Commuting via bike is good for cars and traffic, too

[aimee]

Some excellent research out, from the overseas, shows that commuting by motorbike is good for _everyone_.

Cuts down car emissions, traffic jam time, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorbikes/9272532/Why-commuting-by-motorcycle-is-good-for-everyone.html


-----

So, we get this in front of as many people as possible (including councils, perhaps), and get the cagers to stop trying to kill us :P

[Phantom Limb]

I tell people all the time that bikes are an environmentally friendly option due to less congestion etc. Now I have the study to point to and backup my ramblings. Thanks for the share.

[Akzle]

I tell people all the time that bikes are an environmentally friendly option due to less congestion etc. Now I have the study to point to and backup my ramblings. Thanks for the share.

no they're not. in terms of carrying capacity vs fuel consumption bikes are awesome(ly inneficient)

but they do make less congestion, and so spend less time on the road. no time holding anyone up etc.

[aimee]

no they're not. in terms of carrying capacity vs fuel consumption bikes are awesome(ly inneficient)

but they do make less congestion, and so spend less time on the road. no time holding anyone up etc.

In terms of carrying capacity, yes, you may have a point, but only if most people travelled with more than one person in a car. Which they don't.

[aimee]

lol. my partner's offered me the use of his KTM 500 exc, but I think I'd like to try something a bit...smaller...first :P

[Tigadee]

In terms of carrying capacity, yes, you may have a point, but only if most people travelled with more than one person in a car. Which they don't.

Heck yeah! I only use the car now for carrying the family around. Everything else I use the bike - commuting, buying groceries, etc...

I just couldn't see the point of driving the car to work for only myself, and a smaller more economical car costs more than a motorbike with [I'm guessing] equivalent carbon footprint, with less cool/fun factor [the car]. :headbang:

[kevfromcoro]

lol. my partner's offered me the use of his KTM 500 exc, but I think I'd like to try something a bit...smaller...first :P
lol.. yes i wouldnt start out out on 500 cc offroad bike
go down a few ccs. and something nice and lite...

[cheshirecat]

A UK study a short while ago but buried quickly was that trains are the worst offenders of all when it comes to energy efficiency. It was better to put all commuters into cars.

[aimee]

Heck yeah! I only use the car now for carrying the family around. Everything else I use the bike - commuting, buying groceries, etc...

I just couldn't see the point of driving the car to work for only myself, and a smaller more economical car costs more than a motorbike with [I'm guessing] equivalent carbon footprint, with less cool/fun factor [the car]. :headbang:

Completely - the fuel (and car!) costs are way higher for a car than a motorbike, unless one's ferrying people around. Hell, here in Wellington, running a bike is cheaper than using the bus and, for buses which aren't powered electrically, possibly lower emissions if the bus isn't full! Otherwise, and when the weather's not utterly shit, I'm using my wee Gini for everything I possibly can :)

[Gianz]

A UK study a short while ago but buried quickly was that trains are the worst offenders of all when it comes to energy efficiency. It was better to put all commuters into cars.

maybe because it was bullshit?

[Berries]

A UK study a short while ago but buried quickly was that trains are the worst offenders of all when it comes to energy efficiency. It was better to put all commuters into cars.
I think it was produced by Top Gear.

[BMWST?]

no they're not. in terms of carrying capacity vs fuel consumption bikes are awesome(ly inneficient)

but they do make less congestion, and so spend less time on the road. no time holding anyone up etc.


you are right but just about every car which has the capability to carry at least four persons has only one so a bike is better than a one personed car

[SuperMac]

Completely - the fuel (and car!) costs are way higher for a car than a motorbike, unless one's ferrying people around.

Really? I commute about 16,000 miles each year. My rattly old 180k miles diesel Vauxhall Astra turned in about 55-60mpg, needed servicing about twice a year (and sometimes got it too), tyres last about 30k miles a set (at £250 for four).

My Bimmer costs the similar to insure, tyres are more expensive and wear out far more quickly, servicing is every 5k miles (and is more expensive), fuel (albeit petrol so a few pence a litre cheaper) about 45mpg.

[Akzle]

you are right but just about every car which has the capability to carry at least four persons has only one so a bike is better than a one personed car

yah, and if each of those four persons instead road a filthy GSX750....? then what Mr. Calculator..?

[davereid]

Really? I commute about 16,000 miles each year. My rattly old 180k miles diesel Vauxhall Astra turned in about 55-60mpg, needed servicing about twice a year (and sometimes got it too), tyres last about 30k miles a set (at £250 for four).

My Bimmer costs the similar to insure, tyres are more expensive and wear out far more quickly, servicing is every 5k miles (and is more expensive), fuel (albeit petrol so a few pence a litre cheaper) about 45mpg.

Your Astra has the performance of a typical 200cc motorcycle. Your BMW has the performance of a V8.

Hardly a fair comparison.

Compare your Astra with a CB125.

CB 125 will get 100 mpg, can do all legally required speeds, will need 800cc of oil every 5000km as opposed to 5l every 10000 in your Astra.

It Used around 1/10th of the resources of the Astra to be made, and will need about 1/10th of the resources to be disposed of.

It doesnt have a catalystic converter or diesel particulate filter, but its irrelevant, as they (if fitted) have long stopped working on your Astra, and even when new they only worked when fully hot - so likely never for commuter cars doing a 10km trip.

So by comparison bikes rock !

[oneofsix]

you are right but just about every car which has the capability to carry at least four persons has only one so a bike is better than a one personed car



yah, and if each of those four persons instead road a filthy GSX750....? then what Mr. Calculator..?

what four people? one car, one person, car at about 1/4 to 1/5 of its capacity, one bike one person bike at between 50 and 100% of its capacity. Bike takes up 1/4 or less of the road.

