2004 to 2016 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
These are not my words but they sum up this topic much better than I could. I have no plans to convert my 3 into a track only car. I do, however, believe that the common man should have the right to if it's what they want and if they are willing to invest the required capital. What say you? YES, I realize that one could still race the car but do we really need to limit the performance of whatever microscopic percentage of vehicles might be involved?

"Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to apply to motor vehicles modified for competition use only. However, the EPA maintains that Clean Air Act requires converted street vehicles competing on the track to remain emissions-compliant even though they are not driven on public streets or highways.

The RPM Act clarifies in Federal Law that transforming motor vehicles into racecars used exclusively for competition does not violate the Clean Air Act. It is imperative that Congress passes the RPM Act in order to provide long-term certainty to racers and motorsports parts businesses. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,097 Posts
Actually, I think ALL cars should be held to reasonable emissions standards. The power difference by removing emissions systems is very small with the more modern parts. For example, the catalytic converters flow far better than they did in the past.

I'm not talking about limiting race cars from tuning, etc. Give them a limit to work with and what they do with it is their decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Actually, I think ALL cars should be held to reasonable emissions standards. The power difference by removing emissions systems is very small with the more modern parts. For example, the catalytic converters flow far better than they did in the past.

I'm not talking about limiting race cars from tuning, etc. Give them a limit to work with and what they do with it is their decision.
Hmm, interesting take. So you're talking about NASCAR, F1, etc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Feds need to back the eff off and start worrying about things that actually matter.
I could not agree with you more. What's stupid and wasteful is that this is nothing more than the government fighting within. Congress is going through all of this crap because the EPA has their own agenda with obvious disregard for what the public or the other branches of government want....:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,097 Posts
Hmm, interesting take. So you're talking about NASCAR, F1, etc?
Sure, why not? I think it would make it more interesting. Adding in some limits (whatever it might be) tends to give us some very interesting engineering. As the solutions get more creative, some of that will trickle down into mainstream cars.

Regulation can be a strong motivation to develop new technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Sure, why not? I think it would make it more interesting. Adding in some limits (whatever it might be) tends to give us some very interesting engineering. As the solutions get more creative, some of that will trickle down into mainstream cars.

Regulation can be a strong motivation to develop new technology.
Well, I respect your right to your opinion but on this we shall just disagree. Government has never had any interest in F1 technology trickling its way down to street cars nor in anything so noble. I believe in freedom, in technological breakthroughs that are developed by engineers and others who are striving to achieve the cutting edge, and I believe in the consumers to choose the best products they can afford to buy.

Frankly, I believe that as a whole government impedes progress rather than stimulating it. I have seen freedoms erode because politicians have only their best interests at heart. Formula 1 has given us many great technologies but the genesis for them came from within. It did not come about because an agency like the EPA was on a power trip. The "best" case scenario given your suggestion is that whatever new technology those engineers develop to overcome the handicap will add more costs to the car buying public of those who can least afford it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
Have you ever seen a Formula One engine? 19k rpm, exhaust temps over 1500° F, and all the afterburn from excess fuel on over runs would kill a normal cat in a very short time.
What about alcohol and ethanol powered cars?


If the EPA want to do something good, get rid of ethanol. Ethanol is bad all around, and it produces more pollutants than gasoline.
 

·
Working Class Hero
Joined
·
3,498 Posts
Have you ever seen a Formula One engine? 19k rpm, exhaust temps over 1500° F, and all the afterburn from excess fuel on over runs would kill a normal cat in a very short time.
What about alcohol and ethanol powered cars?


If the EPA want to do something good, get rid of ethanol. Ethanol is bad all around, and it produces more pollutants than gasoline.
Indeed.

