Trump pardons then nominates him for head of transportation
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
199 points (99.5% liked)
News
23332 readers
3084 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
coconspirators
It's okay to keep the hyphen in there. It's more readable, and also it's once again a word.
Sounds like an awful lot of work for... some reason.
Reduced running costs, ease of maintenance, engine efficiency.
Money. It’s always money.
From the article:
Achtemeier charged as much at $4,500 per truck for work that often took him two hours or less. Achtemeier advertised his services on social media nationwide, doing business as Voided Warranty Tuning (VWT) or Optimized Ag. Between 2019 and 2022 his company took in more than $4.3 million in gross profits.
When you run out of DEF or the DPF is clogged, you can't run your truck for more than a brief while. You get half output in a limp-mode to go refill your DEF or have the DPF serviced. DEF is the reactant for the exhaust that makes diesel burn cleaner, but means modern trucks have 2 tanks now. Users hate it, but it cuts emissions massively. Also adds a few grand to the vehicle exhaust system in hardware and sensors and control units. Anyways:
Time = money.
For a commercial or even semi private vehicle if you bypass even one indicent of downtime by doing this is paid for itself.
That said, the DPF is a filter, and can physically clog and cause an exhaust fire if there is no monitoring software. I hope at least this guy had it wait till it was almost critical and then stop, not entirely disable the stop signal. Otherwise there is a serious risk to the vehicle and passengers.
Yeah, someone is going to have to explain to me how $4500 worth of emissions control deletion is worth the money.
It sounds like it's just spite-modding with no benefits.
According to this dumbass "journalist" and his editor, this is "TuNInG"
There's a much easier and accurate way to write this article.
You will get a very large HP boost and can get better MPG as well. Also don’t have to add def fluid anymore or maintain the def system.
Nah, there's no way long haul truck owners are going to spend money just to be assholes. There's got to be profit in it somehow.
The EGR and DPF systems used in diesel trucks cause (or caused, it’s been a while since I last looked it up) a big reduction in fuel mileage. I think it was a 2 or 3 MPG reduction.Doesn’t sound like much, but it adds up when you are running 200,000+ miles a year per truck. With the system running I believe the average fuel mileage for the trucks in our company is around 6 to 8 MPG depending on the route.
Additionally the systems are expensive as all get out to repair and maintain. When the DPF and DEF systems on my truck went out, the truck was down for 3 months waiting on parts, and from what I heard from our mechanic, the final repair bill was around $15,000USD.
That said, the fines for bypassing the emission systems are big enough that it’s really not worth it, but some owner operators don’t realize it as many don’t run their trucks like the businesses they are. They just know this is expensive as hell and they can reduce the cost by bypassing them.
The EGR and DPF systems used in diesel trucks cause (or caused, it’s been a while since I last looked it up) a big reduction in fuel mileage. I think it was a 2 or 3 MPG reduction.Doesn’t sound like much, but it adds up when you are running 200,000+ miles a year per truck. With the system running I believe the average fuel mileage for the trucks in our company is around 6 to 8 MPG depending on the route.
I think it's worth noting that this is an environmental benefit, not only an economic one. In other words, it's not that people defeating the emissions control devices are making their trucks purely worse for the environment for their own selfish benefit; it's that they're making a trade off between increased 'regular' (for lack of a better term) pollutant emissions like NO~x~/SO~x~/particulates, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions (CO~2~).
I'm not saying they're altruistic -- obviously they do it to save money (at least until they get caught and fined) -- but I am saying that we can't just assume it's bad without first doing the math and making a value judgement about what sorts of emissions we care about.
Geeking out about an edge case where not having the fancy emissions controls is better: using biodiesel
There are also more complicated considerations, such as how getting rid of these emissions controls and retuning the engine may also allow it to run on higher percentages of biodiesel. The trade-offs associated with that are not only the fact that the fuel becomes carbon-neutral (net CO~2~ emissions go to zero, at least for the percentage of the fuel that is bio- instead of dino-), but also that biodiesel naturally has zero sulfur in it (which means zero SO~x~) and burns cleaner (fewer particulates) and hotter (more NO~x~) than dino-diesel. On top of that, more NO~x~ could be a bad thing or a good thing, depending on whether you're driving in a NO~x~-limited or VOC-limited regime.
In other words, using 100% biodiesel in an urban environment (VOC-limited) is IMO enough to actually justify preferring not to have the fancy emissions controls for legit environmentalist reasons: the better efficiency in general (as the parent comment mentioned), zero net greenhouse gas emissions, zero SO~x~, irrelevant NO~x~, and all at the cost of only moderate particulates (more than would be emitted from a vehicle with a DPF, but less than would be emitted if the same car were burning dino-diesel).
Of course, none of those benefits occur unless you actually seek out B100 (or at least, significantly higher percentages than the B5 that normal diesel can be blended up to), and that's a motivation much more associated with the hippie types that drive VW TDIs and old Mercs, not truckers.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Im with you. I'd love to know why.
Edit: Nvm, it's a pretty short article that doesn't say much, but it does include pictures of it.
I'm doing some reading here, too. Seems like the additional maintenance expense caused by the exhaust recirculation can be expensive over the life of the vehicle. This isn't just maintaining/reparing the EGR system, but also maintaining/replacing other engine components that have a shorter lifespan due to the emissions controls. This makes sense to me.
load more comments
(2 replies)
My understanding from past reading is that there's a history of diesel trucks pulling off emissions control hardware to increase their MPG somewhat, so they save money on fuel. First ran into it when reading about the practice in Europe, but also happens here in North America.
I don't know whether it's possible to tweak the computer-controlled system to achieve a similar effect, but it'd make sense.
It's more than just reprogramming, the delete process also includes removing the hardware itself.
At, that'd do it then. Thanks.
It usually comes with substantially more power, and you don’t have to maintain the def system anymore either.
It refunds itself the second you have to replace any of the emission components and if done early you refund it by getting better MPG and not having to spend money on diesel exhaust fluid.
For semi-trucks at least, my cousin (who drives a truck) told me it costs him a lot of money to have the DEF systems on his truck and operate them, and it costs him money he would otherwise be making on his deliveries.
I thought he was an idiot, and hes risking his and everybody else's health around him with his attempts to defeat those systems. (Don't think he was ever successful at it)
He might be an asshole but he's right that DEF costs money and that emissions systems on diesels are a pain in the ass.
Easily. Read my other comment, but this would pay for itself in a single afternoon if you didn't maintain your vehicle and would otherwise get shutdown due to an exhaust failure.
Or if you drive a truck in stop and go traffic, and the filters clogged up early, causing you to delay and let the exhaist system do a cleaning cycle (take 1hr, requires engine running and high throttle.) Etc etc.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The antipollution on a diesel engine (at least a big one) essentially reroutes the exhaust back through the engine and reburns it again. Before the antipollution devices were in place it wasn't uncommon for big diesels to get 500,000 miles before they needed to be replaced. Now with the antipollution devices they're getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k before they start having problems of significance.
Those engines and their maintenance are expensive as hell. It saves a whole lot more than the $4,500 having that done. It saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars over the long haul.
Are you defending this?
or they could run on propane, which doesn't make a whole lot of particulates in the first place and is cheaper anyway
I'm talking big trucks not forklifts.
out there plenty of people run their cars on LPG, most of taxis in Warsaw are hybrids running on propane because it's cheapest fuel in most efficient vehicle in urban conditions
it's pretty common in US too, just not in private vehicles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas#/media/File:2020_Global_Autogas_Consumption.svg
IIRC from /r/Europe discussion, propane is also not uncommon as a fuel in Turkey.
kagis
Yeah:
https://auto-gas.net/mediaroom/turkey-leads-autogas-consumption-in-europe/
Turkey leads Autogas consumption in Europe, while ranks second in the world. 80% of all LPG consumed throughout the country is used as Autogas. In addition, Turkey is the only country that has more LPG vehicles more than gasoline-powered vehicles.
In Turkey, the number of LPG vehicles in operation is close to 5 million.
I’m assuming the engine would need some modification to run propane? If not to the cylinders themselves, to the fuel supply? I assume propane would be largely similar to LNG vehicles? I really only see that on city buses and assumed there was a range reason for that.
Propane is way less energy dense per volume than diesel, so it isn't feasible for long-haul trucking. CNG/LNG is more energy dense than propane, but still nowhere near that of diesel fuel, which is why you see it in busses and garbage trucks. I know a few massive fleets (UPS comes to mind) that use CNG for some of their local routes, but that is probably more for the "green" optics than anything else.
propane is like 3/4 density of petrol and gram per gram carries more energy (propane 0.58g/ml, petrol 0.7ish g/ml) it's slightly greener because it contains more hydrogen so more energy per carbon emissions
LNG is cryogenic, has even lower density (0.41 to 0.5 g/ml depending on temperature) and CNG is less dense still depending on pressure
petrol engines need little modification, what is def necessary is another tank for LPG. different fuel supply system is required, but if original is kept in place either petrol or LPG can be used as needed. propane is a liquid under pressure and much denser than gaseous compressed methane, and not cryogenic like LNG. diesel engines can also be converted, but it gets harder and requires either small amount of normal diesel used or installation of spark plugs (it's still diesel cycle)
So it's a Captain Planet villain, but dumb.
Right, a Republican, exactly.
The way they've all reacted to climate change denialism by actively trying to make pollution as bad as possible is wild. Even if the entire world's scientific community was somehow wrong about global warming, shit like this and "rolling coal" would still be terrible for air quality, but these fucknuts apparently don't care as long as they get to "own the libs". This is peak "eating a shit sandwich to force other people to smell your breath" energy.
It's not an anti environment thing, it's a money saving thing (as in, they don't do it to intentionally harm the environment, it's collateral damage). You spend 4.5k to make your engine reliable for hundreds of thousands of miles instead of having to spend 10k (if you're lucky) every 100k miles to keep it running.
People are dumb. I once saw a kid on a field trip shit his pants out of spite because we had to leave a petting zoo. It wasn't an accident. He looked the teacher in the eye and letterrip
Remotely? Sounds like the manufacturers are up to no good as well.
The summary says he was having accomplices connect a laptop to the vehicle and then remotely accessing that laptop. Sounds like regular old ssh or rdp.
I'd bet he's a TeamViewer kind of guy.
Manufacturers try really hard to stop their proprietary software from getting out into the world, because when it does this is exactly what happens.
Case in point: I have a $35 phone app that lets me change software configurations on my BMW, and it is great. Can't change anything related to engine, aftertreatment, or safety though...which is a good thing.
Flipside of this coin: this results in repair monopolies because users cannot repair their own vehicles and equipment and manufactures use this exact excuse to claim they HAVE to run a monopoly cause the EPA. Literally John Deere has said this.
In truth, illegal vehicle mods have been and will always be a thing. Manufacturers should still provide all the tools to users to repair, and emissions checks on trucks will have to be smarter to catch cheaters. Make the penalty for a deliberate violation (willful not accidental) so egregious that no one would consider it, even if it saved 50k+ per truck.
If you read the article he was remotely connecting to laptops that were plugged into the vehicles.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›