> 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.
> So the government wants data to validate a claim
The claim is "our contraption is roadworthy", which implicitly includes claims regarding roadworthiness requirements, including emissions. This is literally how market availability works.
> Consider the possibility that an "engine family" could be an engine configured in a given way rather than a set of distinct engines.
"Engine family" is a set of particular engine configurations/codes, specifically to reduce re-test burden. Group validation automatically validates all group members, therefore there are at most number of engines groups to test. I suspect the testing requirements are not for the engines, though, but why would an article by a startup struggling to follow regulations misrepresent the regulations?
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.
> So the government wants data to validate a claim
The claim is "our contraption is roadworthy", which implicitly includes claims regarding roadworthiness requirements, including emissions. This is literally how market availability works.
> Consider the possibility that an "engine family" could be an engine configured in a given way rather than a set of distinct engines.
"Engine family" is a set of particular engine configurations/codes, specifically to reduce re-test burden. Group validation automatically validates all group members, therefore there are at most number of engines groups to test. I suspect the testing requirements are not for the engines, though, but why would an article by a startup struggling to follow regulations misrepresent the regulations?
1 reply →
It's an electric motor with no emissions and therefore can't possibly increase emissions. There's your data. No regulations needed.