This really frustrates me. I ride around town dodging '71 Buick tanks that burn more oil than the Kuwait fires while they drag their muffler under the rear axle, no one does anything about it. Each year these POS's seem to get re-registered. Why doesn't the EPA crack down on that sort of thing? Is the motorcycle/ATV community an easier target because it's not as numerous as the general public? What a load of crap on the part of the EPA.
On the other hand, this will potentially propel 4-stroke technology to levels never seen before. Perhaps the only benefit I see.
that's right!! Even if all the motorcycle in the USA is a 2 stroke, they would still make much less pollution than those gasoline drinking SUVs. I' m not saying that two stroke is good for the enviroment (sigh) it's just that there are more bigger pollutant than them and the EPA should consider banning them first before they get their greasy hand on my CR (that is if they put their heads out of their azzez long enough to think clearly).
You're not the only one pissed at this sort of thing, but remember-this is proposed legislation, not final; and this legislation is only as good as the enforcement it gets locally. I can promise you that EPA is not out there busting the spewing Buicks because their enforcement budget was cut pretty severely. This means that if the locals can't be bothered to stop the Buicks, they'll never get around to busting your chops...my 2 cents.
The problem with the EPA is that they waaay overstep their bounds. They've got their dirty little fingers in all sorts of places they shouldn't be. I think the media and general public give them way too much credit because the word 'environmental' is in their name. There need to be deep budget cuts in this agency to keep them at bay.
Word to those who consider this some kind of deep blow to their personality: Grow up. Sorry, folks, but this one simply makes sense for anyone with the slightest ecological concern. Two-strokes are profoundly dirty (we're talking NOx, CO and HC emissions, not the CO2 stuff that everyone's too spineless to deal with). Having been half-Castroled to death as someone tuned an RZ350 during a recent visit to the Aprilia shop near Ithaca, my sympathy wanes. And especially given the advances in four-stroke dirt tech, this isn't going to ruin anyone's way of life. (Wonder if it applies to pure race machines, though.)
As for beater Buicks, old-car buyback programs that would deal with a lot of that get a ton of grief from any number of big-iron fan clubs (check out the letters in just about any issue of "Hemmings") and such folks as the fearsomely paranoid Jim Baxter of the American Motorists Association, and partially because of that aren't widespread enough to do anything good. SUVs? Yeah, I'd love to see a serious crackdown on them (starting with the petite local boomer woman whose cell phone is apparently essential for operation of her Excursion), but you're going up against both the unions AND Big Business on that one. Good luck.
FYI... about SUVs, according to current emissions statistics, my wife's Suburban and my 2000 GMC 4x4 together don't produce half of the 'emitted solids' and phony 'greenhouse gasses' as my neighbor's '99 Civic. Check on it yourself.
I think we should eliminate 2-stroke weed eaters. They are used 100 times more than 2-stroke motorcycles, and I'd love to see a 'greenie' try to carry around a string trimmer with valves, cam and a timing chain. (Of course, the industry will come up with great new lightweight trimmers starting just under 1000 bucks)
They attack the manufacturers to keep us from buying what we want. Sounds like China.
I'm a bit puzzled about what statistics you've been reading.
"Emitted solids," or particulates, only come into consideration with diesel engines, mostly because of the sulfur in their fuel. Gasoline engines don't release measurable solids in their exhaust, and the three controlled pollutants (HC, hydrocarbons, unburned fuel; CO, carbon monoxide, incompletely burned fuel and air; and NOx, the family of nitrous oxides, chemically changed nitrogen in the air) are all gaseous.
Besides, it's widely known that trucks (per DOT classification) conform to emissions regulations that are less stringent than passenger cars.
Carbon dioxide (I imagine that's the "phony" greenhouse gas you're referring to) is a direct result of combustion, and proportional to fuel consumption. The more gas you burn, the more carbon dioxide you create, to the tune of about sixteen pounds of it per gallon of gasoline. Unless your Suburban and GMC put together are somehow more fuel-efficient than the Honda, you're creating more carbon dioxide.
The greenhouse effect can't be dealt with too thorougly here, but it continues to surprise me that Americans as a whole are so willing to pretend that it doesn't exist, despite any amount of real evidence to the contrary.
Eliminating two-stroke weed eaters wouldn't be bad, and you wouldn't have to go to four-stroke motors, either. Use an electric one, or else remember that they still make hand-operated clippers.
And the only reason that manufacturers have to be regulated is because of people who are either too short-sighted, stupid, or self-centered to think about the consequences of actions, who don't want to provide the pressure on the industries themselves, and who don't realize just how severely "buying what [you] want" affects everyone else on an increasingly interconnected and messed-up planet.
You can say that over and over again, but it hardly reduces the hypocrisy level in the fact that the EPA fails time and again to deal with the largest sources of pollution because, well frankly... they get 'lobbied' into looking the other way. The entire lobby system is bogus if you ask me, but that's another debate entirely.
On another post, someone pointed out that the EPA' s own stats show that ALL motorcycles contribute less than one percent to the problem. What portion of that do you think are streeter 2-strokes? Considering that the 2-strokes MIGHT represent 1 to 5% ( a number I am pulling out of that Castrol-choked air, admittedly.. but I'd be surprized if it was that far off ) of the total motorcycles on the road, you see why people might complain. You could also factor in that folks who own them probably don't ride them nearly as often as their 'main' 4-stroke bike b/c really... who depends on a 2-stroke to get them to work and, typically, a 2-stroke owner already has a 4stroke 'main' bike.
Two-stroke streeters are such a niche that really, only the die-hard biker fans will even put up with them. These 2s-street bikes are probably the LEAST ridden of all bikes in hours or miles... dirt-bikes, another story, yes.
The point about "winning a battle you can win to get the ball rolling" that I keep hearing is really kind of hollow. It's not much more than rabid self-righteousness "see! we did something!"
(never mind that it didn't make a bit of difference in the big picture). All sybolic... typical liberal gesticulation... spare me.
If this problem of air-pollution was as dear to the EPA as they claim, they'd nut-up and go after the big fish first. As it is, they go after the guppies, point to it as a success, and thereby justify their budget for another year while "THE PROBLEM" goes largely unsolved... open your eyes people... when the 'drop-dead' day for the trucking industry's standards goes into effect, there will be a "last minute reprieve". That sounds fatalistic/pessimistic/etc... but you know, that's a learned reaction from years of watching this kind of behavior from Congress.
And, yes, for the record, I own 2-strokes... I willingly disclose my built-in bias in my rationalizing up there. So I rationalize, big deal, who hasn't here... at least my rationale holds water where the EPA's is quite sieve-like.
I keep hearing about the Aprilia technology.. and it sounds very exciting!
The shame is that they are no doubt being discouraged by the rumblings of the enviro-crats into not developing it for larger bikes. It's expensive to develop and if they fear legislation later, they won't take the leap now.
It's amazing... here we have a technology that promises clean, efficient power, and unless a miracle happens, the EPA will likely stomp it before it gets a chance. I did see in another post where the EPA may consider these new injection techologies, but I just have so little faith in the EPA that they'll actually give it a fair examination. Heavy sigh.
The answer is really simple... it's spelled L O B B I E S T! These a**wipes go to Congress and give them money, vacations, condos, women, drugs or whatever to get the laws passed in there clients favor. They represent everything from foreign governments and the auto industry down to some specially flavored interest group with over exagerated voting power, etc. The AMA is supposed to be lobbying for us, but sometimes you wonder why they aren't pointing the finger at that special interest groups' '71 Buick as an example of the EPA's misguided hammer.
I used to work for the EPA, and it's clear that public knowledge about pollution is mostly the crap that comes out of "Environmentalists" and Dan Rather and his ilk. Case in point:
"Gasoline engines don't release measurable solids in their exhaust"
Gee, I wonder why all those guys were working on the dyno then measuring PM2.5. Gasoline engines release lots of aerosols, and the gases like NOx that are emitted can participate in nucleation of new particles. Heck, Southern CAs smog problem is largely made up of Nitrates and organics.
"The greenhouse effect can't be dealt with too thorougly here. "
"Eliminating two-stroke weed eaters wouldn't be bad"
Why? They are the most efficient means of doing the job. Where do you think electricity comes from? The sky? Most power in the U.S. comes from combustion. Source apportionment studies typically find that they are a significant contributor to pollution. Weed eaters aren't even included, but if they are, they're called 'non-point' sources and contribute very little to the pollution 'problem'.
"And the only reason that manufacturers have to be regulated is because of people who are either too short-sighted, stupid, or self-centered to think about the consequences of actions"
The only reason that manufacturers are regulated is so that politicians can satisfy their huge egos.
Buying what you want is the most efficient means of economics, that is the allocation of scarce resources that alternative uses. It is also the most productive, the safest, and the best system out there that has been tried thus far.
1 - 20 of 90 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.