And ethanol baaaaaaad.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Totally Agree ... Ethanol gas has gummed up injectors on my 2012... This is because car sat in the lot for almost a year before sold and ethanol will breakdown over time (cost about 200$ had to remove all injectors removed and cleaned...literally pissing not spraying ... add a stabilizer every other fill up if using ethanol gas ) ... by weight ethanol is lower bang for your dollar.. less gas required for the same burn.... so lesson learned only 91 used now ( add liqui moly octane boost when needed)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,097 Posts
Yeah ethanol is junk. They started because on paper it's better for the environment and also creates a new industry for farmers. Works great in Brazil because they have so much sugar cane. That stuff is only good for making sugar and alcohol. Corn doesn't work quite so well....later they find that the energy required to grow, harvest and refine the corn into ethanol produces far more pollution than pulling up oil and refining that. Oops. But now there's an industry in place and politicians don't want to destroy it.

Here's the big problem we face as a global society: regulation vs freedom. Yes there is a balance but it always means giving up some small freedom. I think it should only be done with a significant greater good in mind. Some will argue that we shouldn't have regulation and promote more freedom. I would argue that regulation can breed innovation. Remember Obama's automotive emissions standards? You guys do realize that those regulations have a large impact on the design of the engines in our cars, right? Other countries too of course, but that's the whole point. The regulation encouraged Mazda to design what we have today - arguably an excellent engine with low emissions and good fuel economy.

I'm not advocating for telling companies what they should be building or how. We should still have freedom of choice. However, some encouragement to change certian things has proven beneficial. The catalytic converter for example. Any car company would rather not put one in. They're not cheap and technically unnecessary. However, thanks to the fact that this has been required, it has developed to the point that the performance loss is almost nothing and has made a significant reduction in vehicle emissions.

On the flip side, if you're of the mind that the government should stay out of everything I'm quite alright with that. You're entitled to your opinion. I'd only argue that it should be all or nothing. If you want to deregulate all business sure let's do it all.

Now just one question: I work at a nuclear power plant. We have some of the strictest regulations in the world imposed by the federal government. Are you also ok with deregulation where I work?

My argument is for the understanding of what we control and what we do not. I want to see it done with intelligence - and yes often it isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Yeah ethanol is junk. They started because on paper it's better for the environment and also creates a new industry for farmers. Works great in Brazil because they have so much sugar cane. That stuff is only good for making sugar and alcohol. Corn doesn't work quite so well....later they find that the energy required to grow, harvest and refine the corn into ethanol produces far more pollution than pulling up oil and refining that. Oops. But now there's an industry in place and politicians don't want to destroy it.

Here's the big problem we face as a global society: regulation vs freedom. Yes there is a balance but it always means giving up some small freedom. I think it should only be done with a significant greater good in mind. Some will argue that we shouldn't have regulation and promote more freedom. I would argue that regulation can breed innovation. Remember Obama's automotive emissions standards? You guys do realize that those regulations have a large impact on the design of the engines in our cars, right? Other countries too of course, but that's the whole point. The regulation encouraged Mazda to design what we have today - arguably an excellent engine with low emissions and good fuel economy.

I'm not advocating for telling companies what they should be building or how. We should still have freedom of choice. However, some encouragement to change certian things has proven beneficial. The catalytic converter for example. Any car company would rather not put one in. They're not cheap and technically unnecessary. However, thanks to the fact that this has been required, it has developed to the point that the performance loss is almost nothing and has made a significant reduction in vehicle emissions.

On the flip side, if you're of the mind that the government should stay out of everything I'm quite alright with that. You're entitled to your opinion. I'd only argue that it should be all or nothing. If you want to deregulate all business sure let's do it all.

Now just one question: I work at a nuclear power plant. We have some of the strictest regulations in the world imposed by the federal government. Are you also ok with deregulation where I work?

My argument is for the understanding of what we control and what we do not. I want to see it done with intelligence - and yes often it isn't.
Points well made @zero_gravity. I am not saying that it has to be one or the other to the extreme right and left which seem to polarize the general population.

The problem is that "environmental" issues or rather if they exist, to what extent they do, and how to deal with them has society quite split. Politicians have done their absolute best to propagate this division and in many cases, they have caused it.

