Ducati Monster Forum

"For those of you living and riding in the state of California, you should be aware of a proposed senate bill that will require smog checks for motorcycles. Senate Bill 435, introduced by California State Senator Pavley on February 26, proposes smog checks on motorcycles, beginning January 1st, 2012, for all motorcycles model year 2000 or newer. All motorcycles had previously been excluded.

SB 435, as introduced, Pavley. Smog check program: motorcycles. Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (smog check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs, that provides for the inspection of motor vehicles upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances. Existing law exempts from biennial inspection all motorcycles until the department implements test procedures applicable to motorcycles. Violations of smog check requirements are a crime. This bill would require the department to include model-year 2000 and newer motorcycles in the smog check program beginning January 1, 2012."

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY....sons of pregnant dogs

Oh... not cool. California should be encouraging MOre people to ride to reduce emissions and make room on the overcrowded freeways. This is short-sighted, IMO. 'Green' choices that help with our clogged infrastructure shouldn't come with disincentives...  stupid bankrupt state.  >:(

green choices?   arrows and termis etc. are hardly green.     

I don't like the idea either, but we need better arguments about why to not do it than it will catch us with our illegally modified motorcycles we've been enjoying for so long now.

Dude that sucks. They don't even smog our cars yet down here in San Antonio. Either way I'm a licensed state inspector in Texas so all my cars always pass. Hope this bill doesn't make it. 

a slip-on should be no less green than the stock system unless it's a bike w/ the cat in the cannister.

tune your fuel injection w/ a power commander, even with a stock system, and you could probably run afoul of a smog test.

it'd be just as easy to have a "clean" map for the smog test and a performance map for the other 364 days of the year.

I suspect that this bill is a back-door way to address motorcycle noise emissions, rather than greenhouse gas emissions.  Loud moto exhausts are a hot-button issue everywhere, and this is one way to tackle it.

I have no evidence (yet), but that's what my gut tells me.   [coffee]

i fear its about revenue...
seems like every level of govt is looking for a way to supplement the falling failing tax base. :P

Is smog-checking a big revenue generator for the state?  I'd be surprised if it was.

Here in MN, we abolished smog checks for autos in the early '90's.   IIRC, the state found the smog-checking to be very costly, and they were unable to recoup the costs via license renewal fees.  [But I suppose if you jack the fees up high enough...  [roll]]

If you live in CA, here's where to find the address to write to your local senator/representative:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html)

Enforcement for this will be *harder* 

Its much easier to throw on stock pipes, ecu and emission equipment over the course of 2 hours on a bike, unlike a car.

They are going to smog diesels now in CA too.  It's all about money.

Isn't it always ??

We should be fighting for equal rights and responsibilities, ultimately we can't expect the same rights without the same responsibilities. If this proposed law puts additional restrictions on bikes beyond what applies to cars then we should fight for equality. Exemptions, be they formal or informal, to pollution (noise or emissions) laws are ultimately indefensible. Fight now for what we deserve as motorcyclists which is equality.

How can the state make money doing smog tests?  Unless they jack up the registration/licensing renewal fees to cover the costs, I don't see how it's a money-maker. 

Not trying to be argumentative (and I'm not callin' you out silentbob  ;) ).  I just have trouble seeing where the state is going to generate any revenue from smog tests.   ???

What am I missing?

there is an upside to this....

More motorcycle dynometers around  [evil]

I hope you guys realize that motorcycles are actually FAR MORE polluting then cars... even with stock exhausts.  There was some test done on a piaggio scooter and it turned out that it produced more pollution than a full size SUV.

The fact is, motorcycle engines run far less efficient which results in higher emissions even though the engine is tiny. 


That said, I hope this doesnt pass... whats next?? Lawn mowers??

Any references to cite on that?

maybe a 2-stroke? i think they put out between 10 and 15 times the co2 as a normal car.

i think a 600cc (meeting euro2 or something) puts out about as much co2 as a normal car.

You pay to have your car/bike tested.  Part of the cost is for a certificate.  I believe that the state gets that portion of the money.

A state inspection is a tax as is vehicle registration. In Texas a state inspection costs $14.50 in cities that don't smog test. Registration renewals each year cost around $54. How does that compare to California?  There are other taxes too that many are unaware of. Ever pay a tire disposal fee when you purchase new tires?  Look at your receipts from the last time you had tires put on your car. Even if you keep your old tires the retailer is required to charge this fee.  I'm not sure what they charge to do an inspection on a car in California but I know its not $14.50 like Texas. Its all a form of revenue raising.

Pollution per mile is far less.  Emission standards that rate ppm are stupid.  Adding MTBE to the gas in CA lowered the ppm (parts per million) but raised the total millions resulting in a net increase in emissions.  As for lawn mowers it already happened.  Some jackass calculated the ppm on a mower and found that it was higher than an SUV so no we gave CARB certified mowers in CA.  Even though they account for an insignificant percentage of the pollution.  The food used to feed these mouth breathing troglodytes we elected into office, accounts for more pollution than any of these ridiculous laws will save.

No "inspection fee" in Cali, but there is VLF (vehicle licensing fee) smog fee, and a couple other things. Also, pickup trucks without camper shells are considered commercial vehicles. There is a fee charged based on weight as well. My 2002 F150 would cost close to $300 annually...

Dude that's rough.

Pickup trucks with camper shells are still considered and taxed as commercial vehicles. Same with full size vans. You have to go to DMV and jump through alot of hoops to get regular passenger plates. If you are wondering what you have (in CA) commerical plates have one letter in them, regular passenger vehicles have three letters. 8A85965 vs. 8ABD986. I just paid my wifes car reg. $189 for a '04 G35. Not bad.

That moto smog bill (if passed) needs to be made like the regular vehicle law. New cars don't require smog checks for 5 years. I haven't smogged a car in forever. I buy new cars more often.

Small engines (yard equipment, outboards, etc.)  have been under scrutiny for some time.  New rules come into effect in 2011-2012.  Lots of small engines are being built already that meet the forthcoming regulations.

Here's enough references to keep you busy for awhile.  ;)

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/equip-ld.htm (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/equip-ld.htm)

Ok...  I've got a few things to say on this:  [steps onto platform]

1)  Known fact:  ONE cargo container ship pulls into and out of Long Beach port.  It's emissions are equal to ALL cars in the greater LA area for one entire day.  But, no one taxes or certifies that vehicle (and they pour the sewage tanks into the fuel tank...think about that when you're breathing in LA!)

2)  It *is* always about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in California.  The CARB has never really cared about the environment, just the revenue.

3)  I usually see between 1 and 15 motorcycles while driving/riding around per day, versus THOUSANDS of cars.  Oh, and *now* they get the idea that motorcycles are this great pollutant?!?  Give me a break.

4)  This bill (as it is currently penned) retroactively mandates testing on bikes back to 2000.  If they're going to do it, it really needs to be from the current model year ONWARD.  Not a retroactive punishment (it's not about the environment remember) for those who own bikes between 2000 and 2011 model year.

5)  There are currently NO standards for which to even test motorcycles in CA so I wouldn't be too worried about this... (even though it sounds like I am....and I kinda am considering my business and all)


All in all, **if** this goes into effect as it is written it will only be to potentially line the states coffers some while putting undue financial burden on the motorcycling few while the burearucrats look the other way for foreign container ships and other gross polluters who have better lobbying than the average motorcyclist.

[gets off platform]

ps:  PM me if this is too political in nature and I'll either censor it or tone it down or something like that...

 [clap] [clap] [clap] [beer] [clap]: [rise to feet spilling beer]

Who cares if it's "too political"? That's the biggest problem we have, not wanting to appear "political" so we let our rights be eroded and sit like good sheeple and become the state's ATM like they want us to. Stew is right. This is a bill with no proof of necessity and sticks us while allowing the real problems to be glossed over because they bribe, sorry, I mean "lobby" politicians. The biggest issue I have with this whole thing is the retro-active issue. Having a bike in current production meet standards from the manufacturer is one thing, but making it go back in time is altogether different. My 695 has the Euro3 standard, which is probably more stringent than the California emissions standard will be, or at least comparable. Yeah, it runs hot and sometimes runs like crap, but it would likely have passed out the gate. My '04SS? Not a chance. I already wrote my reps and complained. Unless we ALL write, we have no solid ground about complaints.

My letter:

Recently, SB435 was introduced to the state legislature in an attempt to bring motorcycles under the smog rules currently reserved for cars and small trucks. This, however well-intentioned, has 2 issues that make it ill-conceived and a problem.

1: It is retro-active dating back over a decade. This would place an undue burden on any owner of a motorcycle built before these regulations were even active. If a vehicle was never built with any smog control equipment, what is the likelihood it will pass with rules REQUIRING it? This will require a retro-fit to enable it to pass, which will be expensive, and, in the current climate of job losses and financial pinches, would likely place thousands of motorcycles off the road. California already has a type of motorcycle emmissions system no other state has that it is illegal to remove.

2: Motorcycles need to be light. They also need to be efficient. Current electronically controlled ignition systems are highly efficient. I have not seen any study reports to base any findings of the validity of the need for extra smog control equipment on these vehicles. This will also require manufacturers to create a specialized system specifically for California that will push prices even higher.

This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to reach even deeper into the pocket of even more California residents. Please help stop this bill from becoming a burdonsome law. If this is allowed to pass, thousands of cars, which burn more gas and create more pollution will be back on the road, exascerbating traffic conditions and creating an even bigger demand for fuel than we already have.

Thank you

If you don't like the bill, stand up and say something, but sitting around wringing our hands like a bunch of pansies won't get one thing accomplished.

2: Motorcycles need to be light. They also need to be efficient. Current electronically controlled ignition systems are highly efficient. I have not seen any study reports to base any findings of the validity of the need for extra smog control equipment on these vehicles. This will also require manufacturers to create a specialized system specifically for California that will push prices even higher.

This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to reach even deeper into the pocket of even more California residents. Please help stop this bill from becoming a burdonsome law. If this is allowed to pass, thousands of cars, which burn more gas and create more pollution will be back on the road, exascerbating traffic conditions and creating an even bigger demand for fuel than we already have.

Thank you[/i]

If you don't like the bill, stand up and say something, but sitting around wringing our hands like a bunch of pansies won't get one thing accomplished.
[/quote]

Good letter and comments.  Not trying to be a jackazz, but you spelled burdonsome incorrectly; s/b burdensome.  It makes the letter more effective if words are spelled correctly as it might allow a bias on the part of the legislator that you can't spell, you're not bright.  I've made the assumption the legislator can spell or has people who can spell. 

Yeah, I doinked that one.

Thanks.   [beer]  My letter is being crafted and I'll post up a copy when I'm done with it (likely this weekend).

Known fact? Please back those facts up with sources, I'd be curious to see the actual numbers, and yes I"m sceptical of your claim.



I don't think the law is trying to install EXTRA smog equipment, it is trying to stop you from bypassing the equipment that came on the bike, say like uhhh... putting on termi's and using the DP ECU, and also removing the carbon canister.

I do agree that it is going to cost us all money.

its none of those thing.

1. in general the public hates motorcycles on roads, why? because they are not cars.

2. in general the public hates bicyclist on roads, why ? because they are not cars.

3. politicians pander to the public, meaning they will do anything to get cars and cyclists off the road.

this law is for one reason people in general don't like motorcycles, they are too loud, too annoying on the roads, etc.. they can't openly say "outlaw them" because that would be too much against harley davidson an american thing, so instead thsi is a backdoor way of saying "get off my roads" there is no other reason for the retroactive part of the law except to say , "sorry you cant' use that anymore it doesn't pass, stick to driving your car'

they can say "oh i'm not against motorcycles" if they are they are lying, then why make the law retroactive all the way to 2000?, usually laws are never retro active past the date they are enacted.

motorcyclists are such a small minority of motorists that if they were to go away, the general public would not give 2 sh%ts about it.. simple as that.

time to buy up pre-2000 bikes. ;D

 [clap] [thumbsup]

And it's a backdoor way to get at all those loud pipes, illegal race exhausts.  Just because they were all too lazy to police it before does not mean it's our right now.  

Guys - come on, you're letting your passion for motorcycles blind you, it's not about motorcycles, it's about all things SMOG related. First they waged war on cars, now they are turning their attention to ships, trains, boats, motorcycles, off-road equipment, and eventually anything with a motor down to the weed-eater level.

I don't like it any better than you, but this bill or one like it will eventually pass. Guess what? We'll survive, and motorcycle modding will still evolve but we'll have to pass smog checks. People still hot rod cars and they still manage to pass smog checks, so don't tell me it can't be done. So you won't be able to ditch the udder or canister, but I bet somebody will start selling exhausts that incorporate them and make them look better.

I'm not saying don't fight the Bill, but just realize that you are only delaying the inevitable.

+1

Same with noise legislation.

We've had a free ride for a long time when it comes to a lot of things, sooner or later it will end. Work towards making the proposed legislation equitable and as fair as possible. Any argument that says these rules shouldn't apply to us because we have motorcycles will be ignored.

or just dont bother getting it inspected, and play the odds... makes it more exciting.

They will just suspend your registration.

Since you only have to get it done once every 2 years, I imagine many will opt for putting stock parts on every 2 years for the check and then reverting back after it passes.

This part chaps my hide. I hope this will change if it passes.

I know i'll be boxing my stock cans when i get my BOOMTUBES!!!!

I wrote my rep back when this first made news and here's the response he gave me:



i slacked on writing the letter, but did it today and faxing them off tomorrow.

That's interesting..
Here in PA, inspection has zippo to do with registration.
You can register any damn thing you want. It doesnt even have to have doors...
As long as it's insured, you can register it...

we don't have regularly scheduled "inspection" like other states, if that's what you're referring to.

When your registration comes, it includes a notice to get your emissions checked.  You go to a certified testing station, they do a visual to make sure everything complies with CARB, check that your gas cap seals properly, make sure you have no warning lights on your dash, then run the car on a dynometer while measuring exhaust gases.  They run it at two speeds, but I'm not sure what the speeds are exactly.  Station sends off electronic notice that you passed and then you send in your registration payment (altho some stations let you pay registration there).

If your vehicle doesn't have proper equipment (lights, etc) it's handled by LEO on the road.  I know there is some kind of inspection the DMV does, or is it the CHP, but never had experience with it.

Cop gives you a "fix it" ticket. Thre is a spot on the back that you have to get signed off. We can put a sticker over that and require you to go to a State inspection station. They go over the vehicle with a fine toothed comb. That's generally used for guys and their highly modified street racing cars but could be used for anyone.

If its money they want I'd rather pay a stupid carbon tax then have  some none bike person, run my bike through a dynometer. Right now when i have to take my truck in to be tested, i usually get some idiot that cant even drive a stick.

The speeds are 15mph and 25mph.

Don't forget that the Smog Only stations also have a camera to see if the car being tested matches the car being entered into the system. The DMV can access it at any time...

And we wonder why global warming keeps on getting worse...  [roll]

Ok Mr. Gore.

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation, never quite knew how that stuff worked in CA.
We have to pass a State SAFETY inspection once a year. They go over brakes, indicators (which aren't required.. sorta... if you have fronts you must have rears... or you can have none at all), suspension, and make sure the bike is safe. This also includes a rear fender and license plate light inspection.... FAIL.
CARS also have to go through an emissions inspections, unless they are a registered classic or vintage auto, or are driven less than 5000 miles per year... then you can get an EXEMPT sticker..

See the top of page four here (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03045.pdf) for more data, but to give you an idea

Hydrocarbon Emissions (grams per mile)
2002 Ford Expedition 4WD : 0.15

2002 YZF R6 : **4.19**
2002 BMW R1200C : 0.97
2002 Honda VTX1800C : 0.48


Some additional reading (http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11,0,3268856.story?track=rss) "...the surprising level of emissions spewing from on-road motorcycles and scooters. In California, such bikes make up 3.6% of registered vehicles and 1% of vehicle miles traveled, yet they account for 10% of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions in the state."

Sounded a bit high to me too, so I scoured the internet for the first hit on Google.  ;D
Surprising stuff (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution)
"Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars"

A container ship's main engine consumes about 600,000 pounds of fuel per day. Assuming that it is using Bunker fuel with 3% sulfur that means it is releasing about 18,000 pounds of sulfur a day.

LA county has roughly 26 million vehicles, and if we assume the following,
Average mileage per year at 15,000
Average mpg at 18 mpg
Average sulphur per gallon at 40ppm,
We get roughly 25,000 pounds of Sulfur emitted per day

Now granted that is fairly close, until we figure in the fact that the container ship does NOT use it's main engine while docked. During that time they use the generators which have to run on much cleaner "California Spec" Marine diesel, which is orders of magnitude cleaner than Bunker Fuel.

