Comments on: The EPA vs. Motocross http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/04/the-epa-vs-motocross/ The source for two stroke News, Tech and Tips. Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:12:10 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Four-Stroke Revolution or Clever Marketing Ploy :: twostrokemotocross.com http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/04/the-epa-vs-motocross/comment-page-1/#comment-389 Four-Stroke Revolution or Clever Marketing Ploy :: twostrokemotocross.com Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:02:59 +0000 http://twostrokemotocross.com/?p=936#comment-389 [...] To read more about the EPA regulations click here EPA vs Motocross [...] [...] To read more about the EPA regulations click here EPA vs Motocross [...]

]]> By: The General http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/04/the-epa-vs-motocross/comment-page-1/#comment-247 The General Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:02:09 +0000 http://twostrokemotocross.com/?p=936#comment-247 "The EPA has a lot to answer for." My feeling is that the manufacturers are the ones that have a lot to answer for. They had the opportunity to build two strokes that could and would meet the EPA regulations back in the 1990's when this legislation was first talked about, before it was introduced. Even Honda motor company was working on clean two strokes as shown in this article http://twostrokemotocross.com/2008/11/honda-exp-2-the-return-of-two-strokes/ They had the ability to build clean two strokes, it's just that they chose to change over to four-strokes. The only way this was even possible in motocross was the absurd rule allowing four-strokes a double displacement advantage over the two-strokes. When skunks works builders are able to come up with solutions for the emissions problems, it is obvious that the major motorcycle manufacturers could have done it as well. If not better. “The EPA has a lot to answer for.”

My feeling is that the manufacturers are the ones that have a lot to answer for.

They had the opportunity to build two strokes that could and would meet the EPA regulations back in the 1990’s when this legislation was first talked about, before it was introduced.

Even Honda motor company was working on clean two strokes as shown in this article http://twostrokemotocross.com/2008/11/honda-exp-2-the-return-of-two-strokes/

They had the ability to build clean two strokes, it’s just that they chose to change over to four-strokes. The only way this was even possible in motocross was the absurd rule allowing four-strokes a double displacement advantage over the two-strokes.

When skunks works builders are able to come up with solutions for the emissions problems, it is obvious that the major motorcycle manufacturers could have done it as well. If not better.

]]> By: VintageBlueSmoke http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/04/the-epa-vs-motocross/comment-page-1/#comment-246 VintageBlueSmoke Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:57:49 +0000 http://twostrokemotocross.com/?p=936#comment-246 Excellent post. I have said before (in our conversations) they (the EPA) should "set a standard and then allow the manufacturers to develope to meet that standard" and they should do it "incrementally". This aquates to chopping us off at the knees. They didn't do this to the auto industry, the electrical industry, or the chemical industry. They set a long term goal and incremental standards to meet. They should do the same for off-road enthusiasts as well. In addition, the race organizers (AMA) should enforce a (the) standard to encourage the aftermarket to provide higher HP yet cleaner products. Just like the noise issue with four strokes today, it rests in the hands of the racing promoters to ensure race bikes are quiet, thus the technology will trickle to non-race machines. Alas, I'm repeating myself. I think I'll go ride... Excellent post. I have said before (in our conversations) they (the EPA) should “set a standard and then allow the manufacturers to develope to meet that standard” and they should do it “incrementally”. This aquates to chopping us off at the knees. They didn’t do this to the auto industry, the electrical industry, or the chemical industry. They set a long term goal and incremental standards to meet. They should do the same for off-road enthusiasts as well.

In addition, the race organizers (AMA) should enforce a (the) standard to encourage the aftermarket to provide higher HP yet cleaner products. Just like the noise issue with four strokes today, it rests in the hands of the racing promoters to ensure race bikes are quiet, thus the technology will trickle to non-race machines.

Alas, I’m repeating myself. I think I’ll go ride…

]]> By: dishman http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/04/the-epa-vs-motocross/comment-page-1/#comment-245 dishman Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:39:53 +0000 http://twostrokemotocross.com/?p=936#comment-245 Agree wholeheartedly, it was never explained why the sudden rush to outlaw 2 strokes, the 500's were the first fatalities and the main reason why I find the current open-class events MX so boring and so bloody loud. Hence I simply don't bother watching. The EPA has a lot to answer for. Agree wholeheartedly, it was never explained why the sudden rush to outlaw 2 strokes, the 500’s were the first fatalities and the main reason why I find the current open-class events MX so boring and so bloody loud. Hence I simply don’t bother watching. The EPA has a lot to answer for.

]]>