No replacement for displacement!

[Vini]

Yes, that is the relevance to street bikes Max already explained.
Max seems to have some additional reasons why going beyond a certain amount of fuel is not a good idea or maybe I misunderstood him.
Re-introducing 2s to MotoGP would mean making it a pure racing series again that's just about finishing a race as quickly as possible without any other economic goals.
That's why these arguments would no longer be valid.

As I said, this is obviously not a reason to allow two strokes on the street again but it just shows that much of the emission laws were not written with the environment in mind but with economic interests.
If I had my way, Diesel cars would be banned just like (old) two strokes.


There is too much money in oil for petrol motorcycles to suddenly disappear even when we have the perfect battery.

[HornetMaX]

I know some can't get it, but there are some industrial implications behind, even if the fans may not understand why in hell a motogp bike must finish a race with no more than 22 litres of fuel.

Care to name those industrial implications?
Keep in mind that relevance to street bikes (emissions, km range) is not given anymore anyway, once you re-introduce ('classical') two-strokes to MotoGP. So this reason would be invalid.

But that's exactly why they are NOT gonna reintroduce 2s in racing. Because they are irrelevant industry-wise, at least right now.
Some seem to think that we ride 4s because motogp is on 4s. IT'S THE OTHER (BLOODY) WAY AROUND !

Yes, that is the relevance to street bikes Max already explained.
Max seems to have some additional reasons why going beyond a certain amount of fuel is not a good idea or maybe I misunderstood him.
Re-introducing 2s to MotoGP would mean making it a pure racing series again that's just about finishing a race as quickly as possible without any other economic goals.
That's why these arguments would no longer be valid.

The industry relevance I mentioned was referring to emissions in general.
Fuel limitations are there because making them tighter pushes the boundaries of research on engine technology. So they are a good thing (if used properly, F1 may not have been a good example in the past).

Constructors would not invest huge amount of money for a "pure racing series". Example: nobody gives a damn about dragsters, where you can use pretty much what you want to go from A to be as fast as you can (so it's as pure as it gets). And when I say nobody I don't mean fan/spectators: I mean constructors. Can you guess why ?

If I had my way, Diesel cars would be banned just like (old) two strokes.

That may well happen soon. Some cities are seriously thinking at limiting access to diesel engines (or to any engine that is not clean enough, no matter the engine technology).
But the day some areas go "zero emission or nothing" (i.e. electric), I can see plenty of people claiming their "right" to drive petrol cars and bikes, because they are better, more fun or err ... sound better.

[TFC]

I think the Mayor of Paris has already banned diesels, effective from 2020.. Could be wrong. I know London is thinking of following suit and Delhi is trying to ban the sale of new diesel models..

[HornetMaX]

Looking for other stuff, I've just literally stumbled on this (from the book "Motogp Technology" by Neil Spalding, 2nd edition, 2010):

Emission Legislation

The timing of motogp has also been very advantageous. Over the last ten years motorcycles have enjoyed substantial leeway on emissions legislation. On the bases that there were not many motorcycles and that it is difficult to store emissions control devices on the typical motorcycle, we have been allowed emission standards that have hardly affected the sport wee love. Over the same ten years, however, cars and other forms of motorised transport have had their emission standards continuously upgraded, and they are now so rigorous that the allowances for motorcycles can be seen to be ludicrously generous.

We all associate heavy and hot catalytic converters with emissions legislation, but that is only part of the story. The efficient burning of fuel and the careful control of the use of fuel through an electronic throttle system is the other half of the story, and when MotoGP started we had absolutely no idea how to make such a system work safely on motorcycles. The technologies couldn't be transferred straight over from the car world because they are built for car use, and the simple act of balancing a powerful engine on two wheels means that we have a requirement for far more subtlety and precision. MotoGP has allowed the development of systems that will work in the real world and will allow us to keep motorcycling a valid form of transport, and at the same time retaining the fun element.

[Hawk]

Looking for other stuff, I've just literally stumbled on this (from the book "Motogp Technology" by Neil Spalding, 2nd edition, 2010):

Emission Legislation

The timing of motogp has also been very advantageous. Over the last ten years motorcycles have enjoyed substantial leeway on emissions legislation. On the bases that there were not many motorcycles and that it is difficult to store emissions control devices on the typical motorcycle, we have been allowed emission standards that have hardly affected the sport wee love. Over the same ten years, however, cars and other forms of motorised transport have had their emission standards continuously upgraded, and they are now so rigorous that the allowances for motorcycles can be seen to be ludicrously generous.

We all associate heavy and hot catalytic converters with emissions legislation, but that is only part of the story. The efficient burning of fuel and the careful control of the use of fuel through an electronic throttle system is the other half of the story, and when MotoGP started we had absolutely no idea how to make such a system work safely on motorcycles. The technologies couldn't be transferred straight over from the car world because they are built for car use, and the simple act of balancing a powerful engine on two wheels means that we have a requirement for far more subtlety and precision. MotoGP has allowed the development of systems that will work in the real world and will allow us to keep motorcycling a valid form of transport, and at the same time retaining the fun element.

That's interesting Max...... But are they trying to justify emission regulations for motorcycles?

It's basically saying that just because there are emission regulations on cars that bikes should have them too even though it clearly states a fact that the number of motorcycles in use doesn't warrant any emissions regulations as such and that is why none were introduced before.... Nothing has changed that fact so why introduce regulations that are genuinely not needed for motorcycles? That is of course unless everyone hopped onto a motorcycle as their main form of transport. Lol. Not likely though is it, but is the only situation I would agree on bringing in emission regulations for motorcycles. 

Quote : "MotoGP has allowed the development of systems that will work in the real world and will allow us to keep motorcycling a valid form of transport, and at the same time retaining the fun element."

Haha.... The only truth in that quote is that MotoGP has developed the system, but if you believe  that is the only saving grace to keeping motorcycling a valid and fun form of transport then I hope your going to vote to stay in European Union because you'll love it! 


Hawk.

[Hawk]

I think the Mayor of Paris has already banned diesels, effective from 2020.. Could be wrong. I know London is thinking of following suit and Delhi is trying to ban the sale of new diesel models..

That I do agree with..... Who on earth promoted diesel engines for cars?? They must be mad! Lol

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

That's interesting Max...... But are they trying to justify emission regulations for motorcycles?

It's basically saying that just because there are emission regulations on cars that bikes should have them too even though it clearly states a fact that the number of motorcycles in use doesn't warrant any emissions regulations as such and that is why none were introduced before.... Nothing has changed that fact so why introduce regulations that are genuinely not needed for motorcycles? That is of course unless everyone hopped onto a motorcycle as their main form of transport. Lol. Not likely though is it, but is the only situation I would agree on bringing in emission regulations for motorcycles. 

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%". But then I know this more or less how UK works as far as I've seen.

Haha.... The only truth in that quote is that MotoGP has developed the system, but if you believe  that is the only saving grace to keeping motorcycling a valid and fun form of transport then I hope your going to vote to stay in European Union because you'll love it! 

I have no referendum to vote for. But I'm glad that you'll vote to get out of EU as it has been clear for years that the UK has never really been in the union, but more on the back of it.
Who knows, once out of the EU, maybe you'll have 2s back. In the UK only, of course.

[Vini]

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%".

The difference is that you are already doing more for the environment by riding a motorcycle instead of moving an additional ton of unnecessary weight, than any car driver can do by getting a newer, greener car that complies with the strict (car) emission laws.


Because I think you misinterpreted my previous comment, here is a different formulation:
What are your arguments against trading less dry weight for more fuel that has to be carried, when we are talking about a theoretical, pure racing series (forget MotoGP!)?

[Stout Johnson]

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%".

The difference is that you are already doing more for the environment by riding a motorcycle instead of moving an additional ton of unnecessary weight than any car driver who decided to get a completely new and 'green' car.

But speaking for myself, I only use my motorcycle on ~10% of rides that I would have done anyhow (rides to and from work). On ~90% of rides I do hop on my bike just for the fun that's in it and pretty much create a transportation that would not have happened otherwise. So in essence, I also create extra pollution.

[HornetMaX]

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%".

The difference is that you are already doing more for the environment by riding a motorcycle instead of moving an additional ton of unnecessary weight than any car driver who decided to get a completely new and 'green' car.

