RE: There is little public transport, little investment in it, and people have this notion only undesirables travel on it.
It's not a notion - it's fact. Last time I took the bus:
1) A homeless person (they get free vouchers) threw up his entire stomachful of Mad Dog all over the floor
2) Two other seriously FOUL smelling homeless people stank up the entire section
3) The rest of the people (save me) felt really intimidated by a large, loudmouthed African American thug yelling "F***! I GOTS HERPES ON MA D***!" the whole time, while scowling at anyone who twitched.
Factor in that any bus trip by definition takes you three times as long, and you have a recipe for "screw it, I'm driving."
And, to tie this back in to my original point, this might have an effect on the companies who produce the fuel computers, exhausts etc. for the VTX1800. All in the guise of saving the planet. Not about the fees required to certify models.
Well, yeah. The EPA rolled out new rules for 2006 models and beyond. Basically, you can't alter anything on your bike except handlebars and paint. Try that fuel computer trick on a 2007 VTX and you incur $10,000 penalties PER DAY.
RE: I said that it was a matter of cleaner for the same work that mattered. If you want to get from A to B and can do so using less gas by using a motorbike than an SUV, then that motorbike is clearly cleaner for the same amount of work. Duh.
Too bad the spotted owl huggers don't see it that way.
RE: I have no problems with motorbikes. Well, I'm not completely convinced 2-stroke engines are capable of delivering the same power for the same fuel as a 4-stroke engine, if optimally designed, and I'm definitely not convinced either would be superior to a well-designed rotary engine, but that's for a highly optimized design. For right now, I'd be willing to believe that motorbikes have superior performance to a car.
Only two strokes out there are dirt bikes, IIRC. Most were phased out in the 60s.
RE: I do not drive an SUV, I do not regard SUVs as suitable for any purpose whatsoever, and I'd regard any environmentalist who owned an SUV as brain-dead.
Well, how are you going to get Brittney and Conor out into the wilderness for your bracing little trek? Only it isn't a Ford Excursion it's a Range Rover or a Volvo SUV which as we know is different because of the Greenpeace sticker on the bumper.
RE: Yes, cars are too complex these days. This has nothing to do with efficiency, however. There is nothing efficient about a car that cannot be maintained. That should be obvious, since if it cannot be maintained, it cannot be kept at an optimum for the conditions the vehicle is subject to. A hyper-complex car can, at best, only be any good under absolutely average test conditions and nothing else.
Yes, but unfortunately when you write laws, you take out common sense. You also kill the car culture and by extension, the car market. I mean, if you're buying a disposable sewing machine sounding carbon fiber box, why not buy the Toyota rather than the Ford?
RE: But what have these things added? Most fuel is used in stop-go traffic, not highway cruising. Such additions look "cool", have added nothing and have caused (fortunately only a few, but still far too many) fatalities.
Motorcycles result in far less stop and go traffic. Heck, on my sled I'm allowed in the HOV lanes. I used to streak by stopped traffic and get where I was going really well.
RE: Am I in favour of complexity? No. I am in favour of efficiency.
Well, unfortunately the Sierra Club doesn't want efficiency, it wants needless complexity to solve a NONEXISTENT problem.
RE: Am I an environmentalist? I don't like the term, because I don't see things as being necessarily in conflict, and many of my beliefs that are friendly towards the environment are so because they are as simple as possible but no simpler. Those things that are good at achieving results with minimal effort must necessarily also achieve results with the minimum of impact. I like the idea of preserving as many species as possible, but that's just as much because diverse environments are stable AND offer the greatest possiblity of providing me with whatever I might need.
I find the "junk your car and buy a hybrid" arguments ridiculous. If anything, not building newer cars uses less resources and pollution.
RE: I despise those who believe things because it is their religion. That earns no respect from me. I DO respect those who believe things because they have established something to be true, and I definitely respect those who work hard on pushing their understanding to the limits. That is without regard to the beliefs, including whether I hold them myself. I reserve my greatest disgust and contempt, though, for those who turn meaningless labels (such as "environmentalism") into religious objects of worship or fanatical objects of hate. Such people have no feelings towards that which they profess to worship or hate - how could they, when they don't even know what they are? So not only are they claiming prophetic powers of received wisdom, they are also claiming the divine right of prejudice. Contempt is far better than
RE: I wanted to let you know that I changed the exhaust pipe on my VTX (the single "sewer pipe") last summer. I'm not sure what the big deal is in your comment about not being able to change the exhaust pipe. There are lots of aftermarket exhausts for the VTX 1300 and 1800.
Your bike is 2002. As of 2006 not only are the requirements on your VTX1800 way stricter, those models and later lose the legal right to have aftermarket parts put on it. As has been stated about the EPA, only chrome and paint can change. Period. $10,000 a day fine if you don't comply.
RE: I agree that you should be able to drive what you want. But the manufacturers may not produce bikes that won't be purchased by a LOT of consumers. You may have noticed that since the debut of the VTX in the summer of 2001 (which is when I picked-up my model year 2002), the other bike manufacturers have started building "big cruisers" like the VTX.
Well, we'll see about that in 2010 when the requirements get even stricter. Point being, and I do have one, there's NO WAY you can get to car-level emissions because these involve catalytic converters and the tech isn't there to do it. And this whole "by the way in two years time you can only get parts from the dealer which we've been paid $50,000 per model to certify" IS going to have an effect on the market, it IS having an effect on the market. I don't see people rebutting this, just "Harley sucks, buy a squid bike."
RE: In the name of customizing, I also have a "fuel computer" that I have to install on my VTX (it's on my weekend To Do list). True, it's not as fun as putting new jets in a carb and tuning things but it still gives me some control over how the bike performs. It will also make those Harleys (some of which cost twice what I paid for the VTX) disappear in the rear view mirror that much quicker.:^)
Be that as it may, it is illegal to install that on a 2006 or later bike. This is my point.
Someone asked me how government regulation hampers the economy.
If you want to drive a Yakasaki squid bike, you have a different set of parameters in terms of what you're looking for than a cruiser driver.
If your bike is mostly fairing and what have you, I agree with you, when manufacturers are forced to take your totally hidden engine and replace it with something else, who cares?
However, in another subsection of the motorcycle market, people like a certain styling, a certain ease of maintenance and what have you. Government enforcing certain things has led to a serious hampering of that market. Apples and Oranges. Let's face it, your Yakasaki is always going to run Yakasaki pipes, it's not like there's very much (comparatively) in terms of aftermarket. There is no American Squid Bike. Styling is cookie cutter. You guys might rod out the engine, but fundamentally you don't change the bike. So if you're told you can only replace Yakasaki part# 202 with another #202, 99.999% of your guys don't care cause it's how they do business anyway.
You might argue that people who want to ride bikes might as well trash their Harleys and buy Yamahas. Others might argue that all this lunatic rubbish coming out of California which makes little difference to the world at large (most of the smog in Cali is cooking grease IIRC, and remember, bike pollution is LESS THAN ONE PERCENT) is basically a lot of hassle for very very little benefit. Frankly, it's a cash grab and a naked one pure and simple.
Trust me, innovation is still taking place. S&S make a nice Shovelhead engine that makes more power and uses a lot of innovations. What a shame that you're not allowed to make bikes with them in them anymore.
RE: they came in because they improve performance and reliability (you don't have to fix it yourself if it doesn't break) and those are what customers want.
Interesting how you should tell me what I want as a customer. Anything else about me you care to say? I'm trying to make a point here. People might argue til they're blue in the face that cars put out more horsepower yadda yadda yadda than ever before, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of people driving SUVs or paying six figures for classic cars cause they don't wanna drive those new cars.
How much space does a belt, a chain and a set of points take up?
Lest you think I'm a Japanese bike hating Harley rider, I'm not. I've owned Hondas in the past and agree with you. They are a joy to ride and what have you. But let me put it to you this way - you should be allowed to change the exhaust pipe on it if you want to. I mean, Yamaha is coming out with ads for its Star series basically saying "you know, you CAN get a variety of looks out of this bike".
Oh, and, I don't own a cellphone and unless the engine case has exploded on me, I'm not calling anyone. Your bike may be a reliable bike to ride, but when something goes on it, and give it enough time and it will, you're looking at some serious shop time. I have the luxury of knowing that I can do almost all the work myself if need be (replacing valve guides requires a press, truing a flywheel is left to experts) with simple tools and I can get lots of different types of parts. When I rode a Honda, when something went wrong, it was down the Honda dealership, and I paid dealership prices on dealership parts. Never mind that it was a lot harder to work on them than mine.
My MAIN point is that if I should want an air cooled, pushrod driven carbureted motorcycle I should be able to drive one, in the land of the free, cause I have some pretty valid reasons to want to do so. Just as how you have EQUALLY valid reasons to want your water cooled fuel injected bike. Also, if I should choose to put on a nicer looking set of exhaust pipes it should be my perogative to be allowed to do so.
Many doesn't imply all. Even the metric guys are getting in on customising their rides.
Take a look underneath the hood of a 1969 Charger and what you sent me. The first vehicle has a relatively straightforward engine that is mostly user maintainable - the latter, well, the first like is a blobby Dodge Neon Car (have to get the aerodynamics to meet the standards!!!!) and the other is a CONCEPT CAR, just like the Dodge Charger Concept Car that NEVER GOT BUILT. Oh, and by the way the original muscle cars were relatively inexpensive and most cars out there were solidly built and well powered. These links are for limited edition cars that'll set you back QUITE a lot of money. And most cars out there now are like the Dodge Neon. Light, underpowered GARBAGE. You've proven nothing apart from the fact that concept cars and limited edition specialty cars also exist. Buddy of mine went down to a car dealership - went to Ford, Dodge and Chev and said basically "what have you got?" and frankly, his choices were Dodge Neon Clone Roller Skate, and hefty SUV. You can argue that's anecdotal, but frankly, it's how a lot of people think - and they go with the SUV.
