The garden gnome of new discussion topicality is back, and this time he's aiming at the Long Haul Trucking and Trucking Industry-related demographic.
So what's a "glider" truck..? All Hail to the editorial board of the venerable LA (Los Angeles) Times:
quote
At issue are so-called "glider" kits, which have typically been used to give new life to engines and other components salvaged from trucks damaged in collisions. During the Obama administration, the EPA had sought to phase out these trucks after discovering that some companies were circumventing truck emissions standards by putting older, dirtier engines inside new truck shells. Last year, however, Pruitt proposed to exempt gliders from contemporary emission limits.
The vehicles look brand-new but cost 25% less to buy without the pollution controls required on newer trucks. EPA researchers found that gliders can emit up to 450 times more diesel soot and 40 times more smog-forming emissions than new trucks on the market. Agency staff also estimated the glider trucks produce enough soot each year to cause up to 1,600 premature deaths.
How does newly departed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt tie into this narrative? This is from "The Hill" and it's as recent as yesterday:
quote
The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday granted a loophole to allow increased manufacturing of a kind of diesel freight truck known as “super polluting.”
The move, which came on embattled administrator Scott Pruitt’s last day on the job, is being harshly criticized by environmentalists and lung health advocates, according to The New York Times.
The EPA confirmed to The Times that through the end of next year, the agency will not enforce a previous cap on manufacturers making "glider trucks," and hopes to permanently repeal the cap.
Glider trucks combine older engines–that do not meet modern emissions requirements–with newer truck bodies. The Times reported that small fleet owners have sought out glider trucks in order to evade emissions regulations, as they are cheaper to run.
Some manufacturers were making thousands of these types of trucks, and will now be permitted to return to those levels.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt climbed into the driver's seat to test the "Project Glider" Next Generation Long Haul Trucking technology. (EPA image archive.)
The LA Times' Evan Halper said this:
quote
Trump's EPA has tried to justify the move by citing a privately funded study that claimed the trucks did not cause more pollution, but even the university that conducted the research has now cast doubt on the findings.
He also said this:
quote
At a time when acts of defiance against the Trump administration are routine in Sacramento, the rebuke that breezed through the California Assembly this month still came as a jolt. Even Trump loyalists in the chamber joined in.
The message to the [Trump] administration was clear: Forget about your plan to unleash on freeways a class of rebuilt trucks that spew as much as 400 times the choking soot that conventional new big rigs do. Getting caught behind the wheel of one of these mega-polluters in California would carry a punishing $25,000 minimum fine under the measure that lawmakers passed 73 to 0. It had the support of 25 Republicans.
The text that I duplicated comes from three online sources:
No blame for erroneous research from a University? How's that 'peer review' thing working out? What could have possibly caused the 'results' of the study to be 'cast into doubt'?
The rest of America loves all the good things the California Legislature does to protect the environment and make all our lives better in every way.
Really!
Honest!
No foolin'!
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 07-08-2018).]
I wish I could buy a new car, without a drivetrain, and then install an older drivetrain (carefully assembled with crate engine pieces, of course. )
I suspect that this situation is not really widespread enough to be a big deal. Of course no "percent of the industry" was quoted. Just "thousands". Out of how many?
But I'm sure the left is ok with the Super Polluters trucks coming in from Mexico under NAFTA, because they house migrants and their children or street narcotics for the millions of Democrat Party voters who are drug addicts.
California emissions laws have proven that they don't care about the air, they are purely about generating MONEY. Obviously I don't believe the hate speech against the trucks. The global (gore) "climate change" worming BS is also about MONEY and politics and control. I am all for any and every loophole to get around the ridiculous regulations.
Gliders are there because the engines and transmissions on trucks outlive the bodies by decades. If You owned a car that cost you 100k, and the doors were falling off because it constantly vibrated destroying everything attached to it. (As diesel engines do.) Then you would gladly buy another car to put on the frame for less than a quarter of the price of a new car.
But your truck is ten years old, they stopped making your cab 11 years ago. So you buy a Glider, and put your $50,000 worth of engine and transmission into it.
New trucks have quadruple the repair costs of old trucks. And more repairs mean less money made, even if it's under warranty.
And California's pollution laws have only created more cost for you. DEF systems are expensive and hard to maintain... And I'm just spraying Ammonia into the air all the time. My exhaust filter is a joke. Instead of air pollution (which is still there, you just can't see it now.) It self cleans daily, depositing the same carbon on the ground and into the air where it cleans... There is also the dice roll that your truck will be the one to catch on fire during this cleaning cycle because of the extreme temperatures. The Exhaust Gas Re circulation that California demanded put us back 10 years on fuel economy, making the average 5 MPG, when NON DEF, NON EGR trucks are getting 10, with 11 mpg on a 6 month average being reported.
