| Author | Message | ||
     Electraglider_1997 |
How far do you guys fill-er-up? Do you bring it up close to the gas cap or only up to that thingy down in the tank? | ||
| Lorazepam |
I found going above the ring below where the gas cap locks results in gas running out of the vent. I also discovered if you dont ride off right away when the frame is hot, the gas gets hot and expands and even more will run out. | ||
| Roadrailer |
I just fill up to the ring. | ||
| Retired_cop |
Just to the ring at the bottom of the filler neck. As Lorazepam said, anymore and it drools all over itself. | ||
| Chadhargis |
If I'm doing a "gas-n-go", I'll fill it all the way up and let it pee out the little bit it doesn't want. If I'm going to be stopped for awhile, I only fill it to just below the top of the hole in the frame as it will expand and pee gas all over the place, including your rear tire if you're on a little hill. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
and there's nothing worse than a Yeti reeking of gasoline! | ||
| Superglide |
This has been an interesting thread for me because I have not had the same experience from over filling the tank and realized I'm from the left coast and have vapor emission recovery (?). Mine has never overflowed when topping off, it just runs like crap and you must keep on the throttle for a few miles because the recovery system makes the bike run rich... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Friggin' EPA! | ||
| Pso |
I hate that vapor emission can. I once turned over a bike with that thing on it and I could only run it for less than 1/2 block before it would crap out. Of course the can was inaccessable to drain at the location so I needed to get home and take the can off and drain it before the bike would run at all. This was back in 86 so perhaps they have improved the design. | ||
| Superglide |
Ft_bstrd: for me I think it would be Friggin' CARB... We have to do things a little different therefore the vapor recovery stuff mandated by "california air resources board" which over rules the EPA... | ||
| Jim_sb |
Gentlemen, Do a little research and educate yourselves on this topic. Motorcycles have lagged far behind other forms of vehicular transportation and in fact under the prior standards emit far more VOC's than a modern car, truck or SUV. It is now Federal law, not just CA. The charcoal canister is the single most effective anti-pollution device on your bike and it improves fuel economy. Jim in Santa Barbara Here is an excerpt from the EPA web site: EPA Finalizes Emission Standards for New Highway Motorcycles The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adopting more stringent emission standards for new highway motorcycles. Under the current standards, which are over 20 years old, today’s motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a car or even a large sport utility vehicle (SUV). These new standards will reduce the combined hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the exhaust by 50 percent as well as the harmful health effects of mobile source air toxics. Final Rule Highlights EPA has been working to reduce emissions from motor vehicles for over thirty years, including emissions standards for highway motorcycles that we adopted in 1978. In this final rule, EPA is adopting new emission standards for exhaust and evaporative emissions from highway motorcycles. The standards are based on comparable requirements adopted in California. The final rule extends the California requirements nationwide two years after they initially take effect in California. In addition to updating exhaust emission standards for currently regulated motorcycles, the new emission standards will include previously unregulated motorcycles with engines of less than 50 cubic centimeters displacement (scooters and mopeds). We are also adopting new evaporative emission standards to control the loss of gasoline (described as "permeation") through the walls of fuel hoses and fuel tanks. The permeation standards apply to all classes of highway motorcycles | ||
| Davo |
Jim sb, Do you know how do motorcycles compare to lawn mowers for evaporative emissions? Sorry for changing the subject for a moment! (Message edited by davo on August 18, 2006) | ||
| Jim_sb |
Hello Davo, No I don't. I'm sure I could find more info. through research. Much has been published. But I was discussing vehicular transportation, not mowers. It is sad to think that an SUV getting 10mpg has had far cleaner emissions per mile driven than a motorcycle getting 50mpg. The SUV burns 5 times the fuel but is far cleaner per mile. They are reaching an area of diminishing returns with car/SUV emissions, they're already very clean so they're looking to other forms. Now our new Uly's are very clean, last I heard they were already within a whisker of meeting the regs that don't take effect for a year or two. No catalytic converter required either. Not bad for air cooled push-rod technology. It's a fun bike, the fact that it is clean is simply a bonus. Best, Jim in SB | ||
| Teeps |
Davo Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 Jim sb, Do you know how do motorcycles compare to lawn mowers for evaporative emissions? Motorcycles with untampered vapor recovery systems will have many times lower emissions than any unregulated internal combustion device. Whether it's a lawnmower, weed wacker or tractor... | ||
| Mb182 |
The good part of this is it will force the Manf to incorporate more modern engine design into the motors to get more efficient combustion.. Look at the HP/displacement/fuel economy of current atuo motors compared to what we got in the 60's... I would like to see the bike they based the 50X comparison on - I know an EU study that spouted similar numbers used a 2 stroke motor's emissions.... Back when I lived in Phoenix, My 550 Yamaha Maxium was WAY, WAY, WAY below the MC limits.. PHX's standards were close to California's at that time. MB |
