Mythbusters: Cars vs. motorcycles

[oracle]

Although I'm sure there aren't many of us who choose to ride instead of drive purely to reduce our environmental impact, there certainly has (at least in the past) been suggestion that we are less environmentally harming than the cages. Mythbusters season premiere is going to investigate this over bikes from the 80's-00's and in real world conditions. I know what I think the result will be, but will be interesting to see and by what sort of margin

http://news.discovery.com/earth/mythbusters-motorcycles-vs-cars-which-is-better-for-the-environment-110928.html#mkcpgn=fbdsc17

[Zedder]

Although I'm sure there aren't many of us who choose to ride instead of drive purely to reduce our environmental impact, there certainly has (at least in the past) been suggestion that we are less environmentally harming than the cages. Mythbusters season premiere is going to investigate this over bikes from the 80's-00's and in real world conditions. I know what I think the result will be, but will be interesting to see and by what sort of margin

http://news.discovery.com/earth/mythbusters-motorcycles-vs-cars-which-is-better-for-the-environment-110928.html#mkcpgn=fbdsc17

I always enjoy Mythbusters so I'm looking forward to it.

[nodrog]

you dont get 180+ hp out of 998cc by being nice to trees.

[oneofsix]

Be interesting to see their 'real world conditions'. Whilst I enjoy Mythbusters some of their scenarios for testing can be a bit suspect. Don't be surprised if the cars come out on top.

[bogan]

Watched it last night, interesting, but the crux of the matter comes down to the different pollutants put out by cars and bikes. I think it is very difficult to say which/why some are far worse than others. But it is related to climate change, surely nobody expects an easy (or any) answer by now?

[steve_t]

Did all the bikes they tested have cats?

[oneofsix]

Watched it last night, interesting, but the crux of the matter comes down to the different pollutants put out by cars and bikes. I think it is very difficult to say which/why some are far worse than others. But it is related to climate change, surely nobody expects and easy (or any) answer by now?

Busted or Confirmed?

[Stirts]

I love Mythbusters

<img src="http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/993b8deb-747a-45b4-a747-fcc42524f21c.png"></img>

[imdying]

Bah, an RGV would damn near break their test machine :sunny:

[bogan]

Busted or Confirmed?

Busted! More feul efficient, but more harmful was the verdict. I was happy enough with the testing they did, but the science behind the different pollutant types was missing (which is fair enough tbh, that shit is boring).

I'm curiuos as to why the huge difference between car and bike engine though, as it was still very significant even on the bike with the CAT converter.

The RPG vs bullet was pretty entertaining too :D

[Oblivion]

It was something like 800 % more Carbon monoxide than cars wasn't it?

[oneofsix]

Busted! More feul efficient, but more harmful was the verdict. I was happy enough with the testing they did, but the science behind the different pollutant types was missing (which is fair enough tbh, that shit is boring).

I'm curiuos as to why the huge difference between car and bike engine though, as it was still very significant even on the bike with the CAT converter.

The RPG vs bullet was pretty entertaining too :D

BTW you have just suggested (I'll avoid saying admitted) to having downloaded copy-written USA media but that's another thread :shutup: :laugh:

Not surprised at the result, now wounder how many viewers letters they get and if they will end up having to do a retest.
Looking forward to this episode.

[Oblivion]

BTW you have just suggested (I'll avoid saying admitted) to having downloaded copy-written USA media but that's another thread :shutup: :laugh:

Not surprised at the result, now wounder how many viewers letters they get and if they will end up having to do a retest.
Looking forward to this episode.

Watching it over the internet ftw :drinknsin

[bogan]

It was something like 800 % more Carbon monoxide than cars wasn't it?

I think it was the NOx and hydrocarbons that were the worst, less CO2 (as less feul) and i think the CO was more even with some cars doing worse and some bikes a bit better.


BTW you have just suggested (I'll avoid saying admitted) to having downloaded copy-written USA media but that's another thread :shutup: :laugh:

No not at all, I have a CSI type program, and just focused my telescope on the reflective solar panels of a few satelitles to bounce the image from a TV in the US, then enhanced it through my awesome software :bleh:

[James Deuce]

Busted! More feul efficient, but more harmful was the verdict. I was happy enough with the testing they did, but the science behind the different pollutant types was missing (which is fair enough tbh, that shit is boring).

I'm curiuos as to why the huge difference between car and bike engine though, as it was still very significant even on the bike with the CAT converter.

The RPG vs bullet was pretty entertaining too :D

Because as I keep prattling on about, a car exhaust system has far more volume into whihc you can shove scrubbers, as well as revving MUCH lower, thereby producing far less harmful pollutants over time and distance. I'm glad they did it. Maybe you fuckers might start to look at the links and shit I post, eh?

[Urano]

haven't seen the mythbusters episode, but i remember to have read a french study, some time ago, that reported as bikes "emit" more pollution but at the end of the day are less harmful.
this seems to be caused by the fact that the smaller medium displacement is paired with the shorter medium time the bike engine is on than the car's on a city trip.
bikes suffer so less from traffic jams and do not usually have to go around searching for parking. they concluded that despite the higher emissions, bikes are anyway better for city pollution.

i believe it will be controversial for long...

a link for the mb episode?

[bogan]

Because as I keep prattling on about, a car exhaust system has far more volume into whihc you can shove scrubbers, as well as revving MUCH lower, thereby producing far more harmful pollutants over time and distance. I'm glad they did it. Maybe you fuckers might start to look at the links and shit I post, eh?

So does that mean you agree with their findings that bikes are more feul efficient?

If you've got some links with info about the relative harm of the different pollutants emitted I'd be interested.

[superman]

You can tell just from the smell produced by motorcycles that pollutants are high. It's the same as lawnmowers put out more pollutants than an SUV/min.

I don't quite understand how 18L of fuel can produce more pollutants through my bike than my car.. does't that just mean my bike's more efficient and detonating the fuel more??? :innocent:

[James Deuce]

So does that mean you agree with their findings that bikes are more feul efficient?

If you've got some links with info about the relative harm of the different pollutants emitted I'd be interested.

No I don't because, they didn't take 1000cc sportsbikes on a typical Wairarapa ride. I've seen Ducati 996s looking for petrol stations around the 70-80kms traveled mark. As I've always maintained, testing for fuel efficiency is very different to measuring actual use.

[Gremlin]

you dont get 180+ hp out of 998cc by being nice to trees.
Well, they're not made out of trees are they? :weird:


Maybe you fuckers might start to look at the links and shit I post, eh?
mmmmm....




nope :sunny:

[bogan]

No I don't because, they didn't take 1000cc sportsbikes on a typical Wairarapa ride. I've seen Ducati 996s looking for petrol stations around the 70-80kms traveled mark. As I've always maintained, testing for fuel efficiency is very different to measuring actual use.

Cars can be thrashed too, fuel efficiency must be measured under the same conditions, your argument is that more motorcycle riders waste fuel than car drivers (though I'm yet to see a biker pour deisel on the road). I don't beleive the fuel wasted is more than the savings, but in either case, it is not something that should be taken into account when comparing mechanical fuel efficiency as it is a user choice, and not inherent in the mode of transport.

[nodrog]

Well, they're not made out of trees are they? :weird:


I think Triumph conrods are.

[YellowDog]

I would argue that when comparing 'like with like', bikes are considerably less harmful to the environment.

If you are comparing a 'Green Party voting Hybrid driver' with Mr Gixxer on P, then you come to such contrary mythbusting conclusions.

If you compare a new Ducati 1198 with a new a new Ferrari V12, with both driving as hard as, I suspect that the myth would be confirmed.

The same goes for Mr Standard 1400cc car commuter, compared with Mr Standard 250cc motorcycle commuter

[White trash]

Because as I keep prattling on about, a car exhaust system has far more volume into whihc you can shove scrubbers, as well as revving MUCH lower, thereby producing far more harmful pollutants over time and distance. I'm glad they did it. Maybe you fuckers might start to look at the links and shit I post, eh?

Nope. <tenchars/>

[oracle]

I would argue that when comparing 'like with like', bikes are considerably less harmful to the environment.

If you are comparing a 'Green Party voting Hybrid driver' with Mr Gixxer on P, then you come to such contrary mythbusting conclusions.

If you compare a new Ducati 1198 with a new a new Ferrari V12, with both driving as hard as, I suspect that the myth would be confirmed.

The same goes for Mr Standard 1400cc car commuter, compared with Mr Standard 250cc motorcycle commuter

Well from the way it was written, it sounds to me like they are comparing a car and a bike on a commute, so they may also be able to take into account the decreased travel time due to being able to lane split etc

[White trash]

HAven't seen it but it's fucking hard to compare apples with apples. For example.

A Scorpio or an R15 uses a shitload less fuel than my wifes Legnum. Unless the Legnum's carrying three or more people, then you need two bikes minimum and things even up a little. The cars tyres last a hell of a lot longer and it's service intervals are longer, although it needs four times as much oil every service.

If you compare an R1 with the Legnum, it consumes tyres 4 times as quickly and has slightly worse Km/L of 98 unless you ride like a total fucken Nana.

[avgas]

you dont get 180+ hp out of 998cc by being nice to trees.
Hopefully they even the stakes up a bit and compare the 180hp bikes to the 1100hp cars........

[oneofsix]

HAven't seen it but it's fucking hard to compare apples with apples. For example.

A Scorpio or an R15 uses a shitload less fuel than my wifes Legnum. Unless the Legnum's carrying three or more people, then you need two bikes minimum and things even up a little. The cars tyres last a hell of a lot longer and it's service intervals are longer, although it needs four times as much oil every service.

If you compare an R1 with the Legnum, it consumes tyres 4 times as quickly and has slightly worse Km/L of 98 unless you ride like a total fucken Nana.

Looks like they are getting a lot of feed back on the tests. They only tested emissions and considering they both drive hybrids this focus is no surprise. Should be an interesting watch.

[James Deuce]

Nope. <tenchars>
That's alright because I won't be buying bikes off you. Kind of sick of your sanctimonious conversion.
</tenchars>

[James Deuce]

HAven't seen it but it's fucking hard to compare apples with apples. For example.

A Scorpio or an R15 uses a shitload less fuel than my wifes Legnum. Unless the Legnum's carrying three or more people, then you need two bikes minimum and things even up a little. The cars tyres last a hell of a lot longer and it's service intervals are longer, although it needs four times as much oil every service.

If you compare an R1 with the Legnum, it consumes tyres 4 times as quickly and has slightly worse Km/L of 98 unless you ride like a total fucken Nana.

How about comparing a 'busa with my 1.3L Ka? I know I'll use less gas. It uses less gas than my 750 did in exactly the same usage.

[avgas]

Because as I keep prattling on about, a car exhaust system has far more volume into whihc you can shove scrubbers, as well as revving MUCH lower, thereby producing far more harmful pollutants over time and distance. I'm glad they did it. Maybe you fuckers might start to look at the links and shit I post, eh?


That's alright because I won't be buying bikes off you. Kind of sick of your sanctimonious conversion.
</tenchars>
Boobies
http://rlv.zcache.com/pot_meet_kettle_tshirt-p235424139933113969q08p_400.jpg

[\m/]

My 250 uses approx 5.0l/100km, while my 1500 car uses roughly 6.9l/100km. But even if I had a bike that used more petrol than the car I wouldn't care, bikes are just so much more enjoyable.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Fuck all of that: did Kari B get her kit off?

[Gremlin]

Fuck all of that: did Kari B get her kit off?
No... it was someone that looked a lot like her... Alexandra Sim Wise.

Alexandra: (oh, and it was hard work actually finding her clothed...)
<img src=http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/8/3/83sd7whukq9l9qh.jpg>

Kari:
<img src=http://www.torontopics.com/co/karifhm3.jpg>

[racefactory]

If with 2 equal cars and bikes eg. ZX6R and Porsche GT3 RS then car will be far worse both in fuel and pollutants.

If ZX6R with Honda Jazz then bike will still use less fuel but more harmful pollutants.

End of story.

[racefactory]

My 250 uses approx 5.0l/100km, while my 1500 car uses roughly 6.9l/100km. But even if I had a bike that used more petrol than the car I wouldn't care, bikes are just so much more enjoyable.

250 doing 5.0l/100km? You need to get rid of it asap. My 500 KTM supermoto does better than that and so does a 600 and 1000.

[racefactory]

You can tell just from the smell produced by motorcycles that pollutants are high. It's the same as lawnmowers put out more pollutants than an SUV/min.

I don't quite understand how 18L of fuel can produce more pollutants through my bike than my car.. does't that just mean my bike's more efficient and detonating the fuel more??? :innocent:

Catalyst converter.

[superman]

Catalyst converter.

I'm pretty sure my bike's got one of them?

[\m/]

250 doing 5.0l/100km? You need to get rid of it asap. My 500 KTM supermoto does better than that and so does a 600 and 1000.
From what I've found with google searching, 5.0l/100km from a 250 I4 seems to be the norm. Most of my riding is on the open road, the bike does 8000rpm at 100kmh, probably a lot of aero drag due to the lack of fairings.

[White trash]

That's alright because I won't be buying bikes off you. Kind of sick of your sanctimonious conversion.
</tenchars>

We're even then.

[White trash]

If with 2 equal cars and bikes eg. ZX6R and Porsche GT3 RS then car will be far worse both in fuel and pollutants.

If ZX6R with Honda Jazz then bike will still use less fuel but more harmful pollutants.

End of story.

If your ZX6R uses less fuel than a Honda Jazz, then you're riding like a complete poofter and don't deserve a ZX6R. Give it to your Nana for fucks sake......

[Ocean1]

If your ZX6R uses less fuel than a Honda Jazz, then you're riding like a complete poofter..

The Buell's got one of them new fangled real-time diagnostics thingies. Tells you what gas it's using in any particular instant. It's very very disturbing. The only thing saving me from actual bankrupcy is my inability to keep the bitch pinned for very long...

[White trash]

The Buell's got one of them new fangled real-time diagnostics thingies. Tells you what gas it's using in any particular instant. It's very very disturbing. The only thing saving me from actual bankrupcy is my inability to keep the bitch pinned for very long...

Yup. R1's have one of those critters. I cringe letting the fucker warm up in the morning.........

[Grasshopperus]

I think that the way they measure 'environmental impact' is real weak-sauce science.

There are so many other factors and externalities related to vehicles and fuel usage.

For example; how much pollution is involved in creating a car vs creating a bike? How about at the end of the life cycle, how much does it cost to recycle?

How much pollution is created to make a litre of petrol (the total cost of production after prospecting, drilling, refining, shipping, retailing are catered for)? A vehicle that chews more gas needs to have this offset added to it.

As others have mentioned, although a bike belches out far worse stuff from its exhaust it might spend less time doing it because it won't be stuck in traffic as long.

It annoys me to see comparisons that only focus on grams of CO per litre of gas burned etc. Either they're interested in actually measuring impact (and I haven't seen anyone go the extremes I mentioned above - too hard eh!) or they've got an axe to grind.

[Brian d marge]

Down loading now , screw u America

Ride an Enfield soon to be chop..., screw u .Japan , america , the environment , the politically correct , and screw u , Mrs wilson who lives at No 15 ...and her daughter ( definitely screw her......... and Mrs Wilson come to think of it )


oh sod it ...just screw everything up . at least we have consistency

Stephen
now hurry up torrent , I'm only typing this to fill in the time .......9 min ..... what can I screw up in 9 min


a marriage , this poxy screw top on this fking wine bottle ......., a Job , no I like that ....


friggen hell 6 min left ....I'm off to the 7/11 to get more cheap wine ....


ok back and mythbusters watched


I knew the answer already , but for the wrong reasons , amd still really dont know why , may look into that .... its a goodie , a must watch

[warewolf]

I think that the way they measure 'environmental impact' is real weak-sauce science.Exactly, you beat me to it. Fuel efficiency of the engine is just one of many factors.

IN the early nineties, a Euro organisation was trying to do the same thing for various cars and thought for laffs they'd throw in a new flash bus and the then-new Hinckley Triumph. To everyone's surprise, the bike was the best for the environment by a country mile. They assessed the impacts of development, production, sales, usage and disposal. However the caveat here is that the early Hinckley Triumphs were highly modular so the development and production stages had efficiencies not seen by the others.

[FlangMasterJ]

Just watched the episode then. Those RPG's in slow motion are freakin' scary!

But these in slow motion are :yes:

<a href="http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/FlangMasterJ/?action=view&amp;current=kariii.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/FlangMasterJ/kariii.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Motig]

Thats why I watch it. I'm in love :woohoo:

[DEATH_INC.]

If you compare an R1 with the Legnum, it consumes tyres 4 times as quickly and has slightly worse Km/L of 98 unless you ride like a total fucken Nana.
Feckin pussy. How the hell do you get 15000kms outta the tyres on a R1? :Pokey:

[scracha]

HAven't seen it but it's fucking hard to compare apples with apples. For example.

A Scorpio or an R15 uses a shitload less fuel than my wifes Legnum. Unless the Legnum's carrying three or more people, then you need two bikes minimum and things even up a little. The cars tyres last a hell of a lot longer and it's service intervals are longer, although it needs four times as much oil every service.

If you compare an R1 with the Legnum, it consumes tyres 4 times as quickly and has slightly worse Km/L of 98 unless you ride like a total fucken Nana.

Jimmy, you're an ass. Who in their right mind would compare an R1 with a fucking Legnum?

[davereid]

Myth Busters has got it wrong in this case.

the reason these studies claim bikes are worse is cat converters.

it neglects the fact that they
(a) dont work on short trips
(b) last only 7 years

our fleet is average 13 years. so most cars are just carrying broken ones around.

[cheshirecat]

There was uk study done a couple of years ago (and quickly burried) that trains were less fuel efficient than all the passengers taking the car in. And thats including UK rush hours. In carbon terms the ratio in favour of individuals taking cars was even more in the cars favour.

They also give significant car tax/rego credits, ie zero, if your vehicle meets the lowest emision standards so small newish cheap cars are the norm hence the car comming out so high cos these eco cars are now the most popuar by far.

Recent pratical commuting tests in VisorDown (trying to find the link) put the 125's far more economical than equiv cars.

[racefactory]

If your ZX6R uses less fuel than a Honda Jazz, then you're riding like a complete poofter and don't deserve a ZX6R. Give it to your Nana for fucks sake......

Irrelevant. Travelling long distance on the motorway not exceeding 100kph returns 4.5l/100km on a 600.

[Ocean1]

Irrelevant. Travelling long distance on the motorway not exceeding 100kph returns 4.5l/100km on a 600.

I checked, today, the 1125 returns 20L/100km.

If severely provoked.

[Gremlin]

My best on the R1200GSA, loaded with luggage has been about 4.3L/100km for a couple hundred, but it seemed to like the USA fuel much more than NZ. Normally on the BMW it's mid 5s, and if riding quicker, low 6s

[racefactory]

My best on the R1200GSA, loaded with luggage has been about 4.3L/100km for a couple hundred, but it seemed to like the USA fuel much more than NZ. Normally on the BMW it's mid 5s, and if riding quicker, low 6s

Really good, that's cheap motoring.

On another note, a Motogp bike with a 21 litre tank and 115-120km race distance would be doing about 17.7L/100km. There are thirsty holdens on our roads which do that!