Roundup

ROUNDUP

EPA VS NOISE VS MOTORCYCLES

When the Environmental Protection Agency released its initial proposal for control of motorcycle noise, we ac cepted the idea, that is, motorcycles shouldn't make more noise than is practi cal, but rejected with vigor the proposed limits for new motorcycles. -

Came next a letter from an EPA spokes man, telling us we had been too severe and that the proposals as announced last year were only initial suggestions.

Now the firm proposals have been made public and in the EPA's defense, the reg ulations have been modified some. They aren't as bad as they were.

They are bad enough.

The proposed noise standards, to be applied to all motorcycles built or sold in the U.S. for use on public highways or lands, effective January 1, 1980, are as follows:

Now then. To establish a frame of refer ence, road bikes sold in California must meet a limit of 83dB. And the current CanAm Qualifier 175 has been measured by the factory at 82dB. On that basis the EPA regulations don't sound too severe.

Probably they are supposed to sound not too severe.

Couple things in the EPA's fine print.

The certification test is for the machine under acceleration, wide-open throttle, lower gears, which means that the actual noise of the motorcycle on a public street or in the woods will be considerably less than the test indicates.

Next, the decibel system of measuring sound isn't linear. Going from 80 to 78dB isn't like reducing the speed limit from 60 to 55 mph. In fact, the EPA says that the new rules will cut motorcycle noise in half.

The last sneak punch is that the man ufacturers of new and replacement parts will be required to deliver equipment that cannot fail the test. Most certification re quires the maker to submit a production example. If it passes and the factory uses the specifications to build the parts, the parts are presumed certified.

But under this system, all parts must be within the limit. Because of normal toler ances, the factories will have to build in two or three dB less, to be sure.

That's a tough set of rules.

"The agency is well aware that the substantial redesign of cur rent street motorcycles necessi tated by the 78dB standard will make it difficult for smaller man ufacturers to remain in the U.S. market."

One might ask, what's the benefit? The best answer is . . . nobody knows.

Under its mandate from the U.S. Con gress, the EPA was directed to come up with standards to "protect the public health and welfare", whatever that means.

What it means to the EPA is, somebody established a total sound limit for traffic noise, which most people could take with out any risk to their health, "with an adequate margin of safety." Then the EPA workers measured various traffic sound> producers. Bikes aren’t the only noisemakers out there. Rules are coming for the trucks, buses et al, so the EPA says unless motorcycles are regulated they’ll be the worst. Thus, the regulations.

Now. This magazine, the factories, dealers, trade associations and most riders agree there should be limits to motorcycle noise, on road or off.

What we’re concerned with here is cost effectiveness: At what point does reducing noise cost more than it’s worth?

There are three levels offered at present.

The EPA research shows that 12 percent of road bikes and 26 percent of off-road bikes now operating have modified exhaust systems, //‘modified exhausts were illegal in all localities and if such laws were enforced, the reduction in motorcycle noise would equal dropping the dB level of all new bikes by 10 full points. Right. If we dealt with the bad guys, we’d get more than the proposed standards will bring us.

Will this be done? Well, no. The EPA isn’t allowed to fiddle with state laws and the various states and other local agencies are the ones with the job of enforcing muffler laws.

Next, the EPA considered setting maximum road bike noise at 80dB rather than 78. Remember, this is a much larger reduction than the numbers indicate. If the limit was 80dB, by the EPA’s own estimate the general public would receive 70 to 90 percent of the expected benefit.

And because 80 is more easily reached than 78, there would be no economic disruption, extra cost to bike riders, hardships imposed on smaller factories, etc.

But, considers the EPA, the technology to bring noise down to 78dB on road and 82dB off-road is available. So the agency proposes to require it.

The cost? In money, the EPA says the price of small bikes will go up 5 percent and the price of middleweights will go up 13 percent.

Money is only part of the cost. Quoting from the EPA’s proposal, “most exhaust system quieting techniques carry penalties . . . Regulatory levels below 80dB may be expected to have some appreciable impact on vehicle performance characteristics.

“Regulatory levels below 80dB may be expected to have some appreciable impact on vehicle performance characteristics.”

“. . . At regulatory levels of 80 and 78dB, a number of street motorcycles in the medium and large displacement classes may require liquid cooling.

“. . . Redesign for increased numbers of cylinders wQuld constitute a major model change at least as significant as use of liquid cooling.”

Off road, “the 80dB fèvel is considered technically achievable, requiring probable four-stroke conversion of many models. This level, however, would be associated with severe performance impacts which could render many models unsuitable for certain types of off-road operation.”

Thanks a lot.

For another kind of cost, the EPA says “The agency is well aware that the substantial redesign of current street motorcycles necessitated by the 78dB standard will make it difficult for smaller manufacturers to remain in the U.S. market.”

What of the larger firms? The Japanese giants?

“Their profitability ... is not expected to be impacted to any large extent. Cost increases . . . are expected to be largely passed on to consumers.”

Harley-Davidson?

“For Harley-Davidson to achieve an 80dB standard it is apparent that, at the very least, major redesign of the current large engine types . . . would be necessary. One attraction of Harley-Davidson motorcycles is a uniquely identifiable exhaust note ... If engine designs acceptable to the consumer can be developed which meet the proposed standard, the firm would be expected to be able to raise necessary capital from its large parent corporation.”

“A net reduction in motorcycle demand is expected as a result of the proposed noise standards.”

Soaking the rich, one might say.

One last quote. It’s buried deep in the text of the proposal and it may be more important to us than to the EPA, but we believe it defines the underlying rationale for the noise regulations as proposed:

“A net reduction in motorcycle demand is expected as a result of the proposed noise standards.”

We don’t trust ourselves to comment on that. You know as well as we do what they think of us bikers.

So. The EPA has scheduled three public hearings on the noise regulation proposals. Because of the timing of the announcement and the hearings, we could not tell you about them before they took place.

But we will be at the western hearing. We have asked to be on the agenda. We are opposed to the proposal as it stands now and we’ll tell the EPA why.

The public is invited to comment. All letters should be .sent to:

Motorcycle Noise (AW-490)

EPA

Washington, D.C. 20460

We strongly suggest that all motorcycle enthusiasts with an opinion pro or con the regulations described here write and comment.

One more thing, suggested by a reader who read the proposal: Don’t just write. Tell your local dealer or shop about the noise proposal. It’s going to affect him as much as you. Chances are the comment from a businessman and taxpayer will be better received than comments from a hobbyist. Then, check your local newspaper. Find a guy with a bike to sell. He likes bikes and he may not read the magazines. Ask him to comment.

Facts won’t be enough. What we need to win this one is numbers. And perhaps not that far off in the future. This Andre de Cortanze-designed road racer is designated experimentale, but the development team may enter it in selected late season Formula 750 events this year. At the front the Elf-X features center hub steering and leadinglink forks, with the various suspension elements fastened directly to the engine (a Yamaha TZ750). Exhaust heat is ventilated through vents in the bodywork, and there is a curved heat shield to deflect hot air away from the carburetors.

FUTUREBIKE

The rear swing arm is hooked up to a single De Carbon-type shock ordinarily found on Formula One racing cars. The brakes, automotive Lockheed discs at both ends, are mated to aluminum dish wheels.

Mounting bosses strengthen the Yamaha engine in its role as a structural member. Fuel is stored in the structural tank below the engine. The tank uses a fuel cell to minimize fire danger.

Although this machine looks to be rather portly, it reportedly weighs in at 288 lb. dry.

French GP rider Michele Rougerie has been handling development work, and will probably pilot the bike if/when it makes its competition debut. 0