EEEEEEKK 16-times more pollution!

**Insanity_rules** · 23rd December 2007, 08:43

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

**scracha** · 23rd December 2007, 09:00

Originally Posted by huck farley

I would love to have you as a cellmate.

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

**Kickaha** · 23rd December 2007, 10:28

Originally Posted by huck farley

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** · 23rd December 2007, 12:41

Originally Posted by Sketchy_Racer

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:Me** · 23rd December 2007, 17:36

Originally Posted by huck farley

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** · 23rd December 2007, 19:23

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** · 24th December 2007, 15:07

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** · 25th December 2007, 13:44

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** · 25th December 2007, 14:16

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 25th December 2007, 15:56

Originally Posted by 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!!

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** · 25th December 2007, 16:46

The whole Green House thing is BS.

See

**quickbuck** · 25th December 2007, 16:49

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 26th December 2007, 08:44

Originally Posted by quickbuck

The whole Green House thing is BS.

See

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** · 26th December 2007, 18:28

Rocket III is EURO III compliant,

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

**quickbuck** · 26th December 2007, 22:27

Originally Posted by smoky

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.