|
I'm sure there's an Apex seal joke here somewhere.... Either way I'd ride that happily for the 20 seconds it would probably take for me to kill myself on it.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
That would be so unbelievably loud.  I went to another bike shop and tried on some more helmets today. The best fits are the Shoei RF1100 and Shoei Qwest, both fit my melon quite well but luckily they have replaceable cheek pads because the cheeks aren't quite tight enough for comfort. They had a very sexy Special Edition Ninja 250, white with black splash and red accent. Very sexy. They also had a Ninja 400  I guess they killed off the 500 in '09 and started the 400 this year, and now it's way better than the 500 was in every way. Yay progress!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it was posted, but this long weekend there were a few guys busted on the Sea to Sky highway: http://www.sendtonews.com/index.php?id=211&SK=CAtRTcUBdv They say 200kph+ That highway is so twisty with some awesome views of the Pacific Ocean and North Shore Mountains.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
matwick posted:I'm not sure if it was posted, but this long weekend there were a few guys busted on the Sea to Sky highway: Can you copy the whole article? I don't want to register for an acct to view it and CBC/CTV don't seem to have the story. Thanks Edit: Nevermind, found a youtube of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxb3MxusOKA slidebite fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Sep 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
matwick posted:I'm not sure if it was posted, but this long weekend there were a few guys busted on the Sea to Sky highway: The whole "oh my god, SO FAST (120mph+)" thing makes me laugh every time. Just about any modern supersport can hit 120 from a standing start in a quarter mile in 11 seconds. Sure, it takes time for a car to get there but a literbike does 0-120 like most econoboxes do 0-75. On the flip side, this is why I don't really ride street anymore. Have any fun at all on a modern bike and you're going stupid fast. Ripped from pics and videos, but  HNasty posted:Good read. Goddamn that article has the dumbest comments I have ever seen. quote:"Can you find the phrase "persuit of happiness" in any of those founding documents that enumerate our rights?" quote:I have been biking for a while, and every so many years someone one does a survey on the lastest bike news,but this takes the cake.What ever happened to common sense.If we clean up are act,HA HA, they wont be happy.Dont they realize that other countries could care less it doesnt matter what we do some people are not happy.Example(CHINA) just to name 1. THEY make the US LOOK like DISNEY LAND and air quality.So if you are a tree HUGGER.Please if you ever need a 911 emergency unit for a life or death matter,dont call them they use gas.P.S.HOW due you get around to travel or everyday needs.GAS? Yes, those things. Z3n fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
Interesting Article, the comments are fairly retarded but some have valid points... I agree with the guy about the study lacking data. It also seems flawed to me to use bikes that new. a lot of bikes that aren't wrecked will survive well into the 10-20 year range. It seemed to me that it would be better to do an LCA analysis on older models rather than newer ones. I also agree that the models they chose to do the LCA on were kind of...  I think the method they are using is slightly flawed as well due to the fact that many Americans commute by themselves (I do) so their car isn't running "efficiently" by transporting 4 or more people at a time.I think my philosophy on it would lean more towards; It's a free country don't tell me what to loving do. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
Z3n posted:The whole "oh my god, SO FAST (120mph+)" thing makes me laugh every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Why would you laugh? That is fast for a public roadway regardless if a bike can get to it quickly or not. Probably 2x the limit where they were busted. It's too fast for public roadways without proper driver training, yes. This shouldn't be seen as me condoning that sort of riding. But I find it amusing in a  sort of way that in today's day and age, you can legally walk in to a dealership with no proof of license, and buy a motorcycle that will do 75-120 in about 4 seconds. The absurdity of it all makes me laugh...the divide between what is reasonable performance for a car vs. what is "reasonable" performance for a bike. The cherry on top of it all is the endless dickwaving over quarter mile times, 1/10ths around a track, and 2% more HP. Follow that up with the fact that the guys don't have the skills to actually ride those motorcycles, they're just twisting the throttle like a newb on the straights and parking it in the corners. Those are the guys that go flying off the road when they follow someone running The Pace. Don't get me wrong: I'm glad the cops picked them up before one of us was stuck dragging them out of the hedges. The entire situation is just one that you see played out over and over every year on the "hot roads" in the area. I was mad for a few years