EEEEEEKK 16-times more pollution!

[huck farley]

Here's me thinking by commuting on my bike and leaving the Cage at home. I was doing my bit as far as the emissions go. But after reading this article I dug out on the web. I'm gutted and I'm wasting my time I am releasing 16 times more soot than I would if I took the cage. Have a read and leave your comments, it's going to be interesting.

READ ON
Motorbikes are churning out more pollution than cars, even though they make up only a small fraction of vehicles on the roads, according to a report.

Tests on a selection of modern motorbikes and private cars revealed that rather than being more environmentally-friendly, motorbikes emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons, including greenhouse gases, three times the carbon monoxide and a "disproportionately high" amount of other pollutants, compared to cars. Ana-Marija Vasic at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, who led the research, said the need to legislate on emissions from motorbikes has been overlooked because there are so few on the roads. The oversight has lead to a paucity of research into ways of making their engines run more cleanly.

In Britain, there are 1,060,000 motorbikes on the road but more than 25m private cars.

Dr Vasic's tests showed that, especially in urban traffic, when motorcyclists frequently accelerated quickly, motorbike engines burned fuel inefficiently, giving a sharp peak in emissions. The yearly hydrocarbon emissions of the average two-wheeler in urban traffic measured up to 49 times higher than that of the average car, according to the study, due to be published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

"The importance of [motorbike] emissions has been underestimated in legislation, giving manufacturers little motivation to improve aftertreatment systems," said Dr Vasic. The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150cc.

[sAsLEX]

Lies, Damned Lies and statistics.


Numbers can say whatever you want them to.


Name me one car that is more fuel efficient than say a Royal Enfield, which gets 189MPG.

[McJim]

Bugger - my bike only puts out 53hp. Now some polititian is gonna look at the emissions from a high reving bastard or a 2 stroke 50cc Italian and make changes to my muffler so it only puts out 20hp.

[Ixion]

Only 16 times ? Psahww . He hasn't seen Petal on full song. I'll give him emissions. Noisy dirty smelly antisocial environmentally disastrous two smokers . We :love:'s them

[Patar]

If these numbers are even remotely accurate (which i doubt as there are no actual numbers, just factors of numbers we don't know) the only way it could possibly make any sense would be in concentrations and if you look at a standard 250cc commuter bike compared to the standard 1.8L town car, the actual amount of pollutants generated from the car will still be greater (granted this is a generalisation).

Another major factor to take into consideration is maintenance; i know very few car drivers who regularly maintain their cars, only doing as a wof requires them to do... which has nothing to do with the engine performance, while many people who own motorbikes get their engines fairly regularly serviced (valve clearances, etc.)

I will admit that emission control on motorbikes is severaly lacking on bikes, especially catalytic convertors, which from memory are on very very few bikes. I wouldn't mind having two bikes, a small commutor and a larger weekend/ride bike.
Having a commutor bike that would be fairly small displacement and the addition of catalytic convertors would mean emissions compared to the average car are almost insignificant.

In short, while the numbers are a load of bs, the message behind it that pollutant emissions per unit volume of exhause could be a lot better than what it currently is, and for bikes used for commuting it should be improved upon.

[Skunk]

Sounds like bullshit to me. Unless you're comparing a 500cc two stoke in traffic to a 1000cc mini car. Then there might be some truth.
Sounds like some 'researcher' has an axe to grind.

[The Stranger]

If these numbers are even remotely accurate (which i doubt as there are no actual numbers, just factors of numbers we don't know) the only way it could possibly make any sense would be in concentrations and if you look at a standard 250cc commuter bike compared to the standard 1.8L town car, the actual amount of pollutants generated from the car will still be greater (granted this is a generalisation).

Another major factor to take into consideration is maintenance; i know very few car drivers who regularly maintain their cars, only doing as a wof requires them to do... which has nothing to do with the engine performance, while many people who own motorbikes get their engines fairly regularly serviced (valve clearances, etc.)

I will admit that emission control on motorbikes is severaly lacking on bikes, especially catalytic convertors, which from memory are on very very few bikes. I wouldn't mind having two bikes, a small commutor and a larger weekend/ride bike.
Having a commutor bike that would be fairly small displacement and the addition of catalytic convertors would mean emissions compared to the average car are almost insignificant.

In short, while the numbers are a load of bs, the message behind it that pollutant emissions per unit volume of exhause could be a lot better than what it currently is, and for bikes used for commuting it should be improved upon.

There is a study around which looks at the environmental cost of moving passengers for various forms of transport.
In short it listed trains as the worst, followed by busses, then cars then bikes.
Essentially it came down to the pounds per passenger of the vehicle.

[Ocean1]

There is a study around which looks at the environmental cost of moving passengers for various forms of transport.
In short it listed trains as the worst, followed by busses, then cars then bikes.
Essentially it came down to the pounds per passenger of the vehicle.

Yes, I can believe bikes are less fuel efficient and their exhaust gasses less well controled. I can't believe they're 16 times worse. I might believe it under a very narrow range of conditions, but if it's a fair fight using mass moved per unit of evelnastyshit produced I'd be amazed.

Trains are bad simply because the engines are almosr universally of ancient design. As an industry, rail is stuck in a standards compliance induced time warp. Nuke the reg's and start ag'in and you'd find a well designed rail system could make good use of the fact that it takes less energy to move a ton by rail than any other transprot system. By shitloads.

[sAsLEX]

Trains are bad simply because the engines are almosr universally of ancient design. As an industry, rail is stuck in a standards compliance induced time warp. Nuke the reg's and start ag'in and you'd find a well designed rail system could make good use of the fact that it takes less energy to move a ton by rail than any other transprot system. By shitloads.

LIAR.


I raise your train with my ship!

[Ixion]

I raise your ship with my sailing ship. Zero energy, zero pollution. How come the greenies havent gotten on to this?

[The Stranger]

I raise your ship with my sailing ship. Zero energy, zero pollution. How come the greenies havent gotten on to this?

They don't trust your sailing ability perhaps?

[Ixion]

They don't need to. Thaz wot computers is for. Seriously there is some interesting work going on using sailing ships with the rigging controlled by computers and winches (they could be powered by solar panels I guess). Eliminates the two big drawbacks of the sailing vessel, the need for lots of manpower and a great deal of skill. Still leaves the other drawback, variability. Modern commerce wants to know very precisely when a cargo will arrive. Often it's Ok if it takes a long time. But they need to know when. Mind you, with modern weather forecasting and radar and computers, that might be addressable too. Bear in mind, when petrol goes up , so does bunker oil.

[scracha]

I will admit that emission control on motorbikes is severaly lacking on bikes, especially catalytic convertors, which from memory are on very very few bikes.

FFS, a cursory glance at the interweb would show that this thread is a complete troll.

Euro 1 back in 2003 introduced emissions laws for motorcycles. Euro 2 and now Euro 3 are VERY strict. Prior to Euro 1, motorcycle emissions for ALL categories were well below that of the average car for carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. ALL bikes over 150cc have to meet Euro 3, so a sportsbike is as clean as a commuter 250. Euro 3 is cleaner than the majority of cars and Euro 4 is well...you'll find out just how clean from NEXT MONTH when a fair percentage of the existing bikes on the markeT are phased out as they won't be able to meet it.

Amongst others, Japan and the US have emissions laws pertaining to motorcycles. Only 3rd world countries like New Zealand don't give a $hit about emissions.

In summary...the original poster is spouting shite

Now the real question...will any of this affect cheap motorcycle imports.
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/publications/infosheets/infosheet-2-08.html

[Ocean1]

LIAR.


I raise your train with my ship!

'Strue dude. Takes less energy to move a kg a mile on steel rails than any other system. There's just more to the story than that...


I raise your ship with my sailing ship. Zero energy, zero pollution. How come the greenies havent gotten on to this?

Aw dude, I'm coming over all nostalgic.

Compulsary 5 year merchant marine conscription with a fleet of coastal clippers? Aye.

[sAsLEX]

They don't need to. Thaz wot computers is for. Seriously there is some interesting work going on using sailing ships with the rigging controlled by computers and winches (they could be powered by solar panels I guess). Eliminates the two big drawbacks of the sailing vessel, the need for lots of manpower and a great deal of skill. Still leaves the other drawback, variability. Modern commerce wants to know very precisely when a cargo will arrive. Often it's Ok if it takes a long time. But they need to know when. Mind you, with modern weather forecasting and radar and computers, that might be addressable too. Bear in mind, when petrol goes up , so does bunker oil.

I raise that with a solar power capacitor bank feeding into a LASER based space delivery system that launches vehicles into space using the LASER that then glide back to similar stations anywhere in the world after completing an appropriate orbit.

Free energy and precisely timed.

[sAsLEX]

'Strue dude. Takes less energy to move a kg a mile on steel rails than any other system. There's just more to the story than that...



Aw dude, I'm coming over all nostalgic.

Compulsary 5 year merchant marine conscription with a fleet of coastal clippers? Aye.

YVAN EHT NIOJ?

[Steam]

YVAN EHT NIOJ?

By the gods of Kobol, did you just quote the Simpsons? I weep.

But I'd be in for the sailing ship thing, I'd love that.

Remember how the Macgillicutty serious party wanted a Great Leap Backwards? Well we're about to get it, but not by choice.

This whole thread is a repost by the way. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=25254

[Ocean1]

By the gods of Kobol, did you just quote the Simpsons? I weep.

But I'd be in for the sailing ship thing, I'd love that.

Remember how the Macgillicutty serious party wanted a Great Leap Backwards? Well we're about to get it, but not by choice.

This whole thread is a repost by the way. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=25254

So what?

And I note you're monika will be redundant in our brave new world, bosun.

[Steam]

And I note you're monika will be redundant in our brave new world, bosun.
Nothing but the steam rising from sweaty men's backs, as they haul the haliards on a cold winter's morning. Hoo-rah and up she rises

[Ocean1]

Nothing but the steam rising from sweaty men's backs, as they haul the haliards on a cold winter's morning. Hoo-rah and up she rises

Few years ago, on a scorching summer's day, a coastal collier, (a brigintine), tied up in Westport.

The Master and his brother, who owned it, caught the train to Wellington on familly business, leaving the two crew to end-for-end the halliards the next day. This involved dropping the lot and short-splicing the bitter ends anew, a job that usually took a whole day. The day dawned warm and cloudless, and got hotter, and at about 10:00 the pub across the wharf opened.

Being enterprising 1st class seamen the crew dragged the free ends across the wharf, the railway lines and the road and into the bar, so they could continue the job in well quenched comfort. They worked away throughout the day and as the locals drifted in they were pressed for tales of far-off places, in exchange for the odd pint.

The approach of closing time found the job done, and the hotel owner, well pleased with the effect the afternoon's entertainment had had on his till offered the crew a last pint, on the house. "Right oh mate, then we'd better get this lot back aboard, before the master get's back eh"?

Two empty glasses hit the bar at precicely six oclock, and at precicely one minute past the train, returning from Wellington with the Master and his brother on board, pulled up at the station, cutting the fuckin lot in half.

True.

[skidMark]

ur all too old and clever...

no matter what if they make emission laws etc and make bikes slow as shit...take the cats out.....

it's not an issue....

it's all bullshit anyways

planets fucked no matter what.

it's the hondas that ruined the study tho...cus they have more free flowing exhausts.....sumthing about owner maintenance.....and sticking stuff up the zorst to keep it loose i dunno:buggerd:

[disenfranchised]

Now the real question...will any of this affect cheap motorcycle imports.
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/publications/infosheets/infosheet-2-08.html

Doesn't seem aimed at motorcycles...
Not with sections like

4.2 Visible smoke check

4.2(1) A vehicle to which this section applies must not emit clearly visible smoke when the vehicle’s engine is running at its normal operating temperature, under either of the following conditions:

(a) for a continuous period of five seconds when the engine is idling;
(b) as the engine is being accelerated rapidly to approximately 2500 revolutions per minute or approximately half the maximum engine speed (whichever is lower).

2.5k rpm eh?? I'm not sure anyone would notie if I "accelerated rapidly" to there...might even stall it if I wasn't careful.

Oh wait...it doesn't apply to bikes at all

Section 2 Entry requirements

2.1 Scope of section 2
2.1(1) Except as provided in 2.1(2), this section applies to vehicles of Classes MA, MB, MC, MD1, MD2, MD3, MD4, ME, NA, NB and NC

Bikes being class LC

[Kickaha]

They don't need to. Thaz wot computers is for. Seriously there is some interesting work going on using sailing ships with the rigging controlled by computers and winches (they could be powered by solar panels I guess)

I saw some stuff like this a few years back, but with computer controlled sails as a supplement to the main engines aimed at increasing the fuel economy

I can't remember whether it got as far as real life testing though

[Sketchy_Racer]

Dr Vasic's tests showed that, especially in urban traffic, when motorcyclists frequently accelerated quickly, motorbike engines burned fuel inefficiently, giving a sharp peak in emissions.

That sentence there prooves just how bullshit this is. IMO

Motorcycles in general produce more power per CC than cars (normal day to day cars)

in order to produce power, you must burn fuel, the more efficiently you can combust the fuel the more power you will make.

So in theory, bikes burn fuel MORE efficiently than cars.

JMO, and i could be wrong, but that is how i percieve it

[pzkpfw]

Sails? Ropes?

I thought they had new vertical turbine blade things that caught the wind from any direction and used it to turn the screws?

[Steam]

True.
Wow that's great, very funny! Where's that from? I googled some of it but no hits.
Is that the new book of NZ sea stories and shipwrecks that's just come out?

[smoky]

Tests on a selection of modern motorbikes and private cars revealed that rather than being more environmentally-friendly, motorbikes emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons, including greenhouse gases, three times the carbon monoxide and a "disproportionately high" amount of other pollutants, compared to cars....... tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150cc.

Taken by them selves in isolation bikes are bad for the environment, and especially in town.

But if you check out all the research you see they have compared it by cc on a pro rata basis – in other words take a 250 cc and it’s compared to a 1000cc car they will divide the 1000cc by 4 to give a comparison. They should compare it by HP or power delivery - 90 HP car engine with a 90 HP bike engine – then the test would show different results.

If they want to compare in town/city pollution as they have done – then they should also do a time taken over same distance factor.
Joe cage driver sitting in traffic with the engine idling for an extra hour, will eventually pollute more than Joe bike rider who has the ability to slip thru the traffic and be at his destination in less time – even if his bike pollutes more, it’s for a considerably less amount of time.
The other factor is as a car gets older it’s rate of pollution increases at a higher rate to a bike ( and there’s a lot less old bikes in poor condition on the road than old cars); under inflated tyres can increase the pollution from a car radically, not really making a difference on a bike pollution wise. Then think about service time - other fluids that the car use in greater quantity like anti coolant, more oil to dispose of after an oil change – then build in the pollution factor of getting rid of a used car – larger batteries, more waste products to fill our land fills with.
Cars are very rarely full on a trip – how many cars are driving around with just the driver in it – this reduces its environmental efficiency as well.
So I would think the big picture presents the bike as more environmentally friendly over a car.

[Ocean1]

Wow that's great, very funny! Where's that from? I googled some of it but no hits.
Is that the new book of NZ sea stories and shipwrecks that's just come out?

Not verbatum, but it's from Ross Norgrove's "Cruising Rigs and Rigging". Been out of print for fookin years.

[Swoop]

Seriously there is some interesting work going on using sailing ships with the rigging controlled by computers and winches (they could be powered by solar panels I guess). Eliminates the two big drawbacks of the sailing vessel, the need for lots of manpower and a great deal of skill.
Have a look at any of the modern superyachts. A crew comprising of a handful of people and all of the sailwork done by computers and machinery.
If they want to be "innovative" they turn off the electronics and do it the "old fashioned way".
Billionaires do not want to have to haul on a hailyard though... dunno why?

I can't remember whether it got as far as real life testing though
See above.

[avrflr]

Way OT but how about this for a semi-wind-powered cargo ship:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/kite-assisted-ship-to-set-sail-in-january/

[huck farley]

FFS,
In summary...the original poster is spouting shite

Now the real question...will any of this affect cheap motorcycle imports.
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/publications/infosheets/infosheet-2-08.html

TAKE THAT UP WITH THE WRITER NOT THE POSTER. SHIT FOR BRAINS

[scracha]

You know, I used to teach eleven year olds to check their information sources and not believe everything they read on the Internet. Retard.

You gonna read Mein Kampf next week and tell us all the Jews are stealing our money?


TAKE THAT UP WITH THE WRITER NOT THE POSTER. SHIT FOR BRAINS

[huck farley]

http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/46419/---/l=1

Big gob reckons I'm posting shite aye? well here's another paper from the same institute on the matter. Perhaps now you can get your foot outa your gob!!

[huck farley]

If these numbers are even remotely accurate (which i doubt as there are no actual numbers, just factors of numbers we don't know) .

http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/46419/---/l=1

I do believe them to be right, after all it is a credited institute standing behind it's Scientists findings.

[RC1]

i wont believe it til it on telly, then it must be true :bleh:

[Forest]

I saw a quote recently but I can't remember where I saw it (probably in the Herald online).

The quote said that a single badly tuned truck engine can put out as much soot and particulate pollution as 1,000 cars. Which was interesting given that trucks are not subject to the recent changes in the emissions testing laws.

[Coyote]

Disproportionately high? So we're still doing better than cars who the vast majority have 1 occupant in them and are pumping out more gas since they're carrying an air conditioned room with them?


I raise your ship with my sailing ship. Zero energy, zero pollution. How come the greenies havent gotten on to this?
Unless we replace roads with viaducts, Blokarts would be a better option.

[scracha]

http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/46419/---/l=1

I do believe them to be right, after all it is a credited institute standing behind it's Scientists findings.

You really are a complete fucktard. So you've verified the paper from this institute.....by looking at another paper from the same institute.

[k14]

I raise your ship with my sailing ship. Zero energy, zero pollution. How come the greenies havent gotten on to this?
Because it has the same problem as wind power :) The wind doesn't blow all the time does it?

[The Stranger]

in order to produce power, you must burn fuel, the more efficiently you can combust the fuel the more power you will make.


I like your idea there, and always thought along those lines too, until - Take the Fazer 130hp at the rear wheel.

Now slice open the air box, replace the air cleaner and secondary flies, Gut the cat from the collector and replace the stock can with a yoshi (doing away with the second cat). It breathes nicely now.
Add in a fuel cut eliminator and PC3 and it is now pulling about 153 at the rear wheel. I say about as this is based on overseas experience, however suffice to say it has a lot more power right across the entire rev range.

Fuel usage is gone out the window. From 220km to reserve to about 170km to reserve.

Ok, yamaha had it lean between about 4,000 - 5,000 rpm, but not by a lot. On average, looking at the map I would say an additional 5% fuel has been added across the range, yet fuel economy has decreased by about 23%.

Not complaining and it isn't going back to stock anytime soon, but why should the fual usage increase?

[The Stranger]

I do believe them to be right, after all it is a credited institute standing behind it's Scientists findings.

Seriously, you need to review their methodology and their numbers yourself. There are some astounding flawed studies come out of some reputable institutions.
I have been into this in dept in the past with medical studies. Some of that shit would shock you and some of the conclusions are just astounding. Like running a 5 yr follow up study of a particular drug. Respondants whom didn't complete the full 5 yrs were excluded from the results. So yes the drug performed extreemly well as it is very hard for dead people to respond negatively to the study.

[huck farley]

You really are a complete fucktard. So you've verified the paper from this institute.....by looking at another paper from the same institute.

Stop your mumbling. Get your foot out of your big gob, and speak properly and behave yourself. Nobody likes you when your'e being silly.

[huck farley]

Seriously, you need to review their methodology and their numbers yourself. There are some astounding flawed studies come out of some reputable institutions.
I have been into this in dept in the past with medical studies. Some of that shit would shock you and some of the conclusions are just astounding. Like running a 5 yr follow up study of a particular drug. Respondants whom didn't complete the full 5 yrs were excluded from the results. So yes the drug performed extreemly well as it is very hard for dead people to respond negatively to the study.

I attended the school of hard knocks, I make my own findings. You don't think for one minute people are going to believe what you post simply because you obiously think you are a better person than most on here, simply because you made it to the sixth form. I think also you maybe snorting some of that shit you are giving to your lab rats.

[scracha]

I attended the school of hard knocks,

School of hard knocks....is that the one before the university of life? :innocent:

[huck farley]

Thanks for dobbing me in scratcha. I just got a warning from Admin thanks to you.
Like a Christmas cake, you'll keep!! My only wish is if I was doing life, I would love to have you as a cellmate.

What clown would go dobbing in another biker!! Shame on you. In future just give as good as you get OK? Don't go dobbing anyone else in Just because you don't agree with a legitimate posting.

[Insanity_rules]

Numbers really can reflect anything you like. 20% of all statisticians know that!

[scracha]

I would love to have you as a cellmate.

I'm not that way inclined but thanks for the offer.:chase:

[Kickaha]

Thanks for dobbing me in scratcha. I just got a warning from Admin thanks to you.


No one dobbed anyone in, while reading the thread I saw the "little argument" you two were having start to escalate and took what I consider appropriate action

now back on track please Gentlemen

[Fooman]

That sentence there prooves just how bullshit this is. IMO

Motorcycles in general produce more power per CC than cars (normal day to day cars)

in order to produce power, you must burn fuel, the more efficiently you can combust the fuel the more power you will make.

So in theory, bikes burn fuel MORE efficiently than cars.

JMO, and i could be wrong, but that is how i percieve it

Little bit wrong:

Bikes generally don't burn fuel more efficiently, but do burn it more often to make more power per cc than a normal ,everyday car. And because they have operate over a larger rev range, combustion chamber design is hard to optimise. And when it is, it is often optimised for maximum power, at the top end of the rev range, meaning less efficient combustion at lower speeds (where there is a lot more time spent).

Getting back to OP's point, I think the major reason why there is more pollution from bikes (NOx, unburnt hydrocarbons, CO, particulates etc) is that car engines have been designed for low emissions for over 20 years, whereas bikes have only needed to meet emissions targets within the past 5 years or so - emissions controls for cars are that far ahead that such a comparison is not unexpected.

Honda had an advertising campaign about 10 years ago in which they claimed one of their motors, with the appropriate lean-burn, emission controls installed would (ignoring the C02 and H20 content of the exhaust) exhaust cleaner air than that present in major cities in the US - it would actually clean up pollutants in the atmosphere.

Cheers,
FM

C

[The Stranger]

I attended the school of hard knocks, I make my own findings. You don't think for one minute people are going to believe what you post simply because you obiously think you are a better person than most on here, simply because you made it to the sixth form. I think also you maybe snorting some of that shit you are giving to your lab rats.

Thank you for the compliment, but alas I only made it to fifth form.
We don't use any lab rats in IT, well except our clients.

[scracha]

Regardless of the fuel emissions argument, the most energy & pollution in a vehicles lifetime is caused during manufacturing and disposal. Cars are far higher than motorcycles in this respect.

[EroSamnin]

When you buy a big bike, you should get a small low emissions going to work on bike FREE! Bullshit made up problem solved! Sounds like a load of arse. Some dick just wants more research money and some other dick is giving it to them. There is no way in hell my bike puts out more crap than my sisters monster truck, even if I do four times the mileage she does.

I estimate in 10 years there will be NOTHING fun at all to do ever. This is because greenies think fun = bad.

[delusionz]

Just a few things I'd like to throw in...

It says they tested 50cc scooters and motorcycles over 800cc...

I've never ridden a big bike but I've heard they can use just as much fuel (distance per litre) as a car depending on your riding style.

Some bikes as late as 2007 are still using carburettors.

But that still doesn't add up to bikes being 16x more pollutant than cars.... that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.

Most bikes are sports tuned vehicles (especially in the 800cc+ classes), It's not fair to compare them to all the cars on the road the majority of which these days being small passenger cars.

[sAsLEX]

Just a few things I'd like to throw in...

It says they tested 50cc scooters and motorcycles over 800cc...

I've never ridden a big bike but I've heard they can use just as much fuel (distance per litre) as a car depending on your riding style.

Some bikes as late as 2007 are still using carburettors.

But that still doesn't add up to bikes being 16x more pollutant than cars.... that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.

Most bikes are sports tuned vehicles (especially in the 800cc+ classes), It's not fair to compare them to all the cars on the road the majority of which these days being small passenger cars.

If people drove their cars as hard as some ride their bikes I am sure the bikes would struggle to drink half as much

[Jantar]

http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/46419/---/l=1

Big gob reckons I'm posting shite aye? well here's another paper from the same institute on the matter. Perhaps now you can get your foot outa your gob!!
That is NOT a paper, it is a report on a paper. There is a huge difference. But without the actual paper with its methodology and datasets it is difficult to make any scientific comment.

One thing we can comment on though is a simple matter of logic: Each litre of fuel has the same chemical composition, and whether it is burnt in a car or a bike engine it will put out a similar level of exhaust emmisions. The exact composition of these emmisions will vary depending of the burn efficiency, catalytic convertor effectiveness etc. However the only true measure of pollutants is the amount of fuel burnt per distance travelled. Please advise me of the car type that gets 16 times the fuel mileage that my 1000cc bike gets.

[quickbuck]

The whole Green House thing is BS.

See (http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp)

[quickbuck]

Lies, Damned Lies and statistics.


Numbers can say whatever you want them to.


Name me one car that is more fuel efficient than say a Royal Enfield, which gets 189MPG.

So true.
The researcher has to also make many "Assumptions" in any study that involves stats.
If these assumptions aren't known by the reader, then the whole report can be considered BS.

[smoky]

The whole Green House thing is BS.

See (http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp)

The problem with fact's is you have to actually spend some time reading them - and think about it a bit to make your own mind up.
I Looked at the link you posted and started reading - then thought I could'nt be bothered reading all that - just give me the punch line (summery).

That's why 'global warming' is being accepted - because they tell us, we don't have to read anything or think about it for our selves. Much easier

[23226]

Rocket III is EURO III compliant,

If everyone had Euro III compliant vehicles then NZ would be a better place. :zzzz:

[quickbuck]

The problem with fact's is you have to actually spend some time reading them - and think about it a bit to make your own mind up.
I Looked at the link you posted and started reading - then thought I could'nt be bothered reading all that - just give me the punch line (summery).

That's why 'global warming' is being accepted - because they tell us, we don't have to read anything or think about it for our selves. Much easier

Baaaa
Nation/ World is full of Sheep.

[Jiminy]

That is NOT a paper, it is a report on a paper. There is a huge difference.

VERY wise comment. Some people here seem to have forgotten it.


One thing we can comment on though is a simple matter of logic: Each litre of fuel has the same chemical composition, and whether it is burnt in a car or a bike engine it will put out a similar level of exhaust emmisions. The exact composition of these emmisions will vary depending of the burn efficiency, catalytic convertor effectiveness etc. However the only true measure of pollutants is the amount of fuel burnt per distance travelled.

Hum, if I remember well my school years (very long ago, and my memory is not that great anymore :-)), the same chemical constituents can be recomposed in different ways, not all of them having the same positive or negative impact. It seems plausible that the polluting emissions from a given engine might be worse than from another engine using the same fuel.

Just a few comments after reading the article.


eight different motorbikes with those of 17 cars
That's not a lot to draw meaningful statistics from...


up to sixteen times more of these pollutants
Typical journalist quote (or is it the author?). Probably means that the oldest and worst motorbike in the worst sample was about 16 times worse than the best car in the best sample. Read again slowly ;-). As to where the average was...

And this was during the
urban test cycle, probably meaning (my guess) cold engine running idle for a short period of time. I don't think that motorcycles (especially scooters?) are very efficient at that, which is one of the interesting points of the article.

This is not a study in situation, but a laboratory conclusion. Again, it does NOT say that Joe Motorcyclist pollutes more than Joe Cager, but draws attention to the fact (my reading) that little has been done to make motorbikes reduce their emissions of pollutants in the recent years compare to cars, which I find hard to deny (e.g. catalytic converters), and Joe Motorcyclist could pollute even much less than today!

I haven't read the full study, but I find that the abstract goes that way, see for yourself: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=16433345&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

And just to add another bit to the discussion:
http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/39486/---/l=2

My two cents...

[smoky]

Baaaa
Nation/ World is full of Sheep.

That was my point – I was being sardonically satirical

[smoky]

... the same chemical constituents ..recomposed in different ways, ..same positive or negative impact. It seems plausible....
.....means that the oldest and worst motorbike in the worst sample was about 16 times worse than the best car in the best sample.... cold engine running idle for a short period of time. ...This is not a study in situation, but a laboratory conclusion. Again, it does NOT say that Joe Motorcyclist pollutes more than Joe Cager,...that little has been done to make motorbikes reduce their emissions of pollutants in the recent years ...

Now look here you – don’t go interrupting a good thread with facts, it’s KB!

[huck farley]

This is because greenies think fun = bad.

I agree with your comments re the Greene's, and tree hugger have stepped over the line and are getting to much attention re their policies on pollution. I read an article a while ago whereas in China a small city of 8.5 million people lost the vote to continue riding scooters and small bore motorcycles as the Chinese Greeies put up a better argument than the two wheeler road users.

As a result over 1.5million bikes were ordered of the road and went to the scrap yards (probably to help make another warship!!) The two wheel riders complied with the order, and turned their machines in over a 4 week period. Being a communist country I shudder to think what would have happend if the residents took no notice and continued to ride their two wheelers to work.

[huck farley]

Way OT but how about this for a semi-wind-powered cargo ship:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/kite-assisted-ship-to-set-sail-in-january/

Great Idea. But I would love to see them launch and also retrieve this massive thing.

[Jantar]

...Hum, if I remember well my school years (very long ago, and my memory is not that great anymore :-)), the same chemical constituents can be recomposed in different ways, not all of them having the same positive or negative impact. It seems plausible that the polluting emissions from a given engine might be worse than from another engine using the same fuel....

True, but the article talks about the quantity of pollutant, not the quality. Note the part
16-times more pollutant.

Petrol burns to give off mainly CO, CO2, H2O, and a very small quanity of other exhaust chemicals such as NO, NO2, SO2 etc. There is a tiny amount of other emmisiions, and that is why many modern vehicles have catalytic convertors. So to get a measure of the quanity of pollutants, all that is need is to know the amount of fuel burnt.