Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

News: Bikes emit 'Disproportionately High' amounts of pollut

Discussion in 'Motorcycling News' started by ForumBot, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. Motorcycles collectively emit 16 times more hydrocarbons, three times more carbon monoxide and a "disproportionately high" amount of other air pollutants compared to passenger cars

    ... more

    This is an automated posting of a new news item added to Netrider News.
  2. How come they didn't table the cars that they tested for comparison. All i could find was a statement that they borrowed vehicles from private owners that "represented the Swiss fleet".

    Were they comparing 10 year old bikes with 2 year old cars, perhaps? It'd be interesting to compare 10 yo cars with 10 yo bikes, particularly here in Oz where vehicle maintenance is often limited to Joe Bloggs running his car up onto the ramps to change the oil and filter...

    How many people replace their catalytic converters or have other parts of their anti-pollution equipment serviced?

    It'd be nice for them to compare apples with apples, so to speak.
  3. The full article states that all cars complied with Euro 3 standards, that means they were all post 2000 models. All cars have to meet the same standard in Europe so in the context of this research the make, capacity etc. of the cars used is irrelevant. All the bikes tested were 2002 models so couldn't have been significantly older than the cars tested.
  4. No they weren't. According to that article, they ranged from mid-90s onwards.

    As for the age of the vehicles and their condition, of course it's relevant. If they did all their testing of the bikes on dynos or whatever, they then should have done the same for the vehicles in question.

    It matters not whether a vehicle complies with Euro3 or not at the time of manufacture, when they're testing bikes which are aging and which didn't have to comply with a more stricter standard then their later and younger counterparts.

    If we apply this to Oz, get my CBR1000F (95 model), test it for emissions, and do the same for say, a VR Commodore. Let's see how the two compare.
  5. From the article - "Car Measurements Used for Comparison. The emissions of 17 gasoline-powered passenger cars from the Euro 3 statutory period were measured at EMPA in 2001 and 2002 " (note that the Euro 3 period began in 2000). One of the references cited used mid-90's model cars because that study was conducted in '95 so might be where you got confused.

    What stricter standards? The emissions regs on bikes in Europe in the mid 90's are no different to the regs in place in 2005 (Euro 1) - that's one of the main points of the research (cars have improved, bikes have remained the same). No point comparing with Australian built cars since our standards on cars aren't that much different to the European standard for bikes (somewhere between Euro 1 and Euro 2).
  6. I think that you're the one who's confused, JD. The bikes tested dated from 93 through to 98, some of which are two strokes.

    The standards may not have changed. But bike technology has evolved. There are bikes on the market now, and have been since at least 2001 that run catalytic converters. Why didn't this Swiss mob test any of them?

    But it's an issue that's being discussed with respect to the use of bikes v cars in metro areas. One of the reasons for promoting bikes is that they can be cleaner than cars in similar environments and hence should be promoted along these lines. It's why I mentioned it, to give this discussion a local flavor. The Swiss thing is really irrelevant here, given the differing standards, differing climate, enviroment, geography and so on.

    My concern is that some bureaucrat will jump on this report saying, "See, even the Europeans reckon that bikes are dirty and should not be promoted as a favorable form of transport."

    If they had tested a current batch of 2005 models, replete with cat. converters and other pollution controls that may be fitted to bikes, then yeah, I'd consider it a credible report. But they didn't.
  7. Ahh okay thought you were talking about the cars which were all 2001-2002 models. Yes the bike's were older BUT were representative of what was on the roads in 2002 (so more older bikes than cars in Switzerland).

    The difference here is that whilst ALL European cars must run cat. converters such technology is entirely optional for bikes and presumabely not found on the large majority of bikes sold in Switzerland. So yes it's possible that bike's could be made to run cleaner than cars but the point is that they're not for the simple fact that manufacturers have no reason to. Yes if they had of tested a Euro 3+ compliant bike it might have come out "cleaner" than a car but unless this is representative of what is actually on the roads you'd only be distorting the data. Putting a local perspective on it the majority of bikes sold here are actually dirtbikes - I doubt many of those run catalytic convertors or run much in the way of pollution control (indeed many are still 2-stroke).