Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Would I be right in thinking that the UK SS (and ST etc for that matter) up to MY 2018 were homologated to EURO 3 emissions standard, but the revised MY 2019 bikes are to EURO 4 standard?

I've confirmed that my '19 bike is EURO 4, but am struggling to find the same information about the earlier bike.

I'm simply looking at it with regard to why the Vance and Hines high level exhaust was only suitable for the Street (Twin) to VIN 914972, which I take it is the end of MY 2018. From what I've read, with the baffle and occasionally-mentioned central noise suppressor in place that exhaust is road legal.

My guess is that somehow, even with no catalytic converter, the exhaust achieves the EURO 3 emissions on the earlier bike, but it is unable to achieve Euro 4 on the later bike.

All this supposition falls apart if the earlier bike is also EURO 4...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
My 2016 T100 is Euro 4, so I rather think that all the water cooled twins are. I presume that the engine/tuning changes that give the 19 models the extra power somehow don’t work well with the earlier exhaust system. It also looks like Triumph are moving away from assisting their customers to break the emissions laws, dropping the ‘off road’ tune for example, for fear of big fines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
My 2016 T100 is Euro 4, so I rather think that all the water cooled twins are. I presume that the engine/tuning changes that give the 19 models the extra power somehow don’t work well with the earlier exhaust system. It also looks like Triumph are moving away from assisting their customers to break the emissions laws, dropping the ‘off road’ tune for example, for fear of big fines.
As far as I can work out, the significant change for 19 was predominantly a cam change which, if it has longer durations/greater overlap, would make it harder for the bike to meet emissions. If the earlier bike scraped through with the accessory silencer, the later bike most likely wouldn't.

Of course, it may well be that they simply discovered that buyers of the "budget" Bonnies weren't up for spending £1200 on a full system and might simply find a £700 slip on more financially viable. If they were struggling to sell them, there's little point in bearing the cost of homologating them!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
As far as I can work out, the significant change for 19 was predominantly a cam change which, if it has longer durations/greater overlap, would make it harder for the bike to meet emissions. If the earlier bike scraped through with the accessory silencer, the later bike most likely wouldn't.

Of course, it may well be that they simply discovered that buyers of the "budget" Bonnies weren't up for spending £1200 on a full system and might simply find a £700 slip on more financially viable. If they were struggling to sell them, there's little point in bearing the cost of homologating them!
Interestingly, Hinckley insists they didn’t change the cam (presumably to kill all the jokes about them buying up stocks of the TEC version..) but made the extra power by ‘other means’.

The V&H was never legal for road use anywhere in the EU. It was supplied for ‘off road’ use only which meant it never had to meet the emissions regulations (without a cat it can’t hope to do that). Then Harley Davidson copped a big fine (huge!) for doing the same with their ‘Screaming Eagle’ parts and Triumph suddenly decided that it was safer to join the ranks of ‘responsible’ manufacturers and drop the ‘rebellious’ image. The final stocks of those high level V&H pipes were sold off ridiculously cheap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Interestingly, Hinckley insists they didn’t change the cam (presumably to kill all the jokes about them buying up stocks of the TEC version..) but made the extra power by ‘other means’.
That's interesting. I'll have to do a bit more research.

The V&H was never legal for road use anywhere in the EU. It was supplied for ‘off road’ use only which meant it never had to meet the emissions regulations (without a cat it can’t hope to do that).
That makes sense. Having had a couple of the TOR pipes in the past, I'm familiar with Triumph's approach to "off-road" offerings. It would appear in that case that those offering them for sale as road legal are, how can I put it, being flexible in their interpretation of the regulations.

The statement by an eBay seller (Triumph dealer, not private individual) that "Removable baffle included, it is EC Approved and road legal with baffle in" doesn't quite line up with Triumph's installation instructions that state that it's not legal for road use.

Good to know that they've never been road legal, not simply that they're not road legal on the later bikes.

The final stocks of those high level V&H pipes were sold off ridiculously cheap.
Indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
Are at least some of the EU emission requirements counter productive?

Catalytic converters are being removed about as quick as manufacturers are putting them on.

I wonder what the percentage of offending gases were before catalytic converters and what they are after being mandated ?

Are bikes whose catalytic converters who have been removed still better or worse than those bikes who never had catalytic converters?

We all know the arguments against cats: heat, weight, performance, and sound.

My assumption is the catalytic converters are necessary to limit the offending gases but how do bikes compare to cars, trucks, buses and even lawnmowers? Are bikes a big piece are a miniscule piece?

Is removing catalytic converter on bike like breaking the speed limit by two miles per hour or is it more like 20 mph over?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
While I don't have the answers to those questions, I have been advised that, if I were to have it tested, my 1989 air cooled & carburetted BMW twin would likely pass the NOx test for the new London Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) which is set at Euro 3 levels, so I'm some regard the old bikes aren't that bad.

More broadly though, if were honest, the vast majority of motorcyclists are low mileage hobbyists, so the environmental impact of running the bike is minimal. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I burnt more petrol in my hire car on holiday in Florida over the last 2 weeks than I will in my Triumph in the next year or two.

I'm sure the environmental damage done manufacturing the cat on my bike will be greater than the benefit it would give in its relatively low mileage lifetime.

With the relatively low usage of bikes in the West, I tend to agree that it's not the biggest problem to be solved.

I used to think the world's least satisfying job must be standard muffler maker for HD, but as you suggest, OEM cat maker must be getting close. That said the introduction of Euro 5 from January might mean more cats stay in place; Euro 4 requires that the bike checks that any sensors fitted have not failed, Euro 5 requires a lot more sensors and requires the bike to confirm that the readings are appropriate. Removing the cat on a Triumph today won't flag an error but for new models from next year it will.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Are at least some of the EU emission requirements counter productive?

Catalytic converters are being removed about as quick as manufacturers are putting them on.

I wonder what the percentage of offending gases were before catalytic converters and what they are after being mandated ?

Are bikes whose catalytic converters who have been removed still better or worse than those bikes who never had catalytic converters?

We all know the arguments against cats: heat, weight, performance, and sound.

My assumption is the catalytic converters are necessary to limit the offending gases but how do bikes compare to cars, trucks, buses and even lawnmowers? Are bikes a big piece are a miniscule piece?

Is removing catalytic converter on bike like breaking the speed limit by two miles per hour or is it more like 20 mph over?
I would argue that it is a crude and short sighted way of squeezing a few extra HP out of your bike. There are better options, they are more expensive, and less damaging to the environment.

Note that passing emissions testing does not mean that your bike is clean. Emissions testing just makes sure that your lambda cycle is working like it is supposed to, and carbon monoxide is not egregiously off. It does not test for the two main things the cat removes, which are hydrocarbons and nitrous oxide. I don't know of any jurisdiction where it is legal to remove the cat as long as it can pass emissions without it. Anyone that is testing can smell the difference in hydrocarbons (it just stinks), so there is a good chance of it not passing if it is not a friendly commercial mechanic that is doing the testing.

Well, yes, you are probably doing less damage than a lorry driver, no matter what you sabotage on your bike. But please consider that while there is at least economic necessity for pollution by a lorry driver (we all want to buy stuff at the supermarket), a lot of motorcycle use is purely recreational driving in circles which could just as well be done on a bicycle, if your stamina is up for it. So all of that is unnecessary pollution. Better keep it at a minimum.

And that is exactly why Triumph went into water cooling and completely overhauled the range: Emissions! Just look at what a cat alone costs. It is one of the most expensive parts on the bike. So here you have a brand new engine, with not just a cat, but also state of the art fuelling, cooling and engine control, and you rip out the essential piece why this engine was redesigned. Because you want three more horspowers and are too cheap to do proper tuning. (not specifically you, retjustdad53, but people who rip out the cat in general)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
That escalated quickly! I'm not too cheap, just don't have enough money for 1 object when I have so many objects. It's a bit different
Interesting how a fair point can come across as holier than thou.

Sent from my TA-1033 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
That escalated quickly! I'm not too cheap, just don't have enough money for 1 object when I have so many objects. It's a bit different
Interesting how a fair point can come across as holier than thou.

Sent from my TA-1033 using Tapatalk
lol so true, like I said in the decat/pollution thread, climate change is the new religious fundamentalism....insufferable lecturing. I am a proud blasphemer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
15Ace I appreciate your thoughts on this subject, I'm sure others feel the same way.

I willing to listen to arguments for and against and reserve the right to change my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
lol so true, like I said in the decat/pollution thread, climate change is the new religious fundamentalism....insufferable lecturing. I am a proud blasphemer.
Nothing religious about it. Nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons are pollutants, that is science fact. They do harm to nature and people in a direct, chemical way.

It is your personal choice how much polluting you do. That extends to more than operating a vehicle. When you start complaining about "religion" or "holier than thou", that indicates to me you are using scapegoat arguments to avoid thinking about whether you want to add to pollution or not. Same case for arguments how other people/things also contribute to pollution. It is avoiding to reasonably think about your own choices. Nobody riding a motorcycle around in circles for entertainment is "holier than thou" including me. We add to pollution for our entertainment and should not be completely oblivious to that fact.

Note I am not even talking about climate change here, how much of it is man made, and what the best answer to that is. We are discussing whether a cat is a good thing or not. A discussion from the 1980's!

I call the decatters "cheap" because I can't think of any reasonable other reason why you would want to replace an invisble, expensive part of your bike by a piece of plain pipe when similar results can be had in other ways. On the EFI bikes, Triumph put the cat in the silencer, making legal exhaust options few and expensive. Now you can change the silencer for half the money and there are double the options. You could even leave out the silencer and pretty much have the same environmental spec. For acoustic tuning it is not needed to remove the cat. But it's cheaper than buying a set of silencers.

Changing the cam or the fueling are much less damaging to the environment because the cat will still do 75% of its job even when it is not at perfect lambda 1. Look at the packages Raisch sells, with dyno graphs for all the combinations. Removing the cat really just gives marginal gains in power. https://www.classicbike-raisch.de/en/triumph-lc-16/engine-tuning-power/raisch-tuning-kits/ The stage 1 kit (just fuelling and intake) will give you three times as much extra power as a cat removal, just shy of 700 Euros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
No scapegoat argument at all. Just don't really come here to be brow beaten into feeling guilty.
Raisch is probably the worst example you could have used given the rubbish they dealt with their "one fits all cam', but the end goal isn't. The cam does well but the engine still chokes at 4000 without it.
I offset my emissions in many other ways to enjoy a nice ride.

Sent from my TA-1033 using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
52 Posts
I think for a lot of people, removing the cat is about 'improving' the sound and not as much about performance (I put improving in inverted commas because it is so subjective - I think removing the cat improves the sound vastly but others wont). There are many enjoyable aspects of riding a motorbike but, for me, a huge part of it is the sound I hear when I ride. So cat removal means, for me, a huge increase in enjoyment of my riding.

As to whether the environmental impact is acceptable or not, I think everyone has to look at their own impact in the round and weigh that up. We all have an impact on the environment in so many areas (flights for holidays, vehicle usage, fuel use at home, how much we shop, whether we buy things from overseas, whether we recycle enough, etc etc etc). Looking at emissions from our vehicles, and whether it is acceptable to increase them for whatever reason, is only one part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
[...] On the EFI bikes, Triumph put the cat in the silencer, [...]
It's almost completely off-topic, but I've been confused about this for a while...

When people in these fora refer to an "EFI" Bonneville <or other model>, are they referring only to air-cooled models and not the later water-cooled models?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
It's almost completely off-topic, but I've been confused about this for a while...

When people in these fora refer to an "EFI" Bonneville <or other model>, are they referring only to air-cooled models and not the later water-cooled models?
EFI just means ‘electronic fuel injection’. So a Triumph is either a carburettor model or an EFI one. Everything after about 1999 is EFI, or pretty much anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
Nothing religious about it. Nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons are pollutants, that is science fact. They do harm to nature and people in a direct, chemical way.

It is your personal choice how much polluting you do. That extends to more than operating a vehicle. When you start complaining about "religion" or "holier than thou", that indicates to me you are using scapegoat arguments to avoid thinking about whether you want to add to pollution or not. Same case for arguments how other people/things also contribute to pollution. It is avoiding to reasonably think about your own choices. Nobody riding a motorcycle around in circles for entertainment is "holier than thou" including me. We add to pollution for our entertainment and should not be completely oblivious to that fact.

Note I am not even talking about climate change here, how much of it is man made, and what the best answer to that is. We are discussing whether a cat is a good thing or not. A discussion from the 1980's!

I call the decatters "cheap" because I can't think of any reasonable other reason why you would want to replace an invisble, expensive part of your bike by a piece of plain pipe when similar results can be had in other ways. On the EFI bikes, Triumph put the cat in the silencer, making legal exhaust options few and expensive. Now you can change the silencer for half the money and there are double the options. You could even leave out the silencer and pretty much have the same environmental spec. For acoustic tuning it is not needed to remove the cat. But it's cheaper than buying a set of silencers.

Changing the cam or the fueling are much less damaging to the environment because the cat will still do 75% of its job even when it is not at perfect lambda 1. Look at the packages Raisch sells, with dyno graphs for all the combinations. Removing the cat really just gives marginal gains in power. https://www.classicbike-raisch.de/en/triumph-lc-16/engine-tuning-power/raisch-tuning-kits/ The stage 1 kit (just fuelling and intake) will give you three times as much extra power as a cat removal, just shy of 700 Euros.
lol good lord you wasted that sermon on me. I don't care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
stoichiometric combustion (on ration combustion) does not produce any nitrides or carbon monoxide. If the ECU could insure that at all throttle positions was stoichiometric we wouldn't need catalytic oxidizers. However, the engine does not produce acceptable power for the throttle setting when the combustion is on ratio. So we have that band aid between the frame rails to keep the exhaust clean for the performance we want.
 

Attachments

1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top