Mythbusters: Cars vs. motorcycles

[warewolf]

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

Exactly, you beat me to it. Fuel efficiency of the engine is just one of many factors.

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

[FlangMasterJ]

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

But these in slow motion are

[Motig]

Thats why I watch it. I'm in love

[DEATH_INC.]

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

Feckin pussy. How the hell do you get 15000kms outta the tyres on a R1?

[scracha]

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

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

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

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

[davereid]

Myth Busters has got it wrong in this case.

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

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

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

[cheshirecat]

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

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

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

[racefactory]

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

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

[Ocean1]

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

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

If severely provoked.

[Gremlin]

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

[racefactory]

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

Really good, that's cheap motoring.

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