Separate names with a comma.
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.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by pro-pilot, Feb 28, 2008.
The nuts are at it again. Let's hope these knuckle draggers don't get any momentum here!
With Englands only real International Motorbike success for many years being teh Daytona 675 I can see there being some Industry resistance to this idea.
Nevermind that all the litrebikes and 1200s I'm interested in make less power than most 600RRRRRRRR bikes. :roll:
Wow! Let's go ban all cars over, say, 2.5L, and 2 tonne. Who needs such a big car anyway!? :roll:
Interesting how he pulls out the "emissions" card. I wonder what level of CO2 a litre bike puts out in comparison to the big 4WD he probably drives?
The irony in this is that in order for high-strung low-displacement engines to make a lot of power, they typically need huge lumpy camshafts with massive duration, which does really bad things for emissions when idling and cruising.
(Or, in short, "Spots wouldn't be surprised if a 100hp litrebike had cleaner emissions than a 100hp 600cc bike")
Ha! Sure they can ban > 600cc bikes. That will really slow things down. A 10 year old 600 is capable of around 250km/hr, that's much safer than a busa's 299km/hr.
....how do you know this for sure port? (...waits for self incrimination)
Well down the back straight of Broardford 170km/hr (adjusted) is possible on my CBR - it had no signs of running out of puff. Going to PI in a couple of weeks, I'll let you know what the top score down the front straight is... There are plenty of reports on the web of the stock CBR F3's getting past 250 clicks on a decent straight. A modern 600 should eat my 600.
They've done their best to limit larger capacity cars, so bikes are just an extension of that.
Have they, though?
UK-built large-displacement GT cars and saloons don't even have the speed limiters that the Germans have forced their saloons to carry for emissions purposes.
The UK, home of the supercharged V8 Aston Martins, the Vauxhall rebadging of the HSV Commodore GTS, the Noble M15 and so on?
I'm not so sure.
Makes sense, no way you could possibly hurt yourself on something like an RG500 or RZ500. I'm sure it'll help reduce emissions too .
More so for the average punter than the guy that can afford an Aston. There are financial incentives to give the 1.3L+ cars a miss.
Kids here buy a 2nd hand v8 ss commodore. Kids there get a fart in a shoe box.
what about the Police BMW's are they not 1200cc, and all the harley davidsons are too,
so no bmw's harleys
I guess they can only ride zx6r's, R6's and gixer600's and some old clean 500 cc 2 strokes (rg500,rz500)
all are cleaner for the environment than BMW's and all much slower than Harleys
Bear in mind, this is just one nutter, not a bill that has been passed. This conversation is akin to a serious discussion about the ramifications of one of the Democrat's policies.
Another attempt at restriction of personal freedom, or freedom of choice.
I wish the silent majority will mobilise against the constant interfering minority into people's lives and choices.
Doesn't mean we can't have "OMG DOOMSDAY!!!" discussions, or talk about how stupid an idea it is
They haven't been forced to do anything, the big 3 German manufacturers do it voluntarily, and even then, only MB rigidly applies it. Porsches aren't restricted. Also, Jags are fitted with 250kmh limiters.
They become even slower Cruisers.....
not forgetting the rocket III of course, of which more than half are exports to the US alone - doesn't do much for your own local industry when you are just making bikes for export and none of the locals are allowed to buy one.
Oh, and then we have large numbers of big capacity vehicles getting good fuel economy (harley's are quite good in fuel economy figures - who'd a thought it?) and also the fact that my 1150cc machine has catalysers and produces only 85hp and can only manage 160km/h AND uses less fuel than a sports 600!
This is only another version of the 100hp bike limit that was proposed a couple of years ago.
I thought that the BMW F800ST recently won awards for being the lowest emissions motorcycle a year or so back.
Yes - why would anyone want a motorcycle with >600cc. Clearly it couldn't have anything to do with lower emissions.
This is all just crap though. Bikes on average are about twice as economical as cars, emit far less toxic gases per kilometer travelled, and in a crowded city in which you can lane-split, spend far less time actually turned on and emitting fumes due to their higher average trip speed. They cause far less damage to the environment and the roads as well.
This has got to be one of the most thinly veiled bike hating excuses for artificially restricting motorcycles when no such restrictions exist for cars. The guy is probably just pissed off that bikes get to work faster than him while he's sitting in traffic, and feels that something should be done to rectify that situation.