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.

Sign of things to come?

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by incitatus, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. Apologies if this is a re-post, but does anybody else find this mildly threatening? I can forsee a time when even motorcycling will become bland and uninteresting..........or am I just a dinosaur pining for the roar of megaphones and the smell of Castrol 'R'?


  2. I look forward to the days of a bike like this. It certainly won't replace traditional bikes in the foreseeable future in my opinion. However, if they were available now at a reasonable cost I would consider one - as a daily commuter it would be used for that, and I could reserve my 'real riding' on a 'real bike' for the weekends.

    (I do think it was posted before though)
  3. Fair enough - assuming this kind of technology doesn't give our, 'politicians on a mission' the excuse they need to legislate your 'real bike' onto the scrap heap like they did the 2 stroke.
  4. As long as the pollies don't force us to ride bikes like this, it's great to see development in this area. Supply will only come with demand, and people demand fun. It looks bland now, but in a few decades the will have knock-your-socks-off models that harness fuel cell technology to be fun.

    People will buy the boring models like this one for economical reasons, just like they do with scooters today.
  5. The more this idea takes off, the more R+D goes into it, the more they improve.

    I look forward to seeing where this could go!

    Of course, the silent running is a bit of a hazard - might need some noisemakers fitted.
  6. While agreeing with the rest of your post I am still uncomfortable with the above statement. In an economy driven only by consumers you are correct. But factor in the pollies and things change. I don't recall much demand for 'aways on' lights before they were foisted on us.
  7. I see this more as an alternative to a bicycle than a motorbike, I don't think any government would force a ban on petrol engines for bikes without also banning their use in cars. After all there's a lot more cars on the road than bikes.

  8. I agree, but in California it will soon be illegal to sell any new car that does not meet the next increment in their emission laws, which means zero emissions. That means no current model petrol driven vehicle will be legal. I remain worried, not for me, I don't think it will happen that soon, but you young blokes better have your fun while you can.
  9. Ah yes the state run by the man famous for driving a Hummer (probably one of the worst vehicles for fuel consumption). Actually the California Zero Emission Laws will only require that at least 10% of vehicles on the roads be zero emission (ie electric) and is currently being fought in the courts by both the Auto Industry and the Bush Government after California relaxed the rules in 2001 to give credit for hybrid cars like the Prius.
    Edit: The auto industry also claims that no viable technology exists to achieve this goal yet have continued to produce vehicles with ever increasing fuel consumption. Even in this country the Government is looking to regulate all new cars (but not 4wds) to have an average fuel consumption less than 15L/100km, something which actually used to be quite common.
  10. It looks like a downhill mountain bike rather than a m/cycle!
    Strange concept.......
  11. The detail does not alter anything but the timeframe. The declared objective is to replace fossil fuels as soon as it is technically and economically possible to do so. This is driven as much by American xenophobia over foreign oil dependencies as by environmental concerns. The fact that a President on very shaky ground politically is letting short term tactical issues override the strategic aims of his party should come as no surprise.

    EDIT - The 10% only holds true until 2008. The process continues all the way to 100% in increments over time.
  12. True, but it is going to be very hard for California to enforce a zero emission policy when US car manufacturers are reluctant to produce such vehicles. The Bush government is fighting the law based on the argument that California was never empowered to institute it's own emission laws and should therefore simply comply with federal EPA guidelines. Probably no real surprise that the Bush government is taking such a stance given the Bush family's involvement in the Texas oil industry.
  14. Possibly, though I reckon both political parties probably receive fairly substantial politcal "donations" from the oil industry and car manufacturers.
  15. "an exhilerating glimpse of what can be achieved"
    The only saving grace of this report is the source; England, the home of the Quasar and nutty-but-nice people like Sir Clive Sinclair.
    The idea DOES have merit in inner-city commuting but let's hope idiots like Harold Scruby don't get hold of the idea!!
  16. I agree that this concept is aimed more at bicycle riders and scooter riders than real motorcyclists. In the inner-city environment something like this could catch on and has validity.

    It will never replace the motorcycle because motorcycle manufacturers would never sit still for it. The amount of money they could make from selling them compared to what they can make from selling real bikes is not worth considering. No profit in it.