And, I guarantee you that even if the car you send me a link to gets built, it will have fifteen levels of fuel injectors, computerized control, beryllium dioxide radiators that shatter when hit (unlike the old ones you knocked the dents out of), etc. If you wanna work on one, you'll need a $50,000 computer and God knows what else.
I also fail to see why you feel the need to be abusive and rude. If you've got to be insulting to try and make your so called point, that shows just how limited your brain happens to be.
You'll excuse me, but environazi standards are why I can't buy a 1968 Nova or a 1969 Charger at the store, but some lame Dodge Neon looking blob of underpowered crap.
And I'm sorry, but in a crash, if you're in an Excursion you'll stand a far better chance of surviving than if you're in a Mini Cooper. Someone posted some interesting facts in the last global warming discussion about how the underpowered titchy cars of today are frankly DEATH TRAPS and the heavier the vehicle, the more likely you are to survive an accident.
Twenty years ago you could buy a solid, fully powered, nice sounding car. Then the enviro folks came in and said "nope! Cars must BY LAW be these underpowered, sewing machine sounding, lightweight objects that are death traps in a colliison."
"Yeah, no thanks. Don't want that lame car. Hey, what's that big thing over there? The one with the nice throaty roar to its engine and some heft to it so if I do get hit by something I'll survive?"
"It's some new thing, called an SUV. Not subject to the car regulations."
So, we get far less emissions from a car, but that gigantic hydrogen plant is gonna put out one MOTHER of a load of pollutants. And yeah, they've got enough money, power and influence to simply ignore pleas from the administration to clean up their act.
The MRF (Motorcycle Rights Foundation) and other organizations are seeing their way of life go under. To many, one buys a motorcycle to customize it. "Well, you can always bolt some chrome trim onto it, or paint it some wild color." Yeah, but change the wheel size and you're in violation of the law.
Now, keep in mind we're not talking certification (several tens of thousands of dollars!) for an engine, EFI (Electronic Fuel Injection) and exhaust combination, we're talking certification of a model. So if you offer five bikes with the same engine, same exhaust and same EFI, but one has a windshield and fairing, the other a springer fork and the other a girder fork (all of this is front end stuff) that's three times the usurious government inspector fee, even though all three bikes use the same engine, transmission, exhaust etc. and work EXACTLY the same way.
Private folks have proposed certifying components as being EPA worthy, rather than models of motorcycle. The EPA is more interested in a "pay to play" model - if you want to change your exhaust to something cooler looking, pay a licence fee (yearly) to the EPA, make the cheque out to "environmental scam shakedown, inc." and certainly, you can do that, if we decide in our largesse to allow it. I can just see them privately going "come on, take the bait! take the bait!"
Now we start seeing the REAL motivation. If you want to do anything other than What We Say, you can pay us to do it. Cause if there was real harm and devastation from a trumpet muffler rather than a muffled drag, they wouldn't consider it at all. I'll reiterate. These EPA folks are NOT elected, they're appointed, the electable ones are just as miffed. The DMV and State Patrols are not interested in the hassle of having to enforce all these stupid new laws and buy all kinds of tools to do testing and certification, to achieve for all intents and purposes no discernible difference in emissions.
Mind you, that's what all this alarmist GARBAGE, including Kyoto, is about. Sell us on the world coming to an end because of a 0.5F degree change in ambient air temperature, and shake down the first world for money and jobs because of it.
Now we start to understand why the enviro industry works the way it does. Remember kids, SUVs for work or what have you (say a rap lifestyle) are inherently evil, but the same vehicles (albeit made by foreigners) used for Sierra Club outings and making espresso with REI camping gear on your yuppie envirofreak hiking trip are not.
We could divert that research money into actual solutions, like producing butanol from cellulose leading to significantly less pollution and energy independance.
RE: Well, simpers the espresso sipping folk, Birkenstock hanging off one toe, all you need to do is simply put water cooling, catalytic converters, etc. on the motorcycle and preferably make them run with electric engines which do 40 miles an hour and make no noise.
Many of these folks are those scientifically illiterate enough to think that hydrogen cars will run on putting water in the tank.
RE:...I still do not see how slowing emissions could slow the economy,
Well, let's take a look at motorcycling, shall we?
Once upon a time, people rode Harleys across the United States of America. Road films about this subculture were put on the silver screen. Harleys may have had their problems, most notoriously in the late 60s and early 70s when labor unrest meant people got bikes with tools in them, etc.
Fast forward. Sensible, roadside fixable stuff like pushrod technology, motors which could be mostly disassembled without removing them from the frame, carburetors which could be made to work just well enough to limp to the next town, etc. have been replaced by overcomplicated, ungainly crap machines whose systems, well - let's put it this way. Lose an oxygen sensor in the middle of nowhere, and you better hope someone comes by with a pickup truck. And bring your credit card. Take out old part, replace with new. Can't fix em. If your car goes down you can at least sit in it, sleep in it, whatever. Use it as shelter. Not so a bike.
Now, some spotted owl hugger ignores the vastly increased MPG of a motorcycle and screams WAIT A MINUTE! HOLD ON A SECOND! A BIKE PUTS OUT 4 g of carbon hypedupscaretacticane per gallon, versus a fraction of that even in a HUMMER! Apples and oranges comparison, considering how much less gets burned.
The same bunch that thought putting training wheels on motorcycles would keep them upright if something bad happened, or seatbelts on motorcycles was a great idea, decided that heretofore, bikes would pollute 60% less. OR ELSE. Did we elect these people? No. Five appointed folks.
And of course, building your own can only happen once in your lifetime. Not once and if it's stolen, wrecked, repossessed whatever you can own another one, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE.
Well, simpers the espresso sipping folk, Birkenstock hanging off one toe, all you need to do is simply put water cooling, catalytic converters, etc. on the motorcycle and preferably make them run with electric engines which do 40 miles an hour and make no noise.
Catalytic converters run REALLY hot. You can do that on a car because the car design doesn't put the fuel tank on top of the engine and exhaust, or have the rider straddle the working parts. How about sticking it right next to the rider's leg? The new fashion isn't leather chaps but reflective asbestos pants? Water jacketing is just another complicated system that can leak or break on you, it adds weight and cuts down the aerodynamics.
Motorcycles improve traffic flow, get better gas mileage and pollute, by the EPA's OWN ADMISSION, less than 1% of all pollution. They'd get more bang for their buck getting rid of lawnmowers and those SUVs of the sea, motorboats.
However, what happens with the EPA is they pick on those with the least money. Harley, Honda etc. are MORE than happy to comply cause they know that EPA certification of a vehicle runs into the tens of thousands of dollars, and the Orange County Choppers and the West Coast Choppers of this world cannot afford to pay that and compete. (Well, the Teutuls can.)
Has this translated to more Harley sales? Not at all. For the first time in a long time they've got bikes on the floor ready to be sold. Used to be there was competition for bikes before they were even built. Nobody wants the water-jacketed, overly complex V-Rod engine (except for a few enthusiasts) nor the "no user serviceable parts inside" Twin Cam 88 models out there. Engineering has removed all soul from these machines. Harley investors are threatening to sue.
My antique bike can be fixed with a few simple hand tools I can carry on my bike in a small tool pouch. It's simple enough that I can fix it, maintain it, by the side of the road if necessary. If I really want to travel long distances I can carry an extra chain and belt, set of points and some baling wire and deal with about 90% of all contingencies. (Can't repair an exploded case on the street, but then again the chanc
So, if I read you correctly, no matter what happens, whether the earth gets warmer or colder it's STILL Global Warming, you're still right and it was still caused by cool cars as opposed to everyone taking bicycles or Smart?
Wow, you've got your bases covered, there.
If the temperature goes up, it's global warming. If it drops, it's global warming.
Before we go off doing things that are rash before thinking about it, wasn't there something about global warming getting worse because of a decrease in global dimming thanks to us following the Greenie enviro-Nazi advice and eliminating aerosols and cool cars in favor of underpowered crap noone wants to buy?
This seems to be the enviro-religion version of Pascal's wager, and just as wrong for the same reasons.
Do keep in mind as well that even though the USA has promised to pay back certain monies, China's also under certain obligations to not rip people off, dump products in the US, etc.
The way they're behaving, especially keeping their currency artifically low to suck all the money out of the first world (never mind using slave labor to make products) certainly goes against trade agreements as they stand.
I would suggest that the argument would be made that it isn't a default in its normal sense but them finally getting wise to how the money siphon works.
Well, that depends, sometimes it makes more sense to do so.
If I could default on 75% of my debt for a slightly higher interest rate, at the same time not paying that debt, I could manage, especially if as part of that plan I rebuild my manufacturing base, and employ Americans for a change instead of Chinese.
The question will be selling it to the internationsl community that this the alternative is the US becoming a protectorate of China, and yer on yer own if dictatorship or terrorism ever raises its ugly head.
Though yes, the Chinese are subsidising the American way of life....
If I was to stop paying on debts, then I'd find big burly men coming to my house to take my stuff back, called repo men. There really isn't an international equivalent.
As Pierre Elliott Trudeau said once, "you can't foreclose on a country."
RE: 2. I've been working 8-16 hours a day sitting in front of a computer for about 12 years. It's pretty typical for us in that situation to develop specific injuries and weaknesses, one common one of which is weakened lower back muscles, leading to back problems. I've been to chiropractors on and off for much of that time. Most of them fix the symptoms, but not the underlying cause.
Go to elitefts.com and buy a Reverse Hyper machine, and use it.
Slashdot Mirror
RE: There is little public transport, little investment in it, and people have this notion only undesirables travel on it.
It's not a notion - it's fact. Last time I took the bus:
1) A homeless person (they get free vouchers) threw up his entire stomachful of Mad Dog all over the floor
2) Two other seriously FOUL smelling homeless people stank up the entire section
3) The rest of the people (save me) felt really intimidated by a large, loudmouthed African American thug yelling "F***! I GOTS HERPES ON MA D***!" the whole time, while scowling at anyone who twitched.
Factor in that any bus trip by definition takes you three times as long, and you have a recipe for "screw it, I'm driving."
RE: This is a factory restriction, though, with no policing
Well, this is now a LEGAL restriction that WILL be policed.
And, to tie this back in to my original point, this might have an effect on the companies who produce the fuel computers, exhausts etc. for the VTX1800. All in the guise of saving the planet. Not about the fees required to certify models.
Well, yeah. The EPA rolled out new rules for 2006 models and beyond. Basically, you can't alter anything on your bike except handlebars and paint. Try that fuel computer trick on a 2007 VTX and you incur $10,000 penalties PER DAY.
2010 or so it gets much worse.
RE: I said that it was a matter of cleaner for the same work that mattered. If you want to get from A to B and can do so using less gas by using a motorbike than an SUV, then that motorbike is clearly cleaner for the same amount of work. Duh.
Too bad the spotted owl huggers don't see it that way.
RE: I have no problems with motorbikes. Well, I'm not completely convinced 2-stroke engines are capable of delivering the same power for the same fuel as a 4-stroke engine, if optimally designed, and I'm definitely not convinced either would be superior to a well-designed rotary engine, but that's for a highly optimized design. For right now, I'd be willing to believe that motorbikes have superior performance to a car.
Only two strokes out there are dirt bikes, IIRC. Most were phased out in the 60s.
RE: I do not drive an SUV, I do not regard SUVs as suitable for any purpose whatsoever, and I'd regard any environmentalist who owned an SUV as brain-dead.
Well, how are you going to get Brittney and Conor out into the wilderness for your bracing little trek? Only it isn't a Ford Excursion it's a Range Rover or a Volvo SUV which as we know is different because of the Greenpeace sticker on the bumper.
RE: Yes, cars are too complex these days. This has nothing to do with efficiency, however. There is nothing efficient about a car that cannot be maintained. That should be obvious, since if it cannot be maintained, it cannot be kept at an optimum for the conditions the vehicle is subject to. A hyper-complex car can, at best, only be any good under absolutely average test conditions and nothing else.
Yes, but unfortunately when you write laws, you take out common sense. You also kill the car culture and by extension, the car market. I mean, if you're buying a disposable sewing machine sounding carbon fiber box, why not buy the Toyota rather than the Ford?
RE: But what have these things added? Most fuel is used in stop-go traffic, not highway cruising. Such additions look "cool", have added nothing and have caused (fortunately only a few, but still far too many) fatalities.
Motorcycles result in far less stop and go traffic. Heck, on my sled I'm allowed in the HOV lanes. I used to streak by stopped traffic and get where I was going really well.
RE: Am I in favour of complexity? No. I am in favour of efficiency.
Well, unfortunately the Sierra Club doesn't want efficiency, it wants needless complexity to solve a NONEXISTENT problem.
RE: Am I an environmentalist? I don't like the term, because I don't see things as being necessarily in conflict, and many of my beliefs that are friendly towards the environment are so because they are as simple as possible but no simpler. Those things that are good at achieving results with minimal effort must necessarily also achieve results with the minimum of impact. I like the idea of preserving as many species as possible, but that's just as much because diverse environments are stable AND offer the greatest possiblity of providing me with whatever I might need.
I find the "junk your car and buy a hybrid" arguments ridiculous. If anything, not building newer cars uses less resources and pollution.
RE: I despise those who believe things because it is their religion. That earns no respect from me. I DO respect those who believe things because they have established something to be true, and I definitely respect those who work hard on pushing their understanding to the limits. That is without regard to the beliefs, including whether I hold them myself. I reserve my greatest disgust and contempt, though, for those who turn meaningless labels (such as "environmentalism") into religious objects of worship or fanatical objects of hate. Such people have no feelings towards that which they profess to worship or hate - how could they, when they don't even know what they are? So not only are they claiming prophetic powers of received wisdom, they are also claiming the divine right of prejudice. Contempt is far better than
RE: I wanted to let you know that I changed the exhaust pipe on my VTX (the single "sewer pipe") last summer. I'm not sure what the big deal is in your comment about not being able to change the exhaust pipe. There are lots of aftermarket exhausts for the VTX 1300 and 1800.
:^)
Your bike is 2002. As of 2006 not only are the requirements on your VTX1800 way stricter, those models and later lose the legal right to have aftermarket parts put on it. As has been stated about the EPA, only chrome and paint can change. Period. $10,000 a day fine if you don't comply.
RE: I agree that you should be able to drive what you want. But the manufacturers may not produce bikes that won't be purchased by a LOT of consumers. You may have noticed that since the debut of the VTX in the summer of 2001 (which is when I picked-up my model year 2002), the other bike manufacturers have started building "big cruisers" like the VTX.
Well, we'll see about that in 2010 when the requirements get even stricter. Point being, and I do have one, there's NO WAY you can get to car-level emissions because these involve catalytic converters and the tech isn't there to do it. And this whole "by the way in two years time you can only get parts from the dealer which we've been paid $50,000 per model to certify" IS going to have an effect on the market, it IS having an effect on the market. I don't see people rebutting this, just "Harley sucks, buy a squid bike."
RE: In the name of customizing, I also have a "fuel computer" that I have to install on my VTX (it's on my weekend To Do list). True, it's not as fun as putting new jets in a carb and tuning things but it still gives me some control over how the bike performs. It will also make those Harleys (some of which cost twice what I paid for the VTX) disappear in the rear view mirror that much quicker.
Be that as it may, it is illegal to install that on a 2006 or later bike. This is my point.
Someone asked me how government regulation hampers the economy.
If you want to drive a Yakasaki squid bike, you have a different set of parameters in terms of what you're looking for than a cruiser driver.
If your bike is mostly fairing and what have you, I agree with you, when manufacturers are forced to take your totally hidden engine and replace it with something else, who cares?
However, in another subsection of the motorcycle market, people like a certain styling, a certain ease of maintenance and what have you. Government enforcing certain things has led to a serious hampering of that market. Apples and Oranges. Let's face it, your Yakasaki is always going to run Yakasaki pipes, it's not like there's very much (comparatively) in terms of aftermarket. There is no American Squid Bike. Styling is cookie cutter. You guys might rod out the engine, but fundamentally you don't change the bike. So if you're told you can only replace Yakasaki part# 202 with another #202, 99.999% of your guys don't care cause it's how they do business anyway.
You might argue that people who want to ride bikes might as well trash their Harleys and buy Yamahas. Others might argue that all this lunatic rubbish coming out of California which makes little difference to the world at large (most of the smog in Cali is cooking grease IIRC, and remember, bike pollution is LESS THAN ONE PERCENT) is basically a lot of hassle for very very little benefit. Frankly, it's a cash grab and a naked one pure and simple.
Trust me, innovation is still taking place. S&S make a nice Shovelhead engine that makes more power and uses a lot of innovations. What a shame that you're not allowed to make bikes with them in them anymore.
RE: they came in because they improve performance and reliability (you don't have to fix it yourself if it doesn't break) and those are what customers want.
Interesting how you should tell me what I want as a customer. Anything else about me you care to say? I'm trying to make a point here. People might argue til they're blue in the face that cars put out more horsepower yadda yadda yadda than ever before, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of people driving SUVs or paying six figures for classic cars cause they don't wanna drive those new cars.
How much space does a belt, a chain and a set of points take up?
Lest you think I'm a Japanese bike hating Harley rider, I'm not. I've owned Hondas in the past and agree with you. They are a joy to ride and what have you. But let me put it to you this way - you should be allowed to change the exhaust pipe on it if you want to. I mean, Yamaha is coming out with ads for its Star series basically saying "you know, you CAN get a variety of looks out of this bike".
Oh, and, I don't own a cellphone and unless the engine case has exploded on me, I'm not calling anyone. Your bike may be a reliable bike to ride, but when something goes on it, and give it enough time and it will, you're looking at some serious shop time. I have the luxury of knowing that I can do almost all the work myself if need be (replacing valve guides requires a press, truing a flywheel is left to experts) with simple tools and I can get lots of different types of parts. When I rode a Honda, when something went wrong, it was down the Honda dealership, and I paid dealership prices on dealership parts. Never mind that it was a lot harder to work on them than mine.
My MAIN point is that if I should want an air cooled, pushrod driven carbureted motorcycle I should be able to drive one, in the land of the free, cause I have some pretty valid reasons to want to do so. Just as how you have EQUALLY valid reasons to want your water cooled fuel injected bike. Also, if I should choose to put on a nicer looking set of exhaust pipes it should be my perogative to be allowed to do so.
Many doesn't imply all. Even the metric guys are getting in on customising their rides.
RE: There are no "environazi" standards preventing you from buying a beefy car. Buy one of these: http://modernmusclecars.net/
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
Take a look underneath the hood of a 1969 Charger and what you sent me. The first vehicle has a relatively straightforward engine that is mostly user maintainable - the latter, well, the first like is a blobby Dodge Neon Car (have to get the aerodynamics to meet the standards!!!!) and the other is a CONCEPT CAR, just like the Dodge Charger Concept Car that NEVER GOT BUILT. Oh, and by the way the original muscle cars were relatively inexpensive and most cars out there were solidly built and well powered. These links are for limited edition cars that'll set you back QUITE a lot of money. And most cars out there now are like the Dodge Neon. Light, underpowered GARBAGE. You've proven nothing apart from the fact that concept cars and limited edition specialty cars also exist. Buddy of mine went down to a car dealership - went to Ford, Dodge and Chev and said basically "what have you got?" and frankly, his choices were Dodge Neon Clone Roller Skate, and hefty SUV. You can argue that's anecdotal, but frankly, it's how a lot of people think - and they go with the SUV.
