Scooter
Zone Head
Posts: 899
|
posted November 20, 2004 06:55 AM
EPA 2006 regulations. This dont look good.
http://www.mrf.org/pp-epa-for-the-layman.php
Especially if you build your own bikes, namely kit bikes or "customs".
Sounds like the rules for modifying you stock exhaust/engine are gonna get really strict for anything after 2006 too.
Quotes
.....You are only allowed one EPA-exempt kit bike in your lifetime under the new EPA rule.
This is the one that bothers me, is my bike now a "kit/custom" since I have a pipe ,PC3, custom paint. etc. on it?
...You cannot build your kit bike by modifying a factory-built motorcycle that was certified to meet EPA emissions standards. You must start with a new engine and frame.
.....The way this new EPA rule is written now, you would not be able to replace your stolen or destroyed EPA-exempt motorcycle. You are only allowed one EPA-exempt kit bike in your lifetime under the new EPA rule.
.....Under this federal law, you are not allowed to sell your EPA-exempt kit bike for five years after the date of final assembly, even in case of death, bankruptcy, or divorce. After five years, your EPA-exempt motorcycle can be sold. If you do sell your EPA-exempt kit bike, you will not be allowed to own another exempt kit motorcycle.
.....The EPA is planning to review this data and other exemptions when CARB reviews the effectiveness of their regulations. When that review is completed, the EPA may choose to regulate all motorcycle engine manufacturers at that time so that all engines, including those built by the aftermarket industry, will be required to meet the EPA's emissions standards when they leave the factory. If they decide on that course of action, they feel the exemption for kit bikes will no longer be needed because there will only be EPA-compliant engines available for builders
........A builder may build 24 or fewer per year and sell them commercially by notifying the EPA and including a tag somewhere on the motorcycle stating: THIS MOTORCYCLE IS EXEMPT FROM EPA EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS. ITS USE ON PUBLIC ROADS IS LIMITED PURSUANT TO 40 CFR 86.407-78(c). The 25th and all subsequent motorcycles built that year by that builder must all comply with the new emissions standards. An individual can own as many of the CM exemption motorcycles as he/she can afford. However, there are severe restrictions on how and where they can be used on the roads. Use on public roads is limited to display purposes, such as traveling to and from motorcycle shows.
Yada yada yada
____________
"Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional."
   
|
Ozzy
Needs a job
need guberment cheese
Posts: 3172
|
posted November 20, 2004 07:24 AM
Looks to me like it won't have any effect on anyone other than the "american chopper " lemmings.
|
Scooter
Zone Head
Posts: 899
|
posted November 20, 2004 07:43 AM
Can I modify the engine or exhaust on my 2006 or later motorcycle?
....The new EPA rule contains the same language that the old rule contained about this subject ? modifying your motorcycle's engine or exhaust is considered ?tampering.? The Clean Air Act, Section 203(a) states that it is illegal, ?for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with regulations under this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser or after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser.
Wouldn't this mean us? And wouldn't this whole scheme draw attention to to what is essentially ignored now(mod our bikes).
____________
"Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional."
|
TurboBlew
Moderator
BUSY DOING THE SCHIAVO
Posts: 4590
|
posted November 20, 2004 08:52 AM
Just means the "OFF ROAD ONLY" designation will have to be bigger and bolder on the aftermarket pipes....lol.
____________
Official Charter Member of the RIDERS OF KAWASAKI MEMBERSHIP REVOCATION CLUB
Also a BadAss Internet Forum Moderator 4 Hire!! Come at me brah!
|
junior s
Pro
?
Posts: 1644
|
posted November 20, 2004 10:46 AM
quote:
Looks to me like it won't have any effect on anyone other than the "american chopper " lemmings.
This may be the case at the beginning , however , laws rarely get changed to affect one group without later being morphed to affect all at some other politicians pressure . Any law will only cause more restrictions on your life not less .
____________
Get up off your ass and ride !!
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted November 20, 2004 01:51 PM
I thought the (I can hear it now) These type of "Rules" were one of the "MAIN" reasons to be a (dare I say it out loud) Republican SInce this was voted in December 2003, Does not look like something Clinton Can get blamed for!  OK, lets hear how Hillary and the Democrats with their Minority passed this and FORCED this over the Majority party in power! Lets hear it now
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 20, 2004 03:05 PM
The truth of the matter is that we cannot continue polluting in the manner that we do now and expect to have a planet to live on in a hundred years. I know this sounds hypcritical from an owner of 2 1270cc bikes, but without the governments mandating cleaner vehicles we are going to be living on a flooded, burned out husk in twenty years. Kiss all of our coastal cities goodbye, and the seasons will be so twisted, we won't know what is happening.
Motorcycles have been all but ignored by pollution laws, and I can just imagine what the turbo busas and customs vtwins are coughing out of the tailpipe. Hell, I was reading today on the total kaos performance forums that guys are seeing 50 to 100 miles to a tank of fuel on their 400+hp busas. That is about 5 gallons in 50 to 100 miles. There is a term used by BC's air care program to define vehicles that pollute horribly: "gross emitters". I cannot help but think that these bikes are gross emitters. Now I understand that there are not that many of them out there, but there are a pile of bikes out there that have no emissions equipment installed and are tuned improperly for allowable emissions output (and that does not equal 12.5:1 A/F ratio). The specs for improperly tuned vehicle emissions output are staggering. I was taught that an improperly tuned and maintained automobile will put out 10 times the emissions of a properly tuned and maintained vehicle. I have also heard that tire pressures being 5psi low equate to a 10% loss in fuel economy. Yet most people don't care enough to even try to maintain their vehicles at optimum efficiency.
If the government came along and implemented emissions requirements, the aftermarket companies would simply find a way to make bikes just as fast, but within the guidelines. Also the manufacturers would be forced to run well despite their emissions equipment...which would be the push over the edge to make these companies bring their computer systems up to speed and allow scan diagnostics (as per OBDII specifications). This is the same thing that happened with the automotive industry in the mid 80's and early 90's. Now we have cars that get 30+ MPG and have 300 hp and will out run/handle/brake virtually any musclecar from the 60's and 70's; and all while meeting emissions standards.
They will never force our bikes off the road for not having the proper emissions equipment...they will just require the owner to reinstall the factory emissions equipment. Sure that's less fun, but better than not having the bike. In addition, these laws will come in slowly, and will make it financially difficult to maintain an older vehicle at the required standard, which is a good thing. BC's air care laws have forced many POS vehicles off the road because they were too expensive to get up to the standard...and ironically these are also the vehicles that are most likely to be unsafe. Here in Alberta there are no emissions or effective safety standards, and the number of dangerous and severely polluting vehicles is scary.
I suppose the other thing that is coming is that gas prices are going to keep rising.....and in a way that's a good thing. We are consuming fossil fuels at a never-before seen rate...even though there is talk of conservation, GM comes out with the Hummer H1 and H2, which get unbelievably bad mileage. There are more 502's and V-10's than ever..despite the highest prices for fuel ever seen..... yet we keep buying them...... all-the-while are bitching about the price of fuel. I guess you could call these gas prices are a consumption tax...maybe when the tax gets high enough people will start buying more fuel efficient vehicles. It happened in the early 70's and it will happen again.
We as individuals need to look past our own inconveience and see the greater problems. There are countries in the world that are just starting to consume their requirement for energy. Once they are up to speed, the energy will be consumed so rapidly it will be shocking...and the pollution will be unimaginable. This is about the time that some people say "well if they're going to pollute the world then so am I", but the place to start changing the world is at home. Fix the problems in your own backyard before you look in your neighbor's yard (this is also about the Kyoto accord). This type of policy has to be at a government level, but that starts by voting in the people who will make the required changes. This does not mean that we can't have any more fun....it just means we have to accept the consequences of our fun.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 20, 2004 03:54 PM
and the point you brought up about the developing countries is the MAIN point Kyoto should never be ratified in its current state
because it ALLOWS those increasing polluters to have a free run.
if they start out adhering to the standards it is CHEAPER for them in long run...WHY let them start out crappy?
if Kyoto was all-encompassing, i would have NO trouble with it./ but since it penalizes the US and Canada and a few European nations, while giving the rest of the world a free pass, i refuse to support it. change it, make it equal across the board, and i'll write my congressman a positive letter about it.
but that'll never happen ;P
as far as mods and such, i guess i am sorta a loser. i run stock because it is quiet and doesn't attract unwanted attention. not as 'cool' looking, but if i want cool i'll buy and maintain a show bike ;P
i like riding, and i really don't care if people are all flushed and wetting themselves about how cool my bike looks or sounds....
