[HN Gopher] To avoid Finland's tax a 1,000HP imported Hennessey ...
___________________________________________________________________
To avoid Finland's tax a 1,000HP imported Hennessey RAM is limited
to 55MPH
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 37 points
Date : 2022-03-11 18:51 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| FastMonkey wrote:
| A half a kilo of CO2 per km is pretty hefty...
|
| Edit: 1.8lbs/mile of you prefer.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Yup. On the other hand cars such as these are rarely driven.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I think people might drive this sort of thing on a regular
| basis.
|
| Traditional "supercar" sports cars are rarely driven and
| especially not on daily basis. Partly because of their value,
| but also because they tend to be spectacularly impractical
| and are usually uncomfortable to boot. Can't even fit your
| groceries in them half the time.
|
| This monster pickup truck is actually practical as an
| everyday driver.
|
| (I'm not saying that 1000HP is something people actually
| need; I'm just saying - you could drive it to the store and
| carry your groceries home with it comfortably)
| oh_sigh wrote:
| 1 gallon of gas puts out 19 pounds of CO2, so this equates to
| about 10.5 mpg which actually sounds reasonable for a 1000 HP
| supertruck that weighs 7800 lbs. A stock Ford F-250 only gets
| 16 mpg for reference.
| bitexploder wrote:
| My diesel f250 (2021) was doing 17-19 hwy before mods. Quite
| impressive for 500hp/1000ftlb tq vehicle :)
| FastMonkey wrote:
| I'd argue it's ordinary rather than reasonable. It seems like
| the tax is fair, you can import a 1000hp beast for personal
| use and get taxed heavily, or you can import it for whatever
| sort of haulage you need a 1000hp pickup truck for and you're
| limited by the rules of other haulage trucks.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| I think they don't mean it's a reasonable emission, they
| mean it's a reasonable statistic (i.e. it's likely not made
| up or miscalculated).
| FastMonkey wrote:
| I understand. On the team I'm on right now, we're trying
| to make some large changes, and some of that has to do
| with challenging assumptions. I'm just primed to see
| things like "10 weeks is a reasonable amount of time for
| Y" as a check point to ask whether it's actually
| reasonable, or whether we've fallen into a pattern that
| we've stopped questioning.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Pretty much everything in Europe thats gas powered gets 50+
| mpg... Or is electric... They've adapted to high fuel costs!
| mywittyname wrote:
| You mean prices drive consumer behavior?!?!?!
|
| Amazing.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| The best selling truck in Europe (Ford Ranger) gets 22mpg,
| so it isn't that far off from the standard American truck
| (Ford F-150, getting 20 mpg).
| GordonS wrote:
| Surprised it's not the Toyota Hilux, it's been around
| forever and I see them all the time. I very rarely see a
| Ford Ranger.
| kuang_eleven wrote:
| Now you're just reminding me how much Ford massacred my
| boy... Ford Rangers _used_ to be the stripped down
| compact pickup actually useful as a light truck, and now
| it 's just another oversized behemoth...
|
| The Maverick _should_ be the new version of that... if it
| actually offered any practical options!
| herbstein wrote:
| You barely see trucks here, compared to how popular they
| are in the US. Looking up a "best selling trucks in EU"
| would very much give you a skewed perception.
| chroma wrote:
| You can't directly compare EU versus US mileage numbers.[1]
| A lot of conversions from liters per mile to miles per
| gallon use UK gallons, which are 1.2x larger than US
| gallons. Also the EU mileage tests are less taxing on
| vehicles and easier to game. In actual driving you're
| unlikely to hit EPA numbers, and there's almost no way to
| get to the EU numbers. Typically, European cars get 30-45%
| higher fuel consumption than their test ratings.[2] The gap
| has gotten bigger as car manufacturers have gotten better
| at gaming the test.
|
| There's no special technology in EU cars that makes them
| get better mileage than their US counterparts. Europeans
| just tend to drive smaller vehicles, many of which wouldn't
| pass crash tests in the US. For example, the Smart Fortwo
| had to be increased in length to pass US crash tests.
