As a fellow motorcycle rider, I think that's a bit of an overcompensation. You can't put a family of four on a bike, nor can you--in the case of my Honda--even handle a passenger safely and comfortably.

For solo excursions and light needs, they're unbeatable, but polarizing the issue between "us" and the other 95% of the population might be a little myopic.

Not all of us are so lucky, after all. :)

If you are not riding a motorcycle you are part of the problem.

How are your emissions compared to a pedestrian or a bicyclist?

Oh, and try driving your motrocycle here in Minnesota in February.

I ride in the light rain experienced here 300 days out of the year but I sure would not put either of my children on the motorcycle. I don't see a good way to get groceries either (saddle bags would barely hold dinner for two). Then again I use my car for groceries and getting the kids and that leaves me driving the motorcycle only on the weekend for recreational use where I am burning gas and polluting simply for my enjoyment...I couldn't imagine a rush hour commute via motorcycle. I prefer to avoid splitting lanes or riding on the shoulder and would hate to do 15 miles of stop and go on a motorcycle.

Bush admin's proposed mileage-in-weight-class rewrite of CAFE would mean lighter is no longer a clearcut advantage. If they pass. the new rules will likely mandate weight-for-size, further stabilizing vehicle designs for decades to come.

How about lower the barriers to entry for new, small car companies? A company like Loremo would never get started in the US due to our system of regulations, which stabilizes the market for car companies and consumers, but at the same time strongly discourages investment in real innovation.

I guess when I mentioned the benefits of motorcycling, I should have put some disclaimers in. If you are a safety weenie, then no amount of persuasion will probably get you on a motorcycle. Safety is in the mind of the individual. If you feel safer in a car, then drive a car. I think that mostly people feel safer in a car because they don't have to be as focused on the road and on the operation of the vehicle as they do on a motorcycle (although they should be). Most people feel quite safe riding a bicycle on suburban streets or country roads, yes? A motorcycle is simply an amplification of riding a bicycle. Similar dynamics but with more weight and more speed. That can intimidate some people.

Folks also might draw a distinction between total pollution and consumption of petroleum. Although there are some very clean burning modern motorcycles, I'm sure, if you are more concerned with pollution than consumption, perhaps they aren't for you. But if you like to reduce consumption either for idealogical or economic reasons, then a motorcycle is a right here, right now way to do so. Please don't play the Honda Insight card. Sure it gets great mileage, but comparing a $20,000, 60 mpg, two-seat weenie-mobile to a $5000, 70 mpg Royal Enfield or an $8000, 65 mpg BMW F650 is not really productive. Royal Enfield doesn't sell tons of bikes, but I bet they move more per year than Honda does Insights. And BMW Motorrad riders are real loyalists, with good reason to be.

Of course people who really need a car in order to haul family, tote tools to work every day, feel comfortable in stop and go traffic, or carry goats to market won't be best suited to a motorcycle. However, an Insight probably won't suit those people either. But I, for instance, commute 120 miles round trip. My Neon R/T, with some engine mods, makes more power than stock, can get 38 mpg when driven judiciously, and handles like a go-kart. I love it! But I still find filling it up every 3 or 4 days to be a burden on the wallet. As the summer weather improves, it's nice to ride my motorcycle and get those 12-15 extra mpg. While I can't go for "the groceries" on my bike, with saddlebags I can run errands such as the quick trip to the gas station the other night to pick up a half gallon of ice cream. It's a lot more efficient than using the car for the same task.

Also, what some people failed to grasp was that along with cycles, scooters are a great option for the more thrifty. They usually get better mileage with smaller displacements, and can be more agreeable for commuting in city traffic. Plus many are automatic to avoid the hassle of shifting and they often have built in storage for small parcels and comfortable two-up seating. It's odd that so many Americans dismiss cycles, scooters, and mopeds when in other parts of the world with crushing fuel prices, they often dominate the cityscape.

Hey, did any of you hear about the Prius that got something like 120 mpg? I read about it a few years ago in either Car and Driver or Automobile magazine. Apparently, when the first-gen Prius was introduced, the auto mags were invited to each drive one in an economy endurance race from, I think, southern Ohio to Detroit. The magazine teams each drove their Prius with the goal of maximum efficiency over the duration of the competition. The second place team managed to bring their car in around 80-something mpg. This particular magazine team won with an amazing 120 mpg. Why the disparity and how did they do it?

They used a Ford Excursion as a lead vehicle, opened the rear doors, built a plywood box around the open rear end extending from a few inches above the ground up and over the top of the doors. Then they had a professional driver keep the nose of the Prius tucked into the draft effect of the "box" within inches of the Excursion throughout the trip.

They won the efficiency race by exploiting a loophole...and probably by comsuming, in total, much more fuel than any of the other teams did. I thought it was both ingenious and ironic when I read it. It does illustrate that anyone who claims drafting is not a good way to save fuel is blowing smoke. Drafting behind tractor-trailers and SUVs is one of my favorite ways to improve my mileage. You don't even have to be tailgating in order to notice an effect over the miles...just maintain a consistent safe following distance.

When you consider the percentage of the time that a vehicle is occupied by only a single person and when you consider the distance an average trip entails the utility of the motorcycle becomes obvious. Here in NJ a motorcycle can be ridden nearly all the year. Obviously there are limitations as to what can be done with a motorcycle. But then again, we are finding out there are limitations as to what can be done with an automobile.

I have ridden this motorcycle 800 miles in a single day and 6800 miles in 24 days time. No problems. I have 32 years and 200,000 miles experience riding motorcycles. No accidents, no injuries.
If you are not riding a motorcycle you are part of the problem.

Posted by: paul kneisl | May 27, 2006 2:36:22 PM

Paul, if you drive that much you are also part of the problem (even if done on a fuel efficient motorcycle. If I owned a Hummer and drove 1000 miles per year I'd still use less fuel than you.

Live closer, drive less. Develop a hobby that doesn't involve the gratuitous consumption of hydrocarbons.

Well Now I put 3k miles a year on my motorcycle and 5k miles on my ECHO. My work is less than 7 miles away (where I rode my bicycle when I was able to) and I also live within walking distance of the NJ High Speed Rail Line which I can take to work or Philly.
And your driving numbers are?

Btw, a two-stroke motorcycle engine will produce about 30x the emissions of a car. Four-strokes are ok if they have a three-way catalyst. Recently, a German start-up presented a 1.4L two-cyclinder turbocharged diesel engine for motorcycles. Note the unusual ignition phasing (360 deg) with split connrod design and inertial compensation:

http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;lng=en/do=show/alloc=3/id=3257

I can't even think of a street legal two-stroke motrocycle in the US. Maybe there is one, but it's not for the mainstream motorcycle buyer/rider. Now off-road bikes still are fairly common in two-stroke, but those won't be a substitution for a car, as most off-road bikes aren't road legal. They fill their own special purposes. Plus, you can get four-stroke off-road bikes if you need one and want less emissions and less hassle with fuel mixing.

I question the validity of comparing the potentially greater pollution of a motorcycle to that of the average car. Sure, most cars are very clean burning these days, with a good number, even big SUVs meeting LEV or ULEV standards. But somewhere I read that the average CAFE of the US fleet of cars is around 24 mpg. I don't have figures handy for bikes, but I don't think that an average motorcycle economy of 45 mpg is unreasonable. Does a modern, four-stroke fuel injected motorcycle pollute twice as much as four-stroke fuel injected car by weight per gallon? If not, then total pollution is still less with the bike. And that is only comparing averages. A motorcycle such as a BMW F650 would have to pollute four times more per gallon to equal the total pollutant output of something like a Chevy Silverado, because the bike gets a good four times better mileage than the truck.

Most modern motorcycle engines operate at a higher efficiency than an equivalent displacement automotive engine. For example, since the Honda Insight seems to get referenced a lot here and has a small displacement engine, I'll use it as an example. The Honda website says a stick shift Insight with a liquid cooled 995cc 3-cylinder makes 67 hp @ 5700 rpm and 66 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm. Both figures are engine alone, without the motor assist. A brochure I have for 2006 Buell motorcycles states that their 984cc air-cooled V-twin makes 92 hp @ 7500 rpm and 70 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm. There are no mileage figures listed for the 984cc, but the mileage on their heaviest bike, the Ulysses with the 1203cc engine is stated as 51 city/64 highway, so I'm guessing the 984 would get somewhat better mileage than that. Even though air cooled engines are commonly known to pollute more than liquid cooled, I have a hard time believing that the Buell is pumping out tons of pollutants considering it is apparently utilizing its fuel more efficiently...almost 50% more horsepower and 4 lb-ft more torque from less displacement, one less cylinder and with comparable or better mileage.

650cc class inline-4 sportbikes are making over 100 hp from 2/3 the displacement of an Insight, and would also probably return comparable mileage if they were ridden with frugality in mind rather than insane speed. The nice thing with motorcycles is that you have both power and economy in one package, depending on what fits your needs.

Paul-

Not that it matters, but it's about 2500 miles/year, though I walk to work, and certainly not everyone can live close enough to do that.

Seems to me that marrying to the current Prius technology to a diesel engine instead of to gas motor would increase mileage by a great deal...

No doubt that this would make a good platform for a hybrid or a PHEV.

But I think that the main point of this vehicle is get excellent economy in as cheap an overall package as possible.

This thing is supposed to retail for less than $20k UDS.

Adding on the batteries and electric motors adds a lot of expense (and weight).

Perhaps a flywheel or an air hybris couls het you much of the benefits at less cost (for a lower end model perhaps) and then offer a PHEV version as an elite model:

Actually a possibly better hybrid technology would be the Air Hybrid concept being developed by
http://www.engineer.ucla.edu/stories/2003/hybrid.htm
Only an estimated additional 35 Kg and conversion to a camless turbo diesel engine it would reduce fuel consumption by an estimated 64% city and 12 % highway.
The camless valvetrain design also has the potential to increase the low end torque of the turbo diesel by up to 40% around 1000 rpm.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/04-07-2000/0001185156

I wonder why no major manufacturers are pursuing diesel-electric or gas-electric powertrain similar to a system used on locomotives where the drive power is all electric and the motors are powered by a fuel-burning generator. You could have lightweight car powered by, say, two 50hp electric motors with a small battery pack as a buffer source or for emergency power, while a 1 liter or smaller diesel or gas generator makes power as it is needed. Surely you could get over 100 mpg easily with such a system. This seems like it would also work well for tractor-trailers. You already have two driven axles. A smaller, high-efficiency turbodiesel generator could provide the power for electric motors to drive both of the traditional axles, plus smaller motors could power the front wheels so that you get an AWD truck. Again, a battery pack could be used for reserve capacity in stop and go traffic or during overnight rest stops when the generator could auto-stop and start depending on system needs.

Such a system was invented by F. Porsche in WW 1. A truck pulling a dozen or more wagons loaded with troops was developed. The wagons all had electric hub motors on their axles which were driven by a generator in the truck. Also, US warships in the 1920s (the Lexington and Saratoga) were built with propellors driven by electric motors. They were supplied with generators driven by fueled engines.
Although these systems would seem to have advantages, ultimately they were failures. I suspect there is an awefull lot of inefficiency involved. The warships powerplants were not further developed in part because having 500 amp lines running around the ship proved dangerous.
When thinking about new systems in addition to their advantages you have to also think about their disadvantages.

I have thought that four cycle engines for outboard motors have high power to weight are small and light. I wonder if the Honda Insight engine had any relation to the outboard engines that Honda makes...hmmm

Next generation of warships (DDX) have hybrid drive systems. Either a gas turbine or diesel engine runs a generator which runs a set of electric motors. This is for stealth, and power flexibility for future power hogging systems (laser, plasma, electromagnetic projectile/aircraft launchers).

Interesting. I DO wonder if a hrbrid drive like that would save money in an automobile. Bit I dont have any laser or plasma devices in my car!

They're just starting to build pleasure boats with diesel-electric propulsion systems (http://www.nordhavn.com/constr_con/diesel_electric.php4). The navy has been building special purpose boats and ships with diesel-electric for some time.

The only hurdle remaining for automotive use appears to be the additional cost over a mechanical transmission. You replace transmission, universal joints, differentials and axles with generator, additional batteries (for smoothing power delivery), wheel spindles and electric motors. Currently too expensive. Who knows what changing fuel costs and additional development may do to that equation...

I drive a motorcycle as well...

Yeah, the diesel-electric concept is pretty well developed in the nautical realm. I think that the majority of the Russian sub fleet was diesel-electric and they used a smaller number of nuclear subs compared to the US.

I can't think of a major hurdle to building a diesel-electric car, other than the cost of the components, particularly high-output, quick recharging battery packs. NiMH would probably fit the bill but they still cost a good bit. Still, I could imagine even building something like that myself and not having it cost more than $10-15K. A light dune buggy chassis, one or two forklift motors, some deep cycle batteries and maybe a Kubota lawn mower diesel turning a generator. Maybe skin it in sheet aluminum for better aerodynamics and put some aftermarket HID driving lights and LED tail lights on it to keep the voltage draw low, and it should be a good useable package. Well, it's a rough idea anyway. Anyone else want to give it a shot and let me know how it turns out?

I'm going to stick with my SUV for now. I get the equivalent of 100+ mpg or so I would guess, since I have an office in my home and don't commute. Telecommute---how much more efficient would that be? How many millions of people could do this if their companies weren't so stuck in the 8 to 5 in the office routine? Instead of finding a more energy efficient automobile, how about finding a more efficient way to work?

Ladmoe, that is a great idea for work that can actually be done at home. I mean, why not? But a lot of work is hands-on stuff at a location other than home (maintenance, manufacturing, retail, service industries, etc.) People often prefer that to office type work that keeps you planted at a desk. Besides, my long commute to work means I am less inclined to drive when I'm off work. If I worked at home then you can be sure I'd be hopping in the car to "go out" for a drive after the work was done. As convenient as it would be to work at home, I'd go stir crazy if I never went anywhere. Plus I find the social interaction at work to be a major incentive for going to the workplace. A better solution would be for city planners to promote old style city life where efficient housing is within walking distance to workplaces or is accessible by public transportation.

Well if you have to have an SUV at least dont drive it.

First time for me to post anything on this board, love the above postings. Looks like an educated crowd. Therefore, we are planning for the 100 mpg with the CAFEC(compressed air, fuel, external combustion)Engine. Forget the IC engine, it wastes to much energy just to run itself, and not to talk about how we ask it also to turn alternators, power steering pumps, air condition compressor and many other thing like water pumps and oil pumps. More power is needed to intake the fuel and air, a large amount of power is needed to compress the air just to heat the air. Question, what's left for the rear wheels?

The CAFEC concept does it a different way, the engine of two cylinders, fires on each stroke same as a 2 cycle engine. The three moving parts, two pistons and a crank only job is to turn the rear wheels. The compressed air and fuel(propane???), electric is developed using the heat from the external combustion chamber. Because there is no heat in the cylinder walls, water is used as a lubricate. The same engine can be turn into a compressor for braking or down hill runs. The engine will run on compressed air without fuel which is stored from the compressor mode.

Anyway visit the web site, would enjoy any comments