Motorcycles & Pollution

[Bullgoose]

This should start a lively conversation

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html

[The Anvil]

Well it's true, mile per mile bikes (especially our dinosaurs) are no better than cars. I probably toss more pollutants into the air while warming up my Valk than my Pathfinder does on a 45 minute drive.

But here's the thing; this is not Europe/China etc. Motorcycles are still toys for the vast majority of their owners here in the USA so focusing regs on them is taking a hammer to a fruit-fly while the elephant is charging you. We're not really a major contributor to the environmental impact landscape when viewed as a whole.

[Cruzen]

If you take into consideration all aspects of pollution, motorcycles are definitely a greener alternative.  Fuel consumption and emissions are only one aspect.  Rubber deposited on the roads, brake dust and heat generation are other aspects to consider.   

For the record here in Arizona in the larger high population counties, our motorcycles have to go through emissions testing every year.  I believe we are the only state to conduct such tests.

[sugerbear]

with those kind of numbers, how long before California bans motorcycles?

just think they could lower pollution by 13%

[RonW]

Perhaps, you've never ridden behind a moped and breath it in the exhaust fumes. That to me is pollution.

[Tim H]

I started out riding motorcycles because it was a nice alternative two owning an additional car as well as save some money.  My Suzuki GZ250 claimed 70mpg.  I figured anything better than my Prius would be okay.  In reality it only got around 30mpg (probably dirty carbs).  I didn't own it long enough to do any real testing.  It was a cheap way to get another mode of transportation.  Once I started riding I found that it was much than another way around town and quickly wanted more out of a bike.

That is what lead me to the Valkyrie.  No, it's not the most fuel efficient or with the same money I could have bought a nice car, but once I rode a bike I didn't want to give it up.  I would agree that the Valkyrie is equal to owning a car.  Less gas is about all it has in it's favor, 30-32mpg for my first two tanks.  A good mileage number for cars, but not the 45-50mpg I get from my car.

If you consider the cost of parts, rubber used, etc. then it quickly becomes a high cost of operation.  The only thing that can tip that is the longevity of the engine.  I like to use less energy if I can, but my tastes comes down to what saves me money over time.  With the Valk I was willing to make a trade to have a better bike than the others, but have less fuel mileage.  How green it was was a distance consideration... it's black anyway.

P.S. The information that pops out to me while reading this article is that we just informed well read future suicide parties that they should use their bikes instead of cars.

[The Anvil]

If you take into consideration all aspects of pollution, motorcycles are definitely a greener alternative.

Catalytic converter equipped FI bikes perhaps, but not carburetor equipped bikes like ours. It's not even close really.

One advantage bikes have is the smaller footprint that if used en-masse would theoretically mean less traffic, but that's not an advantage here and I think it might be easier to park a Smart Car in some spots than a Valkyrie.

But they can have my inefficient, smog belching Valkyrie when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[RonW]

I think he may have been alluding to the disposing of motorbikes as opposed to what's involved getting rid of larger cars in the overall scheme of things. The manufacturing process too.

*Also, factor in the size of garages that take up more material to build.

If you take into consideration all aspects of pollution, motorcycles are definitely a greener alternative.  

[The Anvil]

I think he may have been alluding to the disposing of motorbikes as opposed to what's involved getting rid of larger cars in the overall scheme of things. The manufacturing process too.

*Also, factor in the size of garages that take up more material to build.

If you take into consideration all aspects of pollution, motorcycles are definitely a greener alternative.  

Perhaps, but I still don't think it's close. Maybe twenty years ago but with how much stuff is recycled now...

And in 20,000 miles on my ZX7 I went through five rear tires and three fronts. I can typically get 40,000 miles or more out of a set on a car.

[RonW]

alrighty, how about I toss in the larger footprint size of the land required for car dealerships. For used or new cars. How about the energy needed to produce the glass for windshields and car windows? You can't recycle glass without using even more energy.

[The Anvil]

alrighty, how about I toss in the larger footprint size of the land required for car dealerships. For used or new cars. How about the energy needed to produce the glass for windshields and car windows? You can't recycle glass without using even more energy.

What about plastic windshields? Most don't get recycled at all and just end up getting tossed. How about all of that tupperware that gets shattered in a wreck?

As far as the footprint thing goes, been in an H-D dealer lately? But seriously, if you flipped the ratio of bikes to cars sold then bike dealers would take up nearly as much room as car dealers. And having a dealership take up land does not (by default) have a negative impact on the environment.

[Ricky-D]

Motorcycles, generally speaking are much worse polluters than automobiles, and since the EPA has gotten involved and taking more interest in this particular area you will see more regulations being proposed.

It's only in the low amount of motorcycles on the road, when compared to automobiles, that the pollution from motorcycles become insignificant within the overall picture.

That is fast becoming apparent (pollution from motorcycles) and receiving more attention from all areas of government especially because of the noise from modified exhaust systems and the increasing mortality figures rising yearly at "alarming rates".

Helmets and helmet laws are receiving more attention as a result of all the furor.

***

[Momz]

During last weeks MRF international motorcycle syposium, it was made quite clear that the EU plans to remove motorcycles from future transportaion systems.

What happens in the EU is the harbinger of what is coming here. It is a Global World now we have been adapting global standards in this country for quite some time now.

It is high time for all motorcyclists to wake up and at the very least check out the websites of the AMA, ABATE, and the MRF.

[RonW]

What about plastic windshields? Most don't get recycled at all and just end up getting tossed.

Glass takes a humongous amount of energy to produce irregardless if glass windshields and side windows eventually get buried in the city dump. It's the byproducts of the energy used in the manufacturing process that damages the atmosphere.

And having a dealership take up land does not (by default) have a negative impact on the environment.

I meant it involves using much more construction material to built a car dealership facility and the underlying infrastructure. And it takes energy to manufacture construction material. See pics below just on the volume of concrete used for a foundation of a light pole much moreso the showroom foundation.

Final Offer: factor in the damage heavier cars do to the roads and the material needed to repave the streets .... in context to the OVERALL negative greenhouse impact on the planet. Again, it's the byproducts of the energy used to produce building materials that damages the planet, not where the finish product ends up.

[Rocketman]

Mythbusters' biggest weakness is their lack of scientific rigor.  They present results in a pop-culture style, rather than a scientific manner.  I don't know what an 8000% rise in CO values mean.  I also don't know whether they were comparing this as a total output of CO vs. a percentage of exhaust gases.  If I was talking to a scientist, I would assume he's analyzing things properly, until I have reason to suspect otherwise.  With those guys, while I really enjoy their show, you have to read between the lines, and frequently ignore their conclusions, to get meaningful results.  The experiments they run are often informative.  The summaries they give at the end are more often misleading.
Of course, political decisions are based on PR, not on facts, so the worry about excessive regs is VERY valid.

[The Anvil]

I meant it involves using much more construction material to built a car dealership facility and the underlying infrastructure. And it takes energy to manufacture construction material. See pics below just on the volume of concrete used for a foundation of a light pole much moreso the showroom foundation.

But I'm not sure the difference would be that significant were you to replace cars with bikes. If you suddenly flipped the ratio of bikes to cars you'd just wind up freeing up some land. The actual structure of car dealerships is not that much smaller than bike dealers in my experience.

Final Offer: factor in the damage heavier cars do to the roads and the material needed to repave the streets .... in context to the OVERALL negative greenhouse impact on the planet. Again, it's the byproducts of the energy used to produce building materials that damages the planet, not where the finish product ends up.

Cars DO wear out roads faster than bikes but the real damage is done by heavy trucking. I think if you flipped the ratio then government would see an excuse to build even crappier roads (I know Massachusetts would) which trucks would just destroy even quicker.