|
Another example of a lack of joined up thinking by the legisaltors, they lead the manufacturers into fitting this stuff, saves a few particulates though creates a load of CO2 during unnecessary 20 - 30 min driving at high revs.
|
Exactly cheddar. So a car has to emit less CO2 during normal running. But to turn soot (i.e. Carbon) into a gas it creates CO2! What if it tried doing this during an MOT?
Found this too:
www.iconia.org.uk/files/Diesel%20Particle%20Filter...f
It's from VAG.... mentions town driving and Channel Islands... so maybe petrol will have to make a comeback for some drivers! If a DPF car went into limp home mode and needs to go to a dealer ASAP .... will there be one on say the Isle of Bute!
EDIT: I know the particulates are nasty and need trapping. But what if they could be trapped and removed by the driver and dumped in the bin.... cheaper and more environmentally friendly? A little vacuum cleaner like bag somewhere :-)
Edited by rtj70 on 31/01/2008 at 23:08
|
|
I think I spotted somewhere that DPF needs low sulphur diesel... so should we use supermarket diesel???? It meets the BSI standards but do we need to buy more expensive diesel?
|
I would be more worried about the CR pump and system and would use premium diesel.
The Euro IV Mondeo IIIs are not DPF and I read somewhere that Ford were going to diverge from PSA in the particulates system on the Mondeo IV hence the rumour that the Ford 2.2 would have a larger single variable vane turbo rather than the twin turbos as in the 407 etc though with identical specs.
However if the 2.0 is DPF then I guess the 2.2 will be as well.
The Freelander uses a single turbo 150 bhp version of the 2.2, anyone know if it DPF?
Edited by cheddar on 01/02/2008 at 06:43
|
I imagine the reason for fitting the DPF is that there are some serious concerns about the medical effects of particulates on lungs etc. I'm not a doctor but suspect that the gov't is reflecting these and manufacturers are playing it safe to avoid long-term liability ("we did what we could using the best technology at the time, guv"). Ford has enough on its plate without any class actions being brought.
|
|
|
@ cheddar, from the Mondeo brochure, the 2.0 TDCis have a DPF and the 1.8s don't. I'll see what the manual says too. I recently badgered the Ford dealer about when the 2.2 will be available and they said 2nd half of 2008, I wonder why it's so delayed?
Thanks to all for the input!
|
|
|
Freelander has a choice at present & can be ordered with or without according to the brochure.
Doc
|
|
Thanks Doc so that means that DPF is the particulate solution on the Freelander.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another example of a lack of joined up thinking by the legisaltors
No its not. The manufacturers choose DPF as the cheapest option. They largely wote the legislation!
they lead the manufacturers into fitting this stuff saves a few particulates though creates a load of CO2 during unnecessary 20 - 30 min driving at high revs.
CO2 is not directly injurious to health. PM (i.e. 'soot') is.
|
rjt70
The behaviour of your Mazda6 does not sound like DPF regeneration to me. It should not happen multiple times within a short time, or even on the same journey. I think you have something else going on there....
|
It happened briefly on Tuesday going to Slough and then again when coming back on Thursday but for longer (maybe 30 seconds or so of slight loss of power). It was like loss of power due to dipping the clutch slightly. I'm going to keep an eye on it for sure.
I do tend to do lots of short journeys at times and the engine does not always reach optimum temperature before I stop. Having said that went for a blast to Portmeirion and back the week before (mostly A roads) and would have thought any soot would have been cleared then.
I know I need to do something if it was clutch related before 9,000 miles because Mazda apparently swap clutches for free upto that point for whatever reason. Not that I really think it's the clutch - it does not slip and it's only done 5,000 miles by now. But it does feel like someone dipping (not slipping) the clutch.
