Petrol motorcycle sales banned from 2040
Discussion
srob said:
I read an interesting interview with Guy Martin where he reckons bike development has been massively hampered by a lack of emissions restrictions.
He says that if you look at the car world, where you struggle to buy a big cc NA car now, it's all been driven by chasing emissions and if the same had applied to bikes we'd all be riding round on smaller (lighter) forced induction bikes. I hadn't thought of it before, but I agree with him.
The bike industry has been caught napping - again. Chasing big bhp to sell bikes and not seen the changing tide. People want economy, as well as fun. Driving styles have changed, you only have to look at the average speeds people drive on dual carriageways now to see that. People are going slower to save fuel. If bikes were now running the 150mpg they surely could be, how many of those people would be commuting by motorbike? I would!
But, electric isn't the way - in my opinion.
It's a pet rant of mine, but if they want to change the world they have to give people reasonable alternatives. At the moment people default to their 2 ton SUV as a way of transporting one person. Most hate driving and find it stressful and expensive. But, unless you live in a city center you have no choice but to drive. My wife recently tried to commute into Cambridge by train. We live within a 20 min walk of the station but the trains were so unreliable she had to give up and go back to driving. She loved going by train but the economics only just made sense, and add into the equation she has to keep a car 'in case' the trains aren't running or are delayed and it made no sense.
I firmly believe that synthetic fuel will be the short term solution. Longer term, I think those who have the powers have to pull their big boy pants on and invest in an infrastructure away from the roads that supports 21stC living.
I suspect that the car market and motorbike market in the U.K. (motorbike ie not including scooters) are diametrically opposed. For cars probably 95% are bought as means of transport with 5% being toys/lifestyle choices. For motorcycles in the UK and probably other rich countries it is the exact opposite. So buyers are not focused on practical aspects or fuel economy. Personally I would not want a turbo engine in my bike. NA rules!He says that if you look at the car world, where you struggle to buy a big cc NA car now, it's all been driven by chasing emissions and if the same had applied to bikes we'd all be riding round on smaller (lighter) forced induction bikes. I hadn't thought of it before, but I agree with him.
The bike industry has been caught napping - again. Chasing big bhp to sell bikes and not seen the changing tide. People want economy, as well as fun. Driving styles have changed, you only have to look at the average speeds people drive on dual carriageways now to see that. People are going slower to save fuel. If bikes were now running the 150mpg they surely could be, how many of those people would be commuting by motorbike? I would!
But, electric isn't the way - in my opinion.
It's a pet rant of mine, but if they want to change the world they have to give people reasonable alternatives. At the moment people default to their 2 ton SUV as a way of transporting one person. Most hate driving and find it stressful and expensive. But, unless you live in a city center you have no choice but to drive. My wife recently tried to commute into Cambridge by train. We live within a 20 min walk of the station but the trains were so unreliable she had to give up and go back to driving. She loved going by train but the economics only just made sense, and add into the equation she has to keep a car 'in case' the trains aren't running or are delayed and it made no sense.
I firmly believe that synthetic fuel will be the short term solution. Longer term, I think those who have the powers have to pull their big boy pants on and invest in an infrastructure away from the roads that supports 21stC living.
Edited by srob on Tuesday 14th May 07:01
Seeing bikes as part of the solution with regards to reducing emissions is not thinking about the big picture. Sure, there are some bikes that offer very good fuel economy but, as has been said, they will not be an acceptable solution due to a) the risk factors; b) people don't like getting wet and cold.Those who already don't enjoy driving and see it as a chore are definitely not going to be interested in a 2 wheeled alternative that requires multiple complicated tests to get a license, and a large pile of expensive kit to keep dry and warm.
However, that is almost irrelevant as,when petrol car numbers start to significantly reduce, it'll be the availability (or more accurately, the lack of) and the cost of fuel that will kill all petrol engines. Public transport will be a realistic alternative in large towns/cities reducing the need for petrol stations . Rural areas will not have the population density to justify more than a few petrol stations so getting fuel is likely going to involve quite a journey and will cost a huge amount.
I'm not sure I agree with Guy Martin though. It's the fact that there is a cut off date of 2040 for the production of all petrol engined motorbikes that is the important thing. That date doesn't change if engines become more fuel efficient in the interim so spending time and money developing the likes of a 400-600cc forced induction engines to try and sell them to a customer based that is a) very small; b) traditionally extremely resistant to "doing things differently"; c) getting older at a rate that says a very significant number will not even be riding by 2040; makes no sense.
However, that is almost irrelevant as,when petrol car numbers start to significantly reduce, it'll be the availability (or more accurately, the lack of) and the cost of fuel that will kill all petrol engines. Public transport will be a realistic alternative in large towns/cities reducing the need for petrol stations . Rural areas will not have the population density to justify more than a few petrol stations so getting fuel is likely going to involve quite a journey and will cost a huge amount.
I'm not sure I agree with Guy Martin though. It's the fact that there is a cut off date of 2040 for the production of all petrol engined motorbikes that is the important thing. That date doesn't change if engines become more fuel efficient in the interim so spending time and money developing the likes of a 400-600cc forced induction engines to try and sell them to a customer based that is a) very small; b) traditionally extremely resistant to "doing things differently"; c) getting older at a rate that says a very significant number will not even be riding by 2040; makes no sense.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
I'm conflicted... It'll be real shame that future generations won't get that visceral thrill of winding a bike up through the gears (even if they will be a lot faster)
I’m sure they’ll get enough excitement fighting our robot overlords (who, for the record I welcome. All hail the robots!).
EU safety reg will squash the fun out of biking long before emission in my opinion. Speed limiter are here for cars and just as abs is now mandatory for all but the smallest of new bikes they will be along before we know it. Are we all going to cling to new ICE bikes if they are limited to the ever reducing speed limits, I’m not so sure.
Bikes have been powerful enough for the last 20/30 years so just fill your garage up with a few you like just now and hold onto them.
Motorcycle emissions;
Euro 3 = 2g/km
Euro 4 = 1.16g/km
Euro 5 = 1g/km
So in a day when every one is hung up about CO, I wonder why it costs more to tax a 600cc + motorcycle when a 100g/km car is free to tax and a 120g/km car is still a third of the price to tax!!
Hopefully this will get subverted before it becomes a reality but who knows in this world!
Euro 3 = 2g/km
Euro 4 = 1.16g/km
Euro 5 = 1g/km
So in a day when every one is hung up about CO, I wonder why it costs more to tax a 600cc + motorcycle when a 100g/km car is free to tax and a 120g/km car is still a third of the price to tax!!
Hopefully this will get subverted before it becomes a reality but who knows in this world!
Playsatan said:
I’m sure they’ll get enough excitement fighting our robot overlords (who, for the record I welcome. All hail the robots!).
EU safety reg will squash the fun out of biking long before emission in my opinion. Speed limiter are here for cars and just as abs is now mandatory for all but the smallest of new bikes they will be along before we know it. Are we all going to cling to new ICE bikes if they are limited to the ever reducing speed limits, I’m not so sure.
Bikes have been powerful enough for the last 20/30 years so just fill your garage up with a few you like just now and hold onto them.
I am not sure how easy it would be to apply to bikes as very few bikes have GPS built in.
Crap roads, too much traffic and draconian fines/crushing of bikes/imprisonment are much more of a concern for me.
NITO said:
Motorcycle emissions;
Euro 3 = 2g/km
Euro 4 = 1.16g/km
Euro 5 = 1g/km
So in a day when every one is hung up about CO, I wonder why it costs more to tax a 600cc + motorcycle when a 100g/km car is free to tax and a 120g/km car is still a third of the price to tax!!
Hopefully this will get subverted before it becomes a reality but who knows in this world!
The government only shuffle vehicle tax about to bring in more money overall. So be careful what you wish for. Euro 3 = 2g/km
Euro 4 = 1.16g/km
Euro 5 = 1g/km
So in a day when every one is hung up about CO, I wonder why it costs more to tax a 600cc + motorcycle when a 100g/km car is free to tax and a 120g/km car is still a third of the price to tax!!
Hopefully this will get subverted before it becomes a reality but who knows in this world!
NITO said:
Motorcycle emissions;
Euro 3 = 2g/km
Euro 4 = 1.16g/km
Euro 5 = 1g/km
So in a day when every one is hung up about CO, I wonder why it costs more to tax a 600cc + motorcycle when a 100g/km car is free to tax and a 120g/km car is still a third of the price to tax!!
Hopefully this will get subverted before it becomes a reality but who knows in this world!
I think you may be comparing carbon dioxide emissions with carbon monoxide emissions.Euro 3 = 2g/km
Euro 4 = 1.16g/km
Euro 5 = 1g/km
So in a day when every one is hung up about CO, I wonder why it costs more to tax a 600cc + motorcycle when a 100g/km car is free to tax and a 120g/km car is still a third of the price to tax!!
Hopefully this will get subverted before it becomes a reality but who knows in this world!
crofty1984 said:
I'll be 56 in 2040. Hopefully I can buy a bike then that will last me another 20 or so years, then I can die before I can't ride any more. At the moment my bikes are between brand new and 50 years old.
My newest bike will be 77 years old in 2040, oldest will be 112. Ironically both are more economical than most mentioned on this thread it seems. That's progress
Donbot said:
The government only shuffle vehicle tax about to bring in more money overall. So be careful what you wish for.
We're pretty shafted anyway.I have a 2008 second car costing £700 for 12 months tax that barely does 1000 miles a year so should really be sold, and the wife has a little 2008 CLK cabrio for the summer that does similar mileage and just cost £390 for 6 months. A few bikes means I just put them on DD each for a couple of months and rotate though them a year and then cancel. Not too long ago I would just tax them for 6 or 12 months but the costs of VED are getting ridiculous and cost more than insurance for each of my vehicles.
The pyramid is massively stacked against the poorest however, particularly cars in the pre 2017 bracket compared to vehicles taxed after that that have fallen out of the 5 year over 40k supertax regime which was shouldered by the wealthiest, meanwhile those who can't afford to buy newer vehicles are being crucified! It went up by quite a drastic amount the last couple of years also.
Ken_Code said:
OverSteery said:
on the other hand a whole load of large bikes struggle to better the mpg of a good diesel which can carry 4+ people and luggage and have dirtier exhaust
If you are going to compare real-world economy you should also use real-world use cases. Most diesels aren’t carrying four people and luggage most days.Sigmamark7 said:
Not sure if the image has uploaded, but if it has, it does indicate just how much of an impact we are having on global emissions. The moral is that we should think carefully about our individual contribution, before getting back on the bike and enjoying it while we still can.
There was a festival in the village. All the farmers were asked to contribute wine to a communal barrel. The first farmer thought to himself “no one will know if I put in water rather than wine”. The second farmer had similar thoughts. When it came to pouring out some drinks…all that came out was pure water!
The argument that we shouldn’t bother cutting emissions is similar. Just an excuse to not take responsibility. No one individual or country can make a difference. It requires small changes by a significant proportion of the world’s population. The Chinese are making huge efforts to go green, whilst trying to also maintain economic growth (not an easy task).
The graphic you show also most likely shows carbon emissions by production, not by consumption. Yes China produces a lot of greenhouse gases but that is in making all the stuff we are buying.
Sorry to spout such lefty nonsense on BB
NITO said:
The pyramid is massively stacked against the poorest however, particularly cars in the pre 2017 bracket compared to vehicles taxed after that that have fallen out of the 5 year over 40k supertax regime which was shouldered by the wealthiest, meanwhile those who can't afford to buy newer vehicles are being crucified! It went up by quite a drastic amount the last couple of years also.
To be fair the people who are buying the typical cheap 'ecobox' aren't paying much tax based on CO2. An Aygo is £20 a year to tax etc.You're completely f
king shafted if you want something remotely interesting tho. 
the tribester said:
An S1000R can do 200mph and 0-60 in a couple of seconds, so a 4 seater diesel is not an ideal comparison, maybe compare it with a Mercedes AMG GT or similar. I don't know a single S1000R owner who bought one with economy in mind.
Which is a really important point. A relatively high fraction of motorbikes are high-performance machines, which are awful in terms of fuel economy.As above, I wish the government would instead insist on improving overall economy rather than banning them.
Donbot said:
To be fair the people who are buying the typical cheap 'ecobox' aren't paying much tax based on CO2. An Aygo is £20 a year to tax etc.
You're completely fking shafted if you want something remotely interesting tho.
It's such a shame that's there's loads of interesting stuff registered post March 2006 that will be scrapped years if not decades early just because it costs >£700pa in tax.You're completely f
king shafted if you want something remotely interesting tho. I'll be 70 in 2040, assuming I'm still riding then I'll buy an ICE bike that will no doubt out last me near the ban time.
Unless current battery technology makes huge leaps in terms of range and weight it will all but kill bikes off apart from commuters. Current EV bikes are woeful in terms of range and as ever face the same charging issues as cars. You certainly won't be going touring on one currently or even for a Sunday blast to Wales etc given most require a charge after 50 or so miles.
Unless current battery technology makes huge leaps in terms of range and weight it will all but kill bikes off apart from commuters. Current EV bikes are woeful in terms of range and as ever face the same charging issues as cars. You certainly won't be going touring on one currently or even for a Sunday blast to Wales etc given most require a charge after 50 or so miles.
Ken_Code said:
the tribester said:
An S1000R can do 200mph and 0-60 in a couple of seconds, so a 4 seater diesel is not an ideal comparison, maybe compare it with a Mercedes AMG GT or similar. I don't know a single S1000R owner who bought one with economy in mind.
Which is a really important point. A relatively high fraction of motorbikes are high-performance machines, which are awful in terms of fuel economy.As above, I wish the government would instead insist on improving overall economy rather than banning them.
If economy/CO2 was key, then maybe a hybrid bike would be a thing?
Economy matters a bit to me, because of tank range. Not so much these days, but filling up more than 3 days a week got annoying!
But so many big bikes in the UK do very low mileage, how much does the CO2 matter?
I think the pressure will be on long before 2040, due to noise and pollution other than CO2.
Big bikes are becoming more and more pointless on UK roads very month, as ever more speed limits and cameras appear.
See the 142mph in Scotland thread.
The flip side of this is What e-MCs might be on offer?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff