Ca. Smog Bill: A.B. 616 FOR CARS 15YRS & OLDER

[John Straub]

Originally Posted by boba
I just keep watching Cali's eco-silliness and wait for all those great cars to come to TX where we still believe in liberty.

I do feel for you guys.

........and this just in.




In a move that will likely get California's consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

So, what's the crux of the problem... can't paint suppliers just come up with new, less heat-absorbent dark paints? According to Ward's, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren't looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

I try to do my part to keep the environment clean....but,


WHAT! THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

John

[larwik]

AB 859...is good for now...

[72targa]

Glad to still see these words in the pending bill that has been delayed...

Pre-1976 motor vehicles would have remained exempt under A.B. 859.

So AB 859 is for cars made from 1977 to 1994...

[dvkk]

Originally Posted by boba
I just keep watching Cali's eco-silliness and wait for all those great cars to come to TX where we still believe in liberty.

I do feel for you guys.

........and this just in.


In a move that will likely get California's consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

So, what's the crux of the problem... can't paint suppliers just come up with new, less heat-absorbent dark paints? According to Ward's, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren't looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

I try to do my part to keep the environment clean....but,


WHAT! THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

John

Climb back aboard the turnip truck John. That story "broke" on Apr 1st........

[dvkk]

It would be interesting to know one statistic: what are the total miles driven by vehicles manufactured between 1976-1992 as a percentage of total miles driven by all vehicles in Calif? If it were more than 2%, I'd be shocked.

If they dared to use reason and logic and were truly concerned about the environment, they would come up with something that says you are subject to the new regs if you drive, for instance, over 25,000 miles per year in an old vehicle. What is the point of regulating a collector vehicle driven 1000 miles per year?

It isn't the miles driven that counts. It is the state of tune that is a much bigger factor. It's been my observation that the vast MAJORITY of carburated engines are BADLY tuned. Just stand behind some of them at the local cruise night when they all decide to leave. I dare you.
This results in HUGE emissions. They can be 100x, 500x, or even 1000x as much as a new car. In other words, one single badly tuned carb'd car driving down the freeway pukes out as much as the next 300 new cars that pass by.
That's why old cars are such an attractive target. Inconvienience a small number of the population for a BIG reduction.

[John Straub]

I know...my post was on March 26. Sorry about getting so hyper, but I love the old cars!....Just call me an "Old School" kind of guy.

John