Bikes worst than cars for the environment?

Andrew33

I've just watched an episode of Mythbusters that tested motorbikes against cars and they came to the conclusion that 'bikes produce more pollutants than cars tested under the same conditions.
The bike tested was a recent model 250cc trailie (looked like a Honda) on the market with fuel injection, cats etc and the cars were US mid size saloons!
I was going to post this over in Conspiracy Theories but thought I'd let the bike guys loose on it first.
I'm smelling a huge big fat dirty lie on this one.
What gives?

gipi

The trailie was only used in the 2nd part of the test, when they tested aerodynamics?

The guys tested a typical car & bike from the 1980s, the 1990s and the 2000s, and they certainly didn't look like trailies.

galwaytt

..haven't seen it, but what about the following....

1. They take up less space
2. They are the ultimate HOV
3. They are less impeded by traffic, so run for fewer hours, and spend less time in traffic, for any given trip........so mpg isn't an apple-for-apple comparison. My Saab diesel is lighter on juice - on paper - than my Harley. But I can run the Harley for a week on €10 - €12. The car wouldn't come near it.
4. They are light - so don't wear roads etc.
5. They are small and light - and consume fewer raw materials, to build them......
6. They are 4 times more efficent to park, per vehicle, and if carrying pillions, then even more efficient: you can get 4 bikes to a car park space,...so require less, and lighter, infrastructure.

Remember: every bike you see on the road is a car you WON'T see.....

Andrew33

gipi wrote: »

The trailie was only used in the 2nd part of the test, when they tested aerodynamics?

The guys tested a typical car & bike from the 1980s, the 1990s and the 2000s, and they certainly didn't look like trailies.

The trailie was used as it was the newest, cleanest bike available (and therefore had the best chance of beating the car). They used it for "before and after" figures when they stuck that ridiculous bubble on it.
They may have improved the "departure" aerodynamics of the bike but they would have at least doubled the frontal area with that bubble stuck on. I'm calling shenanigans on that episode of Mythbusters which is a pity as I used to think they were a fair minded, impartial bunch.

EvilMonkey

Bike engines are usually tuned for performance where as your average car manufacture is trying to meet MPG and emissions figures.

Andrew33

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Bike engines are usually tuned for performance where as your average car manufacture is trying to meet MPG and emissions figures.

Fair enough if they'd used a 4 cyl sports bike but they used (in the end) a single cyl 250cc four stroke commuter bike and it was still found to be dirtier.
Maybe the cats on a bike aren't as sophisticated as those on a car?

Paparazzo

galwaytt wrote: »

..haven't seen it, but what about the following....

1. They take up less space
2. They are the ultimate HOV
3. They are less impeded by traffic, so run for fewer hours, and spend less time in traffic, for any given trip........so mpg isn't an apple-for-apple comparison. My Saab diesel is lighter on juice - on paper - than my Harley. But I can run the Harley for a week on €10 - €12. The car wouldn't come near it.
4. They are light - so don't wear roads etc.
5. They are small and light - and consume fewer raw materials, to build them......
6. They are 4 times more efficent to park, per vehicle, and if carrying pillions, then even more efficient: you can get 4 bikes to a car park space,...so require less, and lighter, infrastructure.

Remember: every bike you see on the road is a car you WON'T see.....

I agree with you there. But Dublin city Council dont. There was a guy on the radio representing them a while back and as they see it, a bike takes up the same space as a car. Idiotic that the guys in charge of traffic in dublin think 100 bikes will cause the same congestion as 100 cars.

They usually acceleration faster than cars too and you'll get far more through a set of lights than cars.

Del2005

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Bike engines are usually tuned for performance where as your average car manufacture is trying to meet MPG and emissions figures.

So a CG125 is tuned for performance

Andrew33 wrote: »

Fair enough if they'd used a 4 cyl sports bike but they used (in the end) a single cyl 250cc four stroke commuter bike and it was still found to be dirtier.
Maybe the cats on a bike aren't as sophisticated as those on a car?

Maybe it was an older engined bike. Also a single cylinder won't have the efficiencies of a multi, so will produce more emissions.

I know bikes in the EU are about 1 or 2 stages behind cars in regard to emissions, so a bike will produce more pollution but Galwaytt has already covered that.

Andrew33 wrote: »

I'm calling shenanigans on that episode of Mythbusters which is a pity as I used to think they were a fair minded, impartial bunch.

It's an entertainment show not a scientific show. I've seen a few episodes where they've made assumptions that are totally wrong.

Paparazzo wrote: »

I agree with you there. But Dublin city Council dont. There was a guy on the radio representing them a while back and as they see it, a bike takes up the same space as a car. Idiotic that the guys in charge of traffic in dublin think 100 bikes will cause the same congestion as 100 cars.

I find that quite ironic since it's illegal for motorbikes to park in a pay and display bay, you need to open the PDF of the 2011 Parking by laws.

The only half saving grace is that at least it isn't only Ireland that doesn't like motorbikes.

galwaytt

Del2005 wrote: »

I find that quite ironic since it's illegal for motorbikes to park in a pay and display bay, you need to open the PDF of the 2011 Parking by laws.

The only half saving grace is that at least it isn't only Ireland that doesn't like motorbikes.

Page 8, para 13: Unfugginbelievable...

That is pulling the psis, and that should be challenged somewhere. As a motor tax payer, you are entitled - imho - to just treatment, and so my take on it is, if you don't let me use a 'parking' space, then you have to supply one I CAN use.

It is many years ago now, but the last time a (Galway) paid car-park attendant refused me permission to enter a public car-park, and used profanity in the process, over the P.A........ I - and my wife on her bike - knocked off our bikes and blocked the place up.

Chippy01

galwaytt wrote: »

Page 8, para 13: Unfugginbelievable...

That is pulling the psis, and that should be challenged somewhere. As a motor tax payer, you are entitled - imho - to just treatment, and so my take on it is, if you don't let me use a 'parking' space, then you have to supply one I CAN use.QUOTE]

Page 8 para 13 refers to Pay and Display parking, which makes sense. Where could you safely display your ticket (and not have it stolen or blown away in the wind) on a bike?
If you want to pay for your parking, pick a parking bay with the old meters and feed it.
Myself, I'll park wherever I can for free.

seanybiker

Parked in a pay and display before. The warden was there and I mentioned to him I was on a bike and there was nowhere to put disc. He said he never ticketed a bike for that and never would.
Only ever heard of one fella getting a ticket on his bike for parking on a footpath

galwaytt

Chippy01 wrote: »

Page 8 para 13 refers to Pay and Display parking, which makes sense. Where could you safely display your ticket (and not have it stolen or blown away in the wind) on a bike?
If you want to pay for your parking, pick a parking bay with the old meters and feed it.
Myself, I'll park wherever I can for free.
...

I agree about parking for free wherever it's possible, absolutely.

But, where you can't, being banned from it does not make sense. Issues of 'where to put the ticket' are for the Corpo to sort. You pay your money, you're entitled to the space. If they want to use dissolvable tickets, that's THEIR issue. Which is why I've been known to use my camera phone and take a pic of it. Including of meters with error or out-of-order messages. I'm offering you the money: if you can't/won't take it, that's your (the Corpo's) issue to sort. That's what they get paid the big bucks for. Are they expecting people to leave empty spaces, unused, otherwise... ? I think not !

As for parking where there are 'old' meters, two probs with that: you can't move them to where you want to park and, they're a disappearing breed.

gipi

seanybiker wrote: »

Parked in a pay and display before. The warden was there and I mentioned to him I was on a bike and there was nowhere to put disc. He said he never ticketed a bike for that and never would.
Only ever heard of one fella getting a ticket on his bike for parking on a footpath

There was a blitz a short while ago in Drogheda, where bikes parked in a pay & display parking spot outside a bike shop were ticketed- the warden was ordered to ticket the bikes by someone in the borough council. He was told to bring elastic bands to attach the tickets to the bike handlebars!

The bye-laws had changed during the summer (although no-one knew it, as the council didn't update the version on their website), and removed the exemption for bikes from paying for parking.

I understand that the change in the bye-laws was later rolled back to allow for further consultation, after MAG Ireland got involved.

A council worker was asked by a biker how the parking receipt could be displayed on a bike - the reply was to keep it in his pocket, and send it in when he got a ticket for non-display of parking fee!

EvilMonkey

Del2005 wrote: »

So a CG125 is tuned for performance

FFS i said usually, I never mentioned specific bikes :rolleyes:

Paparazzo

TBH, I'm happy with the parking situation for bikes in Dublin. Free, and park outside almost any shop you like! Would be a disaster if they made some sort of bike ticket and we had to find a space like cars do, and really inconvenient. Especially when you're walking around with a bike jacket.

Take Grafton St for instance, if i'm going to a shop at the top, middle or bottom I can park where needed. Having to go around stephens green looking for a space would be a pain in the hole.

Andrew33

EvilMonkey wrote: »

FFS i said usually, I never mentioned specific bikes :rolleyes:

Well Mythbusters generalised by saying (all) bikes are dirtier than cars and the bike they used was similar to a CG insofar as it was a commuter bike tuned for economy and driveability, definitely not tuned for performance.

Hotblack Desiato

Off-road bikes don't have to meet any emission standards at all.

For years the US (and especially California) had very low emission limits for cars (NOX / CO / HC) which were much stricter than the EU. That's no longer the case for cars, and the standards for bikes, which used to be pretty much unregulated are now getting closer to cars too, which is why two-strokes are all but dead.

Recent EU-market bikes will meet Euro IV emission standards and will be quite clean, and have a small catalyst. Before that the NOX / CO / HC standards for bikes were much looser than for cars. The environmental impact of bikes is low anyway as they are much smaller in number and cover an annual average mileage much lower than cars, and the average MPG is higher (quoted figures for cars don't allow for the inevitable stuck-in-traffic-burning-fuel-going-nowhere-fast scenario. Even cars which cut out when stopped will be very inefficient in stop-start traffic, in that scenario bikes can usually keep going.)

Mythbusters were being rather naughty.


NOX - oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen doesn't burn but at a high enough temperature can combine with oxygen. High compression ratios (as often found in bikes) and leaner mixtures mean hotter combustion and more NOX formed
CO - carbon monoxide, leaner mixtures = less CO
HC - hydrocarbons, unburnt fuel basically. 70s air-cooled bikes ran very rich (to ensure that detonation didn't occur if the combustion chamber got too hot) and had very high HC and CO emissions.

Thinkingaboutit

I have a Suzuki GT 380, which mightn't be nice for the trees and the flowers. Remember manmade Global Warming is a monstrous lie.

positron

I think it's illegal to filter in the US, which is probably they never thought of that aspect of bike use for commuting. I can get from Drogheda - CityCentre in 40 mins at peak rush hour, which is about half the time a car would take. In this case, the bike is much greener.

Thinkingaboutit

The legality of lane splitting depends on the state. A motorbike is kind of stupid if it can't be done.