Environmentally friendly motorbikes

Doran · 23 Jan 2009 at 10:59

Bikes are a quarter of the weight of a car.

They have small engines.

Surely you can produce a low performance bike that does 200mpg?

Would this defeat the point of bikes - would you consider one? Knowing it will be doing very little harm to the environment?

L0rdMike · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:00

Doran said:
Knowing it will be doing very little harm to the environment?

Who cares!

Clarkey · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:01

L0rdMike said:
Who cares!

Howard · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:04

L0rdMike said:
Who cares!

Defcon5 · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:06

L0rdMike said:
Who cares!

PiKe · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:06

Doran said:
Surely you can produce a low performance bike that does 200mpg?

They do and it's called a push bike.

Malt_Vinegar · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:09

PiKe said:
They do and it's called a push bike.

End of thread.

*edit*

L0rdMike said:
Who cares!

Just so i can be cool too

[TW]Fox · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:10

<3 Doran

Prophet · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:14

Doran said:
Bikes are a quarter of the weight of a car.

Ermm my GSXR-750 weighs 165KGs.

My Mondeo weights around 1500KGs.

The above != 1/4 by any standards.

Fireskull · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:17

Get a Honda Varadero 125

costs bugger all to fill up and goes for miles!

Doran · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:25

Actually someone calculated the mpg of a push bike. It was something like 20000mpg

PiKe · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:26

Miles to the gallon of what though? Sweat?

Fireskull · 23 Jan 2009 at 11:28

PiKe said:
Miles to the gallon of what though? Sweat?

LOL

Doran · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:32

I think some sort of calculation that takes into consideration initial production costs.

Finglonga · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:33

Doran said:
1)Bikes are a quarter of the weight of a car.

2)They have small engines.

3)Surely you can produce a low performance bike that does 200mpg?

4)Would this defeat the point of bikes - would you consider one? Knowing it will be doing very little harm to the environment?

1)Wrong.

2)Wrong again, my present (and also the last bike I had) has a bigger capacity than most city type cars.

3)CG 125 is a about as close as you will get and thats no where near.

4)Yes it would & No I wouldn't as vehicles only do damage to the environment when crashed and a tree/bush/hedge/eco-hippy is knocked down.

Sone · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:36

Finglonga said:
2)Wrong again, my present (and also the last bike I had) has a bigger capacity than most city type cars.
.

in displacment terms still hardly a big engine is it? Just because commies and peasents drive cars with no power doesent mean the average person does.

Doran · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:42

Finglonga that is quite possibly the most stupid post I have ever read.

Your bike was bigger than a Smart Car or a Clio - CONGRATS! That was not my point. It is nearly half the size of a decent saloon. Thus, with roughly half the size engine - even on a big bike - compared to a fraction of the weight, it is absurd bikes, even Hondas new CBF, can get 120 MPG driven like a granny.

Motorbike engines are massively inefficient, clearly.

The_Abyss · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:47

Lots of massive egos strapped on to the end of massive cars in this thread...

It was just a simple question.

PiKe · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:47

Aren't bikes generally geared for speed more than economy anyway? What's your typical 70mph run get you fuel wise?

Skeeter · 23 Jan 2009 at 13:47

Im going to the bank with this as my business case.

I want to build small cheap motorbikes that have small cheap engines that use almost no fuel and dont do any more than 40mph. I will then charge £12k for them.

Worked for the G Whiz, got to be pleanty more idiots out there!