Allowable exhaust gases

[BHarvey]

I've always been curious to see what the bike would give numbers wise in a good state of tune, without any pollution control, and with a racing exhaust and carb.

SSSSIIIIINNNNNCCCCEEEEEE we have been led to believe, OK, LIED to, that all that emissions crap on cars is needed.

[tjts1]

Riiiiiight....

[gone-ot]

...as the Tin Man said to Dorothy: "...pay NO attention to man in the TIN HAT..."

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by BHarvey

I've always been curious to see what the bike would give numbers wise in a good state of tune, without any pollution control, and with a racing exhaust and carb.

SSSSIIIIINNNNNCCCCEEEEEE we have been led to believe, OK, LIED to, that all that emissions crap on cars is needed.

yes we have been lied to, i am no conspiracy theorist on this regard either.
There are simple reasons why cars have the emissions stuff.

The truth is cars can be built (like the honda insight or earlier lean burn cars) to get excellent FE and have excellent emissions without really needing a CAT.

however legally now days you need it even if you have an EXPENSIVE highly controlled efficient lean burn engine because the law says you do. This is generally to cater to California due to NOX, and yes billy you do get better FE running lean and on this regard i disagree strongly with the government.

I like you would argue that if a motor is well controlled, emits very little overall pollution by volume it should be exempt from being required to have certain emissions controls systems, assuming it gets very high FE and passes emissions on its own (i think the volume of the different types of pollution though should be what is regulated, not the quality of it).

however, I am uncertain if your motorcycle would be capable of that, most vehicles that exceed emissions without a cat are relatively robust designs. Though honda did it 20 years ago, our big 3 usually can't because it costs a little more to do.

Cheers
Ryan

[Duffman]

Ummmm, the government doesnt mandate the equipment on the cars, only the tailpipe standards to be met.

[bwilson4web]

I'm so sorry but not surprised to see this nonsense:

Originally Posted by rmay635703

. . . This is generally to cater to California due to NOX, and yes billy you do get better FE running lean and on this regard i disagree strongly with the government.
. . .

Actually, you disagree with me.

In 1966, I helped ferry a VW bug from Oklahoma to Wyoming and we hit Denver in the morning. There was a redish haze over the Denver bowl, pollution.

In 1972, I was a young Marine with orders for Okinawa Japan. I drove my VW MicroBus from Kansas to California and everything was fine until I was on a highway access ramp in Riverside and my eyes teared up worse than the tear-gas hut I'd gone through a year before. It was pollution and I barely kept the van on the ramp, the pollution was that bad.

Personally, I think there should be a car 'gas chamber' where those who believe emission controls are unnecessary must stay in long enough to enjoy the NOx, HC-stink, and a light case of carbon monoxide headache. Repeat the treatment until they get a clue.

Click and Clack, the NRP Car Talk guys mentioned how modern cars are so efficient in reducing carbon monoxide that they don't have nearly the problem with ventilation in their garage that they used to have. Carbon monoxide has history.

Now I'm 61 years old and I was in my late teens and early 20s when I directly experience pollution effects. But even now in Alabama, I'll get behind some ijiot who 'fixed' their car . . . I can smell them and it always recalls the pain and headaches from my youth.

Bob Wilson

[tjts1]

Ahhh the good old days in LA before emissions controls. Its all a god damn conspiracy I tell you!

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by bwilson4web

I'm so sorry but not surprised to see this nonsense:

Actually, you disagree with me.

Bob Wilson

Actually I probably don't,

I did not say anything about taking the CAT off vehicles that can't pass emissions without one or anything about the 14mpg dinosaurs that were driven in that era.

Also, I highly doubt that NOX alone was the cause of that haze. If every car on the road in those years were 88 Honda Civics I doubt there would have been any haze despite the lack of a CAT.

If you would have read my rant a clean burning well designed engine that passes emissions should not need a cat, PERIOD. I don't recall mentioning 1960's era vehicles.

And YOU WILL NEVER convince me that the quality of the pollution is more important than the volume of it produced. The cars of that era averaging 14mpg in the city, running pig rich with no cat was the cause.

If they were lean burn cars getting 40mpg, well you have enough sense to see what I am getting at.

Cars that are designed well enough to pass emissions without a CAT should not need one and lean burn should be allowed in the 40 states it does not affect on vehicles that exceed 40mpg city because the volume of overall pollution from cars of that type is always lower than the 20mpg pigs most still seem to have. If I make 20grm per mile with a much higher percentage of nox that will always be better than 100grm per mile with "low" percentage of nox.

Cheers
Ryan

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Ummmm, the government doesnt mandate the equipment on the cars, only the tailpipe standards to be met.

??? US government definately infers the requirement of a variety of equipment OBDII for example implicitly requires a cat.

State law here at least also requires a cat regardless of the emissions output.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

??? US government definately infers the requirement of a variety of equipment OBDII for example implicitly requires a cat.

State law here at least also requires a cat regardless of the emissions output.

So why is there difference in implementation of the CAT across manufacturers, I have seen this statement many other times and yet reality doesn't bear it out when you compare equipment across manufacturers of the same year.