Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO vs. World

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-26-2001, 11:35 AM   #41
CBR1000F
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 367
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

I think the thing that bugs me the most about this is that motorcycle do represent but a tiny fraction of the smog-producers in this nation... we're still in single-digit percentages for vehicle miles traveled! The EPA for some reason (lobbyists, money) won't go after the real pollution-producers in the country - heavy industry and power production. If they were going to make a real effort to reduce pollution, they wouldn't be working on stifling a minor producer while ignoring the largest producer.
__________________
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it\'s safer to harass rich women than bikers.
CBR1000F is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 09-26-2001, 12:10 PM   #42
das
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: dyno-based emissions testing

NJ has that dyno-based emission testing thing state-wide.



They don't do it to bikes, though. They don't check emissions on bikes at all. Which leads us back to the enforcement issue...
das is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 12:25 PM   #43
cbrxr
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

Hey vmxxx, I don't mean to be flaming you. I just think we need to tackle the real problem here, and that is one of excessive government regulation. No I don't own an SUV, and I totally know what you're saying about the way MOST people drive them (cell phone, makeup, food, kids yelling, watching DVD's, etc.). I commute 140 miles a day in Orange and San Berdoo Counties and I pretty much daily have close calls with them. But one of the greatest things about the USA is our comfort level, and for some people, that includes owning and driving a huge SUV, even if it is just to the grocery store. A modern Ford Excursion produces less emissions than an early 80's economy car. Big SUV's don't kill people, it's the idiots behind the wheel!
cbrxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 12:35 PM   #44
Nepenthe
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46
Default Re: Aftermarket Pipes & Other Mods

Yup, in a lot of ways, California is the model the rest of the country eventually follows as far as emissions standards and enforcement practices. CARB (California Air Resources Board) spearheads some arbitrary new level and the EPA works to spread it around the other states through coercion and strongarm tactics.
Nepenthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 01:00 PM   #45
Nepenthe
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

Yes, I am a motorcyclist. Also a realist. I think it's more interesting and purposeful to argue facts and reality than to resort to incendiary drivel like "EPA sucks!!! I'm gonna get those a$$holes, how dare they!".



Of COURSE I don't want to see the misguided liberal fools in the EPA gradually kill off motorcycling. Yet it's going to happen to some extent, so let's understand why and how and when and maybe we can do something about it. Hey, *I* didn't vote for our current EPA, and if I could, I'd vote against them.



SUVs will come under strong fire soon enough. There was a vote not two months ago in the House on whether to crank up the economy requirements of SUVs to some level which would basically kill off the behemoth SUVs as they exist today (Excursion, Expedition, Suburban, etc.). It didn't pass. But the EPA will come calling soon enough.



But when you say "they're just picking on a small group that is easy to pick on", you're just restating my original point. Win a smaller battle here, get this out of the way, and it's easier to move on to tougher challenges down the road.



Hey, if they try to take away my bikes, they'll have a fight on their hands. But that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of people, if motorcycles were to suddenly go away (or have somewhat tougher restrictions and requirements, as is the case here), there would be little to no ill effect on daily life. The markets wouldn't tumble. The price of food wouldn't double or triple. Gas wouldn't rise 2 dollars a gallon in price. There still wouldn't be any trouble getting from point A to point B. I wish motorcycles were more essential here, but they aren't.
Nepenthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 01:03 PM   #46
Nepenthe
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

They have to start somewhere. Why not win an easy battle or two here with something that is for most people a recreational/hobby vehicle? It's the path of least resistance. It's kind of like Occam's Razor.
Nepenthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 01:24 PM   #47
UltraBoa
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

At the risk of clouding the issue with facts, and having read not only the EPA proposed rules governing highway motorcycles but portions of the legislated rules governing light/medium duty trucks (including SUVs) and heavy duty trucks (commercial trucks including semi's), I'd like to point out the following:



1) The EPA proposal is an emissions based standard. The lists technologies such as electronic fuel injection, catalytic converters, and two-stroke direct injection that may be available to meet the proposed emissions but does not suggest mandating specific technologies. The context of the technology discussion is used to argue reasonable levels of emissions control.



2) Emissions from highway motorcycles, by the EPA estimates, are a pretty small percentage of the total vehicle emissions problem at less than 1%. (This seems reasonable to me.) Emissions from off-road recreational vehicles (primarily two-strokes) including off-road motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, by the EPA estimates, are considerably greater part of the emissions problem at around 11% for hydrocarbons. (This seems high to me. Two-stroke hydrocarbon emissions are 10 to 20 times higher than four-strokes, but I wouldn't expect many vehicle-hours.)



3) A goal of the proposed motorcycle emission requirements are to be consistent with the California requirements and the various proposed and legislated European requirements, that is, there is an intent to design a consistent international standard.



4) The regulations governing light/medium duty trucks (by 2007) are more stringent than those proposed for motorcycles. These regulations are "corporate averages" so it is still probable that largest vehicles will be worse than smaller ones, however, the proverbial and much-maligned SUV driving soccer mom will not necessarily be generating more tail pipe emissions than your Harley Badboy. (I still believe that large SUVs are a flippant waste of natural resources.)



5) Heavy-duty trucks including semi's and buses (mostly diesels) contribute a significant portion of the total vehicle emissions at around 30% by EPA estimates. The regulations being phased in include reduce sulfur content in diesel fuel allowing the use of "advanced emission control technologies" (read catalytic converters) and will reduce emissions by about 90%. Certain vehicles will be required to retrofit emission control technologies (as opposed to being phased in with new vehicles only as with motorcycles and passenger cars). These regulations are similar to currently proposed or mandated European standards. Estimated cost of these regulations is $1700-$2800 per new vehicle and $0.04 per gallon of fuel.



6) Yes, I am a motorcyclist and commute ~8 months/year in upstate New York on a motorcycle. Two actually, one of which is a California model. My car is a 35 mpg subcompact.



Reference: EPA Rules with Completed RFA/SBREFA SBAR Panels (http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa//sbar_rules_print.htm)

UltraBoa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 04:20 PM   #48
Nepenthe
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

Thank you!



It's great to have some clarification. The only thing I choked on was #3 where you mention that the EPA is attempting to engineer a US standard consistent with International standards.



I believe you, but I wonder: Is this for diplomatic reasons? Going behind Congress' back? How far do they intend to take it ('it' being the letter of the Kyoto Agreement)?
Nepenthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2001, 05:08 PM   #49
zach
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

I doubt that putting together US standards consistent with International standards has much to do with the Kyoto Agreement, rather the manufacturers themselves are pushing for this.


The current situation is one in which manufacturers need to have 10 or so different models to meet the varying requirements found around the world - traditionally, they have lobbied for the most expensive reg's to be changed (typically EU countries). However, a new tune is being sung in which they push for EU reg's in the US, but phased in over the next XX years. This allows them to standardize thier production lines where the associated cost savings override the additonal cost of the reg's, have commercials stating that they meet EPA regulations X years early, and ignore the additional reg's for the time being where it doesn't improve their costs.


The Kyoto Agreement is, and will continue to be, ignored by the United States.
zach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2001, 02:58 AM   #50
jamesohoh7
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 211
Default Re: New Streetbike Emissions

OH man!.. another good one! Dude, take your act on the road!... funny s h i t!



I'm glad somone else has a sense of humor here... there's a lot of anger in the air .. and you know, the EPA says that's toxic! .. or soon will.. ha!



jamesohoh7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off