Edited by rtj70 on 01/02/2008 at 12:34
|
|
Just for info, the DPF light on Mazda MZCRD engines has another (or maybe even more) functions. In the event of your lub oil being diluted by fuel, hence too high an oil level, the light will flash and the car may go into "limp home mode". Only remedy is an oil change. As it is similar to the current Ford engines, wouldn't be surprised to find out it has a similar role.
|
|
|
|
>> Another example of a lack of joined up thinking by the legisaltors No its not. The manufacturers choose DPF as the cheapest option.
CO2 is not directly injurious to health. PM (i.e. 'soot') is.
I dont disagree entirely Aprilia, the point is that the legislators are responsible for the intense focus on CO2 emissions to the exclusion of all else (including for instance embedded carbon) when there are better approaches to all of these issues if joined up thinking is applied.
For example Ford were rumoured to have a catalyst based particulate solution though if it meant a couple of g/km over the DPF under current legislation then you perhaps cant blame them for going DPF. Though I wonder if we will see this on the 2.2 which perhaps in marketing terms is less CO2 sensitive than the 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
My A3 170 has a DPF and in nearly 9,000 miles have never seen the DPF light come on. I do a good mix of urban journeys with regular motorway trips. I have read of other owners having major problems, but then they reveal they do no more than drive around in heavy traffic for a few miles a day.
My car has the DSG gearbox and I have now found out a strange characteristic I was experiencing is DPF related.
The engine management system changes the behaviour of engine revs when regeneration is occuring. Normally when in 'D' the gears change at 2,000 or so revs and tickover at standstill is about 850 rpm.
During regeneration the ECU causes gearchanges to take place at higher revs, typically 2500-3,000 and tickover increases to about 1,000 - in terms of gearchange it's like putting the car into 'Sport' mode. This has only happened about three times while I have had the car, but am advised it is normal.
|
You can judge what a mess DPF technology is by the fact that Ford alone now have three completely different systems in current use - the Mondeo one is the hopeless "diesel cat/soot trap" coated particulate filter that was a complete disaster on the Sevel vans years ago.
The only good thing about those was that you could smash the brick out when it clogged - and they did, even on long-run delivery vans!
Why don't the manufacturers admit that diesels are dirty, smoky, things and live with it for the economy benefits - which have now been totally lost.
Trying to clean them up has been an unmitigated disaster [clogged EGR valves, soot traps, diesel cats, FAPs, DPFs etc.] the list of costly failures is endless; so why not just return to simplicity and lightness and use less of a dwindling resource in the process.
By the time a diesel is really clean; it will barely be able to drag itself between filling stations.
|
The problem with Diesel engines is that its characteristics are fundamentally unsuited to passenger cars (which is why, for many many years, there were few Diesel engined cars on the market).
In order to give the Diesel engine a decent specific power output, decent drivability and decent NVH levels you have to bolt on a sophisticated CR injection system, a turbo and a DMF.
Unfortunately doing the first two of these increases ignition duration and gas temperature, which increases NOX and PM10 emissions.
There ARE technologies around that will clean up the Diesel quite efficiently. One of the most promising is stratified Diesel/Water injection, using a dual injector and up to 40% water in the charge. This increases the fuel penetration at injection (due to the latent heat of vapourisation of the water), delays ignition and reduces ignition temperature. The upshot is lower NOX and PM10 and better economy at part load.
The snag is that the injectors are expensive (Bosch already make them in limited volume) - but basically it works.
At the end of the day the car makers exist to make money. They churn out what sells and currently it seems that around 40% of new car buyers in the UK are prepared to buy Diesel - warts and all. As fuel prices rise and emission limits become more stringent it is likely that we'll see some newer and better technologies being used.
|
rtj70
Your Mazda6. Normally regeneration happens when car has been driven at 50+mph for 5+ minutes (or some such similar figure - not sure exactly for a Mazda). There should not be a particularly 'obvious' dip in power. Regen is not a daily (or even two-daily) event - it will happen relatively infrequently.
|
Thanks Aprilia. When they told me my symptoms were DPF regen I queries it (and still not 100% sure) so will follow up. But my car had an obvious dip in power and as I described to the garage it was as if someone dipped the clutch slightly.
