Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (March 2011, week 1)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sat, 5 Mar 2011 19:15:19 -0800
Reply-To:     Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bostig, CARB EO,
              the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties] Washington state...changes
              in vehicle licensing rules..
Comments: To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com>
In-Reply-To:  <AANLkTinwGp+aho7tEeu902hjW1KBxga7Z1qWyf6Ss+39@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Great essay Jim, as usual!

I'm happy to be living in BC where tailpipe emissions are what matter, rather than the Republic of California where governmental (emphasis on 'mental') decree holds sway.

It absolutely amazes me that it is okay to drive an inefficient WBX but not okay to replace it with a newer and much more efficient 2.5 Subaru or 2.0 Ford Zetec engine.

Jake

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Old Volks Home <oldvolkshome@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > As Don said, it takes money to get the exceptions - Kennedy was > > willing to pay, but Bostig won't. > > > > Ah if it were only so simple. And indeed with the right amount of money we > could get the EO, although the amount would be in the millions of dollars. > Everyone likely just reeled in reading that figure, and now thinks that I'm > either blowing smoke, or have no idea what I'm talking about. But let me > explain why. > > It's all too easy for people to speculate on why something happens as it > does. Their perspective warps the speculation, sometimes toward the right > answer, sometimes far far away from it. In the case of california's visual > inspections, and any of their extremely aggressive anti-pollution > legislation you have to remember the goals of the state. They are not those > of individuals, and not even those of a large number of individuals if they > are not also a large part of the state as a group. In trying to understand > the chain of events and their drivers, it's usually a good idea to look to > the same thing that those setting policy do. Previous experiences of > similar entities. > > One of California's huge problems is/was/will be pollution control of > "mobile sources" which includes highway and off-highway vehicles. > California > has come a long way, and continues to pass the most progressive emissions > control legislation in the world. They are also a massive market for auto > manufacturers. CA has been sued by both the EPA and the manufacturers at > various stages along the way. As contentious as each interested group's > goals might be on the outside, they must collude on the inside to actually > accomplish enough of their individual goals to keep moving forward while > protecting their individual interests as best as they can. The interest of > the industry is to sell vehicles, and spend as little as possible on R&D, > manufacturing etc in compliance in order to access that market. Those > setting compliance policy want to be as stringent as possible to actually > achieve lower pollution levels without triggering backlash from the public > or from those manufacturers, from which they also derive revenue in the > form > of various flavors of taxes all along the entire chain of preproduction, > through to sale, ownership, etc. So they arrive at a strategy that can > serve both sets of goals. One that decreases pollution levels effectively, > maintains or increases revenue for both, and will not cause a backlash for > any party that is large or strong enough to cause problems. The problem > most > of their legislation is addressing is fleet overturn, just as Germany and > Japan have both taken measures to enforce through legislation. CA has a > massive problem with fleet overturn, or really lack thereof. IIRC the > figures I saw several years ago during my research into what was going on > was something absurd like in 1990 17% of registered CA cars were 100k+, by > 1995 it had soared to 40%. In any case, forcing fleet overturn through > legislation achieves the goals they are after. It's actually a very good > plan for meeting all of their goals, BUT we (the little niche interests) > get > pinched in the middle. There is also plenty to complain about from the > libertarian POV, but again, to achieve the goals of groups in primary > consideration, and at the correct scale, it really isn't a horrible idea... > even though we (bostig and vanagonland) get screwed in the process. > > Be certain it is *not* an issue of Kennedy paying, and Bostig not. Bostig > has invested $1.25 million in development in the last 5 years on something > pretty nuts from most conventional viewpoints. The value to us is in the > capabilities, knowledge, and processes developed and acquired, and the > folks > we've returned value to in the form of product, support, and personal > capability. Kennedy spent nothing like this in money, time, or effort. > Kennedy did spend perhaps a couple thousand for the CS95 and shed testing > for the ej22 conversion they/he developed. But the difference is in timing > which some additional absurdity is revealed about the actual effects of the > policy at the small scale (where it matters least if at all). It is still > possible to easily and cheaply get an engine conversion swap an executive > order in CA... as long as it's old enough. So while we could for instance > get a carb EO on an OBDI pre-96 engine conversion, OBDII/ post 96 is > virtually impossible. In fact, when we sent our EO application to the CARB > in 2006, we reached exactly one step into the process before the CARB > deferred and said the EO would not be possible because they would not > review > it. They deferred to the BAR, by which a conversion can be stickered on a > case by case basis by ref review. But we weren't the only ones. In fact, > the > *only* engine conversion that is OBDII to obtain an EO in CA was announced > in late 09. > > The joint project was between GM, SEMA(the largest auto > aftermarket industry association in the US, Bostig is a member), and... the > CARB. The E-rod engine package was born to address a bigger version of > our(vanagonland) complaints. The hot rodder market in CA is 500-1000 times > larger than vanagonland itself. They also (unlike even the import/street > market) have deeper pockets and a voting demographic. They complete more > projects, and build more specialty vehicles. CA realized two problems with > the (relatively) large hot rodder market, one was with titling, the other > with emissions control. The project addressed the issues for the largest > subset of the aftermarket with the most money. The end result with the > E-rod > is an engine package that includes the engine(LS3 V8, various > displacements, > complete, and includes exhaust ending at the cats) and engine management, > and they even throw in a pedal. The price: $8k-$11k, no mounting, no > carrier, no cooling, incomplete exhaust, etc etc etc... just the engine > ending with the cats, engine management, and you must be able to implement > it in it's full form within your project or not at all. > > When you consider that we are able to produce and sell a *much* more > complete system, with much better support and documentation, for less > money... and on top of that at production levels less than 5% of what the > e-rod is doing, it's really not too shabby... but it should also reveal > what > it *really* would take to accomplish CARB EO on an OBDII engine swap, as > again.. we look to a previous example. No surprisingly it's the only one to > date, and we see that it is simply not possible given our > conditions/constraints/scale. It is not for lack of trying, either in > actual > dev, building, researching, hoop jumping, or cash outlay... at least not in > comparison to KEP and the ej22 EO. Apples to Oranges. If anyone can help > us > figure out how to obtain enough growth in vanagonland to achieve even a 4x > increase in scale, I bet we could make enough noise to make it happen. But > as of right now, I don't believe this is possible as of course vanagonland > is shrinking. It would be one thing if cash outlay were the real problem, > but it should be clear that in the reality that I perceive (within which I > always leave plenty of room for me to be wrong and correct my POV) we > cannot > justify another attempt at CARB EO in CA for the Bostig conversion, it is > neither realistic nor prudent. > > Thanks for your attention, > > Jim Akiba > > PS (NVC) check out "drunk history" on youtube, hilarious >

-- Jake

1984 Vanagon GL 1.9 WBX - 'The Grey Van' 1986 Westy Weekender/2.5 SOHC Subie - 'Dixie'

Crescent Beach, BC

www.thebassspa.com www.crescentbeachguitar.com http://subyjake.googlepages.com/mydixiedarlin%27


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.