semantics...

You know what pisses me off more than people removing the CC? Guys who compensate for a small pee-pee with obnoxiously loud exhaust.























Oh yeah, and FWIW, I could give two shits if people remove the CC. :lol:

One is modifying your bike so it pollutes more, the other is not?

one could argue that all that happens when the CC is removed is that it meets the same emission standards as those bikes that don't have one... are you saying that having one without a CC is somehow better?

Not trying to be a dick, just confused.

Actually I appreciate the rational comment. Thanks.

In a word, no. I would prefer a bike with a CC, all other things being equal.

A bike must meet the air standards applicable in the year it was made. My bike is a 2005 and comes without a CC. It met emissions standards in TX that year. I'm sure bikes sold in CA in the last year or two had to have CCs simply to meet the ever-tightening air standards. I have no problem with people rolling around on older, non-CC bikes - they were legal when they were sold and still are legal due to grandfather clauses. But you can't buy a 2008, remove the CC and claim it meets 2005 standards so it is legal.

that is the answer to the question.

also, in some states they will not pass inspection with an after market exhaust.

Longer than a year or 2: the SV has had a CA version since at least 2003 as it was an option back when I bought my bike (they weren't options but were mandatory if I were to buy it in CA at the time)... IIRC, it has a decreased fuel capacity in order to fit all the additional "stuff" for the emissions system.

:D

Thx for the response and not thinking that I was being a dick... for once, I wasn't trying to be :lol:

this argument makes about as much sense as a vegan saying he can wear a fur coat and leather pants cause they were a gift from his mom.

lol a lot of illegal motorcycles will be on the street

:lol: