Carbon Canister Removal, 2002 R1150RT

[Softtail]

I am planning to affect the removal of the carbon canister from my 2002 R1150RT this afternoon. I have been thinking about this for some time and am finally going to attempt it. I have a detailed set of instructions for a 95 R1100RSL. Is there likely to be significant differences in the plumbing between my 1150RT and the 1100RSL? The canisterectomy instructions for the 95 1100RSL refer to a seloenoid that is somehow part of the emission control system and carbon canister. Any idea what it is for? Is anyone aware of any canisterectomy instructions for an 1150RT? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! <<<Softtail>>>

[SAAB93driver]

Solenoid valve controls when the canister has vacuum applied.

 

Between the 1100 and 1150 the plumbing is the same.

[DEF]

Why do people remove their carbon canisters? There is NO performance improvement and the removal only serves to allow the fuel system on the bike to release more pollutants into the atmosphere. The canister is there to eliminate hydrocarbons from reaching the air you and I breathe.

 

Also, removal constitutes an illegal modification to the motorcycle. Modifying or removing any pollution control device from any vehicle is a federal offense.

 

Do yourself and me a favor......

 

Leave the canister on the bike.

[smiller]

Why do people remove their carbon canisters?

To annoy you and Ken.

[DEF]

Why do people remove their carbon canisters?

To annoy you and Ken.

 

Well, its working......leave the damn thing on the bike or I'll send the EPA Police to you house to confiscate your motorcycle..........

[David]

Well, its working......leave the damn thing on the bike or I'll send the EPA Police to you house to confiscate your motorcycle..........

 

You don't want to start that war. We'll send the Force to Prevent Discussion Board Soap Box Exchanges to yours.

[SAAB93driver]

California has their own more strict standard but from the federal EPA website :

 

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2004/January/Day-15/a006.htm

 

 

..."There are no current federal standards for evaporative emissions from motorcycles."

[chrisstroh]

I have a 02 RT. The previous owner had just disconnected the lines (one line each) from the underside of the throttlebodies and capped them. He did this to defeat the system but wanted the original equiptment to stay in case he wanted to trade in his bike. (so that it would all still be there.

[RFW]

I am planning to affect the removal of the carbon canister from my 2002 R1150RT this afternoon.

...and exactly what do you expect to achieve? Perhaps you misunderstand how the canister works and what it does. Removing the canister will not make the slightest difference to the way the bike runs.

[Rob L]

I am planning to affect the removal of the carbon canister from my 2002 R1150RT this afternoon.

...and exactly what do you expect to achieve? Perhaps you misunderstand how the canister works and what it does. Removing the canister will not make the slightest difference to the way the bike runs.

Yeah, but it sure makes a great place to store a cargo net

[SAAB93driver]

Removing the canister will not make the slightest difference to the way the bike runs.

 

Unless the cannister is saturated or clogged.

[Ken H.]

Well without getting on my soapbox (at least not today ) I really don't understand why people are so hep on doing this. It's probably the most benign, yet beneficial to the environment, thing on any vehicle. Yet people just seem to have to get into this, 'I have to pollute more, I have to pollute more' mindset.

 

I understand that kind of destructive thinking even less than loud pipes.

 

Sigh....

[SAAB93driver]

It's probably the most benign, yet beneficial to the environment, thing on any vehicle.

 

Perhaps, until you consider the resources and pollution produced in making the canisters themselves may actually outweigh what they save or simply break even. There is no free ride.

[DEF]

That's all there is to it...I'm callin' the COPS......canisters should never be removed.....PERIOD!

 

The reasons typically given supporting the removal of the canister are lame and without merit.....

 

They are;

 

1- Saves weight (what, 3-4 pounds...so you think your BMW is a high performance race bike...think again)

2- Looks better without it (removal actually detracts from the bikes overall appearance and balanced look).

3- Improves performance (No way...the only way to improve BMW engine output is with expensive modifications).

4- Allows for more luggage like a cargo net? Your BMW currently carries more than you'll ever need on a trip. Adding luggage in the canister area constitutes a hazard.

5- Keeps my TBs in sync for longer (nonsense).

6- I'm just dopey and don't know why I am removing my canister (99% true....1% just uninformed and brainless......which category do you fall into?).

 

Leave the damn thing on there and help the planet.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It's probably the most benign, yet beneficial to the environment, thing on any vehicle.

 

Perhaps, until you consider the resources and pollution produced in making the canisters themselves may actually outweigh what they save or simply break even. There is no free ride.

 

That may be. But the cannister on the OP's bike is already made and installed; the resources used and pollution produced in the making of that cannister can not be undone by removing it.

[Rob L]

4- Allows for more luggage like a cargo net? Your BMW currently carries more than you'll ever need on a trip. Adding luggage in the canister area constitutes a hazard.

Yeah, but the cargo net unfolds and gets all tangled up

The canister keeps it under control

AND, I DO need all the storage I can get. anyone who has ever transported 2 cases of beer on the pillion seat knows that a cargo net is indispensable. If I take the car, think of the gas I would use .... and the pollution from that monster 4 cylinder motor

[SAAB93driver]

It's probably the most benign, yet beneficial to the environment, thing on any vehicle.

 

Perhaps, until you consider the resources and pollution produced in making the canisters themselves may actually outweigh what they save or simply break even. There is no free ride.

 

That may be. But the cannister on the OP's bike is already made and installed; the resources used and pollution produced in the making of that cannister can not be undone by removing it.

 

That is indeed true. It is a pity that so many resources were wasted in designing and producing it for a net negative result.

[Mudman]

Now Ken, He is probably losing 10 ounces of weight with that mod, that's worth a least a Big Mac

 

Oh I imagine there is a lot of pollution created by manufacturing a metal cannister filled with charcoal granules, NOT!

 

The cannister takes nothing away from performance or drivability in this implimentation. Hydrocarbon release is dramatically reduced with the cannister. Seems like an obvious no brainer for most riders if they were knowledgable about what they are riding.

 

BTW if you still feel the need to remove in spit of pollution increases with no gain other than saying I hate pollution devices, be carful how you deal with the remaining hoses. It is very easy to suck in road dirt and water into your fuel tank. Of course that might be the ultimate pollution control solution

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

That may be. But the cannister on the OP's bike is already made and installed; the resources used and pollution produced in the making of that cannister can not be undone by removing it.

 

That is indeed true. It is a pity that so many resources were wasted in designing and producing it for a net negative result.

 

If I read correctly, you're asserting that the entire cradle-to-grave life cycle of a charcoal cannister is not a good thing. Have you got any references to back that up?

[Rob L]

OK. I apologize. I will never remove another canister for the rest of my life. Please don't let me ruin your weekend...try not to dwell on the fact that there are so many of us irresponsible polluters in the world. We are all ignorant and cause trouble wherever we ride. I am ashamed and embarrassed.

 

 

 

I WILL, however, enjoy the beers. Have a great weekend, I will

[SAAB93driver]

 

Oh I imagine there is a lot of pollution created by manufacturing a metal cannister filled with charcoal granules, NOT!

 

 

While you might think it is a silly idea, you may change your mind when you see an iron ore mining operation, steel mill, die making operation, stamping operation, paint or welding facility to see what really goes on there and what is really involved with the production of things we use everyday. Lots of electricity, lots of chemicals, lots of energy and a lot of polution to support these processes.

[DEF]

Excerpt from EPA documents.........

********************************************************

F. Modification, Customization and Personalization of Motorcycles

 

Many motorcycle owners personalize their motorcycles in a variety

of ways. This is one of the aspects of motorcycle ownership that is

appealing to a large number of motorcycle owners, and they take their

freedom to customize their bikes very seriously. However, there are

some forms of customization that are not legal under the provisions of

Clean Air Act section 203(a), which states that it is illegal:

 

for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element

of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine

in compliance with regulations under this title prior to its sale

and delivery to the ultimate purchaser or * * * after such sale and

delivery to the ultimate purchaser.* * *

 

or

 

for any person to manufacture or sell * * * or install, any part or

component intended for use with * * * any motor vehicle * * * where

a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or

render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or

in a motor vehicle * * * in compliance with regulations under this

title, and where the person knows or should know that such part or

component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put

to such use. * * *

 

In other words, under current law, owners of motor vehicles \8\ cannot

legally make modifications that remove, bypass, or disable emission-

control devices installed by the manufacturer.\9\ It is also illegal

for part manufacturers and dealers to manufacture, sell or install a

part or component that the manufacturer or dealer knows or should know

will be sold or used in a manner that defeats the emissions control

system.

**********************************************************

The Clear Air Act is federal law....fine and imprisonment are the alternatives to removing your carbon canister.....

[Mudman]

If our paths cross I will be happy to enjoy one with you

[DEF]

 

Your argument has no merit. The law is clear...if you remove it, you're violating Federal Law.

[SAAB93driver]

That may be. But the cannister on the OP's bike is already made and installed; the resources used and pollution produced in the making of that cannister can not be undone by removing it.

 

That is indeed true. It is a pity that so many resources were wasted in designing and producing it for a net negative result.

 

If I read correctly, you're asserting that the entire cradle-to-grave life cycle of a charcoal cannister is not a good thing. Have you got any references to back that up?

 

My experience with manufacturing and what is involved in the different operations that would be needed to produce the cannister, tooling to produce it, etc, are my frame of reference. Do I have numbers that compare the 2 on some kind of ppm emmissions vs ... - no, those numbers on both sides are not practially obtainable and you knew that before you asked the question.

 

My point is, the cannister (and the cat convertor, and the gas tank, and seat....), like production of hydrogen, is not a free ride. There is not some magical slurpee machine that you put water and power in and out comes some kind of product. There are 2 sides of the equation that many individuals do not always consider.

[Ken H.]

While you might think it is a silly idea, you may change your mind when you see an iron ore mining operation, steel mill, die making operation, stamping operation, paint or welding facility to see what really goes on there and what is really involved with the production of things we use everyday. Lots of electricity, lots of chemicals, lots of energy and a lot of pollution to support these processes.

Well maybe, maybe not, but the point remains, all that 'evil' is all ready done. Removing an existing pollution control device in no way reverses any of that 'evil', in fact doing so can only add to the problem, never subtract from it.

 

If you think the creation, manufacture, and installation of pollution control devices creates more pollution than it removes, then campaign to have the laws requiring them reversed. Make your arguments.

 

But defeating/removing them solves nothing, whether one accepts that creating them creates an unacceptable amount of pollution or not.

 

(Damn, I'm on my soapbox again. Damn.)

[SAAB93driver]

 

Your argument has no merit. The law is clear...if you remove it, you're violating Federal Law.

 

I don't agree that argument has no merit if you are truly concerned about environmental issues.

 

As for the legal issue, I think the device has to be required in the first place. Can you point to where the evaparative emmissions device is required on the motorcycle. I could only find that it is not required on motorcycles currently so I would appreciate you can point me to the right document.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

As for the legal issue, I think the device has to be required in the first place. Can you point to where the evaparative emmissions device is required on the motorcycle. I could only find that it is not required on motorcycles currently so I would appreciate you can point me to the right document.

 

I may be mistaken, but I thought it was illegal to disable factory-installed emissions control devices on any vehicle.

[SAAB93driver]

[

If you think the creation, manufacture, and installation of pollution control devices creates more pollution than it removes, then campaign to have the laws requiring them reversed. Make your arguments.

 

But defeating/removing them solves nothing, whether one accepts that creating them creates an unacceptable amount of pollution or not.

 

I did not say that removing a functioning cannister solves anything. Removing a non functioning one does - some would argue that it should be replaced. There might or might not be legal issues, I admitedly do not know, my albeit brief research indicated the evap controls were not yet required on motorcycles.

 

I agree you cannot unmake the thing once it is there, but I think it is a pity that so much was put into for what I believe is a negitve to 0 benefit to the planet as a whole.

 

As far as getting legislation to get rid of them,you're kidding right? There is a presumption that a legislative body has the earth's interests in mind and not maintaining power in mind. We need more engineers and fewer lawyers in congress before there is a retreat to reason there.

[DEF]

As for the legal issue, I think the device has to be required in the first place. Can you point to where the evaparative emmissions device is required on the motorcycle. I could only find that it is not required on motorcycles currently so I would appreciate you can point me to the right document.

 

I may be mistaken, but I thought it was illegal to disable factory-installed emissions control devices on any vehicle.

 

You are correct.....it is a violation of Federal Law to do so.

 

BMW emission devices are installed to make the bikes CARB compliant and compliant in all other 49 states.

 

Any modification violates Federal Law.....PERIOD!

 

Modifications to the fuel maps, removing the cat plug, installing a CO pot, removing the exhaust CAT, disconnecting the canister, removing the Lambda sensors....all these constitute illegal actions under the Federal Clean Air Act.

 

The canister IS an emissions device. Its removal constitutes a violation under Federal law. Don't do it!

[Mudman]

EPA federal law is on the books that it is illegal to tamper with any pollution control device that was part of original equipment on a motor vehicle. You will find it in these copies of a few state laws. Most all of the states have similar statues that enabled by EPA law, section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act.

 

 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/pubs/vtamp-fs.pdf

 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/mobilesource/vetech/tampering.html

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03045.pdf

 

Finally I submit this from the EPA fact sheet in the above link;

"Would new emission standards make it illegal to

customize my motorcycle?

Many motorcycle owners personalize their motorcycles. Indeed, this is

one of the joys of owning a motorcycle, and owners take their freedom

to customize motorcycles very seriously. We are not changing existing

provisions of section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act, as established in

1977, which states that it is illegal “for any person to remove or render

inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor

vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under

this title...after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser...”. In

other words, owners of motor vehicles cannot legally make modifications

that cause the emissions to exceed the applicable emissions standards,

and they cannot remove or disable emission control devices

installed by the manufacturer.

We use the term “tampering” to refer specifically to actions that are

illegal under section 203 of the Clean Air Act; the term, and the prohibition,

do not apply generally to the wide range of things that a motorcycle

enthusiast can do to legally personalize their vehicle, only to

actions that cause the emissions to exceed the standards. The new

emissions standards do not change this “tampering” prohibition. In fact,

it is not within EPA’s ability or discretion to change this statutory prohibition,

which Congress put in place more than 20 years ago. Owners are

still free generally to customize their motorcycles in any way, as long as

they do not disable emission controls or cause the motorcycle to exceed

the emission standards."

 

 

Sorry, but you are blowing smoke

 

Please stop that so the rest is us have a little cleaner air

[DEF]

 

Your argument has no merit. The law is clear...if you remove it, you're violating Federal Law.

 

I don't agree that argument has no merit if you are truly concerned about environmental issues.

 

As for the legal issue, I think the device has to be required in the first place. Can you point to where the evaparative emmissions device is required on the motorcycle. I could only find that it is not required on motorcycles currently so I would appreciate you can point me to the right document.

 

I have not the time to go searching for the laws and such regarding the Clean Air Act and the CARB requirements.

 

Safe to say, California has the most strict emissions and air quality standard in the US. The CARB requires canisters to reduce VOCs or more accurately, hydrocarbon emissions and NOx from fuel systems and fuel system components. My 1984 Yamaha Riva 125cc scooter has a canister in the fuel system in compliance with CARB requirements.

 

BMW certainly would not have added canisters if they were not necessary to meet grams/kilometer emissions requirements in CA.

 

Therefore, ANY motor vehicle equipped with such devices may NOT be modified or altered in any way that would defeat or otherwise change their operation.

 

In fact in some locals, routine inspections are carried out to insure these devices are operational and the vehicles on which they are installed are in compliance with emissions standards. The fuel tank cap is tested as well as the vacuum system for HCs which includes the canister is tested to insure integrity and operation.

 

Remove it and risk jail!

[SAAB93driver]

A little further investigation supports your legal argument.

useful information here:

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/roadbike.htm

 

According to this we are all bigger polluters on an individual basis with motorcycles than an SUV driver.

 

I personally don't agree that the government should be able to tell any of us that we cannot remove a non required device, even if the emmissions after removal are not above the legislatively accepted levels. That techncially also limits anyone from making alterations that could result in lower emmissions which seems counter productive to me.

[DEF]

Let the arguing, posting, nonsense, canister removal stop!...just read Mudman's earlier post.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

You know, all this quoting of federal law is really tedious and frankly borderline rediculous. IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF ANYONE ON THIS BOARD TO TELL ANOTHER WHAT S/HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO. The attempts to force ones own personal perspective upon another is amazingly annoying. It brings back that old saying that includes opinions and body parts.

 

I believe the OP asked if there is a set of instrucions for removing the can in the 1150RT. AND NOTHING ELSE. It took nine minutes for this thread to go from a "is there a..." to a "your gonna kill us all" hijack.

 

With exception to a select few on this bulliten board, I cannot figure out why so many of us think we are the police. If someone wants to remove the cannister, let 'em do it without all the friggen' annyoance of the self appointed 'emissions police.' Believe me, you're the only ones who want to hear it.

 

For the record, I took mine off because it was a potential performance problem. The charcoal had broken down and was migrating toward my throttle bodies. Whether or not it would reach them was not an option I was willing to discover. Anyone who wants to buy me a new one and ship it to my house is welcome to. I'll install it and send proof. Until then ST*U.

 

For the record, Softtail, I know of no instructions. Take the hose that goes from the tank to the cannister and re-route it to the bundle of vents that is by the right foot pegs. Cut it to length. Pull the can, associated hoses and the servo-valve thingy. Put covers on the inlets to the throttle bodies, or cut a small section of hose and plug it with an approriate size bolt. Hold the bolt in place with a really tight zip-tie. (you can probably get little rubber caps that fit from the hardware store nice-n-cheap.)

[SAAB93driver]

The most commonly referenced instructions are here:

 

http://www.ibmwr.org/r-tech/oilheads/cannister_horn.shtml

[Mudman]

Many laws seem counter-intuitive. But it is what it is.

This law is a major challenge to the after market wishing to sell performance products. They can get an EPA certification if they can show the same or lower emissions with their product installed. It is a very costly and lengthy process. In fact this is why BMW refused to switch the high pipe from their GS on the R. It was too costly to recertify the power train just to gain a few happy customers that wanted fully size saddlebags on the left side. For the volume of R customers it simply was not cost effective. That seems silly to me if they already had a desirable exhaust from the RT model that would bolt on, but they had to follow the technicality of the law that would require a complete recertification process if the change went into production.

 

What a tangled web we live in

[SAAB93driver]

 

 

Sorry, but you are blowing smoke

 

Please stop that so the rest is us have a little cleaner air

 

After the revelations I discovered today with the EPA I am going to do everyone a favor, sell the bike, get rid of the SAAB, and buy the biggest SUV they sell since it pollutes less.

[Mudman]

Sounds reasonable to me

[RFW]

Removing the canister will not make the slightest difference to the way the bike runs.

 

Unless the cannister is saturated or clogged.

No, that is incorrect. If it is "clogged", it STILL makes no difference to the bike's running.

 

This is how it works.... When the bike is sitting, fuel vapours expand from the tank into the cansiter which absorbs them. When the bike is running, a very small amount of air is sucked through the canister, into the engine's intake tract. This purges the activated carbon in the canister, and burns the accummulated gas vapours.

 

This system is usually deactivated at idle, because there is very little air being sucked onto the engine at idle, and the gas vapour in the canister air might upset the bike's air fuel mixture. But under normal running, the amount of air being sucked through the cansiter into the motor is totally insignificant compared to what flows past the throttle butterflies.

 

As for being "clogged", well, good luck! The canister cannot get clogged, because there are no solid particles being sucked into it to clog it!

 

I really am amazed how people will muck around with things they haven't a clue about, then go on about how this or that has "improved" the bike's performance, when it just ain't possible!

[tomk99r11]

Man, see what you started!?! Lot's of interesting, if not pious, posts here. May come back later on to read all of them, but now I have to go dump my used oil in the sewer, not in my neighborhood though.

[Rob L]

Man, see what you started!?! Lot's of interesting, if not pious, posts here. May come back later on to read all of them, but now I have to go dump my used oil in the sewer, not in my neighborhood though.

Please!!!! Label the container before dumping

[Mudman]

The instruction set you referenced will do just what I warned may happen. If I read it right the net result is the vent from the fuel tank is connected to the hose tied to the battery vent. It is subject to draw dirt and moisture into the tank as vacuum is developed when fuel is consumed. That may not be in your best interests.

[DEF]

The instruction set you referenced will do just what I warned may happen. If I read it right the net result is the vent from the fuel tank is connected to the hose tied to the battery vent. It is subject to draw dirt and moisture into the tank as vacuum is developed when fuel is consumed. That may not be in your best interests.

 

Just leave the damn thing on the bike and reconnect the hoses where they belong otherwise, you're a lawbreaker.

[SAAB93driver]

I don't know what word you would use in Canada but I know from experience when the cannister is clogged then it does not allow air into the tank and the tank tries to implode as a vaccum is generated in the tank as fuel is pumped out.

[Ken H.]

I cannot figure out why so many of us think we are the police.

I don't think I'm the police, but I do think I breath air. And I resent other people intentionally polluting it.

I believe the OP asked if there is a set of instructions for removing the can in the 1150RT. AND NOTHING ELSE.

For the record, I myself didn't reply to the OP's question about how to remove the canister, only to later posts about whether or not it was appropriate to do so. And IMHO it is not. Whether legal to do so or not, it is offensive to the planet to so callously cause more pollution.

[RFW]

The CARB requires canisters to reduce VOCs or more accurately, hydrocarbon emissions and NOx from fuel systems and fuel system components. My 1984 Yamaha Riva 125cc scooter has a canister in the fuel system in compliance with CARB requirements.

 

BMW certainly would not have added canisters if they were not necessary to meet grams/kilometer emissions requirements in CA.

Actually, the canister has little to do with "grams/kilometer" emissions, and nothing to do with NOx. As mentioned in an earlier post, canisters are there to catch fuel vapour (HC "emissions") that boil off from the tank mainly when the vehicle is sitting parked ...especially in the sun. Fuel vapour contains only hydrocarbons, (gas vapour). There are no nitrogen oxides in it.

 

That said, you are right that the law (especially in California) can get a bit anal about this. But morally, it is our duty to not disturb emissions systems, especially when this particular system has no impact on performance whatsoever.

[Bob Palin]

Whether legal to do so or not, it is offensive to the planet to so callously cause more pollution.

We create much more by riding for pleasure.

[Boffin]

The instruction set you referenced will do just what I warned may happen. If I read it right the net result is the vent from the fuel tank is connected to the hose tied to the battery vent. It is subject to draw dirt and moisture into the tank as vacuum is developed when fuel is consumed. That may not be in your best interests.

 

This is the configuration of all non-US bikes, so not an issue. Clogged pipework from canisters that have started to break down have caused many a fuel guage to fail - the vacuum in the tank collapses the tube.

Given the legal situation if I lived in the USA I would fix a failed canister with a good one but then I worry about such issues. On my bike I am looking at installing a suitably sized pipe in the cannister spot to act as my supplimetnary tool store. I have to loose the pannier space for the non-exixtant cannister so I may as well try to recover it.

 

Andy

[SAAB93driver]

The instruction set you referenced will do just what I warned may happen. If I read it right the net result is the vent from the fuel tank is connected to the hose tied to the battery vent. It is subject to draw dirt and moisture into the tank as vacuum is developed when fuel is consumed. That may not be in your best interests.

 

The fuel tank is always connected to the hose you reference either directly or through the cannister.

 

In one case the net result is that the tank vents directly to atmosphere like years before cannisters came into play.

 

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but the oilheads of the 90's sold in other markets like Europe did not have the canister and vented the tank to the atmosphere. But I don't know if the routing of the hoses is the same as with the modifcation in the ibmw article.

 

I'll consider myself warned.