motorbike carbon footprint
Discussion
I would say Vs a “normal” mainline sports car there is much more exotic metals used in making a bike thou..But to counter that there are millions more cars out there.
Fuel consumption wise bikes are far superior to cars, even full on sportsbikes can managed circa 50MPG held at motorway speeds.
The owner real downer I can see is bikes are far harder on tyres…
Fuel consumption wise bikes are far superior to cars, even full on sportsbikes can managed circa 50MPG held at motorway speeds.
The owner real downer I can see is bikes are far harder on tyres…
rsv gone! said:
You're opening up a can of worms. Don't say too much or those lefties will twig that sportsbikes use more fuel than a tiny hatchback.
Figures for my commute; circa 250 miles per week;
Car 23mpg
Bike 45mpg
Bike wins no contest:Figures for my commute; circa 250 miles per week;
Car 23mpg
Bike 45mpg
- It's more fuel efficient that most cars
- It causes no congestion
- It spends less time in traffic, so a double whammy on fuel efficiency there
- Much less metal is used to make it and therefore less power is needed to do so
- You don't need to make a few hundred kgs of batteries for it
- blah blah blah
Frik said:
podman said:
I would say Vs a “normal” mainline sports car there is much more exotic metals used in making a bike thou.
Not really.By whatever eco-measure you use, bikes are a lot more efficient in the manufacturing process. There's so many fewer parts.
cossiemetro said:
YamR1V64motion said:
who cares?
worry about what india and china put out first before i worry about my carbon footprint the uk saving is a drop in the ocean i'm afraid
cossiemetro said:
YamR1V64motion said:
who cares?
worry about what india and china put out first before i worry about my carbon footprint the uk saving is a drop in the ocean i'm afraid
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff