More Horses removing Cat?

[chrisstroh]

Uh, what David said.

[steveknapp]

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."

 

Bingo.

 

Nevermind all the fuel and pollution used to manufacture and deliver all that bling on Ken's GS. Heck, just the weight added to that bike alone...

 

You can't live without having SOME impact on the world.

[No_Twilight]

The bottom line for me is that I don't feel very strongly about the cat vs not cat issue. Some people get very idealistic in my mind. And most of the extreme environmentalists have no idea of the actual impact of the proposals they're touting would have on the economy or our standard of living. For example, the'll push ideas that would shut down large numbers of power plants but wouldn't dream of turning on the light switch and having nothing happen.

 

I will say that I learned quite a bit about cats and indeed I'm convinced that they do much more than I thought. From other reading that I did outside the posted material here I figured out that in 49 states you can put a high flow cat on your 4 wheeled vehicle as an alternative which sounds like the right answer for a car...but not available for a bike. I'm convinced gutting a cat can have more detrimental effect than leaving it alone because of the tubulance at the exit of the empty chamber.

 

As I said at the start, I never considered removing my cat. Hold a grudge against those who do? Not really, I consider those who throw trash out their window much worse offenders (and there are many more of them).

 

Cheers,

jerry

[ShovelStrokeEd]

OK, my "real world" consists of about 50K miles of riding a year on an assortment of motorcycles. As to being "in the know" I have been wrenching on my own stuff for more than 40 years including converting bikes from carbs to EFI and making my own maps from scratch using a rolling road dyno and multigas analyzer to determine mixture and develop driveability.

 

Getting to specifics, you never stated that you put the oxygen sensor back. I do very well on reading comprehension, thank you very much.

 

I find your comments on the Ducati having a smaller combustion chamber and the need to put a bigger one back on ludicrous. A smaller combustion chamber will result in more compression and likely more power and torque as anyone who has ever modified a motor will attest.

 

Calling one, small, island nation the "rest of the world" is kinda funny as well.

 

BTW, I track fuel milage on all my bikes on a regular basis. 6 tanks might give you a base line but, such variables as winter/summer fuel mix, traffic flow, variation in operation of the fuel level sensor, etc. might easily account for the increases you quote.

 

As to the emissions stuff, I won't comment on the science used by the EPA or the way in which car manufacturers choose to modify their cars to meet those standards other than to say a cat is just one, small part of it. If you feel you have gained something, I say, "Good for you." But feelings ain't science.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

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?

 

I pulled some "typical" values from the tables on pp. 28-30 of this book, and came up with a pre-cat emissions rate of 6.7 percent - that is, for every 100 grams of fuel consumed, the engine produces a total 6.7 grams of HC, CO, and NOx. So the consumption of 6000 pounds of fuel by a modern, closed-loop fuel-injected engine utilizing EGR could reasonably be expected to result in a pre-cat quantity of 407 pounds of pollutants. A far cry from 3000 pounds, but nothing to sneeze at. The vast majority of this is NOx (the ratios are 15:3:1 for NOx, CO, and HC, respectively). With closed-loop fuel control operating at stoich, the cat reduces NOx by as much as 98%, HC's by 95%, and CO by 80%; in consuming 6000 pounds of fuel, the final tailpipe-out emissions ends up being more like 18 pounds instead of 407.

 

In 2003, the average cert levels for large-displacement bikes (>280 cc's) was a total of 7.6 grams of CO+HC per kilometer (click here, search on "Average Certification Levels for 2003 Model Year Motorcycles"). At these levels, 15,000 miles of riding would result in 182 pounds of CO + HC's; NOx was unregulated for bikes (it's regulated now), but probably adds a few hundred pounds (even on bikes running rich of stoich, owing to crappy mixing/lean combustion zones and a lack of EGR). With closed-loop fuel injection, I'd wager that Beemers are lower in CO/HC, but higher in NOx than other (rich-running carburetted) bikes, and so the cat is doing more for emissions reductions on the Beemers (by eliminating 98% of NOx) than it does on other bikes.

