motorcyclebloggers.com

A recent article in Wired magazine purports that motorcycles are worse polluters than cars, dismissing them as a good alternative form of transportation.

Here’s a link to the article:

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/motorcycles-pol.html

This started an email thread between myself and some fellow enthusiasts ………….

 It’s just not true. The person has obviously done no research and has quoted someone else who has done no research. Typical sensationalist journalism.

 If you compare a car and bike from this past model year, the bike (even with a catalytic converter - very common on newer motorcycles) put out about double the “pollution” per gallon. But it also gets at least twice the gas mileage, which makes it a wash, especially since most people drive their cars alone. We (motorcycles) definitely aren’t as “green” as we’d like to believe, but we definitely don’t compete with an SUV.

 Another problem with the story is saying one form of pollution is worse than another. Which is the worst: unburned hydrocarbons, sulfer-dioxides, nitrogen-oxides, CO2?…………. no one knows, and the answer is probably all of the above!

 Now if we are talking about older bikes and especially two-strokes, than the argument might be valid. But then again there are a lot of older, oil-burning cars on the road also. Two-strokes are no longer sold in California except as race vehicles, you can’t even get a green-sticker for one which is for off-road use only.

 More and more states are instituting motorcycle emissions testing and eventually we will all have to meet stringent standards. But for now we kinda have a free pass. That’s why we can still easily throw on an aftermarket pipe and get away with it. But those days are numbered.

 CARB (California Air Resources Board) is not easier on motorcycles than cars. It’s just that they didn’t start regulating bikes until later (because the numbers on the road didn’t put us on the radar as a pollution problem). But ever since standards were enacted about 15 years ago, they continued to become more and more strict. In California, your bike must have an evaporation canister to prevent fuel vapor from leaking from your fuel tank to the atmosphere.

Oh, and the story didn’t take into account that you can lane-split in California which will get you to your destination 15% to 20% faster than in a car, saving fuel and reducing emissions. Take that, motorcycle detractors!

I agree completely. I have to believe that a 2008 Honda VFR is kinder to the environment than a 2008 Honda CR-V. Emissions-wise, plus other factors.

 Like you said, there are so many other factors to consider regarding pollution.

 1. The actual building of a motorcycle takes so much less energy and material than a four-wheeler. Less rubber, less aluminum, no interior, no glass, smaller battery, etc.

2. The actual disposal of a motorcycle is better for nature too.

3. A motorcycle doesn’t wear down the infrastructure as much as cars/trucks/vans do. Two tiny contact patches, one behind the other, with only a few hundred pounds on top!

I’m disappointed that Wired Magazine would run such a story.

It is well-known that motorcycles pollute much more than cars per gallon burned, and the article is written as if catalytic converters and o2 sensors are rare. In reality, many new motorcycles have them, dramatically reducing thier pollution.

The other issue .. from an engineering point of view .. is that the majority of motorcycles on the road are carbuerated. We can’t forget about engine configuration either.. fewer, larger cylinders (like the big v-twin’s) rarely have complete combustions (sometimes a second sparkplug is added). For example, a 2000cc kawasaki Mean Streak has two 1000cc cylinders - that’s twice the size of a cylinder in a 2000cc four-cylinder, bigger than a cyinder in a 4.0L straight six, or even a piston in a 4.6L V8. There’s a reason auto manufacturer’s are going to smaller cylinder sizes.

Throw in the air-cooled factor, which requires largers tolerated for heating and cooling expansion/contraction, and there’s more oil getting past the piston rings to be burned and released into the atmosphere.

Don’t forget other inefficiencies, like Harley’s design, where the cylinders compete for the air/fuel mixture - one cylinder may suck pre-combustion mixture out the intake valve of the other piston … resulting in partially filled cylinders creating lots of NOx. Sportbikes aren’t perfect either .. at higher RPM’s the cam’s have a bit of overlap, putting more unburned fuel into the atmosphere.

Bottom line .. there is a HUGE variation in motorcycle efficiency. Too bad the article drew such a large brush.

 So dear reader, your opinion?

Rhino