New EU

[Clive1340]

   Everybody should check out the new proposals from the EU re motorbikes, very scary stuff.

[AyJay]

Deeply scary proposals. Forums like this will not exist in a couple of years time because if the anti tampering legislation goes through, we will not be able to modify our machines in any meaningful way. And as we all know, virtually every bike on the market can be made better, be it by engine mods, chassis mods or comfort mods like higher screens. What would be the point of a forum if all we do is sit here and say 'yeah, great bike, pity I can't fit an Ivan's jet kit to sort the fuelling"? And just imagine how many people in the aftermarket trade will be put out of business? Doesn't bear thinking about.


MCN had an article about it


http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/September/sep0511-bikers-asked-for-views-on-anti-tampering-plans/


and I immediately went to


http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-26


downloaded the form and sent it off with my comments. It is something everyone on the forum should do. It takes a good half hour, but it'll be way more effective if a few hundred people from here fill this in rather than take part in MAG rideouts. I have to say, it is utter tedious bollocks and the pdf about the proposals is an insomniac's best friend, but be in no doubt, it is the best contribution we can make to the fight right now.


Frankly, last weekend's MAG rideout was about making us as bikers feel better, but actually it will achieve precisely zero with regard to changing Brussels bureaucrat's minds.  A demo might publicise the threat of proposals to other bikers here in the UK, but unless we all start emailing MPs, Euro MEPs and start filling in consultation forms like these, the proposals will go through in the blink of an eye.


Seriously, imagine not being able to change anything beyond the trivial (such as your seat) on a bike. Not handlebars, not tyres, not exhaust, not brakes. Nothing of any functional benefit. Oh, and of course, the on board diagnostics will add cost and be a real spy in the cab - it will log everything you get up to . . . mind you, it might for once put the lie that speed kills to bed when they find out how fast we really ride. Ahem.

[solorider]

to be honest some of the new rules have been coming in over the last few years,most modern bikes have OBD diognostics anyway,but there is no set standard like there is on cars so that in its own is a good idea,but only for fault finding and fitting electrical assesories,the exhaust emisions is something that will go the same way as cars in that the bike could fail if the emmisions are high,but you could only test modern bikes as most older bikes will show a rich mixture at idle.why they are targeting bikes in the anti tamper rules i do not know,there was rumors that this was going to affect cars as well so you had to go to a garage to service your vehicle,in some cases this could be a good thing as there are a lot of cowboys out there,but it is not fair on the majority who know what they are doing,as to the older bike fitting a free flowing exhaust can be a good thing as most jap bikes run slightly rich anyway (bikes with carbs) so a race can actualy lowers the emisions so that is a good thing not that those in brussels see though.end of the day you should be free to do what you want to your vehicle as and when you want to

[PieEater]

Forums like this will not exist in a couple of years time ......we will not be able to modify our machines in any meaningful way......

From what I've read the propsals are not due to come into effect until 2015 and will only effect bikes manufactured from when the proposals are enforced. I believe that manufactures are already pre-emptively attempting to introduce emission reducing technology which may exceed these requirements making the proposed legislation redundant. Add to that the instability of the EU I'm not sure that in 4 years time they may have bigger concerns to worry about. I'd be grateful if someone could point out where the proposals suggest that vehicles manufactured before 2015 cannot be modified. In all honesty with 185 BHP and all the elctronic aids you could wish for currently available I don't think another 4 years development is going to produce motorcycles that need a great deal of modifications that will negatively effect emissions.

[AyJay]

Hi Pie Eater - It's not modification of vehicles from before 2015 I'm worried about. I'll probably have another bike then, but as with all bikes, I will modify it in some way. Suppose I have the 2015 Fazer with the crossplane crank and for whatever reason, I want to change it?


From the Government paper included in the consultation document:


"35.   Advanced braking has the potential to reduce injury accidents by 1655 annually in the UK, saving over £234 million, when fitted to all motorcycles. However, it can also significantly increase the cost of entry level vehicles. The Government will seek to ensure lower cost alternatives are permitted in these cases. Anti-tampering measures are intended to prevent user modifications that increase pollutant emissions or reduce functional safety. While there is some justification where vehicle performance is intentionally restricted, e.g. vehicles intended for learner riders, there is no evidence that anti tampering offers benefits for larger machines. The Government therefore opposes a blanket anti tampering measure."


