CA wants to smog check motorcycles

[Dnyce]

most if not all slip-ons retain the cat, yet are still illegal. just a side note.



this idea is as dumb as the idea of banning black cars to lower pollution. remember that thread?

[pdog]

Nice work! I wonder if the numbers quoted in the article are based on raw data from another set. Either way, good detective work.

[pdog]

Originally Posted by Dnyce

most if not all slip-ons retain the cat, yet are still illegal. just a side note.

Good point. I think they are illegal because they don't pass noise laws?

this idea is as dumb as the idea of banning black cars to lower pollution. remember that thread?

That was a hoax. http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/darkcars.asp

[Archren]

Originally Posted by azoomm

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

Have I told you lately how much I love you?

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by pdog

Nice work! I wonder if the numbers quoted in the article are based on raw data from another set. Either way, good detective work.

They ARE based on those numbers. But, spun so they serve the purpose of panic. Welcome to media.

That doesn't mean CC aren't needed - it means they are a SMALL, itty bitty, tiny set of the problem that should be addressed. But, because we are the re-headed step children of the motor world - and non-motorcyclist that ARE the majority already see us as a problem - they can't save us from ourselves, so they need to save themselves from us.

I'm really tired of it.

Can't tell, can you?

[Rsv1000R]

Originally Posted by azoomm

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.

I don't know how they came up with these numbers.

But I have seen systems iirc being run in Ca which uses a laser to shine on exhaust as it's coming out of the vehicle while it's traveling down the road, where they can tell how much pollution is coming from each vehicle as it passes by. So they very well could have used empirical data taken from actual traffic.

[pdog]

Zoomie, it's really easy to fall into the "us vs them" trap. You can either believe a conspiracy or you can believe you don't have all the facts. I almost always choose the latter as it's more in line with Occam's Razor: “The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."

I'm sure your numbers are right - but they don't tell the whole story. Specifically my guess is they are estimates based on pollution numbers from the factories based on stock machines i.e. motorcycles are not a big problem when they have all the CC and pollution equipment installed. In other words, IMO the numbers you quote don't show the current state but the best case state. Seen in that light, the numbers quoted in the article no longer seem like panic/FUD/bias/wrong to me.

Originally Posted by azoomm

They ARE based on those numbers. But, spun so they serve the purpose of panic. Welcome to media.

That doesn't mean CC aren't needed - it means they are a SMALL, itty bitty, tiny set of the problem that should be addressed. But, because we are the re-headed step children of the motor world - and non-motorcyclist that ARE the majority already see us as a problem - they can't save us from ourselves, so they need to save themselves from us.

I'm really tired of it.

Can't tell, can you?

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by pdog

Zoomie, it's really easy to fall into the "us vs them" trap. You can either believe a conspiracy or you can believe you don't have all the facts. I almost always choose the latter as it's more in line with Occam's Razor: “The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."

I'm sure your numbers are right - but they don't tell the whole story. Specifically my guess is they are estimates based on pollution numbers from the factories based on stock machines i.e. motorcycles are not a big problem when they have all the CC and pollution equipment installed. In other words, IMO the numbers you quote don't show the current state but the best case state. Seen in that light, the numbers quoted in the article no longer seem like panic/FUD/bias/wrong to me.

Mike. The point I'm trying to make - those numbers are THEIR numbers, not mine. I pulled those from the site of the agency the LA Times was quoting. So, if there are numbers - they are THEIRS.

Do you SEE the frustration.

So, you say I'm wrong and they are right?? Wait... but, it's THEIR numbers and their quotes that I'm looking at. So, they are wrong - but the media is right? Fuck... who's right?

Who's on first?

[pdog]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Let's wrap up this discussion: Kids, be nice and keep the CC on your bike if possible, mmmkay?

[neebelung]

Originally Posted by pdog

Let's wrap up this discussion: Kids, be nice and keep the CC on your bike if possible, mmmkay?

Just cus you play the holier-than-thou card doesn't mean the rest of us aren't "being nice." If we're too much for ya, I'm sure lifetimetv.com has kinder gentler forums for ya.