Motorcycle Carbon footprint.

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

All I can say is that after roaring round Wales all weekend I have made the following observation...........
My highest filling up of petrol was a whole ?9.23 which was after the longest stretch
My lowest was ?3.67 after a medium stretcc
After riding home from Bets-y-coed to Halifax (filled up in Bets-y-coed) I filled her up Monday with ?5.42

Now then I would say that after carefully monitoring my very good fuel consumption that my properly dyno'd race can'd motorcycle is very economical on fuel thus good for the environment, because it seems it runs on fresh air!!!!!!........and safe too.....loud cans save lives

You do know it's a 17 litre tank?!

[dizzyblonde]

and your point is??????
I covered about 500 miles on her

[dizzyblonde]

my point is that my bikes carbon footprint is far superior to a gas guzzling Freeloader...cough I mean freelander, granted they obviously have a larger fuel tank but i still bet i could get further mile by mile, pound for pound........................I'm greeeeeeen on my 'bikes', and I don't have a car so I'm even greeeeeener and all my lightbulbs are eco friendly and i recycle....blah balah blah





now if you add all the two strokes up in our collection........well thats a nil point, cause they're sooooooooooo bad....hehehehehe

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

my point is that my bikes carbon footprint is far superior to a gas guzzling Freeloader...cough I mean freelander, granted they obviously have a larger fuel tank but i still bet i could get further mile by mile, pound for pound........................I'm greeeeeeen on my 'bikes', and I don't have a car so I'm even greeeeeener and all my lightbulbs are eco friendly and i recycle....blah balah blah





now if you add all the two strokes up in our collection........well thats a nil point, cause they're sooooooooooo bad....hehehehehe

Before we get on our high horses regarding bike fuel economy...... bikes are not much more economical than a standard Diesel car. My bike does about the same MPG as my wife's 1.9 Audi A3 Tdi. Based on my main work commute. At weekend my mpg goes down a bit due to more right wrist action (ooer). The way forward are cars like the Polo Blue motion, 70mpg anyone?!

[dizzyblonde]

could you not spot the 'sarc' in the post.............. I wasn't on my high horse, I just genuinely hate cars.....can't drive one, don't want to drive one, and it costs me less to run two bikes than learn to drive, then buy a knackered one and try to insure and tax it....even at my age its tooo damn expensive

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

could you not spot the 'sarc' in the post.............. I wasn't on my high horse, I just genuinely hate cars.....can't drive one, don't want to drive one, and it costs me less to run two bikes than learn to drive, then buy a knackered one and try to insure and tax it....even at my age its tooo damn expensive

Oh no, I agree with you totally. Maybe high horses was the wrong turn of phrase......I don't have a car and I don't want one either but I was surprised at how economical diesel cars can be.

[dizzyblonde]

thats why my bro chose a Seat Leon TDi super thing, for a car I quite like it, his experiences of deisels has always been positive

I must be careful what I say here as this topic does get me quite worked up

Suffice to say a lot of people here are interchanging "carbon emissions" and pollution. Carbon emissions - is just that - carbon. I picked carbon dioxide as my example. Pollution is a whole different ball game BUT that's not what the bandwagon is all about. It's about your CARBON footprint.

Next, no-one has really said much about asking the question "why is carbon bad for me?". There's a lot of "carbon is bad cos it causes bad things", etc though.

Now I'm not actually saying I agree one way or the other that carbon is bad, however if one side uses b*llocks to try and convince me it naturally makes me less likely to side with them (not referring to people here, more the governments/greenies approach). I've not heard a decent argument yet.

One thing I do agree with is climate change is happening. Whether it's a good or a bad thing remains to be seen. Whether it's down to us remains to be seen. There has been no definitive answers to that yet.

So, I still think it's a bandwagon, because I don't see enough people really questioning things like this (including on this thread!). Sorry

[yorkie_chris]

+1

I remember a few years ago, global warming was a theory, now it's an absolute certainty that people go on abotu 24/7.

There's no change in research on it, or on available data. Why the change in attitude?

Carbon Footprint - What's that? (dont answer that, not interested)