Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Paranoid News Clips

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-02-2001, 07:48 AM   #11
zamboni
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 25
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

Here is a draft of the type of message every one of us should send to the EPA, our congressman, our senator, and a carbon copy to the president. (With credit to blip and NickdaBrick.) Please review it and post any suggestions or changes that might make it more effective. Or, if you like it, copy and paste it to an email and let your voice be heard!



To Whom it may Concern:



Motorcyclists (myself included) question to what extent off road motorcycles contributed to non-road sources of emissions. In the case of highway motorcycles the EPA's estimates showed that they contributed less than one half of one percent of the mobile source inventory of emissions levels for the year 2000 in any given category of pollutant. Furthermore the EPA estimates that emissions from highway motorcycles will not exceed one half of one percent of the mobile source inventory of emissions levels for the year 2007.



In simpler terms, one Terex Titan dump truck working a strip mine pollutes more in a single day than an entire off-road racing series does all year. Current regulations against off-road motorcycles are unfair and misguided.



As you strive to make this nation a cleaner place, please consider carefully the effects (or lack thereof) of motorcycle emissions on our atmosphere.



Sincerely,



(your full name)

Registered Voter, Motorcyclist



zamboni is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 02-02-2001, 09:12 AM   #12
CBR1000F
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 367
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

Consider this:



A 1000cc motorcycle can make in the neighborhood of 135 - 150 Hp, and get 40 mpg.



A 2200cc car can make in the neighborhood of 135 - 150 hp and get 30 mpg.



The horspower is similiar, despite the car engine being more than twice as large, mainly because the motorcycle engine is more efficient. It is more efficient BECAUSE it has fewer restrictions on it (i.e. smog controls, catalytic converter, etc.) The more efficient an engine, the less it pollutes. I am NOT saying that motorcycles pollute less than cars, because they don't, when compared directly. One motorcycle pollutes more than 1 car. I believe that motorcycles comprise a whopping 4% of the personal transportation vehicles on the road, however, which means that the OTHER 96% are cars, trucks and SUV's. Trucks and SUV's DO NOT have the same emissions restrictions on them that passenger cars do, and their popularity has grown alarmingly over the last few years. This means that there are more of them on the road than ever before, and they're polluting far more than passenger cars. Motorcycles get more and more efficient (witness the power increases out of the same displacement) every year, which tends to mean that they are getting cleaner, and the fastest selling segment of personal transportation vehicles - trucks and SUV's, are the dirtiest passenger vehicles on the road. I didn't mean to go off on a rant here, but I also think an immaculate SUV with nary a brush scratch or mud speck on the side/undercarriage is obscene.
__________________
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
Old 02-02-2001, 09:32 AM   #13
granny
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

On the days that I don't ride my 916 to work, I ride my bicycle (26 miles in hilly terain) to work. My 916 gets between 35 to 50 MPG. I doubt that the net pollution that that these EPA angels contribute by commuting to work via public transportation is any less than my commute via bicycle/motorscooter. So I do my part thank you very much (even at my advanced age). Motorscooters are considerably less polluting and hence damaging to the environment than any other non-electric motor vehicle, there is no reason to further restrict them. Tighten the regulations for small trucks, SUV's etc. and force the older cars into compliance first.
granny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2001, 09:37 AM   #14
CBR1000F
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 367
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

Whoops, I meant that trucks and SUV's have the dirtiest emissions of the four-wheeled passenger vehicles.
__________________
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
Old 02-02-2001, 12:34 PM   #15
lexs
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 32
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

Actually Mr. CBR bikes get better mileage because they are smaller, lighter and have less over all drag, not because the engines are marvels of efficiency. Modern pollution equipment has a tiny effect on performance, witness Honda getting 240 HP out of the 2000 CC S2000 engine. The idea that emissions controls need to hurt performance should have gone out with disco. Bike manufacturers have taken the easy (cheap) route by doing things like shortening valve timing on California bikes. Cars stopped doing that kind of thing 20 years ago.



BTW, if you best buddy told you how much better his car runs after he "got rid of that pollution crap" he is either has a very sensitive (1 or 2% change) dyno on his butt, is deluded or fixed something else while making the changes. That something else is probably the exhaust pipes, I just got look at the exhaust on a ford V-10, it looked like something out of a gas flow engineer's nightmare.



I do agree whole heatedly about the so called light trucks and also "not so light" trucks. The fact that trucks are not regulated and motor bikes are might make one think the EPA was making deceptions for political instead of environmental reasons. Could that be?
lexs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2001, 03:02 PM   #16
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default You sound like a communist.

Would you like to "adjust our food rations" too?



What "incentive" are you providing? Sounds more like an ultimatum to me. If the American public wanted low-emissions two strokes, or all four-stroke vehicles, they would all buy the yz400. Problem is, they don't. And they won't. I want a two stoke dirt bike and snowmobile.



Thanks for living off my paycheck while telling me what I can and can't buy.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2001, 03:06 PM   #17
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Anyone with me?

We need to redevelop social sanctions against earth-worshiping pinko types like these again.



Go out, enjoy nature and get eaten by a bear, punk.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2001, 03:10 PM   #18
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default A lone voice of reason in a vast wasteland of liberalism...

At last, a liberal who actually cares about results! Not that I agree in any way that we are endangering the earth, but at least you're focusing on a percieved "problem" that may actually have a quantatative effect.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2001, 05:20 PM   #19
thatguyjohn
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 63
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

I remember reading in my warranty booklet or shop manual that it's against the law to modify the exhaust in any way for the first three thousand or so miles.. So if that's correct, it is up to local government to pass and enforce noise laws.
thatguyjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2001, 06:53 PM   #20
j69
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3
Default Re: Anyone with me?

Abe,

I live in Alaska. You may remember it as the state that got shut down in just about every area of employment due to the EPA, the Forest Service, et al. I don't see them trying to find jobs for the thousands of people they put out of work. Another part of the Clinton legacy - thousands unemployed. Now, he wants the taxpayers to pay for an entire floor in an office building in New York. Supposedly an office. $650,000 per year for an office? Why doesn't he just move back to Arkansas into a doublewide? Lots of space in those things, I hear.



Getting back to the pollution subject, if you want some factual information, go to the February 2001 Car And Driver magazine and read what Patrick Bedard has to say. Here's an excerpt: "The Ford Excursion... as sold in California... is 22% cleaner in hydrocarbons than a brand new passenger car that meets the federal emissions standards in the states surrounding California."



The people whining about SUVs don't know what they're talking about, as usual. It amounts to this, somebody can afford a larger automobile than me so I'm going to do all I can do to outlaw it/shame them into getting rid of it/whine to all my stupid friends and anybody that'll listen.



The left wingers use a couple of tools you need to be aware of. One is derision - a great tool. It's coupled closely with shame. Another is to discredit anyone you disagree with. It doesn't even have to be factual.
j69 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