  
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 20, 2004 04:12 PM
 Edited By: canadamaxxer on 20 Nov 2004 16:12
I agree with you about Kyoto. That is what I meant about "worry about your own backyard". It is a bad deal period. Without the whole world signing on it is useless and the whole idea of allotted energy "units" penalizes countries in colder climates. Countries that have excess "units" can sell them to the highest bidder....basically it is just wrong.
The sad thing about this whole situation is that the 1st world countries have polluted for 100's of years, and now the 3rd world countries want to get up to speed energy and technology wise, but the world cannot afford to give them the same learning curve as we had. Basically they have to go from "just discovered the wheel" to high efficiency coal and natural gas plants with catalytic convertors in the stacks, etc in 5 years and there is no money for that. The emphasis on technology needs to be on cheap (er) high efficiency fossil fuel burning plants, which will have to be be replaced by methane, hydrogen or other renewable resource-powered plants in 10 years or so (or even better would be something like fusion nuclear energy, but I don't think that 's going to happen any time soon). Once again we need to look in our own backyards first though, and lead from the front. If all of our fossil fueled power plants were high efficiency, and as clean burning as possible, we would have the right to criticize, but since they aren't we have the right to say nothing.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 20, 2004 04:51 PM
and the same problem comes back, the older plants would have to be taken off grids (not enough power as it is) and completely torn down and rebuilt to GET that efficiency
and we aren't allowed to build nuclear (nuqewler) plants due to very vocal, small population activist groups
it's a lose-lose-lose-lose situation right now....
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 20, 2004 06:00 PM
Agreed, but unfortunately short term status quo will result in serious long term negative effects on the planet. The problem is that no one is really being forced to fix this stuff. I have heard of coal plants in Ontario that run stacks that are over 100 years old....and extremely dirty and inefficient...just because the stacks paid for themselves so many years ago that they're just making money for the plant. Environment Canada doesn't have the balls to make them shut those horrible things down, and yet the saw mill burners have been shut down in BC for years. I suspect that the EPA is that same way...if the lobby has enough money, the wheels of change either stop or slow down dramatically. The problem is the one day we will wake up and HAVE to change, and by then it will be too late.
As far as the nuclear power goes....I am not for it at all. Hell, I grew up in BC (all Hydro Electric power) and never even saw a coal plant until 3 years ago. my opinion: the waste is too toxic and lasts too long....and where do we hide the stuff? In the ground. On top of that check out that website of that girl who rides her bike through the Chernobyl area: that one accident is enough to put me totally against nuclear power. People can argue "we use different technology", but what about 3 Mile Island? Didn't Hanford have some problems as well? Isn't Hanford used primarily to create plutonium? That in itself is a good enough reason to shut them all down.
|
RAC4IT
Needs a job
Bergie
Posts: 3009
|
posted November 20, 2004 07:24 PM
Edited By: RAC4IT on 20 Nov 2004 19:24
WHO CARES anyway since when do any laws apply to motorcycles LOL
next you'll be trying to tell me the speed limit is 55 mph..
