Fvck the EPA and California. They're doing this to look busy. Look at the standards for SUVs, they're ridiculously lenient. They're afraid to mess with SUVs so they go after an easier target like motorcycles. They are corrupt and counter productive and everyone currently involved with the agency should be fired.
It's very apparent to me that women are winning the war. Why else would there be 73 shopping malls within 100 square miles of me, yet only 1 tiny motocross track?!
It's nothing to pour concrete over 200 acres of my green earth for a new shopping mall for the ladies, permanently sealing it off for decades to come, but GOD FORBID i try to drive a 2stroke motorcycle around town for a few hours - those rabid environmentalists would have my hide!!
anyway, the earth is more precious than the air - in my view. F U Enviro-nazi's, malls are hazardous to MY health
Just to reveal my biases before I make my comment:
1) I'm a liberal. Big time (but a libertarian leaning liberal -- e.g. I think you're an idiot if you don't wear a helmet, but I am a little uncomfortable with the government telling you to do so).
2) I'm pretty pro-environment. E.g., drilling in the arctic bothers me for several reasons. One is the environmental damage. But worse to me is that further exploration is an excuse to put off painful choices that will eventually have to be made on fuel consumption. Arctic drilling will not make us oil independent, not by a long shot.
3) All that being said, I agree with many of the above post that motorcycles are the wrong target. Neither the Republican nor Democrat energy bill truly impacts SUVs and pickups. The best selling vehicle in the US is a pickup. Encouraging better emissions for light trucks would have far more impact than regulating motorcycles more. Some emissions standards, fine. But lets focus on the real problem, not the politically easy target of motorcycles. My current motorcycle already gets 45-50mpg (which does not necessarily say much about emissions, only fuel consumption). My mom's SUV gets 14-16. Changing SUV requirements a few percentage points will have more overall impact than massive changes in requirements for motorcycles as there are a hell of a lot more SUVs than motorcycles on the road.
4) There is a hell of a lot more to be said on this issue, but I am too tired and too incoherent to add much more.
I'm pretty darned liberal--about as liberal as you get while still supporting the ideas of capitalism and such. But this drives me crazy. The pollution problems nationwide are not caused by people riding ZRX1100s (not CA approved) instead of ZRX1200s (CA approved). Carbon dioxide emissions are caused by massively inefficient vehicles (those that get 10-15 mpg); harmful pollutants in the atmosphere are caused by INDUSTRY, two-strokes, and by old dirty-running cars and trucks.
Every little bit counts, but this is like putting a bandaid on the scratched chin of someone who just got their leg ripped off. The EPA is missing the big picture entirely and giving all environmentalists a bad name.
Just when you thought bikes would get quicker and more agile, the epa is killing us softly. Now they will just be heavier and slower. The New Stories will have sentences like:
The new Suzuki GSXR600 has the lightest catalytic converter of the four and retains 92% of the power it had last year while the Yamaha R6 loses an unbelievable 16 Hp due to it's relatively mild cams and valve sizes. The ZX-6R, while making the most power (which is 7Hp less than last years model), is only 22lbs. heavier than the 2005 bike. The Honda, with it's high compression and Vtec valve timing, shows the best throttle response but we found that the manifold gasket to the catalytic converter went bad after a quick racetrack run.
I traded in the Harley on a Guzzi this year. I have come to the belief that Guzzi, Ducati, and Aprilia each import less than 3,000 bikes per year and get off with easier EPA rules. My Guzzi has a charcoal cannister on the fuel tank vent while a California spec HD has all kinds of crap on it for Cali EPA. When comparing my '02 Guzzi to my brothers '02 Electra Glide, 2 things were noticible......
1) The Guzzi in stock form was noticibly louder than the stock Harley. Aren't they both subject to the same EPA noise regs?
2) The Guzzi was running a little on the rich side (ran puuuurfect) while the Harley was a wheezing, lean, popping machine. The plugs on the Guzzi were a wonderfull brown while the plugs out of the Harley look brand-spankin'-out-of-the-box-new after 1,000 miles even. The Guzzi is running rich enough that I can swap out the mufflers without having to ****er with the EFI. Try doing that on a Harley!
Now, one would think that both of these bikes would have to conform to the same EPA regs, right? HD says there stuff is so quite and lean in stock form to meet EPA regs (the Japanese say the same thing about there stuff!!) Anyway, the point is, these observations lead me to think one of the following:
A) Companies that import a small number of bikes are subject to looser EPA regs. My dealer seems to think the same.
B) HD and the Japanese are shipping them lean and quite to get your money when you make it rich and loud. Everybody already knows how Harley ships out underpowered machine to reap the profits from Screamin' Eagle (off road use only my ass) parts.
C) The Italians are saying F' the EPA and getting away with it..........
My Buell gets between 57 and 61 mpg. It doesn't matter what kind of emmision controls are "lacking" on it, it's still less damaging to the environment than at least three SUVs.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was supposed to be an ad-hoc group that would go away when the worst of the 1960's air polution problem in Calif was dealt with. CARB was successful, the worst of the air polution in Calif is gone, but like any bureaucratic organization or cancerous lesion, CARB has acquired a life of its own. Worse, it's lead the federal EPA around by the nose for at least 15 years. This is government at its worst.
Everybody is knee-jerk reacting to a potentially inflamatory piece of journalism. OK, I'm a liberal in some respects, too, but I'm also an engineer who lives off of facts. How many bikes annually in the US vs. how many SUVs. And what exactly are the requirements? (milligrams of crap per mile of what?) I don't get into high dudgeon until I know I have a reason to.
groups around but the AMA is the only one we as motorcyclist must belong to. The piddly little amount I send, my Wife and I are both members, isn't much to us but added to the rest of the membership provides the funds needed to fight these type regulations.
They helped me get m/c parking in my formerly "No Motorcycles Allowed" parking deck. This is nothing compared to the EPAs disproportionate restrictions on our chosen form of transportation but if the AMA knows what we want they will fight for that in court rooms and congress.
Send them you dues and let your voice be heard where it can make a difference.
This SUX! Hell, cows produce more greenhouse gas than motorcycles do and that includes the few remaining two-strokers on the roads and trails of this great country!
First off, I don't believe this is a California CARB plot. Yes, I'm a Californian, but look at this from a manufacturers perspective, i.e., a separate model for Europe, maybe a separate model for Asia, a 49 state model, and a separate model for California.
I will accept that California has better air than in the '60's (if that's what they claim, I have no proof to the contrary). But, you've got to acknowlege that more people riding and driving worldwide, puts more of a strain on our extremely important air supply.
The rest of the world is slowly waking up (even China will, someday) to the critical need for a higher quality of air, water, etc.
It makes sense to produce a single model that protects the environment everywhere and not just where laws have put strict controls on emissions. Although I am not an advocate of more government to protect us from ourselves, I am an advocate of manufacturers taking a more active role in maintaining or improving the quality of the world's environment. After all, what's (where's) the alternative?
Not necessarily. Look at cars today -- by and large they are producing far more horsepower with greater fuel efficiency than anything produced in teh '70s and '80s while meeting increasingly stringent air standards. In the motorcycle world, look at the Gold Wing. The GL1800 gets more MPG and produces quite a bit more power than the GL1500 it replaced, yet it meets CARB's 2008 standards (the same ones the EPA mandates for 2010). It is also significantly lighter than the old model.
My primary objection to the regulations is that we should be increasing mileage requirements for light trucks. Look at the increasing amounts of power the manufacturers are getting out of engines -- I find it hard to believe that higher mileage figures are impossible or prohibitively expensive, though I am not an engineer and cannot back that up.
Again, high mileage does not equal lower emissions. The Ford Excursion is one of the biggest gas hogs on the road (my in-laws own one), yet its emissions are quite low compared to most SUVs.
Reducing motorcycle emissions some will help the environment; it just seems to me that there may be better targets that would do a lot more good than increased restrictions for motorcycles. Do these regulations spell the end for fun, fast motorcycles? No. At worst, the price may go up a few hundred dollars for equal performance. My problem is that they don't go after bigger, more obvious, more powerful targets.
Leave my RZ out of the arguement. Weed whackers yeah, but how many strokers of the 2 wheel variety do you really think there are on the road? Of the 10s of thousands of bikes that show up for Daytona every year, I see maybe 6 street strokers. Wow, must be a major contributor!
It's politics and money. That's why mpg number's aren't higher. The technology already exist to make the numbers higher ,"but it's very expensive." Gas companies can't stand to make less money now can they? Gas companies aren't rushing to make gasless cars, now are they?
When it comes to high compression high performance low displacement motorcycles, weight is an important factor. The components needed to make more power with the cat converters is also an added cost. I was making an exaggeration but still bikes with cats tend to make anywhere from 2-15% less power and weigh a bit more. The cali model ZX-6R was very close in hp to the 49state model, while the R6 was very sluggish, putting out around 82hp. I guess they just have to compensate for the add ons now.
1 - 20 of 41 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.