Following on from the STW topic...

[guest18]

A thought process inspired by GC's STW question...

I read Ride magazines reader survey and tbh as I looked at bikes for possible future purchases I was horrified by the quoted fuel consumption figures!

My better half has an 875cc Hillman Imp, built in the seventies and shoving half a ton of four seat car, it can easily attain 45mpg. Most modern bikes (according to the figures) can't even manage 40mpg :-o
My parents have a newish Renault Megane with all the goodies, including aircon, and they are regularly attaining 50mpg and better... my 660cc bike gets 55mpg, pushing a fraction of the weight and with a much smaller frontal area.

Firstly, why can the manufacturers manage 100hp++ per litre without any problems yet they cannot better even 50mpg with supposedly "very efficient" engine designs (even on commuting bikes like CB500's et al).

Secondly, given the current political climate, how can we champion bikes as a "green" congestion reducing alternative when they use more fuel than the poorer family cars?

:-(

Sad really... I wonder if the Japanese are roaring off down a dead end developement route and someone will step in and make (bankrupt) fools of them, much as they did to the British motorcycle industry all those years ago?

[squirrelciv]

Said the same myself many times, but it falls on deaf ears. Problem is biking is still (largely) considered recreational, toys for boys, so R&D money goes into performance and style. Add to that the legal requirements for noise reduction and your left with fuel consumption falling by the wayside.
I think the motorcycle industry should take heed of the Euro warning shot fired earlier this year with talk of Max CC's and automatic transmission. Not what will pass parliament, but a good opening gambit if your true aim is to curb HP and reduce performance/increase efficiency.

Heyho, more doom and gloom.

[Andy M]

The emissions test is part of the problem. It's static so the civil serpents don't have to "risk" their over paid necks in moving vehicles. So, burn a gallon of fuel and make X grammes of pollutants and you pass. Make X plus you fail. Take your failed vehicle and halve the fuel consumption on the urban cycle and you still fail, the test just takes longer! Ok, that''s over simplified but they should shoot the comittee that invented the test and replace it with a "you will do so many laps of this course in this time and make less polution than...."

The way to pass the test (once you stop using fuel as a lubricant) isn't to go to the cause (burning petrol), it's to stick a cork up the engines ****. To keep the power you need a bigger engine etc. Forcing gas past the cork uses more fuel when cold, so you need a bigger engine and so on.

The 650cc idea isn't actually that stupid, people managed with 500's and 750's for years. You can make an 80 hp easy to ride 650 that would turn in 100mpg and have a top speed well over the ton. It might be a souless watercooled tripple with FI but the lifetime pollution would be pretty good. It would fail the EU test! However, why not just make it illegal to produce a sub-50 mpg bike and reduce it year on year? If people want 1600cc's and can get 51 mpg that's fine.

The autobox was a cock up. The muppet who wrote the paper didn't know the difference between automatic-torque convertor and automated. An automated box using an ECU to do clutchless changes, hold the revs in the efficient zone, switch modes for different roads would work well. Trucks are going to automated boxes to even the fuel use between the best and worse driver.

Andy

[guest27]

HI All
Have to agree on the poor consumption of modern bikes - I seem to remember that my Triton would do about 900 MPG - well it was not that h§igh but you know what I mean, however an old buffer asked me - when I was a young buck and riding an RD350LC - what will that do to the gallon - 70? 80? - this was about 20 years ago and he was a tight wad not an early environmental warrior - when I said about 35 he was stunned - but he had made the mistake of comparing engine size rather than performance.  He claimed his old 350 bulletr would do loads more (true) but would not conceede that a 350LC would skin it.  Then he compared it to his car and suggested it was also poor - suggestions that he compare it to a car of similar performance and thus identify a car of much greater fuel consumption...

Modern bikes are to the main sports orientated - even if it is off road or pseudo off road, there is this big thing about exceleration and top speed.  So the comments are right - we are our own worst enemies.  Maybe the diesel in MCN will come to fruition and more will be used shifting the balance.

However also remember that a bike running at 35mpg may actually use less fuel on a journey than a ccar running 50mpg, as the car may well sit in traffic for ages chugging over whilst the bike does not.  There again the car with 4 commuters in it (some hope) will then be more efficient per person.

I think I will stick to my legs and commute from the kitchen to the study...

R