111000101000100010011110
good point about the young drivers, and I'd say the average wage would be very minimal, part time at minimum wage is fuck all.Originally Posted by Squiggles
And yeh, somebody needs to put the question to him about the transfer of injury cost.
not in my experience, cars round 10-12k/l, bikes round 15-20k/l.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Fuel usage is not the only measure. I can buy four really good tyres for my 1300cc car for the price of a 180/55 rear and they'll last 5 times as long. Insurance is practically free compared to the bike at less than a third of the adjusted cost (equalising vehicle value and then adjusting accordingly). Servicing is almost exactly 50% of the bike's costs.
I'm getting 15-18 km/l from the car around town which is slightly better than the Z750S I had and a LOT better than the limited knowledge I have of fuel consumption for the Buell I briefly owned. I get 16-20km/l out of it on the open road. The car is 10 years old and lots of kms too. My wife's Renault is better than the Zed was and it's heavy and underpowered.
Cars are much cheaper to run than bikes and the fuel consumption of a motorcycle is appalling compared to almost any car when you look at power to weight ratios. I don't think your argument stacks up. Bikes are not fuel efficient enough to definitively state there's any advantage for a bike if the ACC levy was solely on petrol.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
111000101000100010011110
If ACC would be charged on fuel then it is the only relevant measure here, and comparing a buell with a 1300cc town car (I assume? or very similar) is hardly apples with apples is it? A big enough average of cars and bikes fuel efficiencies will see bikes on top, a lot less mass, and a lot less aerodynamic drag makes it the obvious result.
edit: and on average bikes do a quarter of the kms cars do apparently
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
No, the Buell's fuel efficiency was MUCH worse than the Zed and therefore worse than the Ka. The R6 I had was worse than the Buell. The majority of bikes on the road in NZ are split into two categories: Sports and Cruisers. Sports bikes are horrible inefficient and have a drag coefficient that would make a car designer blush with shame. Most motorcycles have a cd in the .5 to .6 range. Most cars designed in the last 15 years are aiming at a cd of less than .3. I think you may need to re-evaluate some of your assumptions.
Because cruisers are lower revving than sports bikes they can get away with smaller fuel tanks, because they use less fuel over a given distance at the same speed as a Sports Bike. Where bikes have gone "wrong" in the fuel efficiency stakes over the last 20 years is that redlines have soared to the point where bikes use more fuel to maintain the same speed at velocities where cd (drag coefficient) is unimportant, e.g. 100km/hr or less.
I may have got it wrong, but I assumed your argument was around comparative fuel consumption giving a bike an advantage. In fact common rail, direct injection diesels make bikes look like coal burning power stations of the early 20th century as those diesels have 30-40 km/l fuel consumption figures. Bikes have NO advantage in an ACC fuel levy only situation.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
111000101000100010011110
Firstly, Cd for bikes will of course be worse, bikes have way more sticky out bits etc, but the drag force is proportional to Cd*Area, so the bikes still come out better off, being they have far less frontal area. Still don't beleive me, the busa can hit 300kmhr with 160bhp, any cars that can do that? And yeh redlines are getting pretty up there, but pretty easy to change up a gear and keep the revs low initNo, the Buell's fuel efficiency was MUCH worse than the Zed and therefore worse than the Ka. The R6 I had was worse than the Buell. The majority of bikes on the road in NZ are split into two categories: Sports and Cruisers. Sports bikes are horrible inefficient and have a drag coefficient that would make a car designer blush with shame. Most motorcycles have a cd in the .5 to .6 range. Most cars designed in the last 15 years are aiming at a cd of less than .3. I think you may need to re-evaluate some of your assumptions.
Because cruisers are lower revving than sports bikes they can get away with smaller fuel tanks, because they use less fuel over a given distance at the same speed as a Sports Bike. Where bikes have gone "wrong" in the fuel efficiency stakes over the last 20 years is that redlines have soared to the point where bikes use more fuel to maintain the same speed at velocities where cd (drag coefficient) is unimportant, e.g. 100km/hr or less.
I may have got it wrong, but I assumed your argument was around comparative fuel consumption giving a bike an advantage. In fact common rail, direct injection diesels make bikes look like coal burning power stations of the early 20th century as those diesels have 30-40 km/l fuel consumption figures. Bikes have NO advantage in an ACC fuel levy only situation.
As it stands diesel cars pay their fuel tax through diesel miles, it'd be better to put the ACC levy on them anyway. And yes there are some bikes less fuel efficient than some cars, it doesn't mean all of them are! Hell 25% of the motorcycle fleet are scooters now, sfa cars rival their fuel efficiency. I'd estimate the average car fuel efficiency at around 12km/l with bikes at least 15, going by my own experiences
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Firstly, Cd for bikes will of course be worse, bikes have way more sticky out bits etc, but the drag force is proportional to Cd*Area, so the bikes still come out better off, being they have far less frontal area. Still don't beleive me, the busa can hit 300kmhr with 160bhp, any cars that can do that? And yeh redlines are getting pretty up there, but pretty easy to change up a gear and keep the revs low init
As it stands diesel cars pay their fuel tax through diesel miles, it'd be better to put the ACC levy on them anyway. And yes there are some bikes less fuel efficient than some cars, it doesn't mean all of them are! Hell 25% of the motorcycle fleet are scooters now, sfa cars rival their fuel efficiency. I'd estimate the average car fuel efficiency at around 12km/l with bikes at least 15, going by my own experiences
Hayabusa's cannot hit 300 km/hr with 160 HP.
Bikes are not more fuel efficient than cars.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Forum whore
Sorry Jim, I think you're fighting a losing anecdotal battle on this one. While some bikes definitely like more than a tipple every real world test I could find seems to confirm bikes as being more fuel efficient than your average car. For example a Suzuki Swift 1.6 drinks 7.5l/100km's whereas a Hayabusa uses just 5.9l/100km's. Even allowing for smaller engined cars you're gonna battle to get close to the 'Busa's figures. The "hypermiling" ultra economy figures quoted about the place are good for bugger all 'cos no-one in their right mind actually drives like that.
FWIW, the average fuel consumption for NZ's light vehicle fleet (excludes bikes) is estimated at around the 10l/100km mark (http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...stics_2010.pdf page 10) and the average engine size is actually growing (I thought it would be going the other way, but nup) at just over 2.2l whereas the bike average capacity has been reasonably steady round 550cc, so even the above Swift/Hayabusa comparison makes cars look closer than they are.
Here are some comparative M/C figures: http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/Motor...uide/index.htm
As for how much grunt a Hayabusa (or any bike) puts out, that is huge can o' worms. But this site makes some good points, comes from a reputable company with a large testing database, and has nothing to gain from overinflating figures: http://factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html
A 'Busa could well do 300kph with less than 160hp, depending where/how you measure it.
Forum whore
Edit: my apologies for the farkin' hesitant heap of shit IT network I've gotta use and the double posts it caused........
I've already posted the data on what's required to get a bike through the 300kph mark and it is substantially more HP than people assume. The only Busa's I've seen bust 300kph at the sprints have been lightly modified.
In regard to the fuel consumption figures for bikes you're forgetting one huge point. NONE of the riders I know who own Sports bikes ride at or below the limit anywhere and New Zealand has very few roads where a constant steady state throttle is achievable and fewer riders who ride like that. No busa owner gets 5.9km/l. God, I was averaging 4.7 km/l running the Buell in. Nearly 200cc less than a 'busa and being relatively gentle running it in.
My personal figures aren't anecdotal. I recorded my fuel consumption on the Zed for six months and posted the results on here. I repeated the experiment 2 years later and abandoned the bike as commuter transport. It was too inefficient and cost too much to run especially as petrol started to hit the $2/litre mark. It was cheaper to get a Snapper card and a train ticket. As a result I can compare the running costs of the Ka against the bike and including fuel it costs 2/3rds what the Zed did with a little over half the engine capacity. Take fuel out of the equation and it costs less than half what the bike did to run thanks to bigger service intervals and lower consumable costs. It costs significantly less than public transport, enough to justify depreciation.
I'm talking about actual usage, not what's hypothetically possible. My worn out Ka gets better mileage than my owned from new, pampered Z750 did. That's a fact.
NZ's car fleet is in for a rude shock in the near future. Where the rest of the civilised world (I'm deliberately excluding the US - they're not civilised) has long since adopted small capacity diesels as the default family vehicle, NZ and Australia continue to sneer at the diesel family vehicle because of some bad experiences foisted on both markets by unscrupulous Japanese manufacturers bolting diesel heads on to alloy petrol blocks (I'm looking at you Mitsubishi). Add NZ's legislated bias against diesel vehicles and we're missing out on a revolution the rest of the planet has been enjoying for a decade. We have one of the best diesel producing oilfields in the world just off Taranaki and we've given it away to other countries to make diesel with.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Just faidin away!
A tyre tax would get the whole spectrum, every wheeled vehicle has a tyre on it's wheels, even little kids trikes!fuel tax would be easiest, but then bikers get off lightly, and risk based levy could not be applied. Something like diesel miles could work for that, but it's so easy to disconnect the odometer. As I see it there are only two solutions to the problem, non-risk based levies so nobody feels too hard done by, or private insurance companies with market competition ensuring all groups are only being overcharged a little bit. Which then re-introduces the fault factor, ties up legal system, wastes more money, furthur raises levies for high fault users like learners.... Pity we are moving from the former to the later
That would get the off road vehicles and cyclists etc that are not registered!
All the other sports (skiers etc) and non registered vehicles would be covered by the vehicles that they use to get there!
It's been suggested before but I'm just saying it again!
111000101000100010011110
flat rate or percentage? cos percentage would mean those who buy safer tyres are penalised more for it. And we don't want to get off road vehicles as their accidents should come from the earners account as does all the other sports. And those who do burnouts would get taxed the fuck out of! But it does make a lot of sense for the road account, factoring in expected mileage per tyre could see all vehicles charged a very similar rate per km. Best idea yet I reckonthough no doubt someone will be along shortly to correct me on this
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
You guys and p.dath would get on like a house on fire.
111000101000100010011110
umm, briefly and destructively?You guys and p.dath would get on like a house on fire.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Forum whore
You can write down numbers until the AB's win the World Cup (Tui?) but unless you took the Ka for "enthusiastic" runs over the 'taka's or for spirited drives to Lake Ferry for fish 'n chips while largely ignoring the speed limit, as you would on your 750/Buell the figures aren't comparable. Everyones right wrist has a mind of it's own so your figures are only representative of your use at that time, not a definitive answer for most motorcyclists. Not to mention your Buell and 750 are respectively 100% and nearly 50% larger than the average NZ motorcycle (550cc) and the Ka is approx half the size of the average NZ car (2200cc): not quite worst case but not far off it. Haha, contrast that with my 40 year old Septic Tank which probably uses more gas warming up in the shed (leccy choke not set up on the 780 Holley, grumpy heap of shit) than your Ka uses in a week. To categorically say M/C's are less fuel efficient than cars based on your figures alone is a step too far.
You are absolutely right regards the higher fuel useage in NZ conditions compared to the stock test figures quoted, and that was noted by the technocrat who put together the paper I noted in the previous post. I suspect you may also be right regards actual running costs rather than just fuel economy, but am happy to be corrected.
But realistically fuel economy isn't even on my radar. If I come back from a ride or day at the track feeling pleasantly knackered then it's worth whatever it cost. Sorry mate, I don't mean to be argumentative or score points, I'm just on nightshift and would rather be writing shit (and it is shit) on here rather than face what I should be doing.
Hardcore Biker
Better still open it up to private competition so that ACC have to be honest and competitive with their premiums!
Liam Venter
Self Elected National Spokesman for P.A.I.N! (Privatise ACC Insurance Now!)
www.FastBikeGear.co.nz
Top brand Motorcycle accessories: R&G Racing, Titax, CTEK, Ultrabatt lithium Batteries, RockSolid, BikeVis, NGR, Oberon, Stopit, TUTORO, Posi-Lock, etc.
Mobile: 0275 985 266 Office, 09 834 6655
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks