CA to start smogging bikes?

[Randy B]

And wouldn't the smog operator have to have an M endorsement to even touch a bike?

Just sayin....

[Kornholio]

You act like dynamometers for a motorcycle is some sort of new technology.

The bigger issue is the cost of supplying the testing stations with the machinery. It's not about the axiomatic fact that the pollution is present. And where have you seen that a shop is not responsible for damage to your vehicle?

[kelsodeez]

^that

i read somewhere that to outfit all of the smog stations with equipment to smog motorcycles, it would take over 10 years of motorcycle smogging for the program to get into the black.

[Papi]

Originally Posted by bruddakhan

LOL, i heard it at cycle gear the other day. Not sure if its being brought up again?

Wait, so you brought up a thread from something you heard at CG?
Good job on the fact vetting.



.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Kornholio

The bigger issue is the cost of supplying the testing stations with the machinery.

Since when does the state supply test stations with testing equipment?

[Kornholio]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Since when does the state supply test stations with testing equipment?

I didn't necessarily mean that the state was providing it. I never actually said that.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Kornholio

I didn't necessarily mean that the state was providing it. I never actually said that.

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]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

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).

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]

Originally Posted by Kornholio

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.

Meh, depends on the test. If they just do a TSI test, I don't really see much danger in it.

[Kornholio]

Except that the TSI test doesn't allow for measurement of NOx and frankly is about as dumb as the J1667 test. An engine needs to be under a load to be tested accurately IMO.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Kornholio

Except that the TSI test doesn't allow for measurement of NOx and frankly is about as dumb as the J1667 test. An engine needs to be under a load to be tested accurately IMO.

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]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by DogBoy

Bikes pollute way more than cars. Motorcycle fuel, exhaust and emmissions systems aren't nearly as sophisticated.

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]

As of 2011, there's 818,650 motorcycles registered in California. Yeah, it matters.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...42661473,d.cGE

[Hoppalong]

Originally Posted by Kornholio

As of 2011, there's 818,650 motorcycles registered in California. Yeah, it matters.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...42661473,d.cGE

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?