| Author | Message | ||
     46champ |
Is there such a thing when it comes to motorcycles? I have found it odd the lack of articles in the print or virtual media on this subject. I could have understood it last year when gas went over $3 a gallon and everyone was kind of surprised. No one should be surprised when it hits $4 a gallon this summer pissed maybe but not surprised. I'm still seeing the same old tests on who's 1000 is the fastest. It would seen that H-D in general and Buell in particular should look pretty good in a comparison test where everyone has to get 45 or 50 mpg and up. In this country were stuck with getting ourselves around, and considering the distances we travel and the lack of public transportation a bike is a viable means of travel. What are they afraid of making Harley-Davidson and Buell look good? | ||
| Bad_karma |
Dana This is a blessing, the last thing I want is more government control of my life. CAFE is just another miss lead do gooder not knowing what they are doing and the effect on peoples lives. Joe | ||
| Corporatemonkey |
What are they afraid of making Harley-Davidson and Buell look good? No, but you have to understand that no one buys a motorcycle because of fuel economy. They buy it because they want it. This also pertains to those who buy scooters/mopeds. They may say they are buying it for the fuel consumption, but really they just need a reason to justify a new toy. If someone was really concerned about fuel economy they would go out an purchase a used Honda CRX (or something similar). The real world costs of ownership is less than just about any motorcycle, and you get a comfy cage to commute in. | ||
| Rainman |
I don't know....My Old Wing got about 33 in the city -- most of my driving -- and when I had to get a new bike I tried to check in mpg as much as I could. Wound up with a 63-mpg in the city Blast. By the way, that's down to 57 mpg now. Couldn't figure out why until I noticed that all the gas I buy now has 10 percent Ethanol. | ||
| Mikej |
"but you have to understand that no one buys a motorcycle because of fuel economy." Not necessarily true. I've passed on getting various bikes because they got less than 35mpg average. A few weeks ago some gal at a grocery store came out and asked all sorts of questions about the S2, how far I could go on a tank of gas, how bad her car was on gas, and on and on and on. I just told her the S2 averaged 45-50mpg while commuting, she converted that to cost per week, and I was by then now running late to work. The most common second question I get is what kind of mileage the bike gets, the first question is either how fast or who makes it. Then here at work there are 3 or 4 people who are thinking of getting a bike purely because of fuel economy. I see very few people focused primarily upon performance numbers. | ||
| Zane |
It's only half true with me. I was planning on getting a bike in the next year or two any way. What made me pull the trigger on a purchase now instead of next year was gas going over $3.25 a gallon. Before making my decision I looked at things like operating cost and ROI in the form of gasoline savings. I can't honestly say buying my Blast was a pure exercise in economics but it was a major issue in the decision making process. | ||
| Darthane |
Quite literally, what pushed me over the edge into buying a motorcycle was seeing 69/72 on a big sticker on the Blast one day. At the time I was putting 75K+ a year on my truck and even at $1.60 a gallon or whatever it was back then it was brutal. The Firebolt...well...MPG was most definitely not a consideration with that puchase. In terms of CAFE for 2-wheeled vehicles, •••• that. I'm tired of the government wasting time and money regulating every aspect of our lives. There's no need for MPG standards for motorcycles or scooters, so don't give them any ideas. | ||
| Xl1200r |
The MPG rating is probably the single biggest reason that I have no real desire for an 1125R. If it was my first bike I likely wouldn't care, but nearly cutting the mileage in half from my 'bolt doesn't make much sense to me (yes, I get 60-65 regularly on trips). In terms of CAFE for 2-wheeled vehicles, •••• that. I'm tired of the government wasting time and money regulating every aspect of our lives. There's no need for MPG standards for motorcycles or scooters, so don't give them any ideas. I used to hold this same thought in terms of bikes, both for CAFE and EPA... but then I did research project for school and I changed my mind. A full-sized SUV pollutes less (while using a LOT more fuel) most motorcycles, and even small scooters. I'll see if I can dig up the paper on my home computer later. | ||
| Darthane |
Ah - don't confuse fuel economy standards with pollutant standards. People tend to think that more burned fuel = more pollutants entering the air, which is not necessarily true. There's no need for the government to arbitrarily say that motorcycle manufacturer's products must get a corporate average of 50MPG. Honestly I don't believe there's any reason for them to do it to the auto industry. People want to buy what people want to buy far more often than people buy what they SHOULD be buying. If they want to buy 12MPG SUVs they're going to buy 12MPG SUVs. If they want to by 35MPG SmartCars, they're going to buy 35MPG SmartCars. The government has no business regulating out the choice. There is plenty to be said for the regulation of emissions, which is related to fuel efficiency, but not at a 1-to-1 ratio. (Message edited by darthane on May 15, 2008) | ||
| 46champ |
I wasn't suggesting CAF for motorcycles I just wanted to know if it existed. The jab was intended more for the media and their lack of coverage in this area. | ||
| Lost_in_ohio |
In other parts of the world people don't commute 60 miles a day either. The price of gas is climbing because of the collapse of the dollar, Lets face it the dollar isn't worth as much abroad. So gas cost more. | ||
| Xl1200r |
The price of gas is being driven by futures on wall street. The bubble will pop, just like it did with internet, but who knows when. That's all just here say - I actually haven't read anything on the subject. But it gives some hope that prices might come down so I dont want to ruin it with reality, lol. | ||
| Mikej |
Xl1200r, or anyone else who cares to play, Here's a data set, use this to make your point in simple terms if you can: Vehicle 1: 1995 Buell S2, 1203cc engine, 3,000rpm at 65mph, 50mpg. Vehicle 2: 2000 Dodge pickup, 3,500cc engine, 2,500rpm at 65mph, 15mpg. Which vehicle pollutes less? Help me understand how a vehicle getting 15-25mpg with an engine 2-4 times more displacement can put less pollutants into the air than a vehicle getting 45-55mpg at 1200cc displacement. Some have tried to tell me how many more "tons" of pollutants a motorcycle puts into the air than a car or truck, but when I compare displacement of air pushed thru the engine per mile and gas burnt in that same mile I don't see how they can come up with the bike putting out several times the tonnage of pollutants than a car or truck. Plus, how exactly does one weigh a ton of atmosphere????? Next someone will complain about the gas cattle pass. Wait, someone already did that one. Next week we'll discuss global warming, and the week after that we'll be talking about contact patches for Union versus non-Union made vehicles, and which one would BHillary most likely be found driving in 2009. (Note: all the aforementioned and typed in questions should be considered rhetorical and for entertainment purposes only, and any similarities of any and all of the aforementioned issues are purely coincidental and accidental and may or may not affect the brightness of the moon on a starry starry night in the middle of May. YMMV. ) | ||
| Spike |
While I'm not interested in government-mandated CAFE standards, I would like it if motorcycle fuel consumption was measured using some standard like the EPA mileage estimates for cars. Even if fuel mileage isn't the primary factor when deciding on a motorcycle purchase, it certainly is a consideration for most shoppers. At one time I thought about getting a Burgman 650 for commuting to work for fuel savings. After some research on Burgman forums I discovered that the Burgrman 650 gets about the same fuel mileage as an XB12. It would have bee nice if I could have just pulled that information up on the Suzuki website. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Mike - while the amount of fuel being burned plays a role, it's not the only role. How many catalyctic converters does your S2 have? Zero. A new car or truck can have as many 4, maybe more. Plus add in air pumps, exhaust recirculation valves and engine designs that maximized for this kind of stuff, and it gets easier to understand. I wish I had some hard numbers to show you, but I don't have them off the top of my head. What I can tell you is that a motorcycle, by law, is allowed to pollute more than a full-sized SUV. I can't think of a good analogy, but take an oxy-acetaline torch as an example. If you crank up the acetaline and light it, you got a TON of soot coming off the flame. Introduce a little oxygen, and the soot goes away, but you're still burning just as much acetaline. | ||
| Rainman |
I think the EPA tests gas mileage for vehicles because the Blast's mileage was EPA rated as were the mileage figures presented in the last H-D propaganda. I'm just not sure where to find the figures. | ||
| Jlnance |
Help me understand how a vehicle getting 15-25mpg with an engine 2-4 times more displacement can put less pollutants into the air than a vehicle getting 45-55mpg at 1200cc displacement. Here is how it works. When you burn gas, in theory it all turns into carbon dioxide and water. But in reality, not all of it does. A small amount is only partially burnt, and comes out the tail pipe as carbon monoxide or various hydrocarbon compounds. These are both pollutants. In all engines most of the gas burns and only a small amount turns into pollutants. If the car is burning 99.9% of it's fuel and the bike is burning 98% of it's fuel, the bike is going to be throwing out about 100 times more pollution per gallon of gas burnt. If the bike gets 5x better mileage, it's still throwing out 20x more pollution per mile. Now I made those numbers up, but they demonstrate how it's possible for this to happen. I don't know what the real numbers are, but I suspect mine aren't ridiculously off. | ||
| Darthane |
"I think the EPA tests gas mileage for vehicles because the Blast's mileage was EPA rated as were the mileage figures presented in the last H-D propaganda. I'm just not sure where to find the figures." ~~~>Rainman Buell lists EPA MPG figures in the Specs & Pricing section for each bike. While I've no idea if law requires it, I suspect that every manufacturer goes through this process and the spec sheet is the logical place to display the information. | ||
| Nik |
The EPA test fuel mileage for motorcycles too, but manufactures are not required to make that number available. | ||
| Rainman |
I've been trying to find it on EPAs website. Can't find anything on the damn thing. If anyone can find it, post it. I'll do the same. It'd be interesting to compare different bikes. |
