Comment by friendzis
8 hours ago
> Why should they have to spend millions of dollars testing for something that makes no sense in this context?
To have data to back the claims being made.
8 hours ago
> Why should they have to spend millions of dollars testing for something that makes no sense in this context?
To have data to back the claims being made.
The requirement doesn't depend on the company having made any particular claims.
False. The claim, even if implicit, is "does not increase emissions beyond particular threshold within particular operational domain".
Further, the article makes a claim that there are more emissions testing groups to test on than there are individual members, which cannot be true.
> The claim, even if implicit, is "does not increase emissions beyond particular threshold within particular operational domain".
So the government wants data to validate a claim the company never explicitly made, but the government doesn't want to pay for the data, and the nature of the product is such that data showing higher emissions would be baffling and implausible. We're back to, how does this make any sense?
> Further, the article makes a claim that there are more emissions testing groups to test on than there are individual members, which cannot be true.
Consider the possibility that an "engine family" could be an engine configured in a given way rather than a set of distinct engines.
2 replies →
It's an electric motor with no emissions and therefore can't possibly increase emissions. There's your data. No regulations needed.