Talk:Rolling coal

Introduction of Topic

 * New topic
 * No Previous listings
 * Hey, this is Wikipedia, Right?

Richard416282 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why?
The article just says what "rolling coal" is, not why it's done -- is there an improvement in engine performance or something? 62.232.85.2 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Keri (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect/Invalid references?
The line "Coal rolling may also be triggered at foreign cars, bicyclists, protesters, minorities, and pedestrians." isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the references given. All the sources given are news articles which only claim it's against environmentalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regn752 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's a byproduct of performance modifications...
I have never seen "rolling coal" as a deliberate modification as the article currently suggests. Excessive soot emissions are, in every situation I am aware of, a byproduct of performance tuning of a diesel engine. Yes, this byproduct is environmentally unsound, yes this byproduct has been used in an infantile way by rednecks on YouTube, but I am not aware of anyone modifying a diesel engine with the aim of producing the "rolling coal" polution, in the same way that drag racers burning nitromethanol are not doing it to create nitric acid but rather to generate more power with nitric acid as a byproduct, and hybrid/EV drivers are not driving mobile batterypacks in order to cause the devastation that rare earth mining causes, but rather to drive a car that doesn't burn as much petrol with the environmental harm of Li-ion battery pack production as a byproduct. Suggest that if this article is going to claim that "Rolling coal is the modification of diesel engines to produce excessive emissions" or similar, that claim should be properly cited. Otherwise, improve the article by redirecting it as an article about "rolling coal" being a byproduct of diesel tuning, not an aim. No four tildes, I don't have a wikipedia account but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.74.14 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia we have a principle of verifiability and using reliable sources. There are 17 footnotes in this article, and several of them go on for many paragraphs and never mention the terms "performance" or "side-effect". Feel free to volunteer some actual sources that back your claims, but until then I think we'll stick with The New York Times over the opinion of an anonymous person in Bedfordshire. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ETA - take a look at the contents of footnotes 6 and 10 (the CTV and VICE articles). Both mention performance, so if you want to add a statement to the article that some owners are doing it for performance reasons, the sources you need are already there. I would caution you not to overstate the contents of the article or put undue weight on this, because as I said most of the other sources never mention performance. --Krelnik (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What you or anyone else have seen, are aware of, are pretty sure of, and your opinions in general are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. This page is not an opinion forum. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I was about to come here to say the same thing. The release of smoke is a common byproduct of tuning of diesel engines. Yes, the practice might be illegal, it might not be good for the environment, but it's not part of some anti-environmentalist conspiracy as some American youtubers claim. The "Road & Track" article linked in the external links, for example, specifically mentions that "EPA is hunting performance shops and diesel tuners are to blame", and also mentions the reason why this is done: "Removing emissions systems from a modern diesel often increases horsepower, improves fuel economy, and cuts down on damaging carbon deposits commonly associated with DEF usage." It also explains a lot about how performance shops who have sold parts like performance exhausts etc have been targeted because their products (unintentionally) were not complying with emission standards. It's the same thing with the removal of catalytic converters on petrol cars as well; yeah, it leads to increased emissions of toxic gases, but that's not why it's done. It's done to increase performance, improve fuel economy, and (in some cases) reliability, or because replacing an exhaust pipe with a straightpipe is much cheaper than getting an OEM pipe with a catalytic converter is much cheaper if the exhaust has to be replaced.


 * I think it's typical that this conspiracy theory is only talked about in the US, because Americans always resort to conspiracy theories to explain anything they don't understand, and in the US only the pick-ups that rednecks drive are diesel-powered (hence becoming a symbol of the US culture war). In Europe where most people drive diesels and where most people don't resort to conspiracy theories to explain everything, this is not talked about at all, because the practice of removing emission controls (although illegal) is very common, and it is common knowledge that this is done in an effort to increase power and reliability and not as part of some "anti-environmentalist" conspiracy. But just like Wikipedia can't reproduce the theories that world leaders are pedophile aliens, we shouldn't reproduce these kind of conspiracy theories about diesel tuners either. Personally, I know many people who have removed diesel particulate filters in order to increase performance or reliability, but none who have done so to annoy HEV and EV drivers or "anti-environmentalist" protest as conspiracy theorists and this article has claimed. --Te og kaker (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See also Phantom vehicle?
Anyone know why the "See also" section includes Phantom vehicle (insurance)? I don't see the connection. Without one, I think it should be removed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 20:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it relates to this sentence: A more actionable concern is road traffic safety violations, as the black smoke can intentionally impair visibility, risking motor vehicle crashes. Because the vehicle rolling coal doesn't make physical contact, it would be considered a phantom vehicle. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Then it should be linked, rather than See also-ed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lung cancer
With the revision from 7th September 2016 this was introduced: the American Cancer Society has linked exposure to diesel exhaust to lung cancer It stayed there quite unchanged until 22th August 2018: The American Cancer Society has linked exposure to diesel exhaust to lung cancer But with the revision of 31th of August 2018 it changed significantly: The American Cancer Society has not linked exposure to diesel exhaust to lung cancer. The only comment was 'true'.

I cannot open the linked source since it requires signing in. But this change looks very suspicious. Mamaisen (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the description correct?
Is the description correct? I thought that rolling coal was the releasing of the excess black exhaust, not the modification of the engine. John Link (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Cybertruck in See Also?
Is there any connection between Rolling Coal and the Cybertruck that justifies its inclusion in the See Also section? Its Vee (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)