| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Anyone see this? What were the results? From a press release issued by University of California - Riverside: | ||
| Azxb9r |
No, I did not see it. I guess that I will have to look for the re-air. It will be interesting to see how they are doing the testing. The article said they are using a portable "emission measurement system". I assume that means a portable 4 or 5 gas analyzer. If that is the case, the results could be a bit misleading. The gas analyzer looks at tail pipe emissions in percentage and parts per million, but cannot tell you total output. When the EPA does their testing, they measure grams per mile. Two different vehicles can have identical tailpipe readings on a 5 gas analyzer, but the larger engine will output more grams per mile. I would be willing to bet that the tailpipe readings of the cars built in the 90s and 2000s will be cleaner than some (or most) of the motorcycles, but the smaller displacement of the motorcycles means they emit less overall emissions...which would make them greener. | ||
| Etennuly |
They have been advertising the season premier show for Thursday. I plan on watching it tonight on Discovery channel. Perhaps a wrong date?  I don't know for sure. Sept 28th would be next week. | ||
| Blake |
D'oh. Me no read good. Vern to the rescue.  | ||
| Stirz007 |
"Called “the best science show on television" - by who? (And it could be, compared to a lot of the other junk out there - at least they explain the basic scientific principles, and that's a good thing) I like the show, but I have seen quite a few 'thin' studies that reach a conclusion contrary to actual facts. The show is ENTERTAINMENT folks, so always take it with a grain of salt. With that said, I would hope they factor in things like overall fuel efficiency (MPG), how much power is generated per gallon of gas and all the other variables. I doubt they have the resources or production time to give it a scientifically defensible effort - my guess is motorcycles will come out at "not a green as....". Thanks for the heads-up, though... we could see an 1125R in the mix (maybe even an 1190). | ||
| Jaimec |
Read an article a couple of weeks ago that basically said when you take in the overall picture, motorcycles are a LOT less "green" than cars. Not sure what the Mythbusters conclusion was because I haven't seen it. | ||
| Tankhead |
I hope to catch it. Tx | ||
| Etennuly |
Ahhh who cares if their studies are nit-picked to a ****hair! I loved it when they blew up the cement truck and the high speed rocket rail collisions. Makes the gun show folks boomer takes look small.  | ||
| Stirz007 |
Ahhh who cares if their studies are nit-picked to a ****hair! Agreed - except some folks think if it was on Mythbusters, then it's gospel... | ||
| F22raptor |
I agree with the theory of the smaller engine putting out less grams per mile but.....You have to look at the amount of fuel burned in that mile. As a KZ-1400 would burn more than a 40 m.p.g. ecno-box! | ||
| Etennuly |
Agreed - except some folks think if it was on Mythbusters, then it's gospel... Eh.....so what? Good for them for finding something CLOSE to a 100% cannot be disputed answer to questions they did not even know to ask.  Hell their findings are probably tested beyond any theories found in High School text books now days. It is possible that for the bikes vs cars for who is greener, that they are considering car pooling. Six people in one efficient car would probably pollute less than six people on three, four, five, or six bikes. | ||
| Sifo |
That episode is scheduled for September 28. And yeah,the blow stuff up!  | ||
| Tankhead |
The rocket rail collision ruled. That thing was FAST. | ||
| Azxb9r |
.You have to look at the amount of fuel burned in that mile. As a KZ-1400 would burn more than a 40 m.p.g. ecno-box! That would be correct. A 1.4L motorcycle engine running at 6000rpm would emit more grams per mile than a 1.6L car engine at 2000 rpm. These are basically extremes of the two classes though. A typical car engine is between 2.0L and 6.0L, while a typical motorcycle engine is between 250cc and 1200cc. There are larger and smaller in both, but most of what you see driving down the road (except for Harleys and Victories) are within that range. I can guarantee you that my 4Runner puts out more total emissions than my F800, and my Mustang emits more than my 1125. | ||
| Froggy |
Here are the results of their testing:  What they did was they got 3 bikes, and 3 cars, one of each for each decade to represent the 80's, 90's, and 00's. I have links to the full episode, PM me if you want them. | ||
| Ratbuell |
It was a good episode...but I worry if the "industry" is going to take notice and we're going to start seeing motorcycle HP take a nosedive like auto HP did in the 70s while they were figuring out how to clean up the act. Hopefully lessons learned in cars will translate well enough to bikes, without massive HP losses and strangled powerplants. Frank - got a clear blowup of the "2000's" bike picture? Looked like a CR on the show when I watched it... | ||
| Blake |
Motus is on the right course with the direct injection. Higher compression engines make more nitrogen oxides. Would be interesting to see the results for an air-cooled low compression bike. | ||
| Froggy |
They used a CR for the charts, but the bike they used I believe was a Honda CBR 600. I'll get some screencaps. There was a glimps of Jamie's 1125R and some other various bikes edited in as filler but nothing with more than a second of screen time and not tested. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I think the "bubble bike" was a 250 thumper, wasn't it? | ||
| Froggy |
Yes, the bubble bike was a unnamed brand 250cc 1 cyl with fuel injection and catalytic converter       | ||
| Ratbuell |
Ah, I see what you were saying, you were talking about the '00s bike. Gotcha. Sorry. Long, late night... Do they make those little breathalyzer straws for laptop computers? Just so I don't put my foot too far in my mouth late at night?  | ||
| Froggy |
I'm not aware of any units that will actually lock out your PC, but I'm sure somewhere has rigged up something to do that. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I would have liked to see a big air cooled long stroke motor in there also. The bikes they chose were effectively "race bikes", but they were comparing them to economy cars. So if they want to compare, put 0-60 times in there as well. | ||
| Hootowl |
Interesting observation Bill. | ||
| Froggy |
The vehicles were chosen based on popularity, not performance. | ||
| Imonabuss |
The sad part is that none of what is going on is real world, especially in CA and Europe where filtering is allowed. The drive cycle used for measuring emissions is not at all correct. Cars sitting idling and doiing little acceleration hops between dead stops produce all their emissions at an infinite rate of emissions per mile whil stopped and terrible during the hops. A bike filtering by at 25 mph is killing the car in actual emissions produced during the commute. The Europeans understand this, but the US are idiots about it. So it really boils down to emissions per hour for a commute. With filtering, bikes win. | ||
| Sifo |
CA = real world  OK, back to the discussion... | ||
| Boltrider |
Interesting show, but I wish they would have more closely matched the machines by type. Using a Z28 Camaro or something like it against the CBR would have been a better choice than a Ford.........Concord? Pretty much what Reep said. (Message edited by boltrider on September 30, 2011) | ||
| Froggy |
I disagree, the results from the motard which has about a third of the displacement of the CBR and a catalytic converter still weren't that much better. What low emission gas bike do you propose they use? | ||
| Azxb9r |
One thing I would have liked to see was using a bike with a catalytic converter for the 2000s test. That would make a big difference in HC and CO levels on the bike, and since new regs are requiring cats, it would be more "real world". Oxides of Nitrogen increase with combustion temperature. Increasing compression increases comb. temps, but this can be kept under control via variable valve timing. Increasing engine temps also increases comb. temps. The high temps that air cooled engines run at causes them to have increased Oxides of Notrogen. Making the fuel mixture richer helps, but drives up CO levels. I assume that advancing the exhaust valve timing via variable valve timing would also knock it down {as with cooler running water cooled engines) but I have no idea what we would be looking at numbers wise as nobody is doing it. (Message edited by azxb9r on September 30, 2011) |