about it, now I just have to laugh, resigned to the inevitable squid slaughter and hope it doesn't happen where I see cause then I have to go help the guy myself. Ponies ate my Bagel posted:Interesting Article, the comments are fairly retarded but some have valid points... This is the first one ever done (thusly the lack of sample size), but the core ideology is sound. The problem with motorcycles is that we don't make enough of them, we don't ride them enough, and they are generally designed with performance in mind, not efficiency. Motorcyclists just love to live in denial about it, like we're some kind of eco-crusader for buying the latest GIXXAH, and it's hilarious to see them whine about the liberals and the eco terrorists that are never happy and just gosh darn it why won't you take me seriously when I say my motorcycle saves the earth while I ride it!  The truth is that the intangibles of production are far more important than gas mileage. Toss in 3-9k tire changes of small production run tires, and everything goes out the window really fast. Economies of scale in production is what really makes motorcycles inefficient. Then again, these are the same people who will buy a brand new motorcycle to "save on gas".
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Follow that up with the fact that the guys don't have the skills to actually ride those motorcycles, they're just twisting the throttle like a newb on the straights and parking it in the corners. Those are the guys that go flying off the road when they follow someone running The Pace. Don't get me wrong: I'm glad the cops picked them up before one of us was stuck dragging them out of the hedges. The entire situation is just one that you see played out over and over every year on the "hot roads" in the area. I was mad for a few years about it, now I just have to laugh, resigned to the inevitable squid slaughter and hope it doesn't happen where I see cause then I have to go help the guy myself. Like this guy? Same highway btw. http://www.theprovince.com/news/Police+lookout+motorcyclist+crashed+then+fled+Highway/5341393/story.html Guy riding the highway doing an estimated 130 KPH crashes into the meridian when looking behind him. DOOF. There's a video there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Z3n posted:
I'm starting to realize this with my 636. It's really good for loving around on the desolate small beltway at 1 AM here, but other than that... it sucks for riding with a passenger, it sucks in the usual shitastic Rochester traffic, and I'd rather ride my SV650 with handlebar in all of them cuz my back is starting to protest. I still love this bike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
MrZig posted:Like this guy? Same highway btw.  the walkin dude posted:I'm starting to realize this with my 636. It's really good for loving around on the desolate small beltway at 1 AM here, but other than that... it sucks for riding with a passenger, it sucks in the usual shitastic Rochester traffic, and I'd rather ride my SV650 with handlebar in all of them cuz my back is starting to protest. Swap handlebars on your supersport! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Or get an FZ1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
I wish I could toss on handlebars, but I have like 2.5 months left until my ownership is virtually over with this 636. The next time I ride would be springtime, and I'd be putting it on the market immediately. I remember when a Canadian acquaintance of mine got a brand-new FZ1 last year, being an utter noob rider. He nearly immediately gave the bike to his experienced father as a gift, and recounted the heart-stopping riding experience and his final decision to me later on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
I've heard it called "the old man's sport bike".
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Z3n posted:
With motorcycles or cars the best way to be green is to still buy used and require less consumption. I'll have to see if I can find it but there was a really informative article about how you could buy an 80/90's Honda (car) and drive it into the ground and reduce your carbon footprint more than by buying a Hybrid due to production level pollution etc. I would assume the same is true for bikes, but I'm unsure of that. I've never bought a new bike or car and don't ever plan to. I like to buy mine second or third hand and ride it till it goes kaput. I ride because I enjoy it and my wallet enjoys it. My '81 cm200t has already paid for itself in gas savings, I have no doubt it will pay for all it's own maintenance etc with those same savings. If I need to transport materials or another person I take the truck, but otherwise it makes no sense to drive the truck get about 1/3rd the gas mileage for a single person. I really want to see a few more of these surveys done on higher production bikes. Harley's don't count, the amount of chrome on them alone is sure to screw up their LCA. Maybe a Ninja 250, an SV650 and a CBR 1000 would be a good choice. I think the waste on bikes that are more expensive/have less overall production and riders is higher than the bikes the companies sell more of. I don't know a ton of guys who ride a ZX-14 personally....
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Oh it can absolutely be done right. I get a certain sense of green  out of fixing up bikes and turning a pile of parts into an actual, working motorcycle, and that sort of "recycling" is much better for the environment. At least then you're capitalizing on the already sunk costs of production and providing as much utility as possible. Still have to deal with the downfalls of tires/consumables, but hell, life's for the living. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Oh it can absolutely be done right. I get a certain sense of green I wonder if the consumable difference of four tires versus two makes any difference. I think comparing high performance DOT race tires versus generic super long tread life car tires is a little different than say a touring tire or a commuter tire on a bike. I'm pretty sure the production impact for something like a Porsche GT2's tires is similar to a sport bike's. I just want to see some done with say performance cars versus performance bikes and maybe commuter cars versus commuter bikes. To be fair I did commute daily on an R1 for almost 2 years, so it's not all equal in that regard. I think if your talking about bikes impact as a transportation medium though you need to take a more apples to apples sampling. Otherwise it's like telling somebody that their Ferrari isn't a "green" machine No poo poo, Really?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Ponies ate my Bagel posted:I wonder if the consumable difference of four tires versus two makes any difference. I think comparing high performance DOT race tires versus generic super long tread life car tires is a little different than say a touring tire or a commuter tire on a bike. I'm pretty sure the production impact for something like a Porsche GT2's tires is similar to a sport bike's. Not really, considering you'll go through at least 16 tires in the 80k it takes for a set of super long term car tires to wear out. Twice that if you run any sort of sport rubber.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Z3n posted:The problem with motorcycles is that we don't make enough of them, we don't ride them enough, and they are generally designed with performance in mind, not efficiency. Motorcyclists just love to live in denial about it, like we're some kind of eco-crusader for buying the latest GIXXAH, and it's hilarious to see them whine about the liberals and the eco terrorists that are never happy and just gosh darn it why won't you take me seriously when I say my motorcycle saves the earth while I ride it! The way I see it, yeah, my 'fighter uses the same amount of fuel as a good hatchback/hybrid, but it's not as though if I wasn't riding a bike I'd have actually own said fuel efficient hatchback/hybrid. I'd probably have a S-chassis, or WRX, or my Dad's old LS1-powered Calais, using nearly triple the fuel of the Gix and burning a set of four fat tyres every 30-40k km given the way I drive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Can you copy the whole article? I don't want to register for an acct to view it and CBC/CTV don't seem to have the story. Thanks What a waste of resources, a normal chopper runs $1500-2500/hr to run and that thing is running some serious optics that probably cost a pretty penny as well so we can easily say it's $2500+/hr. How much revenue was generated vs spent? What lessons are the riders to take away from this exactly? Yes the culture pushes you to buy these ever more powerful toys, but you better be living a comfortable life and have the disposable income to pay the state the privilege of using said toys. Or be a track rat and revolve your whole life around the pursuit of speed. Kinda echoing z3n on this one in my own ranty way. In a perfect world the country would have public speeding roads like the Ring. But cops wouldn't generate direct revenue off that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
Morphix posted:What a waste of resources, a normal chopper runs $1500-2500/hr to run and that thing is running some serious optics that probably cost a pretty penny as well so we can easily say it's $2500+/hr. These days, I could not imagine doing a high speed highway run. Maybe interstate, probably my own home roads, and always my favorite city twisties, but gently caress that helicopter noise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Morphix posted:What a waste of resources, a normal chopper runs $1500-2500/hr to run and that thing is running some serious optics that probably cost a pretty penny as well so we can easily say it's $2500+/hr. They don't make money. The chopper in this video is used for other policing purposes and when they need it (aka when there's reports of murdercycles being DANGEROUS on the S2S), it goes and controls the Sea to Sky highway. Oh, and in case