Edmonton, AB to Adopt Tough New Anti-Motorcycle Noise Law

[dirtrider]

Hi Ken

 

Any mention of requiring a working tachometer on the bike. At one time I believe NYC was looking at that same J2825 standard but was trying to force mandatory working tachometers on motorcycles to enable enforcement. Not sure where that went but I think now they are looking at requiring OEM mufflers with correct markings.

 

[Deadboy]

You already dismissed the summary because of the source. I would be happy to quote directly from the one of the main authors (who I know) but alas I to am apparently biased and not to be trusted....

[Peter Parts]

You already dismissed the summary because of the source. I would be happy to quote directly from the one of the main authors (who I know) but alas I to am apparently biased and not to be trusted....

 

Nonsense. I have no trouble with you, Ken, City of Edmonton, or SAE. On the other hand, I don't give uncritical support to any of those as authorities without seeing the fine print.

 

I have lots of trouble forming an opinion based on a press release kind of summary.

 

Do you know the difference between a press release and an engineering standard?

 

Can't anybody produce a free copy of the standard?

 

Ben

[Deadboy]

Got a copy on my desk....you could just review the J1287 test as it is very close (and freely available).

 

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/j1287_199807.pdf

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Isn't there somebody with a a free link to the standard or a trustworthy and detailed summary of it?

 

There is.

 

I'll look into it on Monday.

[Peter Parts]

Got a copy on my desk....you could just review the J1287 test as it is very close (and freely available).

 

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/j1287_199807.pdf

 

 

Thanks much. 7 pages. Just had quick look.

 

Requires rev'ing to half red line speed OR half peak HP speed (which is of course lower and quieter). So what if your bike has no tach?

 

Or the LEO can't certify to the judge the terrain is flat and without any curbs, as the standard requires.

 

I'm not too good with legal stuff. Maybe someone else could parse some of those "kinda" statements in the "Enforcement" section in the back. Courts don't like indefinite language like that and odd (at least to my amateur eyes) to see "kinda" language in an engineering standard.

 

Ben

[Deadboy]

The test usually involves a hand held tach (cheap and effective).

 

http://www.smallenginesuppliers.com/shop/html/pages/products/Briggs_Stratton_Small_Engine_Tools35016.html

 

As for the legal challenge aspects, I am unaware of any challenges to the procedure thus far (it has been in use for a few years here in California).

[dirtrider]

Hi Deadboy

 

I’m no tachometer expert but I actually have a very similar tac with a variable length extending wire. I also have a vibrating reed type tac. Neither one I have will work on multi cylinder engines especially engines with splayed crankshafts, or odd firing orders, or internal balance shafts.

Color me skeptical but I have a difficult time believing any of the vibratory type tachometers would work on modern multi cylinder engines with balance shafts.

 

[Peter Parts]

Got a copy on my desk....you could just review the J1287 test as it is very close (and freely available).

 

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/j1287_199807.pdf

 

 

Um, um, um.... but isn't Edmonton using J2835, not J1287?

 

Some first thoughts on J1287. It was developed by the SAE motorcycle committee.

 

This standard isn't all "shalls" but a kind of friendly way to standardize and simplify noise measurement. NOT measurement of peak noise or other regulatory kinds of questions.

 

LEO (looking at bike) has to have a tach more accurate than the ones BMW installs (and that can be challenged in court like everything else here). Get this, also they must have an lab-accurate anemometer (do I hear laughter out there)... you can't have wind noise fluffing the sound level meter.

 

No snow, loose earth, buildings, or grass nearby. I suppose LEO needs to carry a broom and use it. And a tape measure.

 

LEO MUST do lab calibration of the meter every day at start, at end, AND every hour. Actually, sound calibration gizmos are just little things from the meter vendor but the whole enterprise is getting very very costly to enforce and convict. BTW, this standard says the enforcer needs to be knowledgeable about false readings due to cable length, etc (and be able to represent themselves as experts in court (something I try to do from time to time as an Expert Witness - no fun to be cross examined)).

 

Engine at operating temperature.

 

Good news for you short riders: J1287 says you can use a rock under your foot or feet to keep the bike upright when you "sit astride" the bike for measurements. And you thought the SAE has no warm heart?

 

Harley owners get a free ride. Noise measured at half peak power rpm (or half red line - which is higher). Some Japanese mills are tested at 5500 rpm, my machine around 4000, and old Harleys at maybe 1750 (pure guess). Sound fair?

 

Best of all: no measurements shall pass when the LEO's lab-grade anemometer (presumably held and read by their assistant LEO) reads over 9 meters/sec (um, um, um... 20 mph).

 

I don't know if the later standard J2835 has as many funny bits. But I think loud bikers can take a breath now.

 

Later today if the rain stops, if I can find a big space with no grass or loose dirt, I'll try to measure my bike this way (OK, I don't have a lab grade anemometer to check the wind) and post it here.

 

Love those "standards" eh. Excellent for some purposes, but not all purposes.

 

Ben

 

 

[dirtrider]

Hi Peter

 

I believe that is the J2825 standard not the J2835 that you stated, I can’t find anything on J2835 as a noise standard.

 

I just did a little research on the J2825 and it looks from the limited info I can find that it might allow a swept engine RPM in place of a fixed RPM. At least it looks that way.

 

“The procedure spells out how to do the test with the bike at idle, at a predetermined engine speed (“Set RPM Test”), OR by slowly increasing the engine speed of the bike, known as the “Swept RPM Test.”

 

I am somewhat familiar with the J1287 noise test or at least parts of it as that testing has been an off road standard for a long time now and is required in order to enter or run some of the off road events I enter or ride. Seeing as it is or at least has been a requirement for off road trail operation there are no court appearances or tickets involved. You don’t meet the noise limit you don’t ride the trails simple as that.

 

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Don't ask me which standard is which.

 

Checking back, it looks like I am quoting Ken H (2835) who is misquoting Bill (who originally said 2825).

 

The one I read and diss'ed above was the one deadboy had the link to above (J1287). The other one is was mis-posted for Edmonton above and so I wrongly ID'ed it as J2835. Sorry.

 

You have the J2825 number and that should be the right number.

 

How about all of us using the right numbers and providing access to a copy? At this point, I can't say as comments about J1287 are relevant or not to J2825 - but might be some help.

 

Ben

[4wheeldog]

As far as challenging roadside results in court......I would imagine that it would not be that difficult for the court to require independent (or at least repeatable) testing at a facility before actually hearing the case. If someone wants to go to the expense of quieting the thing down before the secondary testing (Which could be checked with photos at the time of the offense), well, at least part of the point of the ordinance would be satisfied.

I bet most of the throttle jockeys that got caught would just pay the fine, and stay out of town. And that is the point of having the ordinance. Just sayin'.

[Deadboy]

Wow this is getting complicated for no real reason.....the J1287 (OHV test procedure) I mentioned is similar, not the same (as I stated previously)....the vibrating wire style tack works fine on multi cylinder bikes (some dirt bikes are multi's after all).

 

Honestly the entire idea behind this is to design a simple, field ready test that is easily conducted, doesn’t present a danger to the rider or the tester and (most importantly) is repeatable and consistent. The calibration check takes literally one or two seconds….but indeed the tester must be trained, as is the case when using a radar gun etc….

 

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Wow this is getting complicated for no real reason.....the J1287 (OHV test procedure) I mentioned is similar, not the same (as I stated previously)....the vibrating wire style tack works fine on multi cylinder bikes (some dirt bikes are multi's after all).

 

Honestly the entire idea behind this is to design a simple, field ready test that is easily conducted, doesn’t present a danger to the rider or the tester and (most importantly) is repeatable and consistent. The calibration check takes literally one or two seconds….but indeed the tester must be trained, as is the case when using a radar gun etc….

 

 

 

You're right and it was nice of you to post J1287.

 

That is a very sensible standard for testing a bunch of bikes located in one suitable site (for example, for "gate keeping") and not concerned with the ponderous workings of the courts.

 

About other comments, as I poorly understand these things, it is up to the LEO to prove or swear that the inconceivable conditions of an SAE standard have been met. For example, that they took a professional law-enforcement course in sound measurement, used Shell Rotax on their anemometer bearings each full moon like BMW riders have to, etc.

 

That is why through this thread, I have been emphasizing that any crack in the enforcement method means no penalties. Just as it should be.

 

If they can't swear, it is my poor understanding, the accused can't be convicted.

 

If you listen to testimony in a Toronto court on radar charges, you will hear that give-and-take. Today, few ride when radar gets to court. But long ago, some did. Need I add, DAMHIK.

 

Ben

[Peter Parts]

R1100S, 1999, no cat converter, LeoVince SBK mufflers (rebuilt not long ago), db killers. Louder than stock but barely like other aftermarket mufflers with or without db killers.

 

Roughly as per J1287 standard (half red-line or peak HP engine speed, 20 inches, 45 degrees, dBA, slow):

 

99 dBA 4k (half of lowest red-line rpm, as per J1287)

95 dBA 3.5k

92 dBA 3k (maybe just a bit below half my peak HP rpm, w/mods)

87 dBA 2k

 

same values on other side of bike

 

straight back 6 feet, 3k: 84 dBA

straight back 12 feet, 3k: 81 dBA

 

 

The Radio Shack meter I used is a bit low at the lowest frequencies, but using dBA, no big influence.

 

I think the J1287 standard if enforced at 92dBA at 20 inches is pretty tough. Except for Harley engines measured at maybe 2k rpm!

 

Ben

[Deadboy]

Did you hold the meter at the correct angle (the street version actually has you hold it straight back at the same 45 degree angle). Other than that it looks like this:

 

http://www.thumperfaq.com/sound.htm

 

Remember it is 92dBA at idle....the off idle test would be at 2K rpm (or 75% of max, whichever is less) and allow 96dBA

 

Honestly I think the standard is pretty generous....or your meter is way off (not uncommon w/the RS variety).

[Peter Parts]

Nice to see helpful and intelligent comments from guys like Deadboy, although I respectfully disagree with some.

 

1. Angle of mic doesn't have enough effect and/or effect is unpredictable. But defining exactly how the 20 inch gap is to be set-up does and J1287 comes up short there. Boxers with their air-cooled jugs sticking out like big ears are at a disadvantage with J1287 compared to water-cooled multi's.

 

2. J1287 is a measurement at half-power rpm. Edmonton in their wisdom may be using idle, bless 'em, but that is a meaningless criterion for road noise - and not good for the Oilheads with their rather fast idle. I didn't even bother measuring the level and J1287 requires the ambient noise to be 10 dBA below the bike which might be hard on some street corners if idle were the criterion.

 

3. In no case would my absolute measurements mean much, using a Radio Shack SLM or fancy lab meter? Who cares whether my modified machine using BMW's tach and a one-off exhaust system (see my write-ups) is 82, 83, or 84 dBA? What my hasty and amateurish relative measurements do show (if much) is that (1) choice of rpm makes a big difference and (2) 92 with your ear close to the exhaust is 11 dB less at a mere 18 feet further away.

 

4. Right - 92dBA at idle is pretty generous. But 92 at half-power-speed and 20 inches isn't. Even the "Slow" meter decay function at idle might give a pass to some Harleys with the leisurely one-potato exhaust cadence.

 

Ben

[Deadboy]

Where do you keep coming up with 92dB at 1/2 power? Likewise 20" vs. 18' is not considered comparable (near field vs. far field) and J1287 is not done at 1/2 idle in most cases....see http://www.dmc-on-line.com/Images/MIC_RPM_Large.jpg for some test rpm examples.

 

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Quotes from J1287. Were you the one who provided the link to J1287?

 

6. Procedure

6.1 A rider shall sit astride the motorcycle in normal riding position with both feet on the ground. If this is not

possible because of the seat height of the motorcycle, and for three-wheeled motorcycles, the rider shall sit in

the normal riding position with one or both feet on the footrests. If necessary, an assistant may hold the

motorcycle by the forks, front wheel, or handlebars so that it is stationary with its longitudinal plane of

symmetry vertical. In the alternative, the rider may use a box, rock, or other object to rest his feet upon to

steady the motorcycle, as long as the motorcycle longitudinal plane of symmetry is vertical and stationary.

The rider shall run the engine with the gearbox in neutral at a speed equal to one-half of the rated engine

speed.

snip

 

In enforcement situations, it is often easier to use one-half of the redline speed (redline speed is the lowest

numerical engine speed included in the red zone on the motorcycle tachometer) rather than the test speed

specified in 6.1. One-half of redline speed is a higher test speed than one-half of rated rpm; thus, the

measured sound level will be higher, and a 3 dB tolerance must be added to the applicable sound level limit.

While site tolerances may be relaxed somewhat without serious degradation of precision in the....

 

Kind'a wishy washy when you look closely...eh. Guess that's engineering science for ya.

 

"92"... others have been quoting that figure although no basis in J1287 that I can see. Purely arbitrary,just like J1287, and Edmonton can pick any number they want out of the air.

 

Ben

[Survived-til-now]

I think it will prove unenforcible and certainly unconvictable. Just think of the courtroom obstacles radar guns face ("... and when was your radar gun last checked? Was the check based on lab certified standard? When were you trained.....") and that's not 10% of the variation you have with sound level measurement.

 

I think a lot of that gets cleared up because they appear to be using the recently published SAE motorcycle sound level testing standard.

 

Over this side of the Atlantic we have had a much simpler solution for many years. Police can stop a loud bike and check that the exhaust has a stamped mark showing the EU certification for road use (used to be a BSI Kitemark). No mark = illegal can....

 

(they also have to remember to look and see that the owner has not removed the baffles!).

[Deadboy]

We have EPA stamps here, but they are often difficult to find/not always in the same place.

[Peter Parts]

(they also have to remember to look and see that the owner has not removed the baffles!).

 

 

It may be that the personal authority of the constable's opinion in England is higher than the litigatious, legalistic, and rights mind-frame in the US and Canada. Each approach has its benefits although I tend to like systems where civil rights are well protected.

 

 

In days of yore we called that "night sticking" (picture it!) and nothing could be easier to fudge by simply having a bolt across the end pipe to prevent the entry of a night stick (AKA baton). Did that to my 1961 R69s with straight-through mufflers.

 

As a bike DIY hobbyist, I the dislike the NYC, German/EU, and OEM type control the most because it means the end of experimenting.

 

As I've been saying, we all want to keep the noisy creeps off the roads. But hard to pinpoint a strategy that works well for all purposes.

 

Ben

[dhanson]

I for one hope they make some inroads with this bylaw. While I obviously ride a bike, I'm no fan of those with loud aftermarket pipes. I live in an area just off the centre of town and I know how annoyed I am when one of these morons roars by our house, or sits at a stop sign revving the engine to try and impress anyone within earshot. Guess they're too stupid to realize how pathetic that is.

 

Well said.

[Peter Parts]

The nannies who run Toronto are thinking of introducing the Edmonton-style law here.

 

Ben

[Matts_12GS]

The nannies who run Toronto are thinking of introducing the Edmonton-style law here.

 

Ben

 

 

[wbrissette]

The nannies who run Toronto are thinking of introducing the Edmonton-style law here.

 

They wouldn't have to if the motorcycling community would police itself. But we all know how well that has worked.

 

Wayne

[Dave_C]

Harley-Davidson; the art of converting gasoline into noise without the side-effect of horsepower.

 

I'm just sayin'

[Twisties]

The nannies who run Toronto are thinking of introducing the Edmonton-style law here.

 

Ben

 

Go Nannies!!!!!

[Indy Dave]

Harley-Davidson; the art of converting gasoline into noise without the side-effect of horsepower.

 

I'm just sayin'

 

Now that's funny!