Letters
LETTERS
THE EPA SPEAKS OUT
Your August “Roundup” column discussed the Environmental Protection Agency’s planned noise emission regulations for motorcycles and contains several inaccuracies which should be brought to your readers’ attention. The column would seem somewhat premature since, contrary to statements which were made, the Agency has not yet proposed motorcycle noise standards. Further, the noise emission levels which are referred to as proposed standards are instead the lowest study levels used to investigate a broad spectrum of quieting technology as required of us by the Noise Control Act. These lowest levels represent the greatest sound reduction that might be technologically feasible over the next several decades, and are not necessarily the levels which EPA will propose as noise emission standards. As required by the Noise Control Act, the Agency in setting standards must also take into account “costs of compliance,” which include not only purchase price increases, but operation and maintenance costs and performance and styling impacts as well.
Proposed motorcycle noise regulations are expected to be published within the next several months. We have not, as you stated, “appointed” ourselves to do anything. This office is administering a law the responsibility for which Congress has assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In carrying out this requirement, as with all of EPA’s regulatory actions, it is our wish to stimulate a constructive public debate on this important rulemaking. Once the motorcycle noise regulations are proposed we hope you will run an additional article describing the relevant provisions for your readers’ information.
Henry E. Thomas. Director,
Standards and Regulations Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
The distinction between “proposed”standards and “study levels” is a subtle and, as it’s employed here, rather slippery one. The point is that the decibel limits we quoted—83 for 1979-'80, decreasing to 75 some years down the pike—were floated by the EPA as a trial balloon. Our reaction is that insofar as the issue of vehicle noise is concerned, the EPA is attacking only a tiny part of the problem in attempting to smother motorcycles, which constitute about one percent of the total trajflc stream. We further feel that the numbers cited above are unreasonable, whether they're study levels or proposals or actual regulations. There are indeed motorcycles on the roads that produce excessive noise, but they constitute only a tiny percentage of all motorcycles and are certainly not representative of the sound levels produced by new machines. They become noisy only because their owners wish them to be so. If there's any need for regulation it should be aimed at a tiny segment of the aftermarket, not the industry itself.
A ll things considered, we think this whole issue is a waste of time and public funds. The EPA may indeed be responsible for administering the law, but we believe there is considerable room to question the agency's methods, latitude and priorities.
GOLD WINGERS
I bought a Honda GL1000 in April 1976. In July with 2100 miles on the bike, my wife and I loaded the king-size Bates
continued on page 14
continued from page 10
saddlebags with clothing, strapped two king-size sleeping bags and a tent on the luggage rack, and loaded the Vetter Windjammer with foul weather gear and toilet articles.
We spent 13 days on the road, with a total of 8700 miles and $178 for gas. In September I rode 3500 miles to Des Moines, Iowa and back, $51 for gas. We ride the bike on weekends and tell everyone about the trips.
The GL1000 has 16,000 miles on the odometer and I haven’t changed the plugs as they look like new and we do get 39.6 miles per gallon on a trip. I can’t say anything against the GL as a touring bike; it may be a little heavy for city use. I change the oil and filter every 5000 miles and I haven’t added any oil between changes. The front tire was changed once and the rear tire twice, but I weigh 300, my wife 125, so the load on two wheels is more than 1200 pounds. For two people it is the only way to go.
Tiny & Linda Port Charlotte, Fla.
TRIUMPHS DON’T LEAK OIL?
Enjoyed your column in the April issue, except for one sentence, “Now the latest Triumphs don’t leak oil . . .” The truth is, some do and some don’t so much. I purchased a 1975 Triumph a year ago. It leaked badly, not just dribbled on the garage floor. It also has always used oil at a rate of 200 miles per quart. Triumph refused to do anything under warranty. The leakage has become so bad that I can’t ride it. Oil sprays back to the back disc pads rendering the back brake ineffective, and even gets on the tire making a ride on this bike something like ice racing which I do in the winter but with spikes in the tires. I’ve met other Trident owners who had the same problem. Only one got his fixed after threatening law suit. The fix was a complete rebuilding of the engine and resurfacing bottom end covers. So now, I am taking this outfit to court and I must say I hope I win. While my new bike sits in the garage, I had to resurrect my old T500 with 45,000 miles on it. But it runs!
Ed Armstrong Fox River Grove, 111.
JAPANESE BIKE PRICES
In your September issue, a very interesting point was made in “Roundup” about Harley-Davidson accusing the Japanese Big Four of dumping, or unfair pricing tactics.
I am the owner of a 1976 Honda GL1000. In February 1976 I purchased this bike for $2695 which didn’t include the Windjammer fairing, the Bates bags, continued on page 18
continued from page 14
highway bars, custom seat, etc. I have about an extra $500 in this machine, which would bring its total value to about $3200. This does not include the eight-track tape player, or the CB set, or the pullback handle bars, or the cruise control.
About three months ago, I hurt my back, and am selling my bike, under orders from my doctor. Today I found out that my 1976 GL1000 has a value of about $1700 stripped. With all the optional goodies on it, I might be able to get $2295 for it if I am lucky.
A loan company or a bank will lend only $1000 on a used 1976 Honda GL 1000 no matter how immaculate the bike.
The point I am making is that Honda Motors will tell you you pay so much for the GL because it is the Rolls Royce of the road and that there is no other bike like it. Yet after you buy it they cut your throat and sell someone else a 1977 GL for $2295.
Look at the newspaper ads and see how cheap you can buy a 1977 GL from some Honda dealers. Yet all the dealers are screaming that they can’t get their hands on new GLs and that they are selling them as fast as they get them. For those kind of prices, I can see why.
Try to trade your used GL1000 in on a new GL. They, the dealers, will tell you to your face that they don’t want the used bike and that they could never get rid of it. They know the value of the used bike is so low they wouldn’t make any money off them.
People who bought new bikes in 1975 and 1976 are the ones that were bent over the barrel. Yes sir, Honda saw us coming and they laughed all the way to the bank.
I used to be an avid Harley rider before I sat astride that big Honda and I also thought that I would never in my lifetime go back to one of those beasts but after seeing what Honda thinks about the people who buy their machines, and how they can cut your throat, I must stand in line with Harley-Davidson and point an accusing finger at the Japanese Big Four. I will never buy a Japanese bike again.
Edward J. Loomis
Bethel, Minn.
