I thought I had read it all, but obviously not.
I guess the California CARB board is going to outlaw vehicles painted black (or dark colors). I guess it's another way of banning carbon emissions.
so it will mean no more "dark / black" Ducati's either. (DMV rules apply across the lineup?)
Article --> http://wardsauto.com/commentary/cool_paints_ugly_090324/ (http://wardsauto.com/commentary/cool_paints_ugly_090324/)
The actual CARB Presentation which is under review --> http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/final_cool_cars_workshop_presentation31209.pdf (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/final_cool_cars_workshop_presentation31209.pdf)
For those who live in California, please scream as loud as you can! (inevitably "what is good for California" inevitably gets adopted elsewhere unfortunately) Else we will all end up driving yellow, white or silver painted cars (and Ducati's) as they are more "enviromentally friendly"...
Racists.
I bet people will save a lot of gas by not running their air conditioners on their Darks.
Quote from: MotoCreations on March 25, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
I thought I had read it all, but obviously not.
I guess the California CARB board is going to outlaw vehicles painted black (or dark colors). I guess it's another way of banning carbon emissions.
so it will mean no more "dark / black" Ducati's either. (DMV rules apply across the lineup)
Article --> http://wardsauto.com/commentary/cool_paints_ugly_090324/ (http://wardsauto.com/commentary/cool_paints_ugly_090324/)
The actual CARB Presentation which is under review --> http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/final_cool_cars_workshop_presentation31209.pdf (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/final_cool_cars_workshop_presentation31209.pdf)
For those who live in California, please scream as loud as you can! (inevitably "what is good for California" inevitably gets adopted elsewhere unfortunately) Else we will all end up driving yellow, white or silver painted cars (and Ducati's) as they are more "enviromentally friendly"...
I love how stupid legislators are...Actually, we elect them, so...I love how stupid WE are. I live in Jersey, and even I HATE CARB.
<looks at watch to see if it's April 1st>
nope.
make the beast with two backs dat
Quote from: MotoCreations on March 25, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
(inevitably "what is good for California" inevitably gets adopted elsewhere unfortunately)
Really? When do the rest of us get medical marijuana?
In all reality, this is stupid. Can't they just make super dark tinted windows tax deductible?
nevermind more efficient mass transit in L.A or a rail system that sucks.......
just keep belting out cars and do nothing to try to minimize the # of 'em on the road....
Brilliant [bang]
Quote from: superjohn on March 25, 2009, 03:02:04 PM
Really? When do the rest of us get medical marijuana?
In all reality, this is stupid. Can't they just make super dark tinted windows tax deductible?
tinted windows also illegal.
They cannot be F*cking serious?
I live across the country and this pisses me off. How f*cking stupid are these people? WTF??
Quote from: MotoCreations on March 25, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
so it will mean no more "dark / black" Ducati's either. (DMV rules apply across the lineup)
On a serious note, no it doesn't.
every time i think i have heard the most stupid thing ever............. ???
when is california supposed to slide into the sea again?
Has anyone read the links? I didn't read a sinlge thing about motorcycles. I also read a portion that stated that certain types of windshields would eliminate the paint requirement.
The sky is not falling.
wow
So, after reading the whole .pdf, when they talk about reduction of temps strictly due to the paint they are talking about 1 degree C. Are you kidding me? 1 make the beast with two backsing degree?
Maybe one or both of these people need an email.
sclemieu@arb.ca.gov Sharon Lemieux, Manager
mbekken@arb.ca.gov Marijke Bekken, Lead Staff
[roll] No wonder the state is broke.
Quote from: hbliam on March 25, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Has anyone read the links? I didn't read a sinlge thing about motorcycles. I also read a portion that stated that certain types of windshields would eliminate the paint requirement.
The sky is not falling.
Yup (which I posted earlier). I went ahead and skimmed the latest draft changes to the regs (cuz ya just can't rely on the interwebz and some random article). The proposal applies to automobiles, light-duty trucks and medium duty vehicles weighing under 10K lbs. Here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool_paints_reg_language_draft_feb18.pdf (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool_paints_reg_language_draft_feb18.pdf)
Quote from: NAKID on March 25, 2009, 05:54:02 PM
So, after reading the whole .pdf, when they talk about reduction of temps strictly due to the paint they are talking about 1 degree C. Are you kidding me? 1 make the beast with two backsing degree?
Maybe one or both of these people need an email.
sclemieu@arb.ca.gov Sharon Lemieux, Manager
mbekken@arb.ca.gov Marijke Bekken, Lead Staff
And what corresponding effect does that have on a/c fuel consumption? 1.3% Make of that what you will in terms of a cost/benefit analysis. But just throwing out 1 degree F isn't at all instructive. As far as emailing them, a better solution is to wait until the public comment period opens and then submit something coherent rather than some internet ragefest. The calendar shows that notice is tentatively scheduled for 4/10. Edit: check here (http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/decisions.htm) if you'd like to leave public comments (in the future). I didn't realize it, but you have the opportunity to comment on workshops--which is what the pdf was for--as well as rulemaking. Have at it. [thumbsup]
Quote from: herm on March 25, 2009, 04:31:16 PM
every time i think i have heard the most stupid thing ever............. ???
Why is this the stupidest thing ever? I'm interested to know.
Quote from: Drjones on March 25, 2009, 06:10:21 PM
[roll] No wonder the state is broke.
Huh?
Quote from: hbliam on March 25, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Has anyone read the links? I didn't read a sinlge thing about motorcycles. I also read a portion that stated that certain types of windshields would eliminate the paint requirement.
The sky is not falling.
yeah, read the links.........its still make the beast with two backsin stupid, whether about bikes, cars or big wheels.
fkn california :P
Spidey, your rationality is going to really bring down someone's hate-buzz [laugh]
Shit, sorry, mang. Here ya go. . .
FACK CARB!!!! KILLLZZZ DEM COMMIE FOOKERS!!!!!! We should pelt their grandparents with cans of foie gras shot out of a straight exhaust on a V-8 running a on a mix of 110 octane, Bambi, and Britney's 18 children. [evil]
to answer spidey.....
i doubt that light colored paint is going to change the a/c use (habits) of folks living in places like socal. as mentioned, 1 degree is hardly worth the effort (diff between 100-101 in the shade....?)
the car is still going to be very uncomfortable, regardless of special paint. so folks are going to idle longer until the vehicle is cool.
maybe CA should ban leather seats too?
California: Lex Luthor had the right idea.
Quote from: bobspapa on March 25, 2009, 06:35:51 PM
home of octamom
we rock
only because the porn industry would wither and die without you
I live in LA. This will never happen. There are too many celebrities riding around in blacked-out range rovers to let this happen. If there is one thing people here care about its their cars.
Oh and by the way the governator travels in a fleet of black suburbans. Maybe he could just stop flying his private jet from sacramento to santa monica every weekend and the net effect would be the same.
Quote from: herm on March 25, 2009, 06:31:01 PM
to answer spidey.....
i doubt that light colored paint is going to change the a/c use (habits) of folks living in places like socal. as mentioned, 1 degree is hardly worth the effort (diff between 100-101 in the shade....?)
the car is still going to be very uncomfortable, regardless of special paint. so folks are going to idle longer until the vehicle is cool.
maybe CA should ban leather seats too?
FWIW I believe 1 degree C is about 2 degrees F
Quote from: herm on March 25, 2009, 06:31:01 PM
to answer spidey.....
i doubt that light colored paint is going to change the a/c use (habits) of folks living in places like socal. as mentioned, 1 degree is hardly worth the effort (diff between 100-101 in the shade....?)
the car is still going to be very uncomfortable, regardless of special paint. so folks are going to idle longer until the vehicle is cool.
maybe CA should ban leather seats too?
Herm, don't give them any ideas.
Ohio has made dark tinted windshields illegal for many years .
The reason is to help safeguard [leo] so that he can see what is going on inside a vehicle he has pulled over. Dolph :)
his
Quote from: JEFF_H on March 25, 2009, 03:50:28 PM
tinted windows also illegal.
This is false. Only the front driver and passenger windows, along with the windshield, are illegal. Anything behind that can be as dark as you want.
Quote from: Roscoe on March 25, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
his This is false. Only the front driver and passenger windows, along with the windshield, are illegal. Anything behind that can be as dark as you want.
That sounds similar to CA.
The whole argument that they'll use A/C less encourages me to think that this will not apply to motorcycles because most of them don't have A/C. I think a couple of the reclining chairs with wheels have A/C. Not sure though...
Ya know, though... Going on the thought line that the end goal is to reduce A/C use and therefore increase fuel efficiency, wouldn't it solve the problem if A/C just wasn't allowed on cars instead? That's MUCH more reasonable, yes? [roll] You know, kinda like not allowing the sale of youth motorcycles because your kid might eat it.
Oh, also, a flood of lighter color/ more reflective cars on the road will cause significant problems for visibility. Remember how they had to polish the Disney Concert hall because it was blinding motorists? Yeah, kinda like that.
Let's see more natural finish cars (Ã la DeLorean). Swirls? Use steel wool.
Quote from: herm on March 25, 2009, 04:31:16 PM
every time i think i have heard the most stupid thing ever............. ???
when is california supposed to slide into the sea again?
I hate to tell you but the plate that the west coast of cali sits on is actually moving inland.The biggest earthquake in history on the San Andraes would only serve to move it inland. That's right folks Cali is getting closer and will never fall into the sea.
Sorry
Quote from: Spidey on March 25, 2009, 06:23:00 PM
Yup (which I posted earlier). I went ahead and skimmed the latest draft changes to the regs (cuz ya just can't rely on the interwebz and some random article). The proposal applies to automobiles, light-duty trucks and medium duty vehicles weighing under 10K lbs. Here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool_paints_reg_language_draft_feb18.pdf (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool_paints_reg_language_draft_feb18.pdf)
And what corresponding effect does that have on a/c fuel consumption? 1.3% Make of that what you will in terms of a cost/benefit analysis. But just throwing out 1 degree F isn't at all instructive. As far as emailing them, a better solution is to wait until the public comment period opens and then submit something coherent rather than some internet ragefest. The calendar shows that notice is tentatively scheduled for 4/10. Edit: check here (http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/decisions.htm) if you'd like to leave public comments (in the future). I didn't realize it, but you have the opportunity to comment on workshops--which is what the pdf was for--as well as rulemaking. Have at it. [thumbsup]
Why is this the stupidest thing ever? I'm interested to know.
Huh?
It shows 1.2% reduction in A/C use for every 1°F. 1°C=1.8°F so a total of 2.16% reduction in a/c use from the fancy-schmancy paint.
They also talk about reductions from improved glass. 4°C reduction in temps from the glass alone. That equates to 7.2°F reduction and 8.64% reduction in a/c use. You get 4X the benefit from glass for a similar increase in cost. Why mandate the paint as well.
Also consider that this reduction they estimate to only be useful in 4 months out of the year. In the end, is it all even worth the extra legislation and changes to the industry? IMO, the glass is the only thing that is truly worth it.
Did they calculate fuel wasted from the air drag created because some people are now driving with sun roof and windows open or convertible top down instead of a closed car with the AC on?
Quote from: howie on March 26, 2009, 05:08:14 AM
Did they calculate fuel wasted from the air drag created because some people are now driving with sun roof and windows open or convertible top down instead of a closed car with the AC on?
haha......
i was going to post the same thing, but from what i could find, it ends up being a wash unless you only do one type of driving
in town (under 40 mph) = ac reduces fuel economy by about 10%
out of town (over 40 mph) = open window reduces fuel economy by about 10%
Quote from: MotoCreations on March 25, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
(inevitably "what is good for California" inevitably gets adopted elsewhere unfortunately)
er..... is that true? not from where im standing (PA)
(http://www.carbodydesign.com/concept-cars/2005/09-30-nissan-pivo-concept/_Nissan-Pivo-Concept-1.jpg)
get ready
Quote from: mitt on March 26, 2009, 06:37:39 AM
(http://www.carbodydesign.com/concept-cars/2005/09-30-nissan-pivo-concept/_Nissan-Pivo-Concept-1.jpg)
get ready
That'll look awesome parked in front of your house with a government radio controlled thermostat too.
Quote from: mitt on March 26, 2009, 06:37:39 AM
(http://www.carbodydesign.com/concept-cars/2005/09-30-nissan-pivo-concept/_Nissan-Pivo-Concept-1.jpg)
get ready
isn't that the taxi cab from Total Recall??
get ready for carousel ala logans run.
Quote from: stateprez on March 26, 2009, 06:52:24 AM
That'll look awesome parked in front of your house with a government radio controlled thermostat too.
You mean apartments - houses also use too much energy.
mitt
Quote from: NAKID on March 26, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
It shows 1.2% reduction in A/C use for every 1°F. 1°C=1.8°F so a total of 2.16% reduction in a/c use from the fancy-schmancy paint.
They also talk about reductions from improved glass. 4°C reduction in temps from the glass alone. That equates to 7.2°F reduction and 8.64% reduction in a/c use. You get 4X the benefit from glass for a similar increase in cost. Why mandate the paint as well.
Also consider that this reduction they estimate to only be useful in 4 months out of the year. In the end, is it all even worth the extra legislation and changes to the industry? IMO, the glass is the only thing that is truly worth it.
good post. [thumbsup]
If they are looking at saving gas on AC only (you might make the argument that a cooler engine would run more efficiently and burn less gas) why not just paint the roof a different color? Or, I dunno, government-sponsored reflective sunshades? Or, a leave your windows cracked when parked campaign? Or, how about finally passing that law that requires gas stations to provide free compressed air (properly inflated tires can improve mileage by whole percentage points)?
If this applies to new cars only, aren't Californians supposed to be driving electric cars right around the time this law takes effect?
seems to me this could all be avoided by just banning a/c for cars in california
people survived for many years without it and even thru the 80s it was an option on cars.
it would probably lean out the state population as the weather wimps would leave.
How about if someone covered there car in black solar cells, that then powered an electric AC system? Would they be in violation because of the color, even though they are much more efficient than a white standard AC car? Again, this legislation seems short sighted, and will cause more problems than it fixes.
Instead of banning things, why not have a $500 incentive for light color cars (or vice versa, a tack on for dark color cars). We have seen how well banning works with the lead toy fiasco.
mitt
Quote from: mitt on March 26, 2009, 08:39:12 AM
How about if someone covered there car in black solar cells, that then powered an electric AC system? Would they be in violation because of the color, even though they are much more efficient than a white standard AC car? Again, this legislation seems short sighted, and will cause more problems than it fixes.
Instead of banning things, why not have a $500 incentive for light color cars (or vice versa, a tack on for dark color cars). We have seen how well banning works with the lead toy fiasco.
mitt
nah, that's stupid
just give people a credit for using the A/C for X number of hours and if they exceed it, send over some goons to beat the shit out of them with baseball bats. that will fix the problem.
[evil]
This was just about the most stupidest thing I ever read -- thus why I had to post this thread. I can't believe someone is stupid enough to even propose the idea above.
As for emissions in California:
- The bunker diesel burning cargo ships going into the ports of California produce incredible amounts of pollution. Why aren't those being fixed or the issue addressed? (The world economy would love to build new emissions friendly cargoships and replace the old fleet of belching dinosaurs -- it would create many new jobs to be honest for the next 20+ years!)
- If the roads were in better physical condition (they are horrible in comparison to decades ago), wouldn't traffic cruise along more steadily and thus reduce emissions?
- I'm surprised some environmental group hasn't figured out a way to get rid of the dairy cows -- they fart too much and generate greenhouse gasses
- If the local city/county traffic engineers actually were smart, they'd fix the stop light problem so traffic can move/flow properly during rush hour. But to do that, I'm sure they'd have to hire more experts and someone to do it then and there would be environmental impact paperwork (and community meetings for feedback) for each stoplight involved and thus wouldn't happen for seven years.
As a friend mentioned to myself and California, the "carbon footprint" problem has been there for a long time. Even early caveman had to deal with it. Look in Los Angeles at the La Brea Tar Pits -- essentially uncovered an uncovered oil/tar spill emitting still to this day as a greenhouse problem...
Quote from: MotoCreations on March 26, 2009, 10:20:50 AM
This was just about the most stupidest thing I ever read -- thus why I had to post this thread. I can't believe someone is stupid enough to even propose the idea above.
if you're referring to my "suggestion" to send goons to ppls homes, it was a joke.. but in line with the mood of some folks (not anyone here that i've seen)..
or which post were you referring to?
I think he was talking about his original post...
Quote from: MotoCreations on March 26, 2009, 10:20:50 AM
As for emissions in California:
- The bunker diesel burning cargo ships going into the ports of California produce incredible amounts of pollution. Why aren't those being fixed or the issue addressed? (The world economy would love to build new emissions friendly cargoships and replace the old fleet of belching dinosaurs -- it would create many new jobs to be honest for the next 20+ years!)
- If the roads were in better physical condition (they are horrible in comparison to decades ago), wouldn't traffic cruise along more steadily and thus reduce emissions?
- I'm surprised some environmental group hasn't figured out a way to get rid of the dairy cows -- they fart too much and generate greenhouse gasses
- If the local city/county traffic engineers actually were smart, they'd fix the stop light problem so traffic can move/flow properly during rush hour. But to do that, I'm sure they'd have to hire more experts and someone to do it then and there would be environmental impact paperwork (and community meetings for feedback) for each stoplight involved and thus wouldn't happen for seven years.
None of those are mutually exclusive of what CARB is trying to do.
Two updates:
1) national media picked it up and ran with it --> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032609/content/01125110.guest.html (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032609/content/01125110.guest.html)
2) Black is "safe" for now as of the end of last week. CARB is apparently only going to push the "reflective glass mandate" forward for review.
One question:
If "black" is such a bad color, why are all the asphalt roads that are black (and asphalt roof tiles) not changed as well? Shouldn't they make them silver or a beige or at least white to increase reflectivity...
haha..........silver roads would be GREAT!
Roads in Florida panhandle are white (ish)..
I've seen roads in some parts of the southwest (IIRC) that were reddish. The color of a road is largely due to the color of the aggregate used in the asphaltic concrete. Not necessarily right when it is laid as the asphalt (the oil portion) is always black and the aggregate (rocks and sand) is initially covered by a thin film of it...but as the road ages the thin film of asphalt is worn off and the aggregate, and its color, is exposed.
Yeah, there were some red roads here in Colorado and they were beautiful. and the aggregate was particularly course, so traction was fantastic. I wish Pikes Peak International Raceway had been made with that red asphalt. That woulda' been awesome!!
Quote from: Smokescreen on March 29, 2009, 10:45:09 PM
Yeah, there were some red roads here in Colorado and they were beautiful. and the aggregate was particularly course, so traction was fantastic. I wish Pikes Peak International Raceway had been made with that red asphalt. That woulda' been awesome!!
that stuff is most likely chip-seal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_seal)
the downside to the coarseness is that it EATS tires.
when i had my first monster, i was riding about 30 miles of twisty chip seal, twice a day on my commute.
i was also going through tires in under 4 thousand miles.
That was in Northern California BTW. they used an agrigate which was produced locally from some volcanic rock or other.
very black roads...
on my ride back from ouray, they had chipped a huge stretch of hwy 20 with something similar, fantastic traction but very visible wear to the tire