Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Sorry, but those regulations could be met. They were not unrealistic. GM was one of a few companies that was able to deliver a diesel engine that that met emissions and delivered good performance. They required no software "enhancements". VW (and others) took the tact that they wanted better performance and cheated on the emissions side.
Now if you want to talk just CARB and unrealistic regulations. CARB alone has made Tesla to a Trillion $ company without making a dime manufacturing cars. Well technically they do as CARB gives them credits which they turn around and sell to FCA (RAM) to the tune of almost a BILLION dollars last year. So they set regulations not feasible in the market place. They were technically feasible of course, just not anything a customer would actually want to buy.
Not sure what speeding has to do with that.  |
I think the speed limit is an interesting analogy. It's one of the regulations that don't necessarily make sense, as said.
Going off this parallel, if a regulation is so strict that so few people can follow them, that's not a regulation that makes sense. Not a lot of speed limits make sense when 90% of the people ignore them and drive at a sensible speed above it. But yeah, you can technically argue that people can just slow down and follow the speed limit.
Seriously, if it's strict enough that cheating is considered feasible, you have to question the ones making the regulations as well.
Here is another good example: remember the alcohol ban in America in the 30s? Great intentions. Yeah, you could argue that one should just not drink alcohol, but that ended up backfiring badly enough that it got abolished soon after. People ended up "innovating" with methanol that ended up killing lots while the riches and elites just smuggled them anyway.
Sent from toaster or something