Try parking that many vehicles in my tiny 10 house cul de sac! It can get crazy when they spend 15 minutes trying to get one car out and repeatedly reverse two vehicles up MY drive! 
What is best for environmental reasons?
- Thread starter Paul_B
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
The average motorcycle is crap in winter, won't carry five people (although I did once carry four on my old Fizzy) and isn't much cop for getting a load of tools to work.
Plus itsnot that much more economical than a car anyway, mostly due to being about as aerodynamic as a breadvan.
If you want proof about the aerodynamicsc read Motorcycle chassis tuning by the late John Robinson.
As for cheap to run? Chain and sprockets arent exactly cheap and I can get all four tyres for my van for less than two for my bike. Then the rears wear out twice as fast as a front.
It's just possible that I'm not the most econimical rider but bikes are not the answer to anything apart from getting through big cities fast and the lacking big grins problem.
I seem to get just over a hundred miles to I have to knock it onto reserve (GSXR 750 Slingshot) so I also spend a fair bit of time at a filling station.
Did I mention its crap in winter?
Hmm ,my bike is crap in winter too but I've solved the chain and sprocket problem. I've got shaft drive.
Tyres have got flipping expensive last 10 yrs or so £180 for a rear. But you only have to buy two new tyres not four (or five if you count the spare) on a car.
As for getting five people on a bike.. at a rally I once saw 15 lads on a scooter and it was being driven around the field... well it did about fifty yards before everyone fell off but they had partaken of a few beverages so it could have been that rather than anything else.
Tyres have got flipping expensive last 10 yrs or so £180 for a rear. But you only have to buy two new tyres not four (or five if you count the spare) on a car.
As for getting five people on a bike.. at a rally I once saw 15 lads on a scooter and it was being driven around the field... well it did about fifty yards before everyone fell off but they had partaken of a few beverages so it could have been that rather than anything else.
Hmm ,my bike is crap in winter too but I've solved the chain and sprocket problem. I've got shaft drive.
Tyres have got flipping expensive last 10 yrs or so £180 for a rear. But you only have to buy two new tyres not four (or five if you count the spare) on a car.
As for getting five people on a bike.. at a rally I once saw 15 lads on a scooter and it was being driven around the field... well it did about fifty yards before everyone fell off but they had partaken of a few beverages so it could have been that rather than anything else.
Aye but how many miles do you get out of a rear?
Likely nowt like what the average car gets.
Don't get me wrong, I like bikes but unless everyone clatters about on Steppy 90s I can't see em being more efficient
I'd happily go to having an electric van for work as long as I had a garage or off st parking so I could charge it at home.
Where the greater gains are to be had is the large commercial vehicles and shipping.
People seem to forget the huge infrastructure cost that conventional fuels require (from oil exploration in often sensetive environmental areas to getting the fuel to the garage) while they are busy pointing at electric vehicles and shouting how much infrastructure they require.
Nowadays new vehicle owners will have to factor depreciation in a lot more.
Car hire companies need those residual values after a couple of years usage but as more and more people look to buy electric their value will plummet faster than a Maseratti.
https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/conn...&t[3]=Opel&t[4]=Volvo&t[5]=PSA&t[6]=VW&curl=1
Also, refineries could substantially reduce the 'nasties' generated by vehicles by
A) adding a distillation layer to the 'cracker' and
B) adding an additive to reduce 'at source'.
This would increase fuel prices by around 5ppl. But then any vehicle could run with reduced emissions. This would stall car manufacturers sales of 'new' compliant cars.
Car manufacturers would then implement the technology they have to substantial increase engine efficiency, so let fuel used.
Can't have a war between Oil manufacturers and car makers that reduces their profits and benefits the plebs, can we ?
Also, refineries could substantially reduce the 'nasties' generated by vehicles by
A) adding a distillation layer to the 'cracker' and
B) adding an additive to reduce 'at source'.
This would increase fuel prices by around 5ppl. But then any vehicle could run with reduced emissions. This would stall car manufacturers sales of 'new' compliant cars.
Car manufacturers would then implement the technology they have to substantial increase engine efficiency, so let fuel used.
Can't have a war between Oil manufacturers and car makers that reduces their profits and benefits the plebs, can we ?
Well my bike is manufactured in 07 so it's 11 yrs old. In that time I've had one new front and one new rear tyre and two batteries. It's a cruiser so it doesn't get a lot of hard riding and is only used in good weather... yes I've turned into a fair weather biker.. the sort of person I took the micky out of in my youth when I would ride in any weather every day. But age and infirmity have changed things. Nowadays it's purely for pleasure. My rural roads realy don't suit such a massive bike so it can be dangerous in bad weather with possibly no chance of a passing car for aid if I were to crash badly. It would be stupid to ride out in those circumstances. So that's my excuse
I have got myself a much smaller runabout to extend my riding range and may well sell the bigger bike.
Petrol wise I find my bike about the same as a medium sized family car.
I have got myself a much smaller runabout to extend my riding range and may well sell the bigger bike.
Petrol wise I find my bike about the same as a medium sized family car.
Well my bike is manufactured in 07 so it's 11 yrs old. In that time I've had one new front and one new rear tyre and two batteries. It's a cruiser so it doesn't get a lot of hard riding and is only used in good weather... yes I've turned into a fair weather biker.. the sort of person I took the micky out of in my youth when I would ride in any weather every day. But age and infirmity have changed things. Nowadays it's purely for pleasure. My rural roads realy don't suit such a massive bike so it can be dangerous in bad weather with possibly no chance of a passing car for aid if I were to crash badly. It would be stupid to ride out in those circumstances. So that's my excuse
I have got myself a much smaller runabout to extend my riding range and may well sell the bigger bike.
Petrol wise I find my bike about the same as a medium sized family car.
Thats my point though, mine also uses a fair bit of juice and doesn't carry a medium sized family.
Which actually makes it pretty inefficient if you see what I mean.
Yep, my Bonny only does 50mpg and that's without it being ridden hard. A half decent small family car carrying four does better than that. Smaller cars limited to 80mph and a 0-60 of more than 15 seconds would solve the emissions problem but not the congestion.
If the States ( as in countries, not USA) started reintroducing decent public transport, many more people would choose them.
Also, people should be encouraged to move closer to where they work.
The problem can be attacked from two sides:
1: Produce less greenhouse gasses and air pollutants
2: Remove the existing greenhouse gasses and air pollutants.
So, plant more trees. It has been known for a couple of decades, before the environmental hysteria gripping the World at the moment, that trees are the best, easiest and cheapest way to lower CO2 levels.
How many trees have you planted the last year? I think Britain has one of the lowest % of tree coverage in Europe?
Also, people should be encouraged to move closer to where they work.
The problem can be attacked from two sides:
1: Produce less greenhouse gasses and air pollutants
2: Remove the existing greenhouse gasses and air pollutants.
So, plant more trees. It has been known for a couple of decades, before the environmental hysteria gripping the World at the moment, that trees are the best, easiest and cheapest way to lower CO2 levels.
How many trees have you planted the last year? I think Britain has one of the lowest % of tree coverage in Europe?
Last edited:
When was that? 50% increase sounds like SF.
The British climate is excellent for Apple, Pear, Plum.
It is a win-win-win. Doing something real for the environment, getting first class fruit and not buying fruit transported across half of the world.
The British climate is excellent for Apple, Pear, Plum.
It is a win-win-win. Doing something real for the environment, getting first class fruit and not buying fruit transported across half of the world.
Well, if you include developing and managing a habitat that enables self-sown saplings to grow, hundreds
I had a CCM R30, managed less than 800 miles out of a rear road legal track tyre. Ducati was 1500 - 2000, and in the region of £200 a go. Life in the slow lane for me now because I don't want to die. Bought one of these,
Soft compound in Moto bike tyres, to improve traction?
I have the same problem with one of my cars.
Do about 450 miles locally a year ( high heat climate) and they are virtually slicks.
OK, ok, a few burnouts or fast exit at green light, but still....
I have the same problem with one of my cars.
Do about 450 miles locally a year ( high heat climate) and they are virtually slicks.
OK, ok, a few burnouts or fast exit at green light, but still....
Last edited:
On my way to work, I was behind a Smart car.
Today I drove the 110 Defender, which has been raised an inch or two.
He did a funky braking on a clear stretch of road before a roundabout, and I was fairly close of hitting him.
( should have kept longer distance, so my fault....)
My first thought was that I would have either hurt him severely, or thrown the Smart car onto incoming traffic... possible with fatal conseqvens.
So, never a tiny car for me as long as large vehicles are on the road.
Today I drove the 110 Defender, which has been raised an inch or two.
He did a funky braking on a clear stretch of road before a roundabout, and I was fairly close of hitting him.
( should have kept longer distance, so my fault....)
My first thought was that I would have either hurt him severely, or thrown the Smart car onto incoming traffic... possible with fatal conseqvens.
So, never a tiny car for me as long as large vehicles are on the road.
Last edited:
Diesel vehicle - more particulates - more polution - kill people
Petrol vehicle - more CO2 - global warming - kill polar bears
Personally, I am up for saving the bears.
Day to day, I use a motorbike. Doesnt sit in traffic poluting and does decent mpg so less polution than a car and causes less congestion.
Petrol vehicle - more CO2 - global warming - kill polar bears
Personally, I am up for saving the bears.
Day to day, I use a motorbike. Doesnt sit in traffic poluting and does decent mpg so less polution than a car and causes less congestion.
A motorcycle is my only form of motorized transport and has been for decades. Most of the danger comes from other road users. My closest friend got killed by a car driver in a hurry who decided it was ok to overtake on a blind corner. No amount of training would prepare you for this. My mate covered up to 30k miles a year, so by the law of averages, he was at risk. I've been very lucky a few times. Too many people on the road, with too much on their minds, and too many distractions. I may be wrong but I personally think that a big part in UK motorcycle license legislation was brought about to rid the roads of what many see as an annoyance.
I have been driving a non-rechargeable hybrid for 3 years now, fuel consumption is down about 30% from normal engine in mixed driving and about 50% in urban areas. It just works. A larger battery would allow larger fuel savings but apparently not all that much. The next step would a rechargeable hybrid with even larger battery, saves fuel in the city but adds considerable weight and savings on the road are really not that much if I decide to go to Lappland. I expect though the rechargeably hybrids will be used more and more in the near future. We just don't have the capacity to produce the electricity needed for full electric.
Little known fact but the petrochemical industry is one of the largest consumers of cobalt every year and unlike EV batteries where it can be recycled they use it once and thats it.
There was a study done not long ago about which was cleaner and after a few years EVs were cleaner than internal combustion engines even if they counted electricity produced in Poland which uses more coal fired power stations than any other country.
Given the choice I'd go fully electric vehicle right now. Can't afford it so I'll keep running my Toyota van til it croaks.
I suspect new internal combustion engined cars will depreciate like Maserattis soon. Trade in value will be a joke.
There was a study done not long ago about which was cleaner and after a few years EVs were cleaner than internal combustion engines even if they counted electricity produced in Poland which uses more coal fired power stations than any other country.
Given the choice I'd go fully electric vehicle right now. Can't afford it so I'll keep running my Toyota van til it croaks.
I suspect new internal combustion engined cars will depreciate like Maserattis soon. Trade in value will be a joke.