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 20, 2004 11:34 PM
not much i can add to this thread since all the points i thought of reading it have already been presented, cept i dont agree about the nuclear power issue. i for one think it's the best alternative immediately available to coal and gas/oil powered plants. the environmental damage, and i suspect event the human loss of life, from the one accident in i don't know how long, can't compare to the damage and life lost due to dirtier methods. besides, tho nuclear waste is a huge problem right now, i believe they'll find a good way of dealing with it within a hundred years or so. i know that's generally a very stupid approach to take, but i beleive it's prolly the ebst one we can hope for. mind u, there are other alternatives, i just don't think we're as likely to see them happen, like more "alternative" energy sources like sun, geothermal, wind, and currents & run of the river. of course an even better solution would be to just seriously curtail our energy usage patterns to the point where we could prolyl supply ourselfs frmo existing clean sources plus just the odd coal or nuclear plant. hell, jsut moving everyone to geothermal home heating/air conditioning should save TONS of energy. it's jsut capital to get it happening, laziness, and/or indifference.
|
ZX-12RBob
Parking Attendant
Posts: 17
|
posted November 21, 2004 12:32 AM
When are people in this country(THE U.S.A.) going to realize EPA laws are NOT going to save the planet.The other countrys on this planet don't give a shit about our EPA and polute the planet as they see fit.This one little country CAN NOT save the planet by its self.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 21, 2004 04:56 AM
Canada: the problem with shutting down the coal plants that are so dirty, is how do you replace the power they generate?
i don't know about up north, but down here, even in rural areas, we have brownouts and dirty power. caused by excess load on the grid. More than can be supplied now.
if we take a 4000 MW power plant off the grid.....
the status quo needs to be changed, yes. i agree. But politics is not the reason we cannot upgrade current power plants. Our own energy consumption is the reason.
I also agree that nuclear waste disposal IS a problem, but again it is more political than it is realistic. There are many geologically stable places to store the waste until it can be recycled or used, whenever the tech becomes available. But the same fringe groups that prevent the building of wind power facilities, that prevent the use of CURRENT power plants of many kinds, won't allow it.
the technology right now is EXCELLENT for the reduction (concentration) and storage of the used fuel. But we aren't allowed to use it TO DO SO because of a fringe minority.
Three Mile Island was early in the program, and happened because of ignorant operating policy. It was a complete fluke as far as the rest of this country's nuclear power history is concerned. It has also not ever happened again.
Yes Chenobyl WAS a different design altogether. That is NOT BS, it is plain and simple fact.
the plant, AS DESIGNED, was perfectly safe. However the soviet nuclear program has ALWAYS been light on the personel protection, and light on the safety measures.
the design of the pant is different from Western nuclear power plants in many wyas. the biggest design difference is in how the core handles temperature changes. In Western designs the power output is inverse of water (coolant) temperature. As water temperature rises, power drops off.
The chernobyl plant had a positive temperature coefficient. Which means that as temperature rose, so did core reactivity.......
and when some retard disables the safety mechanisms and systems, whish is what happened, you are left with NO protective features.
amazing what kinds of damage a little steam cloud can do....
But it is natural for people to dislike nuclear on the basis of 2 incidents.
i think....
the possibility of a 100mile radius of land becoming useless is quite daunting. However....
every DAY millions of people breathe in coal plant exhaust, and breathe in vehicle exhaust...and every day millions of people are hurt healthwise because of it.
there IS a risk associated with nuclear power, but the programs that we have in place minimize the risk to the point of needing gross personel issues, or sabotage, to cause a major problem.
you would not BELIEVE how anal power plant operations can be...you ahve NO IDEA how unbelievably nitpicky NRC inspectors are.....to the point that a power plant operator who gets a speeding ticket is disqualified from oeprating the plant....now THAT is anal...
Just some food for thought...
oh yeh, just so you don't think i am just talking out my a$$, i operated a nuclear power plant for 8 years.... my current job is wind power ;P
(and no i didn't get a speeding ticket ;P )
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 21, 2004 10:08 AM
I think the real problem has been and continues to be a lack of emphasis on research for alternative energy sources. Wind power is a good start, but some consider is a blight on the face of the earth and only works in certain areas. Hydro electic is fine, but that is geographically dependant, and also requires massive dams and flooding of vast areas. The jury is still out on solar energy. What else is there?
The powers-that-be should have been trying to solve these problems before they happened instead of after they began to happen. I understand about the energy needs and the brown outs, etc....that doesn't change the fact that these coal plants are massive polluters. Why were these plants not taken offline years ago and replaced with newer, more efficient versions? There are two answers I think......money (greed) and the lack of government regulations and enforcement. It's not important enough to care about yet, and will only be important enough when the problems become epidemic...and by then it will be too late.
I still don't think I can be convinced that nuclear energy is safe. Sure the western plants may be safe (relatively), but storing waste in "geographically stable" areas (for now anyways) is still sweeping the problem under the rug and just leaving for our descendants to deal with. Unless there is a way to turn the 1/2 life of uranium to about 30 seconds, there will always be, for all intents and pruposes, a problem. What is the 1/2 life of this stuff anyways? 10,000 years? And doesn't that also mean that in that time it will become just 1/2 as radioactive? That still sounds horrible to me.
|
Ozzy
Needs a job
need guberment cheese
Posts: 3172
|
posted November 21, 2004 10:19 AM
AMA had an article about this some months ago and what I gathered from its content was that the goverment is trying to put some regulation on the many kit bike builders that currently are not covered by manufacturers laws. hell look at any of those chopper bikes, The lighting doesn't meet any standard. The license is mounted sideways. No mufflers, straight pipes all the way. Maybe 2 brakes, more than likely just one.
We cry foul if a cop stops us for a non oem pipe or our plate is tilted to steep. About time the hogley wannabe chopper riders step up to some sort of similiar compliance as the rest of us  :
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 21, 2004 03:52 PM
the problem with the assumption that the waste will sit forever is that we WILL find ways to use it. we can't right now, but there's no reason to believe that we never will.
in the last decade, france has learned to utilize waste for other projects, and theya re now recycling some nuclear waste for other uses.
Cobalt-60 is one of the more pernicious wastes, i think it is close to the 10000 year half life. but the concentration that it is produced in is small.
the problem is lack of education and lack of the care to learn more.
and that leads to people like greenpeace and sierra club....
as far as the old plants go, where DO you get the energy to replace them on grids while upgrading?
as far as alternative energy sources? they ahve been researching those since at least the 70s, solar has been around longer.
but the problem is that at our current technology level, we DON'T have the answers. it doesn't mean that noone is trying to FIND them......(as is the common assumption. just because there aren't any visible results, doesn't mean there is no program to find them...)
money IS a big issue, though i wouldn't classify it as greed as readily as others might. The problem is WHO foots the bills, and WHO will supply the funds to perform the upgrades.
if you do them incrementally, it is much better for everyone. but then you run in to the problems of HOW incrementally. Clinton's plan? it wouldn't ahve resulted in ANY plants being upgraded, because it was not incremental at all.
but too slowly, and you never achieve change.
but rightnow, we have NOTHING to add to grids to ALLOW the current polluters to be shut down. Why? because of excess government regulation (price fixing, california anyone??) and the eco-nazis who REFUSE to allow anything to bebuilt anywhere....
we can't build refineries inthe USA because of fringe groups.
we can't build power plants in the USA because of fringe groups
we can't start up EXISTING completed power p[lants in the USA because of fringe groups.
if we don't ALLOW ourselves to improve out energy production, we will NEVER fix the problems that exist now.
it's sad...but it is life in the political world we live in.
|
Scooter
Zone Head
Posts: 899
|
posted November 22, 2004 03:24 AM
Edited By: Scooter on 22 Nov 2004 03:28
Interesting can 'o worms we have here.
Slug, I think you nailed it with that last paragraph. The environmental extremists don't want anything done unless it's the perfect solution. Skip developing any of the current technology and all the steps in between , and go straight to a clean , renewable long term resource. Yeah right , and we all know perfect is a long way out there.
Then there's the grandfather laws that allow older plants to operate under the old standards. Newer plants have to meet much stricter standards. This is what defeats the incentive to take those old plants offline and replace them. And just so you know I'm not talking out my a$$ either, I've been a powerplant operator for the last 17 yrs. 3 units, 1) gas, 2) wood, gas and coal, 3) pulp process liquor and gas fired. Those EPA standards are a HUGE part of my everyday routine. It's frustrating as hell to toe the line while the plant just 2 miles across the river operates under different rules. Something's got to give. Upgrade the gross polluters . There is technology out there, may not be cheap, but it's better than shutting down. In the meantime even more money needs to be spent developing and installing more efficient plants. And this goes for industry as a whole , not just electric companies. The lobyists/fringe groups need to be taken out of the equation, bite the bullet and get things set up for the future if there's gonna be one.
( And as a industrial waste water plant operator also, don't even get me started there)
There's a new plant (5 units) slated to be built 25 miles up the road from here. It'd bring all kinds of badly needed development to the area, not to mention the 10 yr construction alone. But you should hear the locals whine about the water usage and the transmission lines etc. (and then whine about the economy in the same breath) In the meantime we're at capacity for our current systems. All hell broke loose when a dam broke way out in the boonies last year and the surge ended up flooding out a plant up on Lake Superior. Lost power for weeks. But the plant's back up now and everyone has forgotten...until the lights go out again.
Right now, other than hydro and wind, nuclear power is the only other attainable source out there that can meet the demand. As for "our EPA laws aren't gonna save the world while others over pollute", the nuclear aspect of that statement is scary. Let's develop what we have and get the other guys tag along. We have to set the example by leadership and help struggling countries not to repeat the same mistakes. Sure it's easier for them, getting the benefit of "our" knowlegde and
effort. But hey, look at the alternative, we all go down together. You'd cringe if you saw how many nuke plants are in Europe.
I belive 12RPilot is a nuke plant operator. Maybe he'll come along and share his view.
It just pisses me off that there will be more public attention put into removing the pipe off my "finely tuned" (cough, cough) sportbike than addressing the gross polluters. My snowmobile pollutes WAY more than all my other vehicles combined. So what if it's road legal or not, the result is the same. As far as not having any effect on anyone other than the "american chopper " lemmings. How long before the definition of custom or kit gets twisted to include everything. How many are running modded factory engines , extended swingarms , lowerd frames. How long before the chopper crowd starts whining "what about those rice rockets , there doin' it too." There's a lot more cruiser types out there than there are of us. Their whine will be heard, and the revenue potential will be recognized. That's my worry.
Hey Slug, Keep the pics comin'. You scored a dream job. Need an assistant? LOL!
____________
"Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional."
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 22, 2004 10:11 AM
Honestly, change is enevitable. It happened and is still happening in the motocross world...2 strokes wil be completely gone in a few years... and the 4 stroke bikes will have catalytic convertors on them. The same will be true of sleds and quads. I have heard of places banning Briggs and Stratton Lawnmower engines and briquette barbeques. It is all out of neccesity and we all are going to have to do our parts....even to reduce the pollution by 1%.
Here is an example of "progress": in about 1995 R-12 refrigerant was banned in Canada and other countries including the US (along with a list of other CFC's) for use in air conditioning systems.....even though the amount used in air conditioning systems was a drop in the bucket compared to the amount used industrially for cleaning...which was still ok to do. Why is this? The paranoid side of me says that big business refused to comply because it was too expensive to switch over....and were allowed to do this because of the lobby power of big business. It was not a big deal for the automotive and refridgeration users to switch over at the beginning of the next model year, so they didn't bitch about it....but no one cared about the poor consumer that had to retrofit to R-134a or other refrigerants.... that's too bad for them.
The problem as I see it is that without being forced to comply with new regulations, who would volunteer to change? The answer: is very few people or groups. It's the same with a person with a heart condition eating a fatty diet....without being forced to eat better by the collective wills of the people he or she is surrounded by, most would not change. Environment Canada and the EPA need to force these regulations and get rid of grandfathering entirely, by giving reasonable deadlines for the removal of these offending plants from the power grids, and having newer more efficient plants coming online to replace them as well as stimulating more research into other alternatives. I understand about the problems of trying to please or appease the locals (the "not in my backyard" mentality), but in some cases the plants can be built on existing sights, or away from inhabitants. There is no perfect answer, but once again the short sightedness of industry, governments, and individuals is going to kill the planet.
I do feel hypocritical in making these statements, but really feel that there is virtually nothing I can do. I keep my vehicles in a perfect state of tune, I don't remove the catalytic convertors from my cars and trucks, and I try to not drive unneccesarily...what else can I do? Without the government stepping in and requiring mandatory emissions requirements for everything from gas powered weed eaters to power plants, no one is going to make the effort.
Scooter: I wouldn't worry too much about the cruiser crowd and the pressure they can exert on government. Even if they do succeed, our aftermarket companies will step up and produce hi-po parts that meet or exceed those requirements. Muzzy's will just have to come out with a hi-po pipe with an integral convertor and an O2 sensor hole built in....which is no big deal; the automotive aftermarket has been doing this for years. Sure it will cost more, but if there is no other choice, then what can you do?
There are typically two parts to an emissions inspection: visual (to determine if all of the OEM components are present and connected) and sniffer test (sometimes performed using a dyno to simulate real world conditions). As long as your OEM (or equivalent) emissions equipment is there, AND it passes the sniffer test for that model and year of vehicle, they couldn't care whether the bike was 1198cc or 1427cc. Also even severe modifications (like a turbo) could still pass providing the parts were certified by a governing body (like C.A.R.B. approval). It's not hopeless by any means, and the cool thing is that once the companies are forced to comply with these new rules, a whole new paradigm of products or features will be released. This will mean high horsepower, high efficiency, and better fuel economy. Motorcycles today (as far as emissions technology goes) are where automobiles were 10-15 years ago, and the cars of that time were complete shit compared to today. Why did they get so much better? The companies were forced to comply by legislation. The California government forced the implementation of OBDII standards in about 1998 because of the more strict emissions requirements and it forced companies to raise the standards of their computer control systems. Here is an example: before OBDII, most (if not all) Japanese car makers used ECU's that only had flash code diagnostics (exactly like the 12R has). This only tells a person what system has the problem, but it gives no data to work with....which slows down diagnostics and ends up costing the consumer more money to have a given problem fixed.
OBDII forced any company that wished to sell a car in California to use scan tool diagnostics AND to use a standardized diagnostic connector and fault code structure. This means that any fault that triggered a "Service engine soon" light (or equivalent) would have to have data parameters available to aid diagnostics. It also meant that any stored code would require the ECU to take a "snapshot" of the relevent data parameters. There is way more to OBDII standards than what I have mentioned, but this should give an idea of what has been accomplished. All of this was intended to improve emissions, but the spin off was better, more accurate, and more cost effective diagnostics for the consumer, all while providing better HP per displacement than before. Without this legislation, these advancements would most likely not have happened.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 22, 2004 12:26 PM
good points 
but we MUST have power on grids before we shut more plants down.
otherwise we get the same cascaded blackout like last year...
where EVERY plant gets overloaded and trips offline...
our electrical grid is pretty scary right now...it has pretty much NO room for error or failure....
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 22, 2004 12:43 PM
Yeah, very true.....
sure is sad that it got to this point.....
|
your car is slow
Needs a job
Fuck Nitrous...Got Boost?
Posts: 4089
|
posted November 22, 2004 12:55 PM
GM never made the H1
But I like the points in this thread on both sides!
____________
Do not taunt happy fun ball!
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 22, 2004 01:30 PM
I guess you're right about the H1....I think GM does own Hummer now, but didn't during the H1 era. I just assumed GM owned Hummer because we had to do warranty work on H1's in our GM store.
|
your car is slow
Needs a job
Fuck Nitrous...Got Boost?
Posts: 4089
|
posted November 22, 2004 07:23 PM
Edited By: your car is slow on 22 Nov 2004 19:28
AM General still makes the H1.....GM merely owns the name and produces the H2/H3 lines.
Just silly sometimes that it gets lumped in with other vehicles (by you this time) even though its produced in so small a number for the civilian population as to be an immeasurable impact on pollution worlwide. I think somewhere less than 400 H1s will be made this year for civilian use (many many more for military..but thats not part of the discussion).
As stated before...there are many other areas that should be concentrated on that would make a larger impact on reducing CFCs and emissions than H1s....but that just wouldnt give you the ability to pick on something the average joe can see...must be the fault of the guy driving the H1 instead
____________
Do not taunt happy fun ball!
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC