Ok as some of you know I switched from a stock front sprocket to an 18 tooth. Some people didn't want to believe that it wouldn't change gas mileage that much but today I decided to try some hypermiling to see how good I can get the miles. I inflated the tired to 38/38 psi front/rear and during the whole trip from LA to San Diego and back, I needed to buy some automotive detailing clay from a guy I know who has the best deals I've ever seen, I travelled about 55 mph which hovers right around 4500 rpm and eased up on acceleration and kept a decent tuck the entire time. I took a longer route from the 91 east to 15 south stopped to eat and buy the clay, then to Ted Williams west to 5 north. When I hit reserve my miles was an astonishing 293.8 miles. It took the usual 3 and a half, 3.47 to be exact, to fill up. This equates to 84.66 mpg. AMAZING! I don't regularly hypermile because it's annoying and kinda dangerous to go so slow on a motorcycle, got cut off and passed a couple times too. So tires are aired down to 32 which is where I like my cheap ultra hard Kings tires 12,000 on the rear and looks like I'll get about 4,000-6,000 miles out of them, I think they help too because the rear is 140/70-17 and have lower rolling resistance cause they're hard tires. But this is still great mileage nontheless and bodes well because I'll be able to ride to Las Vegas next week on one tank and avoid filling up at Barstow which has expensive gas.
So what what mileage milestones has everyone here accomplished now that gas is on the rise and we've got one of the most fuel efficient motorcycles around?
Hey qwerty dude, you should put in 45 tooth front sproket, and 12 tooth rear and switch to 30 mains and 7.5 pilots. You can get 950 miles to a gallon. :thumb:
Cool.
Buddha.
Thats awesome mileage :thumb: You have one Green GS :cheers:
Quote from: scottpA_GS on July 18, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
Thats awesome mileage :thumb: You have one Green GS :cheers:
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile. If you want to even match a car for environmental friendliness you need to get something like 500 miles to the gallon... Fuel efficiency does not strictly equal greenness...
Quote from: fred on July 18, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile.
I'm calling BS here. Maybe 10x more per cubic inch/cc.................maybe. But you still end up ahead.
Quote from: spc on July 18, 2008, 05:46:24 PM
Quote from: fred on July 18, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile.
I'm calling BS here. Maybe 10x more per cubic inch/cc.................maybe. But you still end up ahead.
Nope, LA Times disagrees
http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11,0,3268856.story?track=rss
Quote from: fred on July 18, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: scottpA_GS on July 18, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
Thats awesome mileage :thumb: You have one Green GS :cheers:
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile. If you want to even match a car for environmental friendliness you need to get something like 500 miles to the gallon... Fuel efficiency does not strictly equal greenness...
A lot of the newer bikes have them. Kawasaki had one in the ZX9R, back in 2000. Ducati uses a honeycomb screen. My 92 has a 999 midpipe with one.
Quote from: fred on July 18, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: scottpA_GS on July 18, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
Thats awesome mileage :thumb: You have one Green GS :cheers:
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile. If you want to even match a car for environmental friendliness you need to get something like 500 miles to the gallon... Fuel efficiency does not strictly equal greenness...
You must have gotten bad info or play around Harley's.Most bikes made outside the US come here jetted lean to meet and beat EPA and CARB requirements.
Ben - A car is a lot cleaner still ... but basically a 500 is going to put out a good bit less of the bad pollutants (not counting co2) than a v8 of similar vintage. But bikes are dirty cc for cc than cars.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on July 18, 2008, 06:48:18 PM
cc for cc than cars.
Cool.
Buddha.
So that = less than cars cause smaller cc :thumb:
Maybe ... but once you rejet, its adios baby.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: ben2go on July 18, 2008, 06:23:31 PM
Quote from: fred on July 18, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: scottpA_GS on July 18, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
Thats awesome mileage :thumb: You have one Green GS :cheers:
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile. If you want to even match a car for environmental friendliness you need to get something like 500 miles to the gallon... Fuel efficiency does not strictly equal greenness...
You must have gotten bad info or play around Harley's.Most bikes made outside the US come here jetted lean to meet and beat EPA and CARB requirements.
Look at the LA Times article, they say in the first full paragraph that the CARB standard for motorcycles allows 10 times the pollution for motorcycles than it does for cars. EPA standards are way less than CARB, but even CARB is basically nothing when compared to cars...
Do you guys not know? The 3-circuit carb was designed to pollute less, not just for better mileage, add to the fact that I have all CARB equipment still on my bike including the catalytic convertor so my bike is clean. My uncle does smog testing and says I'm within car standards which means I pollute far less than cars cause it's measured in a ppm scale. As much as I am for progressive causes like the environment I'm not gonna jump on the liberal bandwagon that the times has always been riding. Statistics lie period. The times is not above using statistics to make anyone look bad. Think about how much pollution goes into making a hybrid car, far more resources than a smaller econobox. And yet the times seems to think if everyone buys one the world will be saved from ecological disaster. Take in point this particular. If 1% of total motorcycle miles creates 10% of the pollution what percent of that is old decrepid bikes and custom jobs that pollute. Jesse James got fined for grossly polluting vehicles. Harley's with straight pipes and a rejet run rich as hell. There's a reason why old scooters are called two smokes. Dirtbikes have no cats. All those bikes contribute to the percentage that makes it look like all bikes pollute. Please don't sully the cleanliness of my bike because assholes want loud pipes and need to run rich to do so. Every loud bike out there needs to run richer than necessary to keep from detonating or burning a valve so blame them just leave my bike out of it. Mines been tested clean and all 3 circuit GS500 that remain stock are clean as a whistle. Just remember to get your facts straight before assigning blame.
GSjack is the tire king,
I nominate qwertydude for mileage king. :thumb:
My commute is mostly interstate, I think I'm going to try the big sprocket.
Be Safe
PJ
Oh yeah I also modified the carbs on a honda rebel and got 102 mpg city out of it with careful riding. That figure dropped to about 80 mpg highways so strangely enough the GS500 beat my honda rebel on highway miles, mostly because I had a huge windshield and big hardcase saddlebags on the rebel which cause a bunch of drag, the GS500F has a real aerodynamic advantage over a cruiser like the rebel. The rebel I knew polluted more than the GS though, no cats. When I rejettted for my mods strangely enough I had to richen the slow jet because I disabled the accelerator pump on the carb which sprayed a ton of fuel down the intake every time the throttle was twisted.
Hey qwertydude, first is that 85 miles a US gallon? If so, thats very impressive! Second, I just changed to a 17 tooth on my stock '07 and I like it, how does the 18 go when you're starting off, say on hill starts or riding two up? I'm getting around 4.1 litres/100km cruising at 110km/h. I think that's about 61mpg (US) at 70mph, but I'm wearing a bulky jacket and sittting upright.
David.
Just to clear some thing up. Motorcycle WITHOUT catalytic converters pollute 10x more than any other cars (including hummers).
Motorcycles may use less gas but the CO2 they put out is much higher than a car. Sorry guys you can get 1000mpg on a bike but you're still polluting more than a car.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/motorcycles-pol.html
BTW. Engine size doesn't matter (500cc vs something else). It's the catalytic converter that makes the difference.
