(http://i49.tinypic.com/n4dzer.jpg)
Thank you Mythbusters. I believe they used a GS500 for the 1990's bike too. I would think that these numbers are highly dependent on the individual bike and it's condition.
...
I remember watching this episode and thinking to myself, "This just doesn't sound right. Maybe the specific gases are elevated but the overall gas consumption and emissions output can't be more than my car."
I dunno about anyone else here, but I get 400kms from $15 in gas when I'm driving nicely, can't do that in my car!
Statistics can be made to prove any point.
If you say miles traveled per gallon, then bikes are better.
If you were to say "efficiency" is the amount of gas required to move 1 pound of vehicle one mile, then a car would beat a bike. Trains beat a car.
The same on emissions. While the exhaust may have higher crud in it, there is less of it per mile you drive the bike. So overall emissions are less even though parts per million of the exhaust gas of a bike is higher.
Quote from: adidasguy on May 14, 2012, 10:05:46 AM
Statistics can be made to prove any point.
If you say miles traveled per gallon, then bikes are better.
If you were to say "efficiency" is the amount of gas required to move 1 pound of vehicle one mile, then a car would beat a bike. Trains beat a car.
The same on emissions. While the exhaust may have higher crud in it, there is less of it per mile you drive the bike. So overall emissions are less even though parts per million of the exhaust gas of a bike is higher.
:thumb:
They clearly didn't use a bike that meets Euro III emission standards. See the chart below has Euro emission standards in grams per kM.
On-Highway Motorcycle Emission Standards for EPA and EU
HC (g/km) NOx (g/km) CO (g/km)
Euro II (2004) 1.0 0.3 5.5
Euro III (2007) 0.3 0.15 2.0
Source: http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/313/1572/Motorcycle-Article/Motorcycle-Emissions-Regs-Examined.aspx
This data depending on the condition of the bikes is an excellent point. A new gixxer is going to have high emissions because it's pumping so much fuel/air through the engine and making power from it. An engine that isn't designed to suck that much mixture through it can emit much less pollutants, while getting much better mileage, while making a lot less power.
California with its stagnant air in LA has one set of standards. Here in WA we have wind all the time so bikes (except new off the showroom floor) don't get emissions tests. Once you take a bike home, do what you want. I can build a bike, have it licensed and not have it inspected or emissions tested (WSP inspection only if a salvage or lost title).
Quote from: adidasguy on May 14, 2012, 02:04:26 PM
Once you take a bike home, do what you want.
Do what you want...... so long as in the process of doing so you DONT allow an increase in emissions.
.....We are not changing existing
provisions of section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act, as established in
1977, which states that it is illegal "for any person to remove or render
inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under
this title...after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser...". In
other words, owners of motor vehicles cannot legally make modifications
that cause the emissions to exceed the applicable emissions standards,
and they cannot remove or disable emission control devices
installed by the manufacturer.
We use the term "tampering" to refer specifically to actions that are
illegal under section 203 of the Clean Air Act; the term, and the prohibition,
do not apply generally to the wide range of things that a motorcycle
enthusiast can do to legally personalize their vehicle, only to
actions that cause the emissions to exceed the standards. The new
emissions standards do not change this "tampering" prohibition. In fact,
it is not within EPA's ability or discretion to change this statutory prohibition,
which Congress put in place more than 20 years ago. Owners are
still free generally to customize their motorcycles in any way, as long as
they do not disable emission controls or cause the motorcycle to exceed
the emission standards......
From here......http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/roadbike/420f03045.pdf
I remember this episode, you gotta remember there purely talking about the types of harmful gasses that were coming out, if you go on fuel efficiency course bikes whip cars but looks like bikes have alot if catching up to do in terms of cat converters etc. as for using a GS as one of the test bikes it didn't look like one, looked like a cb400 from memory but can't say for certain.
I don't find anything wrong with the data presented, and don't see it as propaganda.
Clearly, in America anyway, motorcycles are recreational vehicles for the most part. As such, they have not been subject to the requirements that passenger cars have been. If motorcycles were used in sufficient numbers to be a significant threat to our local health and environment, the emissions rules would have been tightened up by now.
Unfortunately, we have a chicken/egg situation now. Motorcyclists want to encourage more motorcycle use and mainstreaming, and would like to promote the environmental benefits. But we've had too much fun with what we have become accustomed to and voted for with our wallets: high power-to-weight ratio weekend fun machines.
The mythbusters show simply shows what is available now. Not what could be (with a change in mindset.)
All I can say is. . . . I don't care, my bike is fun. :flipoff:
Quote from: MVent03 on May 14, 2012, 05:21:26 PM
All I can say is. . . . I don't care, my bike is fun. :flipoff:
Well said :cheers: