Does anybody know why on earth 90% of green plates I see on the road are releasing what I guess is a forbidden amount of black smoke? and why 90% of times I see a motorbike leaving that back trace on the air… it´s a green plate? really, don´t get it. Are they specially crappy?
50cc’s are usually two-stroke engines, which are inherently more smoky and wear more quickly. But basically, nobody thinks public health is important enough to enforce emissions regulations.
+1 on Finley’s post. I see a lot of black smoke coming from all sorts of vehicles. It’s a shame and bad for the public health, it is actually illegal, but no one enforces it.
the 50CC and below 2 strokers are usually 1/2/3 classed eco vehciles (its up to eco 5 now)
the HC value they can release till the yellow/ red limit is atrocious and BTW if u see a smoker, it isnt even guarenteed to flunk the eco test …
it makes enforcing the law VERY difficult. The govement’s stance sadly is to outlaw production and wait for the old vechiles parts to dissappear …
leaving them owners to buy a newer more eco friendly vechile… :loco:
Friend of mine carry around glue gun sticks and shove em down smokers … its the same as a potato in a tailpipe
2-strokes are pretty rare these days, definitely more things to worry about than this, they seem to be almost extinct.
Not really. All the Suzuki 125cc that the heavy duty guys are using for carrying gas bottles are 2 strokes as well. And if those green plates are 2s as well, then definitively you have plenty s2 on Taipei.
Not really. All the Suzuki 125cc that the heavy duty guys are using for carrying gas bottles are 2 strokes as well. And if those green plates are 2s as well, then definitively you have plenty s2 on Taipei.[/quote]
Yeah 2-strokes are done! Of course in years to come you will always see the odd one that hasn’t died yet, but I bet in the next 10 years you will rarely see them at all here in TW (that is still a long time though.) It will take a while for them to get phased out. You can’t buy them new anymore anyway. Yeah you do still see a lot of those gas bottle guys that ride the old Suzuki BS 125’s around, but not too many other 2 stroke motorcycles. I see the odd Honda NSR around town though. I do still see a ton of 50cc 2-strokers around town, but almost 90% of them are on their last leg. 2-strokes are so much fun, I just wish they didn’t pollute so much.
I ride a 2 stroke Yamaha RZR and wouldn’t trade it for anything…well maybe. The smoke gives me lots of room at traffic lights :discodance:
You can be responsible with two strokes with proper maintenance and the occasional rebuild.
Problem is, the Taiwanese definition of “last legs” is different to ours. I’ve seen granddad puttering around on the two-stroke he bought to celebrate losing his cherry back in 1969, knackered old engine just barely able to turn the wheels at 3mph, more smoke than a Chinese coal-fired power station, and most likely consuming 30 litres per mile. If he just bloody bought a new one, he’s probably save a fortune on fuel costs.
30 years ago two-strokes had a certain performance advantage. With more advanced engine management, I would have thought a four-stroke performs better; much better. Unfortunately there are very few scooters on the Taiwan market with proper engine control systems.
Fortunately/unfortunately 2 strokes are more powerful (for the same size engine and more) and more fun…but i sound like a weed-whacker when I’m ripping around.
Show me. I’d be interested to know.
I can’t prove it - just my gut feeling. Remember any heat engine has a non-flat torque curve anyway (ditto for efficiency), so it depends where on the curve you’re comparing. The point about a two-stroke is that it gives good performance with the absolute minimum number of mechanical parts and a compact size, but the two-stroke’s performance characteristics are defined entirely by its construction. OTOH a computer-controlled four-stroke has performance defined by its software. If you had a 125cc fuel-injected four-stroke with an ECU, and a bog-standard 125cc 2-stroke next to it, the four-stroke would inevitably have much better efficiency across most of its operating range (speed/torque). If you needed a slightly bigger cylinder capacity (say, 150cc) to achieve the same peak power output (you might, because of the powered valves and actuators), what of it? It’s fuel-energy-in vs. mechanical-energy-out that matters.
I can’t prove it - just my gut feeling. Remember any heat engine has a non-flat torque curve anyway (ditto for efficiency), so it depends where on the curve you’re comparing. The point about a two-stroke is that it gives good performance with the absolute minimum number of mechanical parts and a compact size, but the two-stroke’s performance characteristics are defined entirely by its construction. OTOH a computer-controlled four-stroke has performance defined by its software. If you had a 125cc fuel-injected four-stroke with an ECU, and a bog-standard 125cc 2-stroke next to it, the four-stroke would inevitably have much better efficiency across most of its operating range (speed/torque). If you needed a slightly bigger cylinder capacity (say, 150cc) to achieve the same peak power output (you might, because of the powered valves and actuators), what of it? It’s fuel-energy-in vs. mechanical-energy-out that matters.[/quote]
Think you might be thinking of “performance” in terms alien to the average biker (efficiency? wha?).
Power-weight ratio is likely to be the dominant consideration here, and in those terms the 2-stroke is tough to beat, however much tech you pile on to the 4-stroke
[quote]Think you might be thinking of “performance” in terms alien to the average biker (efficiency? wha?).
Power-weight ratio is likely to be the dominant consideration here, and in those terms the 2-stroke is tough to beat, however much tech you pile on to the 4-stroke[/quote]
Sure, but we were talking about road bikes (smoky or otherwise), not motocross. I found a couple of charts on the internets - you’re right, there’s a really significant performance difference for a given engine size. This is a 2-stroke YZ250:
The heavier lines are tuned-up performance.
This is a 4-stroke CRF250, with all the electronics:
Basically, the 2-stroke has 50% more grunt than the 4-stroke. Both machines have the same kerb weight. I must say I’m surprised - I was expecting a much smaller difference (20% maybe).
If you wanted to get the same performance out of the 4-stroke, you’d have to make it a 400cc, which is obviously bigger and heavier, but I’d guess it would still burn less fuel than the 2-stroke 250cc for a given mechanical energy output, and would definitely pollute a lot less. In a competition context, you don’t care about that, but on the road, I’d rather have the 400cc machine.
As much as I dislike following a cloud when in traffic, and as much as I always advise people to keep their vehicles well maintained, I will say something in the defense of two-stroke users.
Some two-strokes blow smoke as they are worn. Many two-strokes blow smoke as their exhausts don’t heat up enough during short, stop-start rides. The spent oil condenses inside the exhaust, and then stays there, until it becomes reasonably warm, at which point it begins to kindle, releasing lots of nasty black or blue smoke. This is an issue with many designs of two stroke engines, and I myself used to suffer this on my brand new 50cc Kymco, many moons ago.
Also, two stroke owners shouldn’t be punished for owning two-strokes. This is a double edged argument, as they are in fact encouraged in some instances to run two strokes over four strokes.
Firstly, you can’t punish someone for running a vehicle which was encouraged to be sold before they were discontinued. It’s a grandfather ruling in this case, that two stroke owners can still pollute more heavily than four strokes because they simply purchased their machines before the government banned further production of them.
The next, brilliant thing that the government did was to raise taxation on larger four strokes. This basically prevented users like gas bottle companies from purchasing reasonably priced four stroke motorcycles, which could compete with the power demands, that their smaller two strokes could produce. Still many gas bottle companies today are running outdated tech, not because they want to, but because the government, through it’s clever regulation make it too expensive for them to switch.
Next we have my favourite, and least popular argument of all. All motor vehicles pollute. If you want to reduce pollution, then kill yourself. Nothing short of this action will reduce your impact on the health of others and the further production of pollution. Everything is relative!
Next we have my favourite, and least popular argument of all. All motor vehicles pollute. If you want to reduce pollution, then kill yourself. Nothing short of this action will reduce your impact on the health of others and the further production of pollution. Everything is relative![/quote]
You keep saying this, Mr S, and AFAIK no one has yet pointed out that what you are saying is quite clearly bollocks.
I wouldn’t myself, but I have work to do, so even this unpleasant duty is a welcome distraction.
You make an (incorrect) absolute statement, then you follow it with the contradictory statement that everything is relative :aiyo:
“Nothing short of this action will [strike]reduce[/strike] [color=#FF0000]eliminate[/color] your impact on the health of others and the further production of pollution. [strike]Ever[/strike][color=#FF0000]Any[/color]thing [color=#FF0000]else[/color] is [color=#FF0000]merely a [/color]relative [color=#FF0000]improvement!”[/color]
Fixed it for ya
“clearly bollocks” seems an odd choice of words from someone who prides themselves with being such a linguist
Yes, absolute and relative are used in my statement, as they are both relevant. You live or die absolutely, or agree that you can only make relative adjustments to your existence, and your effect on others. Seeing as we’re all going extinct anyway, I don’t see how pollution makes any difference to the grand scheme of things.
I use the word “reduce” in my “Nothing short…” sentence, as I think it correctly identifies the term which people spout about every day when it comes to these topics. The world’s people are always trying to “reduce pollution”, “save the planet”, “go green”, and none of these make any sense at all to me.
Is it the fear of dying, an awful affliction which much of people-kind suffer from, which causes people to always flinch so hard when it comes to the subject of pollution, or is it plain marketing which has the oddest affect of actually convincing people that they need to pollute more, so that they can pollute less?
I must apologize, as I have never managed to understand how people’s minds actually come to the conclusion that somehow by reducing tail pipe emissions, that the world is somehow better, than it was when we weren’t here.
There are literally thousands of ways any person can “reduce pollution” and yet most people I know, and I’d put money on almost everyone here, doing a hell of a lot in the opposite direction.
Tail pipe emissions are an easy get out, and a great marketing strategy.
Show me an unselfish person who does everything they can to reduce their pollution output and their affect on the rest of nature, and I’ll show you a dead person.
People who talk about reducing pollution love tag lines, love easy get-outs. They love promoting recycled shoes, hemp paper, catalytic convertors, and fur free coats.
They completely ignore however that they are still either burning oil when they consume more food, so that they can cycle everywhere, or burn more fuel by purchasing a car with a catalytic convertor. Fur coats? Well if seals were effectively farmed, then there would likely be a population explosion, and then we could have all the fur we wanted. I don’t see cows going extinct as long as we’re around. Hemp paper is certainly a more effective way of producing paper, but then again…Does it matter? I would quite enjoy some of the hemp related pollution which can be found in much of Europe. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone slapping a catalyst on that!
our method is to not insure or get tested for pollution and take that money to fix it when its getting worn out and not smoking. i bet you of the 90% you talk about, 85% of them are already expired and probably not insured. i find embarrassing htem gently works best. dont say anything just cover your face in your shirt and cower away. i have seen some people actually go get it fixed after having people say something to them. shaming people, teachers are onto something.
“clearly bollocks” seems an odd choice of words from someone who prides themselves with being such a linguist [/quote]
Like crystal balls, very useful for making environmental predictions, especially if you think what’s coming is going to fuck things up.
And I dont "pride myself [strike]with[/strike] on being such a linguist " (though I am THE PRINCE OF PEDANTRY). I only speak/write English.
I’m afraid if I learn to speak/write Chinese it’ll destroy my ability to think. (Look around).
This is true. That’s why my “fixed” version says that.
Your original version, OTOH,wasn’t, and didn’t.
Though its true that being alive inevitably has negative environmental impact, one clearly can modify ones behaviour in ways that reduce this.
The fact that many politically sponsored “environmental” policies are stupid or counter-productive doesn’t invalidate that basic fact.
If you can’t be arsed, you’re a member of a very large club, which nearly everyone belongs to at least some of the time, but that doesn’t invalidate it either.
I don’t agree with this premise.
reducing inevitability in my book is a misnomer.
Some may argue that enjoying one’s life while we still have it is a goal, and that reducing pollution is a way of doing that. My belief on the other hand is that producing pollution can have the same effect. Not for the sake of it perhaps, but the production of pollution, by maintaining one’s existence, is a fact and cannot be done away with. This is why I think that the pollution argument doesn’t stand. I pollute myself with alcohol, cigarettes and food. I pollute others with all sorts of deadly concoctions, whether be it on purpose, or coincidently. I can’t help this, but you may blame my parents perhaps for having me. I will continue to do this until I die, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
I don’t let myself completely off the hook however, and I do admit that I have my own personal hangups. I don’t like it, for example that anyone wishes to smoke in my abode. I don’t like the after-odor. Is this someone else’s problem or mine? I would say it’s my issue, and that there is little I can do about it. It’s a personal preference. I don’t know where I got it from, but I can’t ignore it either. I do accept however, that it’s my own issue. I even take this issue up with others. It’s my problem though, and I know it.
I’m not bullet proof when it comes to these types of philosophies, but I do keep reminding myself of the facts which present themselves, and I try to remind others.
Usually, if there’s a way I can go without pissing someone off, then that’s the way I take when it comes to many things, but I am alive, and I will continue to be selfish, as long as I live, and I expect everyone else will too.