Elkgunner
Yeah, it may be hard to follow in some places. I was trying to get as much info in the post while keeping it somewhat short. You know the saying about article length and the avg. crap?
To begin, these two lines set a tone:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ithaca 37:
After all the claims by the fat assed snowmobile crowd we now find out some 2004 models are actually dirtier! I say ban them all from Yellowstone!
This exposes the Blue Ribbon Coalition as nothing but a slimey shill for the snowmobile manufacturers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is classic ASS*U*ME all things reported are completely true unto themselves. As I pointed out, many things were omitted that would have dispelled confusion by people that know little or nothing about the issue. The article was designed to do just that. Well done Ms. Cart
I'll address each of your points Elkgunner. Keep in mind, any question I ask you from this point forward is sincere, and not condescending.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hangar,
Good post, if not a bit hard to follow. I am not sure where you read that I said you had not read enough on the subject. I believe my comments were directed toward Ten <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
From your first post:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I love the knee-jerk reaction, to dismiss this as "media dribble". Perhaps some people should spend more time reading about the issues, and less time denying there are issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was answering that line from you, as it was not directed at anyone in particular, but rather appeared toward anyone that may not agree that the article was complete and unbiased. In fact, the article left many things unanswered, as I pointed out. Based on the point of the article, it is really inconsequential to the issue, but rather a reflection of the initial tone of this thread.
RE: My thanks to Ten bears:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This probably the funniest comment you make, where you give Ten credit for posting links to the Arctic Cat Press Releases, and some how believe these prove anything. Press Releases are generally written by the Marketing department of a corporation, after much negotitation with the Engineering staff and the legal staff. They are designed to generate publicity for the company and the marketing efforts. They prove nothing, and should not be given much credit. This goes for PR releases from any company, not just picking on Arctic Cat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just as the information Ten Bears posted was released from the manufacturers, so is the data the article refers to when it asserts failure. All emissions testing is conducted by the manufacturers, and verified by YNP. The press releases contained hard data that
will be verified by YNP. They would be shooting themselves in the foot to falsify it. This information on the methodology came to me from Ms. Cart, and I have not verified it as I did not see a need nor do I have the resources she has. I have copies of all the emails she sent me if you want to read them. I can see without knowing this why you said what you did. Does this clear it up?
Next: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I agree with you, the EPA standards for 2006 to 2012 are irrelvant, as the YNP standards are going to be more stringent. Question for you, is the testing methodology that EPA is going to use the same as the methodology that YNP will use?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As far as I know, it is the same. Both use industry standards of methodology and measure. Either way, YNP is who certifies the sleds for use in the park.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And then I think you have a concern that there was testing in 2002, and that the machines were either Proto-type, or other non-representative machines. I wasn't there, but I thought the Industry claims were, "See, look how we are right now, we'll be even better in 2004". Is that about how the conversations were in 2002 between YNP and the Industry?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is about right as far as the conversations went, according to various conservation groups that initially reacted to the LA Times article. I think it went something like "Look, we can do this, here is proof with this one mass production 2001 Arctic Cat, this prototype 2002 Polaris and these two SAE CSC machines." And YNP said "OK, we will agree to this on good faith." It is this that kept the ban from taking effect. Again, the LA Times article goes through this. The link I posted to the Montana DEQ article can answer this further.
Comment clarification:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This comment by you APPEARS to acknowledge the 2004 machines ARE failing the YNP stnadards. Is that correct? If they ARE failing, then is there not a legitimate concern?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't acknowledge it either way. The article speaks of two out of three sleds tested failing either emissions OR sound standards. I posted the emissions numbers provided to me by Ms. Cart. She did not give me the noise data. Based on simply looking at the YNP standards and her numbers as well as which set of numbers she says will be used for certification (conservative), one of three failed the CO portion of the tests. Based on her article, you can reasonably conclude one of the other two sleds failed the noise test. I'm not sure if there is reason to be concerned. If the sleds fail, they will not be certified. Simple as that. Others have passed and will be certified. All things being equal, it is the manufacturers that ultimately bear this burden.
Let me know, Elkgunner, if this leaves anything else that is unclear. I'll do my best to answer what I know, and admit when I don't. B.S. and guessing when facts can contradict gets us no where and costs us credibility.
Now for Ithaca -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My initial comments are: The Arctic Cat PR can't be taken too seriously. It says five of their machines received certification. Do they have others that failed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I partially answered this above, as to the PR issue. The Arctic Cat PR and the LA Times article are all the information that I have found. As far as I know, there was not set number of different models that were required to be certified. So, if it fails, it can't be used in the park. Pretty cut and dry. I think it is pretty clear on what needs to happen. But, I have not looked in the last 10 days to see if any more have either passed or failed. Maybe you could check on that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about all the other manufacturers? I applaud Arctic Cat for tryin' to be a leader on this. It's certainly in their own best interests. What we really need to know is how many snowmobile models are qualified for YNP certification and how many aren't. That's the bottom line for me to judge how seriously the snowmobile manufacturers are taking this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why do you think we NEED to know this? If only one model from the big four gets certified, why is it any different than having twelve? Of course it is good PR for and in the best financial interests of the manufacturers if they get more than one model certified, but why would it be bad if they only developed a "Yellowstone" or "GTNP" model? You have to remember that four-stroke technology in snowmobiles is relatively new, whereas it is not in motorcycles, ATVs and PWC. Again, it is pretty cut and dry. One model this year, two next year, five the next. Bottom line is they ARE working on it and are committed to it, and only those that pass requirements will be allowed in the park. Yamaha released a high performance mountain 4-stroke last year, called the RX-1. Polaris is rumored to be ready to dump a 4-stroke turbo into the same market early next year, but we'll see. Two-stroke technology is coming a long way as well, and may very well pass the YNP standards. There are tons of articles on small engine technology available if you are simply willing to look.
edit: Formatting. I need a preview button.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-17-2003 11:02: Message edited by: HANGAR 18 ]</font>
