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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-02-2001, 08:20 PM   #21
serviceguy
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
Default Re:What about the other contributors

Hey Squid get a life
serviceguy is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 02-03-2001, 06:03 AM   #22
Abe_Froman_Idiot
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
Default Re: Anyone with me?

Yeah. Need develop social things. But likely too late. SUV have to do for now. Make me feel superior. Until I step out of it. Then self-esteem plummets. Need to be idiot in other ways. Make me feel superior again. Lost cause. Only feel worse. People recognize me as idiot. No relief from self. Must, must, must climb back into SUV.
Abe_Froman_Idiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2001, 07:36 AM   #23
averagefreak
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Default Re: Do You People Actually THINK? u suck

At the risk of seeming uneducated and generally ignorant... you suck! leave our website, nobody likes you.....I also believe if you can't remember the source, dont quote it bone head!
averagefreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2001, 11:17 AM   #24
pushkin_9
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
Default this idiotic anti-EPA stuff gives bikers a bad name

It does. We need to roost. I agree, but until honda and all those

guys have a reson to build an EPA meeting 2-stroke, they won't.

Buy the 4-stroke relax and ride. While you're at it, send money to

the AMA so they can do some REAL good. Imagine if the AMA had

the clout to set aside a special "motorcycles only" land like the

do with the HOV lanes in LA and Seattle. Imagine how fast you

could get to work on your bike then, with less of a chance of getting

killed. Imagine if we could get everyone off those stupid stupid SUVs

and on to nice little bikeys. Imagine if all the bikers were smart enough

to understand that 1% of emissions is still a BFD, especially when it

comes from 0.00001% of the total vehicles. Come on guys, get your

head out of the sand and into Shoei helmet

-P
pushkin_9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2001, 04:26 PM   #25
DougW
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 21
Default Re:Politicians are the real strokes

Okay, let's inject a little reality hear. As with the current clunker laws, destroying a 2-stroke will allow some entity to collect a federal certificate(voucher) that can then be sold to any segment of industry that needs to pay for these vouchers which allow them to exceed their own federal pollution restrictions. So that 1/2 of 1% isn't really going away, it's just be re-distributed to the industrial segment of our society. So while we get our balls busted on ever growing cost of vehicle ownership pollution levels stay the same only the culprits change, and they have enough money to avoid a Capitalistic government. Money is power.
DougW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2001, 06:38 PM   #26
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Oh no!! Foiled again by the Anonymous spelling squid!

Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2001, 08:33 AM   #27
CBR1000F
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 367
Default Re: Suggested Comments to the EPA

Just to clarify a few things...



1. I didn't mean that bikes got better mileage than cars because of efficiency... I meant that they get the same power out of a smaller engine because of efficiency, or better power out of the same size engine.



2. Bikes have a far HIGHER drag coefficient than cars, but they do have less weigh to tow around.



3. The Honda S2000 engine is a MARVEL of efficiency, which kind of makes my point, doesn't it? It's also employing a VAST amount of high-tech innovations to accomplish that amount of power from such a small engine, and the S2000 is the exception, not the rule. What do you think a bike with variable valve timing, a fuel/air delivery that was optimized at every point of the RPM/load range through an advanced fuel injection system would do? The S2000 engine is precisely twice a large as my bike's, it makes ALMOST twice as much HP, and my bike is 8 years old, carbureted, and based on a design from the mid-80's. Not much of an endorsement for the S2000, is it? So... What's the real difference here? Smog Equipment. Don't get me wrong, I think smog equipment is a GOOD thing. I just don't think it belongs on a vehicle that represents 4% of the passenger vehicles traffic on the road. They're attacking us because we are a small, fringe group with nearly no voice, and they can piss off 4% of their constituency and still get reelected. The EPA is not truly interested in cutting down pollution, or they'd regulate Suck Utility Vehicles, those bloated overweight, underregulated, poor handling oversized station wagons with huge tires and 4WD. Soccer moms do not need a giant 4WD to take their kids to the mall. If you have that many kids (and who does these days? Not many) go buy a friggin' minivan or a station wagon. Geez....
__________________
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 02-04-2001, 05:09 PM   #28
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Hey man..

This guy can call someone a pig and tell them to kiss his a** and you say I'm the insulting one? Come on man....
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2001, 05:12 PM   #29
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default FYI

I do NOT own a large SUV. But, then, I'm sure my V8-powered Wrangler gets sufficiently bad mileage to chap your hide.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2001, 05:52 PM   #30
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Simple economics

Ever been to Minneapolis? The state instituted a ridiculous self-defeating vehicle emmisions test program that was recently ditched. It was determined, even before the start of the program, that auto pollutants were decreasing. That didn't stop the west-office branch of the Kremlin, the Minnesota state legislature, from shoving the program through anyway. It was NEVER proved that the program contibuted to the reduction of smog (a problem we don't have anyway; nobody here even knows what the smog ratings used in other cities mean.) The worst offenders, the clapped-out 1979 T-birds with no catalytic converter (like my dad's) could trick their way through the tests with a couple gallons of isoproyl alcohol, and if that didn't work, they were given a waiver anyway.



Nobody here seems to have turned onto a simple principle of economics: the law of diminishing returns. Great advances have been made in the reduction of emissions over the last 20 years, to the point that one subcompact car from the mid-eighties puts out more pollution that several new Ford Excursions. As more time passes, the turnover of the nationwide fleet ensures that less and less of the old polluters are on the road. As vehicles get cleaner, however, the cost to continue to reduce new vehicle emissions becomes greater and greater. In other words, reducing airborne pollutants by 90% may cost the same as the next 5% reduction to 95%. A point is reached where the cost is much greater than the benefits. Take a look at the EPA's '97 edict that ground-level (0-2000 feet, I belive) ozone (smog) levels from .09 to .08 ppm. The projected cost was in the neighborhood of 9.6 billion, and the EPA's estimate on health benefits ranged from 1.5 to 8.5 billion. Clinton's economic advisors once put the estimate of health cost benefits at only 1 billion. Here's where the politics come in: the administration (and the EPA) disregarded an uncontradicted Energy Department report suggesting that because of the ozone's ultraviolet-blocking properties, reducing ground levels of it would result in 25-50 new melanoma deaths, 2-11 thousand new melanoma cases, and 28,000 new cataract cases each year. Clearly, the EPA, one of the biggest practitioners of junk science, wasn't interested in the cost or the facts.



It may everbody feel warm and fuzzy to say hey, why not reduce pollution that last 3 percent, with no reduction in performance levels? When a new Honda f4 costs $25,000, you'll know why.
Abe_Froman 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