Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

Cycle News 1975 08 19

Cycle News is a weekly magazine that covers all aspects of motorcycling including Supercross, Motocross and MotoGP as well as new motorcycles

Issue link: https://magazine.cyclenews.com/i/126003

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 25 of 55

Opinion The po -tico-legal meatgrinder . Part III Backward glances & food for thought on the C.A.R.B. emission control hearings Both be fore and during the Califom ia Air Resources Board ermssion control hearing, I've had cause to believe that m any m otorcycle manufacturers still are more a fraid of each othe r than they are o f the g o ve rnm e n t , With the ex. . cep u on of Suzuki (who stood t o be driven straight out of the U.S. market under a 1.0 gm /km HC standard), the MIC member firms were extremely reluctant to reveal, either to the MIC or to the Air Resources Board, anything they considered a " trade secret" or "p ro p rietary information." This problem arose early, when MIC legal counsel Stuart Ross told an MIC planning meeting what kind of presentation would be needed to prove the industry could not meet the standard as prescribed by law. Critical to the industry's case (especially if it should come up for Federal review) is a detailed economic impact statement, showing the dollar impact of loss of business, cancelled models, layoffs, costs of compliance. What was the hangup? The trouble was, such a presentation would require manufacturers to reveal to each other their projected model lineup for 1978 -1980. They would also be disclosing which of their models could be brought into compliance with the C.A.R.B. standard, what compliance would cost, and which models would have to be dropped. If in dustry people have been doing their homework, they know each others' plans already . The Australian press and a few mote-monthlies already have published telephoto shots of all the future four-strokers on Japanese test tracks by now. And the rest can be guessed by anyone with a grain of deductive ability. Not only did the secrecy fetish hurt the MIC's blanket presentation, it hurt individual manufacturers as well Their dollar loss figure goes in to the public record without supporting data. and appears as an unsupported claim. If the industry has shot its wad and blown it, then it's up to consumers to try and pu t a choke on C.A.R.B. That's a long-shot p ossibility. The S.H.E.D. decision 26 C.A.R.B. board members at the hearing were visibly wo rri ed over the consequences of something called the "S.H.E.D. decision ," an EPA waiver action that appeared in the Federal Register on Friday, July 18, 19 75. The S.H.E.D. test is so mething to be re quired of auto man u facturers by 1978 or thereabouts. The nature of the test itself is unim portant. What's relevant to us (an d the board m embers guessed it intuitively) is the EPA's decision that just because a given kind of teclmology is available to one firm, that doesn't mean that it Can be applied to all production vehicles by a given date. In other words; if eM" has something, but For~ and: Chrysler do!, ' t have it and can t get It un~ a certain date, ~e EPA favors a delay m th e standard until Ford and Chrysler can get it. More to the point, if Hon da gets a free ride under the C.A.R.B. standar d but the rest of the industry can 't meet the 1978 deadline, the Federal EPA , at least, would consider a del ay, if the S.lL£..D. precedent is carried over to the motorcycle case. And that possibility is very much on the California Board's mind, in case they were required to request an EPA 'waiver for California motorcycle standards. Paradise lost - for both road and dirt riders . We've seen the impact in terms of steril e figures - grams of this, ccs of that. What 's it all mean in terms of bikes we can buy? Remember, we're talking about a 10 gm/km HC emission limit in 1978, 5.0 gm/km by 19 80, and 1.0 gm/km by 1982. It means no more Kawa H2s, no mo re Suzuki triples (barring so me technical breakthrough), in fact there will be few , if any street two-strokes over l75cc produced by any manufacturer after 197 8. That not only means no more multi-cylinder two-stroke superbikes, it also means no 360cc Montjuics, no six-speed rotary valve Maico (which Cycle tested with such eloquence recently) . It's been obvious for some time th at a 230-pound street single with up to 40 horsepower could be built " o ff-shel f" today by ...veral European manufacturers (not to mention a stillborn American project or two). The main reason given why this will never happen is the expected tight emissions standards. In case dirt riders think it's not your fight, consider this: How many enduros run partly on public roads and require entrants to be at least nominally street legal? How many enduros do you know that could run a complete loop without any public road sections? Not too many, huh? That means the character o f enduro ' rid ing is going to change dr as tically in th e nex t three years. Either enduros will have to move totally o ff-ro ad, or else seri ous du al-purpose enduro machinery will become totally four-stroke. It also me ans th at th e 197 8 Yamaha "DT400" will have valves. Same for Kawasaki and Suz uki. But what ab out street-license enduro bikes from Can-Am, KTM, Penton, Maico, Bultaco, Ossa, Montesa, CZ, o r Husqvarna? The entire production o f these firms will have to be totally off-road machinery in California, and if this development costs them the California market, it's doubtful many will main tain operations in th e rest of th e U.S. Some, m aybe ail of th em mi gh t su rvive, bu t it will be thanks to MX/desert/triais and track racers on!y. out when new . P lus normal production-line variabili ty pu ts in a plus-or-minus 25 percent uncertainty factor. So if th e government draws test bikes off th e production lines at random, manufacturers will have to design limits of about 0.5 gmfkm in order to be su re the test articles will still me e t th e 1.0 gm /km standard at th e end o f th e durability test. All agree that performance and mil eage are going to be sa cri fi c e d , and th at the cost of compliance, whe ther it be $30 a bike or $3 00 a bi ke, is going to be borne by th e buyer. Sooner or later we are going to h urt . The on ly way to avoid it is to deny the government the right to set the standards in the first p lace. Sure , I know reality as well as th e next p olitical obse rver. I know we migh t have to se t tle for less than we wan t som ewhe re along the way. Bu t if we start out asking for less than a to tal rollback of motorcycle em ission con trols, or if onl y hal f of us ask it, we 're h ad . And that 's the truth. Lane Campbell Political options Th e industry's last hope is the S.H. E.D. pre cedent, an d I hope they get under it. But th ey are more likely to be included if th e politicos perceive a groundswell of rider resistance to em ission co n trols. Even though C.A.R.B.'s decision to invoke standards is on re cord, the y still monitor their mail . Th e Board 's El Monte office address is 95 28 Telstar Avenue , EI Monte, CA 91 731. Drop them a polite line. Write your Cali forn i a state legislators. Remind them of the recent repeal of the NO x device retrofit program for cars, and tell them that motorcycle owners are ju st as upset, maybe more so. Seriously, the state legislature only gave th e board the power to regulate motorcycles last year, and what they gave , they can take away. All that's necessary is to prove to them that it's politically expedient to do so. They do count their mail, and sometimes they even read it. This is going to require support from four-stroke enthusiasts as well. 1982 comes pretty soon after 197 8, and .th at 's when everybody has to meet a 1.0 gm/km standard. At present, a Harley Sportster puts out about 3.0 gm/km, as does a big Norton or Tri umph, while Kawasaki figures the present ZI will average ab out 2.0 gm/km. What ail of them agree on is that during th e durability test p eriod specified by the government, (in which only ro utin e maintenance can be done to the engine) emissions will gradually increase to about 1.6 times what an engine puts "You have the right to remain silent ." Applied to a person accused of criminal action, this may be a basic human right under our Constitution. But does it also apply to the various tentacles of our government? The mind-blower is the unbelievable quantity of words our government can employ in the act of "remaining silent." A desert rider called several weeks ago to ask about a fence he had seen, n ot only bloc king off the Navy access road, but also shutting off Christmas Cany on about a mile west of the Navy range boundary. Curious, I call ed the Bakersfield District BLM office (my mlstake s- wr ong District), and a hel pful gentleman explained that Rivers ide District had issued a SLUP permit to the I EAT 70UR H£ARTl OU-r. EV£L!

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's - Cycle News 1975 08 19