|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 8, 2008, 7:46 PM
Post #51 of 84
(1496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
joeforte wrote: I don't have much to brag about my firm athletic ass, but I DO drive a XR250 dual sport motor cycle. My girlfriend drives an NX250 dual sport. Mine gets 65mpg, her 75mpg. They were both under $1000 used. There are many great dual sports to be had out there for around a grand or so. Search: klr250, NX250, XR250 XL250, TW200, ect... With a dual sport bike, you can get off the road and camp where ever you want. It's very nice to have offroad capability as a climber ya know? With a dual sport, you don't even need a road or a trail even. As long as your handlebars fit between the trees, you're good to go! I think everyone capable of driving one, should own a motorcycle/dualsport. One nice days, you can leave your car at home and save a ton on gas. I have an hour commute to and from work every day. My truck costs $15 a day, my bike costs $4 a day. My bike saves me $55 a week in gas! And on top of it all, it's way better for the environment. Consider a small motorcycle man, and if you have any questions about them, PM me. You have to define "way better for the environment".. Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. Cars are actually increadably clean burning nowadays. The majority of polution comes from dust and small motor equipment like lawnmowers and off road vehicles.. Yes, that includes dirt bikes. don't get me wrong. I ride my motorcycle almost everyday to save gas.... but I still wish the "small motor" industry would spend some time implementing emmissions for these vehicles.. Cheers
(This post was edited by crimpandgo on Apr 8, 2008, 7:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Apr 8, 2008, 9:06 PM
Post #52 of 84
(1475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
crimpandgo wrote: Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. Cars are actually increadably clean burning nowadays. The majority of polution comes from dust and small motor equipment like lawnmowers and off road vehicles.. Yes, that includes dirt bikes. This demands a source. I call BS.
|
|
|
|
|
calvin1564
Apr 8, 2008, 10:06 PM
Post #53 of 84
(1464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2004
Posts: 6
|
Sorry for your pain, but truthfully, I want gas prices to spike astronomically. America is the great spoiled bratdom of this world. Until we REALLY feel the pinch, we won't do anything about it. And you can be certain the auto industry/petrol industry won't do anything about it; and G. W. Bush? PLEASE!! I live in the LA area and would love a REAL public transit system. This thing we have is crap. Last comment, let NOTHING stand in the way of climbing! (easy for me to say, right? I live 12 miles from the Arrowhead Pinnacles, can be in Joshua Tree in under an hour, and make a decent bit of $ - but it wasn't always that way...)
|
|
|
|
|
hopperhopper
Apr 8, 2008, 10:18 PM
Post #54 of 84
(1459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 475
|
granite_grrl wrote: Astros aren't Ford, they were Chevy. MY BAD! Good catch. I got confused, his vans were Ford Aerostars.
|
|
|
|
|
kaputt
Apr 8, 2008, 10:36 PM
Post #55 of 84
(1453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2007
Posts: 2
|
I ride my bike everyday, and if I could, I would ride it to the crags, j_ung. Unfortunately, it takes me about 12 hours by bike. That would be Saturday. Sunday I would ride back. Doesn't leave much time for climbing. I intend to move to an area within bike distance of good climbing. btw, I have ridden my bike out there, but it was a bike trip of course, not a climbing trip.
(This post was edited by kaputt on Apr 8, 2008, 10:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Apr 9, 2008, 2:58 AM
Post #56 of 84
(1432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
crimpandgo wrote: You have to define "way better for the environment".. Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. They are better for the environment BECAUSE they use less gas. Did you forget oil is finite? Besides, a 250cc motor is 10 times smaller than a 2.5 liter engine, which is small by todays car standards. Is the car putting out 10 times less emissions per liter? Not by today's standards. Most greenhouse gasses come from cattle anyway, so I'm WAY more concerned with saving gas, which is what this thread is about. Get a dual sport. My XR250 takes me AND my girlfriend to the crag, and will do 70mph on the highway with two ppl. no prob. It's definitely more fun on twisty dirt roads though!
