California started this crap (Page 1/2)
Jake_Dragon JUL 08, 01:02 AM
How does a ****ing drive shaft effect clean air?

đź“· WARNING : Cancer and Reproductive Harm - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
FOR CLOSED COURSE COMPETITION USE ONLY. NOT INTENDED FOR STREET USE. THE SALE, USE, OR INSTALLATION OF THIS PRODUCT MAY ALSO BE ILLEGAL NATIONWIDE UNDER THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT (42 U.S.C. § 7522(A)(3))
fredtoast JUL 08, 11:43 AM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:

THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT (42 U.S.C. § 7522(A)(3))



Section 203(a)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3), prohibits the bypass, defeat, or removal or rending inoperative of emissions control devices, known as “tampering.” This section also prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or installation of any part or component intended to "allow tampering". I don't know how they define "allow tampering", but I don't see how it could apply to a drive shaft. It pretty much has to be related to emissions either through engine management or the exhaust system.

[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 07-08-2023).]

Jake_Dragon JUL 08, 01:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


Section 203(a)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3), prohibits the bypass, defeat, or removal or rending inoperative of emissions control devices, known as “tampering.” This section also prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or installation of any part or component intended to "allow tampering". I don't know how they define "allow tampering", but I don't see how it could apply to a drive shaft. It pretty much has to be related to emissions either through engine management or the exhaust system.




I got it straight off the manufacturers website. I'm sure they would not put it on there if they were not forced to.
The thing is the aftermarket shaft is lighter, stronger, and its one piece. It doesn't have the failure point of the bearing the current one has.
I will probably still get one its just odd that they include parts that have nothing to do with emissions. Its lighter so just the opposite it will help with performance and save gas

[This message has been edited by Jake_Dragon (edited 07-08-2023).]

fredtoast JUL 08, 04:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:


I got it straight off the manufacturers website. I'm sure they would not put it on there if they were not forced to.
The thing is the aftermarket shaft is lighter, stronger, and its one piece. It doesn't have the failure point of the bearing the current one has.
I will probably still get one its just odd that they include parts that have nothing to do with emissions. Its lighter so just the opposite it will help with performance and save gas





From what I read there are lots of people asking lots of questions about exactly which parts should be covered. The Feds will not give an opinion on every part until someone is actually charged with a violation and then challenges the ruling. Sometimes dealers win the challenge and sometimes they don't. So just to be safe they put the warning on EVERYTHING.

I can't guarantee this is what happened, but it makes sense. And by that I mean it makes NO sense.

[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 07-08-2023).]

IMSA GT JUL 08, 05:50 PM
This state has to ruin everything for everyone. Any hint of enjoyment or trying to make your own vehicle lighter, faster, or save fuel is looked upon as evil. Look at our smog rules yet most of the U.S and world are chugging away with no rules, basically nullifying any attempt to "save the environment". But we still have to set the example of stupidity to actually think we are making a difference.
rinselberg JUL 09, 06:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by IMSA GT:
This state has to ruin everything for everyone. Any hint of enjoyment or trying to make your own vehicle lighter, faster, or save fuel is looked upon as evil. Look at our smog rules yet most of the U.S and world are chugging away with no rules, basically nullifying any attempt to "save the environment". But we still have to set the example of stupidity to actually think we are making a difference.



Actually, the California smog rules do make a difference, because smog (to a large extent) is a local phenomenon.

Just think of the Los Angeles Basin, which was—and still is, to a considerable extent—famous for smog. It's smog that hangs over the city of Los Angeles and the surrounding areas, and even though it's still a problem today, without the smog rules that California has evolved over the years? It would be much worse that it is.

You can find online photo archives for the Los Angeles area that cover the decades from 1920, all the way forwards to today, to confirm that California's smog rules are working to reduce smog in the Los Angeles Basin.

I'm looking at my most recent printout from when I had my Fiero "smogged". The machine that tests the tailpipe emissions. Here's what's being measured:
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2)
  • Oxygen (O2)
  • Hydrocarbons (HC)
  • Carbon monoxide (CO)
  • Nitrous oxide (NO)
Passing the smog test means that the measured HC, CO and NO emissions are not above a MAX (maximum) Parts Per Million. These are the smog limits. There is no MAX (or minimum, either) for Carbon dioxide and Oxygen. I don't know exactly why they are part of the printout, but CO2 and O2 are not constrained by the smog rules.

All of these (except the Oxygen) are greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, but that's a different phenomenon. The smog rules are about smog—not global warming or climate change.

