10 mile range is about all I would need for 70% of my trips.
Enertia Bike, the electric motorcycle
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- the b*tch fell off
My wife and I were looking at her miles last night. She has only driven a little over 3500 miles this year. She drives for work, but all the locations are within a 15 mile radius from our house.
Depending on what the charge time is, this could be viable for her.
Remember I'm not discussing the Prius, Accord. I am not disputing the efforts they've put in battery recycling. It's the small MFG's that don't have the capital to pour into greener manufacturing.
My point is, this thing won't be that notable of a difference in the impact commuters are creating. That bike is a toy. The money would be better spent on a contribution to public transportation. You'd be better off with a Vespa scooter. With some money left over to replace all your light bulbs with energy efficient ones.
As for the 6 to 10 year figure it didn't come out of my ass it cam from the enertia specs that says it has 1600 charge cycles, So I divided 350 days into and doubled it to be optimistic. All batteries wear out. The batteries on the Enertia aren't Prius batteries
As far as the ECO footprint how much of the enertia can be recycled at the end of it's service life? Where is the electricity coming from to charge that bike? mostly Coal fired powerplants, Nukes, and some hydro, none of those are good sources considering the long term enviro impacts. Remember it isn't a Hybrid.
Even though you presented some motorcycle data it still doesn't show me my morning commute produces more pollutants than driving my car with no catalytic converter. If I burn 2 gallons of gas per week on the bike as opposed to 10 gallons in the car for the same commute, I'd be hard pressed to believe I'm leaving more pollutants than my 85 4cyl w/o a catalytic converter.
ok, point taken about smaller manufacturers and their unproven track record with recycling. condemning them because they haven't had a chance to prove themselves is silly, however.
will me as a single commuter ditching a single RX-8 for a single Enertia make a difference directly? no, any individual's contribution is negligible. (i don't think adding $12k to the public transit system would make a measurable difference either. that kind of money certainly doesn't sway policy.) however, by riding such a thing maybe i'd increase others' awareness -- as jimmydean said, this thread and its ongoing discussion serves to show that alternatives are becoming viable. awareness leads to demand leads to mass production leads to commercial viability leads to non-negligible differences.
thanks for explaining your math, but i think you're wrong. without looking into it too closely (what cells are they using? etc.) 1600 charge cycles may be a misnomer of sorts: typically that term is used to describe the longevity when discharged fully, and that many more charge cycles are possible when full discharge isn't required (ie, you use half its energy then plug it back in).
it's quite possible that either: a) they designed the bike such that the 45 mile range doesn't result in full discharge, or b) typical trips would be less than the full, 45 mile range. either way, or if both were true, one would see more use than you'd estimate even with your 2x fudge factor.
i don't know how much of the Enertia can be recycled, but neither do you. moot point.
where's the electricity coming from? again, i invite you to read the tesla white paper. this is all covered in there. see page 5: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ByK6R-aQmEMJ:www.teslamotors.com/display_data/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf+tesla+21st+century+car&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
finally, you're indeed correct that your 17 year old 250cc motorcycle's emissions are probably on the same order of magnitude than your pre-catalytic converter 1985 4 cylinder car, but i fail to see your point: you're spewing out all manner of junk in either of those things. congratulations.
will me as a single commuter ditching a single RX-8 for a single Enertia make a difference directly? no, any individual's contribution is negligible. (i don't think adding $12k to the public transit system would make a measurable difference either. that kind of money certainly doesn't sway policy.) however, by riding such a thing maybe i'd increase others' awareness -- as jimmydean said, this thread and its ongoing discussion serves to show that alternatives are becoming viable. awareness leads to demand leads to mass production leads to commercial viability leads to non-negligible differences.
thanks for explaining your math, but i think you're wrong. without looking into it too closely (what cells are they using? etc.) 1600 charge cycles may be a misnomer of sorts: typically that term is used to describe the longevity when discharged fully, and that many more charge cycles are possible when full discharge isn't required (ie, you use half its energy then plug it back in).
it's quite possible that either: a) they designed the bike such that the 45 mile range doesn't result in full discharge, or b) typical trips would be less than the full, 45 mile range. either way, or if both were true, one would see more use than you'd estimate even with your 2x fudge factor.
i don't know how much of the Enertia can be recycled, but neither do you. moot point.
where's the electricity coming from? again, i invite you to read the tesla white paper. this is all covered in there. see page 5: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ByK6R-aQmEMJ:www.teslamotors.com/display_data/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf+tesla+21st+century+car&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
finally, you're indeed correct that your 17 year old 250cc motorcycle's emissions are probably on the same order of magnitude than your pre-catalytic converter 1985 4 cylinder car, but i fail to see your point: you're spewing out all manner of junk in either of those things. congratulations.
regardless of the white papers corporate induced facts. The electricity is still primarily Coal fired powerplants, come floats some WV rivers with me and you'll reconsider leaving your lights on after a while.
As for emissions Congratulations goes both ways unless you walk to work. One 30 mile trip in an SUV is almost 2 weeks of commuting fuel for my 250. I'd still be willing to bet I could manipulate data that says my gas powered 250 is greener than the enertia scooter toy thing.
And I can't believe you guys are saying a 10 mile range is cool! What happens when the hospital is 15 miles away and your kid needs to get in the ER for stitches? Practicality anyone?
As for emissions Congratulations goes both ways unless you walk to work. One 30 mile trip in an SUV is almost 2 weeks of commuting fuel for my 250. I'd still be willing to bet I could manipulate data that says my gas powered 250 is greener than the enertia scooter toy thing.
And I can't believe you guys are saying a 10 mile range is cool! What happens when the hospital is 15 miles away and your kid needs to get in the ER for stitches? Practicality anyone?
Its GM's first dual mode plug-in hybrid - it still has an engine. You obviously know nothing of hybrids so why are you even still posting
well then, manipulate away. you've already shown a command of division and multiplication, and i'm expecting great things of you.
and, for the record, i commute to work on the bus (in the winter -- it's a diesel-electric hybrid, btw since seattle is cool like that) or by road bike in the other seasons. i don't think i'll end up in seattle for the next 5 years, thus the discussion of a commuter vehicle.
Toshi,
The Valence Battery chemistry could well last 100,000 miles, but their Battery Management units are notoriously horrible. They, for good reason, tend to pop cells at the slightest overload and shut down. The cells on that bike have integrated BMU's instead of an overall controller (which they need, as it is relatively dangerous chemistry, prone to exploding and fires).
I hope that one of the things that bike company does before they release that thing on consumers is dump the Valence stuff. I've been working with the latest iteration of Valence's cells and BMU's for 2 years now, and I've yet to have a battery last more than 20-30 charge cycles before it gets scuttled by the BMU.
Thank god we get engineering samples instead of buying them.
That being said, maybe, finally for the love of good Valence may have developed a reliable BMU for those batteries. The ones we got 3 weeks ago sure don't have them though!
The Valence Battery chemistry could well last 100,000 miles, but their Battery Management units are notoriously horrible. They, for good reason, tend to pop cells at the slightest overload and shut down. The cells on that bike have integrated BMU's instead of an overall controller (which they need, as it is relatively dangerous chemistry, prone to exploding and fires).
I hope that one of the things that bike company does before they release that thing on consumers is dump the Valence stuff. I've been working with the latest iteration of Valence's cells and BMU's for 2 years now, and I've yet to have a battery last more than 20-30 charge cycles before it gets scuttled by the BMU.
Thank god we get engineering samples instead of buying them.
That being said, maybe, finally for the love of good Valence may have developed a reliable BMU for those batteries. The ones we got 3 weeks ago sure don't have them though!
46chief does come close to making a good point. Energy or fuel used for transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of what we consume. Are concerned individuals who consider buying such a vehicle doing other things to reduce energy usage. Most folks seem to focus more on their cars, probably because it is the only form of energy they purchase directly and can touch regularly. Do you have compact flourescents in all your light fixtures? Do you take cold short showers? Get cold in the winter and sweat in the summer? Do you shy away from consuming everything you can afford?
Those steps aren't new concepts and people have been doing them for a while.
Its flawed logic that you have to be a saint in every regard to do good for the environment - its not all or nothing. Lots of people making even small changes add up to make a difference. Things have and will get better when whenever people take these steps.
Don't assume I know nothing of hybrids, I just reflected on the post and tend to not waste my time reading all the details of hybrids. Especially a US mfg one. The chevy hybrid truck is a joke and complete waste of energy.
Why am I still posting, because it's fun to see the high and mighty attitude that think because they can throw a bunch of money at a toy they are responsible environmentalists. I have serious doubts that cycle is practical and reliable. Thus it is a toy and will have to be discarded substantially sooner than a similar gas powered cycle. So the point is even though I am burning fossil fuel directly for propulsion I should achieve 20 years of usefull life with my bike. and in the end recycle most of the bike. Which leaves me to believe that it will leave a smaller eco footprint than the Enertia.
Why am I still posting, because it's fun to see the high and mighty attitude that think because they can throw a bunch of money at a toy they are responsible environmentalists. I have serious doubts that cycle is practical and reliable. Thus it is a toy and will have to be discarded substantially sooner than a similar gas powered cycle. So the point is even though I am burning fossil fuel directly for propulsion I should achieve 20 years of usefull life with my bike. and in the end recycle most of the bike. Which leaves me to believe that it will leave a smaller eco footprint than the Enertia.
New technology always goes through a development phase like this with high initial costs and more disadvantages for early adopters - its not surprising or unusual.
To standby and claim your old dirty technology is better is foolish - almost any modern car puts out less emissions than your smaller vehicle...
Over the last three years at the two different system administration jobs I've held I've walked or biked to work at least 70% of the time and driven my ULEV-2 car otherwise - each job was/is mile or less than from where I live.
And in response to Westy's questions. Almost all the light in my home is florescent or compact florescent including dimmable fixtures. My shower energy and water usage is about 20% that of a standard setup. We set the heat to 69 during the day and 67 at night in the winter and 76 in the summer augmented with class leading heat pump AC units from Fujitsu. My car cost about half as much as I could easily afford and its high mileage ULEV-2 emission. Even my PC has one of the first 80PLUS PSUs, is filled with RoHS parts, and has automatic downclocking to save power (which requires installing patches and changing the default bios setting on your own - its not easily enabled out of the box)
To standby and claim your old dirty technology is better is foolish - almost any modern car puts out less emissions than your smaller vehicle...
Over the last three years at the two different system administration jobs I've held I've walked or biked to work at least 70% of the time and driven my ULEV-2 car otherwise - each job was/is mile or less than from where I live.
And in response to Westy's questions. Almost all the light in my home is florescent or compact florescent including dimmable fixtures. My shower energy and water usage is about 20% that of a standard setup. We set the heat to 69 during the day and 67 at night in the winter and 76 in the summer augmented with class leading heat pump AC units from Fujitsu. My car cost about half as much as I could easily afford and its high mileage ULEV-2 emission. Even my PC has one of the first 80PLUS PSUs, is filled with RoHS parts, and has automatic downclocking to save power (which requires installing patches and changing the default bios setting on your own - its not easily enabled out of the box)
since this thread turned into a discussion of hybrids in general, here are a few interesting posts and articles i came across.
you may recall CNW's analysis that purports that a Hummer has a lower life-cycle energy usage than a Prius. the reality is that it's a non-peer-reviewed study from a company that hasn't revealed its methodology, and furthermore its conclusion relies on the baseless assumption that a Prius will last 100k miles whereas a Hummer H2 would last 300k. but wait, there's more:
http://sortingoutscience.net/2007/11/28/_googlediving_hybrid_vehicles_and_energy_consumption/
how about a peer reviewed study from the Energy Lab at MIT?
http://www.cleanairnet.org/transport/1754/articles-69297_resource_1.pdf
in any case, however, it might make more sense for me to get a Prius (or Prius 2, or Chevy Volt) instead of this electric motorcycle. food for thought.
you may recall CNW's analysis that purports that a Hummer has a lower life-cycle energy usage than a Prius. the reality is that it's a non-peer-reviewed study from a company that hasn't revealed its methodology, and furthermore its conclusion relies on the baseless assumption that a Prius will last 100k miles whereas a Hummer H2 would last 300k. but wait, there's more:
http://sortingoutscience.net/2007/11/28/_googlediving_hybrid_vehicles_and_energy_consumption/
so if we discount the widely-publicized-but-horribly-flawed results from CNW, whom should we trust?sortingoutscience.net said:
how about a peer reviewed study from the Energy Lab at MIT?
