Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

California Air Resources Board heard from many witnesses on the subject of motorcycle emissions controls. C.A.R.B. defers' catalytic converters By Dale Brown LOS ANGELES, CA, MAR. 23 The California Air Resources Board re-evaluated its position on motorcycle hydrocarbon emissions and adopted a new standard, one that the major manufacturers testified that they could meet without having to resort to catalytic converters. The new standard calls for a "corporate average" hydrocarbon emissions limit of 1.4 grams per kilometer, beginning with 1986 model year street machines. The present standard of 2.5 g/k will continue in effect for 1984-85 model years, and through 1987 for manufacturers selling less t~an 5000 units per year in Califormao However, the Board set the limits to apply only through the 1987 model year, and said they would consider ,emissions standards again in 1985. The emissions standard ha been a sticky situation for several years. In 1982, C.A.R.B. decreed a straight standard of 1.0 g/k, despite testimony from manufacturers that it would mean catalytic converters on most street bikes over 50Occ. C.A.R.B. classes all street bikes ov.er 280cc in one category, Class III. The new emissions limit raised a howl from motorcycle consumers, who feared having the converters, which operate at temperatures greater than 700 degrees, on their motorcycles for safety reasons. The industry cried foul as well, citing increased prices, California-only models, and the distinct possibility that it would be unprofi table to market some models in California. California dealers faced the prospect of losing business to out-of-state dealers, since the applicable federal standard is 5.0 g/k. The 1.0 g/kstandard was to go into e[[ect on July I, 1983. Fortunately, California State Senator Alan Robbins introduced SB 158 and got the measure passed, delaying the implementation until July 1,1984, to allow for reconsideration. The manufacturers filed a petition for reconsideration, and this hearing was the final step. In the meantime, C.A.R.B.'s staff, after meeting with the manufcturers and others, developed four alternatives. Thefirst alternative called for a 1.0 g/k corporate average. The second alternative was a split standard, with 5000 units being certified at a 1.5 g/k standard, and the balance at a 1.0 average. The third alternative - the one adopted - was the 1.4 g/k corporate average. The fourth "alternative" was the original 1.0 straight standard. As might be expected, industry testimony was in favor of the third alternative. Honda testified that under vhe first, 87% of its machines would need catalysts; 85% under the second and 92% under the fourth. Other manufacturers cited smaller but still significam percentages. The testimony presented during the five-hour hearing was quite wideranging; too detailed to go on about it in length here. But some of it was entertaining for any rider who has ever pulled up behind a belching diesel bus on a hot, smoggy summer afternoon. Kawasaki representative Roger Hagie was testifying on engine design, saying that for reasons of combustion chamber shape and operatin,g temperature, ";w air-cooled two-valve-per- YOU CAN WIN ONE OF 5,555 FABULOUS PRIZES IF YOUR FREE GAME PUZZLE MATCHES OUR DISPlAy. ('.ome intoourdcal~rship IIO\\', You could win the V'ilea lion of your dreams. A [leI' >;

• Cover