|
| 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-european-gas-
| mileage-rat...
|
| 2. https://theicct.org/press-release-gap-between-reported-
| and-a...
| Ekaros wrote:
| Also further fun bonus is that this requires special license as
| it is too heavy. The smaller truck license C1 qualifies, but
| still that means extra tests and training.
| shell0x wrote:
| Has anyone based in Europe heard of that car company before?
| Lived in 7-8 countries and never seen one to be honest.
| [deleted]
| smcleod wrote:
| I always thought it was an American whisk(e)y company, but it
| seems to be a tuning company that works on American cars.
| mywittyname wrote:
| French. Hennessy is a French cognac company.
|
| Hennessey Performance is an American car modification company
| run by a man with questionable ethics.
| santoshalper wrote:
| The obvious intent is to remove the limiter as soon as you take
| possession of the vehicle.
|
| Imagine being such a selfish asshole that you decide to not only
| buy an incredibly wasteful, extremely polluting vehicle, but also
| being so determined not to pay taxes and support your country
| that you buy something in this way.
|
| The Venn diagram of people who buy cars like that, and people who
| are sociopaths is just one circle.
| aserdf wrote:
| there are a myriad of wasteful, polluting machines in the world
| today. who is the arbiter of who is and who is not allowed to
| use such a machine?
|
| also why blame anyone who purchases such a vehicle for
| nonsensical tax laws? it is not clearly a commercial vehicle
| yet the laws are such that it is considered so simply by
| weighing a certain amount. that is what creates the tax
| loophole, not the speed limiter. the limiter is simply a
| consequence of an arbitrary classification.
| drekk wrote:
| It's not arbitrary. The weight and speed have external
| impacts on road durability as well as air quality. Compare
| the amount of carbon dioxide released by a truck of that size
| and most other residential polluting machines and it doesn't
| come close.
|
| If you want to push the cost of your hobby onto society by
| commiting tax fraud I don't think it's the democratically
| elected legislature that's at issue here.
| aserdf wrote:
| > The weight and speed have external impacts on road
| durability as well as air quality. Compare the amount of
| carbon dioxide released by a truck of that size and most
| other residential polluting machines and it doesn't come
| close.
|
| Correlation, causation regarding weight/size of vehicle and
| external impact. Its actually quite simple to objectively
| determine that sort of impact on a vehicle by vehicle
| basis, all of this is known. No reason to anchor it to the
| weight of a vehicle.
|
| Again, the tax aspect ("fraud") is NOT being pushed by a
| potential purchaser. the laws FORCE it to be a vehicle that
| is tax exempt (according to the article).
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| Plenty that do it through a broker. Which either increases or
| decrease the sociopathy, depending on your perspective.
| henriquez wrote:
| That's an unreasonably judgemental thing to say. I like high
| performance cars because they're fun to drive and I also
| support the owner's right to change the software on their
| vehicles. Software freedom != sociopathy.
| santoshalper wrote:
| "I like it, so who cares what it does to anyone else"
|
| It's practically the definition of anti-social or sociopathic
| behavior. A complete disregard for the wellbeing of others.
| patall wrote:
| Actually, you are right. You should be allowed to change the
| software. You should still not be allowed to drive faster
| than 90 kph. And have to proof in case of question that you
| did not go faster than allowed. But the software should be
| free, there you are right.
| drekk wrote:
| They have the right, but by not paying the tax and removing
| the limiter they're committing fraud. At least name what
| you're defending. If you like driving a fast, multi-ton
| vehicle maybe the externalities of that fun should be
| accounted for in the cost? Just an idea
| [deleted]
| LesZedCB wrote:
| it might be said a little aggressively, but the point
| remains.
|
| there is ZERO reason to be buying (or producing) vehicles
| like this. climate change is seriously happening for real,
| and this is like flicking off everybody who gives a shit for
| no reason.
