Comments on: Think Motorcycles and Scooters are Great for the Environment? Wrong!

By: donate car canada

donate car canada — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:30:05 +0000

why don’t you just guys jog or do bicycle for a change… you talk about pollution control and emission lessening tool but in real life you drive a drinker and a belcher… scoot or car you still smoke, except those electric one and hybrids but the point is, still carbon footprint is emitted by these…

By: ritasloan

ritasloan — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:40:35 +0000

E-scooters are more enjoyable and fun fetching that even elders finds the chance to use it, as it is adjustable to any height. Now we can say it is the desire of the man of any age. With these scooters, one can ride on the plane roads or off roads; it has added one more kind of fun in life’s of today's trend. Electric Scooter is smaller, light in weight and requires less parking place.

By: Savings and Self-Sufficiency with Homemade Laundry Detergent, by Carla « 123 Blogblog

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:04:07 +0000

[...] Top 5 Canadian Inventionsnot the jet set: February 2008Torry Holt Released – NYJetsFan.com ForumsThink Motorcycles and Scooters are Great for the Environment …Dennisjudd.com: December 2005 ArchivesMs. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action at Hugo [...]

By: J.Nicol

J.Nicol — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:52:44 +0000

bikes and scooters are far better for the environment than cars as cars take up more space and have larger fuel tanks which means that cars give out more CO2 emissions as they consume more fuel. the people who say that bikes are bad for the environment are WRONG, it also helps to resolve the hunt for parking spaces big enough for wide cars or people carriers. i thinkpeople need to reconsider how they see the environment being impacted first before judging what affects it and what doesn’t. at the end of the day everything affects the environment in some way but bikes and scooters are the least ones that affect it. i would know, my dad was a bike mechanic and my sister is one now, i’ve been on bikes since i was 8 years old and am now 19, i know a bike inside out, and my mum is also a biker, we have friends who are bikers and bike mechanics as well. BIKES ARE THE LEAST THINGS FOR AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. end of.

By: Jacob Aziza

Jacob Aziza — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:53:49 +0000

This was mentioned once among the 70 something comments, but I’m not sure how well it was understood.

The standard test for auto exhaust does not measure the “amount” of pollution an engine emits.
It measures the percentage
ppm stands for parts per million; in other words, of 1 million units of air, how many units of a given pollutant.

The test does not take into account how much total exhaust is flowing.

If a vehicle gets twice the mpg an another, but also produces twice as much pollution in ppm, then driven over a given distance both will emit the exact same total amount of pollutants.

Therefor, the larger the engine, the more total pollutants it can emit while still having low numbers on the test.

By: Austin Tucker

Austin Tucker — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:54:31 +0000

hi
i really think who ever wrote out this article, has very little idea of what he/she is talking about. Yes, two strokes are more pollutant than four strokes. Will not deny this fact. I ride a two stroke.(two smoker) I have seen the smoke/exuahst it puts into the air, but i think the writer is missing the point. If my dirt bike (2005 honda cr 85r) can get around 40 mpg and an suv around 15-20mpg’s… can you please tell me who is more pollutant? Im 15 but when i was 3 i knew that 40 is bigger than 20.
A scooter that is 2cycle gets around 60 mph’s. I ride a racing motorcycle, but i dont ride it every day. A SUV will be driven almost every day. So please correct me if im wrong but, SUVs are using ALOT more gasoline than motorcyles.

So the part in the article that says two strokes are so pollutant because they burn motor oil. Thats about 50% accurate. Yes they burn oil, but it is a special kind of mixing oil, not motor oil. The 2 cycle mixing oil is (not a 100%accurate guess but pretty dang close) 60% less pollutant, it is a cleaner/leaner burner than motor oil.

