Good stuff! Thanks
I'm with you, I still have a hard time if they don't account for volume (oh wow how can they even call it emissions "testing" if they don't!
typical gov'mt BS doesn't surprise me at all ..
), and given that information, how could one possibly compare this apples to oranges test?
I have to say it would have been a lot more interesting if they had done some actual research into a more aerodynamic design than just doing their "bubble" fairing, but hey, it's still a really fun show, and some stuff has to be done to really get the information!
Too much stuff these days doesn't seem to leave the theoretical IMHO, and science suffers because of it.
I would love to see a re-vamping of the emissions testing methods, and I honestly believe that high performance vehicles with less "smog" gear would fair much better than the average (especially CA spec) vehicles on the road.
If you have a car that is designed to make as much power as possible with supercharging and other such methods, (assuming we are talking pump gas or similar fuels that wouldn't be inherently more toxic than pump gas in general) I bet they would be proved to produce a lot less actual pollution.
Of course one of the largest game changers has been probably things like Direct Injection and the wide spread use of fuel injection and computer controlled/monitored systems increasing power & efficiency in general over the last 40+ years, I think the assumption of high performance = low efficiency is as outdated and inaccurate as the speedos on cars from the 50's.
Today's cars and motorcycles are so much more electronically monitored, and designed for efficiency than the muscle cars of yester-year that most "hot rodding" has become electronic "tuning" instead.
I'm no expert, but that is my guess, in the past you just went big and brute force, these days, it seems to be all about getting more power out of smaller engines.