 

Are the performance benefits worth it? There are three aspects to consider: weight reduction, real power increase, and drivability.

 

• Weight Reduction: For a combined rider+bike weight of 800 pounds, and a cat element weight of 20 pounds, it's a weight reduction of 2.5 percent. How does this affect things?
   
  Acceleration: If you're in a race, sure, 2.5 percent is meaningful, but are you gonna feel it on the highway on ramp, or coming out of a hairpin at Deal's Gap? Not likely.
   
  MPG: The weight reduction won't improve your highway MPG that much either, since that's more about aerodynamic loading than weight. (burning through a single tank of gas does not produce a useful assessment of MPG; it would be more meaningful to see something like 3-4 tanks before and 3-4 tanks after the change.)
   
  Handling: The weight is on the centerline of the bike, about a foot from the roadway. Handling will not be measurably affected by this weight loss.
   
  
• Power increase: Exhaust gas dynamics is a complicated subject, and steady state (“common sense”) flow restrictions are only one part of the puzzle. There are pressure waves in the exhaust system associated with each exhaust event, and the exhaust system – including the cat – is arranged to take advantage (or minimize the problems) of those pressure waves over the expected operating map (speed, load) of the engine. Removal of the cat might in fact enhance one part of the performance map while totally screwing up another part of it. I’m very reluctant to rely on “butt dyno” measurements for this; in the absence of real, thorough dynamometer evaluations, I’d say any overall improvement is likely to be small.
   
  
• Drivability: If the bike is running like crap to begin with (rough running, surging, stalling, etc), then that’s not the cat’s fault; it would be far easier to do a thorough tune-up (valves, TBS, 0=0) than to perform surgery on the exhaust system.
  

 

I’m not taking up an absolutist position here, but in looking at the benefits and disbenefits of cat removal, IMHO it’s not worth it.

[David]

Very interesting, Mitch. Seems pretty clear that it makes sense to leave it on.

 

Given the benefits, do you see catalytic converters being required of all motorcycles at some point in the near future, like they are in passenger vehicles?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Very interesting, Mitch. Seems pretty clear that it makes sense to leave it on.

 

Given the benefits, do you see catalytic converters being required of all motorcycles at some point in the near future, like they are in passenger vehicles?

 

Looking at the upcoming standards (here, search on "Table I.D-5"), yeah, I think it's going to be just about impossible to meet those without a cat. There seems to be a lot of room on CO, but the combined HC + NOx limit is pretty tight. Probably not necessary to resort to closed-loop operation (i.e. cat performance does not need to be perfectly optimum), but the engine-out NOx has to be dealt with, and the cat excels at this.

 

EGR alone might do it; you might see one or the other, depending on how the cost works out for the manufacturer, but I think you won't see external EGR on 2-cyl bikes (problems controlling the pulsating flow, as compared to a 4- or 6-cyl), which means 2-cyl bikes will very likely be fitted with cats.

[Jim VonBaden]

Mitch, you are scarey smart!

 

Thanks for the tutorial!

 

Remind me never to get into an arguement with you!

 

Jim

[steve.foote]

You can't live without having SOME impact on the world.

 

And, in the grand, global scheme of things, it's not much of an impact.

[russell_bynum]

You can't live without having SOME impact on the world.

 

And, in the grand, global scheme of things, it's not much of an impact.

 

Unless everyone has that same attitude.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Thanks for the research, Mitch. Nice to see some real numbers rather than a bunch of conjecture and propaganda. Your opinions pretty much parallel my own on economy and performance.

 

I wonder whether the mass of the cat is below the roll axis and acting somewhat as a sailboat keel. Thus removing it would lower the polar moment and actually ease transitions from side to side. Now THAT would be a real benefit.

[KMG_365]

You can't live without having SOME impact on the world.

 

And, in the grand, global scheme of things, it's not much of an impact.

 

Unless everyone has that same attitude.

Yeah, it's the classic careless polluter's and smoker's response: "What's one little cigarette butt in the grand scheme of the universe, anyway?"

 

Sounds great on paper, but when you add them all up I'd still rather not lay my beach blanket down on a bed of thoughtless smokers' piles of cigarette butts and other trash. You should see the bags of trash we collect on the SD beaches--REGULARLY: more than half the bulk is composed of cigarette butts, yet each one seems so insignificant. We need to learn to think on a grander scale individually or we'll wind up drowning in our own filth as there is quickly becoming less and less "away" in which to throw things.

 

For those of you who think the smog is bad in your city, did you see the film footage of the Chinese skater's hometowns? There's a good idea of what we would have had to look forward to if things had continued to increase here unchecked. Scary!

[Ken H.]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You can't live without having SOME impact on the world.

 

And, in the grand, global scheme of things, it's not much of an impact.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Unless everyone has that same attitude.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yeah, it's the classic careless polluter's and smoker's response: "What's one little cigarette butt in the grand scheme of the universe, anyway?"

And really there's some pretty good science behind the fact that it does too. While currently a movie of the same name, "The Butterfly Effect" theory has been around awhile and clearly illustrates that the smallest change in the balance of any system, any set of circumstances, can have a profound and wide reaching set of unexpected results.

 

Chaos and Self Organizational theory also show that actions by one in a group, significantly effect the future of the whole.

 

But we're really getting away from the subject of removing catalytic converters now!

 

Or are we?

[steve.foote]

You can't live without having SOME impact on the world.

 

And, in the grand, global scheme of things, it's not much of an impact.

 

Well! This appears to have been a case of tossing raw meat to the lions.

 

My original intention was to amplify Steve Knapp's point that we all have SOME impact on the world. SOME, meaning measureable, not cataclysmic.

 

But, since the door had to be opened , here's my two cents.

 

Pollution, like population, is a matter of concentration. If you took a billion cigarette butts, and deposited them all on a beach in southern California, it would be a horrible mess. But if you took those same billion butts and distributed them evenly across the globe, you would feel like a lottery winner if you could find just one. (Sorry Jamie, I couldn't help myself ).

 

My point is, if we viewed everything we do within a global context of "what if everyone did this, or that," how could we justify most of our existance? Has anyone here never left a light on? How wasteful was that? What if all 6.5 billion of us did it?

 

And, one other thing. What's up with this wasting water nonsense. Every drop of water which was on this planet a million years ago is still here with the exception of whatever we have sent into space. It may move around, but the good old law of gravity makes sure it stays right here.

 

Oh, and I can't see the point in taking the cat out.

[Boffin]

And, one other thing. What's up with this wasting water nonsense. Every drop of water which was on this planet a million years ago is still here with the exception of whatever we have sent into space. It may move around, but the good old law of gravity makes sure it stays right here.

 

Yes but you, and every other human being on the planet are 90% water. The bigger the population the more water is tied up in people.

 

The bigger picture is what should always be looked at; which brings me back to the topic under discussion - catalytic converters. In the UK most car journeys are less than 5 miles, so the cat does not get up to working temperature in our cold damp climate, minimising any cleanining up of emissions. Now factor in all the energy and resultant carbon load needed to make the cat in the first place - especially given their reliance on rare earth metals such as palladium - and I seriously question if we should fit cats in the first place as their global environmental impact is frequently negative. BTW, in Europe fitting of cats is compulsory - lean burn and other technologies that would meet the emissions required cannot be used together with a cat and so research was stopped in Europe. As we almost never see US built cars over here I doubt that that had an impact on your development of alternatives, but gven that market size has a big impact on recouping development costs it may have tipped the balance.

 

Cya, Andy

[Ken H.]

I guess you're caught in the middle. 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.

Well I suppose I should define how I’m using the world “immoral.” I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in, nor am I saying “immoral” in the stereotypical sense of, “You do this ______ and you’re going to go to hell.” I’m saying “immoral” in the sense that as a member of this planet, this universe, along with everything else that is a part of it, we have a moral duty, responsibility, obligation, to treat it the best way possible. After all we are because it is. And we won’t continue to be if it isn’t. Use whatever personal belief one has to decide how it came to be, but it did, and without it, now and into the future, we won’t “be” at all to enjoy it. “We” as in the human race and our children, and our children’s children and on and on and on, possibly for eons yet. But we owe it to it and them. "It" IS "us". And actually I don’t think that philosophy is inconsistent with any major religion of the world either.

 

Also, I am never judging a person as morally wrong, only in this case that their particular action is an affront to morality, as I’m trying to frame it. For those who believe in some sort of a ‘judgment’ someday, I leave that to them. But I do think that if it were so, ALL of our actions, including intentionally polluting, would be factors in our ‘verdict.’

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

I agree. I’m painfully aware that by the standards of most of the world I’m a gluttonness pig of everything. As are IMHO 96% of the population US. It’s one of the keys to why we are hated so much around the world I believe. And I think both as a country and as individuals we should be seriously reevaluating ourselves. I’m not to the point of giving up motorcycling, or running water, or the Internet, or any of a long list of things. Yet. In the interest of reducing my negative impact on creation, but perhaps I and we should be. Someday will be.

 

However I still thing there is a line between living life as morally, right, respective, reverently toward the creation that cause us to even ‘be’, as we can; vs. doing things with a wanton, callus disregard for it. And I still put intentionally defeating pollution controls on a vehicle in the latter category.

 

All I’m saying is when thinking about doing something like taking off a catalytic converter, for people to broaden their thinking beyond, ‘What’s in it for me’ to include, ‘What effect will this have on others?’ What each of us do DOES have an effect. The “Butterfly Effect” does exist. All the things we do are cumulative. Just because the additional pollution one causes by removing one cat from one bike is only 0.000001% of the total vehicle pollution created in a day, doesn’t mean that the pollution created by doing so doesn’t exist, or doesn’t matter.

 

I guess what it boils down to is that I’m a believer in the axiom that the needs of the many out weigh the wants of the one. And that should be a factor in all of our decisions.

[chrisstroh]

I'm sorry I asked.

[David]

Well I suppose I should define how I’m using the world “immoral.” I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in, nor am I saying “immoral” in the stereotypical sense of, “You do this ______ and you’re going to go to hell.” I’m saying “immoral” in the sense that as a member of this planet, this universe, along with everything else that is a part of it, we have a moral duty, responsibility, obligation, to treat it the best way possible. After all we are because it is. And we won’t continue to be if it isn’t. Use whatever personal belief one has to decide how it came to be, but it did, and without it, now and into the future, we won’t “be” at all to enjoy it. “We” as in the human race and our children, and our children’s children and on and on and on, possibly for eons yet. But we owe it to it and them. "It" IS "us". And actually I don’t think that philosophy is inconsistent with any major religion of the world either.

 

You don't believe in God, so this may not move you. But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

[Pilgrim]

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

 

Well, since you asked if I care . . .

 

I care about my family a very intense whole lot. I'd kill for them.

 

My friends (some of whom are on this board), a plain whole lot. I'd go out of my way to help 'em.

 

My neighbors, somewhat, at least the ones I know. I'd lend a hand at a barn-raising for 'em.

 

Strangers down the street, a bit - enough to chip in a little when they they need help.

 

The guy sitting at a keyboard in India, hardly at all (unless he happens to be logging my AmEx payment, in which case I just love him - for the moment.)

 

And the lizard in the rain forest, not one little bit. I'm glad he's there, but I won't miss him if he fades on me.

 

And don't get me started on the 3-gallon almost-flush toilet.

Later,

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

You don't believe in God, so this may not move you. But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

 

David, you are a piece of work, for sure.

 

Pilgrim

[KMG_365]

You don't believe in God, so this may not move you. But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

God, I hate it when people throw opinions out there without quoting their sources . . . .

[Larsen]

Unbelievable! I leave this Forum for almost 2 weeks and come back to find 120 replies regarding removing the Cat and still growing.

 

Ed,

Regarding your numbers, fuel weighs approx 6 lbs. per gal, not 8. Oil weighs approx 7.5 lbs. per gal, and water weighs approx 8.3 lbs. per gal, all subject to the OAT (Outside Air Temp). I'm amazed that with all the pilots in this group nobody caught this or I missed their replies.

 

Enjoy,

[Ken H.]

You don't believe in God, so this may not move you. But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

All that, and that's the only retort I get?

 

Man, now I'm going to have to go out and find another soapbox...

[Paul Mihalka]

My friends (some of whom are on this board), a plain whole lot. I'd go out of my way to help 'em. Pilgrim

I know that! WAY out of your way. Old story but I don't forget...

[smiller]

But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

So per God it's OK to remove your catalytic converter..?

[David]

But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

So per God it's OK to remove your catalytic converter..?

 

We were interrupted before I got a chance to ask Him. There was some skirmish in the background, prompted by a report on the increased levels of heat in hell. Apparently there are no catalytic converters in use down there, and they are wanting to determine if there's a connection between the absence of catalytic converters and the rising heat levels. Or whether "global" warming should even include that region.

 

I understand that Ken is in a bit of trouble, too--not so much for his atheist stance, but because he was caught mixing E85 and racing unleaded in his POS pickup truck. The smirk caught on the station's camera has really pissed Him off.

[steveknapp]

Ya'll need diversity training.

 

It's can't be OK to do the things you enjoy but immoral for others to do the things they enjoy.

 

You can't hype the "butterfly effect" of removing one cat, but disown the impact that your existance, much less riding thousands of miles a year, has no impact.

[smiller]

It's can't be OK to do the things you enjoy but immoral for others to do the things they enjoy.

 

Yes, that right is reserved for politicians.

[Ken H.]

disown the impact that your existance, much less riding thousands of miles a year, has no impact.

Where in the heck did I say that???

[peterbulgar]

You don't believe in God, so this may not move you. But I checked with my sources, and apparently God is okay with a little waste and enjoyment, and apparently did a lot of it himself. So knock yourself out.

OK, I'm really confused. I accidently stumbled onto this religious discussion when I was looking up something on motorcycles. FWIW I let our cat out in the morning and the evening, but I've never seen any horses around. A few miles away on the Great Highway by the ocean there is a riding stable that has horses, but I doubt that our cat gets that far from home.

Peter

San Francisco

'73 R75/5, '04 R1150RA

[chrisstroh]

ok, ok, this is gone far enough. I posted this question and every time I think it's going to end, IT KEEPS GOING! Any one else want to add their 2 cents worth? God has had his so how bout you?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

ok, ok, this is gone far enough. I posted this question and every time I think it's going to end, IT KEEPS GOING! Any one else want to add their 2 cents worth? God has had his so how bout you?

 

You posted a controversial question with technical, moral, philosophical, environmental, legal and political aspects to a discussion board with over 10,000 members. Don't tell me you didn't expect a whole lot of feedback!

[JamesW]

OK, God might get me for removing my cat (not yet accomplished) but I have hit on a plan. All these many replys to this thread have made me think so I am going to take a little trip on the first nice couple of days this spring down hwy 101 south of the border to Eureka, CA and have a pollution control inspection done on the blue beast. I believe that this should satisfy legal requirements that pertain to modifications to vehicle emission control systems. Of course if the machine fails inspection I shall head straight away to the nearest beemer dealer and have installed a new muffler/cat system. Oh, and my apologies for continuing this thread.

[JamesW]

Should have mentioned that I'm going down to CA for an emissions test because I don't know where to have this done in Oregon at least not in my area. Oh, just got a call from the machine shop and the deed is done.

 

p.s. I promise no more replys at least not from little ol' me.

[steve.foote]

Of course if the machine fails inspection I shall head straight away to the nearest beemer dealer and have installed a new muffler/cat system.

 

Have you priced one of those lately?

[JamesW]

Rightspin, I got a bridge I'll sell and it's in Brooklyn

 

By the way, the exact weight of the catalytic element is not 7 lbs or 20 lbs it is exactly 2 lbs 2 ozs.