http://www.cleanairnet.org/transport/1754/articles-69297_resource_1.pdf
my own note is that they assumed a total-system energy efficiency of 32% for electric vehicles. Tesla's calculations dispute this, citing a figure of 52.5% (source: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:u0S4-tHUbn8J:www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf+tesla+21st+century+car&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari). a change in this figure would affect results dramatically...MIT Energy Lab said:
The bars shown are meant to suggest the range of our
uncertainty about the results but, as expected, even the uncertainties are uncertain. We
estimate uncertainty at about plus or minus 30% for fuel cell and battery vehicles, 20% for
ICE hybrids, and 10% for other vehicle technologies.
[...]
Vehicles with hybrid propulsion systems using either ICE or fuel cell power plants
are the most efficient and lowest-emitting technologies assessed. In general, ICE
hybrids appear to have advantages over fuel cell hybrids with respect to life cycle
GHG emissions, energy efficiency, and vehicle cost, but the differences are within the
uncertainties of our results and depend on the source of fuel energy.
in any case, however, it might make more sense for me to get a Prius (or Prius 2, or Chevy Volt) instead of this electric motorcycle. food for thought.
Thinking my 250 emits more emissions than almost any modern car, I'd have to argue that the foolish one would be the person who thinks this way. Look at the percentage of V6 and V8 cars out there, Any SUV or 4 wheel drive vehicle and you would argue that my 2 gallons of fuel burned a week during my commute is polluting more than anything that is getting 25mpg compared to 65 to 75 MPG.
In more ways than you know. Are you going to ride it when it's near freezing, raining, snowing? Will it even be able to used during winter months? Sure is nice having a heated vest and grips for the cold days. Might as well get the Prius, at least you can use it on a daily basis throughout the year.
Any more brilliant ideas?
Posting a some sort of factoid about motorcycles doesn't apply to mine. Whats the source? Another MFG trying to sell you their toy electric bike? There is no indication of what kind of motorcycles they are referring to. Are they comparing displacement of engines, harleys, crotch rockets, cruisers, dirt bikes, blah blah blah.... I don't see how this applies to a small displacement 4stroke MC.
I could see how a honda goldwing compared to a Civic might show favorable data for your weak stance but comparing a a small displacement 4 stroke to most passenger cars on the road doesn't wash, catalytic converter or not.
I could see how a honda goldwing compared to a Civic might show favorable data for your weak stance but comparing a a small displacement 4 stroke to most passenger cars on the road doesn't wash, catalytic converter or not.
Your 4stroke is an abomination even compared to konabumm's H3.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm
The emissions regulations on motorcycles are extremely limited/primitive compare to even light trucks.
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=4352&Page=1
Hell even a small 4stroke 4HP lawnmower engine:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm
The emissions regulations on motorcycles are extremely limited/primitive compare to even light trucks.
motorcycledirect.co.uk Jan 06 said:
empa.ch said:
http://greenlivingideas.com/motorcycles/the-clean-green-motorcyle-machine.htmlevworld.com said:
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=4352&Page=1
Hell even a small 4stroke 4HP lawnmower engine:
Common sense prevails, Scientific data is always suspect, media articles are useless, especially w/o citations.
Comparing the emissions of something that uses 1/3 of the fuel per mile compared to a 13mpg hummer is ridiculous considering the enviro impact it creates just getting the fuel to the tank.
Are they comparing or testing a 250cc or 650cc bike? big difference.
Lawnmowers engines aren't anything close to what a 250cc MC engine is, they have pistons, valves and a carburetors but thats about it.
bury your head in the sand if you want. there is a preponderance of evidence from the EPA among many other sources, and i feel we've done more than enough digging for you.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf
an easy thing to do (for you, not me) would be to find a similar chart for motorcycle emissions and compare them.
And what is special about your 250? Does it have ANY emissions related equipment at all? Or does it burn fuel and spew exhaust, same as a lawnmower?
