More info regarding the "greeniness" of bikes

Just been sent this.

http://www.acembike.org/html/ACEMInfos/AcemInfo5.pdf

Makes for interesting reading.

Comments, anyone?

In case anyone missed it, I posted a note regarding the omission of
bikes from a federal government website that listed vehicles and how
they rate environmentally.

 

This article implies that bikes pollute more than cars. How can this be?
Wouldn't less fuel, quicker travel time = less pollution?

 

Less fuel than what car?

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

PTW?
Personal Transport something???
Powered Two Wheels?

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s (gone on to better and brighter things - I hope)
'87 BMW K100RT (write-off)
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

See the bottom of pg 6 - POWERED TWO WHEELERS
Bummers

 

My CBR600 does 6l/100km every week in high rate stop start city traffic.
There's not to many cars that would do the same.
Also remember that a car is more prone to traffic so it's laboratory derived
economy figures aren't equal. ie A Honda Jazz may also do 6l/100km, but
it'll spend much more time sitting still using fuel while I won't be. Hence
the bike is more economical. (eg the same trip takes 20 minutes on the bike,
and 40 minutes in the car (bus lanes, lane splitting etc)

Admitted that not everyone owns the same bike, but a 600 could be considered
reasonbly average.

 

Que TISM song re: tailpipes....

That's nice, dear.

Hammo

 

A few points.

The lack of cat's in many (current) bikes, and the lack of exhaust gas
recirculation in most (current) bikes means that for the same amount of
fuel the polution produced is considerably higher for the same amount of
fuel burnt.

Secondly... not everyone commutes in stop/start traffic, that's more a
problem experienced by inner city CBD workers. Many (most?) people who
work in the suburbs have much less congested commutes, and just about
everyone outside the metro areas has no problem at all with traffic
congestion.

Also outside of Sydney/Melb the traffic congestion causes much less
delay as well (think Perth, Adelaide, Brissy and the congestion drops by
at least 50%).

So your bike may be able to be considered 'average' but it's hard to
consider
your commute as so. It is rather at the extreme end of busy... and it
is where the bike has it's best advantage.


G-S

 

Thank ye. I was close.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s (gone on to better and brighter things - I hope)
'87 BMW K100RT (write-off)
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

Although pollution is more of a problem in built up areas, so it would be
proportional to traffic.

Ok, as long the aurhtorites recognise this and don't take my bus lane away
I'll be happy

 

Uncle said....

I got an email today suggesting that there are moves to formally outlaw
the practice of lane splitting or filtering in the Australian Road
Rules. However, while this may occur, for it to be effective, each state
has to legislate for it in their respective laws/regulations.

So, maybe bikes will lose that "economical" advantage.

 

My 1100 Guzzi does better than that, but my ute uses 10.5.

Theo

 

Per Kg moved per 100 Klm.
If you do the math bikes are not as efficient compared to a car per kg over
100Klms.
If you only care about A to B fuel cost, the bike is about 1/2 the cost of a
car.
If you care about polution, cars are likely to be better than bikes per
100Klm.

Per KG moved over 100Klm
My Bike is Bad.
The car at 1450Kg uses 10L per 100 Klm. (City)
My bike and rider at 260Kg uses 5.8L per 100 Klm (City) (185kg Bike + 75kg
rider)

So for each 100 Klm.
Per Kg the bike uses 0.022L
Per Kg the car uses 0.0068L (note extra zero)

So per Kg over 100 Klms, the car is 3.5 times more efficient.
Efficient being work done for the fuel spent.

If the goal is only to move a human from A to B. Then the bike uses almost
1/2 the fuel.

Emmission wise, whats worse ?
10L burnt by a euro 3 emissions standard, compliant car.
Or 5.8 Liters burnt by a bike with a Carby and no Cat converter in the
exhaust.
I bet the cars polution impact is less.

 

But per passenger on the average daily commute?

 

You are making some invalid assumptions. The weight of the car isn't
relevant... that's waste mass.

What is relevant is the 'carry mass' of the car compared to the 'carry
mass' of the bike.

The problem with that calculation is that it assume that cars are full
of people... and almost always they are not.


G-S

 

But when the cop is 50 cars back behind stationary traffic, what's he gonna
do?

 

Uncle said....

I'm sure that he'll find a way of pinging you. Thats something that they
seem to be good at. It might mean doing a Dukes of Hazard or
something...

Of course, if he's on a cop bike you simply follow HIM, albeit applying
a modicum of discretion...

 

Use the radio!

 

Saw a scooter in the buslane. Trouble was its an 80 zone and that
scooter was maybe doing 60 (not lots faster than me in the bike lane).
At least there's no car license incentive to get a 50cc scoot in the ACT.
Otherwise there'd be more of an issue with the buses (and taxis.)

Andre

 

He has the advantage of being able to part the traffic with a swift
application of lights and sirens. You'd be surprised how well they can
get through heavy traffic when they use "the force"... I know I was.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R