This is progress?

">

You call that living? A motorcycle somewhere between a Madass 125 and a
Honda VTR 250 !!!
You gotta get out more. Saving the world and losing a life, I plan on
staying apathetic and irresponsible for as long as I can.
Seriously I got over 11 bikes in the shed and they're all more exciting than
those two. Some are even two strokes so I'm going to enjoy em before I'm
burned at the stake.... with solar power I expect.

Capt. A. L.

 

Last figures I saw suggested that an all-electric car capable of
running 100 kms per day and able to move at traffic speeds generated
as much pollution per km on coal-fired electricity as a Camry, and
about twice as much as a Prius. If the Prius can produce electricity
from petrol at half the polution rate of a "running close to full
effeciency" coal fired power station, then we should close all the
power stations down today.

And we are getting cleaner running and more efficient internal
combustion engines all the time. There are a number of cars now that
are quite adequate at moving peple that use less fuel than a lot of
motorcycles. Back in my youth a 2.4 litre Holden produced 75Kw and you
were happy if it got better than 20 mpg without air-con. You would be
unhappy today with a car of that capacity that didn't have 150Kw and
got you only 30mpg. I think my 1200 Beetle got that kind of
consumption producing 30Kw.

And no, there's no such thing as clean coal, and I don't think there
ever will be. When we complain about pollution in China we should
remember who is seling them the coal they're burning.

Theo

 

I suppose the knowledge that around 7.5% of Australia's man-made green-
house gases come from internal combusion engines and > 70% from coal-
fired power stations is not relevant to you. Let's try to fix the real
problem - coal is not a good way to make electricity. It's just cheap.

Theo

 

See my other pos. A Prius uses half the polution of a coal-powered
electric car, on petrol.

Downloaded nd reading.

I have serious concerns about the life of such batteries and what
happens to them at the end of their life. Landfill is not a good
option for any current battery and recycling costs need to be factored
in.

Theo

 

Nice one...

How does that song go?

Daisy, Daisy,
Give me your answer do!
I'm half crazy,
All for the love of you!
It won't be a stylish marriage,
I can't afford a carriage
But you'll look so sweet upon the seat
Of a Seg-a-way built for two.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

That's odd. Upon the beancounter's insistence, we had to recently
replace a +10 year old (second hand at the time) 2 ton cab with a new
2 ton cab. More sexy, much heavier, can still only carry the same
equipment, burns through a hell of a lot more juice and can only
barely get up the mountain. But the beancounter is happy, now he can
claim some kind of rort^Wdeduction and "save" us some money.

 

My poor old Econovan Maxi truck is now 20 years old, and just ticked
over 501,000km. It gets 6km per litre of LPG, and I drive about
6,000km per annum.

The nearest equivalent for replacing it would be one of those Kia K-
series trucks which cost about $30k.

Thankfully, *I'm* the beancounter in charge of deciding whether to
keep or replace it.


BTH

 

We got a new 12 tonne 4WD fire truck last year, replacing the 5yo unit
we had. The old unit was sent to upgrade a much older unit somewhere
else. The new unit is a turbo diesel where the old one was normally
spirated. The new unit has the same mass, a smaller engine, one less
gear in the box, acellerates better, and uses less fuel.

I replaced my company ute last year. The old Ford Courier had a 2.6
litre petrol engine and used 11 l/100km. The new Ford Ranger has a 3.0
litre diesel engine with very noticably more power, can carry 50%
more, and uses 9.5 l/100km, on the same route and same usage.

My 1960 1200 VW averaged 32 mpg (I still have the log of a trip to
Sydney in 1966) about 10.5 l/100km, and wouldn't pull the skin off a
rice pudding.

Theo

 

I don't believe you. Specify the models.

JL

 

The old was a Mitsubishi Triton (petrol, probably dual cab) that got
of the order of 9 or 10L/100km with a locally manufactured tray (the
engineer that ended up buying it in the auction reckoned he got a
bargain. He knew he wanted to bid on it, so he helped drive it down
to the auction house 170km away, snapped it up and then drove it back
up). The new is a turbo diesel somethingorother (it isn't on shift
yet, so I can't check, but suspect it is also a dual cab triton) with
a locally manufactured tray, that gets about 11L/100km, and blows
smoke up the hills.

However, this is not aus.cagers, so should probably stop the
discussion here.

 

Last figures I saw suggested that an all-electric car capable of
running 100 kms per day and able to move at traffic speeds generated
as much pollution per km on coal-fired electricity as a Camry, and
about twice as much as a Prius. If the Prius can produce electricity
from petrol at half the polution rate of a "running close to full
effeciency" coal fired power station, then we should close all the
power stations down today.

And we are getting cleaner running and more efficient internal
combustion engines all the time. There are a number of cars now that
are quite adequate at moving peple that use less fuel than a lot of
motorcycles. Back in my youth a 2.4 litre Holden produced 75Kw and you
were happy if it got better than 20 mpg without air-con. You would be
unhappy today with a car of that capacity that didn't have 150Kw and
got you only 30mpg. I think my 1200 Beetle got that kind of
consumption producing 30Kw.

And no, there's no such thing as clean coal, and I don't think there
ever will be. When we complain about pollution in China we should
remember who is seling them the coal they're burning.

Theo


=========================================================

I have a 2004 BMW 535i that produces 140 kw and gives 42 MPG on the highway
at 110KPH.

Around town it is returning at least 28MPG.

Boxer

 

You'd have been lucky to get 30 horse power, never mind Kilowatts.

The early beetles got about 28 bhp.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

My 1200 cc'58 made 40 hp , so how early are you thinking

 

"> To clarify, it certainly wouldn't be my _only_ bike - there's no way I'd

Phew I'm glad hear that. For a minute there I thought I was on my own.
Destroying the world single handed is a big ask.

Capt. A. L.

 

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, perhaps you should be drawing a
comparison to something the Nazis or Hitler would be proud of driving


Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

the 58 was a 44 model with a differing year of production nev.. oh you
are such a....

 

Figured as much, so you compared an apple with an orange and complained
it was the wrong colour.

So compare the old model petrol engine with an equivalent new petrol
engine as per the above comment and let me know which has better fuel
economy.

I'm also bloody sceptical about any brand new diesel blowing smoke and
I'm definitely not a diesel fan.

<shrug> why, we're talking about electric vehicles and coal vs nuclear
in the rest of the thread...

JL

 

Hard to believe that a diesel gets worse mileage than a petrol
equivalent, especially an old one, unless you're comparing a 4litre
diesel to a 2 litre petrol? If the car isn't 'on shift' yet, how do you
know the fuel consumption?

A quick google for a review of the new turbo diesel triton finds...
"the average over our test was 9.8 litres per 100km – slightly more than
the ADR 81/01 figure of 9.1 litres. Note that the ADR 81/01 figure for
the petrol version is 12.9 litres per 100km."

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

Dunno what year, but the one with the wee oval back window.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Actually, it was one of the ones with the divided back window, then it
got "upgraded" to the wee back window..... amazing what can be done with
a hacksaw.

Also, I was wrong in saying it only had 28 bhp, according to various
sources, it did, or was claimed to, produce 34 bhp, but it felt more
like 28!

It was pretty old even when I drove it in about 1970. In those days the
cars in Greece had 6 digit rego plates (all numeric) and the Beetle's
plate showed 139.

regards,
CrazyCam