Tag Archives: Auto regulation

How the Government “Saves” You Money, by Eric Peters

There’s no such as a free lunch, even when the government is providing the lunch! Who knew? A lot of things the government wants you to will supposedly save you money, except when you look at the overall picture, they don’t. This is especially true in the automotive area. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Brakes jobs tend to cost more nowadays because certain critical brake parts – the rotors – are becoming throwaway parts. The why is interesting.

Car companies are forced by the government to “save” you money – as the government styles it – by issuing regulatory fatwas requiring that all new cars achieve ever-higher fuel economy numbers. But there is a hidden cost to this – and guess who pays for that?

It isn’t the government.

You – the owner of the government-mandated “fuel efficient” car – get to pay for things like light-weight but disposable brake rotors that are too thin to be turned, or machined to true – necessary for proper operation of the brakes.

Turning entails the use of a special lathe to  shave off a little of the metal surface of the rotor to bring it back to flat and good as new. This was common practice before the government got into the business of “saving” car buyers money by ordering new cars to be made ever-more-efficient. Which prompted the car companies to shave weight off the car by using thinner/lighter rotors.

The old steel rotors were heavier – because they were thicker and thus, sturdier. For this reason, they could often be turned several times, thus increasing their useful service life and costing you less each time your car needed brake work.

Machining being generally less expensive than the $60-plus it costs for each of the four new replacement rotors your car may need the next time it needs brake work.

Thicker rotors were also less vulnerable to warping, either from heat or from over-tightening – as via an air gun during a government-mandated “safety” inspection. Most shops are in a hurry and don’t take the time to remove or install lug nuts – which hold the wheel to the hub via studs that are pressed into the rotors – by hand, using a torque wrench to reinstall them without risking over-tightening them. This often results in too much clamping force applied to the rotors, which become out-of-round as a result and have to be turned to get them back to true – if you don’t like the feeling of your brake pedal pulsating under your foot or the car pulling left or right when you apply the brakes.

But if the damaged rotor(s) can’t be turned, they have to be tossed. Guess whop gets to pay for that?

If it were only throwaway rotors, it might not be so bad – or rather, so expensive – to “save” on gas.

Continue reading→

The Consequences of the Intended, by Eric Peters

How government invariably makes things increasingly complicated. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Kids didn’t used to roast to death, forgotten in the back seat of cars, because it was hard to forget your kid when he was sitting right there beside you – or even sitting in your lap. That was outlawed – for saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety.

And now kids are forgotten about in the back seat and left to roast to death.

Solution? Keep them strapped in back even longer. Some states have mandated that “kids” ride in saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seats until they’re practically ready for Social Security – or at least, high school.

A few people backed up over kids – chiefly because it is almost impossible to see what’s behind any car made since the early ‘90s, which is because cars made since then have been made with bulbous rear ends apparently modeled on Kim Kardashian in the interests of . . . . saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety.

They can take being bumped into better than the non-Kardashian models of the pre-saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety era.

Continue reading→

 

How Come It’s Suddenly Less “Safe” Out There? by Eric Peters

Eric Peters explores a paradox: cars are supposedly safer, but accident rates are going up. From Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

New cars are – supposedly – “safer” than ever. Right? That’s what the government has been telling us.

Each new fatwa – back-up cameras, tire pressure monitors, all those air bags – forced down our throats accompanied by the ululations of the regulatory ayatollahs that they would make cars . . . safer.

But then the news. Motor vehicle fatalities are suddenly going up.

And not just a little bit, either.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety (there it is, again!) Administration, motor vehicle fatalities are up by 8 percent – and that’s for 2015, the most recent year for which complete data are available. Preliminary data for 2016 suggest an even sharper spike – possibly into the double digits.

Why?

The Usual Explanations don’t seem to cover it.

“Speeding,” for instance, is hard to blame – although it probably will be. But there’s no evidence that people, in general, are driving any faster now than they were three or four years ago. Speed limits haven’t changed much – on highways or secondary roads – since the late 1990s, when Congress finally repealed the Nixonian 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit.

And that was almost 20 years ago.

The “speed kills” crowd warned of a massive uptick in road deaths as a result of repealing the NMSL – but it didn’t happen. Highway fatalities actually declined even as people were allowed to drive faster.

That is, were allowed to drive as fast as they had been driving prior to the repeal.

Arguably, the roads got safer because people could pay more attention to their driving – and to the driving of others – than worrying about radar traps and being ready at any moment to slam on the brakes.

To continue reading: How Come It’s Suddenly Less “Safe” Out There?

Cash For Not Clunkers, by Eric Peters

The government is forcing VW to pay people to throw away perfectly good cars because they do not comply with a regulatory pollution edict. Tragically, the cars that are destroyed will be models that because of their excellent gas mileage dramatically reduce aggregate emissions far more than the small increase in tailpipe emissions due to VW’s “cheating.” The cars that replace the destroyed cars will get worse mileage and thus emit more pollutants. This is rank idiocy. From Eric Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform:

You’ve heard the saying that history repeats . . . as farce? Well, here we are. Not quite ten years after the government paid people to throw away perfectly good used cars to “stimulate” demand for new ones – the despicable Cash for Clunkers program – the government is doing the same thing again.

Only this time, the cars are not “clunkers” and the government is forcing VW to pay people to throw them away.

Almost 600,000 of them.

These cars are not high-miles and worn out, on their last legs. Many are only a year or two old. Nothing is wrong with any of them – other than their having been deemed “out of compliance” with Byzantine EPA emissions tests.

But only sometimes – and only slightly.

The cars were programmed to pass the EPA certification tests – required before they could legally be sold. They passed the tests, which incidentally is the same criteria Uncle insist on when it comes to the “education” of “the children” in government schools. Pass the tests (SOLs) and you pass on to the next grade. Kids are “taught” to pass the tests.

Uncle smiles.

But in VW’s case, it was later discovered that the programming was set up to run the engine differently – that is, better from the standpoint of the people buying and driving the cars – when out on the road and not connected to the EPA’s emissions test dynamometers. Under certain operating conditions – wide open throttle, for one – the calibrations were set to produce maximum performance.

Or, under other conditions, maximum miles-per-gallon.

Diesel-powered VWs like the Jetta and Passat TDI routinely delivered better-than-advertised (by EPA) mileage, out in real-world driving. I can vouch for this personally, having test driven every TDI-powered VW sold over the past 10 years. They all used less fuel – delivered higher mileage – than EPA said they would. Interesting. Less fuel used equals less exhaust gas produced equals lower emissions overall.

To continue reading: Cash For Not Clunkers