Silencer marked 'Competition only'

[SteveKTMer]

black-k1 said:

SteveKTMer said:

I wish aftermarket cans were illegal - now, not at some point in the future, when they inevitably will be illegal. It's ruining biking for the rest of us.

I think that assuming all after market cans are loud and all loud cans are aftermarket is too simplistic. There a lots of good aftermarket cans that are no more or only slightly louder than standard and any standard can can easily be made to be extremly offensive.

And who or what would decide which accessory it too noisy and which is acceptable ?

They are all going to be banned in the future anyway because the bike industry is incapable of self regulation. I think bike manufacturers will still make different style cans, like my Akropovic on my KTM, which is really just a different version of the standard can and is sold with new bikes by the dealers.

There's also no need for aftermarket cans either these days, my bike makes over 170 bhp with the catalysts in place and the stock exhaust with the KTM badged Akro, and yours which although having a small supercharger, still has the standard can and catalyst, makes well over 230bhp, so it's not necessary in order to make more power and both our bikes are euro 4 or 5 compliant and ride very well.

[rev-erend]

My local bike mot tester said to me that loudc pipes
Save lives.

[black-k1]

SteveKTMer said:

black-k1 said:

SteveKTMer said:

I wish aftermarket cans were illegal - now, not at some point in the future, when they inevitably will be illegal. It's ruining biking for the rest of us.

I think that assuming all after market cans are loud and all loud cans are aftermarket is too simplistic. There a lots of good aftermarket cans that are no more or only slightly louder than standard and any standard can can easily be made to be extremly offensive.

And who or what would decide which accessory it too noisy and which is acceptable ?

They are all going to be banned in the future anyway because the bike industry is incapable of self regulation. I think bike manufacturers will still make different style cans, like my Akropovic on my KTM, which is really just a different version of the standard can and is sold with new bikes by the dealers.

There's also no need for aftermarket cans either these days, my bike makes over 170 bhp with the catalysts in place and the stock exhaust with the KTM badged Akro, and yours which although having a small supercharger, still has the standard can and catalyst, makes well over 230bhp, so it's not necessary in order to make more power and both our bikes are euro 4 or 5 compliant and ride very well.

It's not the bike industry that is the problem, it's a sub-set of the bike owning/riding community that is the problem. When we had the requirement for exhausts to be stamped people bought one and then modified it to make more noise. Likewise with some OE exhaustes that are fine when the come out of the dealers but then get butcherd. That isn't a fault of the manufacturer or the retailer.

How it's policed is difficult but setting the acceptable noise levels at a reasonable level and fining people on a sliding scale according to how much over that limit they are, with substantial fines for being a lot over, would, for me, be a good place to start.

Note: It's also not just bikes that are offensively noisy though, I accept, they are "over represented".

[andburg]

my MOT tester said when they give him a DB meter and a prescribed test he will fail bikes. Until then its highly subjective and in his words "all harleys are loud"

I have some Vance and Hines quiet baffles as i got them very cheap but i haven't fitted them, apparently they only reduce the energy by 1-2db, not sure that's gonna make much difference when the bike recorded 126.1db on a rolling road.

[bgunn]

black-k1 said:

Note: It's also not just bikes that are offensively noisy though, I accept, they are "over represented".

Absolutely. The pop and crackle maps on the stupidly loud cars that cane it around the lanes here (and actually in town between speed humps more so!) are just as irritating.

Noise pollution (and removal of emissions kit, EGRs, DPFs and catalysts) needs to be considered as antisocial as driving whilst under the influence, in my opinion.

Cars and bikes don’t need to be loud to perform well, we are well past the time where intake and exhaust systems ‘strangle’ engines as they’re designed to deliver the airflow needed.

[SteveKTMer]

bgunn said:

Absolutely. The pop and crackle maps on the stupidly loud cars that cane it around the lanes here (and actually in town between speed humps more so!) are just as irritating.

Noise pollution (and removal of emissions kit, EGRs, DPFs and catalysts) needs to be considered as antisocial as driving whilst under the influence, in my opinion.

Cars and bikes don’t need to be loud to perform well, we are well past the time where intake and exhaust systems ‘strangle’ engines as they’re designed to deliver the airflow needed.

[DirtyHarley]

Bike noise is also very subjective and dependant not only on loudness but also pitch; my HD is loud up close but its a deep rumbling bass tone that doesnt carry very far, my old MT07 felt quieter up close but the pitch was much higher and it carried a longer distance.
I also have V&H slip ons on my bike, they aren't significantly louder than the stock slipons they replaced but the tone is very different; the stock slips ran red hot and were less bassy but sounded like an angry sowing machine at anything over 30mph. I agree that the 'short-shot' or 'mini-grenade' types and drag pipes are anti-social and give the rest of us a bad rap.

Around my way there seems to be a trend for young chaps with sporty cars on PCP having fartbox gear changers and popbox exhausts which is infuriating at silly oclock at night. Then you have the demographic on 50/125ccs who seem to think they need to run drilled out or completely baffle-less pipes but do ntohing about rebalancing the fuel injection/air intake so they pop and crackle constantly.

[PurpleTurtle]

rev-erend said:

My local bike mot tester said to me that loudc pipes
Save lives.

I've never subscribed to this completely unscientific viewpoint.

Most 'non-fault' fatal bike accidents are where the biker hits a car emerging from a T-junction that hasn't seen them.

Speed of approach of the bike is often a contributory factor, as is the (lack of) vision of the driver.

Not being able to hear a noise that's coming out of the back of the bike, therefore hasn't sonically reached said driver yet, is a non-issue in terms of causation.

These people aren't somehow driving around not keeping a proper lookout for bikes, but simultaneously listening for them, they are generally oblivious to the presence of motorcycles on the road.

[airsafari87]

PurpleTurtle said:

Stuff

1st catch of the day.

[anonymous-user]

Loud pipes are good when filtering, it gives slow moving or stationary traffic advance warning that you are coming up beside them. I don't like really loud exhausts on bikes though, especially when riding them, it gets tiresome very quickly. They are bloody antisocial as well especially on motocross bikes.

[black-k1]

Newarch said:

Loud pipes are good when filtering, it gives slow moving or stationary traffic advance warning that you are coming up beside them. I don't like really loud exhausts on bikes though, especially when riding them, it gets tiresome very quickly. They are bloody antisocial as well especially on motocross bikes.

I don't know of any actual scientific evidence that support the view that they're useful in avoiding accidents. It's an "excuse" that the selfish, who don't care about anyone else, use in an attempt to justify their selfishness.

[anonymous-user]

black-k1 said:

Newarch said:

Loud pipes are good when filtering, it gives slow moving or stationary traffic advance warning that you are coming up beside them. I don't like really loud exhausts on bikes though, especially when riding them, it gets tiresome very quickly. They are bloody antisocial as well especially on motocross bikes.

I don't know of any actual scientific evidence that support the view that they're useful in avoiding accidents. It's an "excuse" that the selfish, who don't care about anyone else, use in an attempt to justify their selfishness.

I only divine this opinion from when I'm driving, where I have occasionally been surprised by a bike suddenly coming up alongside me, its usually less the noise rather than the vibration which gives me advance notice of the bike behind me.

My Triumph is very quiet on its standard end can, almost too quiet, although this does make it very nice and unobtrusive to ride.

[LookAtMyCat]

black-k1 said:

I don't know of any actual scientific evidence that support the view that they're useful in avoiding accidents. It's an "excuse" that the selfish, who don't care about anyone else, use in an attempt to justify their selfishness.

I don't know how scientific you want to get but I own 2 bikes; a pretty loud Harley and a pretty quiet Kawasaki.

When i'm filtering on the Kawasaki hardly anyone moves over until the last second and i can see people in their mirrors completely unaware of me.

When i'm filtering on the Harley cars part like the red sea for the most part and I can see almost everyone looking at me in their mirrors as I approach.

Absolutely no difference in my filtering speed or technique but doing it on the Harley is way nicer and easier. Only difference, loud exhaust.

[RockBurner]

black-k1 said:

I think that assuming all after market cans are loud and all loud cans are aftermarket is too simplistic. There a lots of good aftermarket cans that are no more or only slightly louder than standard and any standard can can easily be made to be extremly offensive.

Good point.

Some aftermarket cans do serve a purpose - especially if you need to replace a can but it's not made any more - so a blanket ban on after-market wouldn't really be the right answer.

Similarly - as you say, some stock cans are very loud - but also - a stock bike with a quiet can, being ridden like a hooligan (full-throttle in low gear at low speeds) can easily go 'over the limit'.

Unfortunately the only way that bikers ever change is by use of a very big club: law enforcement of "petty" (to us) rules. It's only a few bikes/bikers that actually break the rules regularly - but because we're not really a huge demographic in political terms we can be relatively easily clamped down on without any real consequences politically.

In fact, we're actually treated by the politicos pretty well: no small thanks for that go to the lobby groups like BMF/MAG; and the very fact that being seen to clamp down on small groups is seen as being 'authoritarian' and within our current political climate that is not a good thing to be seen doing.

[jmn]

It's worth pointing out that these days a Harley with a standard exhaust is extremely quiet.

Some years ago I bought a V-Rod on Ebay. It was a one owner bike which had a Vance and Hines 2-1 exhaust. The standard exhaust did not come with it.

I awaited delivery with great anticipation and when it turned up I went out on it immediately. I think that I managed about 10 miles before turning round and heading home. The exhaust, which had not been modified in any way, was stupidly loud and for a while I thought that I had developed Tinnitus as a result of that very short ride. I sourced a decibel killer from Ebay but this was not the answer as it made the exhaust too restricted. Ground clearance was rubbish as well.

I ended up spending quite a lot of money on an Akrapovic 2-1. This was a lot more civilised and had better ground clearance.

On another point MCN have published an article about noise camera trials. During a 12 day trial 61843 vehicles passed by the cameras, and of those 870 noisy vehicles were identified and just 4 of these were bikes. One of the camera sites, on the A32 at West Meon, was specifically chosen due to a nearby weekly bike meet at Loomies Moto Cafe.

Apparently the camera technology has some way to go before they go live.

[KTMsm]

jmn said:

MCN have published an article about noise camera trials. During a 12 day trial 61843 vehicles passed by the cameras, and of those 870 noisy vehicles were identified and just 4 of these were bikes.

One of the camera sites, on the A32 at West Meon, was specifically chosen due to a nearby weekly bike meet at Loomies Moto Cafe.

This backs up what I was told by a noise tester at a Track day - the noise you hear and the noise the meter hears are different. A larger engine creates larger pressure waves so although it may seem quieter than your motorbike, it measures louder on the meter

At a car day, I passed in my 1600cc and the guy in the car ahead of me with a 2500cc - with a far quieter exhaust to my ears - failed

[underwhelmist]

When I bought my bike it had a very noisy exhaust which was originally stamped "Not for road use", fortunately the previous owner had a cunning plan which he implemented in a very half-arsed manner...



I stuck an Arai sticker over the stamp when I first took it for an MOT, the tester (who is quite strict in my experience) didn't mention either the sticker or the noise. I got fed up with the noise so I soon put the standard can back on.

[NMNeil]

jmn said:

Thanks all. I've just found out that the owner has the stock cans which come with the bike.

I do wonder if noise regs are going to be tightened up at some point in the future. Noise cameras may be the beginning.

The real impact will be known very shortly it seems.
https://www.visordown.com/news/industry/uk-motorcy...

[black-k1]

LookAtMyCat said:

I don't know how scientific you want to get but I own 2 bikes; a pretty loud Harley and a pretty quiet Kawasaki.

When i'm filtering on the Kawasaki hardly anyone moves over until the last second and i can see people in their mirrors completely unaware of me.

When i'm filtering on the Harley cars part like the red sea for the most part and I can see almost everyone looking at me in their mirrors as I approach.

Absolutely no difference in my filtering speed or technique but doing it on the Harley is way nicer and easier. Only difference, loud exhaust.

A proper scientific assessment would involve a much larger sample over a period of time. Like the review that was done around motorcycle use of bus lanes in London where it was shown that over a period (18 months or 2 years as I remember) that there was no increase in accident rates of other road users while reducing the accident rates of motorcycles.

For a loud pipes assessment you'd ideally survey both bikers and other road users for opinions and check accitent rates of bikes with loud pipes vs bikes with quite pipes.

Having commuted for a large number of years, into London and into other cities, I don't feel there would be any advantage to a loud pipe but, I've not actually tried one because I'm not an inconsiderate, selfish wker.