No the difference isn't just displacement.46chief said:
Here are the top ten highway motorcycles tested from 06 EPA HC test (g/km):
JimmyD, If you don't know the difference between a mower and a motorcycle you should lay off the meds.
There is a big difference in displacement = how much fuel/air is able to be crammed into a cylinder, which equates to how much fuel is burned and ultimately exhausted out the tailpipe. a 650 can burn more than twice as much fuel as a 250.
Posting charts doesn't support your argument. Again!
You'll have to take the blinders off to see that the Enertia is a toy and there is no proof provided, considering it's total life cycle will leave less an impact over the course of it's usefull life compared to a similar powered properly tuned gas engine. I've got 15+ years of use out of my 250. I doubt even a Prius will get that sort of longevity.
Emissions is only part of the equation.
There is a big difference in displacement = how much fuel/air is able to be crammed into a cylinder, which equates to how much fuel is burned and ultimately exhausted out the tailpipe. a 650 can burn more than twice as much fuel as a 250.
Posting charts doesn't support your argument. Again!
You'll have to take the blinders off to see that the Enertia is a toy and there is no proof provided, considering it's total life cycle will leave less an impact over the course of it's usefull life compared to a similar powered properly tuned gas engine. I've got 15+ years of use out of my 250. I doubt even a Prius will get that sort of longevity.
Emissions is only part of the equation.
My data is the measured data directly from the EPA 06 results posted on the EPA website sorted by HC test, its a screenshot from excel. I've never looked at any of the Enertia or Tesla literature.
It clearly shows that merely looking at displacement does not determine emissions - there is not a big difference like you again claimed.
[1]: jimmydean was pointing out that your 250cc 4-stroke probably has about the same amount of emissions control equipment (that is, none) as a 4-stroke lawnmower. care to contest this?
[2]: the chart that syadasti posted is the actual lowest greenhouse gas emissions recorded by motorcycles from the EPA. notice how there is NOT a correlation between displacement and GHG emissions. this should be patently obvious already from the car world, where the Prius, with a non-negligible displacement compared to other cares nevertheless is able to come up with near-negligible GHG emissions.
[3] and [4]: you're right, both life-cycle energy use (this includes production!) and greenhouse gas emissions are important, and both should be weighed. i believe that this passage that i quote from the MIT energy lab paper should put these concerns to rest.
starting from the bottom of 1-17 on the MIT paper: http://www.cleanairnet.org/transport/1754/articles-69297_resource_1.pdf
MIT Energy Lab paper said:1.5 Energy Use and Emissions in Vehicle Manufacturing
[...]
In addition to these fuel cycle losses, a complete
life cycle analysis shows that there are additional energy losses incurred in manufacturing the
vehicle, so-called embodied losses. They can be significant too and should not be
overlooked. For our designs, embodied energy consumption ranges from 13% (for the
baseline vehicle) to as much as 53% (for the battery-electric vehicle) of the energy in the fuel
loaded into the tank over the life of the vehicle. [...] This section deals with vehicle
manufacturing energy use and emissions and how they might change as a result of
introducing new vehicle technologies.
[...]
1.6.2 Life Cycle Energy Use and GHG Emissions
Energy use and GHG emissions can also be combined by adding the three different stages of
the life cycle, again using the data from sections 1.3 to 1.5 which cover the fuel cycle,
vehicle operation, and vehicle manufacturing (embodied energy and emissions). Table 1.14
shows the results. We assume that embodied energy and emissions are prorated over the
vehicles lifetime, 15 years at 20,000 km per year. Also, we assume that 95% of vehicle
metals and 50% of vehicle plastics are recycled. These rates are higher than current practice,
but recycling is likely to increase in the future, especially if manufacturers are required to
accept responsibility for scrapped vehicles. In any case, the relative ranking of technologies
will not be affected since the same level of recycling is assumed for all.
a couple of points distilled by me from the quoted section:
1) life cycle is defined as 20,000 km/yr x 15 yrs.
2) a high level of recycling is assumed, but they importantly note that "the relative ranking of technologies will not be affected since the same level of recycling is assumed for all". in other words the numbers would be different but the ranking the same if lower levels of recycling were in effect.