Yes that's 85 per US gallon. Keep in mind this was one solid trip. I've been averageing only about 75 mpg as a commute, 20 miles one way. I keep it around 65 mph, real not indicated. I weigh only 130 pounds, good thing is if I'm speeding along in left hand traffic going 85 real mph my mileage is still 65-70 mpg. But also on my bike is the zero gravity touring windshield which I think kinda helps since it eliminates a lot of buffeting that happens in that open space between the rider and bike when sitting upright a definite plus for longer trips too. As far as acceleration, it's not quite like starting in second gear with the 16 tooth. There is a little bit of a loss in power but I shift into second at around 15 mph instead of 10 like before. It should be a familiar feeling for anyone used to riding a liter bike those things it seems you don't shift out of first until 25-30 mph or more. But I have no problem with it in the city. In fact aside from riding the clutch for say another car length when starting off I think it's better for me because I'm shifting less often in the city since it widens the gear ratios so I'm not constantly shifting up and down because of the closeness of the gears. I've ridden two up with a ahem heavier gal before and had no problem off the line and with hills. This is good for longer commutes, freeways and touring, sport riders and primarily inner city commuters probably won't like it. Oh yeah and Top gear acceleration is a bit tougher but I can always click down a gear or two which in my case 5th ends up being the same as the old 6th so for passing I usually shift into 4th, whereas the 14 tooth guys can't just shift into 7th gear when they get tired of the screaming revs and poor gas mileage. Oh yeah and keep an eye out on you chain you have to replace it as soon as it wears out since the sloppiness will mean itit rubs the shift lever and possibly the clutch pushrod. I had the former happen already not the latter but I'm glad I caught it in time, so now theres a slight 1mm thick chain cut on my shift lever. You can feel it happening because you feel something tapping on the shift lever. I've ridden two up with a ahem heavier gal before and had no problem off the line and with hills
Read that article again very carefully, not just the headline which paints a bad image for all motorcycles as I've said before. I hate sensationalist news articles by the way, read all the comments too.
"because motorcycles are about twice as fuel-efficient as cars and emit a lot less C02."
CO is a big polluter but that's what catalytic converters are for, yes the GS500's with 3 circuit carbs have them. As for NOx's, low compression engines like ours tend to have less of them. It takes a hot cylinder with higher compression ratios to produce NOx's, hence supersport bikes do tend to pollute with NOx's slightly more. Remember I had my bike tested, even though we don't have to I just was curious to see how clean the GS is, and good news is very. Yes there are slightly more NOx's than newer cars because of the lean running mixture causing a hotter combustion, but it's still well within the legal California limits for cars which means it's better than 50 state legal. And remember this is a ppm scale, so since I get 4 times as much mileage even if my emmisions were 4 times worse than the legal limit, per mile I'd still be polluting about as much as a poorly maintained car of which there are plenty of examples; heck a dirty air filter or bad O2 sensor on your car can cause you to fail a CA smog test in a snap and yet the GS passes with no trouble. That my friends is a clean bike.
Congrats on your high mileage! I'm sure it'll mean a little less out of pocket for your commutes. As for now, I'm content getting the near 60ish I already get. Perhaps if I actually got to commute more and my commute were longer, I'd consider going up a tooth. As for the pollution, I say ride away. You WERE looking to save money weren't you? Your increased mileage should provide that benefit. I feel that we should be environmentally conscious and avoid blatant disregard for the ground, air and water. However, I also feel that global warming is a SHAM. Perhaps that won't be a popular view. But then again, I don't think anybody in here is selling their bike for scrap because it pollutes too much. :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: fred on July 18, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: scottpA_GS on July 18, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
Thats awesome mileage :thumb: You have one Green GS :cheers:
But motorcycles don't have catalytic converters, so they already pollute something like 10 times the amount cars do per mile. If you want to even match a car for environmental friendliness you need to get something like 500 miles to the gallon... Fuel efficiency does not strictly equal greenness...
Catalytic converters put out Sulfer dioxide,mixed with water say rain or dew turns into Sulfuric acid.I know of nothing living that can take that and make use of it! :icon_mrgreen:
The sulfur has to come from somewhere, it's not in the air, oil, or car parts so the only place it could be is the gas. Remember I got my GS tested SO2 levels were below the limits, in fact I already said all my numbers were below limits. Ultra Low sulfur gas and diesel is now the standard since 2006 and will be increasingly more stringent in coming years, more sulfur is emitted from coal fired plants than from cars now. No matter how clean you car is, it can have 3 stage catalytic convertors, if there is sulfur in the fuel it's being turned into SO2 no matter what, so it's not the vehicles fault it's the fuels. So electric cars in the US will technically be creating more acid rain than gas and diesels. And yes nothing can live in sulfuric acid but only in high concentrations, but also there is oxygen in the air not toxic but did you know that breathing 100% oxygen for extended periods will kill you too? Yes the oxygen will oxidize the cells in your lungs and will release free radicals into your body. If your lungs don't melt your damaged DNA will cause cancer. Yes oxygen is toxic, guess what ozone is O3, 3 bonded oxygen atoms and they use it to sterilize medical equipment, the oxygen is so unstable it immediately damages all DNA it comes in contact with, hence even ozone is a pollutant and is nothing more than oxygen. I'm all for saving the environment but believe we can only do so if we are all well informed of the science necessary to solve the problem. Much like a doctor healing a patient by prescribing treatment, you wouldn't want anyone making environmental policies based on piss poor science and misinformation spread by those with an agenda other than the benefit of the environment. I hope to set an exampple of not falling for sensationalism and only going for what is truly better for the environment. The GS500 was the best compromise for manufacturing footprint, resource consumption, fuel efficiency, simplicity to maintain, and also pocketbook impact. Wanna know how well hybrid cars fulfill those requirements? In one word poorlly.
lemme ask you this, emissions aside. what is the performace like. does it have the acceleration of a yugo? i mean that is a drastic jump in teeth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2eCFoafXk ( a friendly jab. nothing serious )
Well it's only a 12% increase in gear ratio, that means off the line I only have 12% less starting torque, but once I get in the power range it feels exactly the same as before. I can still out accelerate all the cars at a stoplight. Yet for some reason many of them still try to race me. Often times off the line I'll hear their tires chirp and engines scream as they try their best so that their Hyundai doesn't fall behind me. Why is it people feel they need to always lead the pack at a light even if there is a much faster vehicle pulling ahead without even trying?
I can get 55 mpg if I take it easy on the throttle.
My DL650 gets about the same mileage.
At higher speeds the V-Strom beats the GS500.
It's all a matter of wind resistance.
The higher the speed the lower the mpg.
My riding buddy got 63 mpg on his V-Strom but it was painful.
Had to keep the speed down and be very gentle on the throttle.
Gearing on his V-Strom was slightly altered but not any big amount.
I'd like to know the vendor that supplies the 17 or 18-tooth sprockets. Thx
Just like to add to qwertydude's bit about acceleration.
Changing to a larger front sprocket (I have a 17t) only changes your initial acceleration off the line, after you get going the gearchanges will happen at slightly different road speeds, but overall the performance is the same. If you are accelerating hard and using maximum engine performance, the acceleration in each gear would be slightly less than for stock gearing, but each gear will run to slightly higher speed at the same rpm. If you run a drag against a standard bike from say 30 mph, the standard bike will start off pulling ahead, then at the first gearchange the higher geared bike will gain while the other goes for the next gear. Then the stock bike pulls ahead until trhe next change and so on.
If you compare the stock 16t with 18t, I imagine that with 18 teeth its almost like starting off iin 2nd, but after that gearchanges will happen almost exactly like a stock bike, but when the 18t is, say, going for 4th, the 16t rider is changing to 5th, but they're both changing at the same time at the same speed and rpm and with the same performance.
The 16t rider gets better acceleration off the line, easier hill starts and is happier in very slow traffic. The 18t rider gets effectively an extra gear at the top end for relaxed cruising, better economy and less engine wear.
The ideal for me would be to leave first where it is, change the other gear ratios so that they are evenly spaced with 5th where the standard 6th is, then have 6th as a real overdrive. The best of both worlds as the torquey GS engine really doesn't need a close ratio gearbox, and you'd be doing fewer changes in traffic. That's never going to happen, so I got the 17t.
But mainly, I'm loving riding the GS after too long without a bike!!! :) :laugh: :) :thumb:
Quote from: qwertydude on July 20, 2008, 11:51:25 PM
The sulfur has to come from somewhere, it's not in the air, oil, or car parts so the only place it could be is the gas. Remember I got my GS tested SO2 levels were below the limits, in fact I already said all my numbers were below limits. Ultra Low sulfur gas and diesel is now the standard since 2006 and will be increasingly more stringent in coming years, more sulfur is emitted from coal fired plants than from cars now. No matter how clean you car is, it can have 3 stage catalytic convertors, ......
Holy jesus. Your keyboard has an enter key for a reason. Impossible to read these one line novels.
Not to mention your argument is all over the place. It's pretty well known that motorcycles (pre 2006) pollute a lot more than cars. Plenty of very detailed reports have been written up about it, based on measured values, all of which you can find with a bit of web searching. Not that I care, I don't own a car and ride only a few thousand miles a year so realistically I'm no worse than the average car driver.
If you really care about emissions of your bike, get just about any modern bike that passes Euro3 standards. It'll be about at the same level as modern cars and you can breathe easy.
New bikes may be cleaner but they also have a hefty premium attached to them.
All the performance people are demanding out of newer bikes means they have big wide expensive tires, get poorer gas mileage and have higher maintenance costs.
Tell me of a bike that I can purchase that is cleaner, inexpensive to maintain, and gets better gas mileage AND is available in the US's limited bigger is better market and I'll buy it.
We don't have the choice to buy any new fancy small bikes in the US, heck even the new US market ninja 250 is still carbed.
Seriously they're still selling new GS500's out of the dealer and I know they haven't changed so they still must pass emissions so what's the big deal?
2006 was not a big leap in motorcycle emmisions technology, it was a big leap in gasoline and diesel, ultra low sulfur.
Again please tell me what on-bike technology keeps S02 out of the exhaust?
Catalytic convertors can only deal with NOx's (leads to nitric acid in acid rain), CO (greenhouse gas) and unburnt hydrocarbons.
There is no way to prevent the formation of S02, the precursor to (sulfuric acid) and no way to catalize it into anything using available technology.
The most damaging acid in acid rain with the inauguration of ultra low sulfur fuel is NOx's and their atmospheric byproduct nitric acid.
I wouldn't worry about sulfuric acid in acid rain, and if you studied a little chemistry you'd know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter look it up here there is no way for any vehicles to deal with sulfuric acid producing S02 other than sulfur reduction in fuels.
I stand by that my bike still passes CA AUTOMOBILE emmisions, the toughest in the world and you're still trying to pick that apart? Seriously.
I'm doing my part as best I can, and educating myself in the process, a little bit of googling can lead to a lot of misinformation about environmental policy as I've previously stated.
So please if you want to change my mind please provide the necessary info like I've done with 3 way catalysts, read it, they have NOTHING to do with sulfuric acid production.
2006 as I've said was not a change in motorcycle technology but in fuel technology.
qwerty one more question, got a link for this front sprocket? and 2. do you have to change the chain to use this item? many thanks ahead of time :cheers:
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 21, 2008, 01:46:02 AM
lemme ask you this, emissions aside. what is the performace like. does it have the acceleration of a yugo? i mean that is a drastic jump in teeth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2eCFoafXk ( a friendly jab. nothing serious )
HAHAHAHA +1
Yeah, where did you get the sprocket, what else did you have to change, what part number? Do I just searched through the garbage and slap in any old sprocket that fits? I think my mountain bike has an 18 tooth sprocket lol
Quote from: qwertydude on July 23, 2008, 10:26:20 PM
New bikes may be cleaner but they also have a hefty premium attached to them.
All the performance people are demanding out of newer bikes means they have big wide expensive tires, get poorer gas mileage and have higher maintenance costs.
Some of them sure, but any medium sized bikes (Ninja 650r, SV650) get about 50-60MPG which is the same as the GS (your 85MPG is clearly an exception). FI and tighter tolerances on the newer engines allow a lot more power to be squeezed out of the same fuel.
QuoteTell me of a bike that I can purchase that is cleaner, inexpensive to maintain, and gets better gas mileage AND is available in the US's limited bigger is better market and I'll buy it.
2008 Ninja 250r should meet all those categories. It's still carbed, yes, but it is a lot cleaner than before.
Seriously though, I don't care in the slightest what you ride, I'm just saying older bikes pollute a lot more than newer ones. The tradeoff is expense and a more complicated machine, I totally agree with that.
Quote
Seriously they're still selling new GS500's out of the dealer and I know they haven't changed so they still must pass emissions so what's the big deal?
That's a good point. I don't know the regulation situation in the US so I wouldn't know, but it is strange that they can still sell it in the EU without passing Euro3. Maybe it doesn't take effect until later.
Quote
Again please tell me what on-bike technology keeps S02 out of the exhaust?
Catalytic convertors can only deal with NOx's (leads to nitric acid in acid rain), CO (greenhouse gas) and unburnt hydrocarbons.
A partial solution is better than no solution.
QuoteI stand by that my bike still passes CA AUTOMOBILE emmisions, the toughest in the world and you're still trying to pick that apart? Seriously.
Unless you did the full test cycle measurements with your bike you can't know that. Just hooking up the equipment and doing a quick check is not enough.
Most GSes here are non-cali models and they absolutely certainly don't pass. I'm not saying to ditch your GS, I sure won't, but that doesn't stop me from realizing that they're old tech and not that clean.
My sprocket is afam it's the only one that makes sprockets that big. You can get it from bikebandit. The price though did go up from $30 to $41 last time I checked. I also put a brand new stock sized 110 link chain and it fit just fine, a little closer than normal but hey that's more area for the chain to wear ;) , actually you should replace your chain when you're able to pull the chain out about 1/2 a link's length from the rear sprocket.
And older technology isn't necessarily dirtier, did you know that the old Honda 80's CVCC could pass emissions standards back in the day without using catalytic convertors? Low compression engines like the GS500 actually creates les NOx's therefore do not need the 3 way catalytic converters of newer vehicles. The drawback is they create more CO which is easily dealt with with regular single and 2 stage cats. Tight tolerances and high compression may be good for high power output per displacement but is not necessarily more efficient or cleaner, more NOx output that need bigger heavier cats to deal with and the need to run richer for them to work. Which is another reason they are not as effiicient. So the question is what is more pollutting a tiny bit of NOx that leaks by my inferior cats or the far greater amount of CO2 coming from newer engines because they are not efficient. Keep in mind that the Kyoto treaty cares primarily for that CO2.
I know people with ninja 250's and even on the ninja 250 boards people say they don't get the kinds of mileage that we see on our GS's most people are only getting about 55-70 mpg same as ours and it isn't cleaner it has the same single stage cats like our GS's but the higher compression needed to produce the power creates more pollution in the form of NOx's than our GS's. A highly strung out engine is less efficient. A piston moving up and down at 8000 rpm wastes a lot of energy, kinetic energy is K=1/2m*v^2, which means even though the engine is lighter and smaller the energy required to change the direction of piston travel is actually very great. Take for axample a HD sportster. I know guys who regularly see 60 mpg on those. And they've got 883cc engines and the guys with the 1200 actually regularly get 55. Efficiency is not relative to size. An extremely low revving engine is actually very efficient. It's one other often overlooked reason why diesels are so efficient.
And what other testing do you need to do? I've hooked it up to the dyno and stuck the tester in the exhaust and did a full rpm load test. CA is the only state that requires load testing with smog checks most states just idle or free rev. It passed, what else do you need to test for? Again if you want to make a case please back up with facts and not just blanket statements like new stuff is cleaner. Because you obviously didn't even know about the honda CVCC engine which even though was carbureted was cleaner than the fuel injected and catylized "clean" cars of it's era. I am an engineering student and know quite a few full fledged engineers myself and can tell you that nothing you have presented even comes close to a convincing argument. If the information is out there and searchable please search it for me since I wouldn't know which facts you are looking at. I give absolute specifics, catalytic convertors, the Honda CVCC engine, even fuel sulfur reductions.
im buying one tomorrow
I got around the same mileage (if I did the maths correctly) out of a standard 16 tooth sprocket when I did my "800 mile in 22h" run from Germany to the UK. Only motorways, constant 75ish mph. (Erm... that was obviously 70 in France and the UK officers... :laugh: )
Do you have a pic of your sprocket fitted? Coz it was really tight when I put a 17 in at one point. I know that SUZUKI has a big range of production tolerance, but I couldn't fit a 18 tooth in my 99 engine.
It's all about mileage now isn't it? Here in Denver they have an HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lane for cars with two or more people and it has an exception for motorcycles. I guess they've decided that using less gas compensates for more pollutants per cc/ci