Suggested Comments to the EPA

Nice to see another street-stroker chime in! As the pilot of an RZ350, I

have to admit I relish the fact that I can ride it around on the streets today,

fully legal... the shriek it makes when wound up never ceases to catch the

cagers off guard and induce that characteristic, open-mouthed scowl towards

me The troubling thing is that I'm afraid the days of riding it around are

numbered. I expect soon enough, someone will try to ban 2-stroke oil as

a means to put an end to the 'legacy' bikes out there that they can't rightfully

ban directly. Or, if they can't ban the oil, they will affix huge taxes to it.



All to save ..what was it... 1/2 of 1% of pollutants?? Go after the -real-

sources of heavy pollution or admit this is all political posturing and shut

the he** up about it... and leave my bike alone!!

I'll gladly add my voice to the I-Hate-SUVs club but I do think I should point out that, other than CO2*, the common statement "burn more gas make more pollution" is not true. To sight an extreme example Mr. Obnoxious with the loud RD350 above probably gets at least 25 MPG, more likely 30 to 35 MPG. I guarantee you he is putting out from 5 to 200 times the pollutants (it varies with individual pollutant) emitted by the road hog in the Navigator getting 13 MPG.



I'd also like to second or third the comments above about getting older cars off the road, the only problem is that such rules need to be written very carefully and bureaucrats like the EPA are not known for subtlety. You want to get the '74 Pinto that burns a quart of oil every 200 miles but not the clean, sweat running '68 GTO, not to mention the '64 Electra Glide or '75 Norton 850. Lets also add the safety factor, that Pinto was a death trap the day is was built (even by 1974 standards) and its brakes, shocks, steering, etc. are probably completely worn out by now.



*Carbon Dioxide may contribute to the greenhouse effect that may be causing the earth to warm unnaturally. It was not tracked as a pollutant until fairly recently.

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

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.

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?

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.