Loud Bikes Take II - - - - - A civil Discussion Please



61 replies to this topic
  • armourbl

Posted July 15, 2003 - 11:57 AM

#41

On the suggestion to get a bike with a larger displacement to counter the reduced horsepower from plugging the pipe, isn't that the "pot calling the kettle black?"

Larger displacement uses more fuel, more fuel = more emissions = more polution = next greenie attack!

What exactly is the average db of aftermarket pipes? Just for arguements sake, lets say 104 db. Is 96 db, a difference of 8 db, really that much of an improvement?

Personally, I think the db issue is just another angle for the greenies to attack us with. They will find another angle for sure after this one dies down.

ben

  • DR.Zaius

Posted July 15, 2003 - 12:38 PM

#42

> One question, does your '89 KDX200 have the stock silencer?

Merf




First of all, yes my '89 KDX200 does have the stock silencer. I cut one part of it out (reverse flow section) but it is just as quiet as before. :)

As far as going up that "baby head infested hill" no I've never done that. But I have gone up my fair share of rocky hills with little or no dirt on the hill itself, we have plenty of those in the north east. I'm on the heavy side, and I could do it on "heavily restricted" (around 15hp) XR 200, and I made it up with out much problem...its more technique than power. Granted, I'm not at 12k feet, but a corked up XR200 at 1200 ft surely has less power than any corked up large bore bike at 12k feet.

PS you can get back to me when you actually try riding your bike in quiet mode instead of saying it won't work for you. :D

Cheers. :D

  • Hick

Posted July 15, 2003 - 12:47 PM

#43

What exactly is the average db of aftermarket pipes? Just for arguements sake, lets say 104 db. Is 96 db, a difference of 8 db, really that much of an improvement?


Actually, it is not a geometric scale. I think 101 Db is actually about twice as loud as 96 Db, if not moreso.

Other than that your point is well made.

I think most aftermarket pipes are around 101 or 102, a stock YZF and CRF are about 99 or so.

  • Merfman

Posted July 15, 2003 - 01:54 PM

#44

> PS you can get back to me when you actually try riding your bike in quiet > mode instead of saying it won't work for you.

I never said riding my bike, in "quiet mode" didn't work for me. Only that
I couldn't/wouldn't have as much fun on an XR200 as a CRF450. Don't
twist my words.

Just for the record, last time my bike was tested, about a year ago, it
was 99db, with a quiet core in a PMB silencer. I'm currently working
to get it under 97 or so. I'm all for quiet bikes. I'm against having an
unreasonable (IMHO) LAW enforced when there are other options.

I'm also against people who don't know me, my bike, my riding habits,
or anything about me, telling me that "I don't need the power" What next? You gonna tell me how to vote?

Oh, BTW, I'm not attacking you personally, just the argument. I don't
know you either and have nothing against you, just your argument. :)

One last thing: I had the same bike, and did the same mod. It was
still quiet but not as quiet as it was originally. Yours may be different.

Merf

  • endurodog

Posted July 15, 2003 - 02:56 PM

#45

side, and I could do it on "heavily restricted" (around 15hp) XR 200, and I made it up with out much problem...its more technique than power. Granted, I'm not at 12k feet, but a corked up XR200 at 1200 ft surely has less power than any corked up large bore bike at 12k feet.



Ok your a hell of a rider, guess what I'm not, and at 12k feet I need the extra power. I started on a XR200 in the Colorado Rockies and I was at an extreme disadvantage to those on the bigger bikes.

Now if we follow your logic and we are trying for quite bikes why not put everyone on XR200's? They are more quite and have plenty of power right?? The Baja 500 Team Honda crew shurly doesn't need all that power and can win the race on the 200's as easy as on the 650's cause it's all about technique right??

PS you can get back to me when you actually try riding your bike in quiet mode instead of saying it won't work for you.



See above (xr200 past owner) and in addition I have a VOR tip for my WR, it hampers the bike the way I like to ride it. But I have ridden it both ways so I understand the power, I'm not making this argument up, I have 1st hand experince with the bike.

  • lipskid

Posted July 15, 2003 - 07:07 PM

#46

Until then it is a miscarriage of justice to deny me access to public riding areas because my bike is loud.



Probably, but to the public who don't love the sound of a well tuned bike as we do, justice is served.

How can I be made responsible for something outside of my control? I didn't make the damn thing, I just ride it.



Your WR was quiet when you bought it. (sorry, just playing devils advocate :D)

My other problem with this law is that anybody who thinks noise is the issue is missing the point. This is about access to and control of public lands. Noise is just the latest tool being used to deny riders access, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. It is just detracting from the core issue that we should be worrying about instead of how many #@$& Dbs my bike is putting out.


Absolutely, it's just the latest tool in a long list tools that have been and will be used against us. That's the game, like it or not. When they complain that we are tearing up the country side, we need to stay on the trails, and educate others to do so. When they complain that we are tearing up the trails, we need to organize, adopt trails, do trail maintenance. Speak up, let local land managers know that we are here. Most of the time they go through the motions to close a trail/area and hold a public hearing, our sport is hardly represented if at all. As for the latest noise law, I don't see it being repealed. So what can we do? Maybe show them we are willing to try and do our part to be courteous to other users, as we recognize we are only one segment of the public. Every time they pull another tool out of the box, we need to do our best to prove it wrong.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not on their side. (In fact I may be missing the point all together, it happens all the time :)). But I used to be one of them. Only in the last 15 years have I become a hunter, rider, outdoorsman. It didn't take long for me see the b*llsh&t in the propoganda I had been subscribing to, but I understand first hand how effective it is. Unfortunately, the large majority of the population live in cities, rarely venture out, and are easy targets for the greens emotionally based crap. We are in an uphill battle.

I could very well be wrong. But I think we are wasting our energy ranting. The only way I can see to preserve our right to ride is to beat them at their own game.

  • DR.Zaius

Posted July 15, 2003 - 07:23 PM

#47

Ok your a hell of a rider, guess what I'm not, and at 12k feet I need the extra power. I started on a XR200 in the Colorado Rockies and I was at an extreme disadvantage to those on the bigger bikes.

Now if we follow your logic and we are trying for quite bikes why not put everyone on XR200's? They are more quite and have plenty of power right?? The Baja 500 Team Honda crew shurly doesn't need all that power and can win the race on the 200's as easy as on the 650's cause it's all about technique right??

PS you can get back to me when you actually try riding your bike in quiet mode instead of saying it won't work for you.



See above (xr200 past owner) and in addition I have a VOR tip for my WR, it hampers the bike the way I like to ride it. But I have ridden it both ways so I understand the power, I'm not making this argument up, I have 1st hand experince with the bike.



You're missing the point. I'm not saying everyone should be on an XR200, because they really aren't the best bikes for all things (like Baja! :)). BUT my point is...gaining a HP or two, or 3, is not worth getting the bike obnoxiously loud. That would be kicking the dirtbike community in the nuts (so to speak) as far as land closures go; loud pipes help close land, as it seems to be one of THEIR best arguements against us. Especially in areas where people are living close to, such as the state forests where I ride. Sometimes I ride no more than 100ft from houses, so you must understand I'm a bit more sensitive on this issue. The last thing I'd need is someone complaining because we're being too loud. If you ride out in the desert where the closest person is some Mexican passed out on tequilla 500 miles away, you really don't have to be super quiet with the bike, eh?

Trust me guys I'm on your (well, OUR) side on this. I'm no way in any form an enviro-nut tree hugger that wants all dirtbikes off the face of the planet. Far from I'd say. But the fact is keeping your bike loud doesn't help keep land open, keepin it quiet most likely will. :D

  • Hick

Posted July 15, 2003 - 08:39 PM

#48

Probably, but to the public who don't love the sound of a well tuned bike as we do, justice is served.


What, I'm not a member of the public also? I'm some kind of second class citizen all of a sudden?



Hey, I think I'm on to something here...




Unfortunately, the large majority of the population live in cities, rarely venture out, and are easy targets for the greens emotionally based crap. We are in an uphill battle.

I could very well be wrong. But I think we are wasting our energy ranting. The only way I can see to preserve our right to ride is to beat them at their own game.



Exactly.

But I don't see this thread as a waste of energy. This type of discussion is more relevant than a jetting or tire selection post. After all, if we are going to beat them at their own game we have to be aware of their rules. I guess we can't be afraid to be as hypocritical as they are then....

  • Hick

Posted July 15, 2003 - 08:42 PM

#49

You're missing the point. I'm not saying everyone should be on an XR200, because they really aren't the best bikes for all things (like Baja! :)). BUT my point is...gaining a HP or two, or 3, is not worth getting the bike obnoxiously loud.



I agree. We should all take reasonable steps to get along with the rest of the outdoor community. Kill your bike when you see people on horseback, keep it mellow around hikers etc.


I'm all for being reasonable.


But the CA law and 96 Db falls well short of what I'd characterize as reasonable.

  • John_Lorenz

Posted July 16, 2003 - 03:06 AM

#50

Hick You said

But the CA law and 96 Db falls well short of what I'd characterize as reasonable.



Can you qualify reasonable?

Is it reasonable for me to turn my Music down at 10 pm on a weeknight by law?

Is it reasonable that I must stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk?

Is it reasonable for a business to ban two sisters from shopping in there store? (True Story)

I truly understand your position and opinion. I think part of the issue is that the sound issue is not a unreasonable law. It takes no ones rights away. The use of rights is so miss used and thrown into the argument that it is polluted in the true form of our rights.

The Truth about rights is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



No where or place in the constitution or the declaration does it give me anymore rights then what is placed here in the declaration.

I bring this up only because the defensive stature of the my right to a loud bike group, is In my opinion destructive to the process of understanding the real issues.

It is like a child who strong willed as he can be, refuses to move an inch, clutches his fists and crosses his arms in defiance. Even though the parents are saying, look out you gonna get hurt, he stands in defiance until the door swings opens and smacks him on his butt.

I would like to ask one question to all

Does it bother anyone when you are at a stop lite or sign, windows down, music lightly playing, enjoying the ambient noise of traffic, when a car pulls up a few cars back or to the side and suddenly the mirrors start rattling, your heart is impacted by the ba-thump, ba-thump of an obnoxiously loud rap music coming from 1500 watts of stereo equipment?

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • endurodog

Posted July 16, 2003 - 03:21 AM

#51

You're missing the point. I'm not saying everyone should be on an XR200, because they really aren't the best bikes for all things



Ok now we are talking in reason. There are better bikes for most situations. They are fine bikes (See my sig line I own one right now) but better power, suspension, brakes, ect make other bikes better choices. The thing we are talking about is power though so on to the next point

gaining a HP or two, or 3, is not worth getting the bike obnoxiously loud.


And here is the heart of the argument on this board for the past few months. Its really 2 part.

Part 1 people saying what I or anyone needs for horse power. Bill Dart and you don't know where I ride, my skill level or my horse power requirements. I don't know yours or anyones and who am I to say what you need? I'm not arrogant enough to say that at all. I am smart enough to realize not everyone rides like me and has different needs and wants for power.

Part 2 and here is the big one. What is obnoxious? What level should we set our off road standards at. The full on MX bikes with no concern for noise levels are making in the 118 DB level. The old standard for off road bikes was 103. Do you think these 118 bikes were on trails in the woods? You bet. Were there tons of bikes in the area of 103 to 118 level, yup. Was there enforcement on this old standard. Nope.

Most here, me included, understand there needs to be some standard but why not enforce the old one first and see where that gets us? A phase in of new standards that allow companies to come up with the technology to meet the demand, if its determined the 103 DB doesn't accomplish the reduction in noise. It's just common sense.

I have never said what level I would like bikes to be but for some reason person assume that my level is obnoxious and that 96 is not. How do you people come up with that thought? What makes 96 not obnoxious? Bet 9 out of 10 Tree huggers will think 96 is obnoxious.

  • John_Lorenz

Posted July 16, 2003 - 05:01 AM

#52

Endurodog

I used obnoxious only in the sense to draw a word picture with the rap statement. In my mind 100 and above is obnoxious, for general dirt bikes (Non Racers). You understand my feeling on the sound thing, I hope you dd not misunderstand the term or use of obnoxious from me.

If you really want to fully understand the mentality of Noise and the anti-noise groups. Read through some of this
Anti-Noise Groups

This is just a part of the battle we face. It is not about 96db or 105db or your right or my right. It is about these types of fanatical people that want nothing more then silence.

Here is a list they consider Allies and Enemies. Make a note, Only TWO Enemies are listed, and ya wonder why this happens :)
Anti-Noise Allies and Enemies

  • armourbl

Posted July 17, 2003 - 01:34 PM

#53

Where do we draw the line?

If we continue to circum to their demands on us (ECO Nazis), where will that leave us in a few years. I understand the value of compromise, but every time we show willingness to compromise, they stab us in the backs.

I think we need to begin taking a stand and demonstrate that their demands on our hobby/community are nothing more than personal vendettas with no real intent to come to a meeting of the minds.

ben

  • Dan_from_HB

Posted July 17, 2003 - 05:53 PM

#54

Until then it is a miscarriage of justice to deny me access to public riding areas because my bike is loud.



Probably, but to the public who don't love the sound of a well tuned bike as we do, justice is served.

How can I be made responsible for something outside of my control? I didn't make the damn thing, I just ride it.



Your WR was quiet when you bought it. (sorry, just playing devils advocate :D)

My other problem with this law is that anybody who thinks noise is the issue is missing the point. This is about access to and control of public lands. Noise is just the latest tool being used to deny riders access, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. It is just detracting from the core issue that we should be worrying about instead of how many #@$& Dbs my bike is putting out.


Absolutely, it's just the latest tool in a long list tools that have been and will be used against us. That's the game, like it or not. When they complain that we are tearing up the country side, we need to stay on the trails, and educate others to do so. When they complain that we are tearing up the trails, we need to organize, adopt trails, do trail maintenance. Speak up, let local land managers know that we are here. Most of the time they go through the motions to close a trail/area and hold a public hearing, our sport is hardly represented if at all. As for the latest noise law, I don't see it being repealed. So what can we do? Maybe show them we are willing to try and do our part to be courteous to other users, as we recognize we are only one segment of the public. Every time they pull another tool out of the box, we need to do our best to prove it wrong.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not on their side. (In fact I may be missing the point all together, it happens all the time :)). But I used to be one of them. Only in the last 15 years have I become a hunter, rider, outdoorsman. It didn't take long for me see the b*llsh&t in the propoganda I had been subscribing to, but I understand first hand how effective it is. Unfortunately, the large majority of the population live in cities, rarely venture out, and are easy targets for the greens emotionally based crap. We are in an uphill battle.

I could very well be wrong. But I think we are wasting our energy ranting. The only way I can see to preserve our right to ride is to beat them at their own game.



The above post is closest to my point of view. It's a game we are in whether we like it or not. Bill Dart is on the front lines. He's gotta make deals with these people to keep lands open. I don't agree with all his points of view, either, but it's what we've got to work with.
This is politics, pure and simple. And, in politics, you have to compromise on things that aren't most important to you so you don't have to compromise on those things that ARE important.
I don't feel anyone entered in a sanctioned race should have to do anything to quiet their bike if they don't want to. Power IS important to a racer.
For those who trail ride and may sometimes be close to other users, it's smart to be a little less obnoxious. You help the whole cause when you don't give others a reason to want you gone.
Finally, the enviro geeks will always be our enemies. We will NEVER satisfy them. To hell with them. It's the general public we have to impress. Right now, it's the enviros that are impressing the general public, not us. That's the bottom line. Those who vote control our future. Let's decide to voluntarily sacrifice a little to impress the public when it's appropriate. And we'll all be better off.
Dan

  • twofish

Posted July 20, 2003 - 12:57 PM

#55

Pretty draconian stuff here Hebrews.

As far as I'm concerned, in this, as with most all issues which are motivated for political reasons, ie: the control and use of public lands, perception is reality.

No matter which argument the green people use, noise, environmental impact, or the real crux of the issue, we just don't want you here....period, the public perception of who and what we are will ultimately determine the reality our fate.

Whichever particular argument it happens to be at present, whether some bikes are too loud for example, is really not the primary problem it is only a symptom of it

If we sit by and allow ourselves to be made out as selfish, insensitive abusers of "public" lands and trouncers of the poor innocent green peoples rights :D then we will in the eyes of the world become just that.

Then there will be nothing left to argue over.

Perhaps our energies would be best spent as stated some of the posts above by learning to create and dilgently portray the perception of ourselves that we want others (not just the greenies but the majority of the voting population) to see and ultimately create the reality that we desire.

To be left the hell alone!!!!!!!!!!! :) :D :D

  • John_Lorenz

Posted July 20, 2003 - 04:28 PM

#56

draconian :)



What is so harsh about what the actual perception is?

I totally lost the meaning of your post. I am not sure if you are stating Hebrews is harsh in his perception of the issue or the differentiating replies.

But I would think what would be understood if one reads all the posts entirely, that we do believe and understand the issue is not noise, it is in fact access and as you said

we just don't want you here....period

is very accurate to the actual issue. Endurodog as well as myself, Merfman and some others see the reality of it.

The entire purpose of this post was to allow everyones to voice and discuss the issues as we understand them. Some don't see them as others, some see them as a threat to there right (Assumed Right) to simply have a loud bike.

My point is simple, if we remain divided in this issue and don't see it for what it is, ACCESS (NOT NOISE) then we loose. The Greens have already won the battle here (Not The War), by diverting all the energy and hostility to the Noise issue. In reality NOT RELEVANT

  • twofish

Posted July 21, 2003 - 03:16 PM

#57


What is so harsh about what the actual perception is?

I totally lost the meaning of your post. I am not sure if you are stating Hebrews is harsh in his perception of the issue or the differentiating replies.



My post has nothing to do with Hebrews perception in any way. Sorry if you took it that way. :)

The intention of the post was merely to state my observation of the caustic nature of some of the replies and differing opinions in Take I and Take II of this thread while at the same time helping to remind us as a group that staying focused on the big picture (the rest of the world's perception of us as OHV riders) will most likely produce the best results over time. :D

I think you said it more succinctly yourself in your last post.


My point is simple, if we remain divided in this issue and don't see it for what it is, ACCESS (NOT NOISE) then we loose. The Greens have already won the battle here (Not The War), by diverting all the energy and hostility to the Noise issue. In reality NOT RELEVANT



  • Hick

Posted July 21, 2003 - 09:56 PM

#58

Your WR was quiet when you bought it. (sorry, just playing devils advocate :))





Sorry, never owned a WR. And never met anybody who rode one in the stock "quiet" mode, so your point is equally moot either way.

  • lipskid

Posted July 23, 2003 - 04:55 PM

#59

Sorry, never owned a WR. And never met anybody who rode one in the stock "quiet" mode, so your point is equally moot either way.

I don't think my point is moot, just technically incorrect as it applies to you. I was attempting a rhetorical reply, from the perspective of someone who doesn't ride, to your statement that you(we) didn't make the bike, you(we) just ride it. Please don't take it personal, it was only for the sake of argument.(But you knew that, I took the bait, and I'm being an :)) :D

Whether they are fair or not, the battle lines are being drawn for us. I may be wrong, but I believe the technology is out there to provide us with good performance while meeting this line. We need to try and encourage the industry to apply it.
Yes, all this could end up being moot. As more and more people flock to our public lands for recreation, both motorized and non-motorized, I believe we will face more and more regulation. More land closures, lower sound limits, maybe even speed limits. Since I'm obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I don't have any answers. I do know that historically, 'fair' has little to do with decissions regarding minorities, which we are.
As I see it, if they draw the line, and we can't beat it(and the pessimist in me doesn't see that happening here),then we should try to meet it. Then we can at least we can argue that we did our part, as defined by them . Where will it end? I don't know. I don't think it will. It's just the best I can come up with.

  • endurodog

Posted July 23, 2003 - 06:58 PM

#60

Whether they are fair or not, the battle lines are being drawn for us.



Absolutly and unfortunatly our representing orgs did not do much to have them drawn in a fair place, hence my resistance to renew my AMA membership. The most effective way to let them know I'm not happy is by not giving them money. The lines could have been drawn much better, and sold to us much better by the orgs. Plain and simple they dropped the ball on this one.

but I believe the technology is out there to provide us with good performance while meeting this line.


It's not, they are working on it, and in time it will become, but not quite yet. There is technology that makes some happy, but not everyone.




 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.