3) table 1-14 accounts for total life-cycle energy use, INCLUDING MANUFACTURE of the car. here is the ranking:
By total life-cycle energy use, lowest->highest:
By total greenhouse gas emissions, lowest->highest:
The difference between the mower and MC are obvious, Mower engines are usually cheap with low machining tolerances, no adjustable valves, timing etc... The 250 MC is tuned on a regular basis to run and idle efficiently, a mower, isn't usually tuned until it won't start. My MC is tuned to burn the air/fuel mixture on the lean side, spewing less unburned fuel out the tailpipe. Thus it pollutes far less than mower. Tuning and efficiency are another part of the overall picture if you can't adjust valve timing, igniton timing etc then there is nothing you can do to improve the efficiency of the engine. It's difficult to make an accurate comparison.
Still not seeing real world products in the above charts, how many hybrid hydrogen fuel cell (FC)-electric vehicles did toyota or any other mfg's put on the road last year? Too much work to determine if someone else's methodology is applicable, correct or just not slanted for their agenda. Maybe you could highlight and paraphrase for me since you seem to like to read that sort of thing. Yeah cliff notes would be nice.
So my dirtbike pollutes more than a car, might as well rule out all the cars w/o catalytic converters still on the road. Then discount all the cars with aftermarket exhaust, or just worn out catalytic converters. I agree that it pollutes less than a new honda accord or like vehicles that get 30+mpg
Still not convinced that if my bike burns 100 gallons per year that a 20mpg car is going to burn 600 gallons on the same milage that the MC is less green. Even though I am burning alot less fuel.
But thats no matter I'm not gonna sell it and trade it for an unproven technology at a cost that is 8 times as much, When the engine is tired and weak I'll spend 300.00 in parts and overhaul the engine so I can get another 5,10,20 years out of it. I'll continue to chuckle as I see these toys on the internet. However I'll take a look if they end up in a dealership with a service dept at a price comparable to an equivalent motorcycle.
In the end I know the less we support coal fired power the less greenhouse gasses will produced, miner deaths reduced, destruction of watersheds will also be reduced.
That can also be said for our brothers and sisters fighting for our right to fuel up and drive 100.00 per week Excursions, Escalades and Silverado's They wouldn't be there if there wasn't money to be made selling Americans fuel for their gas guzzlers.
In the end you can't just count the pollutants that come out of the tailpipe. There are to many variables in the manufacture and delivery of electric and gas powered vehicles That the above chart doesn't address.
So after all this back and forth banter I realize that I'm not going to change my stance on electric vehicles in the near future. I would hope there is a way down the pipe to decrease fossil fuel use, not create nuclear waste, and still be able to stay connected, travel and enjoy life as we know it. Right now it seems pretty hopeless and most people just don't care and will continue to spend what they earn on stuff to make themselves feel better.
As for the motorcycle it's not as green as I am hyping it. I ride it on trails encourage erosion and create a small amount of noise pollution. I've even cut a few trails with it for my mtn bike, So all in all I'll be the first to admit I am a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to being environmentally responsible and fossil fuel toys. But I do recycle, ride my bicycle instead of driving, not buy plastic toys from Sprawlmartvand make little considerations like not burning scrap wood with paint on it, because I know the devil is in the details.
Still not seeing real world products in the above charts, how many hybrid hydrogen fuel cell (FC)-electric vehicles did toyota or any other mfg's put on the road last year? Too much work to determine if someone else's methodology is applicable, correct or just not slanted for their agenda. Maybe you could highlight and paraphrase for me since you seem to like to read that sort of thing. Yeah cliff notes would be nice.
So my dirtbike pollutes more than a car, might as well rule out all the cars w/o catalytic converters still on the road. Then discount all the cars with aftermarket exhaust, or just worn out catalytic converters. I agree that it pollutes less than a new honda accord or like vehicles that get 30+mpg
Still not convinced that if my bike burns 100 gallons per year that a 20mpg car is going to burn 600 gallons on the same milage that the MC is less green. Even though I am burning alot less fuel.
