5 ms·
Motorcycles are more fuel/emission/volumetrically efficient and their ownership is thus generally incentivized by policy in traffic-stricken California. Not sa
by blamazon 4y ago
Motorcycles are more fuel/emission/volumetrically efficient and their ownership is thus generally incentivized by policy in traffic-stricken California.
Not saying I agree or disagree that this should be applied to the sound thing, but this is the thinking.
- kevinventullo 4y agoIf that were true, shouldn’t the decibel maximum be higher for motorcycles?
- blamazon 4y agoDerp, you are correct. I read backwards.
- mdorazio 4y agoThink you have that backwards on emissions. Motorcycles pollute far more than cars. https://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11-story.html https://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11-stor...
- nickff 4y agoMotorcycles 'pollute' (particulates and other very harmful products) more than cars, but 'emit' less (carbon dioxide and other exhaust products).
- nradov 4y agoMany larger, more powerful motorcycles actually emit more carbon dioxide than modern hybrid sedans.
- pengaru 4y agoMy R1 had a cat, and that was way back in 2004. This definitely isn't some kind of absolute truth, CA-legal sportbikes have required cats and EFI for a while now. I'd have to check to see if there's a displacement threshold that excepts the small fry though.
- Johnythree 4y agoSmall engines are much less efficient. Especially if they are air-cooled and/or two-strokes.
- iancmceachern 4y agoFirst sentence is true. Second sentence is partially true. Air cooled engines are less efficient than water cooled ones, something about the combustion temperature and running rich. Two strokes are actually more efficient than 4 strokes. Overall though, a small air cooled 2 stroke will be less efficient than a large water cooled 4 stroke.