Now I did have a failed clutch on the Mondeo TDCi and you could prove it was slipping by driving at a motorway at say 50mph in a high gear like 6th and floor it. The revs went up quite quickly and dipped down again but no speed increase - clutch slippage. Tried this on the Mazda6 and it just goes. But it does have a little more torque though.
But if it was a slipping clutch I'd expect it all the time. Time to phone either Mazda technical or lease company.
I might get a hire car if off the road but breaking down on a cold wet motorway is still inconvenient and dangerous.
|
This is from one of the Mondeo forums, from the Mondeo IV owner's manual:
"Unlike a normal filter which requires periodic replacement, the DPF has been designed to regenerate, or clean itself to maintain operating efficiency. The regeneration process
takes place automatically.
"However, some driving conditions mean that you must support the regeneration process. If you drive only short distances or your journeys contain frequent stopping and starting, you must initiate the regeneration process every 500-800 kilometres (300-500 miles).
"To do this, drive your vehicle at 80 km/h (50 mph) for 40 kilometres (25 miles) in the lowest possible gear whenever it is safe to do so. Alternatively, drive normally but use a lower gear."
It's interesting that the instructions are specific -- every 3-500 miles, and using medium-high revs.
As one of the forum members put it, your average British owner is expected to use an extra 3 litres per tankfull to keep the DPF clean!
|
|
|
|
Interesting Aprilia. So for old, pre-turbo indirect injection diesels (which were noisy and slow) you're saying they produced ess NOx and Particulate emissions...
If it were not for high fuel prices and being taxed more heavily for petrol company cars (but that's changing) I'd go for a forced induction petrol over diesel. But I like high mpg and lower income tax.
And if it goes wrong I don't pay anyway ;-)
|
Interesting Aprilia. So for old pre-turbo indirect injection diesels (which were noisy and slow) you're saying they produced ess NOx and Particulate emissions...
Not really, because a lot of them were relatively poorly designed. But using more modern methods a non-turbo IDI could produce relatively low emission c.f. a turbo CR DI.
Its all about 'specific power output' - as you try to get more out of the engine the combustion temperature rises etc. NOX pretty much scales with temp. - hence EGR, which acts as an inert dilutant and lowers combustion temp and hence NOX.
|
|
|
|
The problem with Diesel engines >>
To repeat my previous point the problem really is the legislators are responsible for the intense focus on CO2 emissions to the exclusion of all else hence the demand for diesels and diesels with ever lower CO2 due to BiK and VED bands, giving a bit of leeway on CO2 for diesel - and petrol - would perhaps enable more cohesive approaches to overall emissions.
|
>> The problem with Diesel engines >> To repeat my previous point the problem really is the legislators are responsible for the intense focus on CO2 emissions to the exclusion of all else hence the demand for diesels and diesels with ever lower CO2 due to BiK and VED bands giving a bit of leeway on CO2 for diesel - and petrol - would perhaps enable more cohesive approaches to overall emissions.
Yes, I saw your post. I don't really know how to answer it. People talk about 'legislators'. Do you think EU politicians sit around, read a few magazine articles and dream up emissions figures? No. There are whole teams of advisors and lobbyists, academics and industry reps. The emissions regs take a decade to argue through and become mandatory. Normally the industry gets 80% what it wants, when it wants. Europe was about 15 years behind the US and Japan in petrol engine emission limits (even though the European industry had the technology to meet the US regs because it sold its cars there!).
CO2 essentially scales with fuel consumption, so halving fuel consumption will roughly halve CO2 emission. Soot (PM10) also roughly scales with fuel consumption (all other things being equal) so reducing CO2 will reduce soot by a similar amount.
I know there is a desire to blame 'politicians' for everything (witness the way that Gordon Brown is almost being held personally responsible for the way those highly-reward bankers, the risk-taking 'masters of the universe', broke Northern Rock) but sometimes they are doing pretty much the 'right thing'. And of course the Eu can't continually second guess what national issues might arise (local matters like BiK and VED).
Personally I believe the emphasis on CO2 is good. Even if you don't believe that most of climate change is man made (I do) then reducing CO2 will at the very least lead to more fuel efficient cars and enable fossil fuels to last that little bit longer (unless, of course, you agree with those gimble-eyed American right-wingers who thing that God will refill the oil fields for us before it all runs out).
Edited by Aprilia on 01/02/2008 at 16:14
|
Aprilia,
A few points, firstly re the EU politicians.
It was they that followed the US along the catalyst route despite a number of manufacturers demonstratiung that contemporary engines (as opposed to pushrod V8's) employing lean burn technology could achieve lower consumption and reduced overall emissions.
Furthermore it is they that focus soley on CO2 emissions and not embedded CO2.
They also dont acknowledge that the official MPG / CO2 tests dont mirror real life conditions proven by the relative performance of different cars in official tests and actual circumstances.
>>The emissions regs take a decade to argue through and become mandatory.>>
By which time they are out of date though like a turning a super tanker they take just as long to agree that they were wrong and change direction.
No, I dont have an faith in the politicos in this area.
CO2 essentially scales with fuel consumption so halving fuel consumption will roughly halve CO2 emission. >>
Though less emphasis on CO2 can allow flexibility thus improving, CO, NOX and also possibly particulates via catalyst based systems.
Personally I believe the emphasis on CO2 is good. Even if you don't believe that most of climate change is man made (I do) >>
I dont, drill down into the earth's core and the temp rises 25 degrees every 1000m, you dont have to go too far, there is enough energy in the top 10km (like a piece of paper wrapped around a football) to sustain us for a billion years, I reckon we are arrogant to think that our actions can make much off a difference.
That being said I am with you re saving energy because natural resources will run out as you say however currently we are adopting the wrong measures for the wrong reasons and the motorist is a nothing more than a high profile sitting duck !
Edited by cheddar on 01/02/2008 at 17:01
|
Aprilia A few points firstly re the EU politicians. It was they that followed the US along the catalyst route despite a number of manufacturers demonstratiung that contemporary engines (as opposed to pushrod V8's) employing lean burn technology could achieve lower consumption and reduced overall emissions.
This is a common misconception. The EU legislation does not mandate the use of any particular technology - it just sets emissions limits. There are (and have been) cars that use lean-burn technology to meet EU limits, at least in part. The old Carina-E is but one example.
Lean burn technology, without any catalyst, cannot yet meet EU, US or Japanese emissions limits in real-world driving conditions (as opposed to lab conditions). Catalysts are actually a good solution, they are a reliable, mature and relatively simple technology (c.f. the lean burn technology) and can be easily recycled.
Furthermore it is they that focus soley on CO2 emissions and not embedded CO2.
'Embedded CO2' is really outwith the scope of emissions legislation. There are other initiatives which look at emissions during the whole product life cycle, recycling etc etc. They are making some progress on this and possibly at some time in the future ALL produces (not just cars) will have to meet certain standards in this respect.
They also dont acknowledge that the official MPG / CO2 tests dont mirror real life conditions proven by the relative performance of different cars in official tests and actual circumstances.
Because 'actual circumstances' vary so much. The same model car can be driven in a Polish winter and a Spanish summer. The EU drive profile is a good representation of 'typical' circumstances and is good for comparative purposes.
>>The emissions regs take a decade to argue through and become mandatory.>> By which time they are out of date though like a turning a super tanker they take just as long to agree that they were wrong and change direction.
There has been no agreement that they are 'wrong' nor any change in direction? In what sense have they been wrong?
No I dont have an faith in the politicos in this area.
Since 1995 emissions have fallen massively and air quality has improved. Removing lead from petrol has bought long term health benefits. A modern car emits about 1000x less pollution than a pre-1967 vehicle. With modern city traffic levels we would all be choking if it were not for emissions limits and emission control technology.
