| Author |
Message |
    
Froggy
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 05:43 pm: | 
|
Less materials and resources consumed to make a random motorcycle vs a random econocar. That is pretty much it. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 05:58 pm: |
|
If you compare econo-cars and econo-bikes though, the bikes win. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 06:17 pm: |
|
Nope. Let me do my Blast vs a run of the mill Geo Metro.
| Tires - Blast | 8000 miles pair | $192.90 msrp (F & R) | Dunlop D330 - no labor | | Tires - Metro | 60000+ miles set | $208 set of 4 | Yokohama Y372 - no labor | | Fuel - Blast | 75MPG avg | $746 year | 20,000 miles, $2.80 gal 87 | | Fuel - Metro | 65MPG avg | $861 year | 20,000 miles, $2.80 gal 87 | | Insurance - Blast | 1 year full coverage | Free! Multi bike discount  | | | Insurance - Metro | Not sure, didn't get a quote, but cheap. | | | | Maint - Blast | 4 services | $600 | 20k miles - 4 oil changes, 2 primary fluid changes, 1 belt + sprocket | | Maint - Metro | Again didn't look, but I doubt you will be replacing much in 20k miles. | | | | NYS Registration - Blast | 1 year | $50 year | | | NYS Registration - Metro | 2 years | Est. $60 for 2 years | | | Inspection - Blast | 1 year | $14 | | | Inspection - Metro | 1 year | $31 |
|
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 06:25 pm: |
|
Froggy,
"The econo cars are beating the hell out of most bikes in a straight up MPG comparison so I don't know where bikes have a smaller carbon foorprint."
"If you compare econo-cars and econo-bikes though, the bikes win." |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 06:30 pm: |
|
Well, in fairness you could put some rock hard rubber, on the bike and it would still handle as well as the Monte Carlo, and be a lot cheaper. Likewise, plenty of tires for the monty that'll be roasted in 8k miles, but the monte still won't handle like a Buell.
So your math is great, but it is still to some degree an apples to oranges comparison. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 06:45 pm: |
|
When I decided that riding the bike would be more economical, I had to take in to account that I already owned both the bike and the truck, and I was already paying for insurance etc. for both. Did I mention my truck gets 10 MPG? I also got to use the carpool lanes, which shaved 30-60 minutes off the commute, depending on traffic. It made sense for me and my situation. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 06:47 pm: |
|
Hoot, I misunderstood what you were referring to then, but pretty much every kind of bike would beat an econocar in terms of carbon footprint.
Reepi, my Monte has been down Wolfpen Gap, while it is no Corvette, it does fine  |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 06:56 pm: |
|
Don't forget, Buell's are different in every sense.
My old GT380 Suzuki ( 2 stroke, true ) got, at best 35mpg. My GS750 ( ported, Kerker, K&N's ) got well... 35mpg. My GS1100E ( Yoshimura, K&N's ) got....35mpg.
Now my Cyclone gets 55mpg, or better if I keep it under 60 and drive like a lil 'ol lady. But honest? 45-55mpg. ( drops to the low 30's at steady 100+ ) A Blast does better, as does a 250 Ninja, or an old Honda Ascot. Build a Vetter Streamliner out of a Honda Elite, you can get near 100mpg.
But I doubt a Kawasaki 1400 or a 'Wing gets much better than my old GT380. It's a matter of aerodynamics. Bikes, as a rule, suck. ( though the S3 fairing is darn good ) Being able to out accelerate a Porsche also has it's costs.
If you have a Buell, esp. a Blast, you do have a mileage advantage. Tire & Insurance costs even it out as a money saver, darn you Froggy for being logical!!! 
Cage, or bike, I decide based on weather and what I have to carry. Carrying a load like a suit of armor is just possible, but means I can't give a lady a ride home. A load of firewood? No thanks. Commute? depends on weather and laziness. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 07:01 pm: |
|
Easypass rocks on a bike. No more stopping, and fumbling to get out cash, and it's cheaper on the NYS Thruway.
My Van gets 12mpg total in winter ( including a few hours of idling a month ) so I really understand the need to get cheaper.
Buying a GSXR-1000 to save money is silly.
Using your existing Buell? That makes sense. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 09:44 am: |
|
I had an 83 shadow, same engine as the ascot (vt500) and I got about the same mileage as I did on the X1. I think it was because the X1 was loping along at 65, and the shadow was breathing hard at that speed. It was actually a 490, though they called it a 500. Ah, memories. That was a great bike. |
Glitch
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 10:22 am: |
|
A thought I just had.
I've always been into playing in the street. 
I've had everything, hot rods, tuners, trucks, and of course bikes.
Let's say I had a Porsche 911 and my Buell that I play with equally in the mountains.
Does that make it apples to apples?
As to the original question, no, leave the government as far away from motorcycles as we can keep them. |
Etennuly
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 10:38 am: |
|
These modern day high tech mileage cars make me sick. These manufacturers can do better. I had a '71 Fiat 850 Spyder that would do 62 MPG on premium gas back in the late '70's. Fiat knew it would do that when it was designed, it only had a 6 gallon gas tank.
My dad had a '68 Fiat 124 Sedan in the early '70s. It easily did over 40 mpg running around locally and near 50 mpg on the highway.
Yeah, go ahead and say the difference is the emissions equipment, they had many engine control sensors, but no catalytic converter. Both of these cars were super light weight cheese boxes, thin skinned with nearly no safety reinforcements and no air bags, less safe in an accident than a motorcycle. Funny thing is we drove them for a long time.....we lived through using them. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 11:05 am: |
|
As to the original question, no, leave the government as far away from motorcycles as we can keep them.
Amen to that! The last thing I want is some guberment bureaucrat trying to figure out a way to keep motorcycles from leaning over at crazy angles when going through a turn. |
Whisperstealth
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 04:29 pm: |
|
I'm saving money on my Uly verses my 1997 Chevy S-10, V6 4.3L
And I've been using the bike as my primary transportation. Even in the winter, as much a possible.
ULY:
Gas milage more than double.
Getting 10,000+ miles out of the tires at $250-270 or less a set. Raven's $170 shipped - We'll see how they do.
Insurance is about $100 less a year than the truck.
Maintenance, including having the tires mounted is about $100 more than the truck per 20,000 miles.
My KLR once up and running again will do even better. |
Fast1075
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 04:39 pm: |
|
I'm waiting for spring and the CBR250r to get here.... |
Fresnobuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 06:14 pm: |
|
If you compare econo-cars and econo-bikes though, the bikes win.
True, but it sure seems like bikes should be getting more than 30-40 MPG as their weight and displacement are roughly 15%-20% of 4 wheelers. I certainly don't think my 1125r is any kind of environmentally friendly machine. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 06:40 pm: |
|
quote:True, but it sure seems like bikes should be getting more than 30-40 MPG
The big factor is aerodynamics. Most bikes have a terrible drag coefficient, easily worse than a Hummer H2. You can more than double the fuel economy of a 125cc Honda by adding custom enclosed aerodynamic bodywork.
http://ecomodder.com/blog/diy-aero-fairings-honda- 125cc-motorcycle-214-mpg/ |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 07:00 pm: |
|
http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/470MPG%20M ain.html
http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/Last%20Vet ter%20Fairing.html
Vetter's mileage competition machines worked as well as they did because while efficient, it's NOT a full pod. Cross winds on a full airfoil section try to tip you over. The Honda team with uber tech computer modeled, high funding etc. etc. kept tipping over on the PCH when they rounded a bend and the wind shifted.
Being able to just put your foot down seems vital to me. Being able to spoil the airflow with a knee to prevent tipping over, priceless. |
Glitch
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 07:17 pm: |
|
True, but it sure seems like bikes should be getting more than 30-40 MPG
I average 50-55 mpg during the week, and around 45-50 on the weekends. |
Fresnobuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 07:51 pm: |
|
My bike's carbon foorprint is awful--nearly no commuting miles, almost all an extraneous waste of fuel going around in big twisty loops. Bad me.
(Message edited by fresnobuell on February 16, 2011) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 08:03 pm: |
|
Glitch, you got a Buell! You will NOT get that with a hayabusa.
Buells getting such good mileage prove what I have always believed. A well tuned engine with good breathing, run not very hard, gets great mileage.
Back when cars had carbs, by changing cams, intake manifold, jetting and headers with low restriction mufflers, I ( and many others ) were able to get much better mileage, by choosing the cams & manifold for the real world flow and rpm's, not race applications. Low rise torque manifolds ( edelbrock )and the right cam? easily got 20+ mpg with a full size Dodge van. When the EPA got serious about prosecuting folk for messing with emissions controls, and car makers went to fuel injection in the manifold... not so easy to do anymore. But back in the day!
'77 Dodge Maxivan with 360cubes, High flow K&N air filter, Carter BBD, ( ported, polished, & matched to manifold  ) Edelbrock torque/RV manifold, Blackjacks with Ramcharger resonators for mufflers, dumping out in front of the rear wheels..... better mileage than a 3 liter Caravan.
Performance engines run well under max, also fewer cylinders for less pumping losses... that's why your XB rules over a IL4 of comparable power. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Fresnobuell.
Screw your carbon footprint. Don't worry about carbon footprint. I think It's a bogus con game ripoff.
Are you using less resources to try and save the planet? good for you.
Is your bike giving you pleasure with less fuel and waste than another toy you would play with otherwise? Again, good for you.
If the eco-nuts want us not to play at all to save the planet, screw them. I respectfully disagree. ( and they do, so I have this attitude )
Want clean air & water. Don't want to live in a capsule. Hives are for insects.
Read "The Machine Stops"
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster. html
sorry, long day at work.
(Message edited by aesquire on February 16, 2011) |
|