you didn't know, in all of British Columbia if you get caught doing any of these: 40 KPH or over Wheelie Stoppie Burnout Any kind of slide RACING You automatically get your vehicle impounded for 7 days right then and there (no chance to challenge it), slapped with a $400 fine, a $400 a year for 3 year insurance risk premium, and all the impound/towing charges. That's for the first time it happens. If it happens again within 2 years.. You really get hosed. And yet there's still people who speed on that highway.. It's like miniature Switzerland here. MrZig fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Sep 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Morphix posted:What a waste of resources, a normal chopper runs $1500-2500/hr to run and that thing is running some serious optics that probably cost a pretty penny as well so we can easily say it's $2500+/hr. It's like a SWAT team: they are already in the budget, so you better use them for something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Morphix posted:What a waste of resources, a normal chopper runs $1500-2500/hr to run and that thing is running some serious optics that probably cost a pretty penny as well so we can easily say it's $2500+/hr. Z3n posted:It's too fast for public roadways without proper driver training, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I'm all for having fun and god knows I've sped quite a bit, but 120MPH is too fast on a public roadway with traffic regardless of how much training you have. This isn't the autobahn where people are disciplined and there is a bit of rhyme or reason to how they drive (although I wish it was). It's a highway were people switch lanes for no reason other than they want to for a change or they need to get a better grip on the subway sandwich they're eating so they suddenly veer into the next lane. I have zero problem with people going 60MPH over the speed limit getting fined out the wazoo and lose their vehicles. I agree fully, but at 25mph over the speed limit, and with the speed limits in BC being retardedly slow.. It's lovely. Seriously, a 90 KPH limit on a 4 lane road with a meridian? Yup. Oh, a 110 KPH freeway going to 80 KPH because there's a light? Yup. The fastest road in BC is 110 KPH. That's 68 MPH. 25 MPH/40 KPH over that is instant tow/huge fines. Fun hey? A lot of sport bike riders on the local forum are dipping into the US for twisty roads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
MrZig posted:I agree fully, but at 25mph over the speed limit, and with the speed limits in BC being retardedly slow.. It's lovely. Seriously, a 90 KPH limit on a 4 lane road with a meridian? Yup. Oh, a 110 KPH freeway going to 80 KPH because there's a light? Yup. Oh sure thing and I agree 100%. The limits are retardedly slow. That said, it's one thing to be 20-30 over and another to be 80+ as some of the idiots on those videos appear to be. For fun I dip into Montana myself and the speed limit is 70 even on roads that you generally can't even do 50 on in places. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I'm all for having fun and god knows I've sped quite a bit, but 120MPH is too fast on a public roadway with traffic regardless of how much training you have. This isn't the autobahn where people are disciplined and there is a bit of rhyme or reason to how they drive (although I wish it was). It's a highway were people switch lanes for no reason other than they want to for a change or they need to get a better grip on the subway sandwich they're eating so they suddenly veer into the next lane. I have zero problem with people going 60MPH over the speed limit getting fined out the wazoo and lose their vehicles. Agreed. I live by the rule that if you're going to do something like that, no one should see it or know about it but you. Do it in a place without cars, people, or take it to the track, or simply pick a road that is actually technically demanding vs the series of bent straights you have here. I have zero issue with these guys getting impounded, although it could be done a lot cheaper with a dude hiding behind a bush with a radar gun. Carry your speed in the corners with respect to the sight lines and there isn't much to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
I made my way past the Rock Store and ran Mulholland a few times yesterday around 1-2pm. Saw that infamous dude on the black 09 R1 w/ yellow lights doing 'laps' while I sat at the 180* last turn. I've never really run across other people in my twisty days here in Arizona... now I know why there are so many crashes caught there on video - there are just a lot of lovely riders. Chopping throttle mid corner, on and off the throttle mid corner, etc. I never realized how short that road is.  Also, 500ftlb + cambered tight corners = lots of sliding. (No, I wasn't being an idiot.)
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Sep 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
I rode a Zero S today  It ran out of batteries 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
I'm starting my week trip out to BC-and-a-bit-of-Washington tomorrow. Plan is to Crowsnest out to Van, loop up to Whistler and back to Merritt, then down into the States to hit State Road 20. All at my sort of poky, wake-up-at-9-and-eat-eggs-for-an-hour pace. No whale-watching or tours of giant gardens this time, probably. e: Turns out what I'm doing instead is staying home, getting lovely on rye, and reading up on how to deal with a strong gusty crosswind when your bike has the approximate sail area of the HMS Victory. Phy fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
Apparently official proof that my WR250R can go 78mph on flat ground costs $244 in California when you're in a 65mph zone. I didn't pay much attention to speed limits on that bike and spent way too much time at WOT, so it was due to happen. Not sure if I'm happy it wasn't more, or disappointed that I didn't get tagged at 90 in a 75 instead. Either way, I'm saving the ticket for the next owner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
A while back, someone from Ontario did their M license and posted scans of the grading sheet. Anyone still have those? It's too late for this year, so next year I need to do mine, and should study up over the winter
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
On the dangers of speeding thing, you have to bear in mind the simple physics of cars v. bikes. If you do the basic high school physics 1/2 mass x velocity squared calculation for a very ballpark figure on the amount of energy a particular vehicle can impart to what it hits, it's readily apparent that all but the fastest of sub-200kg motorcycles would have trouble generating the amount of energy that a ~1800kg E class or 5 series has moving at a legal 60mph. So 120 mph on a bike isn't anywhere near imposing the same level of risk that 120mph in a car in similar conditions is. But because the majority of adults in north American and western European societies are car owners who use their vehicles as daily transport, shock-horror stories about bikes going too fast make the news, but similarly dangerous or much more dangerous (and illegal) behaviour by motorists doesn't. You will not see a story about Joe Bloggs failing to indicate correctly while travelling 60 in a 60 and nearly causing a collision, but some dude getting caught doing 120mph on his 'busa down a mostly empty highway will qualify for full shock-horror treatment. And the legal results tend to mirror this. The tendency is always going to be for car drivers to want to externalise the costs of their behaviour while forcing other road users to internalise the costs of their activities. While car drivers are not unique in this respect, the fact that they represent 98% (or whatever) of these particular societies means that as a general rule, other road users' behaviour will always be demonised while the impact of car driving will always be minimised. I think Z3n was pretty much spot on with the efficiency thing. A bike can very easily outperform a car in most measures of efficiency and environmental impact, it's just that the people who buy motorcycles in "our" societies don't buy them with this in mind. A completely stock C90, for example, will wipe the floor with any hybrid or 2011 diesel supermini that I know of. ~75kg mass, extreme simplicity of manufacture and maintenance, very large production numbers and in service since 1958, ~120mpg on regular petrol, very small physical footprint. The current JDM models, if I remember correctly, are PGM-FI and have impressively low emissions. But of course the vast majority of people who are motivated to ride motorcycles in our societies wouldn't accept the performance levels of either a diesel supermini or a simple, efficient motorcycle. No matter how AWESOME it is... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 10:53
|
|
|
C/CT90's need to be entered into some sort of awesomeness hall of fame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:C/CT90's need to be entered into some sort of awesomeness hall of fame. The Awesomeness Hall of Fame is called Dao's Place and is apparently somewhere in Melbourne. Melbourne, for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
Saga posted:A completely stock C90, for example, will wipe the floor with any hybrid or 2011 diesel supermini that I know of. ~75kg mass, extreme simplicity of manufacture and maintenance, very large production numbers and in service since 1958, ~120mpg on regular petrol, very small physical footprint. The current JDM models, if I remember correctly, are PGM-FI and have impressively low emissions. I was going to say that you can't carry nearly as many groceries on a C90 as in a diesel supermini, but then my thoughts went to the majority of Asia:      Wouldn't trade my car for a C90, though. It's much too practical for my needs to give up. A motorcycle doesn't have to be all-out performance or basic utility, standard bikes do exist. My used bike was cheap, is utterly reliable and has probably put its original manufacturing load on the environment behind it a long time ago compared with buying newer bikes, and it still gets ~35mpg while being faster than just about anything on four wheels short of super/hypercar territory. In the western world, a used standard bike is probably the most environmentally-conscious form of motorized personal transportation. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
A huge amount of driving in America, but also in Europe, involves single occupant vehicles. And note that the figures we have presumably discount the fact that many of the vehicles counted are work vehicles. If you look at your standard British or American rush hour traffic jam, the cars aren't carrying any more than a Honda Cub minus the 5 sacks of grain (or slabs, if you're an Aussie). The things my car does include carrying dogs and children. If we had an available Zipcar-type program or just better public transport, I wouldn't need it at all. As far as things between economical transport and S1000RRs, I think the LCA article was suggesting that embodied energy and all that jazz for the average bike are much closer to the average volume-production car than one might think, because of the lower volumes and manufacturing and assembly techniques.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Saga posted:On the dangers of speeding thing, you have to bear in mind the simple physics of cars v. bikes. I think you are missing one thing. Well, two related things. First is that a car has a bigger area than a bike, so it would distribute its energy better. Second, a car has crumple zones that will absorb some of that energy instead of transferring. You can't just look at how much energy an object has and have to look at how much and where that energy is transferred. A car sideswiping another car will spread out that force along the entire side of the car and its own hood. A bike hitting a door on a car will tend to pierce the door.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Saga posted:A huge amount of driving in America, but also in Europe, involves single occupant vehicles. That's sort of my observation as well just from looking observing my own commute. I knew most of the time I would be the only person in my car, which is why I bought a small fuel-efficient hatchback. It had to be a car because I generally do my shopping in large batches at a local cash'n'carry and none of the local zipcar-type programs are worth a drat, their cars are rear end-old and barely maintained. Apart from that, I would have no problem with only my bike and public transport. I can't imagine the people in single-occupant Audi Q7s, Range Rovers and BMW X5s give a poo poo about those things, I guess I'm just a saint or something. quote:As far as things between economical transport and S1000RRs, I think the LCA article was suggesting that embodied energy and all that jazz for the average bike are much closer to the average volume-production car than one might think, because of the lower volumes and manufacturing and assembly techniques. Sure, it's not an easy calculation to do. The bike industry is much smaller, hence they can't work the economics of scale quite like the car industry can. On the other hand, most bikes are probably kept running for a longer period of time than the average car, but cars do more miles over their lifetimes. I see a significant percentage of bikers riding 70s and 80s bikes, but only a very small percentage of cars on the road are older than the mid/late-90s. I may pollute more than a modern car or bike with my basic carbed aircooled engine and no catalytic converter, but I bet the production costs for a new bike or car would exceed its lifetime emissions. Keep old cars and bikes on the road, it's the eco-sensible option thing to do (plus they're much cooler than those modern blobby objects on wheels).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I was going to say that you can't carry nearly as many groceries on a C90 as in a diesel supermini, but then my thoughts went to the majority of Asia: If you cant force a CT90 to do it, you dont need to be doing it. I wish we (the US) were bike-centric enough to find utility sexy, but alas, we're stuck with chrome choppers and busas as the preferred motorcycle. EDIT: The motorcycle world needs its own version of bikesnob, as he has expressed my thoughts (albeit via bicycles) perfectly. http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/08/indignity-of-commuting-by-bicycle.html On the utility of bicycles, vs the impractical bikes that the average joe finds sexy: quote:It made me feel exactly the way I used to in middle school when Bon Jovi was popular, and I just assumed there was something wrong with my ears because there's no way they could be hearing what I was hearing and like it. Beve Stuscemi fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:23
|
|