CA wants to smog check motorcycles

[pdog]

They don't check bikes after they are sold. New bikes still have to meet an air quality standard - why do you think they are putting CCs on them now? - but the quality standard is much lower than cars.

This article is about checking them regularly after they are sold so people don't remove the CC.

Originally Posted by zed

can you explain how they know that %? they already said they don't check them so how do they know?

[zed]

Originally Posted by pdog

They don't check bikes after they are sold. New bikes still have to meet an air quality standard - why do you think they are putting CCs on them now? - but the quality standard is much lower than cars.

This article is about checking them regularly after they are sold so people don't remove the CC.

so, you're saying that they let MC's get away with 10% more emissions than they do cars.

wasn't the way I read the article but ok.

[pdog]

Not 10%, 10 times as much. And a 60s era Vespa puts out about 100x what a modern car does. Next time you see a hipster on an old Vespa, tell him he's being a dick to Mother Earth.

Originally Posted by zed

so, you're saying that they let MC's get away with 10% more emissions than they do cars.

[azoomm]

Wait, you said 10% of the total pollution.

[goes back to look]

Yes, that is what you said...

Your bike smells to you because you're sitting on top of the exhaust. Your car's exhaust doesn't pump into the cabin. So, of COURSE you don't smell it. Not a very scientific response, Mike.

This was a point of interest in my Environmental Science class today. My professor owns a consulting firm and is an expert when it comes to this topic. The numbers here seem off to him

Now that we've all gone around and around - what exactly is the point of all this? Trying to point out there SHOULD be catalytic converters on motorcycles and they should be left on? Testing? Who's money are we spending now?

[ericr]

Originally Posted by azoomm

Wait, you said 10% of the total pollution.

[goes back to look]

Yes, that is what you said...

Your bike smells to you because you're sitting on top of the exhaust. Your car's exhaust doesn't pump into the cabin. So, of COURSE you don't smell it. Not a very scientific response, Mike.

This was a point of interest in my Environmental Science class today. My professor owns a consulting firm and is an expert when it comes to this topic. The numbers here seem off to him

Now that we've all gone around and around - what exactly is the point of all this? Trying to point out there SHOULD be catalytic converters on motorcycles and they should be left on? Testing? Who's money are we spending now?

Yeah Moira, those numbers are way off and the only way it could be true is if they only tested 2 strokes. But that's how how environmentalists work. It was the same thing with Freon, claimed it zoomed right up to the upper atmosphere and attacked the ozone layer (but somehow only over Australia ) and they totally overlooked the fact that Freon is heavier than air and when released into air...sinks to the lowest possible level... chemistry 101. All the greenhouse gas bs is the same, rediculously insuficient fact to support a theory to make themselfs feel better about feeling guilty for using resources. Funny that the oil was supposed to run out back in the early 80's too when we used up the dinosaurs.

I saw a bumper sticker on a car once..."save the planet, ride a horse" oxymoron or just moron

[RACER X]

my bike HAD a cat. in '00, orig. owner changed exhaust , i think even '99 VFRs had cats. it;s non-CA.

they've been around quite a while, yes my exhaust is illegal.

[pdog]

Originally Posted by azoomm

Wait, you said 10% of the total pollution.

Yes, and they make up 1% of the total population. Therefore on a per capita basis, the average bike pollutes 10x more than the average car.

Your bike smells to you because you're sitting on top of the exhaust. Your car's exhaust doesn't pump into the cabin. So, of COURSE you don't smell it. Not a very scientific response, Mike.

I'm talking about starting the car and standing near the rear bumper. The difference in smell is obvious to me but I did explicitly state it was not very scientific and certainly can vary due to engine temp, etc.

Now that we've all gone around and around - what exactly is the point of all this? Trying to point out there SHOULD be catalytic converters on motorcycles and they should be left on? Testing? Who's money are we spending now?

Getting people to ask those questions of themselves is the point. That's when a useful, intellectual discussion can start rather than your typical Internet forum flamefest. I've made my opinion clear.

[azoomm]

It smells like burning.

You aren't referring to ALL pollution. You are referring to passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions. Or, that's what the article refers to.

The numbers:


So, the ONLY number of concern for motorcycles are the CO numbers. I mean, we wouldn't worry about any others as they are significantly lower than any other. Right?

You understand that transportation only has a 7% impact on Particulate Matter - which actually has more of an affect on asthma and smog than VOC's. That is OVERALL pollution. And, motorcycles don't come into play there. [referring to the chart] My 7% number comes from my research project and text book used for my class.

Did you notice on their report that lawn and garden equipment actually had a higher output of CO than on-road motorcycles? So, those should have converters too...

[Rsv1000R]

Originally Posted by azoomm

Did you notice on their report that lawn and garden equipment actually had a higher output of CO than on-road motorcycles? So, those should have converters too...

I believe I've heard they're planning on doing this too.

I'm late, and didn't read the whole thing, but I think the complain with MC's is that while they might emit less/vehicle, they tend to emit a lot compared to engine size, and passenger count.

Toss in the rampant changing to off-road exhaust systems, and you have a big basket of low hanging fruit.

Even if the total emission output of MC's isn't a large portion of the total emission output.

[pdog]

I don't know the units, timespan, location or any other background or context about the numbers in your chart. So I can't agree or disagree with any conclusions about the chart.

I applaud cleanup of other sources too. Motorcycles shouldn't be unfairly targeted or exempted, more than any other emission source.

Originally Posted by azoomm

So, the ONLY number of concern for motorcycles are the CO numbers. I mean, we wouldn't worry about any others as they are significantly lower than any other. Right?

You understand that transportation only has a 7% impact on Particulate Matter - which actually has more of an affect on asthma and smog than VOC's. That is OVERALL pollution. And, motorcycles don't come into play there. [referring to the chart] My 7% number comes from my research project and text book used for my class.

Did you notice on their report that lawn and garden equipment actually had a higher output of CO than on-road motorcycles? So, those should have converters too...

Originally Posted by Rsv1000R

I believe I've heard they're planning on doing this too.

I'm late, and didn't read the whole thing, but I think the complain with MC's is that while they might emit less/vehicle, they tend to emit a lot compared to engine size, and passenger count.

Toss in the rampant changing to off-road exhaust systems, and you have a big basket of low hanging fruit.

Even if the total emission output of MC's isn't a large portion of the total emission output.

Well said.