Mythbusters Car vs. Motorcycle

pdxrita · Post by **pdxrita** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:55 pm

Anyone watch the latest Mythbusters episode which featured car vs. motorcycle from an environmental standpoint? Very interesting results. Without giving too much away, I'd still say my scooter is a better choice since it gets better MPG's, which likely extrapolate to better numbers all around, than even the tricked out bike they come up with, Mythbuster style.

Here's the entire episode. If you want to skip the other experiment, the car vs. motorcycle segments are at the beginning, around the 12 minute mark and around the 30 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jw17T32 ... r_embedded

Spoiler below....

scootavaran · Post by **scootavaran** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:13 pm

Do you know what kind of bike they used?
I've notice that whenever they do these tests they usually compare a small sedan to a oversized Harley or a super sportbike.

scootavaran · Post by **scootavaran** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:16 pm

Just saw the link, sry watchin it now

smithrw · Post by **smithrw** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:16 pm

It wasn't a fair comparison. The bikes were all 2 cycle being compaired to cars.

pdxrita · Post by **pdxrita** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:29 pm

smithrw wrote:It wasn't a fair comparison. The bikes were all 2 cycle being compaired to cars.

I don't think they were all 2 stroke. In fact, I think only the final bike, the one that they tricked out, was a 2 stroke. They claim to have chosen it because of it's smaller displacement and because it had the latest emissions control technology on it. It seemed like a strange choice to me as well.

Here's a pic of the three cars and three motorcycles they tested. The cars look like a Pontiac of some sort, a Honda Accord and maybe a Ford Escort? I have no idea what these bikes are but the did say that the newest was 500cc's.

jonlink · Post by **jonlink** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:48 pm

pdxrita wrote:Anyone watch the latest Mythbusters episode which featured car vs. motorcycle from an environmental standpoint? Very interesting results. Without giving too much away, I'd still say my scooter is a better choice since it gets better MPG's, which likely extrapolate to better numbers all around, than even the tricked out bike they come up with, Mythbuster style.

Here's the entire episode. If you want to skip the other experiment, the car vs. motorcycle segments are at the beginning, around the 12 minute mark and around the 30 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jw17T32 ... r_embedded

While I like mythbusters, I don't have the time to watch it. Can you please spill the beans?

pdxrita · Post by **pdxrita** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:38 pm

jonlink wrote:While I like mythbusters, I don't have the time to watch it. Can you please spill the beans?

They tested 3 generations of vehicles; cars and motorcycles from the 80's, 90's and 00's. The gist is that motorcycles are much more polluting than cars, and therefore not the better environmental choice. The motorcycles were better than the cars in C02 emissions and gas mileage, but they were much worse in carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitric oxide emissions. Here's the chart that shows how much more hydrocarbon emissions each of the motorcycles had in comparison to their car counterparts. In the end, they take a modern 2 stroke 250cc bike, which has emissions controls, and outfit it with an aerodynamic skin in an attempt to equalize the emissions. It comes out around 70 MPG but still with worse emissions. The conclusion: Myth that motorcycle is better for the environment = Busted.

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:12 am

If they didn't jack up the entire test, I MIGHT trust the results. But, they did it with some half-thought reasoning, which disappoints me. Here are some major points they did wrong:

-They compared sport bikes to standard sedans. That's like comparing a Porsche to a Buddy 125. Those bikes are not built for efficiency but to go fast. So, they aren't going to be as balanced for economy and performance, thus having many of the features a "commuter bike" would have.

-Two of the three bikes used were carburetor fed, non-catalyzed exhaust machines. The cars they were compared to were fuel injected with catalytic converters.

-Their attempt to "streamline" a bike was done using a carb'ed dirtbike, and again, one without a catalyzed exhaust. Also, there is already a bike out there that is streamlined and built for efficiency with fuel injection and catalyzed exhaust: A VESPA!

If they used commuter bikes (medium and large displacement scooters, Ninja/CBR 250's and the like) to commuter cars, then I would trust their findings far more. Instead, they came up with a quick and dirty (literally) version that would give them a California friendly result. I *love* the Mythbusters, don't get me wrong, but my enjoyment for their production probably explains why their glaring faults in this "test" irritate me so much.

Roose Hurro · Post by **Roose Hurro** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:14 am

How do you know that last bike was a 2-stroke? It isn't specified, and just because it's a dirtbike doesn't make it a 2-stroke. In fact, it's highly likely it was a 4-stroke, just like the other bikes... fuel-injected, rermember?

pdxrita · Post by **pdxrita** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:46 am

Roose Hurro wrote:How do you know that last bike was a 2-stroke? It isn't specified, and just because it's a dirtbike doesn't make it a 2-stroke. In fact, it's highly likely it was a 4-stroke, just like the other bikes... fuel-injected, rermember?

I could be wrong about that. Jamie said it was a single cylinder, which I took to mean a 2 stroke, but that's not necessarily true.

Roose Hurro · Post by **Roose Hurro** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:54 am

pdxrita wrote:I could be wrong about that. Jamie said it was a single cylinder, which I took to mean a 2 stroke, but that's not necessarily true.

Number of cylinders doesn't determine if a bike is two or four-stroke, just like engine size is not a determining factor (50cc engines come in both two and four-stroke).

pdxrita · Post by **pdxrita** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:00 am

neotrotsky wrote:If they didn't jack up the entire test, I MIGHT trust the results. But, they did it with some half-thought reasoning, which disappoints me. Here are some major points they did wrong:

-They compared sport bikes to standard sedans. That's like comparing a Porsche to a Buddy 125. Those bikes are not built for efficiency but to go fast. So, they aren't going to be as balanced for economy and performance, thus having many of the features a "commuter bike" would have.

-Two of the three bikes used were carburetor fed, non-catalyzed exhaust machines. The cars they were compared to were fuel injected with catalytic converters.

-Their attempt to "streamline" a bike was done using a carb'ed dirtbike, and again, one without a catalyzed exhaust. Also, there is already a bike out there that is streamlined and built for efficiency with fuel injection and catalyzed exhaust: A VESPA!

If they used commuter bikes (medium and large displacement scooters, Ninja/CBR 250's and the like) to commuter cars, then I would trust their findings far more. Instead, they came up with a quick and dirty (literally) version that would give them a California friendly result. I *love* the Mythbusters, don't get me wrong, but my enjoyment for their production probably explains why their glaring faults in this "test" irritate me so much.

I agree that the choice of which vehicles to test seemed a bit unfair. But then again, given the context of the myth, which is that people are riding motorcycles out of a belief that they are more environmentally friendly, perhaps it was fair to choose the most popular vehicles; the ones that are actually being ridden. However, since the outcome paints all motorcycles as environmentally unsound, it's not so fair to those of us who have made more modest choices.

I'd like to believe that my scooter is a better choice than a car, but I don't want to discount scientific findings out of a desire to confirm my own preexisting notions. I'm guessing that my scooter is more environmentally friendly than any of the vehicles they tested, but that it's not as good as I want think it is. Of course, part of this is also which criteria you choose as an indicator. The motorcycles were better on MPG's and C02, so for global warming, better. But for cancer causing emissions, they were really bad. I can't discount that, having had way too many close encounters with cancer involving people near and dear to me.

Ah well. I'm not going to stop riding. My choice of a scooter has many facets, only one of which is a belief that it's environmentally more sound. Maybe this is just a good excuse to start thinking about a 170i.

Ethan Allison · Post by **Ethan Allison** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:12 am

neotrotsky wrote:Their attempt to "streamline" a bike was done using a carb'ed dirtbike, and again, one without a catalyzed exhaust.

It was a Yamaha WR250R, which is a FI and catalyzed 4T. It got about 55mpg so I'm guessing it got relatively bad mileage since it had offroad tires. corrected

You could put in your mpg with their numbers and probably get a relatively accurate estimate of your CO2, CO, and NOx numbers.

rv-rick · Post by **rv-rick** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:46 am

The final bike was a Yamaha WR 250 R, which is 250 cc ,single cylinder,
fuel injected, 4 stroke, with catalyzed exhaust.
I was actually surprised they didn't get better mileage naked. I've heard of mileage in the high 60s.

michelle_7728 · Post by **michelle_7728** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:12 am

hmmm...I'll bet they didn't mention that because you can take the motorcycle in the carpool lane and cut 25 minutes off of your 45 minute commute, the motorcycle is turned on 25 minutes less time, so that would cut down on the emmisions used (so maybe making it 200% more, rather than 416% more--referring to the chart above in the thread).

