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: Motorcycle pollution 'worse than cars' say Swiss

Discussion in 'Motorcycling News' started by ForumBot, Dec 23, 2005.

  1. In a surprising report an official Swiss Institute has found that a motorcycle is a far worse polluter than a car.

    ... more

    This is an automated posting of a new news item added to Netrider News.
  2. Definitely due to bike manufacturers lagging behind cars in reducing emissions. Modern bikes fitted with catalytic converters are reversing this trend though.
  3. In a related study, scientists also discovered that motorcycles are faster, more exciting and far cooler than cars.
  4. Not surprising really, Euro 3 emission standards are only just being brought in for bikes next year. Cars in Europe are already on Euro 4 standards with many cars already meeting Euro 5 (since there's financial incentives for doing so).
    Edit: of course motorcycles generally don't spend as much time sitting stationary in traffic so waste less fuel than cars.
  5. "governments ignoring legislating for motorcycle's" eh?

    Guess the Euro Clean Air and Californian EPA emissions controls are all just figments of this official Swiss Institute's imagination then.
  6. They can't. According to Fred Gassit, they would fall over.
  7. lmao ........... i can stiil see that 100 h/p GSXR 1000 in the future ... whilst gazing into my crystal ball
  8. It's a spurious argument and needs clarification...

    Michael C & Lee O'Mahoney have done some studies on this.

    Michael has something here
  9. The quoted article talks about a "typical" motorcycle... in continental Europe, that means a two-stroke scooter.
  10. Interesting article, of course the simple fact remains that for a given volume of fuel a modern motorcycle will still produce more pollutants than any modern car. Also whilst cars have strict limits on Nitrogen Oxides and Hydrocarbon emissions currently motorcycles have no limits at all on these emissions, although limits (twice that of cars) will be introduced in Europe in 2006.
    Edit: It's a strange situation when a 250cc bike is allowed to put out more pollution than a 5000cc car.
  11. In the city my bike could produce twice as much pollution as a car and still be as clean, since it only takes half as long to get anywhere.

    EDIT - Or at least it will, when I get my wrist back :cry:
  12. The process and materials used in the manufacture of one car along with its lifespan of used tyres would be far more taxing on the enviroment than a whole rally of bikes, the Swiss should stick to making chocolate instead of waves.
  13. That and covering up criminals' financial activities...

    Anyway I haven't got time to read the article in question. But does it take into account the amount of emissions, or does it merely compare CO, HCs, etc. on a volumetric basis? eg: a 5 litre engine outputs X amount of emissions. A 1 litre bike outputs Y amount of emissions. If you multiply Y by 5 its total emissions = Z which may or may not be higher than X.
  14. but then again a set of car tyres can last 200,000 and a set for a bike last a few rides...
  15. Simply based on amount, ie a bike of any capacity can legally produce a greater volume of pollution than a car of any capacity (since ALL European cars have to meet the same standard).
    Edit: Note that pollution standards are actually based on grams per km travelled, so fuel economy is largely irrelevant.
  16. I'm pretty sure my bike pollutes a hell lot less than all those smoke-belching 4x4's I ride (usually stuck behind) with to and from work. I don't need to smoke when I can get my hit from the other motor vehicles on the road! :x
  17. Yep diesels are worse as far as solid-particulate pollution goes (although wood-fired heaters are still one of the biggest contributors to that). Of course petrol engines put out a lot of stuff that you can't see that's just as bad, or worse.
  18. Exactly. Since the report doesn't seem to identify the sourve of its figures, that's highly likely. And another possible issue is whether they are quoting total emissions, or relative emissions BY VOLUME.
    A study a few years ago in Paris reached a similar conclusion - until it was pointed out that the measurements had been made by comparing equal quantities of exhaust gases, and no allowance had been made for the fact that bikes processed far less gas per unit, due to their smaller capacity.
  19. don’t forget that this is probably per litre that bikes produce more pollution so over all we produce so much less than a car just look at how many k’s you get to a litre compared so over a 100k run we produce sooo much less population to a car it doesn’t matter how much they do to a car it will never match a motorcycle.
  20. As I pointed out before Euro emission standards are based on grams per kilometre travelled therefore engine capacity, fuel consumption etc. are completely irrelevant. Yes bikes have the advantage of being able to lanesplit and therefore spend less time in traffic however the fact remains that over a given distance of clear road a motorcycle in Europe is legally allowed to produce a greater volume of pollution than any new car. This is just one of the reasons why bike engines are able to produce such high power outputs and why people should be wary about trying to push motorcycles as being environmentally friendly.