[Voltaire]

Whats the point of those articles.... do you really want car drivers getting motorcycles? Its not quite the same as " shall I take the car the bus or the train".... Its not like there is any Govt incentive.....quote the opposite.
I lived in London for some years, I had a work car, but mostly I'd take the bike or the tube...... fast forward 20 years I caught buses for 3 days when i got my new job and never again....they suck.
Ride the bike or scooter most days....mainly as you don't have to worry about congestion, but its fun.
This week riding a Norton Commando to work, right hand reverse change, crap brakes, kick start, 100% grin factor:headbang:

[aimee]

Really? I commute about 16,000 miles each year. My rattly old 180k miles diesel Vauxhall Astra turned in about 55-60mpg, needed servicing about twice a year (and sometimes got it too), tyres last about 30k miles a set (at £250 for four).

My Bimmer costs the similar to insure, tyres are more expensive and wear out far more quickly, servicing is every 5k miles (and is more expensive), fuel (albeit petrol so a few pence a litre cheaper) about 45mpg.

Fair enough, you have an anomaly, there. My wee bike, for example, goes for over 200km on under $14 dollars of fuel. Our Peugeot 306...not so much. Hell, $14 only covers the BUS for two days, here :)

[aimee]

Whats the point of those articles.... do you really want car drivers getting motorcycles? Its not quite the same as " shall I take the car the bus or the train".... Its not like there is any Govt incentive.....quote the opposite.
I lived in London for some years, I had a work car, but mostly I'd take the bike or the tube...... fast forward 20 years I caught buses for 3 days when i got my new job and never again....they suck.
Ride the bike or scooter most days....mainly as you don't have to worry about congestion, but its fun.
This week riding a Norton Commando to work, right hand reverse change, crap brakes, kick start, 100% grin factor:headbang:

Why would we not want more people using bikes, and fewer using cars?

[tbs]

Completely - the fuel (and car!) costs are way higher for a car than a motorbike, unless one's ferrying people around.

I had to stop using that excuse when I bought my 600. All of a sudden I was dropping a LOT more money on running it than I would on a car. (Totally worth it though).

I think that in a few years I'll convert it to a track weapon and get an electric motorbike for commuting.

[Tigadee]

Why would we not want more people using bikes, and fewer using cars?

:laugh: He's worried this will happen:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/154428-Auckland-in-50-years

[arcane12]

Fair enough, you have an anomaly, there. My wee bike, for example, goes for over 200km on under $14 dollars of fuel. Our Peugeot 306...not so much. Hell, $14 only covers the BUS for two days, here :)

Really? I would have thought the GN would have got better feul economy - or is that lots of round town riding?

You say the tyre cost more, and last less. Are you saying you can't get two (that's full replacement) tyres for 250 pounds? And I don't mean composite race tyres, but standard cheapies, like you put on your car? What I am trying to point out, is you are not exactly comparing apples with apples here. A nice slow commute with a economical car driven efficiently, with a nice slow commute with an economical bike riden efficiently. Of course that bike will be able to use trasit lanes (depending on if there are any along the commute) which could mean less sitting in traffic, reducing fuel usage, tyre wear etc.

[Banditbandit]

Really? I commute about 16,000 miles each year. My rattly old 180k miles diesel Vauxhall Astra turned in about 55-60mpg, needed servicing about twice a year (and sometimes got it too), tyres last about 30k miles a set (at £250 for four).

My Bimmer costs the similar to insure, tyres are more expensive and wear out far more quickly, servicing is every 5k miles (and is more expensive), fuel (albeit petrol so a few pence a litre cheaper) about 45mpg.

Yeah - I've been commuting to work on bikes since sometime in the 1970s ... My last two commute bikes have cost as much as a car to run - if not more ... when I was commuting in Hawke's Bay my Bandit was costing $17 a day in gas and up to $10 a day in rubber ... (I killed a $300 back tyre in 3,000ks - at 110ks to work and home per day) ... the BMW was similar on gas ...

But fuck it's much more fun ... (And I've slowed down here - it's 1.5 ks to State Highway Two where I can't open the throttle as much as I used to without putting my licence at risk ... so it is cheaper to get to work than itr was in H/Bay ...)

[aimee]

Really? I would have thought the GN would have got better feul economy - or is that lots of round town riding?

Lots of around town driving, and it's also brand new, so still bedding in and all :)

As for the person/people saying that cars are more fuel efficient and cheaper than bikes - well, some links:
http://www.thebikeinsurer.co.uk/riding-a-motorbike-to-work-50-cheaper-than-driving-a-car/
http://www.getbike.net/the-car-v-motorbike-debate-continues-is-motorcycling-the-most-recession-proof-way-to-get-around
http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=150

But yes, we could actually fairly easily build an NZ-specific model - the trick is, quite simply, just to compare a bike and a car which are, well, comparable. Not a beast vs a an old heifer, basically :)

Of course, I think the point still remains that bikes use less fuel than do cars (generally, again, depending on the model, how they're ridden, etc), which is cheaper and means fewer emissions are produced, and traffic jams are shortened, all of which are a good thing. Of course, I do remain confused why someone on a motorbike forum seems to be pushing cars as the better form of transport.

[arcane12]

Not a good example as they are still somewhat apart, but I do a 80km commute (40 each way) with mostly open road stuff (15 minutes tops in 50km zones). I do similar speeds on bike as I do in the car. Overtaking only on the bike if I would have done the same in the car. It costs me around $8 on the 650, whereas my car might use $14 (I have yet to do a fill/drive/fill test)?

It's a 1990 Toyota Corolla, older than the bike by a fair whack, but if anything more technologically advanced. :blink: The Scorpio might have used $6 max. And I had to push it somewhat to get ... up to 100 lets say :innocent: ... so it's efficiency was probably taking a bit of a whack.

[Scuba_Steve]

A UK study a short while ago but buried quickly was that trains are the worst offenders of all when it comes to energy efficiency. It was better to put all commuters into cars.

I think over here & OZ it's buses that take top prize, but trains aren't much better.
Also a study showed theres only 1 [passenger] train system in the world that pays for itself & it's in India where it's fine to sit on the roof or hang off the back & sides.

[cheshirecat]

I know an empty London Underground train takes about 5 megawatts just to get it rolling, which is slightly more than my V4.