But thats no matter I'm not gonna sell it and trade it for an unproven technology at a cost that is 8 times as much, When the engine is tired and weak I'll spend 300.00 in parts and overhaul the engine so I can get another 5,10,20 years out of it. I'll continue to chuckle as I see these toys on the internet. However I'll take a look if they end up in a dealership with a service dept at a price comparable to an equivalent motorcycle.
In the end I know the less we support coal fired power the less greenhouse gasses will produced, miner deaths reduced, destruction of watersheds will also be reduced.
That can also be said for our brothers and sisters fighting for our right to fuel up and drive 100.00 per week Excursions, Escalades and Silverado's They wouldn't be there if there wasn't money to be made selling Americans fuel for their gas guzzlers.
In the end you can't just count the pollutants that come out of the tailpipe. There are to many variables in the manufacture and delivery of electric and gas powered vehicles That the above chart doesn't address.
So after all this back and forth banter I realize that I'm not going to change my stance on electric vehicles in the near future. I would hope there is a way down the pipe to decrease fossil fuel use, not create nuclear waste, and still be able to stay connected, travel and enjoy life as we know it. Right now it seems pretty hopeless and most people just don't care and will continue to spend what they earn on stuff to make themselves feel better.
As for the motorcycle it's not as green as I am hyping it. I ride it on trails encourage erosion and create a small amount of noise pollution. I've even cut a few trails with it for my mtn bike, So all in all I'll be the first to admit I am a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to being environmentally responsible and fossil fuel toys. But I do recycle, ride my bicycle instead of driving, not buy plastic toys from Sprawlmartvand make little considerations like not burning scrap wood with paint on it, because I know the devil is in the details.
I still find it funny you call the Enertia a toy yet you ride a 250cc.
Considering the emissions of a motorcycle are bad regardless of displacement, the LEAST you could do is step up to a real bike and not a glorified scooter.
(my bike puts out 140hp at the wheel and gets around 45mpg on average)
Wow 140hp? I didn't buy a bike to make up for inadequacies in my life. Economy and versatility is my modus operandi
The 250 is the best choice for my application, a dualsport commuter, it does 70mph, off roads well enough to keep me out of trouble and at the most costs 9 dollars a week for fuel. I can climb anything with the 250 that I could with a 400. Plus I'd rather have a lighter more maneuverable woods bike without running a 2stroke.
I've owned several street bikes, Including a GSXR 750. I don't need to to hit speeds of 170 ever again, The power was fun but It came with a price fortunately I never had any accidents but a few close calls, 250.00 per year in tires, chain and sprockets plus tuning expense, a hailstorm, stupid drivers and and the fact big bikes are money pits. I"d much rather travel in a car I can sleep in, and throw all the money I save in maintenance into a bike/ski quiver and beer.
The 250 is the best choice for my application, a dualsport commuter, it does 70mph, off roads well enough to keep me out of trouble and at the most costs 9 dollars a week for fuel. I can climb anything with the 250 that I could with a 400. Plus I'd rather have a lighter more maneuverable woods bike without running a 2stroke.
I've owned several street bikes, Including a GSXR 750. I don't need to to hit speeds of 170 ever again, The power was fun but It came with a price fortunately I never had any accidents but a few close calls, 250.00 per year in tires, chain and sprockets plus tuning expense, a hailstorm, stupid drivers and and the fact big bikes are money pits. I"d much rather travel in a car I can sleep in, and throw all the money I save in maintenance into a bike/ski quiver and beer.
I decided to replace my Supra with something that got better mileage, but still had kick. I've never taken it over 100 (it's naked, so 90 feels like 150) and so far it has cost me a total of $2200 (purchase price + upgrades).
I sold my Husaberg FC400 (bought for $1000, sold it for $2500 2 years later) to buy my FZ1 (bought at auction for $1500, retails for $4000). I'm 6'4" 230#, a 250 is still a scooter to me. I'm a cheap bastard, but I do enjoy nice things. I do all my own work on my bike and I buy my tires on sale. My bike is the furthest thing from a money pit.
I sold my Husaberg FC400 (bought for $1000, sold it for $2500 2 years later) to buy my FZ1 (bought at auction for $1500, retails for $4000). I'm 6'4" 230#, a 250 is still a scooter to me. I'm a cheap bastard, but I do enjoy nice things. I do all my own work on my bike and I buy my tires on sale. My bike is the furthest thing from a money pit.
Thanks for letting me know at 6'4 230 there won't be anymore smarta$$ remarks coming your way from me. At 5'9" 180lbs I'm lucky I don't need a ton of power to pull me up hills. I bought a YZ 250 at 5'7" and 125 lbs when I was 15. Found out my buddies kx125 was way easier to handle in the air. The YZ was definitely the hill climb champ in our crowd. My DR250 would look ridiculous under someone your size.
another urban transport option. would be easier to charge, too...
http://news.windingroad.com/concept-cars/more-than-meets-the-eye-the-transforming-roboscooter/
http://news.windingroad.com/concept-cars/more-than-meets-the-eye-the-transforming-roboscooter/
windingroad.com said:
a new tool: calculate how much CO2 you'd save by commuting on an Enertia:
http://www.enertiabike.com/component/option,com_trip_view/Itemid,46/
my own personal enthusiasm has waned, mainly because i'll be too poor to afford both this, a car, and housing.
http://www.enertiabike.com/component/option,com_trip_view/Itemid,46/
my own personal enthusiasm has waned, mainly because i'll be too poor to afford both this, a car, and housing.
Still not as nice as electric, but I did come across this over the weekend:
Flex Fuel conversion for EFI motorcycles
The setup is about $300 and takes less than an hour to install. After 3 tanks of gas (full regular/ half and half/full e85), it's fully mapped and off you go.
It makes me rethink my Buell based chopper project as EFI in order to make a true FFM.
<edit> They make a kit for cars/trucks as well, but my goal is an e85 chopper.
Flex Fuel conversion for EFI motorcycles
The setup is about $300 and takes less than an hour to install. After 3 tanks of gas (full regular/ half and half/full e85), it's fully mapped and off you go.
It makes me rethink my Buell based chopper project as EFI in order to make a true FFM.
<edit> They make a kit for cars/trucks as well, but my goal is an e85 chopper.
resurrecting an old thread...
A lot of people are talking about tailpipe emissions, which is important obviously, but couldn't that be improved dramatically with proper catalytic converters on more motorcycles? Or is that as a direct result of the type of motor and it's inherent efficiency?
For example, how does a Honda Fit motor compare to a Honda Vulcan (or Goldwing?) Motor of similar displacement as far as full efficiency and emissions etc? Does the Vulcan have a catalytic converter? I believe the Fit has at least two if not more cats. I guess I'm wondering if motorcycles were subject to the same emissions equipment standards as cars are would that improve their standing? Or are they already very similar equipment-wise?...
A lot of people are talking about tailpipe emissions, which is important obviously, but couldn't that be improved dramatically with proper catalytic converters on more motorcycles? Or is that as a direct result of the type of motor and it's inherent efficiency?
For example, how does a Honda Fit motor compare to a Honda Vulcan (or Goldwing?) Motor of similar displacement as far as full efficiency and emissions etc? Does the Vulcan have a catalytic converter? I believe the Fit has at least two if not more cats. I guess I'm wondering if motorcycles were subject to the same emissions equipment standards as cars are would that improve their standing? Or are they already very similar equipment-wise?...
sean, post #102 shows that motorcycle emissions are all over the map, quasi-independent of displacement. this is just one of the indications that motorcycles and cars are not similar at all in terms of emissions equipment and standards, besides all the other dreck in this thread.
so would fitting car-type emissions controls on motorcycles work? i don't think motorcycle motors run with such weird parameters (A:F ratio, etc.) as compared to cars that such equipment wouldn't work, but i defer to Westy and others with more direct knowledge.
so would fitting car-type emissions controls on motorcycles work? i don't think motorcycle motors run with such weird parameters (A:F ratio, etc.) as compared to cars that such equipment wouldn't work, but i defer to Westy and others with more direct knowledge.
Yesterday as I was commuting home on my bike saw one of these. the guy was on the side of the road on his cell phone. as I approached he was just finishing up so I talked with him about it for a few minutes and he showed it off to me . It was really Cool! I want one!!!
They are all over here, but they are also located about 2 miles from my office. I want one, too.