And to the writer of this article, please email me where you found your information. I would love to correct them to.

ps: To the offroad riders and anybody else that wants to help the issue please help me in keeping our orv parks and our riding trails open. Lets beat these people that have stolen our riding areas. OUR RIGHTFUL RIDING AREAS. So if you want to help me save our areas and SHUT THESE ENVIORMENTALISTS UP! please visit any website or club to help keep us on the trails!
If you have any questions or arguments, i would love to hear em.
speedydemond05@yahoo.com
thanks

By: Your worst nightmare

Your worst nightmare — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:47:21 +0000

hi
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!!!
i am a hardcore motorcycle rider! a two stroke rider as a matter of fact.
i have done studies. many many studies. Two strokes aren’t as bad as you think!
yes they burn oil, but its a special oil. not motor oil.

SO IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE A WHOLE f@#$ING ARTICLE ABOUT MOTORCYLES.. LEARN THE FACTS BEFORE YOU POST!!!!!

if you have any complaints or would like to tell me why motorcycles are soo bad.. i would love to hear about it. please e-mail me if you think you can prove me wrong.
speedydemond05@yahoo.com
ps: stop closing down my trails!!!!

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:03:43 +0000

The President is only interested in the CO2 emissions and not the other pollutants that come from motorcycles. CO2 emissions cause global warming. Automobiles are a major problem to CO2 emissions. If the President thought more CO2 emissions was created by scooters, well he would be stricter on scooter manufacturers. But he is not.. Why is this? Could be because in 2010 all motorcycles and scooters manufacturered will have catylatic converters on them? That the EPA has already made this mandatoy? In 2006, my Bali 250 was required by the EPA to have a catylatic converter on it. If this be true, my scooter is cleaner burning than a car. Read it on the EPA under motorcycles and scooters. Now a 2 stroke engine is bad on the enviroment, but my Bali 250 is a 4 stroke. So to say the scooter is worse than a car maybe actually false. And I get better gas milage than the 2010 Chevy Volt hybrid on my Bali 250. The Chevy Volt on the electric end only travels 40 miles per charge and converts to gas getting 30 mph or better( but I bet most Chevy Volt’s get 30 mpg).

By: Basisrente

Basisrente — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:10:49 +0000

Really nice scooter!

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:56:28 +0000

I had no idea how much motorcycles had such a big impact towards r earth…i always wanted 2 ride 1 be4 and i finally did it was fun..but is it worth it. There dangerous towards accidents and the enviroment :0 i’m doing a project on how motorcycles have a impact on the enviroment… and they really do…thanks 4 the info

By: Allan Hardy

Allan Hardy — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:53:41 +0000

Electric vehicles are the way forward. Okay cars are not there yet, but electric scooters can match their gasoline counterparts. They now go up to 62 miles per hour and have a range of between 30 and 60 miles. I guess what we really need is for ‘battery stations’ where you can swap your dead battery for a live one. They’re already trying this in Denmark and there’s a scheme to be launched in Hawaii.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:03:38 +0000

I didn’t read all 68 replies, so someone may have already pointed it out.

While HC and CO emissions may be higher, because of the lack of a catalytic converter on many models, CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions, are much lower per mile travelled, as compared to a automobile with a single occupant.

By: Bart Jannis

Bart Jannis — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:14:41 +0000

Al motorcycles that are sold in Europe have to be EURO3 and from 2010 they have to be EURO4. The Californian emision standards aren’t even EURO2

By: Scooters/Motorcycles Pollute more than Cars? at Atypical Spirituality

Scooters/Motorcycles Pollute more than Cars? at Atypical Spirituality — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:43:21 +0000

[...] Ecomodder.com Idaho Statesman LA Times [...]

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:58:10 +0000

That is a very interesting point, and is born out by the instantaneous temp rise that occurred after 9/11 when the majority of air flight was cut!

By: ravinglunatic

ravinglunatic — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:25:20 +0000

Perhaps it bears repeating that if we were cut particulate emissions too quickly, it is possible to lose the cushioning effect that global dimming has had. This may eliminate or reduce its estimated climate forcing effect of ~−2.7 ± 0.9 W/m against the Forcing effect of global warming @ ~4.3 ± 0.6 W/m2, or net effect of ~1.6 ± 1.1 W/m2. In layman’s terms, this means a significant loss or reduction in the dimming forces can result in accelerated warming, as those emissions are easier to eliminate than warming forces. I have included a link to article I have based my comments on.

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14778.full

By: marvingalaxy

marvingalaxy — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:48:09 +0000

I live in Hawaii and 4-stroke scooters are rare. Oddly, the only one I have found for sale was a generic Chinese model. Except for the almost non-existent larger scooter-body motorcycles, all the <50cc scooters here seem to be oil burners (2-stroke) and about half of the thousands of these on the road every day have loud muffler modifications.

Perhaps California has different regulations, but we have thousands of these 2-stroke nightmares here keeping people up at night and stinking up the city.

By: Charles Overstreet

Charles Overstreet — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:33:09 +0000

I think your nuts. Your can’t put all scooters in the same classification. Have you ever heard of a Vectrix Electric Scooters. No exhaust, no oil use, no belts. No hydrocarbons.

By: Ricky Willems

Ricky Willems — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:10:34 +0000

Hey Neil,
Again, I’d like to continue this, but I think email might be a more appropriate way to do it? If you email me at my name (rickywillems) at google mail then we can continue without highjacking this poor guys post any further.

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:15:46 +0000

Ricky,
You are still missing the point. the cats are burning fuel that does not need to be burnt. and there is the problem of the cats themselves, you keep ignoring the environmental impact of making and disposing of those too, and they by legislation are fitted to every car, your rather facile argument of people carrying an extra 20 lbs of weight around their middle is kind of stupid, as there are a lot of underweight or small people too but besides that the point is the vehicle is their transport, that is what it is for, to carry them and their fat around! then you have the cheek to finish the paragraph saying: “All of these have considerably more impact on both weight and fuel consumption that a catalytic converter system.” Aircon does, 20lb exta weight doesn’t. Aircon although extravagent is there for the comfort of the passengers, which is what the car is there for too, they dont have to have a car, it just makes life so much easier.
As to the high performance exhaust statement, cars are fitted with high performance exhausts because manufacturers are competing against each other for fuel economy and performance, so exhaust systems usually have an expansion box type silencer, which acts almost like the end of the pipe (pressure wave reflecting off free air) this is the same reason that air intake boxes are so big, and the Cat has to be fitted much closer to the engine than the first box is which is another reason it mucks up the resonance.
So Im sorry the new muffler will not have a far bigger impact than a Cat, quite the reverse.
Sorry didn’t understand what you meant when you said very few vehicle get 40 mpg but that it averaged 48?
You keep refering to lean burn, as though it is somehow deficient! The technology already exists fully fledged! and does not require bigger or heavier or noisier or strange engines in any way, it just requires the appropriate legislation.
Re. the Nox emmissions, yes all high temp combustion produces it, are you going to fit Cats to jet engines?(which makes the amount cars use look silly) Also lean burn engines produce negligable amounts of the highly toxic carbon monoxide less carbon dioxide and negligable amounts of unburnt hydrocarbons, so when you tell the whole story, it doesn’t sound quite so ironic does it? Also as I said in a previous post, lean burn engine (NOx) emmissions are not nearly as bad as the pro cat lobby implied. And Cats give off hydrogen sulphide and ammonia amongst other things, so choose your poison, Quite apart from the large list of heavy metals that they contain!
And your final comment about what cats use being a drop in the ocean with the implication so why worry, is exactly the sort of attitude that got the world in the mess it is in, so leave those lightbulbs burning in the rooms you are not in, after all what difference does a 60 watt lightbulb make, I mean, it would have to be on for nearly seventeen hours just to use one unit of electricity, such an insignificant amount?