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 9, 2008, 4:01 PM
Post #57 of 84
(1400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
joeforte wrote: crimpandgo wrote: You have to define "way better for the environment".. Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. They are better for the environment BECAUSE they use less gas. Did you forget oil is finite? Besides, a 250cc motor is 10 times smaller than a 2.5 liter engine, which is small by todays car standards. Is the car putting out 10 times less emissions per liter? Not by today's standards. Most greenhouse gasses come from cattle anyway, so I'm WAY more concerned with saving gas, which is what this thread is about. Get a dual sport. My XR250 takes me AND my girlfriend to the crag, and will do 70mph on the highway with two ppl. no prob. It's definitely more fun on twisty dirt roads though! saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. size of the engine is also not important. There is a huge push to get rid of gas powered lawn mowers and lawn equipment because they put out 10 times the polution than a car....even though the engine size is ten times smaller... I ride on a daily basis. I like it and it is more gas economical. But that solves a personal problem not an environmental problem. I was in Italy recently and was just floored by what polution had done to all the historical buildings. They spend Millions of dollars cleaning these buildings up on a regular basis. If you take a survey, the majority of people in Italy use small motorcycles and Mopeds that all have a stream of black smoke coming out the back. Just bringing a point up that has been a peeve of mine for a while since I love bikes too.. the industry needs to do more about cleaning up the smaller engines as well. Otherwise we will have a bigger problem when everyone switches over to them because gas prices are so high.. If you question thoughts, check with your local power company. Many are offering rebates if you will turn in your gas powered lawn tools.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 9, 2008, 4:11 PM
Post #58 of 84
(1395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
angry wrote: crimpandgo wrote: Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. Cars are actually increadably clean burning nowadays. The majority of polution comes from dust and small motor equipment like lawnmowers and off road vehicles.. Yes, that includes dirt bikes. This demands a source. I call BS. Angry, I am not an expert on this matter. Just a motorcycle enthusiast who feels a little guilty at times. Here is a quick link I found on line. but there are many more if you choose to search. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/motorcycles_emi.html this study is a few years old, but not much has changed and most starving students are going to buy a new bike anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Apr 9, 2008, 4:19 PM
Post #59 of 84
(1392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
crimpandgo wrote: joeforte wrote: crimpandgo wrote: You have to define "way better for the environment".. Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. They are better for the environment BECAUSE they use less gas. Did you forget oil is finite? Besides, a 250cc motor is 10 times smaller than a 2.5 liter engine, which is small by todays car standards. Is the car putting out 10 times less emissions per liter? Not by today's standards. Most greenhouse gasses come from cattle anyway, so I'm WAY more concerned with saving gas, which is what this thread is about. Get a dual sport. My XR250 takes me AND my girlfriend to the crag, and will do 70mph on the highway with two ppl. no prob. It's definitely more fun on twisty dirt roads though! saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. size of the engine is also not important. There is a huge push to get rid of gas powered lawn mowers and lawn equipment because they put out 10 times the polution than a car....even though the engine size is ten times smaller... I ride on a daily basis. I like it and it is more gas economical. But that solves a personal problem not an environmental problem. I was in Italy recently and was just floored by what polution had done to all the historical buildings. They spend Millions of dollars cleaning these buildings up on a regular basis. If you take a survey, the majority of people in Italy use small motorcycles and Mopeds that all have a stream of black smoke coming out the back. Just bringing a point up that has been a peeve of mine for a while since I love bikes too.. the industry needs to do more about cleaning up the smaller engines as well. Otherwise we will have a bigger problem when everyone switches over to them because gas prices are so high.. If you question thoughts, check with your local power company. Many are offering rebates if you will turn in your gas powered lawn tools. You didn't answer my question. I asked you to cite sources that motorcycles pollute more than a car. In reply you said that European cities have bad pollution. Could this possibly be from the massive population? The prevalance of diesel (particulate matter vs. dangerous gasses, another debate)? Or scooters. Yep, it's the scooters. As dingus would say, that's a strawman. Then you went to lump lawnmowers in with motorcycles... You do realize that in America it's almost unheard of to see a 2 stroke motorcycle cruising the streets don't you? I bet that many dirtbikes and sportbikes used for racing on the track are 2 cycle. Everything else is 4. Big difference in pollution. If I owned a power company, I would also offer rebates to gas powered equipment. The more I could do to get my customers to plug more things in, the better. Still, I want to see a report, or a link to a report, that a 150cc scooter is putting out more pollution than a 1.5L car (Toyota Corrolla size). I'll grant you that the scooter certainly is putting out more than 1/10 of the 1.5L car. Have you factored in the polution caused to refine and transport 3 times as much fuel (assuming 90mpg vs 30mpg) or the pollution caused to create a 2000 pound car (rubber, steel, aluminum, plastic) vs a 200lb scooter. I'm not going to lay off you until you either come up with a source, or admit you made it up.
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Apr 9, 2008, 5:08 PM
Post #60 of 84
(1379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
crimpandgo wrote: saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. Um, it surely is an environmental problem... OIL IS FINITE and it's production is destructive to the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
Truck
Apr 9, 2008, 5:26 PM
Post #61 of 84
(1372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2007
Posts: 67
|
In reply to: OIL IS FINITE and it's production is destructive to the environment. It is also 112 bucks a barrel and making me a shit load of money. God bless all you suv driving lemmings....god bless you Truck
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 9, 2008, 5:27 PM
Post #62 of 84
(1369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
angry wrote: crimpandgo wrote: joeforte wrote: crimpandgo wrote: You have to define "way better for the environment".. Motorcycles use less gas but actually, in most cases, polute more than a newer model car. They don't have as many emmission control items as cars. They are better for the environment BECAUSE they use less gas. Did you forget oil is finite? Besides, a 250cc motor is 10 times smaller than a 2.5 liter engine, which is small by todays car standards. Is the car putting out 10 times less emissions per liter? Not by today's standards. Most greenhouse gasses come from cattle anyway, so I'm WAY more concerned with saving gas, which is what this thread is about. Get a dual sport. My XR250 takes me AND my girlfriend to the crag, and will do 70mph on the highway with two ppl. no prob. It's definitely more fun on twisty dirt roads though! saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. size of the engine is also not important. There is a huge push to get rid of gas powered lawn mowers and lawn equipment because they put out 10 times the polution than a car....even though the engine size is ten times smaller... I ride on a daily basis. I like it and it is more gas economical. But that solves a personal problem not an environmental problem. I was in Italy recently and was just floored by what polution had done to all the historical buildings. They spend Millions of dollars cleaning these buildings up on a regular basis. If you take a survey, the majority of people in Italy use small motorcycles and Mopeds that all have a stream of black smoke coming out the back. Just bringing a point up that has been a peeve of mine for a while since I love bikes too.. the industry needs to do more about cleaning up the smaller engines as well. Otherwise we will have a bigger problem when everyone switches over to them because gas prices are so high.. If you question thoughts, check with your local power company. Many are offering rebates if you will turn in your gas powered lawn tools. You didn't answer my question. I asked you to cite sources that motorcycles pollute more than a car. In reply you said that European cities have bad pollution. Could this possibly be from the massive population? The prevalance of diesel (particulate matter vs. dangerous gasses, another debate)? Or scooters. Yep, it's the scooters. As dingus would say, that's a strawman. Then you went to lump lawnmowers in with motorcycles... You do realize that in America it's almost unheard of to see a 2 stroke motorcycle cruising the streets don't you? I bet that many dirtbikes and sportbikes used for racing on the track are 2 cycle. Everything else is 4. Big difference in pollution. If I owned a power company, I would also offer rebates to gas powered equipment. The more I could do to get my customers to plug more things in, the better. Still, I want to see a report, or a link to a report, that a 150cc scooter is putting out more pollution than a 1.5L car (Toyota Corrolla size). I'll grant you that the scooter certainly is putting out more than 1/10 of the 1.5L car. Have you factored in the polution caused to refine and transport 3 times as much fuel (assuming 90mpg vs 30mpg) or the pollution caused to create a 2000 pound car (rubber, steel, aluminum, plastic) vs a 200lb scooter. I'm not going to lay off you until you either come up with a source, or admit you made it up. I did answer your question. I posted an web link to a cite that has posted research studies. There is a common misconception that smaller is better when it comes to engines. Its not the case. You are also correct that there are other problems than just the scooters. But in the cities, the scooter are very common and are usually older models because they are cheap. I am not saying motorcycles are the biggest problem currently. that is simply due to the fact that in this country, motorcycles are still the minority. in other countries that is not the case. There was another article I did not reference about an asian country and the huge rise in vehicle use causing problems. this article stated the moped as a big problem as well. The picture they showed was very interesting.
(This post was edited by crimpandgo on Apr 9, 2008, 5:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 9, 2008, 5:36 PM
Post #63 of 84
(1363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
joeforte wrote: crimpandgo wrote: saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. Um, it surely is an environmental problem... OIL IS FINITE and it's production is destructive to the environment. You people crack me up. You get so defensive you can't even see the end points. Yes, your point is valid. production is destructive. I dont understand your point about it being finite. When its gone you will have to do without. that will be better for the environment cause you wont be polluting anymore. but that is another issue Simply take my comments regarding emissions as additional issues.. Or not if you dont want to .. Your choice.
(This post was edited by crimpandgo on Apr 9, 2008, 5:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Apr 9, 2008, 5:56 PM
Post #64 of 84
(1350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
joeforte wrote: crimpandgo wrote: saving gas is not an environmental problem. Its a personal problem. Um, it surely is an environmental problem... OIL IS FINITE and it's production is destructive to the environment. Yes it's true. Drilling for oil generally destroys habitat which is one of the main reasons for extinction of animals. Additionally every major oil processing facility has spills every year. There are also more oil tankers out on the seas to transport this oil, and the more tankers out there, the more oil spills there will be. etc...
|
|
|
|
|
henrikh
Apr 9, 2008, 6:00 PM
Post #65 of 84
(1347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2008
Posts: 27
|
crimpandgo wrote: ...I dont understand your point about it being finite. When its gone you will have to do without. ... (shortened) That pretty much sums up the "finite" thing, wouldnt you say?
|
|
|
|
|
henrikh
Apr 9, 2008, 6:01 PM
Post #66 of 84
(1346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2008
Posts: 27
|
btw, $9.06 /Gallon, here in Norway, so STFU
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 9, 2008, 6:13 PM
Post #67 of 84
(1344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
happiegrrrl wrote: Only the naive are not at least thinking about alternatives to standard automobiles, whether for cragging or in general. Of course I understand this means the majority of the population hasn't yet considered making changes. Smart move - to the bike. And I'd think some people would appreciate the research, as they begin making their transportation changes. Let me ask a question - can you rig it to carry stuff or do you do a backpack, or what? I always fantasized about having an oooold Indian motorbike with a sidecar for Teddy and my gear..... Get an old BMW instead, I think they're far less maintenance intensive than the Italian bikes. Or a new Ural with the side car - they come in 2 wheel drive with plenty of storage/transport room. The perfect fair weather climbing vehicle. I don't know about fuel consumption though.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Apr 9, 2008, 6:32 PM
Post #68 of 84
(1336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
joeforte wrote: Most greenhouse gasses come from cattle anyway, so I'm WAY more concerned with saving gas, which is what this thread is about. So there you have it.... on your way to the crag, kill a cow or two, to make up for your emissions.... just run right over the thing.... unless you're on a scooter of course. Make sure you have 4-stroke, not 2-stroke.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Apr 9, 2008, 6:32 PM
Post #69 of 84
(1335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Apr 9, 2008, 6:45 PM
Post #70 of 84
(1328 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
the two-wheel versus four-wheel pollution debate basically comes down to whether the scooter/motorcycle engine is a two stroke or four stroke. two-strokes are traditionally more polluting. however, most new scooters now come with a chip that regulates the amount of oil being mixed with the gasoline. i drive a four-stroke manual bajaj that gets 100mpg. higher fuel prices are the only way americans are going to change their driving habits. unfortunately, unlike europe, we do not have a public tranist system to fall back on. so, we are basically screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 9, 2008, 6:50 PM
Post #71 of 84
(1324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Apr 9, 2008, 6:57 PM
Post #72 of 84
(1315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
kyote321 wrote: the two-wheel versus four-wheel pollution debate basically comes down to whether the scooter/motorcycle engine is a two stroke or four stroke. two-strokes are traditionally more polluting. however, most new scooters now come with a chip that regulates the amount of oil being mixed with the gasoline. i drive a four-stroke manual bajaj that gets 100mpg. higher fuel prices are the only way americans are going to change their driving habits. unfortunately, unlike europe, we do not have a public tranist system to fall back on. so, we are basically screwed. Uhh,, no its not about 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke. 2-strokes are obviously worse because you are putting all that oil in the air. the problem is that manufacturers are not putting as many emission controls on the bikes and lawn equipment. read the link I posted above. I especially like the blogs at the end. 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
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Apr 9, 2008, 7:10 PM
Post #73 of 84
(1310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Apr 9, 2008, 7:13 PM
Post #74 of 84
(1303 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
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 2008 Honda Civic gets 51 mpg. My 01 Civic gets about 40.
|
|
|
|
|
|