Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
You have good points. They can be applied to many sports. Final conclusion maybe be as brief as following It is the human race polluting the world while wasting resources whatever the reason is And you are not far from the truth. It comes down to the personal choices of the individual not to join or take part. Regards Burak Actually, It's not the racing vehicles themselves that are so polluting as it is the balance of the industry. Think about all the billions of miles logged by race fans to go see their superheros every race weekend or bubblegum card signing. Think about all the millions of metric tons of cheap plastic crap, u-h-h-h-e-m-m-m, memorabilia, that is cranked out for consumers to adorn their environs with. Think about all the energy used to mine and manufacture all that crap. Then think about all the energy used to transport it. Then think about all the energy consumed to go purchase it or is used in all the other supportive sectors of that industry. Tired of thinking yet? The energy equation goes far beyond how many gallons get churned up by a bevy of bubbas every weekend. So you see, supporting racing supports fossil fuel consumption, which in turn increases the United States #1 export - cash in the form of petrol dollars. And many of those petrol-dollars help fund endeavors that are counter to the best interests of the US. All that makes racing a rather unpatriotic and un-American endeavor. Pursuing such folly in turn makes a race fan candidate for NSA monitoring and perhaps eventual internment as an enemy combatant, thereby having no recourse, legal or otherwise, but to rot in the musty dungeons of the super riche until one's flesh rots off while they enjoy daily tea and crumpets on the ninth fairway. No better reason not to wear a baseball cap with a number on it if you ask me. Todd Swearingen Happy Humbug... :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I am not against racing, but my point is if these researchers look at the racing starting from F1 down to Nascar the picture is not rosy. As you have written in your e-mail F1 team burns a lot (200.000lt per year per team). So if you add them all its more than a drop in the bucket. Let's hope that the technology developped in those races reflects to the daily cars. If you consider that bikes are 4 strokes, fuel injected and have catalytic converters, they can be a good solution to help with clogging cities and air pollution. I believe the better solution in the big cities would be public transportation, and electric vehicles. Lets hope they would also research the effect of using biofuel in busses as public transportation. Regards Burak Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white. First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket. On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers. Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years. Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby. For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables. As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends. But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel. And
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Well I am not against racing, but my point is if these researchers look at the racing starting from F1 down to Nascar the picture is not rosy. As you have written in your e-mail F1 team burns a lot (200.000lt per year per team). So if you add them all its more than a drop in the bucket. Let's hope that the technology developped in those races reflects to the daily cars. If you consider that bikes are 4 strokes, fuel injected and have catalytic converters, they can be a good solution to help with clogging cities and air pollution. I believe the better solution in the big cities would be public transportation, and electric vehicles. Lets hope they would also research the effect of using biofuel in busses as public transportation. Regards Burak Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white. First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket. On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers. Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years. Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby. For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables. As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends. But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel. And don't get me started about the the fact that NASCAR still uses leaded gasoline. Still, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and having an emotional reaction to a study you don't like. Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to justify it by pointing fingers at someone else. That's just childish. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Actually, It's not the racing vehicles themselves that are so polluting as it is the balance of the industry. Think about all the billions of miles logged by race fans to go see their superheros every race weekend or bubblegum card signing. Think about all the millions of metric tons of cheap plastic crap, u-h-h-h-e-m-m-m, memorabilia, that is cranked out for consumers to adorn their environs with. Think about all the energy used to mine and manufacture all that crap. Then think about all the energy used to transport it. Then think about all the energy consumed to go purchase it or is used in all the other supportive sectors of that industry. Tired of thinking yet? The energy equation goes far beyond how many gallons get churned up by a bevy of bubbas every weekend. So you see, supporting racing supports fossil fuel consumption, which in turn increases the United States #1 export - cash in the form of petrol dollars. And many of those petrol-dollars help fund endeavors that are counter to the best interests of the US. All that makes racing a rather unpatriotic and un-American endeavor. Pursuing such folly in turn makes a race fan candidate for NSA monitoring and perhaps eventual internment as an enemy combatant, thereby having no recourse, legal or otherwise, but to rot in the musty dungeons of the super riche until one's flesh rots off while they enjoy daily tea and crumpets on the ninth fairway. No better reason not to wear a baseball cap with a number on it if you ask me. Todd Swearingen Happy Humbug... :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I am not against racing, but my point is if these researchers look at the racing starting from F1 down to Nascar the picture is not rosy. As you have written in your e-mail F1 team burns a lot (200.000lt per year per team). So if you add them all its more than a drop in the bucket. Let's hope that the technology developped in those races reflects to the daily cars. If you consider that bikes are 4 strokes, fuel injected and have catalytic converters, they can be a good solution to help with clogging cities and air pollution. I believe the better solution in the big cities would be public transportation, and electric vehicles. Lets hope they would also research the effect of using biofuel in busses as public transportation. Regards Burak Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white. First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket. On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers. Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years. Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby. For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables. As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends. But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel. And don't get me started about the the fact that NASCAR still uses leaded gasoline. Still, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and having an emotional reaction to a study you don't like. Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Lol, Todd, I think you're projecting everything that's wrong w/ american mass commercialism onto one uhm...sport? I'm not a race fan, don't get me wrong, and I see your point regarding the infinite paradox of american government, but I think quite quickly we could pass the same judgement on probably 90% of all products offered towards the 3-35 age bracket. I mean, soccer is great, but lots of very nice soccer balls are made by some very unfortunate children in Nigeria.Americans love clothes, too bad we don't love the Bangladeshi folks who make them: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8243331/Dogs are great, but apparently we like skinning them for profit: http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/wildlife_news/eu_considers_comprehensive_ban_on_the_cat_and_dog_fur_trade.htmlAnd don't even get me started on all the illegal things we do w/ our telecommunications bounty that would possibly put us in line for a wiretap (online poker, anyone?), but simply enough this message will probably be quickly overviewed by echelon, predator, or carnive before you even read it. DUN DUN DUNN http://compnetworking.about.com/od/internetaccessbestuses/l/aa120400a.htmGood point though. :) On 12/24/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually,It's not the racing vehicles themselves that are so polluting as it isthe balance of the industry.Think about all the billions of miles logged by race fans to go seetheir superheros every race weekend or bubblegum card signing. Think about all the millions of metric tons of cheap plastic crap,u-h-h-h-e-m-m-m, memorabilia, that is cranked out for consumers toadorn their environs with. Think about all the energy used to mine and manufacture all that crap. Then think about all the energy used totransport it. Then think about all the energy consumed to go purchase itor is used in all the other supportive sectors of that industry.Tired of thinking yet? The energy equation goes far beyond how many gallons get churned up by a bevy of bubbas every weekend.So you see, supporting racing supports fossil fuel consumption, which inturn increases the United States #1 export - cash in the form of petroldollars. And many of those petrol-dollars help fund endeavors that are counter to the best interests of the US.All that makes racing a rather unpatriotic and un-American endeavor.Pursuing such folly in turn makes a race fan candidate for NSAmonitoring and perhaps eventual internment as an enemy combatant, thereby having no recourse, legal or otherwise, but to rot in the mustydungeons of the super riche until one's flesh rots off while they enjoydaily tea and crumpets on the ninth fairway.No better reason not to wear a baseball cap with a number on it if you ask me.Todd SwearingenHappy Humbug... :-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Well I am not against racing, but my point is if these researchers look at the racing starting from F1 down to Nascar the picture is not rosy.As you have written in your e-mail F1 team burns a lot (200.000lt per yearper team).So if you add them all its more than a drop in the bucket. Let's hope that the technology developped in those races reflects to thedaily cars.If you consider that bikes are 4 strokes, fuel injected and have catalyticconverters, they can be a good solution to help with clogging cities and air pollution.I believe the better solution in the big cities would be publictransportation, and electric vehicles.Lets hope they would also researchthe effect of using biofuel in busses as public transportation. RegardsBurakBurak_l wrote:And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc...Those machines are loud and very very thirsty.Probabily one of themduring1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year.With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white.First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily thesame thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 literscleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel orpollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you'restill comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talkingabout a drop in the bucket.On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI enginetechnology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers.Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that getsover a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show upin VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years.Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstratingthat renewables can
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Lol, Todd, I think you're projecting everything that's wrong w/ american mass commercialism onto one uhm...sport? Actually? I'm just projecting a lot of what's wrong with American/western mass commercialism in general - the avarice, the excess and the galaxial wide chasm between the have-nots who provide for the haves. And I am serious about petrol-dollars being the US' #1 export and how that process has come to pervert life in general on a global scale. Edward Abbey has it right. Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. Game over! at this rate. Over for everyone. Todd Swearingen Evergreen Solutions wrote: Lol, Todd, I think you're projecting everything that's wrong w/ american mass commercialism onto one uhm...sport? I'm not a race fan, don't get me wrong, and I see your point regarding the infinite paradox of american government, but I think quite quickly we could pass the same judgement on probably 90% of all products offered towards the 3-35 age bracket. I mean, soccer is great, but lots of very nice soccer balls are made by some very unfortunate children in Nigeria. Americans love clothes, too bad we don't love the Bangladeshi folks who make them: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8243331/ Dogs are great, but apparently we like skinning them for profit: http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/wildlife_news/eu_considers_comprehensive_ban_on_the_cat_and_dog_fur_trade.html And don't even get me started on all the illegal things we do w/ our telecommunications bounty that would possibly put us in line for a wiretap (online poker, anyone?), but simply enough this message will probably be quickly overviewed by echelon, predator, or carnive before you even read it. DUN DUN DUNN http://compnetworking.about.com/od/internetaccessbestuses/l/aa120400a.htm Good point though. :) On 12/24/05, *Appal Energy* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, It's not the racing vehicles themselves that are so polluting as it is the balance of the industry. Think about all the billions of miles logged by race fans to go see their superheros every race weekend or bubblegum card signing. Think about all the millions of metric tons of cheap plastic crap, u-h-h-h-e-m-m-m, memorabilia, that is cranked out for consumers to adorn their environs with. Think about all the energy used to mine and manufacture all that crap. Then think about all the energy used to transport it. Then think about all the energy consumed to go purchase it or is used in all the other supportive sectors of that industry. Tired of thinking yet? The energy equation goes far beyond how many gallons get churned up by a bevy of bubbas every weekend. So you see, supporting racing supports fossil fuel consumption, which in turn increases the United States #1 export - cash in the form of petrol dollars. And many of those petrol-dollars help fund endeavors that are counter to the best interests of the US. All that makes racing a rather unpatriotic and un-American endeavor. Pursuing such folly in turn makes a race fan candidate for NSA monitoring and perhaps eventual internment as an enemy combatant, thereby having no recourse, legal or otherwise, but to rot in the musty dungeons of the super riche until one's flesh rots off while they enjoy daily tea and crumpets on the ninth fairway. No better reason not to wear a baseball cap with a number on it if you ask me. Todd Swearingen Happy Humbug... :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I am not against racing, but my point is if these researchers look at the racing starting from F1 down to Nascar the picture is not rosy. As you have written in your e-mail F1 team burns a lot (200.000lt per year per team). So if you add them all its more than a drop in the bucket. Let's hope that the technology developped in those races reflects to the daily cars. If you consider that bikes are 4 strokes, fuel injected and have catalytic converters, they can be a good solution to help with clogging cities and air pollution. I believe the better solution in the big cities would be public transportation, and electric vehicles. Lets hope they would also research the effect of using biofuel in busses as public transportation. Regards Burak Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to
[Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1671722,00.html Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution' Ian Sample, science correspondent Wednesday December 21, 2005 The Guardian Motorbikes are churning out more pollution than cars, even though they make up only a small fraction of vehicles on the roads, according to a report. Tests on a selection of modern motorbikes and private cars revealed that rather than being more environmentally-friendly, motorbikes emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons, including greenhouse gases, three times the carbon monoxide and a disproportionately high amount of other pollutants, compared to cars. Ana-Marija Vasic at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, who led the research, said the need to legislate on emissions from motorbikes has been overlooked because there are so few on the roads. The oversight has lead to a paucity of research into ways of making their engines run more cleanly. In Britain, there are 1,060,000 motorbikes on the road but more than 25m private cars. Dr Vasic's tests showed that, especially in urban traffic, when motorcyclists frequently accelerated quickly, motorbike engines burned fuel inefficiently, giving a sharp peak in emissions. The yearly hydrocarbon emissions of the average two-wheeler in urban traffic measured up to 49 times higher than that of the average car, according to the study, due to be published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. The importance of [motorbike] emissions has been underestimated in legislation, giving manufacturers little motivation to improve aftertreatment systems, said Dr Vasic. The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150cc. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Automotive industry surely hates motorcycles. Which cost less, burn less and require less maintenance. Similar study was published a month ago from a small university in Turkey. Very similar results. 1- 2 stroke bikes surely pollute more. But they are banned. Simple scooters from 100 cc and up are all 4 stroke. The researchers who test 2 stroke machines are wasting research money since they are disappearing anyway. 2- Bike take less space and do not cause traffic jams. My typical commute to work is almost 150 minute with car. I drive a 1.6 litre engine Nissan which gives me 7.5lt/100km. If I ride to work same commute takes 100 minutes. My Suzuki (1 litre engine with catalytic converter) gives me 5lt/100km. So everyday I am saving 4 litres. How is it possible to pollute more when burning less and I have catalytic converter on the bike as standart? 3- Small 4 stroke scooters all have catalytic converters and burn 3lt/100km. You can not out speed them. With less than 10hp it is useless. 4- You can drive the car same way, speeding and criss crosing the road. Or not having the engine well maintained. I am sure results would be much worse. The issue is to educte the driver/rider to behave on the road. 5- EU is putting strict limits to bikes. Hence most of the bikes have injection and catalytic converters today. Many bikes are not being produced because they can not meet the limits. As a biker for more than 10 years, this is not the first report with such results. I m not surprised. Of course you are consuming with a car. - Pay more for it (averaging 10.000EU more) - You burn more fuel, - You waste more time in city traffic, - You spend more for insurance, maintenance etc. So the person may end up consuming more and producing less. Now who would benefit out of that? I would like to ask that to Swiss scientist... And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. Regards Burak -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:40 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution' http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1671722,00.html Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution' Ian Sample, science correspondent Wednesday December 21, 2005 The Guardian Motorbikes are churning out more pollution than cars, even though they make up only a small fraction of vehicles on the roads, according to a report. Tests on a selection of modern motorbikes and private cars revealed that rather than being more environmentally-friendly, motorbikes emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons, including greenhouse gases, three times the carbon monoxide and a disproportionately high amount of other pollutants, compared to cars. Ana-Marija Vasic at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, who led the research, said the need to legislate on emissions from motorbikes has been overlooked because there are so few on the roads. The oversight has lead to a paucity of research into ways of making their engines run more cleanly. In Britain, there are 1,060,000 motorbikes on the road but more than 25m private cars. Dr Vasic's tests showed that, especially in urban traffic, when motorcyclists frequently accelerated quickly, motorbike engines burned fuel inefficiently, giving a sharp peak in emissions. The yearly hydrocarbon emissions of the average two-wheeler in urban traffic measured up to 49 times higher than that of the average car, according to the study, due to be published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. The importance of [motorbike] emissions has been underestimated in legislation, giving manufacturers little motivation to improve aftertreatment systems, said Dr Vasic. The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150cc. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white. First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket. On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers. Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years. Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby. For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables. As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends. But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel. And don't get me started about the the fact that NASCAR still uses leaded gasoline. Still, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and having an emotional reaction to a study you don't like. Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to justify it by pointing fingers at someone else. That's just childish. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
"Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to justify it by pointing fingers at someone else. That's just childish." Yes. Let's move on. When peoplereport on the pollutantsfrom motorcycles being XX times worse thanthe amount from carsthey (IMO) have an obligation toaddress the lack of public priorities as the reason for that difference. One of the biggest demographics sought after bythe motorcycle industry are those primarily interested in speed. This puts efficiency in the background. Despitecar companies like Volvo abandoning the two stroke engine cycle (for example), it remains in many new motorcycles - especially recreational vehicles. I'm sure this is all carefully articulated in the report.The important part to remember is that in general, cars and motorcycles both use the same engine technology (i,e. Carnot or Diesel cycle).The huge difference in thepower/weight ratio give motorcycles a promising future in conservation - even if regenerative breaking is incorporated into all modes of transportation and the energy of acceleration/deceleration becomes less wasteful.Engine efficiency for motorcycles is not something that needs to be developed. It just needs tobe transferred from automotive technology and there has to be a public interest in doing so.MikeJohn Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year.With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white.First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues.Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket.On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers.Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years.Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby.For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables.As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends.But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, "During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing." That's a lotta fuel.And don't get me started about the the fact that NASCAR still uses leaded gasoline.Still, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and having an emotional reaction to a study you don't like.Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to justify it by pointing fingers at someone else. That's just childish.jh___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
I'm marginally confused about the tone of this discussion, but I'd like to add my two cents. I have a 1984 suzuki kz440, dual carb. My average mpg is somewhere around 50-60 mpg, and the bike does have sub-8 second-to-60 times. My car got about 32mpg in my last test, but I kept my turns under 2500 for basically the whole tank. My bike only weighs about 400 lbs, the car about 2200. So I guess theoretically the car is more effecient based on weight and passenger/cargo capacity. I have idled my bike for well over an hour with just the gas in the line and carbs, having shut off the tank. I shut it down, it did not run out of gas. I've got a friend w/ a 2003 250 ninja, which I tease him about relentlessly, and he reports closer to 65-70mpg, of course it's injected and 20 years newer than mine.BUT, there is one glaring inconsistency in this discussion, and it's something I've thought about VERY often. Passenger cars are called passenger cars for a reason. If your driving even a small 4 seater w/ 1 person in it, and someone else is driving, say, my bike w/ 1 person on it, the car driver is the wasteful one. Take into account differences in oil consumption, development materials, tires, tune ups, effect of the vehicle on the road superstructure itself, etc. So, anyway, I think you can SAY bikes are less effecient, and perhaps on some scale they are. However, just like those people who drive Excursions and Hummers to the grocery store by themselves, driving around a 4-5 passenger vehicle by ones self (even if you're getting 30+ mpg) seems awfully wasteful to me. When I drive my bike, which is as often as I possibly can, I tend to get places quicker and take up less space once I get there. Seems good to me. Now, here's something else I noticed the other day. My town has 1 road thats got a 45mph speed limit on one end and a 25mph limit on the other, the roads probably about 8 miles long. In the 45 mph zone there are 5 stoplights. In the 25mph zone there are 4 more. I pull up to these lights, and I don't know if most people don't think when they drive, or if they don't KNOW to think, or whatever, but 9 times out of 10, the people around me feel like they need to be back at that 45mph+ AS FAST AS THEY CAN. To make it worse, one of the lights is at the base of a hill. I'd be interested to find out just how many MORE emissions are generated at this stop light compared to if there was no lightthere's only one there so that cars can merge safely onto the road, which could have been accomplished w/ a turning lane. Sorry to ramble. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
I wonder if that is per gallon of fuel used or per mile driven.Depending on which one it is, it can make a big difference. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 1:40 Subject: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution' http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1671722,00.html Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution' Ian Sample, science correspondent Wednesday December 21, 2005 The Guardian Motorbikes are churning out more pollution than cars, even though they make up only a small fraction of vehicles on the roads, according to a report. Tests on a selection of modern motorbikes and private cars revealed that rather than being more environmentally-friendly, motorbikes emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons, including greenhouse gases, three times the carbon monoxide and a disproportionately high amount of other pollutants, compared to cars. Ana-Marija Vasic at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, who led the research, said the need to legislate on emissions from motorbikes has been overlooked because there are so few on the roads. The oversight has lead to a paucity of research into ways of making their engines run more cleanly. In Britain, there are 1,060,000 motorbikes on the road but more than 25m private cars. Dr Vasic's tests showed that, especially in urban traffic, when motorcyclists frequently accelerated quickly, motorbike engines burned fuel inefficiently, giving a sharp peak in emissions. The yearly hydrocarbon emissions of the average two-wheeler in urban traffic measured up to 49 times higher than that of the average car, according to the study, due to be published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. The importance of [motorbike] emissions has been underestimated in legislation, giving manufacturers little motivation to improve aftertreatment systems, said Dr Vasic. The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150cc. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
