The return of budget biking?

[Steffan]

I was filling the Passat up a couple of days ago, 1.35L and it occurred to me that these unconscionable prices may herald a return to cheap biking. Now my wife's Passat will do somewhere between 47-54mpg which has meant that there is no economic reason based solely on mpg to take a bike when you could take the car. In my case the MZ ridden sensibly will return roughly the same, the Skorpion something better and the Guzzi there or there about. But with a 5p/L difference between the two types of fuel there is now a mpg saving to riding rather than driving. I haven't worked out the 2T oil factor but nevertheless it seems to me that the mpg bugbear may be put in abeyance as austerity bites.

Thoughts?

Steffan

[squirrelciv]

You do wonder if [in the summer] 125 / scoot sales will take a sharp rise. This could be the 'last straw' for townie comuters.

XT giving around 55-60MPG at the mo so I'm as happy as is possible

[guest7]

The new EFI Enfield looks a winner too... superb consumption figures.



GC

[beamer]

how much cheaper is it to run a middleweight bike these days? fuel consumption is on par with most modern cars,tyres cost twice as much as car tyres and last quarter the amount of miles if you are lucky,throw in a set of chain and sprockets every 10,000 miles,not to mention replacement clothing.           my personal opinion is that we ride bikes becase we love them,not because its cheaper.

[guest7]

True enough Beamer old man. My van may only nudge 35mpg on a good day, but tyres (unrepairable punctures aside) last forever, not much wears out and it's cheap to maintain. (so far, touch wood).

My 500 single sidecar outfit can eat tyres in 2,000 miles and a chain and sprockets in 4,000 miles. I have to change the oil every 1,000 miles as well. And the outfit only does 35mpg on a good day too.

GC

[squirrelciv]

Rear tyre lasts 9k (about a year) front double that. Haven't had to change the chain or sprocket yet. Cheap insurance and £50 quid tax. Pretty low running costs I reckon.

Of course you are right, we ride bikes primarily cos we love 'em, but I think the point is thumpers offer a cheap version of biking. Little 125 on budget tyres giving 100mpg+.... I reckon they'd sell.

[Mark]

I have to compete with the wifes little deisel fiesta, 60mpg, £30 a year road tax and tyres last forever.

[Ian]

I think there has been so much development in car "technology" giving us tyres that dont wear out, zillion miles per gallon if its diesel,  plus low tax if emissions dictate it, that bikes are really a toy now rather than a serious form of transport for the masses. PLUS we dont seem to have the weather all year round in this country to make riding  bikes a serious commuter tool. Having said all that  I do prefer to go to work on my 2 wheeled stallions rather than being caged up whenever possible.

Just one point -  my Bonneville costs me more to tax per year than my car, a Punto Diesel and my SRX put together, and it has the worst fuel consumption of all 3 vehicles 50 mpg (ish) against 60 for the punto and 75 for the SRX.

Love does does have a price! 

[guest868]

I think there has been so much development in car "technology" giving us tyres that dont wear out, zillion miles per gallon if its diesel,  plus low tax if emissions dictate it, that bikes are really a toy now rather than a serious form of transport for the masses. PLUS we dont seem to have the weather all year round in this country to make riding  bikes a serious commuter tool.

I would say nonsense to that point regarding the weather.
The purchasing costs for bikes versus cars simply outweigh the benefits of using a bike for most potential owners. However, economy figures are all well and good, but even my old uneconomical Hayabusa would still return 35mpg. And the best thing?
It would do that whilst all the cars that do 55mpg were still sat in traffic.
Economy is no good if you're not going anywhere.
There still aren't the developments being used in bike engine development compared to the car world, with only BMW having a lean burn engine being used in the 800 twins at the moment. Honda shelved the work it was doing with the Active Radical engines, and only Lotus are trying to develop anything really interesting.
A bike is only a toy if you let it be.

[el vencejo]

Bike engine development seems to be just more power, higher revs. that's why OHC, DOHC top ends came in originally.

My second favourite bike is my Buell XB9R: the chassis is great, but so is the v-twin pushrod motor which is just a tuned, modified 1950's HD design. 7500 rev limit, but the best fun is riding the torque out of bends between 3k and 6k revs  . The fuel consumption seems ok, way better than the tuned V-Max I used to ride (25mpg on a fun day!)  

It looks to me that future economy bikes will all originate from India, China, Malaysia, where basic economical transport is still important.

[johnr]

bot dont fall into the fuel consumption figures trap. ok a diesel car might do 70mpg, and the bike might do 45mpg.  but who has a commute to work that allows them to accelerate up to 50mph and hold it there till they roll up to work? not traffic lights? no junctions? traffic jams? congestion? even the most frugal car on earth will be doing zero mpg when its sat still in traffic. thats when the bike pottering up the inside to the front of the queue wins every time. it keeps moving, and every stationary car just burns fuel and stands still. the so called urban cycle claim by makers isnt realistic any more, especially in modern city traffic. i recon that my old bsa will easily outstrip any car if it was used to commute in a city centre. its slow, but its frugal and it keeps moving.

[Mark]

bot dont fall into the fuel consumption figures trap. ok a diesel car might do 70mpg, and the bike might do 45mpg.  but who has a commute to work that allows them to accelerate up to 50mph and hold it there till they roll up to work? not traffic lights? no junctions? traffic jams? congestion? even the most frugal car on earth will be doing zero mpg when its sat still in traffic. thats when the bike pottering up the inside to the front of the queue wins every time. it keeps moving, and every stationary car just burns fuel and stands still. the so called urban cycle claim by makers isnt realistic any more, especially in modern city traffic. i recon that my old bsa will easily outstrip any car if it was used to commute in a city centre. its slow, but its frugal and it keeps moving.

Side valve is the way to go.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Why OHC, DOHC??

[el vencejo]

Side valve is the way to go.


I have vague memories of riding a mate's rigid/girder M21 before he "chopped" it in 1973, acceleration was "gentle" but it was surprisingly agile through the bends, the flex in the frame was interesting (how many bolts hold the rear subframe on?) and the brakes were more "slow retarders", useful for holding the bike for hill starts etc but useless in an emergency. It was fun trying to keep the speed up in the bends.

I still want one eventually, but it must have a tele front end and a pair of those ChopperShox under the saddle  

[johnr]

my m21 has electronic ignition and a solid state voltage reg,halogen headlight and led tail light and a gel hawker battery. it starts first or second kick every time, runs as sweet as a nut, and has had no mechanical problems since i fitted it all seven years ago. only problem it has is that its getting stealable now so im not too keen to just lean it against a wall as i have in the past!

[Ian]

I disagree with shedbrewed re: the weather. Im sure he was  out on his  bike every day over Mid November/December 


Good job we dont all think the same way. Otherwise there would be no discussion here.