[ducatilover]

Completely - the fuel (and car!) costs are way higher for a car than a motorbike, unless one's ferrying people around. Yes and no. A Dihatsu Mira may be a cheaper car to drive than most small bikes (cheaper to run over 50,000km than my VT250 was anyway, by a lot)


Your Astra has the performance of a typical 200cc motorcycle. Your BMW has the performance of a V8.

Hardly a fair comparison.

Compare your Astra with a CB125.

CB 125 will get 100 mpg, can do all legally required speeds, will need 800cc of oil every 5000km as opposed to 5l every 10000 in your Astra.

It Used around 1/10th of the resources of the Astra to be made, and will need about 1/10th of the resources to be disposed of.

It doesnt have a catalystic converter or diesel particulate filter, but its irrelevant, as they (if fitted) have long stopped working on your Astra, and even when new they only worked when fully hot - so likely never for commuter cars doing a 10km trip.

So by comparison bikes rock !

+2
But logic doesn't win, my ZX6 costs more to run than a 1600cc Corolla, ergo bikes suck?
I do love to tell people bikes are cheap though, because it makes me look like less of a hooligan (although I imagine my beige Volvo 850 might help with appearances)

[oneofsix]

Yes and no. A Dihatsu Mira may be a cheaper car to drive than most small bikes (cheaper to run over 50,000km than my VT250 was anyway, by a lot)



+2
But logic doesn't win, my ZX6 costs more to run than a 1600cc Corolla, ergo bikes suck?
I do love to tell people bikes are cheap though, because it makes me look like less of a hooligan (although I imagine my beige Volvo 850 might help with appearances)

yeah but your Mira still takes up a unit of space in congested traffic whereas your bike doesn't have to so your bike spends less time polluting AND helps the Mira driver get off the road quicker, likewise the Corolla or any other car.

[ducatilover]

yeah but your Mira still takes up a unit of space in congested traffic whereas your bike doesn't have to so your bike spends less time polluting AND helps the Mira driver get off the road quicker, likewise the Corolla or any other car.
But my bikes also emit moar greenhousey gassey shits.

I do think more bikes is a great idea, perhaps it would increase the general driver's ability to see us

[Zipper2T]

Well it's obvious isn't it. You need to get off those big gas guzzling bikes and on to something like this...http://www.honda-motorcycles.co.nz/News/1155/new-pcx150-scooter-arriving-soon

[Phantom Limb]

Well it's obvious isn't it. You need to get off those big gas guzzling bikes and on to something like this...http://www.honda-motorcycles.co.nz/News/1155/new-pcx150-scooter-arriving-soon

I'd rather die:facepalm:
Naught wrong with commuting on a 1300 :Punk:

[tbs]

I'd rather die:facepalm:
Naught wrong with commuting on a 1300 :Punk:

Funny thing. My wife isn't really a big fan of my motorbike, but when I asked if she'd be happier if I just rode a scooter she gave me a funny look and said she just couldn't see me on one.
Me neither. I would die a little inside every time I got on.... Not judging any scooter riders.... just how I am.

[ducatilover]

Well it's obvious isn't it. You need to get off those big gas guzzling bikes and on to something like this...http://www.honda-motorcycles.co.nz/News/1155/new-pcx150-scooter-arriving-soon
Bugger that, it has no penis.

[BMWST?]

But my bikes also emit moar greenhousey gassey shits.

I do think more bikes is a great idea, perhaps it would increase the general driver's ability to see us

i dont know if that is true..the nz car fleet is still one of the oldest around

[James Deuce]

i dont know if that is true..the nz car fleet is still one of the oldest around
It is true. Bikes are appallingly bad polluters especially nitrides of oxygen, the most toxic stuff ejected from exhausts. Litres per 100km for 1000cc bikes and up are worse than 13 year old 1000cc cars. Hell, my Z750 was 2L/100km worse than our Ford Ka. The big enemies for bikes are revs and packaging. You can't get enough scrubbers in the exhaust system to make a bike as clean as a car, even a 13 year old one, and the revs issue is being addressed by bikes like the NC700. I reckon low pressure turbochargers will make a return to motorcycling soon, because a lot of people in toyland, oops, Western society, struggle with "little" bikes like the NC700 and power outputs under 100hp. Keep revs down and boost torque that way, as well as addressing noise.

[BMWST?]

It is true. Bikes are appallingly bad polluters especially nitrides of oxygen, the most toxic stuff ejected from exhausts. Litres per 100km for 1000cc bikes and up are worse than 13 year old 1000cc cars. Hell, my Z750 was 2L/100km worse than our Ford Ka. The big enemies for bikes are revs and packaging. You can't get enough scrubbers in the exhaust system to make a bike as clean as a car, even a 13 year old one, and the revs issue is being addressed by bikes like the NC700. I reckon low pressure turbochargers will make a return to motorcycling soon, because a lot of people in toyland, oops, Western society, struggle with "little" bikes like the NC700 and power outputs under 100hp. Keep revs down and boost torque that way, as well as addressing noise.


what about 13 yr old galants falcons commodores and toyota surfs

[davereid]

It is true. Bikes are appallingly bad polluters especially nitrides of oxygen, the most toxic stuff ejected from exhausts. Litres per 100km for 1000cc bikes and up are worse than 13 year old 1000cc cars. Hell, my Z750 was 2L/100km worse than our Ford Ka. The big enemies for bikes are revs and packaging. You can't get enough scrubbers in the exhaust system to make a bike as clean as a car, even a 13 year old one, and the revs issue is being addressed by bikes like the NC700. I reckon low pressure turbochargers will make a return to motorcycling soon, because a lot of people in toyland, oops, Western society, struggle with "little" bikes like the NC700 and power outputs under 100hp. Keep revs down and boost torque that way, as well as addressing noise.


Simply not true.

A modern fuel injected motorcycle with a catalytic converter has all the same tools as a car for removing emissions.

The cat converter on my V8 is only the same size as the one on my ER6F, but the engine is ten times the size, and needs ten times as much exhaust gas processed for any given rpm. Or 6 times as much for any given speed.

Around town stopped at the lights its even worse.

The converter on my car however is six years and 65000 km old. So it doesn't in all likelyhood work any more.

And even when new, it had to be hot to operate. So on an average 7km commute, it never did any work anyway.

With an average fleet age of 13.8, and an average commute of 7km, neither bikes or cars really gain any benefit from converters. They are simply 10kg of rubbish being carted around.

Compare realistic commuter vehicles - the new Honda stop start scooter with fuel injection, cat converter and 190mpg economy to a hybrid car, and consider the environmental cost of manufacture and disposal of both, and bikes are the clear winner.

Converters dont reduce greenhouse gasses by the way, they make more of them. They reduce gasses toxic to humans by converting them to greenhouse gasses.

[James Deuce]

what about 13 yr old galants falcons commodores and toyota surfs

Even those have Catalytic converters and lambda sensors and air injected into the exhaust. The Toyota Surfs would be the cleanest of the those, even with dirty injectors. Just because you can see the exhaust fumes doesn't mean it's more toxic than something apparently emitting no visible pollution. A well setup two stroke on-song is pretty efficient, but outside of it's peak efficiency is pissing raw, unburnt fuel into the atmosphere. Four stroke motorcycles used to do that too, but it wasn't visible, that's improved now, sometimes at the cost of ride-ability especially when you get the just off idle lurch when you crack the throttle.

I try to compare like with like. A 750cc bike and a 1300cc car still aren't a great match, but it highlights the disparity in motorcycle consumption and emissions with cars when you consider that the engine in the Ka first saw the light of day in 1959. By the time in went in my Ka it had fuel injection, and a Cat, put out half the hp of the Z750 and cost less to run the the Zed. The Zed's engine is a sleeved down version of the Z1000 engine that saw the light of day in 2003. You;d expect 40 years of engine tech to give it an advantage in terms of consumption and emissions. The NC700 gets us back to '60s Brit bike figures.

If you adjust consumption and emissions figures by capacity, bikes look way worse than 13 year old Commodores, Falcons and Surfs.

[davereid]

You;d expect 40 years of engine tech to give it an advantage in terms of consumption and emissions. The NC700 gets us back to '60s Brit bike figures.If you adjust consumption and emissions figures by capacity, bikes look way worse than 13 year old Commodores, Falcons and Surfs.

Well you can't adjust consumption and emission figures by engine size and then say bikes are bad.

As they are ridden with their unadjusted for engine size ie small capacity engines.

For the last 40 years we have been wealthy enough to buy motorcycles just for fun, not real transport. Manufacturers just wanted to put horsepower in.

That trend is changing, and manufacturers have just started to build motorcycles focused on economy and practical transport again.

In five years time cars will have come along way but there will be bikes that have come further still.

While some will still buy V8s and superbikes, some will choose economy and efficiency.

[Subike]

I wish there was a fuel freely available that was more user friendly to bikes.
I think that the available 91 & 95 fuels have so many additives in them, that the fuel burn in a small capacity motor can not be at its best.
If this were so then 91 & 95 would be all thats needed on the race track.

The other huge saving bikes can produce is the fact of less time commuting, less wear and tear on the roads and happier people who are less strained from fighting the mornings and evenings traffic congestion.

I took a cage to work for the first time in over a year just before Christmass, FwaerKK!! never again.

[James Deuce]

Well you can't adjust consumption and emission figures by engine size and then say bikes are bad.

As they are ridden with their unadjusted for engine size ie small capacity engines.

For the last 40 years we have been wealthy enough to buy motorcycles just for fun, not real transport. Manufacturers just wanted to put horsepower in.

That trend is changing, and manufacturers have just started to build motorcycles focused on economy and practical transport again.

In five years time cars will have come along way but there will be bikes that have come further still.

While some will still buy V8s and superbikes, some will choose economy and efficiency.

The single cat bikes get is in no way anything like the emissions controls cars get, most have 2 or 3 now, plus engine off technology when the engine isn't under load, and when the throttle is off in a car, it's off, unlike a motorcycle's, because throttle control on a bike is hugely more influential on vehicle control in a car. Infinitely variable engine maps aren't something that can be adopted on bikes, again due to the influence of the throttle on control and chassis dynamics. Motorcycle consumption figure are terrible. There is no ducking it and ONE motorcycle range from ONE manufacturer isn't a trend. Motorcycle engines are 2 decades behind car engines. The half a Honda Jazz engine isn't for every motorcyclist so I don't see it taking off as a sustainable concept, because you are NEVER going to get non-motorcyclists out of cars and onto motorcycles. A few MAY go to scooters. 99% of motorcyclists I know ride toys and aren't going to move to something like an NC700 unless there's no choice. And even then many of them will simply flag it because you can buy reasonably exciting cars that are cheaper to run than a motorcycle.

[James Deuce]

Converters dont reduce greenhouse gasses by the way, they make more of them. They reduce gasses toxic to humans by converting them to greenhouse gasses.
Yes that's right. I never said anything about greenhouse gases either. However packaging is still a huge problem on bikes. It is only very recently that cats on bikes have gotten anywhere near the collector. They need to be hot to work, and most of them go in the muffler on a motorcycle, which takes a long to time to warm up and by then the the most polluting time of an engine's existence, just after startup is well over and the toxic stuff is already in the atmosphere. I'm quite happy to concentrate on removing the stuff that causes cancer and erectile dysfunction thanks.

The "old" cat on your "old" car was vastly more efficient than the one on your ER6 will ever be.

Bear in mind that a lot of bikes get aftermarket mufflers and more recently I see them paired with cat removal kits. A lot of new bikes hit the road without ever running a cat in anger, so I still think the psycho-social aspects of the consumer toy market are the driving force in large capacity motorcycles.

[bogan]

The single cat bikes get is in no way anything like the emissions controls cars get, most have 2 or 3 now, plus engine off technology when the engine isn't under load, and when the throttle is off in a car, it's off, unlike a motorcycles, because throttle control on a bike is hugely more influential on vehicle control in a car. Infinitely variable engine maps aren't something that can be adopted on bikes, again due to the influence of the throttle on control and chassis dynamics. Motorcycle consumption figure are terrible. There is no ducking it and ONE motorcycle range from ONE manufacturer isn't a trend. Motorcycle engines are 2 decades behind car engines. The half a Honda Jazz engine isn't for every motorcyclist so I don't see it taking off as a sustainable concept, because you are NEVER going to get non-motorcyclists out of cars and onto motorcycles. A few MAY go to scooters. 99% of motorcyclists I know ride toys and aren't going to move to something like an NC700 unless there's no choice. And even then many of them will simply flag it because you can buy reasonably exciting cars that are cheaper to run than a motorcycle.

Big picture though, cars have much more mass, and much more drag. Bikes don't have to have as much engine fanciness to be comparable in efficiency, assuming similar load requirements.

[James Deuce]

Big picture though, cars have much more mass, and much more drag. Bikes don't have to have as much engine fanciness to be comparable in efficiency, assuming similar load requirements.

So why is my 1600kg Ford Ka cheaper to run than a 200kg 750cc motorcycle in a mild state of tune? Surely the only worthwhile measure of efficiency is how much fuel a vehicle uses over a given distance? Factor in an equivalency equation to cope with the engine capacity difference and the weight it tows around and the Ka starts to look bloody good. In that instance the Ka wins hands down. Couple that with shorter, more labour intensive service intervals and tyres that cost twice as much for 2 tyres than four for the Ka that last 6 times longer than those on the bike and it really becomes a very unpleasant picture. Not cheap tyres either. I have Bridgestone Re880s on it now and 4 of those cost the same as 1 Pirelli Angel rear for the XJR1300 (don't mention that consumption figures, don't mention the consumption figures), the same size tyre as would have gone on the Zed.

In terms of drag, bikes are much worse than cars. The average faired motorcycle has a cd of about 0.36. Unfaired and it's in the 0.40 range. Most cars these days are high 0.20s, low 0.30s.

[bogan]

So why is my 1600kg Ford Ka cheaper to run than a 200kg 750cc motorcycle in a mild state of tune? Surely the only worthwhile measure of efficiency is how much fuel a vehicle uses over a given distance? Factor in an equivalency equation to cope with the capacity difference and the Ka starts to look bloody good. In that instance the Ka wins hands down. Couple that with shorter, more labour intensive service intervals and tyres that cost twice as much for 2 tyres than four that last 6 times longer than those on the bike and it really becomes a very unpleasant picture. Not cheap tyres either. I have Bridgestone Re880s on it now and 4 of those cost the same as 1 Pirelli Angel rear for the Xjr, the same size tyre as would have gone on the Zed.

In terms of drag, bikes are much worse than cars. The average faired motorcycle has a cd of about 0.36. Unfaired and it's in the 0.40 range. Most cars these days are high 0.20s.

Exactly, its not just the engine tech, its the total outcome. Cos the 'mild' tune didn't consider fuel efficiency to be high up the list is my guess.

Of course bikes have a higher cd than cars, they have much more sticky out bits (like the rider), the drag force is still lower in most cases cos they have a far smaller frontal area. And the rolling drag is a tad lighter too.

[davereid]

So why is my 1600kg Ford Ka cheaper to run than a 200kg 750cc motorcycle in a mild state of tune? Surely the only worthwhile measure of efficiency is how much fuel a vehicle uses over a given distance? Factor in an equivalency equation to cope with the engine capacity difference and the weight it tows around and the Ka starts to look bloody good. In that instance the Ka wins hands down. Couple that with shorter, more labour intensive service intervals and tyres that cost twice as much for 2 tyres than four for the Ka that last 6 times longer than those on the bike and it really becomes a very unpleasant picture. Not cheap tyres either. I have Bridgestone Re880s on it now and 4 of those cost the same as 1 Pirelli Angel rear for the XJR1300 (don't mention that consumption figures, don't mention the consumption figures), the same size tyre as would have gone on the Zed.

In terms of drag, bikes are much worse than cars. The average faired motorcycle has a cd of about 0.36. Unfaired and it's in the 0.40 range. Most cars these days are high 0.20s, low 0.30s.


I don't think you are making really fair comparisons. The Ka was built to be cheap reliable economical transport. The guys who designed the 750 wouldnt have even given that a thought. They added cylinders and carbs and cams to give more power, as that was what the market wanted.

Compare vehicles with similar performance. Like my old ER6F and my 6.1 litre Holden V8.

The Holdens faster at the top end marginally, if you can keep it on the road, but its not as quick off the mark.

At round town commuter speeds CD is irrelevant. But the bike reliably returned 65mpg, and I could squeeze 75 out of it if I played nice. The Holden is lucky to get 20mpg, and often gets worse. Both vehicles had fuel injection and cat converters. I sold the bike before it needed tyres, but the ute needs them every 30,000 - 40,000 km, to tyre consumption is equivalent.

The ute needs 6.5 litres oil and a filter every 10,000 km. The bike needs 2.2 l oil and a filter at the same distance.

Both engines will last forever if looked after.

[pritch]

So how do you factor in the Belgian research that showed the motorcycles involved meant that every vehicle spent two minutes less on their journey. That's a lot of polution saved soley due to the presence of the bikes.

[ducatilover]

what about 13 yr old galants falcons commodores and toyota surfs
I've had many things on EGA systems and my bikes are disgusting (I did a paper for some automotive thingy a few years back during some study stuff I was doing)
My VT250 was worse than a VS Ecotec Commodore. Which is not something you'd expect.
Newer bikes do have much better tech, but they're still not as good as a small car, simply because decent bikes will run such an extreme tune

Engine size isn't a deciding factor in it, it's the condition of the motor, the tune and the emissions gear.

[Ocean1]

A well setup two stroke on-song is pretty efficient, but outside of it's peak efficiency is pissing raw, unburnt fuel into the atmosphere.

