|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 9, 2008, 7:43 PM
Post #76 of 84
(838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
j_ung wrote: crimpandgo wrote: saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. And an economic problem, and a foreign relations problem, and, oh... actually, yes, it is also an environmental problem.
I addressed this one about 10 replies ago. I agreed it is an environmental problem.
I was really referring to peoples mindset when they worry about gas economy. I tend to believe most people are only worried about how much its going to cost them then what it does to the environment. conservationists take advantage of the high price of gas nowadays to remind people that there is an environmental issue as well.
My point was.. for every plus, there is always a minus.
Plus, riding a motorcycle -- saves gas.. good on your wallet and the environment
minus - motorcycles have less emissions thus polute more.... bad for the environment.
the discussion should center on which one outways the other......
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 9, 2008, 10:11 PM
Post #77 of 84
(820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I don't think the OP was asking about cars vs. motorcycles.... so the discussion shouldn't necessarily be on that.(joking)
I know that, for myself, my thinking has changed on the car issue recently.
- A few months ago I was thinking that I might buy a minvan that gets like 17mpg
- Then I realized that was a bad idea. One, because of the cost. But also, because I really do believe in this credo: "Reduce our Use!"(of petroleum products).
This is not just about gas, but goes as fas as one's imagination will allow. we literally consume oil! Consider that many ingredients in processed foods and health care products contain items like polysorbate 60..... We eat oil. Like I said - literally.
And I do believe that our current rampage in the middle east is about securing another country's oil. That's not cool, in my book. How would "we" like it of some other country said "ya know what? We trashed our wilderness areas....but you all still have some nice wildlands. We're coming over and grabbing Alaska, Montana and Utah, dammit! And Yosemite, just to show you we mean business."
I don't like the idea that soldiers who signed up for a tour are being forced to soldier on through stop-loss methods. And I surely do not support the killing of civilians as collateral damage. If I do nothing - I AM tacitly supporting those things.
I need to out my money where my mouth is, and how I am doing that is through reduced use. Refusing purchases that I know add to our oil consumption as/when I can. As I learn more, I will understand how i can further reduce, and I will, most likely, become more willing to sacrifice in areas that I currently am not so willing(like getting to the Gunks......).
So, my 17mpg vehicle idea went to being an idea of purchasing the smallest most high mileage car i could find, figuring that would be like a Honda Golf or something(hadn't looked into as the time was still in the disatnt.
NOW I am thinking - Do I REALLY need that car? And the answer is....No, I don't. I'm lucky in that the deal I had last season is still going to work, for a while at least. I take mass transit to 20 miles from the cliffs and then have a person pick me up for the rest of the trip. She drives one of those 40+ mpg cars, which is helpful.
While I WISH I could be like the guy I mentioned, biking form the same train depot.... I do have my dog along, and that is part of the equation.
So....I think it's important for us all to look within our selves, and not necessarily at others. And do what we can do.
Some people don't feel there's a problem, and can afford to spend what they will. Some people care, but aren't ready, willing and/or able to reduce. Some are making efforts. Some are making an impact. It is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Apr 11, 2008, 2:23 AM
Post #78 of 84
(785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
crimpandgo wrote: If you look at the fuel economy of some of the newer cars lately, you will find that the average motorcycle isn't even more fuel efficient. My fjr1300 gets about 40mpg. Many cars are getting that economy nowadays
That is a horrible example. You are driving a 4 cylinder, 1298cc motorcycle that weights over 500 lbs! Of course it is going to have horrible gas milage. There are plenty of motorcycles on the road that get twice the gas economy of that.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 12, 2008, 5:15 AM
Post #79 of 84
(762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
joeforte wrote: crimpandgo wrote: If you look at the fuel economy of some of the newer cars lately, you will find that the average motorcycle isn't even more fuel efficient. My fjr1300 gets about 40mpg. Many cars are getting that economy nowadays That is a horrible example. You are driving a 4 cylinder, 1298cc motorcycle that weights over 500 lbs! Of course it is going to have horrible gas milage. There are plenty of motorcycles on the road that get twice the gas economy of that.
That is your opinion. It all depends on the type of riding you do. I owned a bike like yours for many years. I enjoyed it for short trips. they suck for longer distances. If you like it. Have at it.
I wasn't using my bike as a model, just an example. the average bike on the road is somewhere in the middle.
Not sure why you are so negative. I am not and have not been trying to contradict you. I was simply bringing up another point that most people are completely unaware of.
Lighten up.
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Apr 13, 2008, 3:00 AM
Post #80 of 84
(736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
I lot of your statements have been far stretches, and some flat out untrue. That is why I am being negative.
crimpandgo wrote:
If you look at the fuel economy of some of the newer cars lately, you will find that the average motorcycle isn't even more fuel efficient.
That is a false statement. On average, bikes are way more fuel efficient. Simple physics. 400lb bike vs. 4000 lb car.
Look, this guy is just trying to find a cheap efficient way to get to the crags. A small motorcycle is a great choice.
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Apr 14, 2008, 4:00 PM
Post #81 of 84
(712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
happiegirl....they let you take your dog on the bus/subway/whatever? That's pretty cool....I'm surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 14, 2008, 4:06 PM
Post #82 of 84
(708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
joeforte wrote: I lot of your statements have been far stretches, and some flat out untrue. That is why I am being negative. crimpandgo wrote: If you look at the fuel economy of some of the newer cars lately, you will find that the average motorcycle isn't even more fuel efficient. That is a false statement. On average, bikes are way more fuel efficient. Simple physics. 400lb bike vs. 4000 lb car. Look, this guy is just trying to find a cheap efficient way to get to the crags. A small motorcycle is a great choice.
Whatever dude. 
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 14, 2008, 4:16 PM
Post #83 of 84
(704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
tradrenn wrote: shockabuku wrote: tradrenn wrote: Just to piss you off.  Gas in Burnaby is about $1.20-1.25 but it is only $1.10 in Squamish, so I go there just fill my tank up, and then there is climbing. per liter? Yes That would be $1.10 x 3.78 = $4.16 per gallon.
Factor in that the Looney is worth more than the US Dollar and you get $4.16 x 1.02 = $4.24. Don't short yourself up there. You have buying power now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