Think about it for a second. I can burn 1 gallon in an old truck, and you would see some black smoke. Or I could burn 2 gallons in a new truck doing the same thing... But you wouldn't see any smoke, you would smell it, and the pollution would still be there... You just can't see it, but I've added ammonia to mask it. Nothing like playing with chemicals.
If EGR makes me get half the fuel mileage, I'm creating more pollution, if only where they are drilling for oil, I'm creating more pollution.
Gliders are there because the engines and transmissions on trucks outlive the bodies by decades. If You owned a car that cost you 100k, and the doors were falling off because it constantly vibrated destroying everything attached to it. (As diesel engines do.) Then you would gladly buy another car to put on the frame for less than a quarter of the price of a new car.
But your truck is ten years old, they stopped making your cab 11 years ago. So you buy a Glider, and put your $50,000 worth of engine and transmission into it.
New trucks have quadruple the repair costs of old trucks. And more repairs mean less money made, even if it's under warranty.
And California's pollution laws have only created more cost for you. DEF systems are expensive and hard to maintain... And I'm just spraying Ammonia into the air all the time. My exhaust filter is a joke. Instead of air pollution (which is still there, you just can't see it now.) It self cleans daily, depositing the same carbon on the ground and into the air where it cleans... There is also the dice roll that your truck will be the one to catch on fire during this cleaning cycle because of the extreme temperatures. The Exhaust Gas Re circulation that California demanded put us back 10 years on fuel economy, making the average 5 MPG, when NON DEF, NON EGR trucks are getting 10, with 11 mpg on a 6 month average being reported.
Think about it for a second. I can burn 1 gallon in an old truck, and you would see some black smoke. Or I could burn 2 gallons in a new truck doing the same thing... But you wouldn't see any smoke, you would smell it, and the pollution would still be there... You just can't see it, but I've added ammonia to mask it. Nothing like playing with chemicals.
If EGR makes me get half the fuel mileage, I'm creating more pollution, if only where they are drilling for oil, I'm creating more pollution.
Brad
Thank you
Glider kits are a way for small business to remain viable. They account for a very small percentage of trucks and miles. The opposition from the left is nothing more than another volley in an ongoing anti capitalist crusade. The left needs big business and its money, what they actually hate is small business.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt climbed into the driver's seat to test the "Project Glider" Next Generation Long Haul Trucking technology. (EPA image archive.)
No blame for erroneous research from a University? How's that 'peer review' thing working out? What could have possibly caused the 'results' of the study to be 'cast into doubt'?
The rest of America loves all the good things the California Legislature does to protect the environment and make all our lives better in every way.
Really!
Honest!
No foolin'!
The research in question, which involved Tennessee Tech University, is a large part of the narrative from the LA (Los Angeles) Times.
There are different parts to this story. One would be the tradeoff between Freight Ton Miles Per Gallon Of Diesel Fuel VS Air Quality Improvement From Diesel Engine Emission Control Requirements. That is the part that has been referenced in this Pennock's discussion by "Fats".
If anyone wants to "drill down" on the University Research part of the story, I suggest starting with the two columns from May 29 and 30 in the LA Times.
Pruitt has justified the rollback in part by citing a study from Tennessee Tech University that declared glider trucks to be no more harmful to air quality than trucks with new engines. Turns out the study was funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits, which happens to be one of the primary manufacturers of glider trucks.
According to The Times' Evan Halper, the study was run by a Tennessee Tech vice president with no graduate-level engineering training, and the research was conducted at a Fitzgerald-owned facility. The owner of the company, Tommy Fitzgerald, hosted a campaign event in 2016 for then-candidate Donald Trump, and he has met privately with Pruitt.
After faculty raised concern about the legitimacy of the study, Tennessee Tech opened an investigation, telling Halper, "The university takes the allegations of research misconduct seriously." The university has asked the EPA to stop using or referring to the study pending the completion of the investigation.
There's an extra special contradiction to Pruitt's embrace of the Tennessee Tech study. In the name of "transparency," Pruitt has proposed a rule requiring the EPA to consider only studies for which the underlying data are made public. The rule, which has been pushed by industry groups for years, would block the EPA from considering studies about the health impacts of pollutants that are based on the private medical records of individuals. But it could also apply to the questionable glider truck study because Fitzgerald's company is refusing to publicly release the full study, which it owns under its arrangement with the university.
I'm sorry, did you understand my response to be showing interest in what you posted?
I really DGAF about anything you post.......
Thanks for clearing that up. It's as if you just adjusted the telephoto lens to the sharpest focus. I am a little surprised, though. Up until now, I had not put you into that same slot or pigeonhole.
Many years ago, I used to hang out in an area of Prescott, AZ known as Whiskey Row, before it got overrun by Californians. It was relatively quiet back then, except for some lively locals and those of us who rode up there on motorcycles. There was an old guy up there that everyone knew as “Spoons”. If you bought him a beer, he would play the spoons along with whatever was playing on the juke box. If you bought him another, he would tell silly jokes and nonsensical, rambling stories. Rinselberg is kind of like that.
(not my picture)
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 07-08-2018).]
Many years ago, I used to hang out in an area of Prescott, AZ known as Whiskey Row, before it got overrun by Californians. It was relatively quiet back then, except for some lively locals and those of us who rode up there on motorcycles. There was an old guy up there that everyone knew as “Spoons”. If you bought him a beer, he would play the spoons along with whatever was playing on the juke box. If you bought him another, he would tell silly jokes and nonsensical, rambling stories. Rinselberg is kind of like that.
For the love of God, please don't buy rinselberg any beer!
Many years ago, I used to hang out in an area of Prescott, AZ known as Whiskey Row, before it got overrun by Californians. It was relatively quiet back then, except for some lively locals and those of us who rode up there on motorcycles. There was an old guy up there that everyone knew as “Spoons”. If you bought him a beer, he would play the spoons along with whatever was playing on the juke box. If you bought him another, he would tell silly jokes and nonsensical, rambling stories. Rinselberg is kind of like that.
Reminded me of this: was staying overnight at a hotel away from home and didn’t feel like sitting in my room watching TV, so I took my laptop down to the bar to catch up with work.
I went to the bar and asked the bartender: “Excuse me, what's the WIFI password?”
Bartender: “You need to buy a drink first.”
Me: “Do I? Okay, I’ll have a beer.”
Bartender: “We have a great beer, James Squire 150 Lashes on tap.”
Me: “Sounds good. How much is a large beer?”
Bartender: “$8.00.”
Me: “Okay, here you are. Now, what’s the WIFI password?”
Bartender: “youneedtobuyadrinkfirst…..No spaces and all lowercase.”
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I look forward to an even more anti-global warming EPA. ESPECIALLY anti-carbon credit. Potentially the biggest scam/fraud ever forced on Americans.
Just taking a quick look-in, here.
This does not contradict Rick's message in any way, but the diesel emissions standards are about airborne particulates and smog-forming or smog-related hydrocarbon compounds. And/or sulfur and nitrogen oxides. It's not about CO2 ("carbon") or global warming. That's my understanding of it. Without checking with any authoritative reference materials.
So, if you're driving a diesel rig and decide to do the Rollin' Coal thing--thick black plumes from the exhaust stacks--you're probably contributing more to man-made global cooling, vs (man-made) global warming.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2018).]
This does not contradict Rick's message in any way, but--not meaning to be Captain Obvious--the diesel emissions standards are about airborne particulates and smog-forming or smog-related hydrocarbon compounds. It's not about CO2 (carbon) or global warming.
So, if you're driving a diesel rig and decide to do the Rollin' Coal thing--thick black plumes from the exhaust stacks--you're probably contributing to man-made global cooling, not (man-made) global warming.
I am not the guy to argue with you Ronald, about man-made global heating or cooling. It is a dead issue with me, the only "man made" about it is money and power. And I am aware of diesel particulates (soot). For 3 ridiculous reasons: 1) a few years ago (I don't recall how long agao) California mandated diesel scrubbing equipment on vehicles,...BUT the equipment was so EXPENSIVE that State vehicles were mandated first, because of the bottomless pockets of tax payer money. FOLLOW THE MONEY 2) California mandated that small diesel tractors be required to have scrubbing equipment on 29 hp and larger diesels. Making those garden tractor more expensive. FOLLOW THE MONEY 3) California mandated diesel vehicles to go through a "smog inspection " but even the Smog Referee that I had talked to about the "test" (who also runs a smog shop) had no idea how to do the tests because of the State dragging their feet over the process and equipment required. BUT the owners of the vehicles were still required by law to bring in the vehicles and pay for the test so they could renew it's registration. THIS IS THE KICKER : the test consisted of starting the engine and reving it up to visually inspect the exhaust????????? FOR WHAT??????? UNBELIEVABLE FOLLOW THE MONEY
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 07-11-2018).]
That is a really cool video. It is like tractor pulls, but on asphalt and using "streetable" trucks. Cool. I wonder how many of those brake, or "contact" each other. Those "strips" are NARROW
"EPA Reverses Course, Will Enforce [Obama era] Rule Limiting Production of Glider Trucks"
Scott Pruitt reversed, Obama upheld on glider trucks
quote
[EPA] acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has reversed a controversial decision made earlier this month that would have allowed the proliferation of glider kit trucks until the end of 2019.
In a July 26 memo to the agency’s enforcement chief, Susan Bodine, Wheeler said a “no-action assurance” order blocking enforcement of the glider kit trucks provision in the 2016 Obama administration’s Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Heavy Truck Rule is “not in the public interest.”
)
