--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harmon Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's irrelevant -- the fact is that their exhaust system is illegal, and > something needs to be done about it. It's irrelevant what the riders want or > what the company wants, they have no right to inflict that noise on the rest of > us.
I don't believe a manufacturer can sell a motor vehicle that doesn't meet noise limit laws. After market exhaust systems may be louder than legal, and people are ticketted all the time for it. > Same with trucks - there's not the slightest rationality behind the lack of > adequate mufflers on trucks. That is also a legality issue, and truckers are ticketted often for exceeding noise limits. Many of them figure it is cheaper to pay the fines than it is to buy the extra fuel it takes to force the exhaust through a muffler. As a compromise, many trucks have 2 of those heavy expensive mufflers, so they can be legal and get better mileage. Dual exhaust systems add 200 pounds easily, and just the mufflers are $800 each, besides the extra pipes. > The big problem has been that cops don't ticket Harleys because most police > departments also have Harleys, so somehow, they're "okay". Same thing with > trucks and heavy equipment -- there's this attitude that somehow they're exempt > from muffler laws and noise ordinances. I've never came across this attitude. Most Bikers and Truckers have the attitude that most noise laws are intended for revenue enhancement. They get that attitude from personal experience. > > > > > I agree that may be a portion of the problem, but I think it mostly > > comes down to economics. I can't afford to pay an extra $5000 for an > > engine that gets less mileage, and needs more maintainance. How many > > people would buy a Mercedes, if they had to pay $5000 extra for an > > engine that has less horsepower and fuel economy? > > The hi-tech diesels they sell outside the US don't cost $5000 more or > anywhere near that, and they get much better horsepower per cc and much better > fuel economy than anything built here. Maybe that's because they aren't using the same fuel? The $5000 is what the new engines will cost above current prices, to meet the new standards, burning the fuel available in the US. They will also use more fuel, and require much more maintainance. If the Europeans could meet our emmissions standards, burning our fuel, they could make a LOT of money selling engines here. Of course, then they would have to compete with Cummins, Caterpillar, Mack, Detroit and Volvo. I think we're comparing Apples and Oranges again. The engines have to meet OUR emissions standards, using OUR fuel. The environmentalists have decided that a slight reduction in air emmissions is worth many millions more gallons of fossil fuels being burned, at great cost to US consumers. Truckers can't absorb the additional costs without passing them on. Can our burgeoning economy stand it? There is much serious discussion going on, whether it will be cheaper for Trucking companies and engine manufacturers to pay the fines for NOT complying, than to pay the cost to be in compliance. The trucking industry is also concerned about the safety implications. If new trucks are too expensive to buy and operate, the average age of trucks on the road will increase. Would you prefer to share the road with a shiny new truck, or one that has over 1 Million miles on it? As trucks get older maintainance costs increase. It's likely that many trucks will not get all the maintainance they need, as often as they need it, which may well result in an increase in actual emmissions. I believe a much better solution would be to raise the fuel quality. Then even the European technology would be usable here. Motie Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