Unless it's an Evenrude. Clean two strokes are here, and they're owned lock, stock and barrel by BRP.

[SMOKEU]

Commuting by motorbike is an excellent idea, so then I can give all the thieves and vandals the perfect opportunity to fuck with my bike while it's left unattended in a public place.

[McFatty1000]

Commuting by motorbike is an excellent idea, so then I can give all the thieves and vandals the perfect opportunity to fuck with my bike while it's left unattended in a public place.

But people can and will do that to any vehicle if they want. And hey, its kinda fun to turn the fuel off on mates bikes and watch them try to figure out why the bike stops before they're a block away...

[SMOKEU]

But people can and will do that to any vehicle if they want. And hey, its kinda fun to turn the fuel off on mates bikes and watch them try to figure out why the bike stops before they're a block away...

These days it's silly to leave a nice looking vehicle parked in public all day and expect to find it in the same condition as when you left it. I'd rather lose a $200 push bike than have a car or motorbike fucked with by assholes who have no respect for the property of anyone else.

[McFatty1000]

These days it's silly to leave a nice looking vehicle parked in public all day and expect to find it in the same condition as when you left it. I'd rather lose a $200 push bike than have a car or motorbike fucked with by assholes who have no respect for the property of anyone else.

Yeah, point taken, I guess thats more an unfortunate reflection on society though, yet another factor that has to be taken into account with simple things like commuting now

[swbarnett]

These days it's silly to leave a nice looking vehicle parked in public all day and expect to find it in the same condition as when you left it. I'd rather lose a $200 push bike than have a car or motorbike fucked with by assholes who have no respect for the property of anyone else.
It's like a fine piece of furniture. You don't hide that in a cupboard for fear the kids are going to scratch it. It's there to be used.

And besides, in the six years I've been commuting (every day) since I got back in to riding I've never had so much as a finger print on the paintwork.

[GSF]

These days it's silly to leave a nice looking vehicle parked in public all day and expect to find it in the same condition as when you left it. I'd rather lose a $200 push bike than have a car or motorbike fucked with by assholes who have no respect for the property of anyone else.

Where the fuck do you live? In three years of commuting each day, my bike has sat either in the car park of a shopping mall or at the end of a short dead-end street in Newton all day and it's never been touched.

That sort of attitude just means that the terrorists win, dude.

[st00ji]

comparing bikes to cars is foolish. bike manufacturers have generally spent the last 40 years making their bikes faster, whereas car manufacturers have generally spent the last 40 making their cars cleaner and more efficient.

two wheeled devices obviously have the potential to be brilliant at the clean and efficient thing, they just need some demand to get manufacturers spending on it.

[SMOKEU]

Where the fuck do you live? In three years of commuting each day, my bike has sat either in the car park of a shopping mall or at the end of a short dead-end street in Newton all day and it's never been touched.

That sort of attitude just means that the terrorists win, dude.

I live in Christchurch. After having owned a few vehicles that some cunts fucked with, and reading numerous threads about stolen and vandalized vehicles on here and the TM message boards, and seeing all the damage people willingly do to vehicles, I've decided that it's simply not a risk worth taking.

[James Deuce]

comparing bikes to cars is foolish. bike manufacturers have generally spent the last 40 years making their bikes faster, whereas car manufacturers have generally spent the last 40 making their cars cleaner and more efficient.

two wheeled devices obviously have the potential to be brilliant at the clean and efficient thing, they just need some demand to get manufacturers spending on it.

Yeah it is. So is claiming that Bikes are cleaner and more efficient than cars. They're not.


So how do you factor in the Belgian research that showed the motorcycles involved meant that every vehicle spent two minutes less on their journey. That's a lot of polution saved soley due to the presence of the bikes.

The Belgian research ignores the fact that most people don't want to ride a bike (gasp!). They'd rather get a bus than get on a bike. Motorcycling isn't for everyone. It's not even for a large minority of the commuting public.


I don't think you are making really fair comparisons. The Ka was built to be cheap reliable economical transport. The guys who designed the 750 wouldnt have even given that a thought. They added cylinders and carbs and cams to give more power, as that was what the market wanted.

I don't think it's unfair to compare the Ka and Zed. If you want to compare similar performance then you start getting into the cost vs. performance argument that cars are always going to loose, despite being cheaper to own than the similar performing bike. No one likes it when I mention that the Ka is significantly cheaper to commute in (a couple of thousand a year) and takes about 10 minutes longer than the bike to cover the same distance in commuter traffic. I think it's just a kneejerk to me pointing out that bikes aren't the cheap transport people would like to think they are.

In the '60s motorcycles were transport and 80-100mpg was taken for granted. Somewhere along the way we let wannabe racers dictate what people needed for two-wheeled transport and the end result is that most developed countries are trying to legislate bikes out of existence, or at least raise the entry bar so high that kids can't be bothered. Why would you ride a weak 4 stroke 125 around for 2 years and then a heavy 175kg+ 47hp boring arse bike for another 2 years when even the smallest VW Polo is cheaper to run, faster, and you can carry 4 people in it?

[bogan]

Yeah it is. So is claiming that Bikes are cleaner and more efficient than cars. They're not.

Regardless of how you split hairs on the current situation (for the sake of argument lets call it even), his point was if the purpose of more bikes was commuting, and made cleanliness and efficiency a priority for manufacturers, they quickly would be cleaner and more efficient. So assuming that more people on commuters changes commuter bike technology, you could definitely say more people on commuter bikes is better for the environment. Chances are even a commuter's choice from the current lineup would start moving the bike's efficiency well above cars.

[actungbaby]

Regardless of how you split hairs on the current situation (for the sake of argument lets call it even), his point was if the purpose of more bikes was commuting, and made cleanliness and efficiency a priority for manufacturers, they quickly would be cleaner and more efficient. So assuming that more people on commuters changes commuter bike technology, you could definitely say more people on commuter bikes is better for the environment. Chances are even a commuter's choice from the current lineup would start moving the bike's efficiency well above cars.

yes i like the look the nc 700 athough the cb 500 looks promising too

[James Deuce]

Regardless of how you split hairs on the current situation (for the sake of argument lets call it even), his point was if the purpose of more bikes was commuting, and made cleanliness and efficiency a priority for manufacturers, they quickly would be cleaner and more efficient. So assuming that more people on commuters changes commuter bike technology, you could definitely say more people on commuter bikes is better for the environment. Chances are even a commuter's choice from the current lineup would start moving the bike's efficiency well above cars.
I'm not splitting hairs. A car is cheaper to run, more practical, more versatile. The pool of available motorcyclists is in an ever accelerating decline in Europe, Australasia, and the US, given the rapidly rising average age of riders so the bikes you guys are looking at as "commuters" are actually the "big" tourers and sportsbikes of the developing world's future. They're just getting a burst of limited exposure in developed markets to see how they will potentially be used and how they can be made cheaper to run. You're not going to get more people on bikes in the developed world by making them cheaper to run.

[bogan]

I'm not splitting hairs. A car is cheaper to run, more practical, more versatile. The pool of available motorcyclists is in an ever accelerating decline in Europe, Australasia, and the US, given the rapidly rising average age of riders so the bikes you guys are looking at as "commuters" are actually the "big" tourers and sportsbikes of the developing world's future. They're just getting a burst of limited exposure in developed markets to see how they will potentially be used and how they can be made cheaper to run. You're not going to get more people on bikes in the developed world by making them cheaper to run.

Your cars might be cheaper to run, but on the whole it's not clear cut, I don't see why we need to keep going over this? The bikes I look at as commuters are those chosen specifically for that purpose, things like the NC700 spring to mind. The only reason there is debate as to which is the more efficient type of vehicle is that currently commuters do not choose to ride on commuter bikes. You're probably right about the market not going to pick up the commuter bikes, then again, rising fuel costs might encourage a shift.

The point is the option of cheaper transport on two wheels is there, the fact it is not currently embraced as much as it could be does not change that.

[mstriumph]

Some excellent research out, from the overseas, shows that commuting by motorbike is good for _everyone_.

Cuts down car emissions, traffic jam time, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorbikes/9272532/Why-commuting-by-motorcycle-is-good-for-everyone.html


-----

So, we get this in front of as many people as possible (including councils, perhaps), and get the cagers to stop trying to kill us :P

<_< Unfortunately those that wish to kill us can't read, are immune to reason and are probably weird anyway ...... if they weren't, they'd be riding bikes :yes:

[James Deuce]

Your cars might be cheaper to run, but on the whole it's not clear cut, I don't see why we need to keep going over this? The bikes I look at as commuters are those chosen specifically for that purpose, things like the NC700 spring to mind. The only reason there is debate as to which is the more efficient type of vehicle is that currently commuters do not choose to ride on commuter bikes. You're probably right about the market not going to pick up the commuter bikes, then again, rising fuel costs might encourage a shift.

The point is the option of cheaper transport on two wheels is there, the fact it is not currently embraced as much as it could be does not change that.

No one buys efficient motorcycles in our society (as far as the manufacturers are concerned the numbers are so small they may as well be zero), and those that do are viewed as weird, deficient and fundamentally unmanly. If no one buys them, what is the point of producing them? To equip different markets with those motorcycles in future, not our toy obsessed one which is ever more rapidly abandoning motorcycles not only as transport, but toys as well. I think the point is utterly moot, because it ignores the psycho-social aspects of owning and riding a motorcycle and the growing aversion to perceived danger, completely.

Another factor I have seen creep into the motorcycle buying cycle is buying an older Sportsbike rather than upgrading or buying something new, largely in response to having less money. So rather than adopting cheap two-wheeled transport, motorcyclists would generally rather have a less-efficient, and just as expensive to run older motorcycle than an NC700.

The comment about "your cars" in regard to my choice, is also indicative of the Kiwi attitude that your car is a reflection of your virility. I don't believe that there is any real commitment, at least in "middle" NZ to adopt any form of cheap personal transport and motorcycles and cars alike are a projection of your social status. This again renders a 200kg, 48hp motorcycle with half a car engine moot, especially when a Z750, or FZ8 is viewed as a "girl's" bike. Who is going to buy the NC700 ultimately? Someone pretty damn beardy.

The initial supposition is based on two flawed arguments.

1. People will switch to commuting on motorcycles.
2. People want efficient, cheap to run motorcycles.

I'd suggest, fairly disrespectfully too, that neither of those will happen unless it is legislated to be so. As I can't see any developed country's government making people ride motorcycles, ever, I'd suggest that this style of motorcycle is going to be a footnote in the demise of personal transport in "Western" society.

[swbarnett]

No one likes it when I mention that the Ka is significantly cheaper to commute in (a couple of thousand a year) and takes about 10 minutes longer than the bike to cover the same distance in commuter traffic.
In what city was the comparison done? I seriously doubt that any car is cheaper to commute in when it spends an hour sitting on an Auckland motorway compared to 15mins of lane-splitting.

[bogan]

No one buys efficient motorcycles in our society (as far as the manufacturers are concerned the numbers are so small they may as well be zero), and those that do are viewed as weird, deficient and fundamentally unmanly. If no one buys them, what is the point of producing them? To equip different markets with those motorcycles in future, not our toy obsessed one which is ever more rapidly abandoning motorcycles not only as transport, but toys as well. I think the point is utterly moot, because it ignores the psycho-social aspects of owning and riding a motorcycle and the growing aversion to perceived danger, completely.

Another factor I have seen creep into the motorcycle buying cycle is buying an older Sportsbike rather than upgrading or buying something new, largely in response to having less money. So rather than adopting cheap two-wheeled transport, motorcyclists would generally rather have a less-efficient, and just as expensive to run older motorcycle than an NC700.

The comment about "your cars" in regard to my choice, is also indicative of the Kiwi attitude that your car is a reflection of your virility. I don't believe that there is any real commitment, at least in "middle" NZ to adopt any form of cheap personal transport and motorcycles and cars alike are a projection of your social status. This again renders a 200kg, 48hp motorcycle with half a car engine moot, especially when a Z750, or FZ8 is viewed as a "girl's" bike. Who is going to buy the NC700 ultimately? Someone pretty damn beardy.

The initial supposition is based on two flawed arguments.

1. People will switch to commuting on motorcycles.
2. People want efficient, cheap to run motorcycles.

I'd suggest, fairly disrespectfully too, that neither of those will happen unless it is legislated to be so. As I can't see any developed country's government making people ride motorcycles, ever, I'd suggest that this style of motorcycle is going to be a footnote in the demise of personal transport in "Western" society.

People's use of vehicles is a different argument than the vehicle's fuel efficiency. The hypothetical is that more commuters on bikes is a good thing for traffic and fuel efficiency, with that in mind I think its safe to assume the same things will be a major part of the motivation. There are a large number of people on scooters and GNs, so social status can't be that big an issue. Half the non-motorcycling public can only just tell the difference between a harley and a ninja and that is about it, can't see social status as an issue if nobody knows that you ride an efficient bike instead of a performance bike. I mean ffs man, you drive a Ka and base your fuel efficiency conclusion on that, if we can't point to NC700 figures for bikes cos of low social status, then you can't use Ka figures either :bleh:

So there's no problem with the aforementioned hypothetical statement, however the attitudes you mention (mainly the safety one) will likely prevent the hypothetical from ever making its way to reality; no reason to stop trying to make it happen though.

My comment about your car was just to show that your choices do not reflect the fleet distribution, so your personal experience is skewed and irrelevant; mine is too as a van is higher end fuel usage with my bike more mid range.

[pritch]

The Belgian research ignores the fact that most people don't want to ride a bike (gasp!).


They didn't ignore it, it's completely irrelevant. They were looking at the effect the particular number of bikes had on that stretch of road.

I think Honda and BMW, there may be others, are preparing for the scenario predicted by those who believe that the price of oil will skyrocket as the world supply goes into decline.

Legislation promoting motorcycle use is not likely, most politicians don't like bikes.

[Ocean1]

They didn't ignore it, it's completely irrelevant. They were looking at the effect the particular number of bikes had on that stretch of road.

I think Honda and BMW, there may be others, are preparing for the scenario predicted by those who believe that the price of oil will skyrocket as the world supply goes into decline.

Legislation promoting motorcycle use is not likely, most politicians don't like bikes.

Got a link to that paper P?

I read something in a paper a while ago which made reference to something like that. In that case traffic engineers had modelled different percentages of bike use. One of the revelations was that, although a bike takes up a position on the road the same as a car and therefore contributes to the congestion as much as a car, when the traffic stops the bikes all disappeared. Took them a while to work out why, but the upshot was that a 2% increase in bike use had a disproportionate effect on travel times.

[pritch]

Got a link to that paper P?

I read something in a paper a while ago which made reference to something like that. In that case traffic engineers had modelled different percentages of bike use. One of the revelations was that, although a bike takes up a position on the road the same as a car and therefore contributes to the congestion as much as a car, when the traffic stops the bikes all disappeared. Took them a while to work out why, but the upshot was that a 2% increase in bike use had a disproportionate effect on travel times.

That sounds like the one. The original news item was posted on KB, (possibly more than once?) the search facility should find it.
If you were better than me at entering appropriate search terms?

[98tls]

Some excellent research out, from the overseas, shows that commuting by motorbike is good for _everyone_.

Cuts down car emissions, traffic jam time, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorbikes/9272532/Why-commuting-by-motorcycle-is-good-for-everyone.html


-----

So, we get this in front of as many people as possible (including councils, perhaps), and get the cagers to stop trying to kill us :P

Or simply stop commuting on a motorcycle would go a long way to ensuring a healthy future,cagers dont much care if they do kill you,they if its there fault lose there licence for 6 months and thats that.Have done it long ago found it both boring and very restrictive,pretty much the opposite to the very reasons i love motorcycles.No surprise its an English article,a great day out on a bike there would mean only slightly congested roads and speed cameras every second km.

[davereid]

No one buys efficient motorcycles in our society (as far as the manufacturers are concerned the numbers are so small they may as well be zero), and those that do are viewed as weird, deficient and fundamentally unmanly..

I used to run a scooter shop. Its not just beards and sandles that buy scooters and motorcycles designed to be cheap economical transport. Id suggest a quick look at a commuter motorcycle park in central Wellington might reveal that the real motorcyclist that you see on a superbike on a sunny sunday, is not the real motorcyclist that commutes every day rain hail or shine.

Those central motorcycle parks have a few super-bikes in them, but they are always full of smaller scooters, singles and twins.

You are right that you may not get everyone onto a motorcycle. But then again, you wont get everyone onto public transport either. I for one have no interest in paying too much, to go from not quite where I am, to not quite where I want to go, at a time that doesn't suit with people I don't like.

But you are wrong to say that motorcycles are less efficient than cars and more pollutant.

SOME motorcycles are. SOME are not.

The old generation of fuel efficient motorcycles never went away. Honda Suzuki, BMW etc never stopped building them, they just didn't apply themselves particularly hard either. You have always been able to buy a GB400, FT500, F650, CB125 etc etc etc, they never stopped making different variations on the fuel efficient cheap theme.

The next generation will be adding decent emission controls, and manufacturers will be making some real efforts.

Even 8 years ago we had the Peugeot Jetforce in our showroom - a supercharged 75mph, 125cc scooter.

When fuel reaches $10 per litre, public transport will be priced to match.

But Honda already get 180mpg out of the 70mph PX150, and manufacturers have only just turned their sights on motorcycles.

The future for me, like many others will be fuel efficient motorcycles.

[pritch]

No surprise its an English article,a great day out on a bike there would mean only slightly congested roads and speed cameras every second km.

Thanks for that. It's an English article but the research was done in Belgium on the motorway between Leuven and Brussels.
That name Leuven rings a bell, seen that before. Perhaps I'll enjoy a Stella while I think aout that? :drinkup: