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

401–410 of 410 posts

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

#401

Post by jmopp »

niij wrote: post #383
Nullabillity wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly the old unit price was already profitable, or there would have been no supply rather than insufficient supply. Rewarding this kind of greed also isn't exactly pushing society in a positive direction, longer term.

Do you see any downsides to government's setting prices? There have been a few examples of this in the 20th century.. > 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.

Goodharts' Law applies to money too. Government action need not be as draconian as a centrally-planned economy to push incentives just enough to eliminate the worst excesses. How much is 'just enough' is, of course, up for debate. But the answer is not 0% just as it obviously isn't 100%

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

#402

Post by miguelazo »

InitialLastName wrote: post #123
Scoundreller wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in Canadian cities, both bylaw officers and police can enforce these things. Bylaw officers tend to have less discretion on doing their job (and uhhh, fewer other crimes to claim to be busy with) Though sometimes this double-responsibility just means finger-pointing instead of action.

I've never heard of bylaw officers being a thing in the US. There are some code enforcement people in the US, but they mostly deal in very specific areas (fire code, building code, etc).

This is true. Although, there have been sporadic recent creations of community safety teams and units that deal specifically with the unhoused populations or mentally ill people, as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

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

#403

Post by dumbfounder »

rrix2 wrote: post #152
dumbfounder wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in favor of louder pipes for motorcycles for safety reasons. But there is such a thing as too loud.

safer for whom? My windows only rattle after the motorcycle has driven past, they don't project the noise ahead of you nearly as much as you think they do.

If you are riding on the highway going the same speed as other cars, it is often hard for them to see you, but if they can hear you they know you are there. It isn’t about driving past.

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

#404

Post by dumbfounder »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #300
dumbfounder wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in favor of louder pipes for motorcycles for safety reasons. But there is such a thing as too loud.

Which is the same reason every biker with loud pipes wears a full high-vis outfit. Or maybe they're just assholes.

Most of them are assholes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not safer to be louder.

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

#405

Post by datavirtue »

omginternets wrote: post #355
datavirtue wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muffler delete is a known cause of misfires. It manifests as a popping sound surrounded by the other shitty sounds produced by such a modified exhaust. We have all heard it. A misfire is raw fuel being expelled.

That’s a backfire, not a misfire.

Ok, we have quite a few keyboard mechanics here it seems. The muffler is a source of back pressure. That back pressure is part of the highly optimized emissions systems tuning done by the manufacturer. When you remove that back pressure there is high likelyhood that the reading from the 02 sensor are going to change and cause the computer to alter the air-fuel ratio based on that change. Hence, you will likely lose power, mpg, and introduce the possibility of misfires and other unwanted behavior.

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.

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

#406

Post by systems_glitch »

dieselgate wrote: post #129
systems_glitch wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One does not roll coal from e.g. an EGR bypass or delete, though! The only way to get thick clouds of black smoke are too much fuel (turn up the pump) or not oxygen (bag over the air filter in the simplest case). 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…

In my lived experience the folks who intentionally want to roll coal are younger guys (something to do in high school) - "matured" diesel owners want little/no smoke for the higher performance

The few rolling coal around here are midlife crisis types -- I don't think high school kids can afford diesel pickups anymore :P

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

#407

Post by omginternets »

datavirtue wrote: post #405
omginternets wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a backfire, not a misfire.

Ok, we have quite a few keyboard mechanics here it seems. The muffler is a source of back pressure. That back pressure is part of the highly optimized emissions systems tuning done by the manufacturer. When you remove that back pressure there is high likelyhood that the reading from the 02 sensor are going to change and cause the computer to alter the air-fuel ratio based on that change. Hence, you will likely lose p…

The part I was objecting to is "A misfire is raw fuel being expelled." That's just plain wrong.

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

#408

Post by superq »

orangepurple wrote: post #375
superq wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That DEF is insanely toxic, too. I rented a diesel truck for moving and everyone got passing-out sick just moving things in and out of the back of it.

There is no reason you should be exposed to volatile compounds from a normal parked rental truck. I would have asked for another truck or avoided U-Haul altogether.

Agreed. It was actually another national moving truck rental brand (not U-haul, I was just using it as a generic descriptor). I don't know why I'm not mentioning it since it seems like there's only a few national brands, but it's not their fault they have to use DEF and the truck was really great otherwise.

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

#409

Post by superq »

Scoundreller wrote: post #349
superq wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That DEF is insanely toxic, too. I rented a diesel truck for moving and everyone got passing-out sick just moving things in and out of the back of it.

Urea? It's used on foodcrops and you pee out 20-35g/day of it: 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.

I am not sure why you so casually dismissed this complaint without doing a quick search.

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isocyanic_acid

2. https://www.osha.gov/isocyanates

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

#410

Post by fsckboy »

omginternets wrote: post #359
RamblingCTO wrote: post #3

For the non-US and uninitiated, are these at fault for these coal burner people?

I think you mean “coal roller”. The term “coal burner” is a racial slur.

coal burner is really a neutral reference that makes a note of race. Your interracial group of friends could say "she's melting snow" or "burning coal" with just a smile, no slur. I've only ever heard the term used in a friendly way. People frequently giggle about sexual matters.

Of course, if a racist makes any racial reference, it's generally racist.

Post reply on HN