I hate it when government's say things like 'saving over £234 million'. That's some pencil pushers projection, and even if it's taken 10 years of research to come up with that figure, it will be wrong.


Good to know that the UK government is opposed though. Will that be enough in the face of the EU? I think not ..


"24.   The proposal requires measures to prevent tampering of a vehicle's power-train with the aim of preventing modifications that may prejudice safety and to prevent damage to the environment. Details of the measures are not included in the proposal and will be laid down later in a delegated act."


So, there is a suggestion that the detail legislation will be up to member states, too, but . . .


The EU is a machine for creating legislation, a lot of which is not scrutinised by any elected official. Car safety has been radically improved over the last 20 years not by legislation but by manufacturers - eg Jaguar and disk brakes and then Mercedes and ABS dropped the accident rate hugely, Max Mosely and ENCAP did great work improving survivability with improved safety cells and secondary safety systems. They were all ahead of legislation.


The fact is, the manufacturers don't need legislation to improve safety and emissions, they do it anyway because it sells product. To give a biking example, Dainese's airbag leathers haven't come into existence because of legislation, it's because Dainese want to save lives. And if it wasn't for catalytic converters, cars would be cleaner than they are now because so much development time was diverted from other better technologies such as stratified charge engines like Honda's CVCC. I see no reason that bike manufacturers won't add ABS and improve emissions and mpg without legislation. We should let them get on with it instead of imposing faulty and costly legislation on them.


Brussel's has become a system that serves only itself.


The trouble is, manufacturers are going to be forced to spend a great deal of money on creating bikes which meet these regs for some markets, and I worry that this will mean that they will go for the lowest common denominator and build a single bike for all markets - ie the anti tamper version. There are many current bikes hovering around the 100bhp mark which would possibly have had more power if it were not for France's current 100bhp limit. For example, the last 10 years of VFRs, the current Suzuki GSR 750, ZX 750 and so on, are all built to hover around that limit, so we already have an idea of where this kind of legislation will lead.


Secondly, the idea that future bikes will not require aftermarket add ons and that we should be satisfied with whatever performance we're given will not be born out by reality. For instance, take a look at the dyno graph on the Akrapovic site for the VFR1200, a bike designed very recently and designed to be the template for many more big Hondas.


http://www.akrapovic.com/motorcycle-exhaust/products/honda/model/vfr-1200f-2010/slip-on-1b758943d8/


Now, compare that torque curve with that of say . . an Ivanised Fazer ...  which has a very flat curve with no whacking great holes in the delivery. The difference is immense.


The VFR1200 has a truly appalling torque curve. I've ridden it, and since all of those troughs and peaks are in the 30-90mph range, it makes the bike really unpleasant to ride. Open the throttle and sometimes you get drive, sometimes you don't. Is that satisfying, is that safe? 170bhp and my Fazer is easily the match for it in a roll on.


Honestly, it is the worst developed torque curve of any new bike made in the last decade, and even makes the standard Gen II torque curve look good! Both bikes could usefully employ a PCIII with a modified fuel map to make them better machines. That will be outlawed by this legislation because it directly affects both performance and emissions.


As I said, virtually all bikes can be improved with aftermarket goodies and the idea that bikes made in the future will be so good as to need no mods is a pipe dream. And what if you want to upgrade the braking system? ABS and OBD will make that impossible too, and it certainly means the end of specials. Ivan, Powercommander, KTech, Ohlins and the rest can kiss their businesses goodbye if this goes through.


Lastly, suppose all new bikes, scooters and EVs are forced to have this technology. It won't be cheap and although it will come down in price, there will always be an up front cost. Right now, a cheap Honda 125 scoot is around 1800 quid but it will doubtless be more expensive in coming years. Now imagine you're 18 - how are you going to afford to buy a scoot or a bike? EU legislation is creating an increased cost for entry to the motorised world for young people. It's getting to the point where anyone 18-23 cannot legally afford private transport and raising that barrier to entry is a rotten thing to do to the young. . .


