Motor Cycles worse for Environment Say Mythbusters

neptronix said:
Only giving you crap AJ. Just think it's ironic that you came out and flat out stated that you think electric drive is inferior considering you've spent thousands.. have 3 builds going on prolly more..

I guess i woulda thought if you didn't like ebikes so much you'd figure out a way to avoid building so many and spending so much time on an ebike forum :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

As i said....give me a way to do it and i will??? (I find it strange you have been here posted ~4k times and are only now discovering that i think electric vehicles are inferior couldn't make it any clearer than i already have in the past) ... :mrgreen:

KiM
 
Not inferior. Just different.

The joy I get from ripping silently through back paths and neighborhoods at 2am like a stealth fighter with nobody knowing is pretty good. Can't do that on gas bikes.

My bikes also rape every gas bike at the deathrace in a drag race by a huge margin. Way more poke off corners than even the morini bikes could manage, but they would then start to rip hard after about 30mph.

Now, granted, my motor smoked on lap 9.... most of them kept running. Gas engines obviously have a 100year development head-start on us in refining the art.

But! That makes another big attraction for me! Electrics are like the wild west right now. Its like getting in on hotrodding in the 1950s or something when everybody was trying new ideas and crazy stuff to see what works. That's pretty awesome!
 
AJ, your builds are awesome and you bring a lot to the table here. My lady thinks your builds are sweet too. I don't want you off the forum so i won't be thinking of a way for you to go motorcycle too hard.... ;)

That being said, i am a frock jock so i don't read your threads too heavy nor do i read the RC motor / chain drive stuff at all, which i assume is where the majority of your posts are.. just an educated guess, lol.

Anyway for the range problem.. batteries do keep improving,. ~250whr/kg cells exist but they're pretty new.. if they can get the internal resistance down.. those are almost gonna be half the weight of lipo.. O_O
 
liveforphysics said:
The joy I get from ripping silently through back paths and neighborhoods at 2am like a stealth fighter with nobody knowing is pretty good. Can't do that on gas bikes.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah... the ebike is the ultimate freedom machine. I've thought about going with a scooter or motorcycle chassis but it just isn't the same. Where i live people have no clue what an eBike is and that just makes it sweeter cuz i will occasionally catch someone staring at me from the sidewalk with a look of amazement... oh yes... i'm actually Armstrong's brother.. move along :mrgreen:

liveforphysics said:
But! That makes another big attraction for me! Electrics are like the wild west right now. Its like getting in on hotrodding in the 1950s or something when everybody was trying new ideas and crazy stuff to see what works. That's pretty awesome!
Click to expand...

That's another reason i love it too. It's so dead simple to make more power with an electric motor. Batteries do need improvement but i do strongly believe that electric will be dominating the dragstrip for one in a matter of a few years.
 
AussieJester said:
Watched the latest installment of Mytbusters yesterday, Jamie and Adman tackled
the myth that motorcycles pollute more than cars, they basically
took cars and motorcycles from 1980s-1990's and 2010 ran them the same distance on same
course with some fancy testing gear to measure the pollutants they released, might
surprise some that although the motorcycle is alot more efficient in terms of
gasoline consumption, with exception to C02 output, which the motorcycles do produce less of than cars
the hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (~3200% more than cars :-| ) Carbon Monoxide (~8000% More than cars)
Mythbisters concluded not only are motorcycles worse for the environment in terms of pollutants but they
are FAR worse... Personally, i couldn't give a rats ass but thought some here might be interested in
it....Thoughts?...anyone........anyone? :p

KiM


EDIT:-....forgot to mention, the Mythbusters of course tried improving the motorcycles and made a pretty killer
faired motorcycle the velomobile crowd would likely love...ii'll grab a screenie...

EDiT2:-





Appologies about the expired software message i haven't got around to :: cough :: "buying" the software yet
don't usually use Windows XP but having issues with my Win7 instal atm which has inbuilt screen capture program...anyhoot...
Click to expand...
Aussie did they do a ppm test? I mean they took a sample of parts per million of what came out of the tail pipe then compared it to the car? Thing is if there is say 100x more exhaust coming out of the car but the bike has 10x parts per million worse pollution the bike is still 1 x better for the environment because it produces less exhaust to begin with!
 