LunaP · Post by **LunaP** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:31 am

pdxrita wrote:
smithrw wrote:It wasn't a fair comparison. The bikes were all 2 cycle being compaired to cars.
I don't think they were all 2 stroke. In fact, I think only the final bike, the one that they tricked out, was a 2 stroke. They claim to have chosen it because of it's smaller displacement and because it had the latest emissions control technology on it. It seemed like a strange choice to me as well.

Here's a pic of the three cars and three motorcycles they tested. The cars look like a Pontiac of some sort, a Honda Accord and maybe a Ford Escort? I have no idea what these bikes are but the did say that the newest was 500cc's.

I'd put money down it's a Plymouth Reliant, Ford Taurus, and the 90's is either a Subaru or Mazda. I used to work at a car wash. And my friend had a Reliant in high school.

Fun fact time: notice that two of the three cars, they were forced to remove the car manufacturer emblems from them (I assume for advertising/endorsement reasons). Plymouth doesn't exist anymore, of course, so it was the only one that they left on.

Hipnerd · Post by **Hipnerd** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:54 am

I'm pretty sure they are correct about the general principle even if their specific results are less than perfect.

This wasn't really a "myth." It's an established fact. They were just confirming existing science. The average motorcycle pollutes more than the average car.

Lawnmowers and gas-powered leaf-blowers pollute worse than cars. Far worse.

All of our emission rules have focused on autos and other polluting combustion engines have been largely unregulated. In the absence of regulation, no manufacturer wants to go through the expense of adding technology to pollute less.

All that would accomplish is to make your product more expensive than your competitors.

Roose Hurro · Post by **Roose Hurro** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:47 am

Anybody notice that the 80's car and bike had the same CO2 emissions?

Scotty Blackjack · Post by **Scotty Blackjack** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:06 pm

How about the important thing here... NO SCOOTERS compared! Booooo!

BuddyRaton · Post by **BuddyRaton** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:45 pm

pdxrita wrote:
Roose Hurro wrote:How do you know that last bike was a 2-stroke? It isn't specified, and just because it's a dirtbike doesn't make it a 2-stroke. In fact, it's highly likely it was a 4-stroke, just like the other bikes... fuel-injected, rermember?
I could be wrong about that. Jamie said it was a single cylinder, which I took to mean a 2 stroke, but that's not necessarily true.

Ummmm...Buddy 150 Italia...single cylinder....4 stroke...

Lotrat · Post by **Lotrat** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:13 pm

rv-rick wrote:The final bike was a Yamaha WR 250 R, which is 250 cc ,single cylinder,
fuel injected, 4 stroke, with catalyzed exhaust.
I was actually surprised they didn't get better mileage naked. I've heard of mileage in the high 60s.

They claim an estimated 71 mpg on their website.

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/produ ... /home.aspx

pdxrita · Post by **pdxrita** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:02 pm

I think they're going to get a lot of kickback on this episode. Most notably, as Michelle points out above, riding two wheels can really cut down on road time if you are allowed to take it in the carpool lane or to split lanes. For me, neither of those applies. But given that they do all of their testing in the SF Bay Area, I'd like to see them take a car and a motorcycle out in commute traffic, maybe up 680 or 580, which are both in the same general vicinity of where they did this testing (at least I think so; the test sites always look really familiar to me) and see how they compare if the motorcycle splits lanes. I'd also love to see some scooters put to the test - how would a new Stella, with its phenomenal mileage, do? Finally, I think their approach on the final bike was a little underdone. Though I realize that the final segment in Mythbusters is always about sensationalizing things, people aren't going to add a skin to their motorcycles in the real world and that addition only addressed one thing, gas mileage, which the MC's already have. How about trying to add some more emissions controls to the bike and see how that fares? Would it cripple it, or would it be doable? I would put money on a follow up segment for this one.

(I stand corrected (more than once) on my ignorance of engine technology. Mea culpa.)

Post by **illnoise** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:07 pm

is that 'grams (of pollutants) per mile (driven)?' If so, that's a fair comparison, but I've seen other graphs that measured pollutants as a percentage of emissions, which seems unfair because it would seem a motorcycle would create less emissions as a whole, even if they were 'dirtier.'

The real story here would appear to be that 30 years of legislation and emissions controls don't seem to have changed automobile emissions much. Weird.

Post by **illnoise** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:10 pm

Also, i think a big point (that some of us seem to be missing, and manufacturers may be glossing over) is that mileage is not necessarily related to emissions. It appears we're using less gas, and drawing power from it more efficiently, but still releasing more pollutants into the air.

Ethan Allison · Post by **Ethan Allison** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:23 pm

pdxrita wrote:people aren't going to add a skin to their motorcycles

Well maybe you wouldn't...

PeteH · Post by **PeteH** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:12 pm

illnoise wrote:is that 'grams (of pollutants) per mile (driven)?' If so, that's a fair comparison, ....

Divide through by number of passengers.

AWinn6889 · Post by **AWinn6889** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:24 pm

neotrotsky wrote:If they didn't jack up the entire test, I MIGHT trust the results. But, they did it with some half-thought reasoning, which disappoints me. Here are some major points they did wrong:

-They compared sport bikes to standard sedans. That's like comparing a Porsche to a Buddy 125. Those bikes are not built for efficiency but to go fast. So, they aren't going to be as balanced for economy and performance, thus having many of the features a "commuter bike" would have.

-Two of the three bikes used were carburetor fed, non-catalyzed exhaust machines. The cars they were compared to were fuel injected with catalytic converters.

-Their attempt to "streamline" a bike was done using a carb'ed dirtbike, and again, one without a catalyzed exhaust. Also, there is already a bike out there that is streamlined and built for efficiency with fuel injection and catalyzed exhaust: A VESPA!

If they used commuter bikes (medium and large displacement scooters, Ninja/CBR 250's and the like) to commuter cars, then I would trust their findings far more. Instead, they came up with a quick and dirty (literally) version that would give them a California friendly result. I *love* the Mythbusters, don't get me wrong, but my enjoyment for their production probably explains why their glaring faults in this "test" irritate me so much.

While watching the episode the other day, this is EXACTLY what I was thinking, and what my bf was yelling at the TV about

Let's not even get started on the wrecking ball Newton's cradle!

jonlink · Post by **jonlink** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:12 pm

pdxrita wrote:How about trying to add some more emissions controls to the bike and see how that fares? Would it cripple it, or would it be doable? I would put money on a follow up segment for this one.

That is actually a really good point. If they are measuring emissions, then modifications that are aimed at mileage don't make much sense and speak to illnoise's observation...

illnoise wrote:Also, i think a big point (that some of us seem to be missing, and manufacturers may be glossing over) is that mileage is not necessarily related to emissions. It appears we're using less gas, and drawing power from it more efficiently, but still releasing more pollutants into the air.

While that is really an important take away, it seems that even Mythbusters missed it.

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:11 pm

Also, what is the overall environmental impact of manufacturing a motorcycle as opposed to a small "commuter" car like a Yaris, Accent or the like? Everyone LOVES to insist their Toyota Pious...er.... Prius is better than anything on the road, but what are the environmental costs of mining those rare-earth minerals used in the battery packs or the production of the polymers used on the body and interior? Pound for pound, the bike uses less material. And, with small displacement bikes reaching engine life to match small cars, the durability gap is getting smaller (still not there yet)

izark47 · Post by **izark47** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:44 pm

neotrotsky wrote:Also, what is the overall environmental impact of manufacturing a motorcycle as opposed to a small "commuter" car like a Yaris, Accent or the like? Everyone LOVES to insist their Toyota Pious...er.... Prius is better than anything on the road, but what are the environmental costs of mining those rare-earth minerals used in the battery packs or the production of the polymers used on the body and interior? Pound for pound, the bike uses less material. And, with small displacement bikes reaching engine life to match small cars, the durability gap is getting smaller (still not there yet)

Also the bigger issue with the Prius, is that they use both fossil fuel (Gas) and electricity that in the majority of the country is fueled by fossil fuel (coal) and would need to factored in to the equation.

Post by **ericalm** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm

izark47 wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:Also, what is the overall environmental impact of manufacturing a motorcycle as opposed to a small "commuter" car like a Yaris, Accent or the like? Everyone LOVES to insist their Toyota Pious...er.... Prius is better than anything on the road, but what are the environmental costs of mining those rare-earth minerals used in the battery packs or the production of the polymers used on the body and interior? Pound for pound, the bike uses less material. And, with small displacement bikes reaching engine life to match small cars, the durability gap is getting smaller (still not there yet)
Also the bigger issue with the Prius, is that they use both fossil fuel (Gas) and electricity that in the majority of the country is fueled by fossil fuel (coal) and would need to factored in to the equation.

Only for the plug in. The electricity for the normal versions of the Prius comes from the batteries and regenerative braking.

As far as plug-in electrics go, in general, mining, processing, transporting and burning the amount of coal needed to power these usually has a lower carbon footprint than the equivalent in gas for the same amount of power. The big variable is the electrical grid. Due to inefficiencies, power is lost along the grid between the power plant and your house. The country needs to seriously update power transmissions and our grids.

As daunting and unlikely as that sounds, we vastly improved and increased the capacity of our telecommunications infrastructure in under a decade, then continued to do so in the subsequent decade.

rv-rick · Post by **rv-rick** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:36 pm

Lotrat wrote:
rv-rick wrote:The final bike was a Yamaha WR 250 R, which is 250 cc ,single cylinder,
fuel injected, 4 stroke, with catalyzed exhaust.
I was actually surprised they didn't get better mileage naked. I've heard of mileage in the high 60s.
They claim an estimated 71 mpg on their website.

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/produ ... /home.aspx

The figures I used were from posts on the internet, from various M/C forums (fora?)
As to the factory figures; they use the EPA standard tests which, even though changed in the last few years, are usually quite optimistic. Usually the bikes are run ~30-35 MPH, definitely not real world.
Still, it was an interesting show, even if they could have used more practical bikes that most people use for commuting.

rv-rick · Post by **rv-rick** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:49 pm

ericalm wrote:
izark47 wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:Also, what is the overall environmental impact of manufacturing a motorcycle as opposed to a small "commuter" car like a Yaris, Accent or the like? Everyone LOVES to insist their Toyota Pious...er.... Prius is better than anything on the road, but what are the environmental costs of mining those rare-earth minerals used in the battery packs or the production of the polymers used on the body and interior? Pound for pound, the bike uses less material. And, with small displacement bikes reaching engine life to match small cars, the durability gap is getting smaller (still not there yet)
Also the bigger issue with the Prius, is that they use both fossil fuel (Gas) and electricity that in the majority of the country is fueled by fossil fuel (coal) and would need to factored in to the equation.
Only for the plug in. The electricity for the normal versions of the Prius comes from the batteries and regenerative braking.

As far as plug-in electrics go, in general, mining, processing, transporting and burning the amount of coal needed to power these usually has a lower carbon footprint than the equivalent in gas for the same amount of power. The big variable is the electrical grid. Due to inefficiencies, power is lost along the grid between the power plant and your house. The country needs to seriously update power transmissions and our grids.

As daunting and unlikely as that sounds, we vastly improved and increased the capacity of our telecommunications infrastructure in under a decade, then continued to do so in the subsequent decade.

I read a while back that manufacturing a Prius had a more negative effect on the environment than a Ford F-150 pickup, when you consider mining the chemicals for the batteries, most of which are mined in countries that have far looser air quality standards than do the U.S. and Europe, and shipping the materials around the world.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:23 am

I read a while back that flying unicorns are real.

Transitional technologies are just that. The hybrid is a stepping stone to full electric. We need the intermediate products to get us from A to B. It's up to consumers to educate themselves and decide whether they're ready to be early adopters and whether whatever they're considering buying has the benefits touted.

