250cc hedgehog and other stats

[Spearfish]

It becomes insignificant when compared to the output of CO2 over the life of the vehicle. 288gm/km for a GSXR1000, compared to compared to 119/km for a Hyundai i30. The Hyundai will probably do 200,000kms before it's scrapped. Most GSXR1000s are lucky to do 20,000kms before being pulled out of a tree, river bed, or fence post.

or if the Hyundai hits the GSXR

[James Deuce]

More likely that the GSXR will slide across the road and hit the Hyundai after a single vehicle accident on a corner.

[Spearfish]

More likely that the GSXR will slide across the road and hit the Hyundai after a single vehicle accident on a corner.

Thats cold

I guess it gone a bit off topic.

[nodrog:Me]

How many whales does your car kill?

do i count the fat bitch at wendys who waddled out infront of me cos she couldnt she over her first full of fries?

I can,t believe two people on say a Yamaha Tmax super scooter would pollute more than car.--or one on a 50cc vino would hardly register on the pollution scale.--10 people riding a 50cc scooter each adds up only to 500cc--must be less greenhouse polluting than 1 car. I know someone who has just bought the new HONDA car hydrid and that is better for the planet but, really, at $40,000 each not your typical road using punter.Motorbike riding should NOT be for the elite punters who can shovel money anywhere--but uni-students or anyone on a tight income should be able to enjoy cheap fun transport such as riding.

unfortunatly it is cheaper and more enviromentaly friendly to use the car

[middleaged2wheeler]

No they won't. CO2 emissions by capacity for motorcycles are much worse than most modern cars. McLaren's new twin turbo V8 600hp supercar puts about about the same C02 emissions as a GSXR1000.

Trouble with you co2 lunatics is you measure it out of the exhaust pipe which is totally wrong-- Listen, a one tonne car has a co2 debt on it,s windscreen as it rolls off the assembly line of over 100,000 gramms of co2 if not much more--before it even goes on the road-that,s where the damage is done -one tonne of metal and glass to manufacture, smelter co2 costs and think it through. Heavier the car the more co2 debt it has on it,s windscreen as it leaves the factory.Then having 5 wheels, 5 litres of oil in it,s sump for the 200,000 kms it may drive, before RESMELTED-- I ask you the co2 damage per tonne of car in it,s manufacturing stage is gross compared to a small say 125kg scooter or motorbike.Forget about what comes out of the exhaust pipe once it,s made--catalictic converters,other exhaust emission systems, fuel injection can cure that and does in new models made today. The bigger the car the more co2 debt it has in manufacture--then so it should have low co2 damage when in it,s useful life otherwise it would be totally insane to run up large co2 debts in the manufacturing stage and have a large co2 output when on the road. Motorbikes win with far less co2 damage in manufacture and the newest ones compare well in emission controls standards--don,t be sold the co2 out of the exhaust pipe clap trap-in assessing co2 damage to the planet.

[James Deuce]

Trouble with you co2 lunatics is you measure it out of the exhaust pipe which is totally wrong-- Listen, a one tonne car has a co2 debt on it,s windscreen as it rolls off the assembly line of over 100,000 gramms of co2 if not much more--before it even goes on the road-that,s where the damage is done -one tonne of metal and glass to manufacture, smelter co2 costs and think it through. Heavier the car the more co2 debt it has on it,s windscreen as it leaves the factory.Then having 5 wheels, 5 litres of oil in it,s sump for the 200,000 kms it may drive, before RESMELTED-- I ask you the co2 damage per tonne of car in it,s manufacturing stage is gross compared to a small say 125kg scooter or motorbike.Forget about what comes out of the exhaust pipe once it,s made--catalictic converters,other exhaust emission systems, fuel injection can cure that and does in new models made today. The bigger the car the more co2 debt it has in manufacture--then so it should have low co2 damage when in it,s useful life otherwise it would be totally insane to run up large co2 debts in the manufacturing stage and have a large co2 output when on the road. Motorbikes win with far less co2 damage in manufacture and the newest ones compare well in emission controls standards--don,t be sold the co2 out of the exhaust pipe clap trap-in assessing co2 damage to the planet.

That's lovely in theory, but the emissions people publish those figures and the eco-weenies who run most Western governments make decisions based on CO2 output of vehicles. Also there are very few 125kg motorcycles on NZ roads.

The major problem with motorcycles is they simply aren't fuel efficient. Motorcycle manufacturers have chased horsepower by increasing revs for 4 decades and as a consequence a 1 tonne MPV with a 2 litre 98 kw engine uses less fuel than a 200kg 750cc 4-cylinder motorcycle. I know that because I've measured both my vehicles (previous bike was a Z750S) over time and the mini-MPV is cheaper to run. Even replacing ALL the tyres is cheaper than replacing 2 on the Zed. Economically and emissions-wise, modern motorcycles make no sense at all. Simple engine capacity equivalency calculations would horrify the average eco-weenie

I still reckon the CO2 debt incurred by a modern motorcycle is vastly greater than the average car simply because motorcycle engines are mostly run in the most inefficient part of the rev range most of the time. Fuel injection hasn't fixed it in motorcycles. I got better fuel consumption from my carburetted RC30 nearly 20 years ago, than I did from my Z750S simply because factory fuel maps are designed to meet noise and emissions targets in a very inefficient part of the rev range. 15km/l in town is not good fuel economy for a mid-sized motorcycle. Most modern cars make motorcycle fuel consumption figures look laughable and the oft-quoted CO2 figure per km is now one of the most important selling features of European markets. Motorcycle manufacturers don't quote CO2 gms/km because they'd be insane to do so.

The closer you look at motorcycle engine technology the more you realise that in many markets motorcycles could simply be outlawed on a pollution basis. Something needs to change, and maybe Honda's VFR1200F is at the vanguard of that, with its ability to run on one pair of cylinders

[middleaged2wheeler]

Co2 damage starts at extracting oil,refining oil transporting oil here, cracking petrol-- if an older bike is inefficient burning two gallons a week-- and that two gallons cost co2 all the way along the chain to get into the tank--how much larger is the 8 gallons per week in a suv which may be eco in burning the stuff but uses large amounts in the first place, which cost co2 to produce.

Big is not good - the carbon cost making big vehicles is too high.- -no doubt human nature being what it is they will argue the toss until the waters wash them away- -much crucial industries that generate c02 have been exported overseas in the eighties, where we have no control over emissions--greed drives many a person and they couldn,t give a toss about co2 pollution- just getting things made cheaper overseas -after all we can,t see the gaint coal burning power stations that push thick black columns skyward but we will for sure suffer from their pollution.

we even sell them the coal--

the little smart car or a new motorbike depending on your personal needs, fully emission controlled--ahh sense in sight.

[James Deuce]

You've diverted from your argument, almost as radically as the Snowy River scheme manipulated the course and flow of the Snowy River.

Modern motorcycles aren't fuel efficient or low CO2 emitters by engine capacity OR distance. You can't use the argument that motorcycles are an ecologically smart choice because they aren't.

[Pixie]

my motorcycle costs more in fuel per KM, and its emissions kill more whales than my car.

Two of the many reasons I ride.

[middleaged2wheeler]

human desires versus the planet- that,s the contest -no wonder the NASA crowd are looking for another place to be.

[Lucy]

. This disquieting increase in people trying to sell bikes can be directly attributed the cost of biking i bet and new rules--all i can say thanks a lot the stinky crowd who have caused it--running a bike shop business must be difficult if the Trade Me stats are anywhere indicitive of the wider situation---some one should write book "how to wreck an industry without even trying"--watch out property investors.

Yep. I sold my bike shortly after the ACC levies were announced.

But then I bought two to replace it.

Oops.

Yay.

[skinman]

my little 250twin does 33km/l better than your hybrid & I dont sit in line so take 1/2 less to get to work

[Ratti]

Play nicely gentlemen...

From whence are the suggested figures appearing?
Is it a reliable source?
What about slower, older bikes in good tune?

[slowpoke]

That's lovely in theory, but the emissions people publish those figures and the eco-weenies who run most Western governments make decisions based on CO2 output of vehicles. Also there are very few 125kg motorcycles on NZ roads.

The major problem with motorcycles is they simply aren't fuel efficient. Motorcycle manufacturers have chased horsepower by increasing revs for 4 decades and as a consequence a 1 tonne MPV with a 2 litre 98 kw engine uses less fuel than a 200kg 750cc 4-cylinder motorcycle. I know that because I've measured both my vehicles (previous bike was a Z750S) over time and the mini-MPV is cheaper to run. Even replacing ALL the tyres is cheaper than replacing 2 on the Zed. Economically and emissions-wise, modern motorcycles make no sense at all. Simple engine capacity equivalency calculations would horrify the average eco-weenie

I still reckon the CO2 debt incurred by a modern motorcycle is vastly greater than the average car simply because motorcycle engines are mostly run in the most inefficient part of the rev range most of the time. Fuel injection hasn't fixed it in motorcycles. I got better fuel consumption from my carburetted RC30 nearly 20 years ago, than I did from my Z750S simply because factory fuel maps are designed to meet noise and emissions targets in a very inefficient part of the rev range. 15km/l in town is not good fuel economy for a mid-sized motorcycle. Most modern cars make motorcycle fuel consumption figures look laughable and the oft-quoted CO2 figure per km is now one of the most important selling features of European markets. Motorcycle manufacturers don't quote CO2 gms/km because they'd be insane to do so.

The closer you look at motorcycle engine technology the more you realise that in many markets motorcycles could simply be outlawed on a pollution basis. Something needs to change, and maybe Honda's VFR1200F is at the vanguard of that, with its ability to run on one pair of cylinders

You guys are showing a rather limited perspective of what motorcycling is in the real world, the one beyond NZ's shores.

Check out China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Phillipines etc and you'll see that by and large motorcycles are of less than 250cc. Big bore bikes are the gravy for motorcycle manufacturers, while the cheap an' chearful scooters and sub-250 runabaouts are the meat and veg. GSXR's and fireblades etc are a miniscule proportion of the market worldwide. Think outside your cushy NZ recreational ridng world and get back to basic survival with the most cost effective transport required and you inevitably come back to a cheap lil' 2 wheeler.

In Dili East Timor and Ulsan Korea the staple means of transport for whole families (not unusual to see mum and dad book-ending a coupla kids in the middle) is a shitty lil' bargain basement 125cc runabout. They are every bloody where. If a cheap car was the way to go I can guarantee they'd be doing it, but it's simply not the case.

And the pollution argument is a furphy. Not everyone has emissions on the front page of the paper as NZ does, most have got more important things to worry about than the dubious claims of the impending Apocolypse in (insert sensational headline here) depending on which paper you read, they are more worried about putting food on the table next week. These are the people buying most of the worlds motorcycles.

Besides, have you seen iron ore or bauxite (raw material for Aluminium) being mined and refined? The size/running costs and emissions of the machines and refineries is beyond belief, to then transport those materials to Japan or Europe or Korea to produce say a 1600kg Hyundai Accent vs a 130kg Daelim 125 makes a mockery of the assumptions that the extended lifespan (like to see some data on that) of a car makes it more cost/emissions effective. And obviously 10 times more materials means a 10 times bigger hole in the ground/environment etc etc.

The argument that cars are a more environmentally friendly means of transport just doesn't stack up.

[Slyer]

Agreed Slowpoke.

If you want to make a fair comparison you should be comparing vehicles of similar performance. My 250 has about the same acceleration as my 2.0L car but uses maybe a third of the petrol to do so. But then, my Toyota Celica is only really a entry level sports car.

If you want to make a fair comparison between a car and a 750cc sport bike you should be comparing with a heavily souped up Subaru twin turbo or a Ferrari or something...