Fuck, I live here and I take photos of some of the more amusing ones. Of course, I'm an import, so maybe it's not the same for natives.
I'm still waiting for the baloon-supported sun shade with covering the entirety of the bay area (with appropriate cut-outs around airports) painted with a huge pro0 65 warning.
Both care, actually. As does your state's Attorney General. I reported shit like this (fake collection company called me re: an account that had a balance when the bank making the loan was bought by another bank -- on my credit report it looked like I just stopped paying, but in reality the creditor just changed) to all three and the only one who contacted me back was the AG.
In the interest of full disclosure, the bank my loan was through was bought by a Native American tribe, after which it was operated on Native American land. The type of loan I had through that bank can only be legally funded or collected by a legal US entity and Native American tribes residing on Native American land are legally foreign entities, so they no longer had legal standing to collect on that loan. They knew this; and so did I, so I stopped paying once they bought the account.
Fast forward 3 years and the original loan still appears on my credit report, with payment history just suddenly stopping and a note that the account was transferred. That's perfectly normal when one creditor buys another (I've had 3 credit cards do that in the past year; thankfully it doesn't affect your credit score if the previous creditor reports it correctly), but usually whoever bought the account will start reporting, as well, which did not happen with this account. Why? Because the tribe that bought it was not legally entitled to own it. So, when I got a call from a debt collector stating that I owed (name of original bank) $2100 for a $700 loan I took out 3 years ago, I asked for (original bank)'s mailing address. When they told me they could not provide that, I said something to the effect of "First of all, Federal law requires that you provide physical contact details upon request before you can collect a penny from me; second, that bank hasn't existed for 3 years now, so they don't have an address. The tribe that bought them has no legal standing to collect and I will be more than happy to have my attorney send you documentation affirming this if you can provide YOUR address" which was met with an "For security reasons, I can't provide that, either". After two weeks of them calling me daily and making vague legal threats, I figured out that it was the tribe who bought the account; I informed them that I knew who they were and where they were calling from and they insisted that I could not. When I told them I was contacting the FCC, FTC, and California AG about calls originating from (phone number they hadn't called from -- but the actual number I used when I called them back for this -- and an address on Native American land, associated with said phone number) perpetrated by (owner ob said phone number) all they said was "good luck with that" and hung up. Never heard from them again, but I did receive confirmation from the AG that my information was correct, along with advice to contact the AG again immediately if I get another call like that.
Since I promised full disclosure... In the years leading up to this, I did have credit problems and I've dealt with (and paid!!) legitimate debt collectors quite a bit as a result of that. There was nothing legitimate about these people and further research revealed that even had I tried to continue paying on that loan after they bought the bank it was through, I could not have done so; they never set up payment processing of any sort. Clearly their intent was to force these accounts into delinquent status and attempt to collect several times the balance (my loan balance was around $350 when they bought it, they were attempting to collect 6x that!!) as a collection company rather than the actual loan amounts as a bank. Fraud, plain and simple. But, since it occurred on Native American land, the US government has to hand it over to the tribe for investigation and prosecution, which of course never leads anywhere, but at least they stopped calling me after I identified them.
On your last point, the math you do by hand is only as accurate as the numbers you're basing that math on, which would be the numbers stamped on the device, which is what you're actually checking with the multimeter. If I stamp 5.1v 2A on a USB charger, you can do your math based on that stamping, or you can test the device itself and find that it only puts out 4.8v.75A, then to the math and get actual accurate results.
Sadly, it's almost looks as though they may be putting themselves in a position where they have to give up half of what they have to keep from losing all of it. The question is... will they realize it when it happens?
1976 is not the 80's, my friend. I agree with the rest of your post, however. And thus far, anyone who's been able to answer my "where are the gas-only cars getting better than 50MPG" has given essentially a "not in the US" answer, which was my point to begin with.
This situation in America, to which I was referring with my post, is VERY different. Compare the Smart Fortwo coupe sold in Canada to the one sold in the US; compare the UK Ford Fiesta to the US For Fiesta; compare any car sold in the US to the equivalent model sold anywhere else, then com back and call bullshit.
I have a 2000 Corolla that gets 32MPG (on the track). If I drop the catalytic converter off of it, I get 38MPG (on the same track) while putting out 10% less NOX compounds (due to lower combustion temps as the combustion chamber is able to clear out more quickly with the freer flowing exhaust) and hydrocarbon output dropping to near zero as the freer flow of exhaust gasses means freer flow on the intake, as well, meaning more of the fuel actually burs, but I can't take it on the road that way due to idiotic laws in the US. I feel every word of your post.
Point #2 I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, along with the solution which you also mentioned, with the same caveat. If I drop the catalytic converter off of my 2000 Corolla I actually end up with lower emissions, but federal law prevents me from doing so and taking it on the street (though it did nothing to prevent me from doing so to test it, so this is fact, not conjecture). I fully agree that automakers should be allowed to comply with emissions requirements however they see fit, so long as they're actually compliant; pollution levels may well end up much lower than they are today if that were allowed.
Bracing for the troll moderation that every other post where I've stated this has received.
Can we limit this to the US market, since that's the market that I'm referring to by "the market", since that's where I am and where I would be buying a car (sorry for not being clear on that). I'm well aware that the rest of the world gets non-shit fuel economy. As one example of why this matters, the Ford Fiesta available to YOU may get >50MPG (67.5MPG in the UK according to http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Fiesta), but the one sold in the US gets 33 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Ford_Fiesta.shtml which seems to mostly agree with http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/). Also, if you're running straight gas where you are, remember to knock off 20% for the efficiency lost by adding 10% ethanol to fuel sold across most of the US.
Market matters; there really aren't many decent-mileage cars available in the US; and the ones that are available are hybrids that come with their own added expenses (battery replacement) and pollution (battery production and disposal). Even the Smart Fortwo only gets 38MPG (highway, the average is lower but not listed on the Smart website) in the US (http://www.smartusa.com/models/pure-coupe/overview.aspx); even just going up to Canada, you can get the same car in a 4.7l/100km (50MPG) flavor (http://www.thesmart.ca/products-fortwo-coup%C3%A9-engineering-engine/e0a1fb03-d93b-5af7-80ab-7c81f0ff63f2 - comparing highway economy since that's what's listed on the US site - apples to apples).
Your list is so much shorter in the US than you can even start to imagine.
The C-Max wasn't listed on the page I referenced. To be honest, I wasn't even aware that a non-plug-in C-Max model existed. ford certainly seems to be stepping up its game; good for them. It's also not a gas-only vehicle, but a hybrid, so it doesn't really answer my question, which was "What street legal, gas-only, 4 wheel vehicle exists on the market today that can get better than 50MPG?"
The Fiesta ECOnetic is not available in the US, and, so, does not apply here; I am well aware that other countries have numerous vehicles available that offer exceptional fuel economy. To be clear, "the market" referred to in my question is the US market, where *I* would be buying my car.
I apologize for not properly framing that question initially, but now that I've clarified, do you have an answer?
I'll admit I didn't watch the video before replying. Now that I have, it sure as hell looks like there was much more "crumple" in the Belair. As for more raw weight, as has been stated several times in this thread, today's cars are, in general, heavier, so I'd like to point out that we're not necessarily in disagreement on that point. As for the steering column getting pushed up into the driver's chest, that looks like the result of the design not being rigid enough to withstand the crash; in that crash, the 179lb weight difference would have been transferred to the Malibu, causing it to fare far worse in the crash, had the Belair been designed to not crumple in on itself the way it did.
That kind of proves my point when you look at what is actually going on in that video and why it happened the way it did; had Chevy not inadvertently designed the entire front end of that generation of Belair as a woefully under-structured crumple zone, it would have essentially driven through the Malibu. Sure, it would have been totaled, but it wouldn't have killed its driver (the driver of the Malibu, on the other hand... It is also worth noting that, in that test, at the point of impact, the Belair is still harnessed to the catapult, preventing its ass end from swinging out until half of the front end has already been demolished (they don't show the same angle on the Malibu, but if the point of impact is dead-center between the catapults, it would have been clear of its catapult, since it's considerably shorter than the Belair). I'm curious to know what would happen if both vehicles were unconstrained during the entire crash incident; not that I think the Belair's poor design would fare any better, but because I'm curious what would happen in the real world.
It looks like someone who doesn't like what I have to say has gotten their hands on some mod points this week. Funny how this conversation has been going on for days and this (and several other of my posts) has sparked actual conversation, but suddenly these posts are all modded troll. Look at my Karma, people; if I were here to troll, I wouldn't have that.
Crumple zones may not extend into the passenger compartment (I must have missed the part in my own post where I said they do... and I still don't see it, care to point it out for me?) but they to bring the object you're impacting closer to the engine, enabling it to push the engine into the passenger compartment, where it otherwise may not have been able to do so. Unibody construction further enables this, since there is no structural frame for the engine to be bolted to; instead, the thinner and weaker body must also support the engine, making dismounting and relocation of the engine into the passenger compartment even more likely. Don't think it happens? I've seen it. You can, too, just ask your local PD to show you accident report photos.
Yes, cars are tested for safety. They're tested for crash survivability, which is different than testing against other designs, which is not done anywhere, period. And I'm not saying it should be done, either. Higher crash ratings are primarily a function of active safety features like airbags and seatbelt pretensioners. The fact that you recognize the benefit of a side impact bar tells me you're already seeing my point; that's the exact opposite of a crumple zone, my friend.
I have one word for the last paragraph of your response. Airbags.
In case that wasn't clear, I'll elaborate: Airbags are to passengers in a vehicle as cardboard boxes are to stuntmen.
You certainly can; were having a properly-functioning catalytic converter not a requirement here in the US, my 2000 corolla would actually pollute LESS because my engine is well maintained and the catalytic converter does nothing more than make my engine work harder due to increased exhaust backpressure. I'd remove it, but that is a federal crime here.
The combustion temps are the problem there, as you inadvertently pointed out. Cool the engine properly and keep combustion temps under control and you can run a bit leaner. I'd like to also point out that you aren't actually arguing with anything I've said here; nowhere did I say an engine will melt its pistons before NOx production gets out of hand. Yes, a lot of older cars ran too lean, but you glossed right over what I said about that sweet spot; leaner than most cars today run but *NOT* so lean as to increase combustion temps to the point of producing high levels of NOx compounds.
This is something I've played with. I currently have a 2000 Corolla that puts out less CH and NOx emissions without a catalytic converter than with (due to the lower exhaust backpressure, so the engine doesn't have to fight against itself, meaning less fuel is burned), but I can only run it that way track and for testing purposes, because federal and state laws require that the converter be attached to my exhaust for road use.
The waste heat isn't the problem, it's the heat in the combustion chamber you have to worry about and the best way to get rid of that is to let the exhaust gasses escape as quickly as possible. That leads to reduced combustion temps and marginally reduced NOx emissions at leaner mixtures; but that's not where the gains I see without a catalytic converter come from; those are the result of the engine not having to fight against itself when under load. A larger, freer-flowing catalytic converter could theoretically achieve the same results, with the added benefit of also reducing emissions, but at the expense of increased weight and monetary cost.
A properly tuned engine doesn't see any benefit from a catalytic converter; it only helps when the engine is running rich and does a whole lot of nothing when the engine runs lean. But I'm not saying they're not needed; the number of properly tuned engines on the road is a fraction of a percent. I should, however, be allowed to, with yearly testing with and without the converter, run without it if I actually pollute less without it, because not only do I not need it, it's existence in my exhaust is provably having the opposite of the intended effect.
Granted I didn't consider all aspects when I posted that... things could be much better now than they are, though. Why do the majority of hybrids on the market get shittier gas mileage than a 1990 Metro? Don't tell me it's because they're heavier; they're hybrids, the engine isn't even running most of the time!
Crumple zones don't add weight... They're created through the use of (more) thinner and lighter materials, strategically placed so that they push in more easily at first and provide more resistance as they crumple in on themselves. The result is the same amount of material used, overall, and a higher incidence of vehicles totaled in low-speed incidents, e.g. more money for car manufacturers. Air bags, on the other hand, actually provide some amount of actual safety, when combined with properly-fitted and actually-used seatbelts.
Regarding catalytic converters, let me ask you... if my car's emissions are 10% higher, per gallon of fuel burned, without a catalytic converter than they are with it (they are, it's been tested) but my mileage is 20% lower with than without, would that not indicate that, per mile, my vehicle actually pollutes less without the converter? e.g. if I get 30MPG with a converter and release 30ppm of hydrocarbons, but I could be getting 37.5MPG while releasing 33ppm of hydrocarbons, overall I'm burning less fuel and releasing less pollution over the same distance traveled. Since I'm traveling the same number of miles either way, this actually works out in the real world; though I do admit it falls apart when you assume the same quantity of fuel is burned -- there's a reason mileage matters. Mind you the 10% and 15% are estimates but they are very much based on real measurements from the 2000 Corolla I currently own. It's amazing what you can achieve when you stop restricting the flow of exhaust gasses to the point that the engine has to fight against the backpressure of its own waste products.
Also, screw NOx production, controlling combustion chamber temps (which is where your NOx compounds come from) so you don't blow your head through your hood precludes really lean operation, but today's engines could run considerably leaner than they are if people were willing to actually maintain them. The safety margin I mention wouldn't be required if people would spend $200 every 2 years on a pair of O2 sensors; and the fuel efficiency gains that would enable would save them at least double that in fuel costs.
You're both right and wrong. I'm not talking about running lean, I'm talking about running leaner than today's cars run. Too lean and you burn too hot, produce too much NOX, and eventually grenade the engine. There's a sweet spot right before combustion temps skyrocket, though; that's what I'm referring to.
Because sensors degrade over time and most people are morons who won't follow a maintenance schedule, an extra margin of "safety" is added, running the engine richer than necessary, to prevent this issue over time. Personally, I wouldn't mind spending $200 on a pair of O2 sensors every 2 years if it meant spending $200 less in fuel every year.
Slashdot Mirror
If only you hadn't waited until you were safely parked to post...
Fuck, I live here and I take photos of some of the more amusing ones. Of course, I'm an import, so maybe it's not the same for natives.
I'm still waiting for the baloon-supported sun shade with covering the entirety of the bay area (with appropriate cut-outs around airports) painted with a huge pro0 65 warning.
Well yeah... if either of those had been in GP's list, I would have given them named exclusions.
Both care, actually. As does your state's Attorney General. I reported shit like this (fake collection company called me re: an account that had a balance when the bank making the loan was bought by another bank -- on my credit report it looked like I just stopped paying, but in reality the creditor just changed) to all three and the only one who contacted me back was the AG.
In the interest of full disclosure, the bank my loan was through was bought by a Native American tribe, after which it was operated on Native American land. The type of loan I had through that bank can only be legally funded or collected by a legal US entity and Native American tribes residing on Native American land are legally foreign entities, so they no longer had legal standing to collect on that loan. They knew this; and so did I, so I stopped paying once they bought the account.
Fast forward 3 years and the original loan still appears on my credit report, with payment history just suddenly stopping and a note that the account was transferred. That's perfectly normal when one creditor buys another (I've had 3 credit cards do that in the past year; thankfully it doesn't affect your credit score if the previous creditor reports it correctly), but usually whoever bought the account will start reporting, as well, which did not happen with this account. Why? Because the tribe that bought it was not legally entitled to own it. So, when I got a call from a debt collector stating that I owed (name of original bank) $2100 for a $700 loan I took out 3 years ago, I asked for (original bank)'s mailing address. When they told me they could not provide that, I said something to the effect of "First of all, Federal law requires that you provide physical contact details upon request before you can collect a penny from me; second, that bank hasn't existed for 3 years now, so they don't have an address. The tribe that bought them has no legal standing to collect and I will be more than happy to have my attorney send you documentation affirming this if you can provide YOUR address" which was met with an "For security reasons, I can't provide that, either". After two weeks of them calling me daily and making vague legal threats, I figured out that it was the tribe who bought the account; I informed them that I knew who they were and where they were calling from and they insisted that I could not. When I told them I was contacting the FCC, FTC, and California AG about calls originating from (phone number they hadn't called from -- but the actual number I used when I called them back for this -- and an address on Native American land, associated with said phone number) perpetrated by (owner ob said phone number) all they said was "good luck with that" and hung up. Never heard from them again, but I did receive confirmation from the AG that my information was correct, along with advice to contact the AG again immediately if I get another call like that.
Since I promised full disclosure... In the years leading up to this, I did have credit problems and I've dealt with (and paid!!) legitimate debt collectors quite a bit as a result of that. There was nothing legitimate about these people and further research revealed that even had I tried to continue paying on that loan after they bought the bank it was through, I could not have done so; they never set up payment processing of any sort. Clearly their intent was to force these accounts into delinquent status and attempt to collect several times the balance (my loan balance was around $350 when they bought it, they were attempting to collect 6x that!!) as a collection company rather than the actual loan amounts as a bank. Fraud, plain and simple. But, since it occurred on Native American land, the US government has to hand it over to the tribe for investigation and prosecution, which of course never leads anywhere, but at least they stopped calling me after I identified them.
Every one of those tools can be used as a bottle opener; the bottle opener is the least fun and effective of the lot.
On your last point, the math you do by hand is only as accurate as the numbers you're basing that math on, which would be the numbers stamped on the device, which is what you're actually checking with the multimeter. If I stamp 5.1v 2A on a USB charger, you can do your math based on that stamping, or you can test the device itself and find that it only puts out 4.8v .75A, then to the math and get actual accurate results.
If the drive doesn't support it, it just discards the command. There's no reason not to do it. Period.
Sadly, it's almost looks as though they may be putting themselves in a position where they have to give up half of what they have to keep from losing all of it. The question is... will they realize it when it happens?
1976 is not the 80's, my friend. I agree with the rest of your post, however. And thus far, anyone who's been able to answer my "where are the gas-only cars getting better than 50MPG" has given essentially a "not in the US" answer, which was my point to begin with.
This situation in America, to which I was referring with my post, is VERY different. Compare the Smart Fortwo coupe sold in Canada to the one sold in the US; compare the UK Ford Fiesta to the US For Fiesta; compare any car sold in the US to the equivalent model sold anywhere else, then com back and call bullshit.
I have a 2000 Corolla that gets 32MPG (on the track). If I drop the catalytic converter off of it, I get 38MPG (on the same track) while putting out 10% less NOX compounds (due to lower combustion temps as the combustion chamber is able to clear out more quickly with the freer flowing exhaust) and hydrocarbon output dropping to near zero as the freer flow of exhaust gasses means freer flow on the intake, as well, meaning more of the fuel actually burs, but I can't take it on the road that way due to idiotic laws in the US. I feel every word of your post.
Point #2 I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, along with the solution which you also mentioned, with the same caveat. If I drop the catalytic converter off of my 2000 Corolla I actually end up with lower emissions, but federal law prevents me from doing so and taking it on the street (though it did nothing to prevent me from doing so to test it, so this is fact, not conjecture). I fully agree that automakers should be allowed to comply with emissions requirements however they see fit, so long as they're actually compliant; pollution levels may well end up much lower than they are today if that were allowed.
Bracing for the troll moderation that every other post where I've stated this has received.
Wow... /. doesn't like URLs preceded by a parenthesis... sorry for that.
Can we limit this to the US market, since that's the market that I'm referring to by "the market", since that's where I am and where I would be buying a car (sorry for not being clear on that). I'm well aware that the rest of the world gets non-shit fuel economy. As one example of why this matters, the Ford Fiesta available to YOU may get >50MPG (67.5MPG in the UK according to http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Fiesta), but the one sold in the US gets 33 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Ford_Fiesta.shtml which seems to mostly agree with http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/). Also, if you're running straight gas where you are, remember to knock off 20% for the efficiency lost by adding 10% ethanol to fuel sold across most of the US.
Market matters; there really aren't many decent-mileage cars available in the US; and the ones that are available are hybrids that come with their own added expenses (battery replacement) and pollution (battery production and disposal). Even the Smart Fortwo only gets 38MPG (highway, the average is lower but not listed on the Smart website) in the US (http://www.smartusa.com/models/pure-coupe/overview.aspx); even just going up to Canada, you can get the same car in a 4.7l/100km (50MPG) flavor (http://www.thesmart.ca/products-fortwo-coup%C3%A9-engineering-engine/e0a1fb03-d93b-5af7-80ab-7c81f0ff63f2 - comparing highway economy since that's what's listed on the US site - apples to apples).
Your list is so much shorter in the US than you can even start to imagine.
The C-Max wasn't listed on the page I referenced. To be honest, I wasn't even aware that a non-plug-in C-Max model existed. ford certainly seems to be stepping up its game; good for them. It's also not a gas-only vehicle, but a hybrid, so it doesn't really answer my question, which was "What street legal, gas-only, 4 wheel vehicle exists on the market today that can get better than 50MPG?"
The Fiesta ECOnetic is not available in the US, and, so, does not apply here; I am well aware that other countries have numerous vehicles available that offer exceptional fuel economy. To be clear, "the market" referred to in my question is the US market, where *I* would be buying my car.
I apologize for not properly framing that question initially, but now that I've clarified, do you have an answer?
I'll admit I didn't watch the video before replying. Now that I have, it sure as hell looks like there was much more "crumple" in the Belair. As for more raw weight, as has been stated several times in this thread, today's cars are, in general, heavier, so I'd like to point out that we're not necessarily in disagreement on that point. As for the steering column getting pushed up into the driver's chest, that looks like the result of the design not being rigid enough to withstand the crash; in that crash, the 179lb weight difference would have been transferred to the Malibu, causing it to fare far worse in the crash, had the Belair been designed to not crumple in on itself the way it did.
That kind of proves my point when you look at what is actually going on in that video and why it happened the way it did; had Chevy not inadvertently designed the entire front end of that generation of Belair as a woefully under-structured crumple zone, it would have essentially driven through the Malibu. Sure, it would have been totaled, but it wouldn't have killed its driver (the driver of the Malibu, on the other hand... It is also worth noting that, in that test, at the point of impact, the Belair is still harnessed to the catapult, preventing its ass end from swinging out until half of the front end has already been demolished (they don't show the same angle on the Malibu, but if the point of impact is dead-center between the catapults, it would have been clear of its catapult, since it's considerably shorter than the Belair). I'm curious to know what would happen if both vehicles were unconstrained during the entire crash incident; not that I think the Belair's poor design would fare any better, but because I'm curious what would happen in the real world.
It looks like someone who doesn't like what I have to say has gotten their hands on some mod points this week. Funny how this conversation has been going on for days and this (and several other of my posts) has sparked actual conversation, but suddenly these posts are all modded troll. Look at my Karma, people; if I were here to troll, I wouldn't have that.
Do the test in a 1959 Belair with airbags. Yes, I know such a vehicle does not exist; retrofit.
Crumple zones may not extend into the passenger compartment (I must have missed the part in my own post where I said they do... and I still don't see it, care to point it out for me?) but they to bring the object you're impacting closer to the engine, enabling it to push the engine into the passenger compartment, where it otherwise may not have been able to do so. Unibody construction further enables this, since there is no structural frame for the engine to be bolted to; instead, the thinner and weaker body must also support the engine, making dismounting and relocation of the engine into the passenger compartment even more likely. Don't think it happens? I've seen it. You can, too, just ask your local PD to show you accident report photos.
Yes, cars are tested for safety. They're tested for crash survivability, which is different than testing against other designs, which is not done anywhere, period. And I'm not saying it should be done, either. Higher crash ratings are primarily a function of active safety features like airbags and seatbelt pretensioners. The fact that you recognize the benefit of a side impact bar tells me you're already seeing my point; that's the exact opposite of a crumple zone, my friend.
I have one word for the last paragraph of your response. Airbags.
In case that wasn't clear, I'll elaborate: Airbags are to passengers in a vehicle as cardboard boxes are to stuntmen.
You certainly can; were having a properly-functioning catalytic converter not a requirement here in the US, my 2000 corolla would actually pollute LESS because my engine is well maintained and the catalytic converter does nothing more than make my engine work harder due to increased exhaust backpressure. I'd remove it, but that is a federal crime here.
The combustion temps are the problem there, as you inadvertently pointed out. Cool the engine properly and keep combustion temps under control and you can run a bit leaner. I'd like to also point out that you aren't actually arguing with anything I've said here; nowhere did I say an engine will melt its pistons before NOx production gets out of hand. Yes, a lot of older cars ran too lean, but you glossed right over what I said about that sweet spot; leaner than most cars today run but *NOT* so lean as to increase combustion temps to the point of producing high levels of NOx compounds.
This is something I've played with. I currently have a 2000 Corolla that puts out less CH and NOx emissions without a catalytic converter than with (due to the lower exhaust backpressure, so the engine doesn't have to fight against itself, meaning less fuel is burned), but I can only run it that way track and for testing purposes, because federal and state laws require that the converter be attached to my exhaust for road use.
The waste heat isn't the problem, it's the heat in the combustion chamber you have to worry about and the best way to get rid of that is to let the exhaust gasses escape as quickly as possible. That leads to reduced combustion temps and marginally reduced NOx emissions at leaner mixtures; but that's not where the gains I see without a catalytic converter come from; those are the result of the engine not having to fight against itself when under load. A larger, freer-flowing catalytic converter could theoretically achieve the same results, with the added benefit of also reducing emissions, but at the expense of increased weight and monetary cost.
A properly tuned engine doesn't see any benefit from a catalytic converter; it only helps when the engine is running rich and does a whole lot of nothing when the engine runs lean. But I'm not saying they're not needed; the number of properly tuned engines on the road is a fraction of a percent. I should, however, be allowed to, with yearly testing with and without the converter, run without it if I actually pollute less without it, because not only do I not need it, it's existence in my exhaust is provably having the opposite of the intended effect.
Granted I didn't consider all aspects when I posted that... things could be much better now than they are, though. Why do the majority of hybrids on the market get shittier gas mileage than a 1990 Metro? Don't tell me it's because they're heavier; they're hybrids, the engine isn't even running most of the time!
Crumple zones don't add weight... They're created through the use of (more) thinner and lighter materials, strategically placed so that they push in more easily at first and provide more resistance as they crumple in on themselves. The result is the same amount of material used, overall, and a higher incidence of vehicles totaled in low-speed incidents, e.g. more money for car manufacturers. Air bags, on the other hand, actually provide some amount of actual safety, when combined with properly-fitted and actually-used seatbelts.
Regarding catalytic converters, let me ask you... if my car's emissions are 10% higher, per gallon of fuel burned, without a catalytic converter than they are with it (they are, it's been tested) but my mileage is 20% lower with than without, would that not indicate that, per mile, my vehicle actually pollutes less without the converter? e.g. if I get 30MPG with a converter and release 30ppm of hydrocarbons, but I could be getting 37.5MPG while releasing 33ppm of hydrocarbons, overall I'm burning less fuel and releasing less pollution over the same distance traveled. Since I'm traveling the same number of miles either way, this actually works out in the real world; though I do admit it falls apart when you assume the same quantity of fuel is burned -- there's a reason mileage matters. Mind you the 10% and 15% are estimates but they are very much based on real measurements from the 2000 Corolla I currently own. It's amazing what you can achieve when you stop restricting the flow of exhaust gasses to the point that the engine has to fight against the backpressure of its own waste products.
Also, screw NOx production, controlling combustion chamber temps (which is where your NOx compounds come from) so you don't blow your head through your hood precludes really lean operation, but today's engines could run considerably leaner than they are if people were willing to actually maintain them. The safety margin I mention wouldn't be required if people would spend $200 every 2 years on a pair of O2 sensors; and the fuel efficiency gains that would enable would save them at least double that in fuel costs.
You're both right and wrong. I'm not talking about running lean, I'm talking about running leaner than today's cars run. Too lean and you burn too hot, produce too much NOX, and eventually grenade the engine. There's a sweet spot right before combustion temps skyrocket, though; that's what I'm referring to.
Because sensors degrade over time and most people are morons who won't follow a maintenance schedule, an extra margin of "safety" is added, running the engine richer than necessary, to prevent this issue over time. Personally, I wouldn't mind spending $200 on a pair of O2 sensors every 2 years if it meant spending $200 less in fuel every year.