The Scene
THE SCENE
IVAN J. WAGAR
IN THE February issue of CYCLE WORLD this column took to task the American Motorcycle Association Competition Congress for not taking a harder position on the restriction of noise in all Sportsman (now Amateur) competition. In the May issue I went after the dealers about using more discretion when selling machines with full expansion chambers, or converting to loud exhaust systems for non-racing purposes.
Lest you get the idea that I’ve completely flipped my lid, let me remind you that I have sat over a racing megaphone for several thousand road racing miles, loving every minute of it, but losing some of my hearing every time I went out.
My plea for less noise is not merely based on my own hearing problems. 1 have had to argue for motorcycling before legislators and I have been able to convince most of them that motorcycles and motorcycling are good. I cannot, however, present further argument when “They” admit that separate driver licensing and better operator training will help our cause, but they add that they feel the motorcycle is doomed, because it makes too much noise.
Only a few percent of all motorcycles on the road are excessively loud. But the loud bikes receive the attention. Most riders, dealers, and some manufacturers feel there should be no noise restriction on off-road machines, and that is pure crap, man. Motorcycling will continue to suffer strangulation as long as we have racing machines used for non-racing purposes.
The following is a message I sent to the Motorcycle Industry Council annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
One year ago, at our first annual meeting, our guest speaker, Douglas Toms (NHTSA Administrator), suggested three areas in which MIC should “do their homework” and preempt the legislators: tire standards, cleaning up and setting our own standards for exhaust emissions, and AY)ISh\
I am appalled to see 1971 catalogs from MIC member firms displaying machines fitted with racing exhaust systems for general consumption. Not only are race kitted versions of popular models available to the public at large, but even new motocross racing motorcycles are offered, as play bikes, to anyone. As long as you continue this practice our industry is living in a glass house, and is fair game for any hotshot legislator with a big rock in his hand.
Three years ago, when I visited Spain for the first time, the owner of one of the factories asked me to explain the fantastic growth of motocross over the previous five years. When 1 told him motocross in the U.S. was in its infancy, he could not understand it. He then told me that his U.S. importer had been ordering 80 percent of his total allotment in motocross machines. The factory owner, when told that these motorcycles were being used for enduros, play racing, and general riding, commented: “But the engine characteristics are completely wrong for general riding. How can the riders stand the noise? And surely there are complaints from non-motorcycle people; such a thing would not Se permitted in Europe.”
I mention this example only because it completely sums up the motorcycle noise problem in this country. As long as YOU continue to import, advertise and glamorize the advantages of racing machines for the general public, people will buy them and the legislators will close lands.
Once the lands are closed we have ho alternative but to spend large amounts of monèy and devote endless hours of effort negotiating back small parcels in the form of motorcycle parks. It is somewhat like the North American Indians being robbed of their freedom and sent off to the reservations. 1 don’t think that motorcycling can expect any more public sympathy today than the Indians received under the political guise of bettering our society.
In my column in CYCLE WORLD I have tried to educate motorcyclists on the noise issue: it hasn’t worked. People do not buy magazines to be lectured. 1 have criticized the AMA Competition Congress for not adopting strong noise rules for sporting events. In the May issue of CYC LE WORLD you will read a plea to the dealers to face up to their responsibility to fight noise and join the MIC. But can we really expect the dealer, the AMA. or the consumer to help us solve a problem that industry has created? My answer is no. We must face up to the fact
that it is our fault.
It is for this reason that I strongly urge you to adopt a resolution that no un muffled machines will be produced after July 1, 1971 by any MIC’ member firm. While this may seem like short notice, let me remind you that the European manufacturers already have high performance, low noise exhaust systems, as required for 1SDT and other forms of cross country racing.
I would like to point out that eliminating this problem does not infringe upon the consumer’s personal freedom, as do land closures and helmet laws. What the owner does to the exhaust system after he has bought the machine is a different matter. At least we will not be encouraging, or sanctioning, noise and wanton damage to the ecology. Unless we make the motorcycle more compatible with the environment we will, like the Indians, lose the battle.
Only the MIC has the power to make (his change. And if the MIC does not make the change, by the July 1 compliance date, it has shirked its responsibility, not only to all segments of the industry, but to the consumer and legislator as well.
At this point it is not really known what action the MIC' will take regarding noise. It is interesting to note that an MIC' news release announces that a guest speaker at the annual meeting. Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land Management Harrison Loesch, told the MIC' that noise is the big problem facing motorcycling. Mr. Loesche suggested quieter means of propulsion for motorcycles, such as electrically powered vehicles for use on public lands.
To most of us the idea of a battery powered motorcycle for all off-road use may seem absurd. But remember. They are not Us; they think differently than we do.
Then our friend Loesch went on to explain that: “Indiscriminate use of
off-road vehicles can have an adverse effect on environment.” He had to. Men like Loesch are under tremendous pressure from conservation groups. He knows full well that he can get more political support from the conservationists if he “lays it on the line” in a speech to the motorcyclists.
And that is what is unfortunate. Mr. Loesch said nothing that has not been said in this column several times in the past two years. It is really discouraging that a top dog in the federal government has to stand up and tell us what most of us already know (I hope he paid for his own dinner). At the time of this writing, no less than 25 states have a total of 48 noise bills in the proposal stage.