I'd argue that even if the Prius/Ford 150 factoid is true, the Prius is still better than the Ford 150 because it helps moves us from old ways of thinking to new ways. It's doing more to get consumers ready for the next step forward, and these things will incrementally improve the energy and pollution situation rather than being the end-all solution at once. The culture and behavioral changes needed to move away from fossil fuels are just as difficult as the technological ones.

jonlink · Post by **jonlink** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:36 am

rv-rick wrote:
ericalm wrote:
izark47 wrote: Also the bigger issue with the Prius, is that they use both fossil fuel (Gas) and electricity that in the majority of the country is fueled by fossil fuel (coal) and would need to factored in to the equation.
Only for the plug in. The electricity for the normal versions of the Prius comes from the batteries and regenerative braking.

As far as plug-in electrics go, in general, mining, processing, transporting and burning the amount of coal needed to power these usually has a lower carbon footprint than the equivalent in gas for the same amount of power. The big variable is the electrical grid. Due to inefficiencies, power is lost along the grid between the power plant and your house. The country needs to seriously update power transmissions and our grids.

As daunting and unlikely as that sounds, we vastly improved and increased the capacity of our telecommunications infrastructure in under a decade, then continued to do so in the subsequent decade.
I read a while back that manufacturing a Prius had a more negative effect on the environment than a Ford F-150 pickup, when you consider mining the chemicals for the batteries, most of which are mined in countries that have far looser air quality standards than do the U.S. and Europe, and shipping the materials around the world.

Actually, what you probably read was that the Prius was worse than the H2 Hummer. A finding that was severely criticized by many scientists & testers as being tremendously flawed. The report was later retracted, but the damage it has done has (obviously) been given a life of its own. Not surprising considering the "research" was performed by a marketing company.

Ethan Allison · Post by **Ethan Allison** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:47 am

ericalm wrote:I read a while back that flying unicorns are real.

I'd argue that even if the Prius/Ford 150 factoid is true, the Prius is still better than the Ford 150 because it helps moves us from old ways of thinking to new ways. It's doing more to get consumers ready for the next step forward, and these things will incrementally improve the energy and pollution situation rather than being the end-all solution at once. The culture and behavioral changes needed to move away from fossil fuels are just as difficult as the technological ones.

First off, they are real. I am one.

Do you really think that the issue with electrics is that people are prejudiced against them being different as opposed to just the range issue?

scootavaran · Post by **scootavaran** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:22 am

Well, according to this shows results I guess the next time I see a Harly rider I'll go up to him and let him know he's not helping the environment as much as he thought.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:02 am

Ethan Allison wrote:
ericalm wrote:I read a while back that flying unicorns are real.

I'd argue that even if the Prius/Ford 150 factoid is true, the Prius is still better than the Ford 150 because it helps moves us from old ways of thinking to new ways. It's doing more to get consumers ready for the next step forward, and these things will incrementally improve the energy and pollution situation rather than being the end-all solution at once. The culture and behavioral changes needed to move away from fossil fuels are just as difficult as the technological ones.
First off, they are real. I am one.

Do you really think that the issue with electrics is that people are prejudiced against them being different as opposed to just the range issue?

There are a lot of issues. As little as five years ago, most people wouldn't have considered an electric car regardless of specs; there was too much of a stigma. Now many of those attitudes have changed and the technology (range) is more of an issue. As I said, it's both. And I think the Prius and hybrids have done a lot to help change those attitudes. It demonstrated that the market exists and now we have hybrids from all major car manufacturers as well as the Leaf and the Volt. None of those would be on the market if not for the Prius.

There are still other behavioral and cultural changes that will have to be overcome. But it wasn't all that long ago that the concept of online shopping scared the hell out of most people.

Ethan Allison · Post by **Ethan Allison** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:01 am

I honestly can't come up with a better reply to that than "aughhh people are so dumb"

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:27 am

The Prius is a joke. It's made to have people "think" they are green. A Geo Metro XFi gets 50mpg. Yes, less features, but if this is the best they could do in 20 years innovation, that's not saying much. It's a half-assed approach that's making Toyota money and excusing equally half-assed research.

I've told my wife that I intend to keep our Tracker going as long as possible until we can afford an electric car with an over 200 mile range under 30k. If we can get that, I'm sold. I'm a fan of the quick torque you get from electric drive, and in a commuter "appliance" that many people want, it's a great fit! I myself do not like the idea of an "appliance" car at all, but then again many do. Many people also hate driving, so it makes sense that we should have a market push for more practical innovation especially if you can get greener at it.

I just think the major automakers aren't that committed and only see electric cars as an advertising ploy. Even the Nissan Leaf seems barely half-hearted. I'm not convinced they are working hard enough.

As Ericalm said: In less than 20 years we did the impossible with telecommunications. Truly daunting and amazing things. There is no excuse we can't push or power grid development and electric car research as hard.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:05 am

neotrotsky wrote:I just think the major automakers aren't that committed and only see electric cars as an advertising ploy. Even the Nissan Leaf seems barely half-hearted. I'm not convinced they are working hard enough.

I'm not sure they're any more sincere than they ever are about anything. But more than advertising ploy, I think they're hedging their bets. There are a lot of companies working this from the outside—the Netscapes, Amazons, Googles and so on to carry that analogy over. You could be Ford or GM or even Toyota (or IBM, Compaq or HP) and next thing you know, you've been pushed aside and left behind in the industry you helped create. I'm sure a few years ago the auto companies would have thought such a rapid change impossible. So did computer companies, newspapers, record companies, et. al.

Those old tech companies bought up startups and tried to co-op new technology and media and they pretty much all failed.

Ethan Allison · Post by **Ethan Allison** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:23 am

The biggest reason practical electric cars can even exist is because of the market for denser batteries in laptops and phones. It's absurd that nobody makes a decent high-mileage car. If some guy can make an old Honda Civic get 90mpg highway for a few hundred bucks (http://aerocivic.com), think about what a company could design with a relatively small R&D budget...

but now I'm just rambling.

Keys · Post by **Keys** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:15 pm

I thought it was spelled "Pious".

Matches the attitudes of most of the owners...

--Keys

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:20 pm

Keys wrote:I thought it was spelled "Pious".

Matches the attitudes of most of the owners...

Same lame (and very old) joke twice in one thread!

It's surprising and a little sad that scooterists of all people are being so judgmental and resorting to stereotyping.

AWinn6889 · Post by **AWinn6889** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:11 pm

Keys wrote:I thought it was spelled "Pious".

Matches the attitudes of most of the owners...

--Keys

...I call them "Silent Killers," well, those and Smart Cars... I've almost been run over by a few of each while walking through the mall parking lot to my store. Not to say that I don't look both ways, because I do, and I am very cautious in parking lots... but people around here are nuts. There is at least one car accident in this parking lot (or surrounding entrances and exits) DAILY, it is the most horribly designed parking lot I have ever seen, next to most gas stations. But the fact that these cars just don't make any engine noise at low speeds makes it hard to hear them coming, so that you can dart out of the way from the crazy person driving!
I will add though, that I've almost been run over by people in Hummers, various mini vans, etc. because people just don't watch where they are going, or what's around them when they floor it out of their parking spots!

Anyway, it is indeed true that the mining that is needed to provide the Lithium and other minerals for the batteries for these cars is extremely hazardous to the environment. I will have to locate the link to the ridiculously long, however well-informed, article that I found a couple weeks ago.

jonlink · Post by **jonlink** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:35 pm

AWinn6889 wrote:Anyway, it is indeed true that the mining that is needed to provide the Lithium and other minerals for the batteries for these cars is extremely hazardous to the environment. I will have to locate the link to the ridiculously long, however well-informed, article that I found a couple weeks ago.

Of course that is true. It is also true that all the metal used in a normal car does the same. It is also true that oil prospecting and pumping is bad for the environment. The morale is that everything is bad and nothing is good.

A lot of these studies are desperate attempts to maintain the status quo. If scientists ever figure out how to teleport people, I bet there will be studies showing how it is the same or worse than clear-cutting all of South America.

Seriously though, since the Prius has only been out for about a decade there is no way there can be an accurate study on the long term costs of the car. Most 2002 Prius are still on the road. Everything, even in newer studies, is an educated guess. A study that came out any earlier than a couple of years ago shouldn't even count as an educated guess.

People should drive reasonable vehicles and avoid preaching about why they do or do not own a certain vehicle.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:11 pm

jonlink wrote:People should drive reasonable vehicles and avoid preaching about why they do or do not own a certain vehicle.

+1. Well said.

AWinn6889 · Post by **AWinn6889** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:19 pm

It would probably help if so many people didn't drive gigantic trucks and SUVs if they don't really need to. I can think of a few good reasons to have one every once in a while, but to drive one of those bad bears ALL THE TIME, even when it's just one person making a small grocery store trip, is a little ridiculous. Especially when you can just rent one for a day if you really need to.
I think it would be a great study to see what would happen if all of those people with gas guzzling daily drivers were given a Prius, Jetta /Golf TDI, scooters, etc to use as a daily driver for a week or a month or whatever. I bet they would be pretty shocked to see how much money they save on gas... might change their mind about what they choose to drive.
I mean, when you can rent a big-ass U-haul truck, or a large pick-up from Enterprise or whatever, for as low as $19 a day... why is it necessary for so many people to actually own them, and use them as their daily driver?! I can understand if you are in construction, or you work on a farm, etc etc, that makes sense. But these soccer moms and their Nissan Armadas (that they are generally quite incapable of driving) are a little much.
My sister has a 2000-something (3 or 4 I think...) Ford Explorer now, she used to drive my dad's old 1994 Toyota Camry coupe until about 4 years ago... but she got tired of only having two-doors. She decided on the Explorer because she "needed the room for all of Ty's stuff" (Ty is my nephew) and "it makes me [her] feel bigger on the road, like I'm not going to get squished!". While I understand that strollers and car seats and diaper bags etc are bulky, I hardly think an SUV of that size is necessary. My 2001 VW Jetta is the same exact size on the inside as her Explorer, but I get ~34 mpg, while she is getting 17-22ish. Even our 1997 Jetta beater has enough trunk space to fit all of the junk she had to carry around for my nephew, and that gets about 30mpg...

scootavaran · Post by **scootavaran** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:12 pm

AWinn6889 wrote:It would probably help if so many people didn't drive gigantic trucks and SUVs if they don't really need to. I can think of a few good reasons to have one every once in a while, but to drive one of those bad bears ALL THE TIME, even when it's just one person making a small grocery store trip, is a little ridiculous. Especially when you can just rent one for a day if you really need to.
I think it would be a great study to see what would happen if all of those people with gas guzzling daily drivers were given a Prius, Jetta /Golf TDI, scooters, etc to use as a daily driver for a week or a month or whatever. I bet they would be pretty shocked to see how much money they save on gas... might change their mind about what they choose to drive.
I mean, when you can rent a big-ass U-haul truck, or a large pick-up from Enterprise or whatever, for as low as $19 a day... why is it necessary for so many people to actually own them, and use them as their daily driver?! I can understand if you are in construction, or you work on a farm, etc etc, that makes sense. But these soccer moms and their Nissan Armadas (that they are generally quite incapable of driving) are a little much.
My sister has a 2000-something (3 or 4 I think...) Ford Explorer now, she used to drive my dad's old 1994 Toyota Camry coupe until about 4 years ago... but she got tired of only having two-doors. She decided on the Explorer because she "needed the room for all of Ty's stuff" (Ty is my nephew) and "it makes me [her] feel bigger on the road, like I'm not going to get squished!". While I understand that strollers and car seats and diaper bags etc are bulky, I hardly think an SUV of that size is necessary. My 2001 VW Jetta is the same exact size on the inside as her Explorer, but I get ~34 mpg, while she is getting 17-22ish. Even our 1997 Jetta beater has enough trunk space to fit all of the junk she had to carry around for my nephew, and that gets about 30mpg...

The most absolutely worst thing ive heard someone say about buying a bigass SUV was.."well, in a crash I know I wont be the one getting killed lol"

Thats human selfishness for you.

AWinn6889 · Post by **AWinn6889** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:13 pm

scootavaran wrote:The most absolutely worst thing ive heard someone say about buying a bigass SUV was.."well, in a crash I know I wont be the one getting killed lol"

Thats human selfishness for you.

Yes, yes it is. It is also not necessarily true too, if you have some kind of side impact, or even take a turn too fast, it is more likely that you will flip/roll, and that could cause some real nasty if not fatal injuries.

Modern Buddy

Mythbusters Car vs. Motorcycle

Mythbusters Car vs. Motorcycle

Re: Mythbusters Car vs. Motorcycle

Re: Mythbusters Car vs. Motorcycle