Kornholio
:wave
I didn't necessarily mean that the state was providing it. I never actually said that.
CA to start smogging bikes?
- Thread starter bruddakhan
- Start date
I didn't necessarily mean that the state was providing it. I never actually said that.
OldFatGuy
Fondling Member and 1%er
Sorry, that was the way I read it. So what you really mean is that there would be a huge profit for the companies that manufacture testing equipment, since all the smog stations would be forced to buy it if they want to test motorcycles (kind of like every other time the BAR has mandated extra equipment like dynos and evap testers).
Kornholio
:wave
Exactly. However I highly doubt said stations owners would have the money to buy the equipment and, certainly, testing motorcycles is inherently more dangerous to the technicians than is testing a car.
OldFatGuy
Fondling Member and 1%er
Meh, depends on the test. If they just do a TSI test, I don't really see much danger in it.
OldFatGuy
Fondling Member and 1%er
You'll get no argument from me. But I can think of plenty of ways the current system doesn't make sense and that isn't stopping anybody. The state will get their money one way or the other, whether it's actually cleaning the air or not.
Kornholio
:wave
Luckily for me, my industry actually works and we can back that up with science and numbers. The non-diesel industry is too easy to cheat with though, so it's no surprise that people do it.
Hoppalong
Well-known member
But how much of the _overall_ pollution would this prevent? Are there that many motorcycles ridden that many miles in California that it's a significant amount of the total pollution?
Kornholio
:wave
As of 2011, there's 818,650 motorcycles registered in California. Yeah, it matters.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AiE77Jh-L6_BZfNQFXC-leA&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AiE77Jh-L6_BZfNQFXC-leA&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE
Hoppalong
Well-known member
Kornholio, based on your link, I see that roughly 3.6% of CA. vehicles are motorcycles. Now I'm going to assume that most are owned by people with cars, so are ridden many fewer miles than the corresponding number of cars are driven. Probably easily less than 1% of total traveled miles.
My next question is: would smogging motorcycles affect the number of new purchasers? Would there be less people willing to commute by motorycle? If so, would it still be worth smogging motorcycles?
For analogy: Do carpool lanes cause enough people to carpool such that there is an overall decrease in smog. Even when compared to the increase in smog caused by thier contribution to stop-and-go congestion in the other lanes?
OldFatGuy
Fondling Member and 1%er
Smogging cars doesn't seem to be a driving force in people's decisions to buy motorcycles. And I doubt many people buy new cars just to avoid the inconvenience of smogging their older ones, so I don't really think it would drive people away from motorcycles, either. It would just be a minor inconvenience, like smogging cars is now.
afm199
Well-known member
However the number on the road is so small that it is not significant. If all motorcycle pollutions were on a graph the length of a football field, the last six inches would be street bikes, the remainder off road.
Yes, the emmissions generated by motorcycles is a fraction of a percent of total vehicle emmissions. One of the reasons why red stickers for off-road bikes and not being able to convert off-road bike to street legal is ridiculous.
Tri750
Mr. Knew it All
They have been threatining this since 1975.
The auto smog shops don't want it as they don't want to buy another smog dyno for such a small piece of the pie and the liability of strapping down a bike, riding/pushing a bike, increased workmans comp claims and insurance costs because of operating/pushing a bike, having someone's tired engine blow, someone else's tire blow because it has 6 plugs in it, plus having the nightmare of doing a visual inspection. pulling body panels, lifting tanks, etc, etc.
it will be a long time before this is settled. I wouldn't get all worked up over it.
I do suggest to folks that choose to remove charcoal canisters and change exhausts that they stick them in the rafters for who knows when or for the bikes next owner. It's just smart.
The auto smog shops don't want it as they don't want to buy another smog dyno for such a small piece of the pie and the liability of strapping down a bike, riding/pushing a bike, increased workmans comp claims and insurance costs because of operating/pushing a bike, having someone's tired engine blow, someone else's tire blow because it has 6 plugs in it, plus having the nightmare of doing a visual inspection. pulling body panels, lifting tanks, etc, etc.
it will be a long time before this is settled. I wouldn't get all worked up over it.
I do suggest to folks that choose to remove charcoal canisters and change exhausts that they stick them in the rafters for who knows when or for the bikes next owner. It's just smart.
Last edited:
jh2586
Well-known member
They don't disclose the make and models of the vehicles in that article. I think it depends on what cars vs what bikes. If you put a Prius against a ZX14R or Harley with straight pipes then I can see that. But what about a H2 Hummer against a Ninja 250?
OldFatGuy
Fondling Member and 1%er
The ninja 250 will still put out more ppm, though much less total volume of pollutants.
i do not get "smog" if a carbureted bike can get 50+ mpg and the same bike only newer with fi can never get as much as 45 mpg. who puts out more "smog".
same make and model,
just the older one is carbureted, only electronic eng.
the newer one has fi, and a couple computers just to run.
newer bike weighs less even.
.
same make and model,
just the older one is carbureted, only electronic eng.
the newer one has fi, and a couple computers just to run.
newer bike weighs less even.
.
