242

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

ceejayoz wrote: post #201
oceanplexian wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> pollute as much as 10,000 modified diesel trucks This is insanely hyperbolic. A Cessna Citation I carries 564 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~1,500 miles - 2.7mpg. A Ford F-250 carries 48 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~700 miles - 14mpg. It's not even 10x.

A Gulfstream G700 carries 22,407kg of fuel (about 6,100 gallons at 800kg/m^3 ) and a max range of 14,353km (8,918.5mi), for 1.45mpg. Closer to 10x, by a bit. Using the 12,316km high-speed cruise range manages to bring it down to 1.24mpg, just under 10x worse.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#243

Post by babypuncher »

ceejayoz wrote: post #201
oceanplexian wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> pollute as much as 10,000 modified diesel trucks This is insanely hyperbolic. A Cessna Citation I carries 564 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~1,500 miles - 2.7mpg. A Ford F-250 carries 48 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~700 miles - 14mpg. It's not even 10x.

But nobody drives their Ford F-250 10,000 miles a week. It's not about the energy efficiency of someone's mode of transport, it's about the total emissions from their transit habits. You know, the actually important metric when measuring an individual's impact on the climate.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#244

Post by december456 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #169
wredue wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Canadian government “secret spat” doesn’t seem so secret. Xiaomi stuff is laced with various levels of spyware. There’s also tech relations issues due to huawei shenanigans and back doors.

So are iPhones and US Android phones, but I guess when it’s a “partner” country’s corporations doing the spying, that makes it okay.

Well yes, partner country's corporations intelligence, your intelligence.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#245

Post by genter »

pseg134 wrote: post #235
genter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I believe the officer I talked to didn't care and thought I was a pansy.

To be fair to that cop I think you were too. Did you try solving the problem for yourself first?

Being woken up 1:00 in the morning multiple times a week by the walls of my house shaking from my neighbors vehicles makes me a pansy?

But I did talk to them. Turns out he lives with his mom, and she just bitched me out.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#246

Post by MarCylinder »

fsckboy wrote: post #106
sandworm101 wrote: post #25

My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My understanding was that they were legal for track purposes. 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…

> My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My understanding was that they were legal for track purposes. 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

Mufflers do not impact emissions.

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.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#247

Post by smileysteve »

imp0cat wrote: post #131
dieselgate wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To tap into this thread - this is quite real. One can just remove a catalytic converter (or have it stolen) and they'd then be "defeating emissions" so this lawsuit seems a bit zealous to me. 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…

I think the reason is (any diesel mechanics around please correct me if I'm wrong) that modern engines stripped of their emissions equipment will pollute a lot more than old engines.

Modern (fuel injected with wideband) engines without emissions devices will produce much fewer hydrocarbon emissions but more Nitrous oxides

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#248

Post by ska »

sam345 wrote: post #227
ceejayoz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private jets don't use leaded gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel No amount of cherry picking is gonna get you to the 10,000x number upthread.

Just curious, where in the wikipedia article does it say Private jets don't use leaded gas ? Just searching the article for "lead" only gets this quote: "The possibility of environmental legislation banning the use of leaded avgas (fuel in spark-ignited internal combustion engine, which usually contains tetraethyllead (TEL), a toxic substance added to prevent engine knocking), and the lack of a replacement fuel with…

Jets don't use avgas (which is still available with lead), they use jet fuel.

The planes you are thinking of are mostly used for hobby flying or some short haul commercial flights, e.g. float planes. These have piston engines, more like your car ICE.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#249

Post by westmeal »

ceejayoz wrote: post #201
oceanplexian wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> pollute as much as 10,000 modified diesel trucks This is insanely hyperbolic. A Cessna Citation I carries 564 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~1,500 miles - 2.7mpg. A Ford F-250 carries 48 gallons of fuel, with which it can travel ~700 miles - 14mpg. It's not even 10x.

They're not in a fuckin Cessna.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#250

Post by datavirtue »

sandworm101 wrote: post #25

My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My understanding was that they were legal for track purposes. 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…

I would fully suspect people to be fined for producing enhanced emissions reduction hardware and offering it for sale. The default emissions systems end up reducing the life of the engine, creating another problem for the environment, and there are opportunities for fixing those deficiencies.
Post reply on HN