And, I guarantee you that even if the car you send me a link to gets built, it will have fifteen levels of fuel injectors, computerized control, beryllium dioxide radiators that shatter when hit (unlike the old ones you knocked the dents out of), etc. If you wanna work on one, you'll need a $50,000 computer and God knows what else.
I also fail to see why you feel the need to be abusive and rude. If you've got to be insulting to try and make your so called point, that shows just how limited your brain happens to be.
You'll excuse me, but environazi standards are why I can't buy a 1968 Nova or a 1969 Charger at the store, but some lame Dodge Neon looking blob of underpowered crap.
And I'm sorry, but in a crash, if you're in an Excursion you'll stand a far better chance of surviving than if you're in a Mini Cooper. Someone posted some interesting facts in the last global warming discussion about how the underpowered titchy cars of today are frankly DEATH TRAPS and the heavier the vehicle, the more likely you are to survive an accident.
Twenty years ago you could buy a solid, fully powered, nice sounding car. Then the enviro folks came in and said "nope! Cars must BY LAW be these underpowered, sewing machine sounding, lightweight objects that are death traps in a colliison."
"Yeah, no thanks. Don't want that lame car. Hey, what's that big thing over there? The one with the nice throaty roar to its engine and some heft to it so if I do get hit by something I'll survive?"
"It's some new thing, called an SUV. Not subject to the car regulations."
"Sign me up for the SUV."
Where is this hydrogen going to come from? OIL.
Look it up.
So, we get far less emissions from a car, but that gigantic hydrogen plant is gonna put out one MOTHER of a load of pollutants. And yeah, they've got enough money, power and influence to simply ignore pleas from the administration to clean up their act.
I'll go you one better.
The MRF (Motorcycle Rights Foundation) and other organizations are seeing their way of life go under. To many, one buys a motorcycle to customize it. "Well, you can always bolt some chrome trim onto it, or paint it some wild color." Yeah, but change the wheel size and you're in violation of the law.
Now, keep in mind we're not talking certification (several tens of thousands of dollars!) for an engine, EFI (Electronic Fuel Injection) and exhaust combination, we're talking certification of a model. So if you offer five bikes with the same engine, same exhaust and same EFI, but one has a windshield and fairing, the other a springer fork and the other a girder fork (all of this is front end stuff) that's three times the usurious government inspector fee, even though all three bikes use the same engine, transmission, exhaust etc. and work EXACTLY the same way.
Private folks have proposed certifying components as being EPA worthy, rather than models of motorcycle. The EPA is more interested in a "pay to play" model - if you want to change your exhaust to something cooler looking, pay a licence fee (yearly) to the EPA, make the cheque out to "environmental scam shakedown, inc." and certainly, you can do that, if we decide in our largesse to allow it. I can just see them privately going "come on, take the bait! take the bait!"
Now we start seeing the REAL motivation. If you want to do anything other than What We Say, you can pay us to do it. Cause if there was real harm and devastation from a trumpet muffler rather than a muffled drag, they wouldn't consider it at all. I'll reiterate. These EPA folks are NOT elected, they're appointed, the electable ones are just as miffed. The DMV and State Patrols are not interested in the hassle of having to enforce all these stupid new laws and buy all kinds of tools to do testing and certification, to achieve for all intents and purposes no discernible difference in emissions.
Mind you, that's what all this alarmist GARBAGE, including Kyoto, is about. Sell us on the world coming to an end because of a 0.5F degree change in ambient air temperature, and shake down the first world for money and jobs because of it.
Now we start to understand why the enviro industry works the way it does. Remember kids, SUVs for work or what have you (say a rap lifestyle) are inherently evil, but the same vehicles (albeit made by foreigners) used for Sierra Club outings and making espresso with REI camping gear on your yuppie envirofreak hiking trip are not.
We could divert that research money into actual solutions, like producing butanol from cellulose leading to significantly less pollution and energy independance.
RE: Well, simpers the espresso sipping folk, Birkenstock hanging off one toe, all you need to do is simply put water cooling, catalytic converters, etc. on the motorcycle and preferably make them run with electric engines which do 40 miles an hour and make no noise.
Many of these folks are those scientifically illiterate enough to think that hydrogen cars will run on putting water in the tank.
RE: ...I still do not see how slowing emissions could slow the economy,
Well, let's take a look at motorcycling, shall we?
Once upon a time, people rode Harleys across the United States of America. Road films about this subculture were put on the silver screen. Harleys may have had their problems, most notoriously in the late 60s and early 70s when labor unrest meant people got bikes with tools in them, etc.
Fast forward. Sensible, roadside fixable stuff like pushrod technology, motors which could be mostly disassembled without removing them from the frame, carburetors which could be made to work just well enough to limp to the next town, etc. have been replaced by overcomplicated, ungainly crap machines whose systems, well - let's put it this way. Lose an oxygen sensor in the middle of nowhere, and you better hope someone comes by with a pickup truck. And bring your credit card. Take out old part, replace with new. Can't fix em. If your car goes down you can at least sit in it, sleep in it, whatever. Use it as shelter. Not so a bike.
