Toning Down Objectionable Exhausts

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

” The standard of silence is still totally unsatisfactory,” said the judge’s Report on the A.C.U. 1000 mile trial for standard stock motor cycles. And, we think, the public will agree with him. Not the sporty boy, perhaps, estimable though he is. He likes an engine with a big kick and a healthy bark. We hope, however, that he will soon realise that the latter is not essential .to the former.

The future popularity of the motor cycle and its general adoption as a cheap, safe, comfortable and reliable means of transport, is undoubtedly largely dependent upon the good opinion of the general public. There is no room for question that public opinion is prejudiced when a flock of motor cyclists streak along on machines that cackle like a dozen Lewis guns in full blast.

Noise in connection with the motor cycle should not be spoken of without qualification. There are exhaust notes which greatly offend, and others which are almost as noisy, but practically inoffensive. There comes to mind, in this connection, the characteristic note of a famous two-stroke.

This machine is a very long way from being silent, but its noise is like the drone of an aeroplane, and, except to the very fastidious or nervy hearer, is more agreeable than otherwise. It is the sharp barking type of noise that brings out the policeman’s notebook and rouses the ire of the public. That this noise is not essential to speed has been shown by the performances of certain comparatively quiet racing machines.

Amongst the several noise-reducing devices now claiming a good deal of attention is the ” Carb-jector ” silencer—or to be more strictly accurate, tonaliser made by Bridgehead, Ltd., Bankhey Works, Blackpool. The fact that the Blackpool Police motor cycle patrol have fitted their machines with this silencer, should certainly be evidence of its efficiency. The function of the ” Carb-jector “is to reduce the sound of the exhaust to a healthy and pleasant drone. A motor cycle that glided along with the silence of a Rolls-Royce would, perhaps, be dangerous to be comfortable in the hands of certain riders. But it is unquestionably desirable to extract the aggressiveness from the exhaust bang, and this is the job of the ” Carb-jector.”

What the sporting rider, or the rider of a lightweight sidecar outfit, each of whom wants to use every ounce of power his engine can give, has yet to be convinced about, is that there is a silencer which allows an engine to rev, as fast as with an open exhaust. This is where the ” Carb-jector” claims to shine. In fact its claim is even more ambitious. By hurrying up the clearance of exhaust gasses, it is said that this scientifically-constructed silencer, or exhaust scavenger, actually increases the revs, and multiplies the power output.