More Horses removing Cat?

[JamesW]

Thanks Ed and RFW for your most interesting comments. I really thought that the airhead valve recession was caused by errosion of the valve itself and not the seat. I think this affect was called "tuliping" and everything I have read on the subject blamed poor cooling of the valve face because of lack of heat conduction from the valve during the time the valve is closed in contact with the seat. This seemed not to be present in machines made prior to '80 and these machines are or were also designed to be operated on un-leaded gas. Oh, the oxygen sensor is located ahead of the cat so how would it know that the cat is no longer there? I am learning much from you guys and I do appreciate.

[big-t]

BMW only puts CAT's in the exhausts of bikes whose government requires them by law. It was not the engineers at BMW who decided CAT's should be there but some U.S. government bureaucrat.

 

FWIW .. The gubbermint does not require mfgs to use converters.They only require that the vehicle in question meet a specific emission standard.Its up to the mfg to chose how that is accomplished.

 

The problem is....most mfgs chose to use a converter to accomplish that...probably the cheapest way to meet the standards

[steve.foote]

If the US gummint wants to lower car emissions it should worry less about CAT converters and worry more about the number of people driving 'round in Hummers, Escalades and those other assorted road-going battleships. 7 litre engines!!!! bloody ridiculous when you consider most of the time there's only one person in the darn thing.

 

I'm assuming you've done your homework here, but are you asserting that these larger vehicles produce MORE emissions than motorcycles? Those battleships have some of the cleanest pipes on the road.

[TracyPrier]

 

Fair point although they are still gas guzzlers. By it's very size an engine THAT big is going to use more fuel than say a 2 or 3 litre engine.

 

 

 

If the US gummint wants to lower car emissions it should worry less about CAT converters and worry more about the number of people driving 'round in Hummers, Escalades and those other assorted road-going battleships. 7 litre engines!!!! bloody ridiculous when you consider most of the time there's only one person in the darn thing.

 

I'm assuming you've done your homework here, but are you asserting that these larger vehicles produce MORE emissions than motorcycles? Those battleships have some of the cleanest pipes on the road.

[RFW]

Thanks Ed and RFW for your most interesting comments. I really thought that the airhead valve recession was caused by errosion of the valve itself and not the seat. I think this affect was called "tuliping" and everything I have read on the subject blamed poor cooling of the valve face because of lack of heat conduction from the valve during the time the valve is closed in contact with the seat. This seemed not to be present in machines made prior to '80 and these machines are or were also designed to be operated on un-leaded gas. Oh, the oxygen sensor is located ahead of the cat so how would it know that the cat is no longer there? I am learning much from you guys and I do appreciate.

The O2 sensor is indeed in front of the cat, and yes, it does not "know" (nor does it "care") if the cat is there or not. The purpose of the sensor is to feed back the oxygen content of the exhaust BEFORE it goes into the cat, so the engine management system can accurately adjust to a perfect stoichiometric mixture. This is a requirement for a 3-way cat. Once the mixture is stoichiometric (perfect air-fuel mixture), then the cat can do its job. To do this the O2 sensor must be located before the cat to sense the mixture before the cat changes the oxygen content (by "burning" residual CO/HC with it). In some cars, an additional sensor is located after the cat for fine tuning, but in all cases there must be one in font.

 

As for the valve seat recession thing, they were slow in waking up to this in Europe (just as they were slow in adopting unleaded gas and cats). I worked with the largest European muffler and cat manufacturer (Eberspächer) in the late 80s and early 90s, and there were stories of how in the late 70s, motors from BMW running on Eberspächer's test facilities (that were there to test the cats they were developing) would burn out in only 10 hours of hard running. The motor would be sent back to BMW (amid much grumbling and accusations by BMW of incompetence), only to have its replacement burn out quickly as well. After several replacement motors, and an escalating series of accusations of incompetence, BMW realized there was a much greater problem, which lead to impproved valve seats.

 

The irony of this was that at the same time, Eberspächer was developing cats for Mercedes, and their motors had no problem ...Mercedes had already at that time realized hardened valve seats were a requirement for unleaded gas.

 

Bob.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Further on the pots n' pans thing, almost all quality "stainless" cookware is really a sandwich. Two thin layers of stainless surrounding a layer of aluminum. The stainless on the bottom surface acts to slow the rate of heating, the aluminum, which conducts heat very well, evens out the heat across the stainless cooking surface to avoid hot spots in the pan. The upper, stainless surface now transfers this smoothed heat to whatever is being cooked avoiding scorches in the areas of the pan that otherwise would be in direct contact with the ring of fire or heat from an electric burner. It's the main reason my All Clad cookware still looks as good, after 5 years of continuous cooking, as the day it came out of the box.

 

Pure copper makes another great heat conductor and is often clad onto the bottom of aluminum or stainless pans for similar reasons. I have one copper clad pan that I use for making things like paella which benefit from a bit of heat up the sides as well as on the bottom. Works a treat but is a real female dog to keep clean.

[Motonut]

Yowsa! That All Clad is the supreme product.

 

I'm going over to Ed's for a taste of his Paella!

[RFW]

Fair point although they are still gas guzzlers. By it's very size an engine THAT big is going to use more fuel than say a 2 or 3 litre engine.

Not only that, but larger SUVs and the like are not required to meet the same emissions requirements as normal cars.

 

Bob.

[smiller]

Not only that, but larger SUVs and the like are not required to meet the same emissions requirements as normal cars.

Either are motorcycles.

[big-t]

 

 

 

Not only that, but larger SUVs and the like are not required to meet the same emissions requirements as normal cars.

 

 

 

That loop hole was closed.

 

Effective 2004 under the EPAs Tier 2 emission program, the larger SUVs have to meet the same emission standard as the normal passenger car,however the mfgs are allowed some leeway as they are allowed to average the emission standard across their passenger line.Not perfect system, but much better than before.

[FlyingJoe]

This will probably come across as eco-nutness, so flame on.

 

Since emission control were put in place here in CA the avg. # of smog alert days has gone from 121 to 1. Even more amazing is that car mileage has doubled in this time frame. (1) Most of this reduction is from cat's working with fuel injection and sensors, estimates put cat's at reducing HC,CO & NOx at 90% (2). Without Cat's the average family car would emit 1.5 tons toxic/harmful gasses per year. (2). Even if these numbers were optimistic all the scientific data shows they do substantially reduce emissions. A good overview of how a cat works is at (3)

 

I don't suppose anyone will argue that increasing emissions is a good thing, but rather as an individual eliminating the cat and increasing emissions provides a negligible impact.

 

(1) http://www.aecc.be/en/conservation.htm

(2) http://www.platinuminfo.net/app_env_cc.html

(3) http://www.answers.com/topic/catalytic-converter

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Joe,

I think your numbers are a little bit off.

 

A couple of assumptions and approximations here but let's take a look.

 

Average mile/year 15000

Average fuel economy 20 mpg

 

That is 750 gallons of fuel per year.

 

Fuel weighs roughly 8 lbs per gallon

 

So 6000 lbs of fuel.

 

1.5 tons is 3000 lbs.

 

So your saying that 50% of the fuel consumed goes out the tailpipe as toxic emissions?

 

Those cats must be doing one hell of a job. NOX is usually measured in parts per million. CO and CO2 ditto.

 

Please, spare us sensationalism.

[FlyingJoe]

Those are'nt my numbers, check the links.

 

And as I said regardless of the numbers (and they do seem large) there is no doubt that cat's substantially reduce emmisions.

 

On a previous post, 4x4's do actually have fewer emmisions than motorcycle's according to a recent study in Europe (check previous post for link). I do in fact drive a 4x4 but use what it was designed for, off road trips, principally hunting and camping. I use the motorcycle for commuting and road trips.

 

I am not a simple minded do-gooder, if I got 50% more horsepower from removing the cat, would I? Probably. But in fact there is little proven more kick, and a substantial and proven increase in emmisions.

[russell_bynum]

That is 750 gallons of fuel per year.

 

Fuel weighs roughly 8 lbs per gallon

 

So 6000 lbs of fuel.

 

1.5 tons is 3000 lbs.

 

So your saying that 50% of the fuel consumed goes out the tailpipe as toxic emissions?

 

<giggle>

 

A few years ago, there was supposed to be a big Personal Watercraft race in Mission Bay (San Diego). Everything was all set until a few months before the event when the enviro-wackos jumped on. There were claims that the 2-stroke racing engines would dump X gallons of unburned fuel into the Bay. I forget the number, but it was HUGE. We figured it out and if their claim was true, each competitor would have to take the equivalent of THREE FULL TANKS of fuel and dump it directly into the bay. Since the reality was that none of the competitors would even use ONE full tank during the races, that claim was obviously bogus.

 

It is sad that they do this, but the tree huggers are notourious about grossly inflating statistics. It discredits their arguments and makes it really hard for me to take anything they say seriously.

[No_Twilight]

It is sad that they do this, but the tree huggers are notourious about grossly inflating statistics. It discredits their arguments and makes it really hard for me to take anything they say seriously.

 

Russel,

Well said. We all lose our credibility when we make exaggerations or even emotionally stated truths. Another unfounded leap in this argument going on here is crediting all the improvements in LA smog to catalytic converters. I'd say the biggest contributer is getting old oilburners off the road, one of which can make more smog than 1000 properly running cars, and the second most important change is tough laws on industry/older grandfathered industries shutting down with age.

 

--Jerry

[FlyingJoe]

Forget all that.

 

Is anyone believing that removing the Cat does not increase emissions?

 

And that increased emissions does have proven links to degradations in the environment and air quality?

 

Does Anyone disagree with these two statements?

 

The only possible argument as I can see it is, yes making this mod does increase emissions, but it is worth it because of x, y or z.

[russell_bynum]

Forget all that.

 

Is anyone believing that removing the Cat does not increase emissions?

 

And that increased emissions does have proven links to degradations in the environment and air quality?

 

Does Anyone disagree with these two statements?

 

I certainly do not disagree with those statements.

[chrisstroh]

Perhaps we should all stop riding motorcycles too. That would reduce emissions. And especially those evil ones that ride for pleasure god forbid!

[No_Twilight]

Forget all that.

 

Is anyone believing that removing the Cat does not increase emissions?

 

And that increased emissions does have proven links to degradations in the environment and air quality?

 

Does Anyone disagree with these two statements?

 

The only possible argument as I can see it is, yes making this mod does increase emissions, but it is worth it because of x, y or z.

 

Leaving it parked decreases emissions even more. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps you should set an example. Cheers, Jerry

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Is anyone believing that removing the Cat does not increase emissions?

 

But will it automatically bring the bike into non-compliance? The standard for emissions is so high that a properly running bike, at least a modern one with EFI, and properly tuned, will still fall, by an order of magnitude, within the specifications.

 

In fact, once you remove the cat and retune the part throttle fuel mixtures that no longer have to run at 13.6:1 to keep the cat lit, you might produce LESS HC and CO than you did with the cat. Oxides of Nitrogen will go up but no where near enough that the bike would fail a smog test at any venue in the country.

[JamesW]

Ed, By re-tuning you must mean replacing the input from the Oxygen sensor to the Motronix with a simple potentiometer? If this is correct how would one go about adjusting this pot to produce the desired affect that being a slightly richer fuel/air mixture? Should mention that I have an '04 1150RT and the sensor is located before the cat not after.

[2wheelterry]

This will probably come across as eco-nutness, so flame on.

 

Since emission control were put in place here in CA the avg. # of smog alert days has gone from 121 to 1. Even more amazing is that car mileage has doubled in this time frame. (1) Most of this reduction is from cat's working with fuel injection and sensors, estimates put cat's at reducing HC,CO & NOx at 90% (2). Without Cat's the average family car would emit 1.5 tons toxic/harmful gasses per year. (2). Even if these numbers were optimistic all the scientific data shows they do substantially reduce emissions. A good overview of how a cat works is at (3)

 

A lot of other changes have also contributed to these claims, you cannot state that these were strictly due to the catalytic converters. In general I do agree that they improve tailpipe emissions. IMO anyone that would disagree with this is misinformed. But the actual impact of removing one person’s cat is negligible.

 

I hate the cat, because I often burn off a little of my size 12 boot tip when I touch it to the cat when center standing the bike.

 

Joe,

I think your numbers are a little bit off.

 

A couple of assumptions and approximations here but let's take a look.

 

Average mile/year 15000

Average fuel economy 20 mpg

 

That is 750 gallons of fuel per year.

 

Fuel weighs roughly 8 lbs per gallon

 

So 6000 lbs of fuel.

 

1.5 tons is 3000 lbs.

 

So your saying that 50% of the fuel consumed goes out the tailpipe as toxic emissions?

 

Those cats must be doing one hell of a job. NOX is usually measured in parts per million. CO and CO2 ditto.

 

Please, spare us sensationalism.

 

I don't know how the air pollution control districts here deal with cars but for industrial equipment they do use PPM to measure instantaneous flow to the environment. But they like to get a totalized accumulation over time thus use units like #/hour, #/day and tons/year.

 

Also I make no claim to verify the numbers listed, but for comparison a 14,100 HP (ISO) gas turbine I am familiar with has NOx limits of 30 ppm, 500 lb/day and I don’t recall the tons per year. At times these limits are a challenge, so they represent real numbers relative to turbine performance.

[JamesW]

Ed, to make for a richer fuel air mix would one simply leave the oxygen sensor alone and just remove the encoding plug for the Motronic unit? Don't mean to start making this sound like a sat TV hacking forum. I do appreciate your thoughts.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

OK, let's look at how this thing works.

 

The function of the O2 sensor is to feed signals back to the Motronic, which in turn, varies, over a narrow range of throttle openings c.a. 1 to 13%, the mixture over a narrow band around stochiometry which, for gasoline as we know it, is 13.6:1. It does this because the cat will overheat at richer mixtures and not maintain its burn at leaner. The result is that the mixture is richened over what would be an ideal fuel economy mixture at part throttle cruise which is about 15:1.

 

The potentiometer which is used on non-cat equipped bikes is there for purposes of adjusting the idle, and to some extent, the early part throttle mixture to optimize CO output at roughly 1%. It does not supplant the O2 sensor but serves a different function.

 

The cat code plug, which is used on cat equipped bikes serves to select a base map, one of about 4, stored in the Motronic, which is designed to meet, along with the cat and O2 sensor, the emission standards of various governing bodies. There is a base map, no cat code plug, on which the bike will run fine, provided neither the O2 sensor or the catalytic converter is used. In fact, it will run pretty good with the converter in place. Removal of the cat code plug will disable the O2 sensor anyway and the cat, for the most part, can fend for itself, although it won't work as well as the base map is, in fact, leaner than the ideal for keeping the cat lit.

 

Most folks find some benefit from removal of the plug because it will remove the bad feedback loop that the O2 sensor, especially if it is not functioning correctly, can cause which leads to the dreaded surging and other drivability problems. Other than a 20 or so lb weight savings, which is a drop in the ocean on a near 800 lb bike/rider combination, there is little to be gained by removal of the catalytic converter.

[Ken H.]

Forget all that.

 

Is anyone believing that removing the Cat does not increase emissions?

 

And that increased emissions does have proven links to degradations in the environment and air quality?

 

Does Anyone disagree with these two statements?

 

The only possible argument as I can see it is, yes making this mod does increase emissions, but it is worth it because of x, y or z.

I certainly agree with those two statements. And I wear all those eco-nut labels anyone would like to fling around with pride. Changing a vehicle that causes it to pollute more than it might, no matter how minutely more, or how much less it might pollute than the other guy's other thing, no matter what regulation it might or might not meet, is morally wrong IMHO.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Changing a vehicle that causes it to pollute more than it might, no matter how minutely more, or how much less it might pollute than the other guy's other thing, no matter what regulation it might or might not meet, is morally wrong IMHO.

 

No matter how minutely more???

 

Hm, that's kind of extreme. Consider:

 

• What if I simply choose to operate my vehicle in a manner that produces considerably more pollution instead of less pollution (for example, aggressive sportriding through Deal's Gap - lots of WOT and open-loop operation - instead of a mellow cruise down I-75 in continuous, closed-loop, part-load operation)?
   
  
• How about if I sell my bike to a new rider, buy a big 2-stroke bike and take up dirt riding? No hardware modifications, but suddenly I'm polluting more than I did yesterday.
  

 

A case can certainly be made regarding benefits vs. disbenefits (i.e. performance improvement versus emissions increases), but an absolutist position on the matter is pretty hard to defend.

[David]

A case can certainly be made regarding benefits vs. disbenefits (i.e. performance improvement versus emissions increases), but an absolutist position on the matter is pretty hard to defend.

 

No worries. Ken's put a stake in the ground and he wears the extremist badge with pride. There is no discussion.

[smiller]

I think what Ken was saying was simply that one shouldn't consider it OK to remove a cat merely because the vehicle might still meet local emissions regulations. The act still causes an increase in emissions (probably), and thus removing the cat for no good reason isn't OK based on the 'it's still legal' rationalization alone. (And by the way it probably isn't legal as in most states tampering with or removing emissions devices is illegal even if the vehicle still meets minimum standards afterward.)

 

This is different than the 'nobody should cause any more emissions than I think they should' argument and is just saying that you shouldn't intentionally increase emissions from whatever vehicle you do happen to choose. I don't think that's necessarily an extreme view.

 

[David]

I think what Ken was saying was simply that one shouldn't consider it OK to remove a cat merely because the vehicle might still meet local emissions regulations.

 

Could be, but it's still an unbelievable position to me. Somehow it's right to ride a motorcycle that pollutes X amount, but it's wrong to modify a motorcycle which (after modification) pollutes X-1 amount? Puhleeze.

[smiller]

Somehow it's right to ride a motorcycle that pollutes X amount, but it's wrong to modify a motorcycle which (after modification) pollutes X-1 amount? Puhleeze.

 

It's somewhat of a judgment call, agreed. But I think there can be a sensible case made that we need to be aware of our impact and take reasonable steps to stay within our share. The alternative (in this example) is everyone modifying their vehicles as they please with no regard for exhaust emissions, and I don't think anyone would like to see the results of that on a large scale. I know... it's OK if only I do it...

 

Does that mean no one can change carb jets or pull their CCP or whatever to fix a performance problem? I don't know, I guess there are always practical limits to social conscience of course... but somehow it seems that the specific example of removing a cat for no good reason (and AFAIK there really aren't any real performance benefits of doing this) seems like it should be on the 'not OK' side of the line to me, that's all.

[David]

It's somewhat of a judgment call, agreed. But I think there can be a sensible case made that we need to be aware of our impact and take reasonable steps to stay within our share.

 

Of course, and I agree. But Ken does not. His is a black and white world and any modification, no matter the reason or context, is evil. Morally wrong. The standard, of course, is set by the wonderfully ethical and moral EPA, a bastion of credible science and consistency. Puhleeze.

 

The alternative (in this example) is everyone modifying their vehicles as they please with no regard for exhaust emissions.

 

No, that's not the only alternative. One alternative is to use them as guidelines. Just like Ken does with 500 other laws that do not happen to fall under his ire.

 

But somehow it seems that the specific example of removing a cat for no good reason (and AFAIK there really aren't any real performance benefits of doing this) seems like it should be on the 'not OK' side of the line to me, that's all.

 

Using this logic, our friends who drive the same version of the RT without a CAT are presumably evil? Unenlightened? Selfish for not installing a CAT?

 

Or maybe it's just that nations draw the lines in different places, and that does not define good and evil.

 

For the record, I love Ken to death and think he's a very good man. He's welcome to ride my bike or stay in my house any time, for any reason. I just think he's a little imbalanced on this issue.

[smiller]

Well, perhaps I made a mistake in presuming to interpret Ken's meaning so I won't do that any more, but much of the last post represented my view as well.

 

Using this logic, our friends who drive the same version of the RT without a CAT are presumably evil? Unenlightened? Selfish for not installing a CAT?

 

Now c'mon, you know that's not using my logic, and I don't think that I implied that. You seem to be interpreting my statement as 'you shouldn't pollute any more than I think you should' (a.k.a the 'Gary' theory ) but that's not what I meant. Drive a Hummer if you please, just don't rip out the emissions controls for no reason. That doesn't sound like all that an extreme view to me.

[2wheelterry]

How would one compare a rider who removes their cat, adds a pipe, etc., but only rides a small to moderate amount versus one that logs big miles but has an unmodified exhaust? The second rider may be morally right but puts much more undesirable exhaust emissions to the atmosphere than the first.

[David]

Now c'mon, you know that's not using my logic, and I don't think that I implied that.

 

Sorry about that. I wasn't representing your logic but what I understand Ken's logic to be.

[David]

How would one compare a rider who removes their cat, adds a pipe, etc., but only rides a small to moderate amount versus one that logs big miles but has an unmodified exhaust? The second rider may be morally right but puts much more undesirable exhaust emissions to the atmosphere than the first.

 

Exactly. There's a grayness to this that simple borrowed morality from the EPA will not fix. Extremist positions find it simpler to make no exceptions, no matter the credibility lost in that position.

[smiller]

How would one compare a rider who removes their cat, adds a pipe, etc., but only rides a small to moderate amount versus one that logs big miles but has an unmodified exhaust? The second rider may be morally right but puts much more undesirable exhaust emissions to the atmosphere than the first.

I may not be doing a very good job of communicating because that example is entirely besides the point, or at least the point that I was trying to make. The issue is not about the absolute amount of pollutants released.

 

There are any number of good rationalizations for removing pollution control equipment. But they are just rationalizations.

[David]

The issue is not about the absolute amount of pollutants released.

 

It's not? And this is a moral issue? I'm going to have to give up on this one because I don't see the logic. Maybe I'm just dense.

 

For the record, I've never removed a cat and never even considered doing it. As you point out, there's seems to be little or no benefit. But if there were, I would consider it, I suppose, along with the effect on the environment. Just like I pull that stupid restrictor out of my shower head because I want a certain kind of shower. I suppose that's evil, too. There's really no difference that I can see.

 

I hope you are aware that the EPA might, in their infinite morality, restrict your motorcycling in some way that seriously impinges on its fun (requiring a CAT is not in that category, obviously). And when this happens, you will have no choice but to comply.

[David]

Something else, Seth. The EPA, as the sole arbiter of pollution morality, has not deemed to required a CAT. But it's morally wrong to remove it? Somebody needs to explain this to me.

[2wheelterry]

I support emission controls in most instances, but am wary of the hard line thinking. The agencies that make the rules if left unchallenged will use those same arguments to limit mileage or apply penalties (taxes) to those of use that drive alot. In their view, it IS all about "the absolute amount of pollutants released."

[smiller]

Personally, I don't take the EPA to be the sole arbiter of pollution morality and I'm not recommending that anyone else do either. (Actually the EPA is so politicized these days that I'm not sure that it should be the arbiter of anything, but that's another thread.) I'm also not saying that an individual does not have the right to drive the vehicle of their choice, and drive it as much as they please for that matter (hence my comment on the absolute amount of pollutants not being the point.) I was (and am) saying that it seems wrong to me to remove emissions control equipment without any positive gain, and that's all (not that I've never tampered with emissions control equipment myself in search for a cure to a driveability problem BTW, just that I've never tried to convince myself that is was perfectly OK.) If that view makes me the eco-nazi poster child, well, what can I say. You can remove your cat and I'll leave mine in place. That solution will satisfy us both.

[JamesW]

So smiller, how is wetland preservation coming along in the lone star state of mind?

[chrisstroh]

Well, I guess the jury's still out but IF gutting or removing the CAT might give me better gas milege, cure my low speed surging, quiet my transmission down by removing a heat source directly beneath it, and improve my performance, or any ONE of these things, then I'm all for it. I would imagine most BMW riders wouldn't remove their CAT, and therefore it wouldn't have any impact on the enviroment anyway. To some, I guess that makes me a bad person. Oh well.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Well, I guess the jury's still out but IF gutting or removing the CAT might give me better gas milege, cure my low speed surging, quiet my transmission down by removing a heat source directly beneath it, and improve my performance, or any ONE of these things, then I'm all for it. I would imagine most BMW riders wouldn't remove their CAT, and therefore it wouldn't have any impact on the enviroment anyway. To some, I guess that makes me a bad person. Oh well.

 

Gas milage is so much more a function of how you ride that it is doubtful you will see any benefit.

 

The transmission is fine and won't get quieter. Change to 75w140 synthetic, I like Mobil 1, and forget about it.

 

Cure your low speed surging by not riding at 3000 RPM anymore, keep the motor above 3500.

 

You WON'T gain any performance that you can measure.

 

Since your determined to do it, get a 2 Bros pipe and put a VFR muffler on it, at least it will sound better without getting loud.

[Ken H.]

I just think he's a little imbalanced on this issue.

Oh I'm probably a little imbalanced period, but let me see if I can clarify the distinction I'm trying to make...

 

Most anyone on the planet can point to something they or someone else could do that would cause less pollution to the planet than they or the other someone now causes. I could not ride a motorcycle, or have not any vehicle and walk everywhere, or not use electricity, or not do any number things, and I undoubtedly would personally pollute the planet less as a result.

 

_ell if I only flush my toilet once a week I'd create less water pollution overall, right?

 

But there's a big difference between leading a responsible life within the context of the life we choose (I choose to ride a motorcycle and flush daily), vs. doing things intentionally that we know will create more pollution, with no significant value beyond our own personal satisfaction, and then not giving a damn about the resultant impact one's actions have on the world.

 

The former is being respectful of, moral to, the planet and the other people and creatures on it. The latter is disrespectful of, and immoral to, it and them.

 

If I stand in the bathroom and flush the stool time and time again because I like the sound of the water swirling down, I'm just as guilty of being environmentally immoral as I am if I take the catalytic converter off of my bike, just because I like the sound of the exhaust without it.

 

It's about attitude, and lifestyle respect, not specifics. Do we care about the rest of creation or just about ourself?

[chrisstroh]

Thx shovel. What about TraceyPrier's info? He seems pretty convincing (unless it's his amagination)

I had a 75 shovel dresser for 23 years.

[chrisstroh]

The issue is whether it will or will not significantly increase pollution therefore poisoning our fellow human beings. By the length of this thread proves there's debate. I'm not being irresponsible, I believe differently from you. I may be wrong or you may be wrong but and I guess it's what we WANT to believe. Until it's resolved I don't think you should be telling me or us how to live our lives or tinker with our bikes. Your opinion is appreciated though. BALANCE is what makes the world work.

[hootowl]

It's about attitude, and lifestyle respect, not specifics. Do we care about the rest of creation or just about ourself?

 

Well said Ken

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Chris,

I went to his web site, BTW, it's Prier. Not any conclusive information I could see. Fill technique and how far he went into the warning light could easily account for his precieved change in fuel range. He states he removed the O2 sensor which would impact driveability that he speaks of. He should have removed the cat code plug and fitted a CO pot as well. The whole thing smacks of self serving justification to me.

 

Does anyone really think that BMW didn't test the flow rating of the converter fitted and integrate it into the design of the exhaust? Do you really think they would deliberatly cork up the exhaust on their bikes and thus limit the already meager HP? That they fitted a cat and have done so in the US since '94 speaks highly of them, even if they only did it to meet draconian CA emission regulations, I say Bravo.

 

My Blackbird does nicely without a cat although it is fitted with EGR, called a PAIR system by Honda. I understand California models have a cat as well. Ken H. rode my bike and I think he will testify that it is certainly not lacking in power. Of course, fuel economy sucks on this thing, low 30's around town and 37 to 39 on the highway is the best I can get till I can pick up a PC II and tune out some of the factory richness. A guy who seems to know what he is doing over on the Blackbird board found A/F ratio's at part throttle in the 12.8:1 range which is way rich. Sure does make for some nice throttle response though.

[TracyPrier]

Dude, you want to actually READ the web site properly. I did NOT write that I permantently removed the Os sensor AT ALL. I removed it so I could remove the exhaust system.

 

Those figures (which by the way are repeated every single week as I commute to work on this bike, the same distance every day and fill up at the same gas station) are a result of ONLY removing the CAT element and nothing else

 

The first figure was arrived at after noting the mileage for 6 weeks prior to CAT removal.

 

I really don't know how to come up with any more accurate figures outside of a labratory... and unlike some folk I prefer to live in the real world.

 

Chris,

I went to his web site, BTW, it's Prier. Not any conclusive information I could see. Fill technique and how far he went into the warning light could easily account for his precieved change in fuel range. He states he removed the O2 sensor which would impact driveability that he speaks of. He should have removed the cat code plug and fitted a CO pot as well. The whole thing smacks of self serving justification to me.

 

Does anyone really think that BMW didn't test the flow rating of the converter fitted and integrate it into the design of the exhaust? Do you really think they would deliberatly cork up the exhaust on their bikes and thus limit the already meager HP? That they fitted a cat and have done so in the US since '94 speaks highly of them, even if they only did it to meet draconian CA emission regulations, I say Bravo.

 

<<< Man you are deluded. It is common knowledge (and has been for YEARS) amongst car and bike mechanics her in NZ that vehicles imported from the USA have less power than their local versions because of all the emmissions crap your government makes the manufacturers install.

 

One of the first things that owners in the know do is get most of that stuff removed in order to restore the vehicle to the power level it should be.

 

Motorcycles are a classic instance of that. Certain Ducati's even have smaller combustion chambers to suit the USA regs and getting them back to proper spec requires fitting of "proper" heads that are standard on every other market bike of that model.

 

Of course BMW would reduce HP if it meant the difference between bein able to sell bikes in the USA or not... you need to look outside your own backyard mate and see how the rest of the world does things. >>>>

[David]

But there's a big difference between leading a responsible life within the context of the life we choose (I choose to ride a motorcycle and flush daily), vs. doing things intentionally that we know will create more pollution, with no significant value beyond our own personal satisfaction, and then not giving a damn about the resultant impact one's actions have on the world.

 

I hate to break the news to you, but riding a motorcycle falls smack dab into this category, Ken. To use your own words, you know that riding a motorcycle "intentionally...will create more pollution, with no significant value beyond [y]our own personal satisfaction, and then not giving a damn about the resultant impact one's actions have on the world."

 

Now, how's it feel to have someone else (you, in this case) draw the boundary in a way that includes you. Ouch.

 

You'd probably say, next, that the difference we're talking about is really not a fair comparison. My example is riding a motorcycle or not riding one. Yours is riding a motorcycle with a cat or riding a motorcycle without a cat, presumably adding pollution without any appreciable benefit. You'd probably say that all things being equal, the rider ought to leave the cat on. And I'd agree.

 

Here's the thing, though. You want to define "motorcycling" for other people. For you, it's tooling along in a big fat beast with shitty mileage, wasteful tire wear rates, and...oh, yeah, a cat. But just in this country.

 

Someone else defines motorcycling as a deeper sounding pipe (not louder, just deeper) that probably pollutes more without the cat or sensor or appropriate cat code plug.

 

Someone else defines responsible motorcycling like most of the rest of the world does, with a 125cc machine on bias tires getting 85 mpg.

 

I guess you're caught in the middle. The guy on one end thinks you're a selfish SOB American on a $16,000 motorcycle getting 45 mpg and going through $300 of petroleum-based tires every 5,000 miles. The guy on the other end thinks you're a nanny.

 

I do believe in doing my part for the planet, but I temper that belief with this:

 

a) I want to leave a little room for people to do things they enjoy without calling them morally wrong.

 

b) I want to recognize that I'm an inconsistent, self-serving consumer (like you are, too) and this needs to be in the back of my mind as I call people out.

 

c) I want to keep an open mind about the science of the earth's sustainability. There's a lot we don't know yet.

 

It's about attitude, and lifestyle respect, not specifics.

 

You can't have it both ways. You've very "specifically" said that removing a cat is immoral. You didn't frame it in terms of respect. You very "specifically" described it as a black and white issue.

 

Do we care about the rest of creation or just about ourselves?

 

Let's try a little respect, here, too, and allow for the fact that maybe it's not that clean of a dichotomy.

 

But it's your sword and you are free to fall on it. I'd rather see you not do that, though, and instead provide reasoned, careful arguments that persuade rather than divide. You passion for this cannot be ignored, and that's good.