• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What a CROCK!!

B

Brutuskend

Lifer
New Motorcycle Emission Standards Set
Tue Dec 23, 9:49 PM ET Add U.S. Government - AP to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) on Tuesday set the first new emission standards for highway motorcycles in 25 years, and the first standards for small scooters and mopeds.



EPA said it would reduce pollution from motorcycles, which produce more harmful exhaust per mile than cars or large SUVs, by about 54,000 tons of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides per year. Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a key component of smog.


The agency said the regulations, which were proposed last year, also would save about 12 million gallons a year of gas escaping from vehicles' fuel hoses and fuel tanks.


"These new rules significantly advance pollution standards for motorcycles," EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said.


Starting in 2006, manufacturers of highway motorcycles, small scooters and mopeds will be required to reduce emissions of those two chemicals by 60 percent by using improved technologies such as secondary air injection, electronic fuel injection systems and catalytic converters.


Starting 2008, manufacturers also will be required to better control fuel loss through fuel hoses and tanks.


The new emission controls are estimated to add about $75 to the $10,000 average cost of a motorcycle by 2010.

 
The agency said the regulations, which were proposed last year, also would save about 12 million gallons a year of gas escaping from vehicles' fuel hoses and fuel tanks.


"These new rules significantly advance pollution standards for motorcycles," EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said.
Click to expand...
Why is this a crock?
 
Umm... that wasn't funny at all. Isn't there a law or something that all your posts have to be jokes? Ban!
 
It's not a crock, it's about time. If I have to comply with all this clean air crap in my cars it is only fair that people with motorcycles should also instead of the free emissions ride they have been getting for years. BTW....I own a bike too.
 
Being able to breathe clean air is a good thing. Motorcycle manufacturers will adapt, just as car manufacturers did.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Being able to breathe clean air is a good thing. Motorcycle manufacturers will adapt, just as car manufacturers did.
Click to expand...

 
I also hear that the equipment inspection has been tightened up to fail any exhaust mods ie.off road mufflers and headers. Can't touch the factory equipment anymore plus there's going to be a noise criteria as well to pinch those noisy crotch vibrators..
 
I don't get it. Don't most motorcycles get great MPG. And don't they use the same gas. So if motorcycles and cars use the same gas, the fuel burns, what's left over, they say is bad. Where does it go in a car?

KK
 
I'm ALL for clean air!

Why is this a crock?

Which uses more gas, one person on a motorcycle or one person in a SUV?
How often do you see a SUV will ALL the seats filled?
How often do you see a SUV with even TWO seats filled?

SUV's have lesser fuel consumption regs than cars, and it seems a LOT of people that have them DO NOT NEED them!
Fine, this is the USA, buy and drive what you want. But to put restrictions on motorcycles and let SUV's continue to hog up the roads is ridicules IMO.
 
Originally posted by: KK
I don't get it. Don't most motorcycles get great MPG. And don't they use the same gas. So if motorcycles and cars use the same gas, the fuel burns, what's left over, they say is bad. Where does it go in a car?

KK
Click to expand...
It either gets burned, or eaten up by the emissions equipment(catalytic converter, etc).

It's called efficiency. It varies from engine to engine. 😛

Cars have very strict emissions regulations, so they clean them up and make them efficient. Motorcycles do not, so they have not bothered.

I bet Honda's motorcycle engines already come close if not meet the requirements.
 
So no more American Chopper?

SUVs aside, I tend to agree with this being a partial crock. The fuel loss through hoses and tanks, great, I don't see any downside here for anyone, go for it. 2008? That's the easier and more practical part, should be first and sooner. While that motorcycle is sitting in the garage untouched for 300+ days of the year there's no reason for it to be venting gas fumes.

Thing is, most motorcycles do sit around 300 days or more of the year, don't they? Sure, some people use them as daily transportation, lots go riding on the weekends, lots ride their bike a half dozen times all year. That's where the crock part comes in. My first thought is there should be an exemption based on miles per year. The benefits of adding cost and complexity to bikes that get ridden 500 miles all year are very low. Of course the problem is how to enforce it.

54,000 tons and 12 million gallons sound like a lot. They are a lot. But they're a very small percentage. North American drivers of all types of vehicles put out 1,760 million metric tons in 1998. To not put out that 54,000 is nice and all, but efforts elsewhere would yield more useful results. So yeah, in the grand scheme of things it is a crock to even bother taking the time to talk about motorcycles. 12 million gallons from venting, not even going to bother looking, too small a drop in the bucket to even google a comparison. But since that's an easy and obvious fix I'm still for it. If nothing else your garage will smell better.
 
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Arnt we gunna run out of petrol in 50 years time anyway? 😕
Click to expand...

We ran out in 1983, just like they were saying. We ran out again in 1990, then again in 1995, then again in 2002.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Arnt we gunna run out of petrol in 50 years time anyway? 😕
Click to expand...

We ran out in 1983, just like they were saying. We ran out again in 1990, then again in 1995, then again in 2002.
Click to expand...

I dont get it...
 
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I'm ALL for clean air!

Why is this a crock?

Which uses more gas, one person on a motorcycle or one person in a SUV?
How often do you see a SUV will ALL the seats filled?
How often do you see a SUV with even TWO seats filled?

SUV's have lesser fuel consumption regs than cars, and it seems a LOT of people that have them DO NOT NEED them!
Fine, this is the USA, buy and drive what you want. But to put restrictions on motorcycles and let SUV's continue to hog up the roads is ridicules IMO.
Click to expand...

ahhh ic...

yeah i agree w/ u in that sense...


also, I HATE BIKE RIDERS WHO RIDE DOWN THE STREET W/ THEIR MUFFLERS OFF..WTF... those small stupid bikes makes so much noise pollution.
They should make loud motorcycles punishable by a fine of $20000
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Arnt we gunna run out of petrol in 50 years time anyway? 😕
Click to expand...

We ran out in 1983, just like they were saying. We ran out again in 1990, then again in 1995, then again in 2002.
Click to expand...

You forgot 1973. The first time we "ran out".
 
I'm ALL for clean air!

Why is this a crock?

Which uses more gas, one person on a motorcycle or one person in a SUV?
How often do you see a SUV will ALL the seats filled?
How often do you see a SUV with even TWO seats filled?

SUV's have lesser fuel consumption regs than cars, and it seems a LOT of people that have them DO NOT NEED them!
Fine, this is the USA, buy and drive what you want. But to put restrictions on motorcycles and let SUV's continue to hog up the roads is ridicules IMO.
Click to expand...
I fully understand your point. But it is completely non-related.
Apples to oranges.

Realistically, besides a slight increase in manufacturing cost, I'm not seeing the downside here.
If your point is that it's a double standard then you're right. But, so what?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top