Bikes are much less greener than you think. Check the mileage you can get from a modern car and compare it with the one you get from a modern bike.
Just on fuel consumption, the car likely wins (even with only the driver on board, when there's 1 or more passenger, it's not even worth to compare). Except maybe for very very savvy (i.e. boring) bikes. And even for the same fuel consumption, the emissions of bikes are worse than the ones of cars.

There are some arguments in favour of bikes (less parts to produce/dispose, more fluid circulation), but that's all.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html

[Vini]

Nah, man, motorcycles don't use almost as much fuel as cars (when comparing petrol 4s to petrol 4s).
That's simply not how physics works.
The mileage (just as the emission values) car manufacturers tell you have absolutely nothing to do with the real world.

Stout, this is a bit far fetched since there are also car drivers who use their vehicle just for fun from time to time.
And, as you probably know, this is already illegal in Germany, so emission laws are not the right place to deal with this 'phenomenon' (lol).

But why are there programs in some countries giving benefits to people who buy hybrid or electrics cars but no such thing exists for motorcycles?
Not only do they burn less fuel but it would also dramatically reduce traffic and stress on the infrastructure.

[Hawk]

That's interesting Max...... But are they trying to justify emission regulations for motorcycles?

It's basically saying that just because there are emission regulations on cars that bikes should have them too even though it clearly states a fact that the number of motorcycles in use doesn't warrant any emissions regulations as such and that is why none were introduced before.... Nothing has changed that fact so why introduce regulations that are genuinely not needed for motorcycles? That is of course unless everyone hopped onto a motorcycle as their main form of transport. Lol. Not likely though is it, but is the only situation I would agree on bringing in emission regulations for motorcycles. 

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%". But then I know this more or less how UK works as far as I've seen.

Lol..... NOooo..... What I'm saying is that just because some jumped up EU Parliament says this is how it's going to be doesn't mean we should just sit down and except it when it obviously doesn't make any sense.

But exterminating the none harmful preferences of the minority 5% to satisfy the envy of the majority is spot on the mark when talking about EU parliamentary attitudes. In other words, "If I have to do this then you have to do it too", even if what your doing has no substantially harmful effects whatsoever in comparison to the harm they have to stop.

Haha.... The only truth in that quote is that MotoGP has developed the system, but if you believe  that is the only saving grace to keeping motorcycling a valid and fun form of transport then I hope your going to vote to stay in European Union because you'll love it! 

I have no referendum to vote for. But I'm glad that you'll vote to get out of EU as it has been clear for years that the UK has never really been in the union, but more on the back of it.
Who knows, once out of the EU, maybe you'll have 2s back. In the UK only, of course.

I am indeed going to vote to leave the EU.....  Though no doubt the sheep will follow the wolfs yet again and we'll end up staying inside the EU..... Shame because then I won't get my 2 stroke back. Hehe.

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

Nah, man, motorcycles don't use almost as much fuel as cars (when comparing petrol 4s to petrol 4s).
That's simply not how physics works.

My 2007 Hornet never did more than 16Km/litre. It's not much more than what I can do with a car.
But even assuming bikes can do a tad better on fuel mileage, their emissions are no comparison.
And on the car I usually have my 2 kids, back and forth to school and work.

I hate cars (cars below 80KEuros, let's say), but saying that bikes are greener sounds wrong.
If bikes were indeed greener, why are the emissions limitations well behind what we have for cars ?!

[JamoZ]

I hate cars (cars below 80KEuros, let's say)

Can we get married?

[HornetMaX]

I hate cars (cars below 80KEuros, let's say)

Can we get married?

Depends if the EU allows me polygamy.

But exterminating the none harmful preferences of the minority 5% to satisfy the envy of the majority is spot on the mark when talking about EU parliamentary attitudes. In other words, "If I have to do this then you have to do it too", even if what your doing has no substantially harmful effects whatsoever in comparison to the harm they have to stop.

According to your reasoning, as there are so few Ferraris and Hummers around, these cars owners (or constructors) could say "WTF ?! We are so few, let's drop the emissions limitations for us and keep them on Fords, Skodas and Fiats". Do you see the problem now ?