[AT] off topic, Internet takeover by govt ?

Thu Feb 5 10:50:56 PST 2015

I am not completely forgetting all of that, Mike, but it is a good point
and thanks for mentioning it    Even considering all that equipment, motor
vehicles still represent the overwhelming lion's share and therefore are a
logical target for control.  Once, that is, you accept the fact that vapors
are bad.  The more in the air, the worse the situation.  Exerting control
wherever possible makes sense.  Newer motorcycles are coming with
evaporative emission systems, 2-stroke motorcycles disappeared from the
roads long ago (2-strokes are major offenders for the same pollutant we're
talking about, unburned hydrocarbons), and 2-strokes are rapidly
disappearing offroad as well.  You're even seeing weed-eaters powered by
4-stroke engines now. I'm still waiting for 4-stroke chain saws ;-)    Keep
in mind that the older stuff - antique tractors and stuff like that - exist
in TINY numbers when you compare them to 250 million cars and light trucks
on the road.

OF COURSE manufacturers should be required to make these systems reliable;
I completely agree.  I have no idea what loopholes are keeping GM from
making good on the problem Charlie is experiencing.  I Googled around a bit
and found lots of people on various forums complaining about the same thing
as Charlie.

SO

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Mike <meulenms at gmx.com> wrote:

> Steve, are you forgetting about the millions of other pieces of
> machinery that have no EVAP systems, or even emission standards? Older
> lawn mowers, snow blowers, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, old tractors,
> outboard motors, etc. I'm not arguing against EVAP systems at all, I'm
> just saying that manufacturers should be required to make them more
> reliable. I know the problem Charlie is talking about, and the reason GM
> gave was that the part wasn't designed for being driven on dusty roads.
> It was poor engineering nothing else.
>
> Mike M
>
> On 2/5/2015 11:20 AM, Stephen Offiler wrote:
> > Charlie, please note that *I* am not the one worried about sloshed fuel.
> > Re-read my comments more carefully and note that I am responding to Mike
> > who is using the sloshed fuel as an excuse to condemn every single
> > evaporative emission capture system on the road.  The point, which
> perhaps
> > I need to spell out more clearly, is that Mike's logic is flawed.  The
> > sheer quantity of sloshed/spilled fuel that's happening routinely as a
> > result of sloppy refueling is infinitesimal in comparison to the amount
> of
> > fuel that would enter the atmosphere if none of the 250,000,000 cars on
> the
> > road had the "EVAP" system.
> >
> > SO
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:51 AM, charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve stop worrying about the few ounces of fuel I might slosh on the
> >> ground
> >> or even intentionally pour out if it's contaminated.  Every military
> plane
> >> that
> >> flies dumps it's fuel before it lands.  If the flight operation is
> shorter
> >> than
> >> planned they dump a lot of fuel.
> >>
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Offiler
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:23 AM
> >> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> >> Subject: Re: [AT] off topic, Internet takeover by govt ?
> >>
> >> Back when I started driving and wrenching on things with four wheels
> >> instead of two, the carburetor was still king, but this was right around
> >> the introduction of the catalytic converter and they were starting to
> hang
> >> electrical gizmos on carburetors on new cars (of course, I was a kid,
> >> driving and toying with older stuff).  I clearly remember the smell of
> >> gasoline was pervasive around cars back then, especially those stored in
> >> closed garages.  Every single vehicle on the road back then (about 150
> >> million in the late 1970's) was slowly but steadily emitting vapors into
> >> the air, constantly, 24/7.
> >>
> >> I am firmly in the camp that says CO2 is inhaled by plants for
> >> photosynthesis and therefore this recent classification of CO2 as a
> >> pollutant is ridiculous.  BUT... BUT!  Unburned hydrocarbons are a
> >> COMPLETELY different story from an environmental standpoint.  If there
> is
> >> something that can be done to keep what is now today 250 million cars
> from
> >> constantly emitting unburned hydrocarbon vapors 24/7, I am 100% in
> favor of
> >> it.
> >>
> >> As for the sloppy fools who dump raw gas on the ground while
> refueling...
> >> yup, they exist.  Their couple ounces compared with the hundreds or even
> >> thousands of people who did NOT slop raw gas on the ground while
> refueling
> >> divides those couple ounces out into an incredibly tiny fraction
> overall,
> >> and it pales deep into insignficance compared with the entire vehicle
> fleet
> >> bleeding vapors into the air 24/7.
> >>
> >> SO
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Mike <meulenms at gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> These codes are total BS, most caused by  whiffs of a little gas vapor.
> >>> I've seen people filling their cars with fuel that slosh 1-2 oz of fuel
> >>> on the ground putting the fuel nozzle back into the pump. How many
> >>> whiffs of vapor is that?
> >>>
> >>> Mike M
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/4/2015 9:57 PM, Ralph Goff wrote:
> >>>> On 2/4/2015 3:25 PM, pga2 at basicisp.net wrote:
> >>>>> Here in Texas we have an annual state inspection of all vehicles
> >>> operated
> >>>>> on public roads. It requires proof of insurance to get it done, as
> >> well
> >>>>> as to get license plates. Starting next month, the inspection and
> >>>>> regis-
> >>>>> tration stickers will be combined. In major metropolitan areas, there
> >>>>> has been a tailpipe test in place since about 1982. Most vehicles
> pass
> >>>>> this fairly easily. In the rest of the state it is basically just a
> >>> safety
> >>>>> inspection and a check to see that the factory emissions equipment is
> >>>>> still in place. The check engine light must not be on in order to
> >> pass.
> >>>>> Phil in TX
> >>>> Then even my "new" vehicle would fail. The check light has been on for
> >> a
> >>>> few years on my 97 Blazer yet everything works fine.
> >>>> A code reader said (I think) it was the fuel vent or something like
> >>>> that.
> >>>> My older vehicle have no such light to worry about.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ralph in Sask.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> AT mailing list
> >>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> AT mailing list
> >>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> AT mailing list
> >> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> AT mailing list
> >> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>