Anybody know the truth? Are motorcycle emissions as bad as they say?

My company won't include motorcycles in the save energy program (van-pooling, biking, etc.) because they say we pollute so much.
Last week it was the same excuse with the state.

It's not after market pipes, just all motorcycles. They changed the law a few years ago to be more strict, but there's no recognition of how bikes save, and no help in getting people to look out.

 

motorcycle emissions good

 

Is anything as bad as "THEY" say?

 

"They" usually don't know what they are talking about. But!!! I don't either so I do it my way.

 

learn something new everday... oxides of nitrogen

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun.../hy-throttle11

 

If I drive my Silverado to work for 1 week I burn $50 in fuel. If I ride my Decker, I burn $16. If they don't see the math in that example, they should step aside so accurate stats can be reflected! Smaller engines, smaller carbon foot print!

 

Might make for a good Mythbusters episode. Doesn't seem possible that such a small motor could be producing so much more pollution.

 

Bikes may get better mileage than a car but without a catalytic converter they may be polluting more. I don't really know though, I look forward to hearing an informed opinion.

Just read the article someone linked to, this just doesn't make sense to me "Motorcycles and scooters are, on average, about twice as fuel efficient as cars. Compact and lightweight, their internal-combustion engines do a better job of converting fuel into energy that makes the vehicle move. But extracting more energy from the fuel has a downside. It produces greater amounts of a smog-forming emission called oxides of nitrogen.". How exactly is an internal combustion engine on a motorcycle converting fuel into energy better than a car engine? Bikes are lighter and their engines aren't powering air conditioning etc. but I wouldn't think the engine itself is doing anything different.

 

This article seems pretty good...
http://ecomodder.com/blog/motorcycle...ronment-wrong/

"because most motorcycles and scooters are smaller and cheaper than cars, adding modern catalytic converters and emissions systems would add a tremendous amount of weight and cost to most 2-wheeled vehicles. This means that, unlike cars’, motorcycle and scooter exhaust is heavily polluted."

 

I am reasonably sure that a number of motorcycles have had catalytic converts for several years. Although motorcycles may be more fuel efficient, they may be putting out more pollution. It all boils down to the engine design and how well it works in regards to pollution.

Remember the two stroke bikes? The one I had got reasonable mileage but it burned oil as part of the design. I'm sure it put out a lot of unburned hydrocarbons.

The two articles were interesting but I'd like to see some actual measurements of different bikes compared to the standard for cars and actual measurements for cars.

Regulation of internal combustion engines in regards to pollution is going to get tighter and tighter whether we like it or not. Someone out there thinks keeping the air we breathe clean is worth the effort.