Cali motorcycle smog tests ...looks like they are really trying to do this

[ghosthound]

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??

[NAKID]

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?

[Alexandre]

<snip> test done on a piaggio scooter and it turned out that it produced more pollution than a full size SUV.

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.

[Ivan]

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. 

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.

[Porsche Monkey]

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.

[silentbob]

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??

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.

[NAKID]

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...

[Porsche Monkey]

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.

[hbliam]

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...

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.

[bluemoco]

Any references to cite on that?

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

[Duck-Stew]

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...

[danaid]

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...

  : [rise to feet spilling beer]

[crash_duc]

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.

[greenohawk69]

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. 

[crash_duc]

Yeah, I doinked that one.