max exhaust db

[porterville]

does anybodie know what the law states for the db an exhaust puts out? my ysr is really loud and i dont want to get a ticket.

 

[Stormdragon]

I believe federal law states 80DB.

 

[Owensdad]

But you could still get a fix it ticked for non CARB compliance even if it's not too loud.

 

[silversvs]

Read 'em and weep.......

27150. (a) Every motor vehicle subject to registration shall at all
times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise, and no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device.

27151. (a) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor
vehicle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 27150 or exceeds the noise limits established for the type of vehicle in Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200). No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an exhaust system so modified.


27200. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall not register on a dealer's report of sale a new motor vehicle, except an off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification as provided in Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), which produces a maximum noise exceeding the applicable noise limit at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of travel under test procedures established by the Department of the California Highway Patrol.


27202. For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise
limits shall apply to any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven
cycle, manufactured:


(1) After 1969, and before 1973 ............ 88 dbA
(2) After 1972, and before 1975 ............ 86 dbA
(3) After 1974, and before 1986 ............ 83 dbA
(4) After 1985 ............................. 80 dbA

 

[jbt56]

Read 'em and weep.......

27150. (a) Every motor vehicle subject to registration shall at all
times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise, and no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device.

27151. (a) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor
vehicle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 27150 or exceeds the noise limits established for the type of vehicle in Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200). No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an exhaust system so modified.


27200. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall not register on a dealer's report of sale a new motor vehicle, except an off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification as provided in Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), which produces a maximum noise exceeding the applicable noise limit at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of travel under test procedures established by the Department of the California Highway Patrol.


27202. For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise
limits shall apply to any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven
cycle, manufactured:


(1) After 1969, and before 1973 ............ 88 dbA
(2) After 1972, and before 1975 ............ 86 dbA
(3) After 1974, and before 1986 ............ 83 dbA
(4) After 1985 ............................. 80 dbA

Reading through the above, it appears this applies to NEW vehicles (as manufactured/sold/first registered). Cars and light trucks, for example, are limited to 80db when new, but an individual can modify it up to 95db. There is no similar law for bikes. This may be a loophole...?

 

[silversvs]

reread 27151(a) VC

 

[silverbelt]

Don't read too much into this please. I know MM4L feels strongly about aftermarket pipes, however, the REALITY of the situation is that unless your "unnecessarily" directing attention towards yourself, most cops are willing to let it slide. IOW, they won't stop you JUST for having an aftermarket pipe.

 

[Webdev511]

Reading through the above, it appears this applies to NEW vehicles (as manufactured/sold/first registered). Cars and light trucks, for example, are limited to 80db when new, but an individual can modify it up to 95db. There is no similar law for bikes. This may be a loophole...?

Yes it is a loophole...for cars and light trucks. It wasn't part of the CVC until the aftermarket exhaust manufacturers lobbied really hard for it. It's actually not legal to modify emmisions control devices (Carb settings, FI settings, valve timing or any part of the exhaust system.) So there isn't any loophole for making modifications on a "used" vehicle either.

 

[dogcatfud]

Don't read too much into this please. I know MM4L feels strongly about aftermarket pipes, however, the REALITY of the situation is that unless your "unnecessarily" directing attention towards yourself, most cops are willing to let it slide. IOW, they won't stop you JUST for having an aftermarket pipe.

I agree; if you were to put on loud pipes for the sole purpose of making as much racket as possible, you will get cited. And if you "mouth off" to the cop, he/she will probably go through all your other mods with a fine-toothed comb.

 

[Dean129]

Reading through the above, it appears this applies to NEW vehicles (as manufactured/sold/first registered). Cars and light trucks, for example, are limited to 80db when new, but an individual can modify it up to 95db. There is no similar law for bikes. This may be a loophole...?

I believe there is a loophole for bikes. I just had a Traffic Enforcement course put on by the CHP on satuarday, and I asked him about certain laws regarding moto exhaust. The CHP told me that although it is illegal to modify the exhaust of an autmobile beyond a certain db rate, there is no law prohibiting bikes that HE was aware of. He said alot of officers make the mistake of citing a moto under the automobile code, but he said if the rider of the moto got smart and took it to court, it would more than likely get thrown out. (I believe motor vehicle technically does not include motor cycle, or motor driven cycle according the index of the CHP Redi Ref)

Another question that I raised to the CHP was my intergrated turn signals that are housed in the tail light. Interesting enough, he said there is no specific citable code for that either. (Another moto loophole because although it is a citeable offense for auto, theres no specific code for moto's)

The CHP said that the two things he cites for all the time on the Golden Gate Bridge is riding a passenger without rear footpegs, and no mirrors. He said alot of the time he finds that bikes (especailly HD) only have one mirror, which is a violation he cites for alot.

My Traffic Enforcement class was a real education, you learn the weirdest things.

 

[jbt56]

Yes it is a loophole...for cars and light trucks. It wasn't part of the CVC until the aftermarket exhaust manufacturers lobbied really hard for it. It's actually not legal to modify emmisions control devices (Carb settings, FI settings, valve timing or any part of the exhaust system.) So there isn't any loophole for making modifications on a "used" vehicle either.

Actually, it's NOT a loophole for cars... It took years of work between the state gov't/CARB/EPA and SEMA to get that (very fair) law enacted. Also, mufflers are NOT an emissions control device. That's why it's legal to replace a factory muffler with a performance muffler, as long as the vehicle remains under 95db. We get this question a LOT at work (Flowmaster, Inc.). Every part we make, except a few RACE ONLY parts, is 50-state emissions legal. Same with our competitors. On a car/light truck, everything BEHIND the cats is fair game, as those parts do NOT affect emissions.

The trouble with bikes is the re-tuning of the engine for a richer mixture to 'match' the aftermarket mufflers. You can replace the muffler all you want, but if you want a programmer or jet kit, you're going to have a hard time. This is what dealers cannot do any more without EPA trouble.

 

[motorman4life]

I believe there is a loophole for bikes. I just had a Traffic Enforcement course put on by the CHP on satuarday, and I asked him about certain laws regarding moto exhaust. The CHP told me that although it is illegal to modify the exhaust of an autmobile beyond a certain db rate, there is no law prohibiting bikes that HE was aware of. He said alot of officers make the mistake of citing a moto under the automobile code, but he said if the rider of the moto got smart and took it to court, it would more than likely get thrown out. (I believe motor vehicle technically does not include motor cycle, or motor driven cycle according the index of the CHP Redi Ref)

Another question that I raised to the CHP was my intergrated turn signals that are housed in the tail light. Interesting enough, he said there is no specific citable code for that either. (Another moto loophole because although it is a citeable offense for auto, theres no specific code for moto's)

The CHP said that the two things he cites for all the time on the Golden Gate Bridge is riding a passenger without rear footpegs, and no mirrors. He said alot of the time he finds that bikes (especailly HD) only have one mirror, which is a violation he cites for alot.

My Traffic Enforcement class was a real education, you learn the weirdest things.

WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!

Fisrt, there is no loophole for motorcycles. CVC 27202 specifically addresses motorcycle db levels and any bike mfg in the last 30 years is limited to 80 db. Period.

There is no allowance for a post 1985 bike to be over that db level. It is measured at a steady rpm (3/4 of max indicated) at 50' behind the centerline of the vehicle at a height of 8" to 20" from the ground. You can get a db meter at Radio Shack. FWIW, the citing officer does not have to use any gauge or meter. S/he can cite based upon their training and experience, based upon an estimate or auditory determination it is above 80 db.

Second, the officer citing for one mirror is dead WRONG. 26709(a) CVC specifically states 2 mirrors are required, except on a motorcycle, where only 1 is required. It is clear as day.

Third, integrated turn signals on bikes are no approved by DOT and can be cited under several different code sections. Those sections state "any vehicle", "any motor vehicle" or "any vehicle subject to registration under this code", which includes any street-able motorcycles. There does not need to be a section specificically stating motorcycles if it says "any vehicle." This is a no-brainer. If the lighting system or mods are not specifically approved by DOT, they are unlawful. Any vehicle that is operated with lighting equipment that is unapproved in in violation.

Fourth, a motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle. Again a no-brainer. The fact that you would think otherwise makes me cringe... the fact that you took your "theory" or "presumption" that it IS NOT from a CHP-hosted Traffic Enforcement class makes me want to scream.

 

[Dean129]

WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!

A motorcycle is considered a motor vehicle. Again a no-brainer. The fact that you would think otherwise makes me cringe... the fact that you took your "theory" or "presumption" that it IS NOT from a CHP-hosted Traffic Enforcement class makes me want to scream.

The Traffic Enforcement class was taught to me during a POST Police academy by an Officer with the CHP who has been a chippy for 10 years. How much more "official" does it have to be. If I got wrongful information fine, I'll address it to the instruction the next time I speak with him. But I'd have to say that when it comes down to traffic law/ enforcement, a CHP instructor at the police academy should know what he's talking about, and the fact that he would give us bunk or inacurate information bothers me. But I'll double check just in case myself and the other three recruits who ride misunderstood him somehow.

Thanks.

 

[motorman4life]

Motorcycle is defined in 400 CVC. It starts off: "A motorcycle is any motor vehicle having..." Motor Driven Cycle is defined in 405 CVC and it starts off: "A motor driven cycle is any motorcycle with a motor that displaces less than 150cc's."

Both are motor vehicles, in accordance with the law. Look at the code for yourself. To say a motorcycle is not a motor vehicle is preposterous.

Whether he is misinformed or you misunderstood him, it does not bode well for your academy class that anyone could come away from a traffic enforcement class at the police academy with the info you did.

I have been a traffic officer for over 20 years and this shit is not brain surgery. The CVC has all of the info in it, you just need to look.

Read 26709(a) CVC for yourself and ask him again if he cites motorcycles for having just one mirror. You can see the law and get his answer... then you will know where he stands as to his knowledge of the law.

Scary. Where is this academy located?

 

[Honey Badger]

Just outta curiosity since we are on the topic of modified exhausts, how does that work for a previous out-of-state bike were the exhaust was legal, but the bike is now registered in CA (same owner - there were no issues getting the bikes transferred over)? Same law, or are there provisions?

It's not like my Muzzy exhaust is loud enough to draw unwanted attention, I'm mostly just curious.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Dean129]

Motorman4life,

I spoke to my instructor last night and I asked him about this delemma. After I asked him if what he said about moto exhaust was accruate and he went further to say that there is a VC covering modified exhaust on a moto. He went further to say that the reason it is almost uncitable is because in order to cite a moto, the officer has to have a calibrated db meter in had in order to cite for that violation. He said even with him being a chippy, his department doesn't even hand out db meters even when he was attached to commercial enforcement detail with the CHP. Unlike an auto exhaust violation where you can cite for it without any db meter, he said in order to cite a moto for exhaust you need that db meter. He told me thats why he said in class that there was no code covering moto exhaust because although later he said there is one, there might as well not be a code for it sense nobody carries a calibrated db meter in their law enforcement tool bag.

 

[Webdev511]

FWIW, the citing officer does not have to use any gauge or meter. S/he can cite based upon their training and experience, based upon an estimate or auditory determination it is above 80 db.

Motorman4life,

I spoke to my instructor last night and I asked him about this delemma. After I asked him if what he said about moto exhaust was accruate and he went further to say that there is a VC covering modified exhaust on a moto. He went further to say that the reason it is almost uncitable is because in order to cite a moto, the officer has to have a calibrated db meter in had in order to cite for that violation. He said even with him being a chippy, his department doesn't even hand out db meters even when he was attached to commercial enforcement detail with the CHP. Unlike an auto exhaust violation where you can cite for it without any db meter, he said in order to cite a moto for exhaust you need that db meter. He told me thats why he said in class that there was no code covering moto exhaust because although later he said there is one, there might as well not be a code for it sense nobody carries a calibrated db meter in their law enforcement tool bag.

Sorry Dean, but no matter how much you want to believe him, I don't think you should listen to your instructor on that.

Do some searches on decibles and everyday noises. I think you'll see that it despite your cognitive dissonance, very few people with good hearing require a calibrated db meter to tell the difference between a legal 80db motorcycle exhaust and a 90+db illegal one. They might not be able to nail it down to the db on the spot, but they sure as hell will be able to tell that it's not within code.

Unless the bike in question is around 100db or the rider is being a prick, I would guess that a warning or fixit would be the worst result. If I were the LEO and you tried to challenge my judgement of it being too loud, the first thing I'd look for is the DOT/EPA stamp on your muffler. There are no aftermarket motorcycle exhausts that I know of which carry that stamp, so no stamp = illegal. (and automatic voiding of the warranty)

 

[Dean129]

Sorry Dean, but no matter how much you want to believe him, I don't think you should listen to your instructor on that.

If I were the LEO and you tried to challenge my judgement of it being too loud, the first thing I'd look for is the DOT/EPA stamp on your muffler. There are no aftermarket motorcycle exhausts that I know of which carry that stamp, so no stamp = illegal. (and automatic voiding of the warranty)

1. Its not so much something I'd like to believe, I'm just trying to handle conflicting amounts of information. I'd hate to get out on the street and cite someone because I am mis-imformed, so I'm jsut trying to figure it all out. Its also not my place to argue with a police academy instructor over traffic laws solely based on what someone told me on the internet. (If you see where I'm comming from.) No offense.

2. Challenging YOUR judgement, training & experience of an exhaust being too loud only works with automobiles according to my instructor, and that is why you can cite an auto without the db meter, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never thought about the DOT/ EPA stamp on the exhaust, so I'm glad you brought that up. This is the difference beetween real world experience, and being in the academy.

My question is this, how do get the PC in order to stop the moto so that you can check the DOT/ EPA stamp? Is it solely based upon the fact that the moto exhaust in your training & experience seemed too loud? I'm just wondering because if what my instructor and you are saying is correct, you'd need a db meter in your rig in order to facilitate the stop, or else you would have to grounds to stop for the exhaust violation. And from what I understand CHP is one of the only authorized agencies who can pull someone over without any reason for a vehicle equipment inspection.

 

[geo]

(and automatic voiding of the warranty)

Mmm, worms.

Didn't the Magnussen-Moss (sp) Act establish that you can't void a warranty for the use of aftermarket parts, unless you can reliably demonstrate that the use of the part caused the problem in question? I'm pretty sure the only thing you void by putting an aftermarket exhaust on is the warranty on the exhaust.

 

[motorman4life]

Motorman4life,

I spoke to my instructor last night and I asked him about this delemma. After I asked him if what he said about moto exhaust was accruate and he went further to say that there is a VC covering modified exhaust on a moto. He went further to say that the reason it is almost uncitable is because in order to cite a moto, the officer has to have a calibrated db meter in had in order to cite for that violation. He said even with him being a chippy, his department doesn't even hand out db meters even when he was attached to commercial enforcement detail with the CHP. Unlike an auto exhaust violation where you can cite for it without any db meter, he said in order to cite a moto for exhaust you need that db meter. He told me thats why he said in class that there was no code covering moto exhaust because although later he said there is one, there might as well not be a code for it sense nobody carries a calibrated db meter in their law enforcement tool bag.

Ask him to show you the section that says a db meter must be used for enforcement. To my knowledge, it does not state a db meter must be used. In fact, there is case law that states unless a meter is specifically mandated in the code, an officer may cite based upon training and experience. This is common practice and is how new officers should be trained.

OTOH, if I am wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. If you can give me the section that mandates the use of a db meter for issuing cites, I will buy you a beer and wear a Dodger's jersey... wel, not the jersey... but, a beer for sure!

FWIW, 21226 CVC is the section for Motorized Scooter noise limits. It is the closest to any section I am aware of in the code regarding how the noise limits are to be measured with a db meter. Read it yourself. Even with the "recipe" for measuring the db's listed in the section, that law can be enforced WITHOUT the use of a db meter. This is a perfect example, becasue it does not say an officer must use a meter to write a ticket. When the law came out, we were trained (by CHP) as to how to estimate >80 db for the purposes of issuing cites without a meter and were told the same estimates could be used for any motor vehicle exhaust noise cite.

As for the single-mirror citations... what was the anwser on that one? Did you read 26709(a) CVC for yourself and ask about his practices being in conflict with the code?

BTW, I graduated from the SRJC POST Academy at their old campus back in 1990, while I was stationed as an MP on the Presidio of SF as the Traffic Investigations Division Sergeant.

~MM4L

PS. No need to PM me, if you are going to post the same message in the forum. I answer your PM, then I see it in the forum and I end up responding again.