A day on the Africa Twin.........
- Thread starter Nutty
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 33,548
- Reaction score
- 469
These days the pollution requirements for cars are much stricter than bikes, encouraging more bikes to replace cars is unlikely to reduce pollution until the requirements for bikes catch up with cars - bikes are actually less efficient than modern cars.
Possibly on an individual basis but yet again you are looking at the detail and not looking at the big pricture . if you factor in all of the cars stuck in traffic going nowhere for billlions of hours on end ( that's millions of cars x 1000 of hours) and if instead a significant number travelled by bike then the positive impact on the environment would be massive.
Besides which there are far more commuter bikes doing more than 50/60/70mpg around town than there are cars. Some commuter bikes will do 120mpg.
There was a major report commissioned by a city in mainland Europe a few years ago regarding traffic congestion . And the findings were (don't quote me exactly on the figures as they are from memory) akin to the fact that if 10% of cars commuting into the city each day were replaced by bikes then congestion would be almost halved and if 20% of cars coming in were bikes then there would be NO congestion.
Then there is the impact on the roads themselves . Bike magazine had a good piece on that. I seem to remember a car does about 100 times more damage to the road than a bike each mile travelled or something similar.
I'd worry about some of that if I were you before wondering if Mr Hilltop is killing all the butterflies which , by the way , are making a come back along with the Giant Panda
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 33,548
- Reaction score
- 469
Making money out of deliberately changing a motor vehicle (used on the public roads) to generate more pollution than it was designed to make is wrong, no matter what that vehicle is.
Ooh that's not a great business model . Who is doing that then?
Begins with H and ends with P ???
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 33,548
- Reaction score
- 469
Having just been on holiday in Santorini, including the scoots, most bikes there were trans alps. 1 WC 1 old super ten. 1 old Africa twin and 1 fire blade. Didn't see any new AT ...MAKE of that what you will
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
I don't think anybody deliberately sets out to generate more pollution.
However a well set up engine with an air/fuel ration close to stoichiometric
(14.7-1) will run cleaner than one running very lean to pass an emissions test
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 33,548
- Reaction score
- 469
Only saw one in the Picos in an entire week, lost count of the GSes.
FFS there is something seriously wrong with with you !
Get a feckin grip man !! This is a motorcycle forum . GO all sandals ,BO ,n hummus if you want but don't bring it in HERE !
If you feel that strongly. Sell yer own bike n do WHATEVER ,, but enough wi the preaching
and leave the rest of us to our toys 
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 33,548
- Reaction score
- 469
Surely cleaner is low emissions?
Bikes actually pollute more than cars on a pro rata basis..just fyi
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
FFS there is something seriously wrong with with you !
Get a feckin grip man !! This is a motorcycle forum . GO all sandals ,BO ,n hummus if you want but don't bring it in HERE !
If you feel that strongly. Sell yer own bike n do WHATEVER ,, but enough wi the preaching
One word.
Who ? Me or im, ?One word.
Hi don , Hope you are well mate. You didn't bother to read my other post did you
Sorry pal but that's a proper Engineers statement too that is, I mean how are you defining pro rata.
What exactly does that mean?
Stuck in traffic going nowhere and taking 30%-40% longer to do a commute, plus consuming more natural resources during the journey and also in its construction I would imagine that a bike being "slightly dirtier" than the car isn't really the main consideration
Similar threads
