[AT] off topic, Internet takeover by govt ?

Thu Feb 5 11:43:40 PST 2015

Let the free market take care of this. We already have MORE than enough laws regulating our lives!
	Dave

On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Stephen Offiler <soffiler at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OF COURSE manufacturers should be required to make these systems reliable;
> I completely agree.  
> 
> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at