Motorcycle Forums banner

CARB nicks Dynojet for a Million Bucks !!!

11124 Views 57 Replies 12 Participants Last post by  pplassm
The latest AMA press release sez CARB fined Dynojet for selling Power Commanders that allow motorcycles to go out of EPA emissions compliance.... Dynojet has agreed to sell a PowerCommander that will meet EPA and CARB requirments for sale in California.

I'm not sure how that's going to work as recalibrating EFI for more power is usually done by richening the mixture and slowing the advance curve coupled with a modified free'r flowing exhaust and less restrictive intake, all of which are illegle under current EPA laws. Just tweaking the fuel injection isn't going to make much difference I wouldn't think.

Over on the HD Forums they're still arguing whether they should run loud pipes or not...Clueless as usual, the Gov'ment is three steps ahead of them all ready. Hope they all saved their stock parts LOL....
1 - 4 of 58 Posts
"Political correctness" is always trotted out when someone is challenged on a post that is offensive and demeaning.
Okay, but you can't deny that "offensive and demeaning" are highly subjective terms. Not having had the opportunity to see the original message I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with your assessment but I would hope that if you're going to take the time to censor a user you'd give them a less flippant explanation. Preferably one that sites a clearly stated part of some user agreement each person is obliged to accept in order to be a member of the site. Otherwise, regardless of intent or likely agreement, you leave the impression that you are being petty and tyrannical.
Well those remarks are definitely demeaning... to you. But I don't see how your ersatz sexual standards are a threat to the rest of us.

and now I'm being flippant ;-)

But in all seriousness, if this violates the user agreement: cite it. If it doesn't -- leave the post alone.
As far as "censorship" goes, what I did was not "censorship." I am not telling Airhawk not to express his opinion about Senator Clinton - just to do it with acceptable words. There's a difference between moderating the words used and barring statements on a topic.
moderate, censor... tomato, tomahto I'm not trying to start a semantic argument I'm trying to suggest that any alteration to a person's posts should be accompanied (at the outset) with an appropriate level of explanation.
I don't understand why you feel my comment about "political correctness" to be flippant. It was not.
Agreed, I wasn't referring to the remark solicited by Airhawk's objection but rather by the sparsely worded warning "watch it bucko" that accompanied the edit.
"Political correctness" is, as I said, the argument people tend to use when they have been told not to use offensive language. From my point of view, I'm simply asking people to understand that the language is offensive. Let's take some examples of language that people now know are offensive and so are no longer used in any sort of discourse:
This was unnecessary and beside the point (or beside my point at any rate). I won't bother quoting the list of examples. Again, my objection is to the absence of both an upfront explanation and any reference to a quasi-objective standard by which Airhawk (or any one of us) might gauge the acceptability of his/their future posts.
My point made in three letters.
I said my piece, I don't really have anything else to say without repeating myself.
1 - 4 of 58 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.