https://youtu.be/ipDmsxQVxIM

if you start looking for it, or rather, start understanding that it's there, you will soon see an alarming number of people doing things solely because it makes them feel like a badass. it is 100% of the entire reason to live, in some people.

As I mentioned in other thread

1. What proportion of people with straight pipes take them on a track or engage in competitive endeavour

2. What proportion take advanced classes and have the skillset to take advantage of increase performance

3. What proportion put their bike on a dyno before and after to have a foggiest clue if straight pipe does anything

4. What proportion of them tunes the rest of their bike to take advantage of new pipe

5. For how many loud cruisers is performance in any way even remotely an actual consideration? You don't buy a cruiser for speed.

Finally, you can get high flow pipes which are quiet. But that's not really the point is it ;)

I actually respect people who say "I got it because it's loud and cool and gives me a rush" because they're at least honest a*oles, more than 98% of people who claim its for performance but don't have a clue - they're fooling themselves as much as others :-/

I realize that audible noise is very readily recognized as harmful. It’s been studied and proven to be harmful, as have other forms of pollution. I think EMI affects less people directly but it’s still noise.

You're putting the argument that overclocking a CPU, due to increased impact, is analogous to putting a straight pipe on a Harley.

I would imagine that difference is sufficient number of orders of magnitude different to be a fundamentally ignorable comparison, and obviously so.

A loud pipe has an immediate and continuous demonstrable negative impact on hundreds and thousands of people per trip.

You would need to show me some reaaally good studies to show that increased (not just baseline) EMI of overclocking is even readily detectable through the faradey cage of computer case and then three houses down the road, and distinguishable in the noise of street transformers, Fridges, laser printers, etc.

If it affects 1% of the population instead of 50% then it’s far more likely to be dismissed.

Also, given other similar noise, adding a little more doesn’t seem like an issue.

None of this is to say that two stroke motors and loud vehicles don’t get on my nerves. Rather, we all have more in common than we think we do.

I used to be considered “sensitive” because I hated all of the latent noise. I feel like I would be considered “reasonable” based on this thread which is now backed by studies showing noise and environmental pollution as having long-term, negative side-effects.

On a technical note, Faraday cages are much better at protecting receiving electronics from outside signals than the other way around. Signals have an easier time leaving a Faraday cage than entering.

I wouldn't call it insight, I'd call it prioritization; but perhaps more to the point, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that overclocking a CPU will affect any proportion of population whatsoever (not 50%, not 1%, not 0.01%), at any distance, in any circumstance. And remember, we're not even saying "whether a computer emits EMI". The claim put forward is that overclocking a PC, say from 3ghz to 3.3ghz, has detectable enough negative impact on people other than the owner / in other households, to be part of this discussion.

Certainly, I currently do not believe so and am dismissing your argument for that reason. You are welcome and indeed encouraged to persuade me otherwise :)

I don't dispute that some loud exhausts are the result of exactly what you describe, but also many are motorheads who have less restrictive exhaust systems for performance reasons or just to enjoy their vehicle (unfortunately sometimes at the expense of other peoples hearing)

Less of this, please.

Don't get me wrong, I've got both a car and a bicycle, not 100% for road cycling but count it as if it was (it's a gravel bike.)

For me cycling beats running 100-0. I can easily pedal 100+ km but I can't run 100 meters, too tiresome. Furthermore I see 100 km of the world vs a small area around my home.

Ultimately it's all subjective. Each of us likes something different and it's OK.

It is fine to speculate, but "must" is a strong assumption. Your analogy is also based on flawed data. Yes, when riding on streets there is a chance of getting killed, but getting regular exercise reduces your chance of dying for other reasons. There are many studies that demonstrate this. Here is one:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237214-why-the-health-...

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456

Tell me what you think the benefit:risk ratio is of doing jumping jacks at a gun range.

I have worked from home for a long time, but 15+ years ago I commuted by bike about 12 miles each way three times a week when the weather was good. Dominance had nothing to do with my choice to bike there.

I could ride there by bike in 45 minutes, or I could drive there in 25 minutes (lots of stop and go). Same on the return trip. My mental calculus was I got 90 minutes of exercise for an incremental time expense of 40 minutes. That I was also not polluting was a bonus.

The nearest accident I had ever was one day when I was on connector road that had recently been widened and hadn't yet picked up a lot of use. Despite there being no traffic at that moment, I've always 100% obeyed traffic laws, so I stood over my bike waiting for the red light to change. About 20 seconds into it a pickup truck came screeching to a stop just about five feet behind me - he literally locked the tires and left skid marks. Guess what his reaction was: to shout and scream to the point of spitting that I was lucky to be alive and that I wan an asshole for biking on the road. I still don't know if he saw me all along and it was a calculated dominance display, or if he was daydreaming and really did nearly cream me.

I regularly get small children approach me on motorcycle and want to pull the throttle, then get scared, then want to do it again, there's something primal about that, it's (mostly) not about other people.

I understand many people put the aftermarket pipes "for themselves", at least consciously, or at least claim so - but I feel at best, it's a degree of self-centerdness to not realize impact on others. I see it on Subaru forums too - fellow WRX/STi owners moaning about their neighbour's complaints and cops stopping them and people giving them dirty looks etc etc - obliviously blind that it was themselves who brought in on by installing ridiculous loud exhausts. A factory exhaust on my bikes gave me plenty of thrill, and while I did put a high-flow cat on my Scoobie, I searched for an exhaust with nice sound but quieter actual dBs than stock. Few things are B&W - but there is a loudness at which point it really really is about others.

(note that when you say "past 10k RPM", it sounds like you likely have a sportsbike, and as you say a stock one; those can be loud at high revs, but generally speaking the loudest bikes in my experience tend to be modified cruisers and wanna-be Harleys.

Also note that rider may not always get straight opinions from friends, depending who wants to fight what battle when - e.g. last summer, a rider was revving his throttle at a friends' cottage and boasting about his aftermarket pipes; given we were both guests, I politely nodded and meandered away... but everything for the rest of the evening confirmed the image I formed the moment I heard his pipes :-/)

I'm not a fan of aftermarket exhausts, stock one is plenty loud for me and doesn't disturb anyone while I'm riding normaly. I especially dislike the grandpa chopper bikes that sound like tanks, like you said my sports bike gets insane at >9k RPM - but I don't ride insane in populated areas.

Things are usually on a spectrum and not binary; I agree that part of the thrill of ride is the sensation - vibration, noise of wind and engine, gravity forces, etc - and certainly manufacturers of both performance bikes and cars frequently tune the engine and particularly exhaust for desired image and sound.

I still maintain though that there is a wrong side/portion of that spectrum, and that e.g. a straight pipe on a Harley does far more negative impact on others than positive impact (real or perceived performance, rush, etc) on the rider.

In a different lifetime I had a few bikes including a TL1000R that was just plain intoxicating to ride with aftermarket pipes.

There is no way in hell I could do that to my neighbors at this stage of my life, however, and I often cringe at the actions of my younger self. Nowadays, I refuse to even use gas powered garden tools for noise (and environmental) reasons.

I almost buy the “loud pipes save lives” angle but if you need to deafen others to protect yourself maybe motorcycling just isn’t an institution worth keeping around. That said, I don’t think it needs to come to that.

With a propeller the engine is not alone in producing noise, the propeller can easily be worse. Especially when you are perpendicular underneath an airplane crossing above.

Still, what I find even worse is that general aviation still uses leaded fuel. I know this is so "esoteric" for most people that few really care, because it is so abstract. As someone who went through a heavy metal diagnosis and chelator treatment (university clinic, lab proven exposure) I know that even the tiniest amounts still have an impact. Not a clinical impact, you are not sick. But your brain and everything works a bit worse. With tiny amounts adding up over decades any small problems you get will be attributed to "age", "stress", "it's in your head". Because while we know, statistically, that there is an impact (that is why the _medical_, threshold for lead, and others, is zero), we are unable to make any useful statements for individuals. Which means for any given person the problem does not exist, and for the population level it remains an abstract threat.

So noise is one thing, but spreading lead over the landscape - yes in tiny amounts, but I believe it still adds up and matters - to me is even more outrageous.

I apologize, for years I spread lead over some, or many?, of you guys here when I flew around the Bay Area. At the time I completely ignored the "LL" on my avgas. Only after my own clinical encounter did I realize what it meant, suddenly it was more than just a technical term.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/

I completely agree. My CFI has spent time making sure I understand how to reduce noise impacts of my flying. I live out in the hills which means planes and motorcycles are the only noise intrusions I get on a consistent basis. I wish I could do more for the noise issue as a pilot.

As for the lead issue, I had a small crush on an experimental that is being developed. The company is using a brand-new engine that can technically burn mogas (Motor Vehicle Gas) but the wings are constructed such that putting any ethanol in the tank is a severe safety issue. This combined with the fact that 100LL and Jet Fuel (diesel) are usually the only two fuels available, it seems like a lock-in for more lead consumption.

While there is some good news in the lead/noise department, it's not taking hold as much as I think it aught to: there are electric trainer aircraft produced now that provide very low operating costs, much less noise and release no lead. Unfortunately, I was reading that the performance characteristics make them a less desirable training aircraft than a Cessna 172 so adoption is slow.

Question for parent: I know the FAA's avgas initiative has been around for a while, do you know of any significant progress they have made in the area?

Fun fact: most small GA aircraft still use the exact same engine technology that they were developed with despite needing to occasionally replace the engine. Automobile engines have seen a lot of advances in the last 60 years but any given Cessna 172 you see in the sky is likely still working in exactly the same way as in the 1960's.

Loud pipes don’t do squat. All the noise is behind you, no one hears you coming they only hear you going, and at that point they hate you.

Now… I have an admission to make, and public apologies to give. The pipes on my current primary motorcycle are the exact same pipes I had on my previous motorcycle but they are significantly louder and it was way too late to do anything about it that wasn’t going to cost thousands before I realized.

They are not jerk levels loud, but they have enough rumble to them that I essentially do everything I can to idle out of my neighborhood in the morning (I’m a block in from an agricultural road). They don’t really reach “Harley level loud” until I’m at least 85% throttle and on my bike that is basically drag racing level of throttle position.

Here’s the thing- they were incredibly expensive and my bike is completely, _perfectly_, tuned for them with new FI programming, air intake, and full dyno tuning. No accel/decel pops, etc.

So- neighbors, world, I’m truly sorry. When I replace this bike I’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again. Until then, know I feel like a jerk every morning in my new neighborhood basically coasting to the main road.

In SOMA in San Francisco I'll often hear motorcycles drive by that are so loud they set off car alarms along their path.

And don't get me started on the cost/benefit of car alarms.

As for the cameras, I’ll echo the sentiments of a sibling comment. You don’t want them. I lived in AZ in the mid 00’s when these things were everywhere. They mostly serve to disrupt the natural flow of traffic and caused people to make dangerous sudden stops when they should have proceeded through a yellow lights. Also, many are operated by third parties who take a cut and charge a fee to run them. If they fail to produce enough revenue they become a financial liability to the city, which will either monkey with signal time to increase ticket revenue or simply remove the camera.

To be fair, convertibles are similar. The wind noise of the open air is very loud when moving at speed, so the stereo must be that loud to compensate. There are some setups that will increase/decrease the volume appropriately as the speed changes, but that's not always the case. So as the bike is sitting at a light, the sound is still blaring at the same volume. Maybe the rider is still an asshat for not lowering the volume, but I'd go so far as saying their an asshat for refuting the concept the sound of the ride is the experience by blasting choons.

Lost count to seeing scenes like kids on H2Rs "crashing" into something at like just above pedestrian speeds.

It takes a lot of skill to drive a powerful, and heavy motorcycle. It's definitely should not be your first, or even second machine.

I'm myself on two-wheelers for 15 years still feeling that I am about to fly off a seat even on a relatively tame 300CC scooter.

When starting out, take that weekend course your local college offers - and try all the bikes in a controlled safe environment. I was shocked how much I didn't want a sports bike - the posture and low speed maneuverability were horrid. I also didn't like cruisers personally, didn't feel in control leaning back. I turned into a lifelong standard posture guy - whether city bike or adventure or dirt/supermoto... But point is, find out what feels right for you, rather than get a 750cc superbike as your first ride based on specs or review or what you think may work well.

I had fun going full throttle redline on... My cbr125, back in the day:D. More so than on some twitchy overpowered bike where I feared touching the throttle.

My instructor claimed the DMV had done this on purpose to encourage people to take the safety course, how they can't force people to do one by law so this is how they got around it.

Not surprised in the least that there are so many accidents.

During training we had to switch motorcycles (we started on 250cc, then after a dozen hours moved to 600cc which is required by Polish law to pass the exam).

I have felt comfortable on 250cc but moving to 600cc felt like I had to learn everything again from the start.

On 250 (140kg?) I could throw my weight around and cause motorcycle to do stuff while the same no longer seems to work on 600 (210kg?).

Overall I feel better and safer on 600cc because at highway speeds it does exactly what I need it to do and place myself exactly where I want without feeling that it is overpowered and that slight mistake with the throttle is going to cause me to loose control of it.

I tried a dozen different motorcycles from 125cc to 1000cc before I made my final choice.

One disclaimer is that I am rather cautious driver/rider. As an example I never drive/ride fast in relation to other drivers. I may ride faster but only so much so I still am able to react if they make something stupid. I also spend a lot of effort learning to drive/ride safer.

When it comes to pratical matters I think that for safety it doesn't matter much how large your bike is, as long as you are properly trained. 125cc or 1000cc, your prospects in an accident are roughly the same.

Smaller bikes (125cc or less) may offer better handling if you are not well trained and you panic but on the other hand they might be less agile in traffic where it is important to constantly place you away from blind spots of other drivers, etc.

The only danger comes from speed and acceleration. But if you are an adult and can restrain yourself to safe speeds I don't think larger motorcycle is less safe.

What I mean is that it is not the size of the motorcycle but the driver that causes it to be unsafe. And unsafe drivers may prefer to choose larger motorcycles because it allows them to ride faster.

1. As a sibling said, there's the issue of weight. If you're inexperienced, it WILL bite you in the ass. Especially since the engine being very powerful and having great brakes, when "just starting slowly" it won't feel heavy. Hell, mine gives you the feeling it stands upright on itself. But try braking a bit harder while maneuvering and getting it tilted, and you better expect the 300 kg to want to get down.

2. As per 1, powerful engine + heft + (usually) great suspension give you a bike that feels very, very safe. Plus the torque from way down low never seems to quite "rush" you since you don't have to rev it. So it gives you confidence. Except that even though you don't feel like going fast, you actually are going fast. So you get fairly quickly in deep water, and everything is great while the sea is calm. The sea floor is right there! But you never know. Ride a bit too fast in a turn, and you better hope there aren't any trees around...

*you as in the driver, I am aware that the parent poster is not necessarily driving a loud vehicle.

But a needlessly loud motorcycle, particularly the kinds that "detonate/explode" on shifts/off-gas, will make me jump and annoy no matter what I'm doing - reading a book, having a coffee, mowing the lawn, going for a walk, playing with my kid, whatever... especially since unlike some similarly annoying sounds (Snoring, anyone :P), it is 100% purely intentional. This rider went out of their way to make it such, knowingly and willingly they spent money time & effort.

I see a few posts now that I know what to search for that it "relieves strain on wrists and arms", but honestly, I think standard riding position (city / adventure / touring bikes) has the most natural and relaxed body position overall, as long as you can adjust it to your body size and proportions.

I'm saying this as someone that had an aftermarket exhaust on all of 3 of my street bikes and one of my dirt bikes.

1. How many aftermarket exhausts actually add meaningful performance

2. How many people actually need / notice / use whatever performance they gain

vs

3. How many people, consciously or not, admittedly or not, just get it for bling and sound

Very few people with aftermarket parts take their bike or car on the track or competition. Very few have training to take advantage of it.

(I don't speak from a theoretical high horse - I spent thousands of dollars myself to add power to my WRX, before I finally realized that 1. Stock car was already faster than myself, and started investing in lessons/training/practice runs, and 2. The hands-down best investment I made in my car was a $200 aftermarket (additional) multi-point seat harness, as it stabilized my body/arms and enabled a much much finer degree of control. If I were to modify a car today, I'd start with suspension/control, not engine/power. For bikes, even more so - every bike I ever owned, from 50 scooter to 400cc supermoto to 500cc adventure and 750cc touring, can do amazing things in hands of a professional rider and can do far far less in my own hands; modifying it for "performance", for 98% of riders, is pointless and we're only fooling ourselves )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipDmsxQVxIM

Even if somehow it is 'safer' for the biker it's definitely not for everyone else.

Curious where this idea came from. Some bike riders must also be drivers and it’s very obvious this isn’t true.

Even when emergency vehicles turn on their sirens I can’t tell where they are until I see them when I’m driving.

Over here in France there's such a law too, but from my 2005 car, I cannot hear that noise. I barely hear the loud motorcycles behind me too, FWIW. When I hear them, they're usually up next to me.

When on foot, that's a different story. If there's low to no traffic, having an electric sneak up on you can be destabilizing.

Then again, I also ride motorcycles and remember one day, in a quiet neighborhood, there were three people walking in the middle of the street for some reason and didn't hear my bike, which was loader than the artificial electric car noise. They weren't wearing headphones, and given the time of day were probably not drunk either.

Living by a busy crossroads, I could not agree more!

So if we come across you out on the road we'll know, "Oh, it's that arsehole".