CA wants to smog check motorcycles - Page 5

pdog · 05-06-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 05-07-2009, 12:54 AM

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...

RACER X · 05-07-2009, 07:59 AM

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.

Tmall · 05-07-2009, 08:03 AM

My bike doesn't have a cat. But, my pipe is race use only. So, mine is illegal as well.

Particle Man · 05-07-2009, 08:54 AM

My cat was sleeping on my bike this morning but I kicked her off... uh oh....

Rsv1000R · 05-07-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

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 · 05-07-2009, 09:04 AM

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.

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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.

azoomm · 05-07-2009, 09:41 AM

Mike, the numbers I posted are from the study in the article YOU posted. Didn't you read them?

The off-road emissions reported are significantly less than those reported for on-road. My problem is with HOW they came up with their numbers. They are all estimations that aren't outlined as to how they came up with their estimations. Meaning - did they use a Harley, DRZ, VFR, 998, CBR, or Vespa for their research?

They [you] are throwing numbers at me that are ESTIMATES without being substantiated. That is the problem.

pdog · 05-07-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azoomm

Mike, the numbers I posted are from the study in the article YOU posted. Didn't you read them?

I don't see any numbers or spreadsheets linked from the article, so no, I didn't read them.

Quote:

The off-road emissions reported are significantly less than those reported for on-road. My problem is with HOW they came up with their numbers. They are all estimations that aren't outlined as to how they came up with their estimations. Meaning - did they use a Harley, DRZ, VFR, 998, CBR, or Vespa for their research?

They [you] are throwing numbers at me that are ESTIMATES without being substantiated. That is the problem.

I can't really argue this point - I don't know the details of the study anymore than you do.

I've only thrown one number at you: 10x the pollution. Here's the quote from the article:

Quote:

Motorcycles account for 3.6% of registered vehicles in the state and make up just 0.8% of vehicle-miles traveled, yet account for 10% of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions, according to the California Air Resources Board, which backs the measure.

10 / 0.8 = 12.5x so I was actually underreporting the problem.

azoomm · 05-07-2009, 10:19 AM

You are pulling numbers from an article that is based on the numbers I posted.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/onroad.htm That has the explanation of how those numbers were found - they weren't, they were estimated. Since motorcycles are currently NOT required to have emissions tests, where do those numbers come from? They are gathered from specific bikes - then estimated across the board. Now, if you were trying to get legislation passed - what would you use? A bike that has low emissions or high emissions? Either way - THAT isn't defined.

The numbers are found: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ems...09&F_AREA=CA#7

Would you like me to draw a better PICTURE?? Since most people deal better with pictures than numbers... let me provide that from the PDF below. This is from THEIR study. Motorcycle is the MC on the right. Clearly, it's a HUGE problem.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/briefs/emfac7.pdf

05-07-2009, 12:54 AM	#42
azoomm moderator chick Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Hill Country TX Moto: Pasta Rockets Posts: 8,917	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... __________________ We have enough youth. How about a fountain of "smart"? Come Play at the Track!! http://www.elitetrackdays.com

05-07-2009, 07:59 AM	#43
RACER X AMA Supersport Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Richmond, Tx Moto: '10 Tuono Factory Posts: 4,569	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. __________________ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ 2014 GROM! 181cc of FURY 2010 Aprilia Tuono Factory - SOLD 2009 SFV Gladius - SOLD 2008 Hayabusa - SOLD.

05-07-2009, 08:54 AM	#45
Particle Man Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Central NY Moto: 2003 SV650S Posts: 14,959	My cat was sleeping on my bike this morning but I kicked her off... uh oh.... __________________ I'm not "fat." I'm "Enlarged to show texture." Handle every stressful situation like a DOG: If you can't eat it or hump it, pi$$ on it & walk away.

05-07-2009, 09:41 AM	#48
azoomm moderator chick Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Hill Country TX Moto: Pasta Rockets Posts: 8,917	Mike, the numbers I posted are from the study in the article YOU posted. Didn't you read them? The off-road emissions reported are significantly less than those reported for on-road. My problem is with HOW they came up with their numbers. They are all estimations that aren't outlined as to how they came up with their estimations. Meaning - did they use a Harley, DRZ, VFR, 998, CBR, or Vespa for their research? They [you] are throwing numbers at me that are ESTIMATES without being substantiated. That is the problem. __________________ We have enough youth. How about a fountain of "smart"? Come Play at the Track!! http://www.elitetrackdays.com

05-07-2009, 10:19 AM	#50
azoomm moderator chick Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Hill Country TX Moto: Pasta Rockets Posts: 8,917	You are pulling numbers from an article that is based on the numbers I posted. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/onroad.htm That has the explanation of how those numbers were found - they weren't, they were estimated. Since motorcycles are currently NOT required to have emissions tests, where do those numbers come from? They are gathered from specific bikes - then estimated across the board. Now, if you were trying to get legislation passed - what would you use? A bike that has low emissions or high emissions? Either way - THAT isn't defined. The numbers are found: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ems...09&F_AREA=CA#7 Would you like me to draw a better PICTURE?? Since most people deal better with pictures than numbers... let me provide that from the PDF below. This is from THEIR study. Motorcycle is the MC on the right. Clearly, it's a HUGE problem. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/briefs/emfac7.pdf __________________ We have enough youth. How about a fountain of "smart"? Come Play at the Track!! http://www.elitetrackdays.com

05-07-2009, 08:03 AM	#44
Tmall Aspiring Rapper Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Halifax, NS Moto: '12 CB1000R Posts: 3,569	My bike doesn't have a cat. But, my pipe is race use only. So, mine is illegal as well.