Course, what actually happens is that they just buy a cheap car and 'forget' the insurance which is why there are 3 million uninsured drivers on the road. What an idiotic system we're creating when it's so expensive to get wheels that we effectively outlaw 3 million people.

[PieEater]

I can't see the situation changing that radically from how it is now ie. the only way the legislation is policed is by making sure bikes leave the manufacturers meeting the rules and then checking the relevent systems annualy as part of the MOT. Any anti-tamper electronics will just mean a new market for plug in devices that enable owners to continue to mod their bikes to sort out the fuelling etc. As now come MOT time any 'naughty' bits will be removed and refitted the day after.

Wanting to sell bikes manufacturers are going to have to meet the legislation whilst still producing bikes people want, and if that means bikes that can have a Power Commander attached then I'm sure they're not goint to go out of their way to make this impossible.

[locksmith]

Why is this tucked away in the thou section and not in general 

[Farjo]

There was a post on the old board, and a lot of publicity about the protest ride MAG had

[pinkbikerfzs1]

Could'nt some of our more highly educated members rustle up some outline responses for us lesser mortals, please don't think I'm generalising here, but as it affects me, and all my motorcycling brotherhood, I've had a look at the proposals, and to be honest, I'm a bit overwhelmed with them, but wishing to add my response in a formative way, I need some help? The idea that we could at least put up some form of "protest" at this level seems to be a way to go. Otherwise i can see us being landed with all alike looking machines, whisper quiet and with breathable exhaust fumes! Just look at the modern car, all lookee likee! My car is so quiet when moving around car parks at low speed, pedestrians just veer in front cos they don't hear me coming, hence all my bikes run with the noisiest exhaust I can get away with!!

[bludclot]

 
i find that i cannot agree with the majority interpretation of these proposals:
 
technically (i.e. from a legal point of view (and from a councours judge point of view)) it is impossible to stop owners modifying their own vehicles. technically a vehicle is modified every time it is used - a stone caught in a tyre tread groove was not put there by the designer or manufacturer hence the vehicle is user modified. as soon as any super-tight anti-tampering legislation is challenged in court it will be argued away. we cannot have a situation whereby an owner drops a bike in a car park and breaks a screen and scratches various areas and then cannot legally pick it up and ride away because the thing is modified, it would be un-enforceable and plain lunacy.
 
tighter controls on vehicles are inevitable due to increasing numbers. if there were only 5 vehicles in the entire country then it wouldn't matter how much they pollute, 30 million however (est. uk otr vehicles) require some reasonably tight controls to allow us all to travel together without clogging up our air and making so much noise as to make life unbearable. granted there's been some misguided directions taken but generally we as a society have managed to increase vehicle numbers and usage while maintaining reasonable traffic flow and pollution levels. for this we should be thankful but also appreciate that increased legislation is unavoidable in order to maintain current air quality levels. (the alternaitve is to scale down vehicle production...)
 
our stated government response to the eu proposals reeks of considered reason to me. if i had to respond to the proposals myself as laid out so far i could not do so any better. the anti-tampering bit that seems to have so many throwing their hands in the air is yet to be outlined, therefore any properly structured and reasoned response cannot yet be made. no ruling body in their right mind will legislate away a complete industry (i.e. the aftermarket parts producers, retailers etc) overnight, if only for purely economic reasons. plus, as pieeater so correctly says, a new industry in plug-in workarounds will surely emerge.
 
the situation in belgium (i believe) whereby car engine modification is illegal has not stifled the modifying scene - it is alive and healthy and has taken its own direction. so even if anti-tampering laws are attempted it will not stop modification.
 
i am not saying that i welcome the proposals but i am saying that they are inevitable and necessary. the governments and manufacturers of this world should be working together after all, in order to give us, the buying public, vehicles that we want and are realistically useable without alienating (or poisoning!) other society members.
 
i choose, therefore, not to protest these proposals at this point.
 
bludclot.