Arlo1 said:
AussieJester said:
Watched the latest installment of Mytbusters yesterday, Jamie and Adman tackled
the myth that motorcycles pollute more than cars, they basically
took cars and motorcycles from 1980s-1990's and 2010 ran them the same distance on same
course with some fancy testing gear to measure the pollutants they released, might
surprise some that although the motorcycle is alot more efficient in terms of
gasoline consumption, with exception to C02 output, which the motorcycles do produce less of than cars
the hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (~3200% more than cars :-| ) Carbon Monoxide (~8000% More than cars)
Mythbisters concluded not only are motorcycles worse for the environment in terms of pollutants but they
are FAR worse... Personally, i couldn't give a rats ass but thought some here might be interested in
it....Thoughts?...anyone........anyone? :p

KiM


EDIT:-....forgot to mention, the Mythbusters of course tried improving the motorcycles and made a pretty killer
faired motorcycle the velomobile crowd would likely love...ii'll grab a screenie...

EDiT2:-





Appologies about the expired software message i haven't got around to :: cough :: "buying" the software yet
don't usually use Windows XP but having issues with my Win7 instal atm which has inbuilt screen capture program...anyhoot...
Click to expand...
Aussie did they do a ppm test? I mean they took a sample of parts per million of what came out of the tail pipe then compared it to the car? Thing is if there is say 100x more exhaust coming out of the car but the bike has 10x parts per million worse pollution the bike is still 1 x better for the environment because it produces less exhaust to begin with!
Click to expand...

Soz mate couldn't tells ya all the test done, can tell you though, the Mythbusters didn't actually do the testing they bought in a group of specialist from a company that does emission testing, i would assuuuume everythihg
was taken into consideration when the numbers were added up, it is the Mythbusters after all they usually are pretty thorough...imo anyway.

KiM
 
I have just seen a lot of tests based on PPM and not total volume coming out of the motor so....
 
Arlo1 said:
I have just seen a lot of tests based on PPM and not total volume coming out of the motor so....
Click to expand...


That's correct, it's never volumetrically compensated, as the probes can't even perform that function.

Like 99% of mythbusters, it's idiots sucking at trying to do things, and drawing wrong conclusions in proper mythbusters style.
 
liveforphysics said:
Arlo1 said:
I have just seen a lot of tests based on PPM and not total volume coming out of the motor so....
Click to expand...


That's correct, it's never volumetrically compensated, as the probes can't even perform that function.

Like 99% of mythbusters, it's idiots sucking at trying to do things, and drawing wrong conclusions in proper mythbusters style.
Click to expand...

:shock: hrmz...thought you didn't watch/have TV hooked up Luke :?: :!: how many Mythbuster eps you watched? I have evryone from the start on DVD yeah its dropped off the last few years but still, imo it's a good show better than alot of the other rubbish on TV, not all are as bright as yourself buddy, i learn alot from the show... Might want to check the resumes before calling them idiots too, they are very well educasted...cept for Tori, but he has some damn fine artistic skills... I maybe biased because i like the show :: shrugs ::

KiM
 
LI-ghtcycle said:
neptronix said:
Solar actually pays off without subsidies after about 15-20 years, and the remaining 30 years of energy are free, so you really do get ahead. The cost keeps going down per year as well.

http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-prices

Ultimately it is affordable because it saves you money, it's the upfront cost that's preventing people from going all solar..

Of course Oregon is one of the worst places to do the solar thing really. And wind is weak there too until you get into eastern Oregon.. ( i saw a shit-ton of wind and hydro power driving out there towards Idaho to Colorado.. it stunned me. )

There is no solution for everywhere.. the path off fossil fuels is going to require multiple solutions and will need to be catered to each region.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm also wondering why there isn't more geothermal, I mean I'm practically sitting on a fault line, I have heard of it being used, but I understand there is the "long run" solution which solar is supposed to help, but if we don't maintain and increase what we have now, how are we going to go forward effectively to pursue solar, it would seem that LNG might be something we can do now that would help us get away from coal while we are supplying our population with much needed electricity, and LNG is pretty prolific, most houses have it or can have it with nearby pipelines, and you can use it in slightly modified cars.

I forget his name, but one of the columnists of Popular Science that lives on the east coast has installed a filling station for his LNG car, and that might be a compromise for while the batteries catch-up.

Still doesn't have the same fuel efficiency of gas, but IIRC, it makes up for it in lower price and greater efficiency, but of course, half of the price of gas is taxes, and eventually enough people use LNG, they will start having to tax it to pay for roads & bridges and such.
Click to expand...


Geothermal works on the heat generated from radioactive decay. If the rock you're on doesnt contain radioisotopes then it's no good. As far asI know Iceland is the only place that makes major use of it. There are a few parts of the US that could use it, but they tend to be national parks!
 
AussieJester said:
I maybe biased because i like the show :: shrugs ::

KiM
Click to expand...

Not to mention, since the baby, Carry has dropped a couple of pounds and it looks like maybe got her tits done. Point being she's turning into a lil hawty.
 
Pure said:
AussieJester said:
I maybe biased because i like the show :: shrugs ::

KiM
Click to expand...

Not to mention, since the baby, Carry has dropped a couple of pounds and it looks like maybe got her tits done. Point being she's turning into a lil hawty.
Click to expand...

Clearly, not that big a fan. Kari, get it right! :mrgreen:
 
Joseph C. said:
Pure said:
AussieJester said:
I maybe biased because i like the show :: shrugs ::

KiM
Click to expand...

Not to mention, since the baby, Carry has dropped a couple of pounds and it looks like maybe got her tits done. Point being she's turning into a lil hawty.
Click to expand...

Clearly, not that big a fan. Kari, get it right! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

pft wiminez names, i forget em soon as they tell me (no lie im shocking with names)

@Pure..not wrong me and a mate were watching the latest Newton Cradle ep, and DAMN Kari (happy Joseph :p :mrgreen: )
is looking daaamn fine, HAS to have had the breatstassess done doesn't she!?! either
way yup shes a hawty now...for a ranga :mrgreen:

KiM
 
AussieJester said:
@Pure..not wrong me and a mate were watching the latest Newton Cradle ep, and DAMN Kari (happy Joseph :p :mrgreen: )
is looking daaamn fine, HAS to have had the breatstassess done doesn't she!?! either
way yup shes a hawty now...for a ranga :mrgreen:

KiM
Click to expand...

[youtube]tzdxpDRUCyw[/youtube]
 
@ Joe, I'm usually too busy staring at her tits when they intro her to notice the spelling of her name.

@ Kim, Yup they been done alright. God bless her.

I like how they are even starting to let her host other things on the sci channel.
 
I'm late to the debate, but since I researched this topic last semester for college I thought I could add some input to this discussion.

:arrow: Approximately 50% CO2 emissions comes from transportation. The other 50% comes from industry with most of that being coal.
:arrow: Electric cars produce drastically less emissions even when powered totally by coal and you include a life cycle analysis.
:arrow: Electric bikes actually produce less emissions than a regular bicycle. By a factor of 4 or 2 depending on diet.

With regards to motorcycles vs. cars
:arrow: A large portion of the total emissions a vehicle emits actually doesn't come from the tailpipe, but from transporting oil from the other side of the world and from processing it. I don't have any hard numbers, but I'm willing to bet that the total emissions from operating a motorcycle are a lot less than from operating a car simply because a car requires more fuel.

Anyways, here is the summary of the paper I wrote for school. In it you will find sources for all the claims made.
 
auraslip said:
I'm late to the debate, but since I researched this topic last semester for college I thought I could add some input to this discussion.

:arrow: Approximately 50% CO2 emissions comes from transportation. The other 50% comes from industry with most of that being coal.
:arrow: Electric cars produce drastically less emissions even when powered totally by coal and you include a life cycle analysis.
:arrow: Electric bikes actually produce less emissions than a regular bicycle. By a factor of 4 or 2 depending on diet.

With regards to motorcycles vs. cars
:arrow: A large portion of the total emissions a vehicle emits actually doesn't come from the tailpipe, but from transporting oil from the other side of the world and from processing it. I don't have any hard numbers, but I'm willing to bet that the total emissions from operating a motorcycle are a lot less than from operating a car simply because a car requires more fuel.

Anyways, here is the summary of the paper I wrote for school. In it you will find sources for all the claims made.
Click to expand...

Good stuff! Thanks :)

I'm with you, I still have a hard time if they don't account for volume (oh wow how can they even call it emissions "testing" if they don't! :roll: typical gov'mt BS doesn't surprise me at all .. :lol: ), and given that information, how could one possibly compare this apples to oranges test?

I have to say it would have been a lot more interesting if they had done some actual research into a more aerodynamic design than just doing their "bubble" fairing, but hey, it's still a really fun show, and some stuff has to be done to really get the information!

Too much stuff these days doesn't seem to leave the theoretical IMHO, and science suffers because of it.

I would love to see a re-vamping of the emissions testing methods, and I honestly believe that high performance vehicles with less "smog" gear would fair much better than the average (especially CA spec) vehicles on the road.

If you have a car that is designed to make as much power as possible with supercharging and other such methods, (assuming we are talking pump gas or similar fuels that wouldn't be inherently more toxic than pump gas in general) I bet they would be proved to produce a lot less actual pollution.

Of course one of the largest game changers has been probably things like Direct Injection and the wide spread use of fuel injection and computer controlled/monitored systems increasing power & efficiency in general over the last 40+ years, I think the assumption of high performance = low efficiency is as outdated and inaccurate as the speedos on cars from the 50's. :mrgreen:

Today's cars and motorcycles are so much more electronically monitored, and designed for efficiency than the muscle cars of yester-year that most "hot rodding" has become electronic "tuning" instead.

I'm no expert, but that is my guess, in the past you just went big and brute force, these days, it seems to be all about getting more power out of smaller engines.
 
This whole volume used...the bike and car were driven/ridden over exactly the same course, same
distance etc...and the pollution put out over that set distance recorded, i'm unsure why you guys are so uppity
about volume? granted car uses more fuel, bike less, but regardless the bike still pollutes more
to cover the same distance a car does...what am i missing? aside from a decent brain and edubication :p
Someone will have to dumbz it down for this old timer :p

KiM
 
If they tested using PPM measurements then you could look at it this way. High pollution level = Concentrated Low = Regular

Motorbike is concentrated, and the car is regular with the concentrate been 2x as strong as regular.

If the car produced 5m3 of exhaust gas over the course it produces 5m3 of regular. Compared to the bike which may only produce 1m3 of exhaust at the concentrate level, it would produce 2m3 of gas if it was diluted. Much less then the car in this case.

All depends on how much volume of exhaust gas each vehicle produced.
 
They too have children, & mortgages to consider as they spew their shit.
 
Well, I haven't read the entire thread so someone may have hit on this already. I'm not surprised at the result, as small engines have far less emission restrictions on them and are not under as much scrutiny for pollution. I have heard several times that your lawn mower and weed eater and chain saw pollute more than your car. Seeing as there are basically no emission controls on small engines, I would believe this.

I'm sure motorcycles have lower emission standards in many places than cars. They aren't seen as a major polluter as there are less on the road. If want a reason to ride a bike instead of a drive a car, for it save $ on gas and is far more fun.

As far as Kari and her tits, for those of you keeping track. Well, all women's tend to get bigger when having a kid. Kind of goes with producing milk. She now falls in the m i l f category though.

Clay
 
AussieJester said:
This whole volume used...the bike and car were driven/ridden over exactly the same course, same
distance etc...and the pollution put out over that set distance recorded, i'm unsure why you guys are so uppity
about volume? granted car uses more fuel, bike less, but regardless the bike still pollutes more
to cover the same distance a car does...what am i missing? aside from a decent brain and edubication :p
Someone will have to dumbz it down for this old timer :p

KiM
Click to expand...


Depends on what pollution you're looking at.

The amount of CO2 and amount of carbon anything emits is simply 100% determined by the amount of fuel you burn. Take the worlds most filthy gas engine, an the worlds cleanest gas engine, burn more fuel with the worlds cleanest gas engine, an you released more carbon than the worlds most filthy gas engine.

Likewise, take a motorcycle engine with 20ppm NOx and 100ppm HC's in it's exhaust, yet 1/10th the exhaust volume, and you've released the same amount of pollutants as a car engine with 2ppm NOx and 10ppm HC's in it's exhaust, YET, that car has also released 10x the carbon...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top