You seem ideologically opposed to emissions legislation and have a bee in your bonnet concerning CO2. Having an ideology is all very well, but it shouldn't be a substitute for thinking, or for pragmatism, and acknowledging the massive strides that have been made in reducing emissions, whilst at the same time improving performance and fuel economy.>> CO2 essentially scales with fuel consumption so halving fuel consumption will roughly halve CO2 emission. >> Though less emphasis on CO2 can allow flexibility thus improving CO NOX and also possibly particulates via catalyst based systems.
Well, I don't understand how NOT reducing CO2 could lead to a reduction in the other pollutants. You'd have to explain the chemistry of that to me, unless your suggesting that we're to use a reduction-only cat and not oxidise the CO to keep down the CO2 in preference?
|
Aprilia
Didn't the EU mandate that all cars had to be fitted with a cat? Even the "lean-burn" Carina had a cat, so couldn't have been burning that lean compared to Fords 23-1 development lean-burn engine; that was reputed to meet even the '96 Federal [not Cal] limits without one? [As, obviously, it couldn't fuel one.]
Regardless of the CO2 controversy; oil is finite - so we should be looking to ways of using less, not ways of ruining the consumption of what we already have.
The very limited [one obscure Japanese professor - and??] studies on PM10s don't fit with "real world" experience - and the much-hyped "evidence" on the TEL/children's intelligence link was laughable.
Cats have increased, not cut, air pollution. They're not effective until really hot and the average UK journey is only 5.3 miles - urban journeys [where it matters more] must therefore be much less.
An unlit cat is pumping it's excess fuel requirement straight into the atmosphere - hence the post-cat emergence of photo-chemical smogs in this country. The catalyst technology failed in California and it's made things worse here. A lean-burn engine is more efficient right from start-up.
The comparative tests done in the early 90s were a joke - the cat-equipped car had to be baked for 24 hrs to 25C/77F before the "cold-start test." [The Euro average temp at 0730 is 8C/44F - a very true representation.....]
They also required the introduction of benzine as they can't tolerate lead - if you think lead may be harmful, take a look at benzine! There's no argument there; leukaemia-causing benzine is a proven killer in the most microscopic quantities - and it's now in measurable [factory evacuating] quantities in urban air. This is good.... why?
Worse; many oxygen sensors don't work properly at idle. It's almost normal for post-warranty age cars to stop sweeping and run rich at idle, although they work fine when revs are raised - another source of urban pollution.
In the real world, cats don't get hot enough to work properly at idle. Cars sitting in jams will rarely be meeting MOT idle emission requirements; the MOT is slanted towards covering that inconvenient fact up, as it requires the natural idle test to be done 20 secs after the fast-idle [2750 revs/30 secs] one. If it wanted to mimic real conditions, it would do that one first - the engine has been idling all through the test.
Politicized attempts to improve air quality have been an unmitigated fiasco that need sweeping away and re-starting from scratch.
|
!! What the man said ............. plus:
1992 ish there was a high profile demonstration of two K-Series Metro GTI MPIs, one with production spec Cat and the other with a lean burn set up, independant observers agreed that the non-cat lean burn was the preferred option using less fuel so less CO2 and without the cost in carbon terms of cat production.
>>'Embedded CO2' is really outwith the scope of emissions legislation.>>
Why, we - the consumer - should be able to calc the embedded carbon v the consumed carbon to achieve the full picture.
>>You seem ideologically opposed to emissions legislation >>
To the contrary, I just dont agree with the approach being taken.
>>and have a bee in your bonnet concerning CO2.>>
Yes, it is almost pointless measuring consumed CO2 if you do not measure embedded CO2 in manufacture, shipping and disposal.
>>reduction-only cat and not oxidise the CO to keep down the CO2 in preference?>>
Basically yes, if the cat is only reducing NOX to N and O then the cat is less restrictive and the engine can also run leaner nearer stoemetric and thus producing less unburnt HC thus more of the HC is turned into power thus higher % thermodynamic efficiency thus less fuel is burnt thus CO2 is no higher than if using a 3 way cat.
|
1992 ish there was a high profile demonstration of two K-Series Metro GTI MPIs one with production spec Cat and the other with a lean burn set up independant observers agreed that the non-cat lean burn was the preferred option using less fuel so less CO2 and without the cost in carbon terms of cat production.