(http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc19/silentbob_pics/image009.png)
(http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc19/silentbob_pics/image010.png)

Yeah, but this doesnt take into consideration things like the huge increase in the emission when the Ford Expedition is sitting in rush hour traffic with the rest of California-- this not only increases the emissions /min but also the length of time emitting the emissions. ---> http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/business/idling.cfm?attr=16 (http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/business/idling.cfm?attr=16)

Although the emission rate for the average bike is higher than a car, the travel time (due to the ability to filter traffic) for motorcycles are only a fraction of cars in metropolitan areas. This and the much lower miles/yr of motorycycles compared to cars should really compensate for the larger emissions.... plus riding is just more fun. [moto]

I wonder how much this helps to keep things warm for a longer rideing season.

Just an awesome live cam picture I wanted to post of Redoubt volcano

(http://www.photohost.org/gallery/data/500/290redoubtCAMV-med.jpg)

More about it here     http://www.avo.alaska.edu/webcam/Redoubt_-_DFR.php (http://www.avo.alaska.edu/webcam/Redoubt_-_DFR.php)

Silentbob - what is the source for your emissions data table?  I'd like to look at that.

I still maintain that this bill is a method to address motorcycle noise emissions, rather than greenhouse gas emissions.    [coffee]

From my reading they did factor in miles per year.  And, I think you are saying that they took the ratio of pollution per mile to calculate the total emissions - I am not sure if that is true or not.  For a fair comparison, we'd have to calculate a car's emissions at idle vs a motorcycle in motion.   Even that tilt in the bike's favor would mean the car would have to be extraordinarily more dirty while at idle (greater than ten times less efficient and more polluting) for the bike and the car to even tie.

Riding is definitely more fun :)   But we can't ignore the fact that while bikes are more fuel-efficient, they are pound-for-pound much bigger polluters.  Fuel efficiency is not whole picture.  We've enjoyed being a small and obscure niche of the motoring population, and have flown under the radar of the emissions regulators.  If riding becomes more popular, I will be disappointed if they start choking out horsepower with emissions stuff, but I won't be surprised.

Looks like CA won't be making smog tests mandatory for motos.  However, the law has been re-worded to authorize law enforcement officers to fine motorcyclists who remove smog equipment from their motorcycles.   [roll]

http://www.dealernews.com/dealernews/Breaking+News/Senate-Rejects-Mandatory-Motorcycle-Smog-Tests/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/601278?ref=25 (http://www.dealernews.com/dealernews/Breaking+News/Senate-Rejects-Mandatory-Motorcycle-Smog-Tests/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/601278?ref=25)

LEOs in CA can pull over a motorcycle for pretty much any reason, and unless you have a 100% stock bike--no signals, no exhaust, all your reflectors--you're up for at least a fix-it ticket.  Giving them one more reason to pull your over and/or write you up isn't the end of the world (until, and if, the CHP starts using it as a punitive tool to get motorcyclists off the road).  And I'd rather continue the ongoing battle between law enforcement and motorcycles than deal with that particular draconian smog check law. 

+1

 ;D [moto]

i think this was posted elsewhere, but I didn't see it in general...

Uh, sounds like a good thing. The smog possibility would have been terrible.

If this is the case I'm I'm buying a pre-2000 M900 and swapping parts. Hell, I can divulge further into vintage bikes. 

What are the chances of the average LEO, or average anybody knowing exactly what equipment is on each bike and where it is located?  One time when i was pulled over I gave the officer my car registration instead of my bike registration.  He asked me when Volkswagen started making motorcycles.  No, he was not joking.  

Is there any update on this topic? I tried a search, but could only find threads from last year. I understand that it's a done deal now. My question is can I put my smog device on my 695 without changing back to the original exhaust? I have all the original stuff, but if I have to switch it all back, what do I do with the after market stuff?

Slim considering the amount of motorcycles available.  Chance of the average peace officer to be cocky and assume he knows what he's doing and fine you, giving you the chance to fight or just pay the fine? Much higher.


It's revenue.


Please don't take my comment as a cop-bashing comment, just my limited experience with them concludes me to statement.

asking me to take it a certain way doesn't actually change the comment's nature.  This thread is almost done at this point.

classic, classic comment.... [clap]

WIN. Anytime something is done for "GREEN" purposes, you should immediatley look to see what the REAL motive is.