|
| if you need a truck like this to work (people got along fine
| with trucks with less power for a century), they aren't
| paying the asking price anyway
| Bancakes wrote:
| Why are you so limited in imagination? This is a fun car
| which statistically won't be driven every day. Just like
| Ferraris and Paganis, this is a weekend show-off trophy
| car.
|
| This real super-happening climate change won't be impacted
| by literally a handful of people in Europe sometimes being
| half as efficient as a normal truck.
|
| There's more FIA cars than Hennessey ones. Do you want to
| ban that as well?
| LesZedCB wrote:
| i don't believe in ethically owning those cars either....
|
| and this ostentatious excess a side effect of the
| processes that got us into critical climate change in the
| first place: a proliferation of needless consumption
| driven by manufactured demand due to excessive
| production.
|
| and yes, we need to massively rethink car and
| transportation infrastructure to compensate.
|
| maybe it is you who is limited in actual eyesight?
| Bancakes wrote:
| Your future is of suppression, faux pragmatism,
| Kaczynskiism, without novelty, without excitement or joy
| of engineering marvels.
|
| No thank you. I would rather not treat my actions
| regarding climate change like a poor college student
| comparing prices of bland cup noodles.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| i hear you. and i'm sympathetic. it is a real loss.
|
| but that mentality is also why we're fucked. we are
| losing our way of life anyway, why not choose the easy
| things to give up now?
|
| NIMBYism is a real part of failed climate policy as much
| as ExxonMobile's misinformation campaigns and grifting
| LesZedCB wrote:
| also i think answering the engineering question of
|
| > what more can we do with less
|
| is extremely exciting. but has been left unprioritized
| because it isn't sexy.
| hnov wrote:
| Have you eliminated all red meat and air travel? What about
| buying things that are resource intensive. Almond milk?
| poo_clown wrote:
| How do you feel about governmental/military applications of
| such machines? What makes it okay for those groupings of
| people to use machines like that?
| LesZedCB wrote:
| i'm opposed to ostentatious demonstrations of wealth that
| serve no practical purpose and actively harm
| environmental goals.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I see no governmental or military use. Either get an
| actual off-road car. Or some light armoured vehicle like
| Mercedes-Benz LAPV 464.
| rayiner wrote:
| Driving this 15,000 miles a year would release about 12.2
| metric tons of CO2 annually. That's equivalent to a couple
| going on a single roundtrip flight from California to Europe:
| https://flightfree.org/flight-emissions-calculator.
|
| Judging by my Facebook, I know a lot of sociopathic assholes.
| :-/
| ericpauley wrote:
| Not sure the numbers on this site add up. Passenger flights
| are up to around 8 passenger miles per kg CO2 (https://en.wik
| ipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#/medi...).
|
| At these rates and a great circle distance of ~8000km you'd
| get 4 metric tons for two people round trip. Long-haul planes
| are likely more efficient than average per passenger mile, so
| some SFO-LHR round-trips are actually closer to 1 metric ton
| per person. Still not great, of course.
| rayiner wrote:
| The numbers on the site are adjusted to account for the
| much higher warming potential of releasing CO2 into the
| upper atmosphere.
| greenburger wrote:
| According to that calculator SFO - LGW: > Round-trip
| emissions per passenger: 3.1 metric tons CO2
| gjs278 wrote:
| Bancakes wrote:
| Science put us in this mess, science will take us out. Just be
| patient. Today its Hennessey, tomorrow its Ken Block's
| Hoonitron.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| TIL everyone who owns or flies on a private jet are sociopaths.
| hnov wrote:
| Don't even have to be that specific, the investors in and
| customers of every airline, but especially budget airlines
| that fly holiday destinations = sociopaths.
| blamazon wrote:
| "RAM Rebel General Discussion: How to disable the [Ram 1500]
| speed limiter?" https://www.ramrebel.org/threads/how-to-disable-
| the-speed-li...
| mwint wrote:
| Appears to be about a system in normal RAMs, not specific to
| this Finland thing. I'd be curious if it's the same speed
| limiter with a variable changed, or a different easier-to-
| remove system.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Most "handheld tuners" can adjust the speed limiter without
| issue. Newer Dodge products need a PCM reflash in order to
| use the handheld tuner. Some tuning shops can do this on
| site, but I think a Finnish person would need to ship their
| PCM to the USA for a reflash, or buy a second flashed unit.
|
| Being a Hennessey product, this probably comes with a flashed
| PCM and the handheld tuner for it. I wouldn't be surprised if
| the manual came with a section stating something like, "this
| setting right here will adjust the speed limiter on your
| vehicle. It would be VERY ILLEGAL to use this feature to
| CHANGE THE TOP SPEED LIMITER to beyond 55MPH. Please don't
| use this feature if you're in the EU."
| itronitron wrote:
| Reminds me of being in Oklahoma City, where almost every pickup
| truck and SUV has a sticker on the back bumper that says
| 'Commercial Vehicle' presumably as some local tax loophole.
| dharmab wrote:
| IIRC if you have a vehicle with a body on frame truck chassis
| and claim it is used 51% or more for business purpose you can
| pay much lower registration.
| causality0 wrote:
| It is perverse that vehicle registration isn't limited by law
| to at-cost fees.
| eqvinox wrote:
| Why is it perverse? It's a tax like many others?
| notacoward wrote:
| The Massachusetts equivalent is (or at least to be) putting the
| name of a made-up business on a vehicle so it could go through
| the Ted Williams Tunnel toll-free.
| ajay-d wrote:
| Seriously, how much in taxes are they saving? Is it that much to
| go through all these hurdles.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Another question is - can the limiter be removed and the
| vehicle reclassified (without paying the tax) once imported?
|
| Because paying a mechanic + some paper pushers a few k (at
| most) at either end is cheaper than 120k in tax...
| mywittyname wrote:
| You probably don't even need to pay for it. These vehicles
| are modified; not factory delivered. They probably
| anticipate/expect the owner to have to reflash the ECU, and
| include a hand held tuner for exactly this reason.
|
| I'm not familiar with Hennessey products, but this is how
| Ford Performance handles their "factory" supercharger kits.
| The tuner isn't included with the kit, but owners expected to
| have one.
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| About $120,000 I guess according to the article. They are
| selling it for $272k and the article says it would be subject
| to a 44.8% import tax.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| As mentioned in the reddit thread, the limitation device will be
| promptly removed by whoever bought this.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| And then they take it in for inspection and get hit with a
| $100k tax bill, with a fine on top for tax evasion.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| It's an import tax, so removing it after the fact may be a
| legal loophole.
|
| Some US companies were doing that by e.g. adding pointless
| seats. One that ripped the seats back out after import got
| fined (many, many years later), another one was leaving the
| (barely usable) seats in for the owners to rip out and IIRC
| got away with it.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Remove it drive 130 or 140 on motorway. Have the cop run the
| plates and see oh N2... That is now instead of regular fine a
| bigger bunch of day fines, which probably with person with
| that much money to buy one of these means a few tens of
| thousand in fine. Or potential jail time and losing license.
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| Here in the US there are definitely people that uninstall-
| reinstall equipment to do emissions checks so I imagine that
| might not be the biggest risk, but in one of the comments on
| the article it also mentions that you could still be pulled
| over for speeding if someone sees you going over 55 and could
| likely lose your license.
| tssva wrote:
| Or just reinstall it for inspections.
| OmahaBoy69 wrote:
| If it's just a matter of tuning the computer (most likely),
| all the owner needs to do before inspection is plug the tuner
| back into the ODB-II port and reset the computer to factory
| settings. Super easy.
| mwint wrote:
| I'm kind of hoping it's a big bright red fuse in the fusebox
| labeled "government fun preventer".
|
| Probably not, but you can dream.
| opencl wrote:
| Back in the day the R32 GT-R had a boost restrictor marked in
| bright yellow. Removing it gave an extra ~4PSI from the
| turbos good for about 60 extra HP.
| specialp wrote:
| This is usually done by setting the variable in the ECU for
| top speed. Tuning software (which was already used on this
| vehicle to mod it) like hptuners can change this in 1 minute.
| So it is easy.
| dahfizz wrote:
| The truck costs $150,000 to start. What is the use case of
| spending that much on a truck but not spending the extra $66k tax
| to unlock its full power? A car collector who wants to own it,
| but never use it, and wants to save a buck?
|
| If you just like the look of the truck, you could buy a RAM 3500
| and install the liftkit and bumper yourself for less than half
| the price.
|
| This is clickbait. The article takes some technically possible
| bizarre situation and presents it as though this is something
| that happens regularly.
| masturbayeser wrote:
| because the speed limiter will just be removed aftermarket by
| the buyer, so I'm sure people are actually doing this
| throwthere wrote:
| I suspect the speed limiter isn't exactly soldered in place if
| you get me
| Guthur wrote:
| May be more interested in the power than top speed. It's a very
| comfortable tractor.
| httpz wrote:
| It's probably implying that the owner will then get the limiter
| removed (illegally).
| Ekaros wrote:
| Additional saving is yearly tax, but even then 654EUR compared
| to 76EUR isn't that much...
| superasn wrote:
| The same thing was being in India where home inverters were sold
| with a UPS toggle switch on the back (which did absolutely
| nothing).
|
| But due to the low tax rate on computer components at that time
| significantly drove the price of the item lower.
| [deleted]
| anikan_vader wrote:
| >> Because Finland is a member of the European Union, it must
| adhere to a particular directive that requires speed limiting
| devices to be installed if the N2 vehicle is used on the road.
|
| Does this mean that no vehicle in this weight class is permitted
| to go over 55 mph anywhere in the EU, regardless of tax and
| whether the vehicle is foreign or domestic?
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| In Germany, a bus can go up to 100 km/h (62 mph), cargo trucks
| including tractor units 90 km/h (56 mph) - this would include
| the "N2" vehicle class.
|
| However, there seems to be a "M1" class for passenger vehicles
| that isn't weight restricted.
|
| My understanding is that the truck cannot be classified as a
| _commercial_ vehicle (too heavy) so they classify it as a N2
| truck to save tax, but they could presumably also classify it
| as M1 (paying the tax but avoiding the need for the speed
| limiter). I read it as "commercial vehicle" being a third
| class that would normally be used as a way to bypass the tax if
| the vehicle wasn't too heavy for that.
| lobochrome wrote:
| That is correct. It's essentially classified as a semi so it
| needs a limiter.
|
| It also needs to be equipped with driving time measurement
| equipment
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| No recreation exemptions on this seems so obviously
| intentional, and hilarious.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Actually there is, but is complicated mess... Like
| recreation is fine as is transporting food you yourself
| produced. Or tools for work, unless the distance is over
| 50km...
|
| More pain than gain I say...
| dn3500 wrote:
| I don't think so. The 44.8% tax is levied because of the CO2
| emissions. The workaround involves classifying it as an N2,
| which requires the speed limiter. A vehicle with normal CO2
| emissions would simply be registered as a passenger vehicle,
| not an N2, because it wouldn't require the workaround.
| albertopv wrote:
| Never heard of before, not in Italy at least.
| lobochrome wrote:
| This is most certainly true for Italy as well. All semi
| trucks have to be limited
| jamesliudotcc wrote:
| The Ford Transit Connects made in Europe and are sent to the US
| with seats in them. In the US, the seats are removed and then
| sent back to Europe, presumably to be installed in new Transit
| Connects.
|
| This is also to avoid taxes.
| kowlo wrote:
| Perhaps a little too cheeky
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-s...
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Yeah, the chicken tax
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-11 23:00 UTC)