NSW rego cuts considered for efficient vehicles - bikes not mentioned

No mention of motorcycles or scooters... we must be an environmentally
unfriendly lot.



http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/05/03/1115092503043.html



Registration fees will be reduced for cars with small engines and increased
for those with large ones, including most four-wheel-drives, if the State
Government adopts recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases.

Members of the Greenhouse Advisory Panel support the idea as part of a
strategy to reduce vehicle emissions.

...............



and....



http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3067754





Govt to consider car rego cuts


May 4, 2005

THE NSW government will consider a proposal to reduce registration costs for
fuel-efficient vehicles.


Premier Bob Carr today stopped short of giving the idea his full support but
said he was taking seriously the recommendation by the Greenhouse Advisory
Panel urging the government to reduce registration costs for cars with small
engines and increase charges for gas-guzzling vehicles.

Motorists currently pay registration according to the weight of the vehicle.


"We've got some distance to go as we assess the report but it's a serious
recommendation," Mr Carr told reporters.


"We've got to look at its implications for everyone - there are people in
rural NSW who have got no alternative but to use a heavier vehicle, a 4WD
vehicle.






"Now you've got a variation in the registration paid according to the weight
of the vehicle (and) now we will look seriously at a proposition that it be
varied according to the impact of the engine of the vehicle."


But Mr Carr said he would not make a decision on the proposal until it was
fully considered.

 

50% less than car around town, heaps less road space/parking space,
negligible road damage.

All those single occupant cars cluttering up the roads.

Yep, environmentally unfriendly.. And those scooters and mid-capacity bikes
are even worse.

 

A Linear World would be a boring place to live in.

 

Did the sums one day for my 2 litre pulsar -vs- the zzr250, and the
zzr uses about twice as much fuel at the car when you factor in
relative weight of the two vehicles/pax, but on volume of fuel per
distance travelled, the bike is almost three times more betterer than
the car.

G, the yzf1000 is very similar, uses just a bit more fuel than the
zzr250 - maybe 10% more, if that.

 

Dad's elderly and nigh-on-worn-out CT90 was returning >40km/l on the
Wintersun trip last year.

Jeeze your a fat bastard, Nev! ;-)


BTH

 

fat bastard?

nah...Nev's knuckles dragging along the pavement just add to the drag of the
spare tyre spilling out around his waist.

The one redeeming aerodynamic feature (albeit of dubious value) is the
cavenous bum crack protrusion that smooth airflow over the rather impressive
backside.

 

At what speed?

Moike

(us fat bastards have to stick together)

 

That's 1 up riding of course.
Say the addition of 4 more adults to the car reduced it's economy to 10l/100k,
the equivalent number of CT110s to carry the same number of people will use
between 1.5 and 2 times as much fuel as a fuel efficient car to get to the 5
people to their destination. That motorcycle fuel efficiency is definitely
not great!

Actually there was no discussion of the motorcycle size, just a suggestion
from the OP that motorcycles should automatically be considered to be
efficient, which they are not.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

mine's more efficient than my car, and we are comparing an R1 with a 1.5l
Lancer

ck

 

And the last time you saw more than one person to a car on your morning
commute was......?

Theo

 

Why aren't motorcycles able to be allot more efficient than they are?
I imagined that an electronic fuel injected motorcycle would be allot more
efficient than I'm told.

 

That's not even the start of it... the mystery beings with carburetted
motorcycles returning lower fuel consumption figures than motorcycles
with EFI.

 

Really? Not my experience with identical models of Guzzi California. Same
engine, same year, same capacity, got me 5.4 l/100 kms with EFI, my mate got
6 with his carbed Guzzi, measured on a a trip across the Nullarbor riding
together. So same speed, same load, same weather conditions, same fuel
bowser. Hell, we even did our oil changes before with we left from the same
oil-can. OK, so I weigh 5 kg more than him.

Theo

 

My experience shows the opposite. Carbed Harleys suck a lot less than EFI
ones but carbed Chev and Ford V8's suck more.

 

I think the car manufacturers are a lot better at this stuff than bike
makers. No doubt they will catch up shortly. I'm staggered that the
supposedly technology hungry Japanese bike makers are still to come to terms
with EFI. It's quite difficult to find a car with a carb now.

I'll leave the "Carbed Harleys suck" for someone else.

Theo

 

I had a theory that it had to do with engine displacement but my bike has
bigger pistons than the car and they both have port injection.

In that case EFI Harleys suck!

 

Really? Not my experience with identical models of Guzzi California. Same

My experience riding with others on F650 BMWs show the EFI versions are
considerably more economical. The EFI versions also run better at lower RPMs
which I suspect is better fuel control.

I guess two carbs for one cylinder don't help..

 

Try a CB250 , cruises around town easily , will do 110 no worries and does
3.5l/100k

 

65-70kph. Less when travelling uphill. ;-)


BTH