3 ms·

Why 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 11mo ago
Emissions = 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
    Because they can't afford the required testing for all of them?
    - cm2012 11mo ago
      The testing that is clearly theater and a waste of money for all involved?
      - potato3732842 11mo ago
        It'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 11mo ago
        I 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 11mo ago
        It looks like theater when everything goes right. But when it catches a problem suddenly it’s not theater.
- ehnto 11mo ago
  Presumably 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?

dangus 11mo ago

Emissions = 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
  Because they can't afford the required testing for all of them?
  - cm2012 11mo ago
    The testing that is clearly theater and a waste of money for all involved?
    - potato3732842 11mo ago
      It'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 11mo ago
      I 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 11mo ago
      It looks like theater when everything goes right. But when it catches a problem suddenly it’s not theater.
ehnto 11mo ago
Presumably 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?