US bull

and you know as well as I that he won't worry about that one whit,
apparently preferring the act of arguing to actually imparting
information, learning new things, or whatever.

That said, I'm not criticizing your actions (much ;-), so much as
describing my own. I got tired of the brick-like stubbornness of the
Kritter's opinions, stopped gaining anything from them, and decided to
stop attempting to refute the endless stream of garbage that remained.
You keep at it, and while I think it a hopeless task to attempt to
reform the guy, at least you do provide some sort of factual counter to
his statements. There's a reason I _haven't_ killfiled you, after all.
;-)

lol

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

Well, there was that Dutch company that had a diesel sportbike
prototype/concept. I never heard more about it, though. It seemed like
an interesting concept, and probably even better attempted in something
like the Pan. Not that we'd be seeing them over here in any case. :-/

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

Aren't diesel engine blocks a bit heavier than spark ignition engines?
Plus the weight of a turbo, of course. I think they're probably more
expensive as well. Perhaps none of this matters much in the high priced
luxury tourer market.

 

Diesel sport bikes, pretty sure you're right about that, but I wouldn't
rule out a diesel tourer-- the trailer towing Gold Wing types would be
all over something that had stump pulling torque and long range, but
having test ridden one, I don't think the GL1800 could be described as
torque-deficient.

 

Have you ever driven on Interstate 5, or Hwy 99, through California's
central valley? The endless lines of big rig trucks hauling produce
and manufactured goods to market are 40-tonner's, not 4-tonners.

They belch diesel soot and burn their brakes and tires as they descend
Tejon Pass into the valley. You'll smell burning brakes from Gorman to
Grapevine. You'll wonder why the trucker doesn't pull over before his
smoking tire catches on fire.

You cannot see Bakersfield from Tejon Pass anymore, the valley's air
is filled with pollution from diesel trucks.

I don't want to. I don't have to breathe British air.

I told you all about why California had such restrictive air pollution
laws that influence the pollution legislation of other states, and you
responded by telling me all about England's tiny trucks that operate
on an soggy island without high mountain ranges to trap the smog.

Prevailing winds from the Atlantic blow English air pollution toward
the continent.

It also rains more in England, and diesel particulates get scrubbed
out of the sky far more often than occurs in California where there
are two rainy seasons with long dry spells between.

If you've never been in California's central valley, and you need
something to compare it to, think of Athens and the smog you see there
and the dry heat of a Mediterranean summer.

You suggested that Americans just didn't "get" diesels.

Americans can get all the diesels they want, and they can buy all the
Dodge diesel trucks they want, on sale, at bargain prices.

But they generally don't *want* them because they don't haul heavy
loads and diesel costs more than regular gasoline.

 

<snip>

No, sorry, more ignorance.

Briatin des not have "tiny trucks". We tend to classify HGV (Heavy
Goods Vehicles) or LGVS (Large ditto - the terms are synonymous) as
anything over 7.5 tonnes, since that used to be the largest you could
drive on a car licence. Since the late 1990s, though, they've cut the
car licence entitlement to 3.5 tonnes.

Anyway, we have trucks. We have big trucks (up to 44 tonnes gross
weight) because big trucks are more efficient. Small trucks are used,
mainly, in cities and towns where big trucks just don't fit.

And, contrary to your assertions, we have rather more private vehicles
than goods vehicles. Your ****-up Number One.

You seem to think that Europe doesn't have earthquakes. ****-up Number
Two.

You seem to think Europe doesn't have mountains. ****-up Number Three.

You said diesel is cheap in Europe. ****-up Number Four.

Now, let's talk fuel. In Europe, trucks have been running on ultra low
sulphur diesel (ulsd) since the late 1990s. Modern truck (and car)
engines are *designed* to run on the stuff. You cannot actually buy
old-fashioned diesel from filling stations any more.

Ulsd has cut particulate emissions drastically. Modern cats and CRTs
do the rest.

OK, let's talk figures. The Euro 1 emissions requirements (1991)
limited truck particulate emissions to 0.36g/km. Euro 2 more than
halved that to 0.15g/km in 1994. Euro 3 chopped that to 0.1g/km in
2001 and then Euro 4 halved *that* to 0.05g/km in 2005. A diesel truck
equipped with a cat and CRT, like I've said, emits fewer particulates
than a truck running on propane.

Modern diesels are *astonishingly* clean. There are some older trucks
around that aren't. Not in western Europe so much as in eastern, and
the poorer western countries such as Greece and Portugal where,
unsurprisingly, diesel is cheaper than elsewhere in Europe.

Look at http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm

Now let's talk history. A couple of decades ago, maybe three, diesel
was markedly cheaper than petrol, especially in France.
Unsurprisingly, French diesel engine development (and I'm talking cars
here) was spurred by this, and France gained a lead. The gap has
narrowed and the latest BMW, Jaguar and Honda engines are superb.
France still builds excellent four-cylinder diesels, by the way.

Anyway, diesel cars became less rattly, smelly and smokey, people
started buying them. Service intervals increased as well, to the
extent that they're frequently longer than those of equivalent petrol
engined cars. Surprise, surprise, governments, seeing people switching
to the lower taxed fuel, started to tax it more heavily. You can see
in the table (url above) that in some countries, diesel is actually
costlier than petrol in some countries, while in others there is
little or no difference. I've mentioned the few exceptions.

Diesels also emit less CO2, and as vehicle taxation in Europe is
moving towards this yardstick, diesels are becoming more popular. The
price differential has all but vanished too. They used to be more
expensive to buy: now, they're often offered at the same price as
petrol engined cars.

I've mentioned how fast modern diesel cars are, and how torquey. And
how economical. This is why people buy them: they're cheaper to run,
they last a lot longer than petrol engines (always a diesel's strong
point) and their power characteristics make them superb road vehicles:
masses and masses of mid-range grunt, at overtaking speeds, where you
want it.

Now, Americans can get all the diesels they want? No, they can't. Look
at the incredible variety of diesels sold in Europe, and ask how many
are available in the US.

So that's ****-up Number Five.

This has been a public service announcement, so that readers in the US
do not get fooled into thinking that what you wrote was truth. Or
anything like it.

 

Well yeah, anything true for the Pan would be even more true for the GW.
On the other hand, some GW owners are already pushing well past the
limits of the frames of those things, and adding torque will just
encourage them to carry even more stuff; I can't wait until they simply
tear the rear wheel off trying to tow their trailer. Then someone will
take a Detroit or Cummins diesel engine and stuff it into a massive,
homebuilt, I-beam frame and call it "Roaddog III" or "Boss Mammut" or
something. lol

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

I was thinking of something a bit smaller and lighter than a Wing -
like a Pan. As regards weight, diesels are a bit heavier (many diesel
cars typically have stiffer front suspension to carry the extra
weight), but the gap is narrowing. I believe the new Hondas are quite
light. What would be really nice would be some sort of semi-cruiser.
Not swathed in plastic, but equipped with a screen and panniers. A
cross between a Pan and a Suzuki Intruder.

 

writes

Didn't BFG (or Boccardo?) do a diesel goldwing type of thing based
around a Peugeot engine? ISTR Roger Willis road testing one for Bike
back in the late '80s - sounded like an interesting prospect.

Mind you, I always liked the idea of the Citroen engined things that BFG
/ Odyssey made. Never seen one for sale that I could afford at the
time...

 

I know, it's amazing how heavy all those lights and tassles are....

 

Of course you are making humor here, but you should attend a rally sometime
where the majority of attendees are mature couples on Gold Wings. The
loading of those poor bikes is staggering-- and that's _before_ they start
adding extra hardware, more wheels, etc.

 

While 'wingers are known for their love of gadgets, I've yet to see
tassles on one. cruisers, on the other hand...a guy showed up at the
ADVrider 2006 Eastern Rendezvous on a rental HD, which he had added pink
glittery tassles to, just because. It was pretty....weird. :-D

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

This him?

http://www.liberace.com/images/postcard6.jpg

 

It was quite a surprise to find out that my 1994 VFR750 has more luggage
capacity (calculated by subtracting curb weight from GVWR) than the
GW1600 or the Pan. The Triumph Sprint ST was in the same ballpark as my
VFR. Of course, Their luggage is built-in, and I'd have to add it, but I
still think my bike comes out ahead. Never mind pulling a trailer or
something.

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

I'm curious about this "cheaper to run" thing. Years ago I owned a
decrepit diesel-powered Chevy Suburban (with GM's laudable 6.2L engine--
as opposed to their complete-piece-of-crap 5.7L), and it had rather short
oil-change intervals. Something like 2,500 miles IIRC.

My current Corolla calls for oil changes every 7,500 miles. If diesels
still require changes at a third of that, it would seem to eat into their
cost-of-operation margin quite a bit.

Do you happen to know what the PM is like on current generation diesels?

 

Would that bias have anything to do with them cutting you checks on
occassion?

But, seriously, I do agree about 'Bike.' In fact, I pay an absolute
fortune to have to mailed to me. When are they saving we Americans and
opening a branch office here?

 

I pay Motorsport (www.motorsportpublications.com) about $65/year for my
subscription. If you're paying generic overseas rates, get switched!
OTOH, $65/year for a magazine counts as an "absolute fortune" to me; but
then I'm still a graduate student.

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

That's the point. You're still talking about antique smokey old diesels,
like Potage. You're still mired in the 1970s.

I've got a 2004 Nissan Primera 2.2 litre turbodiesel (got a Renault
engine, as Renault owns Nissan - if you didn't know). 137bhp, God-knows
how much torque, six-speed manual box, 128mph, 42mpg in mixed commuting
and motorways - 46mpg on a run. And a 500+ mile range (12-gallon tank).

Oil change and service intervals: 12,000 miles. The figure for the
equivalent petrol model is actually shorter, at 10,000 miles.

Particulates? Low. See my other posting about ulsd fuel. And do some
googling for "common rail diesel engines".

There is *no comparison* between modern diesels and those of the 1970s,
or even mid-1990s (and some of those were pretty good).

 

Yup, this is precisely what I meant when I said the US didn't get the
diesel 'thing'. It's because consumers still have these
preconceptions, caused by a load of crappy products in the past, plus
a sort of negative "commercial vehicle" image.

Europe (well, the UK, anyway) was like that, maybe 20 years ago. Less
so 10 years ago, and definitely no way today.

Can I also point out that the winner of the Le Mans 24-hour race, last
year, was a diesel?

In Europe, few people get the American car "thing". They're perceived
as being large, ill-handling and badly built. Cadillac is trying over
here, but has a mountain to climb. Chrysler has done little better,
although the PT cruiser attracted some decent sales. And Jeep, of
course, has done well.

This is partly because Jeep has an amazing brand image. In addition, a
lot of (maybe all?) the vehicles are built in Austria, at the Steyr-
Daimler-Puch factory, where quality control is excellent. Anecdotal
evidence says the US-built ones are nowhere near as well made. I'd be
interested to hear opinions from you....

Jeep kicked off in the UK with a *superb* poster advertising campaign.
They just had a picture of a sort of generic-Japanese 4x4, all Tonka
Toy and bad proportions, and the single copyline: "Beware of Jeep
imitations". That sort of amusing subtlety goes down very, very well
here.

I must confess to a desire for a Yank musclecar, and I still think the
Corvette Sting Ray, early Mustang and maybe the old T-bird are among
the best proportioned cars ever made, but apart from (maybe) a new
'Vette or Viper, there's no way I'd want a US car. They seem perfectly
adapted to their environment, but they don't work well in many others.

 

They don't work that well in the U.S. enviroment either, people are just
too stupid to realize it.

The SUV and bloated-truck craze in the U.S. for the past decade is all
the evidence you need that, in general, Americans don't use their brains
when buying a car.

I mean, one of the big difference between U.S. and European driving
habits, I've always assumed, is that Americans drive a lot farther.
Living in rural Texas and Arizona, it was fairly common to drive 100
miles, do a little shopping, have lunch, and drive 100 miles home. You'd
think fuel economy would be important, wouldn't you?

Yet, if it wasn't for EPA regulations forcing automakers to increase the
average MPG of their product lines, I suspect the average U.S. car
wouldn't get over 20 mpg. Most of the trucks and SUVs don't.

But even the Greens aren't any smarter. So-called "hybrids" are all the
rage, despite the fact that they get worse highway mileage than a regular
car, cost more to produce, have shorter lifespans, and are each carrying
around a couple hundred pounds of toxic heavy metals.