G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Forum » Quick Board » Archives » Archive through October 07, 2011 » Moto vs Car Emissions on Mythbusters - Anyone catch it? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through September 30, 2011Azxb9r30 09-30-11  09:19 pm
         

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Boltrider
Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 01:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Froggy, you're missing my point. Keep the CBR, but compare it to a high performance sports car. Surely an F-body Z28 pollutes more than a Ford Contour.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Boltrider
Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 01:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The bike would probably still lose though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Froggy
Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 02:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

But a Z28 isn't a mainstream car. If you watched the episode, the clearly explained they were discussing people trading in their cars for bikes to save on gas and reduce impact on environment. While I'm sure someone traded in a Mustang GT for a bike, it isn't as likely as a Taurus like tested.

Also, for the hell of it, I looked up a 02 Z28 and a 05 Taurus, the pollution scores from the EPA aren't far apart.





The Camaro would still come a little closer to the bike in terms of pollutants, but it still would be no contest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 03:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

One other parameter they should have listed, although it ought to run in same ratio as CO2, fuel consumption.

In that the bikes stomp the cars.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Froggy
Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 03:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Froggy
Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 03:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)





The "New bike" wasn't tested on the same route as the other vehicles, so its not entirely fair to compare them, but I feel they did good with the comparison anyway.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Azxb9r
Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 01:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Funny thing about CO2 is that CO2 levels increase with combustion efficiency. A properly tuned engine (one that is efficiently using its fuel mix) will usually have a CO2 level at 12% to 14%. If the engine is running rich, lean, or misfiring, you will see CO2 levels drop well below 10%. While CO2 is one of the most talked about greenhouse gases, it is actually an indicator of a complete combustion process. It is also the least harmful (to humans) of the exhaust gases.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natexlh1000
Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 01:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Don't forget the total amount of global resources for a bike is much less too.

There's more to it than just gas consumption and emissions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nillaice
Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 04:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

there are so many variables and aspects of efficiency.

while the percentages were measured, the volume of gasses was not.

also gotta take into account tires.

but then you start going beyond entertainment television. i still am gonna e-mail them and ask them to re-do it and use the 1125 DSB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 03:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

That "Fuel Efficiency" chart ought to be labeled "Fuel Consumption".
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration