4 ms·
Seems somewhat reasonable. I don’t know why the company is supporting all 270 engine families. This company wants to put a bunch of stuff on the road going 70m
by dangus 1y ago
Seems somewhat reasonable. I don’t know why the company is supporting all 270 engine families.
This company wants to put a bunch of stuff on the road going 70mph that could crash into you and kill you and is complaining about a measly $27 million of regulatory cost.
They are making up a bunch of scary numbers about the cost of the status quo and the tone of the article is basically holding us all hostage. Speed out special snowflake startup company through the regulatory process (written in blood) or else you’ll lose bajillions of dollars in suffering and pain from the “status quo.”
$27 million is basically a rounding error for automotive companies. Maybe do better at raising funds next time, bro.
- some_random 1y agoWhy wouldn't they try to support a large number of engines, the testing was about emissions not safety, and they're not a huge automotive company.
- dangus 1y agoEmissions = safety. I assume that out of 270 entire families that some are more popular than others? Why not pick the 20-30 most popular ones? The tone of this article is that OP’s company has a savior complex. If they aren’t given expedient special treatment regulatory approval, the status quo is causing a bunch of fake make up dollar values of damage. It’s kind of a gross tone.
- some_random 1y ago>As one example, one state agency has asked Revoy to do certified engine testing to prove that the Revoy doesn’t increase emissions of semi trucks. Where in this sentence is asbestos mentioned? As for the families, if they know their product works in 270 engine families why would they chose to only sell to 20-30?
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoBecause they can't afford the required testing for all of them?
- cm2012 1y agoThe testing that is clearly theater and a waste of money for all involved?
- potato3732842 1y agoIt's not wasting the money of the testing people who's job it is to get paid to do work. Like a civil engineer preparing an existing conditions plan of a flat field...
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoI don't know enough about it to know whether it's a waste or not. It's certainly not surprising that the company that has to pay for it thinks it's a waste.
- dangus 1y agoIt looks like theater when everything goes right. But when it catches a problem suddenly it’s not theater.
- ehnto 1y agoPresumably they have so many families to serve their customers well. If they were to consolidate their engine families in such a way to avoid paying as much money to regulatory processes, that seems like a bit of a perverse incentive and outcome. In my view though the goal of the regulation isn't bad, but the cost of the process is prohibitive. Why is it so expensive to measure engine emissions?
- cm2012 1y agoSpoken like someone who has no idea how hard it is to actually get anything done in real life vs your armchair.
- dangus 1y agoNope. I own a business. Complying with regulations is a sometimes-difficult but necessary part of my existence. Small business owners like myself are the ones who comply while the biggest corporations use their armies of lawyers and bean counters to see how many pennies they can save by skirting those regulations. Just like OP.
- terminalshort 1y agoIf you want to argue that adding an electric engine to existing trucks is going to make them go out of control and kill people in some completely common sense defying manner, then the burden of proof is on you and not on the company to prove a negative.
- wredcoll 1y agoI don't think this is even what they're testing, but come on, it takes very little going wrong for a multiton truck going 80+ to kill someone.