I'm thinking that the word "smog" came to mind, as in "smog rules", when the thought was actually about California's more stringent Fuel Efficiency or MPG standards, or special lane privileges for certain categories of vehicles (Low Emission Vehicles; etc.) or even just carpool or vehicle occupancy lanes, or about the incentives and mandates to speed the transition to Electric Vehicles..?

Those are other aspects of the California Air Resources Board or CARB's "program" that can be considered from a more global perspective, as in the remarks that I quoted from IMSA GT. But the smog rules? California's smog rules are effective in keeping California skies (more) free of smog, regardless of what is happening in any of the other states... even the states of Oregon, Nevada, Arizona (and Baja California) that are directly on California's borders.

So I believe.

Edited to add:
I have been focusing on the tailpipe emissions. Obviously "smog rules" in California goes beyond that, with these vehicle equipment or homologation requirements, like the drive shaft restrictions that Jake (of Jake_Dragon) was talking about at the very start of this thread. I guess there could be (probably is) some overzealous or needless regulation going on with that, here in California.

I don't want to sweep that under the rug.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-09-2023).]

Jake_Dragon JUL 09, 10:19 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


Actually, the California smog rules do make a difference, because smog (to a large extent) is a local phenomenon.

Just think of the Los Angeles Basin, which was—and still is, to a considerable extent—famous for smog. It's smog that hangs over the city of Los Angeles and the surrounding areas, and even though it's still a problem today, without the smog rules that California has evolved over the years? It would be much worse that it is.

You can find online photo archives for the Los Angeles area that cover the decades from 1920, all the way forwards to today, to confirm that California's smog rules are working to reduce smog in the Los Angeles Basin.

I'm looking at my most recent printout from when I had my Fiero "smogged". The machine that tests the tailpipe emissions. Here's what's being measured:
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2)
  • Oxygen (O2)
  • Hydrocarbons (HC)
  • Carbon monoxide (CO)
  • Nitrous oxide (NO)
Passing the smog test means that the measured HC, CO and NO emissions are not above a MAX (maximum) Parts Per Million. These are the smog limits. There is no MAX (or minimum, either) for Carbon dioxide and Oxygen. I don't know exactly why they are part of the printout, but CO2 and O2 are not constrained by the smog rules.

All of these (except the Oxygen) are greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, but that's a different phenomenon. The smog rules are about smog—not global warming or climate change.

I'm thinking that the word "smog" came to mind, as in "smog rules", when the thought was actually about California's more stringent Fuel Efficiency or MPG standards, or special lane privileges for certain categories of vehicles (Low Emission Vehicles; etc.) or even just carpool or vehicle occupancy lanes, or about the incentives and mandates to speed the transition to Electric Vehicles..?

Those are other aspects of the California Air Resources Board or CARB's "program" that can be considered from a more global perspective, as in the remarks that I quoted from IMSA GT. But the smog rules? California's smog rules are effective in keeping California skies (more) free of smog, regardless of what is happening in any of the other states... even the states of Oregon, Nevada, Arizona (and Baja California) that are directly on California's borders.

So I believe.

Edited to add:
I have been focusing on the tailpipe emissions. Obviously "smog rules" in California goes beyond that, with these vehicle equipment or homologation requirements, like the drive shaft restrictions that Jake (of Jake_Dragon) was talking about at the very start of this thread. I guess there could be (probably is) some overzealous or needless regulation going on with that, here in California.

I don't want to sweep that under the rug.




Perhaps stay focused on the thread.
A drive shaft is not going to cause global warming. My car passes smog inspection without any issues, it meets all of the requirements. Cost enough to get that done.
There is a noise coming from the bearing for my drive shaft and needs replaced. Its already been replaced once and I would rather just get rid of it, its a point of failure that I would rather not have on the car.
fierofool JUL 09, 01:49 PM
It's no surprise that California has labeled it as a carcinogen. Everything in California is labeled as cancer causing. California, itself is a cancer.
IMSA GT JUL 09, 02:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierofool:

It's no surprise that California has labeled it as a carcinogen. Everything in California is labeled as cancer causing. California, itself is a cancer.



You're right on with that statement. Here's a Carls Jr. drive through window. Nothing like paying for your food and seeing this.

[This message has been edited by IMSA GT (edited 07-09-2023).]

cvxjet JUL 09, 09:43 PM
Wait- if it is listed as a "Carcinogen" then it is probably manufactured in China- EVERYTHING made in China has to have that warning label on it.

I will buy from almost anywhere but china- the chinese govt is a bunch of liars.