Screw it... I am just going to buy a Electric Bike from Best Buy 

if this cluster screw of a senate bill passes as written, i am seeing a forum here dedicated to the loaning of stock parts to fellow club members and perhaps a list of folks who can assist with wrenching, so they can pass the smog test. 

I am secure in my fortress of stockdom 

Quote from: MrIncredible on March 12, 2009, 06:07:41 PM
I am secure in my fortress of stockdom 

You're getting rid of your bike. You don't count.

Quote from: desmoquattro on March 12, 2009, 06:46:01 PM
You're getting rid of your bike. You don't count.

The KEY word is Trying 

I guess people know better to not buy it 

Quote from: ROBsS4R on March 12, 2009, 06:47:33 PM
The KEY word is Trying 

I guess people know better to not buy it 

Yep. Because it's stock. And it caught fire once.

Quote from: desmoquattro on March 12, 2009, 06:48:44 PM
Yep. Because it's stock. And it caught fire once.

that's what happens to stock bikes ... they catch fire. 

Quote from: johnc on March 12, 2009, 08:24:17 PM
that's what happens to stock bikes ... they catch fire. 

...as they get passed by the non-stock bikes and are exposed to the flames shooting out of our exhaust

I knew one day I would finally understand why I kept my license to practice in Nevada active all these years.

Quote from: sfarchie on March 12, 2009, 09:42:14 PM
I knew one day I would finally understand why I kept my license to practice in Nevada active all these years.

You need a license to practice medicine in Nevada? What's this country coming to?

Quote from: Spidey on March 12, 2009, 11:31:25 AM
Are you really gonna argue that motos are green??  Bikes--despite good gas mileage--are dirty as make the beast with two backs.  I don't wanna have smog checks, but come on, mang. 

I'm going to go ahead and argue that motos are more green than a prius or any other car.  I have made the argument before...  people only consider the emissions of the vehicle when thinking about the "carbon footprint" or "green-ness"

How much raw material goes into making a motorcycle vs a car?  Cars have more metal, more plastic, more rubber, more everything...  all of the machines used to mine and produce those material pump tons of shit into the air and water.  How much energy goes into producing those materials?  Good old diesel fuel and coal burning factories... I guess it doesn't matter because it doesn't directly affect the air quality of California.  

I'm going to go eat a sprout sandwich on 15 grain bread in the dark.    

Quote from: Vindingo on March 12, 2009, 10:31:01 PM
I'm going to go ahead and argue that motos are more green than a prius or any other car.  I have made the argument before...  people only consider the emissions of the vehicle when thinking about the "carbon footprint" or "green-ness"

How much raw material goes into making a motorcycle vs a car?  Cars have more metal, more plastic, more rubber, more everything...  all of the machines used to mine and produce those material pump tons of shit into the air and water.  How much energy goes into producing those materials?  Good old diesel fuel and coal burning factories... I guess it doesn't matter because it doesn't directly affect the air quality of California.  

I'm going to go eat a sprout sandwich on 15 grain bread in the dark.    

I've heard that the energy and materials that go into making a vehicle are a fraction of the energy that goes through a vehicle during its operational lifetime.

Quote from: desmoquattro on March 12, 2009, 10:44:52 PM
I've heard that the energy and materials that go into making a vehicle are a fraction of the energy that goes through a vehicle during its operational lifetime.

where does "material" fit into the second part of that equation?  There is a finite amount of raw material on earth.  More material is used to make a car.  Is it not wasteful to have a vehicle that is larger than one needs?  I would consider that "un-green". 

my bike - roughly 44mpg

Range Rover - 15mpg

I saw 5 RRs today all with one person in them.  They use 3 times as much fuel and about 10 times as much space as I do on my bike.

  I am not saying that motos spew roses, I just think that there are 100 other places to look before you start taking old bikes off the road because they can't pass emissions testing.   

+ eleventy billion for what jesus said above. 

vinny is spot on with his point of a vehicles carbon footprint being not just the lifetime consumption and emissions of the vehicle ... it also includes the materials used in manufacturing, energy used in manufacturing, transportation energy and emissions used to move the raw materials and finished product to market, and i am certain i am leaving other carbon footprint components out that every vehicle consumes, even before the consumer gets in or on and starts it up after purchase.  post consumer waste is another factor to consider in greeness ... wtf is going to happen to all the consumed prius batteries when they are depleted and cannot be recharged?

anyway, i agree with jesus/vinny. 

Quote from: Vindingo on March 12, 2009, 11:23:07 PM
where does "material" fit into the second part of that equation?  There is a finite amount of raw material on earth.  More material is used to make a car.  Is it not wasteful to have a vehicle that is larger than one needs?  I would consider that "un-green". 

my bike - roughly 44mpg
... 

Manufacturing & materials certainly have a place, but I think it's small as a fraction of the total. I've heard numerous times (on radio news shows, forums, etc) that the total energy required to produce a vehicle is tiny compared to the energy that vehicle will consume in its operational lifetime. Here's one example, with a few references:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981

So while we can certainly feel a bit smug about using less energy and fewer materials, the real bacon is in the operational efficiency. If you can use a small increase in the energy/material of manufacturing to improve the operational efficiency of a vehicle, you can get a net reduction in the amount of energy a vehicle uses over its lifetime. And if bikes do indeed expel more pollutants per mile of operation that do cars, that's another factor to consider. We may use less energy, but if we're putting benzene, NO, and other nasty bits into the air at a higher rate than cars, bikes may not be so green after all.

All of this begs the question: what is green? Is it simply using less energy during operation? During manufacture? Is it the type and quantity of pollutants the bike expels during operation? The more complex the answer, the more difficult it is to compare vehicles.

Oh, and your bike only gets 44mpg because of that extra shim you had in your valves after that wrenching day in my garage