[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]California was the leader in clean air. In fact, the EPA eventually adopted California rules, as have other states who implemented smog programs.

The rules are made for everybody. If you don’t like them, put your car on non-op and make it a track car.

I’m sure people remember the polluted air back in in the 80s and before. Smog alerts all the time. LA was almost like Beijing. The air cleared up in the 90s.[/quote]The problem is not in the test. It is in the psychotic belief of California’s legislators that the auto-manufacturers know how to build the cleanest vehicles. That is blatantly untrue. Run a vehicle 1/2 gasoline, 1/2 Natural gas – the car will be significantly cleaner than straight gasoline.

The other reason why smog got cleaned up in the 90’s was because the factories were required to be cleaned up. There were auto smog regs in California since 1975 (actually a bit earlier). That is partially why the 1975 and earlier cutoff.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]Too much money in it not to have duplicate bureaucracies. Someone is making money certifying the parts for CA use, not to mention selling the certified parts for an inflated price.

The ironic thing is that I actually see more smoky clunkers on the road in CA than around NYC. Not sure if safety inspection gets rid of the worst of the worst, or if they simply die due to rust before they can turn into smoking messes.[/quote]

I don’t believe pre-1973 vehicles have to be “smogged” in CA and we don’t have “safety inspections” per se (any Pigg correct me if I’m wrong here).[/quote]Correct. From what I remember for CA, it is 1975 and earlier. 1976 and later have to be sniffed. It originally was idle test, then high/low idle, then dyno was added later.

The smokey clunkers are interesting. If it is blue smoke, it is burning oil and interestingly, that does not get picked up on the tests – including hydro-carbon test. I guess because it is a heavy hydro-carbon not a light aromatic which means it probably gets filtered out in the test unit’s protective filters. It could also be that these cars are from outside CA, or are in areas that are not required to have smog tests for registration (tests are only required in smog impacted areas).

[ucodegen]

[quote=flyer]kev, from what I’ve heard from friends who are in the “tech fields,” you might want to consider going wherever you can net the most. If you can also choose a place that has a great “quality of life,” all the better. Unfortunately, as many have commented, those two elements don’t always seem to go together.

Most of the friends I mentioned believe their best employment years may quickly end when they get into their 50’s or sooner–especially in those fields–so, IMO, making the big bucks early, should definitely factor into your decision.[/quote]I would second that. Bean-counter style management starts seeing you as ‘expensive’, then replaces you with 2 or 3 people who can’t complete the job collectively and whose collective salaries are more than you made.

Happened to me with the introduction of a MBA type bean-counter to a technical company. They look at cost per hour, but have a problem factoring in the ‘performance’ portion. Their calc’s are all ‘head-count’ and ‘per-head’ based.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu][quote=FlyerInHi]Flu. I own a service station in CA.

You cannot reset the ECU to pass smog. The whole drive cycle needs to run for your car to pass smog. The newer cars now sent the VIN when you plug in.

The new rules were negotiated with auto manufacturers who want their customers to have a good consumer experience (easy smog).

The benefit is that new cars are perfectly clean, expect for the CO2 of course. Compare to the polluting old cars of past.[/quote]

Funny, because my ECU and OBD connector allows me to do just that. How do you think all the tuners flash their custom ROMs onto the ECU? 🙂 Not that I would suggest anyone do it… But at least as a theoretical exercise, it’s been done…[/quote]Actually, the onboard test does have to run with OBD II(s). You can reset the codes, but the tester the emissions test places use will report whether all of the drive cycle tests have been completed. I have a diag tester (Innova 3140d) that will report the any codes, whether it is a transient code, which drive cycle tests are reported, which have run to completion and which are yet pending. It also allows real time monitoring of sensors – all through OBD II port. The test that is coming down the pipe is that the OBD II test station will request the checksum for the flashed ECU code.. and it if doesn’t match allowable checksums, you will be failed (code mod detection). OBD I(s) can be reset and will pass immediately after reset unless it is a permanent code. OBD II(s) will have to run through the onboard tests.

NOTE: I think the checksum route is stupid because it is relying on the ECU to report the checksum. If the code has been modded, it could report the factory checksum instead of the actual for the code installed. I haven’t seen any ways for them to actually read/upload the ECU code from the OBD II port (don’t think the upload(to tester) command is spec’d/implemented)

In many ways, the whole test code thing is stupid. It should only be measuring what it blows.. and codes used for maintenance purposes (I find them useful, including the transient ones

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu][quote=ucodegen]
The Japanese and Korean cultures are different (not saying that Korean’s and Japanese get along, they generally don’t). Both Japanese and Koreans have a ‘honor’ aspect to work products. Their cultures also tend to be ‘conformist’. Very few if any attempts to create fake eggs and sell them as real, putting things in ramen that really don’t belong there, melamine in milk.. etc. – and if/when it occurs, it ends up being very embarrassing to them.
[/quote]

Lol… You don’t work with any of the korean smartphone makers do you?[/quote]A very close friend of mine has… LG to be specific.
[quote svelte]What a coincidence…an insert *precisely* where IIHS conducts the test…

You don’t suppose they were trying to rig the results, do you? An honorable car company wouldn’t do that![/quote]What percentage of that same japanese company is owned by a US company? You are also pointing at one specific incident, I have shown systemic issues.

As for NGK; there may be other details like strong-arming through patents and access to OEM level sourcing to force a group to act as a ‘cartel’ supplying spark plugs. It was not only NGK that was involved.

Most of the items you listed does not even get close to the level of the issues with Chinese supplied goods. You are mostly showing price fixing and a little gaming of the system (If you know anything about auto crash tests, you’ll know that the low-speed collision tests are largely BS. A NASCAR or Formula vehicle will fail the lowspeed tests, but are able to exceed tests in the higher speed ranges. That beam is only useful in low speed collision tests) Part of the problem is building a structure that will resist 5mph 4000lb collision with no/minimal damage – none to frame, but have the frame absorb collisions that are of a higher speed so that the deacceleration of the vehicle will not kill the occupants. The ‘structure’ needs to not add appreciable weight to the vehicle. Remember those bumpers in 1975? Did you ever try picking one of those up when off the car?

BTW: Roll-over tests were not required until 2004. Toyota was actually doing them before that. The court case was almost trying to use Toyota’s own info to prosecute it even though the tests were not required at the time the vehicle was built.

To help you along, I’ll bring up Fukushima, but as I give, I take away. Fukushima also demonstrates another characteristic of Japanese culture. Extreme deference to authority – even when such deference is wrong, dangerous or downright deadly. Since I added to the Japanese list, so I add to the Chinese list; how about the complete copying of Cisco router code by Huawei so complete that even a bug that had been fixed was replicated in Huawei gear.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/680705/thread/1330793331/last-1330900523/Huawei+admits+copying+Cisco+code
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10485560675556000
http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/huawei-quits-us-market/d/d-id/1234177?

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]It will be fine… Some of the Buicks are designed in Shanghai now. And a good portion of the parts are from China now.. Most people just aren’t aware of it yet (or are in denial of it).[/quote]

I think there are going to be some definite teething pains. Much of USA corporate ‘think’ likes to believe in off-shoring it, just collecting the money as it rolls in and ignoring having to quality check what arrives back here. I have seen too much of that, including from maquiladoras.

The Chinese also have a different culture when it comes to work, and making money. For them – it is literally anything goes, what ever they can get away with. Though I also have to mention that some Chinese manufacturers don’t seem to operate with the ‘anything goes’ mentality, and end up producing quality products; but they tend to be a minority.

The Japanese and Korean cultures are different (not saying that Korean’s and Japanese get along, they generally don’t). Both Japanese and Koreans have a ‘honor’ aspect to work products. Their cultures also tend to be ‘conformist’. Very few if any attempts to create fake eggs and sell them as real, putting things in ramen that really don’t belong there, melamine in milk.. etc. – and if/when it occurs, it ends up being very embarrassing to them.

As to whether the ‘anything goes’ attitude from Chinese extends to expats, I think it depends upon how they grew up in the US, if they are first, second, third or.. generation, when their parents emigrated. I have met all types in a University.

Note:
Ford rotors and Motorcraft rotors are not the same. Motorcraft is not Ford OEM.
Motorcraft BRR64
Ford F8VZ-1125-AA
— The Motorcraft rotors are made in China, the Ford OEMs are made in Canada.

another ref:
http://www.fordparts.com/landing/ourbrands.aspx

[quote flu]It’s about product evolution. The japanese were in the same sitation in the early eighties.

The koreans were in the same situation in the 90ies, and they were able to close the gap in much less time.

Looks like the chinese automakers are trying to do the same.[/quote]I agree. That is why brought up Greely-Volvo vs the one Chinese car company that did well on their own with the crash test. I suspect Greely is trying to ‘buy’ the tech and knowledge though the purchase of Volvo, or maybe trying to buy the safety ‘perception’ through the purchase of Volvo – with Volvo’s safety record then being sacrificed. The question ends up being; what will the Geely Chinese corporate culture due to the quality of Volvo?

[ucodegen]

This doesn’t make me feel very good about Volvos now. I have seen several crash tests on current Chinese manufactured vehicles. Very scary. Some of these are Chinese knock-offs of high end German and Japanese vehicles.

Possibly some dup portions above. The Chinese are supposedly getting better, though in general with Chinese products, I am very careful. There is some very good mixed in with lots of crap. My drop box wrenches are made in Chinese, and are made of Chrome Vanadium – not mild steel. Much tougher than anything Sears, Snap-on or Matco put out.

http://jalopnik.com/why-the-chinese-qoros-3s-euro-crash-test-victory-is-a-1383336053

—

Think I know why Volvo is considering the ‘Chinese’ option. They got bought by Chinese car maker Geely.
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/chinas-crashtest-flunky-20101021-16v6c.html

The Chinese car that did well in the crash test was not a ‘Geely’ vehicle.

[ucodegen]

I just went to a friend’s house. Not a good friend obviously because it’s my first visit. But OMG, shit everywhere in the place. He said wife is a hoarder.

When is too much stuff over the line?

Here might be some fairly good tests;
* When the disorder is disruptive to your own, or of the lives of loved ones – it is excessive.
* When the ‘hoarder’ ends up buying something even though they know they have one of those, somewhere around the house, but the amount of time to try to find it would exceed the cost and effort to buy another – it is excessive.
* When the ‘hoarder’ buys something because it is on sale, or gets it ‘free’, even though they do not need it in the foreseeable future, may not really know what it is or does – it is excessive.
* When the collection of ‘stuff’ makes it difficult or impossible for the ‘hoarder’ to do the things they want to do – it is excessive – it ‘takes over’ their lives.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]

Stated that it was probably shot from Russia as opposed to Ukraine. Make is more likely that it was not the separatists.

If Ukrainian intelligence wasn’t aware that the separatists had a longer-range SAM system, they would have blamed the Russians, since the Russians are known to have such equipment.[/quote]
And the Ukrainians have, as well as stated that they are aware of separatists being trained on more advanced weapons.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]

Repeating the same thing w/o references or supporting information does not make it true. I gave references for what I stated. Please do likewise.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-reports-progress-against-pro-russia-separatists-1405340926

“Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s office said the plane had been flying at an altitude of 6,500 meters (about 21,000 feet) and so couldn’t have been shot down by the rebels’ portable antiaircraft missiles.”[/quote]
Stated that it was probably shot from Russia as opposed to Ukraine. Make is more likely that it was not the separatists. Could of been part of training in the system for the separatists, on the part of Russians. I do get concerned on the uncorroborated claims of the altitude it was flying at.

This is a related item to your link..
http://mashable.com/2014/07/14/plane-ukraine/

[ucodegen]

[quote=Blogstar]How many people died in Gaza today?[/quote]Not enough to make them (both Israel and Hamas) sick of war, but more than enough to make the rest of the world sick.

The current numbers I have come across are 23 civs, 1 Israeli military.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]How does a MANPAD shoot down a transport flying at 21,000+ ft, considering that the range of the MANPADS available to them have a range of 12,000 ft on a good day?

The BUK missiles were likely used against military targets before. This was just the first time they messed up and hit a civilian target.[/quote]
Repeating the same thing w/o references or supporting information does not make it true. I gave references for what I stated. Please do likewise.
[quote=FlyerInHi]Yeah, question is do the separatists have the capability?

The Ukrainians shot down a plane by mistake before.[/quote]They may not have had it before, but I think they do now. The only hit I could get on previous shoot-down involving Ukraine was of Siberian Airlines 1812, in Oct 2001. I could not find any other. The Russian plane flew into a live fire exercise area (MOA). The missile, and S-200, overshot its target and re-acquired a new target (the passenger airplane). The particular missile in this case is a self-guided system at its terminus. This exercise was being watched (spied upon?) by the US. What is interesting here is that only the most recent S-200 versions are capable of 35,000 feet, original version 20,000 feet, both of which are generally only achievable straight up (fuel-distance-gravity-altitude problem). It does make me wonder at what altitude that Siberian Airlines 1812 was flying at – and if it was its normal flying altitude. After the incident, Ukraine banned the practice of live fire on that system for approx 7 years.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=spdrun]Ucodgen- Reports and the Ukrainian government have at least one of the transports being shot down at 6,500 m or 21,000 ft. Too high for a manpad.[/quote]

Reuters is reporting that the system used was either an SA-11 Gadfly, or an SA-17 Grizzly, both successors to the Cold War SA-6 Gainful. These are tracked vehicles carrying a mounted rack of surface-to-air missiles capable of bringing down a commercial jetliner.

According to Jane’s, both Ukrainian and Russian forces have these.[/quote]Sounds like our respective news services can’t get their story straight, or are so much in a hurry to be first that they can’t take the time to double check their sources and the story.

Considering that no civilian AC have been shot down until this one, I have my doubts as to anything beyond a manpad being available to the separatists (till now). The ‘escalation’ in capability seems to match now getting such a system. I would suspect that Ukraine’s response to the shootdowns would be to fly higher and limit use of helicopters. The separatists would now need a device that could reach higher. Russia’s predictable behavior would be to see that extending the conflict in Ukraine by supporting the separatists would be in their own best interest.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ucodegen]
Umm not likely. Because Ukraine has a long range system, they could see where the aircraft really came from as it enter their airspace. Ukraine has systems like our FAA radars that cover a good portion of our airspace.[/quote]

As allan posted, the Ukrainians and the Russians have the capability. so it’s either.

I was reading some European news outlets and they are less wanting to pin the blame on Russia than our media.

Would Russia be stupid enough to shoot down a plane down over Ukrainian airspace?[/quote]I guess I may have to explain it in simpler terms. Ukraine has a long range FAA style radar as well as the ‘BUK’ system. The two different types of systems can talk to each other. This means that Ukraine, due to being able to ‘join’ the FAA style system’s data with the BUK’s track, would really know where the plane came from. They would also have people trained to ‘recognize’ aircraft by track characteristics (altitude and velocity).

On the other hand, it would not be likely that Russian separatists would have that knowledge. They might be trained to simply ‘push the button’, but would not know how to discriminate one type of target from another. They would also be more likely to ‘lets see what this can do’ with their ‘new toy’. The Russian separatists would also not be able to tie the BUKs unit in with an FAA type source since they don’t control most of Ukraine. I suspect that Russia did give them the system and did some ‘simplistic’ training. I don’t think Russia is stupid enough to actually shoot down a civilian aircraft. Russia would also be able to tie their FAA style system to the BUKs and would know where the aircraft came from. I would also say that Ukraine would not be stupid enough to shoot down a civilian aircraft. As for the separatists, I would say that they might be that stupid (particularly if emboldened by Russia). Imagine the mentality of the southern states racists – add in a BUKs system.. and you have a mess.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I’ll go out on a limb and suggest the Ukrainian military shot down the plane by mistake thinking it was a Russian craft.[/quote]
Umm not likely. Because Ukraine has a long range system, they could see where the aircraft really came from as it enter their airspace. Ukraine has systems like our FAA radars that cover a good portion of our airspace.

[Author]

Posts