As you said, it is a matter of degree with certain things. My original point was that the number of race cars is so miniscule compared to street cars that the impact would be negligible, if any. The EPA knows this yet it makes no difference to them. Ethanol is so much more obvious in terms of a program that has gone amuck, that I won't waste my breath. You all know only too well.

Just cause, here's a random picture of the inside of a gas tank. No prizes for guessing which one had ethanol...😂
275023
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Sure, why not? I think it would make it more interesting. Adding in some limits (whatever it might be) tends to give us some very interesting engineering. As the solutions get more creative, some of that will trickle down into mainstream cars.

Regulation can be a strong motivation to develop new technology.
So how many millions of tax dollars should be spent on making sure every local drag strip is being closely monitored by federal pollution agents? 😆
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,097 Posts
So how many millions of tax dollars should be spent on making sure every local drag strip is being closely monitored by federal pollution agents? 😆
I never said that particular legislation is a good idea. I can see the problems. I'm merely advocating for a sensible middle ground.

I also don't see why emissions can't be part of qualification in a race. Start with the big ones and the smaller will mostly follow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I never said that particular legislation is a good idea. I can see the problems. I'm merely advocating for a sensible middle ground.

I also don't see why emissions can't be part of qualification in a race. Start with the big ones and the smaller will mostly follow.
I know that we are on different sides of this issue although we are closer than the politicians that fan the flames and instigate divisiveness. My standpoint is this however. If the EPA will not admit to being wrong about something like ethanol and reverse their position, why would you ever trust them to be the arbritors of reason?

Motorsport is a very small industry in terms of the number of vehicles involved as a percentage of total vehicles running today. Yet, they have provided so much to general motoring. This is true for safety as well as performance and other technologies. If it wasn't for rally racing and Audi, the Mazda AWD vehicles that are often discussed here may not even exist in their current form.

I see no reason to slow them down, no pun intended. It is a sport and as with all sports, their goal is to push the limits. If we allow the EPA to start with emissions, what's next? Why wouldn't they quickly move to noise pollution? How about legislating the type of fuels used? Making them use tires with longer tread life? I am sure that they could come up with many more things than what I could even imagine.

So our differences at the core may be this. I have absolutely zero faith in the EPA to make "reasonable" decisions that affect all of us. As with so many government agencies, what may start with noble intentions can (and often does) end up becoming self righteous, power hunger extensions of political creatures.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
Here's the thing-
In Europe, many race cars have a catalytic converter and functional emissions system already. In the US, race cars not run on public roads don't use them, but some race cars, like rally cars that run on public roads, do have them.
The problem with many race cars such as F1 or the American Indy cars is you can't use a converter because the exhaust system is so short that a converter would just melt due to the very high exhaust temps. So unless there is a huge rethink of the entire design spectrum of race cars, don't look for anything changing much.
Also, this regulation only applies to production based cars that are converted for racing use. Purpose built race cars are still exempt. The only cars this should affect are those that probably could use factory type exhaust systems anyhow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Here's the thing-
In Europe, many race cars have a catalytic converter and functional emissions system already. In the US, race cars not run on public roads don't use them, but some race cars, like rally cars that run on public roads, do have them.
The problem with many race cars such as F1 or the American Indy cars is you can't use a converter because the exhaust system is so short that a converter would just melt due to the very high exhaust temps. So unless there is a huge rethink of the entire design spectrum of race cars, don't look for anything changing much.
Also, this regulation only applies to production based cars that are converted for racing use. Purpose built race cars are still exempt. The only cars this should affect are those that probably could use factory type exhaust systems anyhow.
What you say in the last part of your post is absolutely true and the original post only addressed those vehicles. After that, the mention of adding regulations to all race cars was made. That was more of a hypothetical debate because nobody has seriously suggested that (at least in nobody in an official capacity).

Still though, adding that restriction to street cars that are converted for track use could adversely affect the businesses that offer after-market parts. Many of us buy from them even if the products we buy are street legal. Ultimately, legislation tends to have unintended impact on other areas and I could see this being one of them. I don't want to pay more for street legal exhaust because the vendors loose a source of revenue but that's just me.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top