Poppycock. You know what, I actually worked on K-series during this era - the platinum sensors, pressure transducers in the head etc etc. In a nutshell it didn't work as advertised. There was a tremendous amount of lobbying going on to get the EU to fudge the legislation to favour lean burn (because of the investment made by many companies at that time). In the end they made the right decision. As lean burn technology has improved it CAN NOW almost meet the EU standards IF a good enough NOX cat is used. There is nothing to stop a manufacturer introducing a lean burn engine into the EU market if they get it working properly - witness vehicles such as the VAG FSI which operate lean under certain conditions.
>>reduction-only cat and not oxidise the CO to keep down the CO2 in preference?>> Basically yes if the cat is only reducing NOX to N and O then the cat is less restrictive and the engine can also run leaner nearer stoemetric and thus producing less unburnt HC thus more of the HC is turned into power thus higher % thermodynamic efficiency thus less fuel is burnt thus CO2 is no higher than if using a 3 way cat.
???
Look. Develop a good enough NOX cat and lean burn will become a reality in all markets and you'll become a millionaire. Everyone's working on it though.
|
Long before I passed my driving test I read motoring magazines (amused my family being an expert on cars without a license). I remember all the fuss about lean burn and it came to little nothing. Still time.
But Aprilia, saying: "You know what, I actually worked on K-series during this era" could have some on here holding you partly responsible for K-Series head gasket problems ;-)
|
Screwloose
I sorry (and surprised) to say that you are wrong and out of date on many counts. I find it ridiculous when people talk about "Politicized attempts to improve air quality have been an unmitigated fiasco" - that is simply a 180 degree incorrect statement, and frankly I think its you who are 'politicised'. Automotive emissions reduction have been a staggering success and engineers have achieved what many said was impossible.
Aprilia Didn't the EU mandate that all cars had to be fitted with a cat? Even the "lean-burn" Carina had a cat so couldn't have been burning that lean compared to Fords 23-1 development lean-burn engine; that was reputed to meet even the '96 Federal [not Cal] limits without one? [As obviously it couldn't fuel one.]
I have worked on several lean-burn projects, including as a consultant to Sonex and also as part of the Rover COMET team on lean-burn. No lean burn has ever been totally successful in meeting the EU limits under all conditions without a cat. NOX is always the killer on lean-burn, so they require a NOX cat. The K-series was not successful as a lean burn, bascially you needed to go to direct injection to get it to work. One of the best designs was Mitsubishi's MVV (Vertical Vortex) but they had all manner of problems productionising it.
Honda's lean burn engine (as used in the Insight) DOES meet CARB standards, but only because it was given a dispensation to exceed the NOX limits (a trade off on account of its geater fuel efficiency).
The very limited [one obscure Japanese professor - and??] studies on PM10s don't fit with "real world" experience - and the much-hyped "evidence" on the TEL/children's intelligence link was laughable.
You cannot be serious. You are really suggesting that PM10's are not hazardous? That's an extraordinary point of view. There has been massive world-wide research into PM10's since the 1970's and the harmful effects are undisputed. Presumably you also think smoking is a perfectly healthy pastime?Cats have increased not cut air pollution. They're not effective until really hot and the average UK journey is only 5.3 miles - urban journeys [where it matters more] must therefore be much less. An unlit cat is pumping it's excess fuel requirement straight into the atmosphere - hence the post-cat emergence of photo-chemical smogs in this country. The catalyst technology failed in California and it's made things worse here. A lean-burn engine is more efficient right from start-up.
I'm surprised, since you work on cars, that you make these statements. As stated above, lean-burns currently require NOX cats anyway.
How long does a Euro-4 engine run open-loop? Go and find out. You'll be very surprised.
They also required the introduction of benzine as they can't tolerate lead - if you think lead may be harmful take a look at benzine! There's no argument there; leukaemia-causing benzine is a proven killer in the most microscopic quantities - and it's now in measurable [factory evacuating] quantities in urban air. This is good.... why?
Yes, benzine is bad. But lead is also bad. Most of the atmospheric benzene in urban air is formed DURING combustion of petrol (from aromatic hydrocarbon in the fuel). Although there are some forecourt emissions of benzine these are smaller amounts than formed during combustion and they could be virtually eliminated using vapour-recovery type pumps, if we wanted. Benzine emissions from vehicle tanks are tiny, as you should know.
Worse; many oxygen sensors don't work properly at idle. It's almost normal for post-warranty age cars to stop sweeping and run rich at idle although they work fine when revs are raised - another source of urban pollution.
You are essentially talking about a car with a fault. the MOT is slanted towards covering that inconvenient fact up a
Yes, that's right. The MoT is a 'cover up' - part of a big world wide conspiracy to hide the fact that three-way-cats don't work. You couldn't make it up, could you...?
Politicized attempts to improve air quality have been an unmitigated fiasco
A ridiculous statement.
|
Aprilia
Lots of interesting points in your piece and, as the technical ones are deserving of more than a brief reply, I'll take the time to consider them and answer them separately tomorrow. [Work permitting.]
However; to say that the decision to go for catalysts wasn't political? What was the Campaign for Lead-Free Air if not a political organization? [With some very surprising financial backers.] They stirred up public opinion [remember the cartoon cars with flowers coming out the exhaust?] and politicians will always pander to populist causes.
Although not unimportant elsewhere, traffic pollution is mainly an urban problem. The solutions the politicians chose under noisy pressure-group lobbying, are at their least effective in this context. Not faulty - just normal in-service degeneration.
Yes; cats and DPFs etc. work astonishingly well in fast-moving traffic conditions; but the yellow clouds that blanket major cities on sunny days tell a different story about what happens in real-world urban conditions.
The Japanese professor oft-quoted when the effects of PM10s are discussed decribed them as "the most carcinogenic substance ever seen." That's quite a claim for a fairly common substance - so why haven't those known to be heavily exposed all died - the Spitfire refuellers in Russia adding benzine all did. [And no, I'm not a tobacco-industry apologist either.]
That's my overall point; all the so-called improvements haven't delivered in the real world - I'm not some wild-eyed conspiracist, I just think it's time for a reality check before more theoretically-effective but realistically-useless nonsense wastes even more fuel.
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Screwloose.
An expert not afraid to speak his mind...
|
mike
Sorry if all the extra posts above - which appeared subsequently to yours - cause you to wish to review your comment on my initial post only
It's just the way that the threading works.
|
Intersting discussion here, I must say I am surprised that Aprilia supports the political impact (I would say interferance) because it all happened/happens the wrong way around.
We have legislation leading technology when it should be technology leading legislation!
And yes, sure, "industry reps" are involved and "Normally the industry gets 80% what it wants" though perhaps 50% of what it wants has nothing to do with emissions, rather it is tax breaks, grants, support for greenfield planning applications etc etc.
I believe that consumer demand would ensure that better solutions were developed if there were a freer legeslative framework with an overall objective of reducing consumption of energy rather than the prescriptive approach we have today.
This is starting to happen in the field of power generation though the contrary is the case in automotive.
And if someone did invent the ultra efficient NOX cat thus enabling ultra lean burn how long would it take to be ratified, too long that is for sure because todays prefered technology is too intrisically bound into the taxation system.
Aprilia's views makes a lot of sense within the legislative frame work that we currently have in place though it seems that Screwloose, like me, belives that just because we went wrong 30 years ago* that is no reason not to do the right thing now.
*Which IMO in a nutshell started with the US putting 2/3 way cats on 50's big block push rod V8's rather than developing much more efficient, smaller, lighter though if required just as powerful lean burn multivalve engines.
Regards.
Edited by cheddar on 02/02/2008 at 09:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