Now, some spotted owl hugger ignores the vastly increased MPG of a motorcycle and screams WAIT A MINUTE! HOLD ON A SECOND! A BIKE PUTS OUT 4 g of carbon hypedupscaretacticane per gallon, versus a fraction of that even in a HUMMER! Apples and oranges comparison, considering how much less gets burned.
The same bunch that thought putting training wheels on motorcycles would keep them upright if something bad happened, or seatbelts on motorcycles was a great idea, decided that heretofore, bikes would pollute 60% less. OR ELSE. Did we elect these people? No. Five appointed folks.
And of course, building your own can only happen once in your lifetime. Not once and if it's stolen, wrecked, repossessed whatever you can own another one, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE.
Well, simpers the espresso sipping folk, Birkenstock hanging off one toe, all you need to do is simply put water cooling, catalytic converters, etc. on the motorcycle and preferably make them run with electric engines which do 40 miles an hour and make no noise.
Catalytic converters run REALLY hot. You can do that on a car because the car design doesn't put the fuel tank on top of the engine and exhaust, or have the rider straddle the working parts. How about sticking it right next to the rider's leg? The new fashion isn't leather chaps but reflective asbestos pants? Water jacketing is just another complicated system that can leak or break on you, it adds weight and cuts down the aerodynamics.
Motorcycles improve traffic flow, get better gas mileage and pollute, by the EPA's OWN ADMISSION, less than 1% of all pollution. They'd get more bang for their buck getting rid of lawnmowers and those SUVs of the sea, motorboats.
However, what happens with the EPA is they pick on those with the least money. Harley, Honda etc. are MORE than happy to comply cause they know that EPA certification of a vehicle runs into the tens of thousands of dollars, and the Orange County Choppers and the West Coast Choppers of this world cannot afford to pay that and compete. (Well, the Teutuls can.)
Has this translated to more Harley sales? Not at all. For the first time in a long time they've got bikes on the floor ready to be sold. Used to be there was competition for bikes before they were even built. Nobody wants the water-jacketed, overly complex V-Rod engine (except for a few enthusiasts) nor the "no user serviceable parts inside" Twin Cam 88 models out there. Engineering has removed all soul from these machines. Harley investors are threatening to sue.
My antique bike can be fixed with a few simple hand tools I can carry on my bike in a small tool pouch. It's simple enough that I can fix it, maintain it, by the side of the road if necessary. If I really want to travel long distances I can carry an extra chain and belt, set of points and some baling wire and deal with about 90% of all contingencies. (Can't repair an exploded case on the street, but then again the chanc
So, if I read you correctly, no matter what happens, whether the earth gets warmer or colder it's STILL Global Warming, you're still right and it was still caused by cool cars as opposed to everyone taking bicycles or Smart?
Wow, you've got your bases covered, there.
If the temperature goes up, it's global warming. If it drops, it's global warming.
Ever considered a career in religion?
Sources please.
Before we go off doing things that are rash before thinking about it, wasn't there something about global warming getting worse because of a decrease in global dimming thanks to us following the Greenie enviro-Nazi advice and eliminating aerosols and cool cars in favor of underpowered crap noone wants to buy?
This seems to be the enviro-religion version of Pascal's wager, and just as wrong for the same reasons.
Do keep in mind as well that even though the USA has promised to pay back certain monies, China's also under certain obligations to not rip people off, dump products in the US, etc.
The way they're behaving, especially keeping their currency artifically low to suck all the money out of the first world (never mind using slave labor to make products) certainly goes against trade agreements as they stand.
I would suggest that the argument would be made that it isn't a default in its normal sense but them finally getting wise to how the money siphon works.
Well, that depends, sometimes it makes more sense to do so.
If I could default on 75% of my debt for a slightly higher interest rate, at the same time not paying that debt, I could manage, especially if as part of that plan I rebuild my manufacturing base, and employ Americans for a change instead of Chinese.
The question will be selling it to the internationsl community that this the alternative is the US becoming a protectorate of China, and yer on yer own if dictatorship or terrorism ever raises its ugly head.
If the USA doesn't repay its debts to China, then that's China's problem.
It isn't as though NOBODY will lend to the US at that point - money to be made is money to be made.
It's a little different in this instance.
Though yes, the Chinese are subsidising the American way of life....
If I was to stop paying on debts, then I'd find big burly men coming to my house to take my stuff back, called repo men. There really isn't an international equivalent.
As Pierre Elliott Trudeau said once, "you can't foreclose on a country."
Interesting - I thought the Blackberry was made by a Canadian corporation.
RE: 2. I've been working 8-16 hours a day sitting in front of a computer for about 12 years. It's pretty typical for us in that situation to develop specific injuries and weaknesses, one common one of which is weakened lower back muscles, leading to back problems. I've been to chiropractors on and off for much of that time. Most of them fix the symptoms, but not the underlying cause.
Go to elitefts.com and buy a Reverse Hyper machine, and use it.