Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

[narf]

1. Yeah, I know, everything is fatter in America.
2. No production estate does 0-100 in 2.8 seconds full stop.
3. I have five seats.
4. I have a large boot.
5. I have a roof.
6. I have four tyres.
7. I have airbags.
8. I have crumple zones other than my face.
9. I have a heater, AC, buttwarmers.
10. I could go on and on.

 

[Spectre]

Yes, but how often does your estate haul around anything more than you and maybe half a cubic meter of stuff? I can deal with the same on the bike just fine.

Most cars are usually found operating with just the driver, little cargo, and no passengers, thereby being a huge waste of resources most of the time. I also get to use the HOV lanes by myself, thereby bypassing much traffic.

Four tires are just more money to be spent on maintenance.

Maintenance is much less costly for a bike. There's just less crap to maintain. In a related topic, it takes less than 1/3rd the materials to make a motorcycle instead of a car, so it's even better for the earth. (Not to mention that a Honda motorcycle has an average lifespan that many cars envy.)

Bikes can have heated seats (in fact, the Corbin seat I'm getting has the option for a seat heater.) More importantly, bikes can have heated handgrips and one can wear heated clothing. There are also active cooling systems now.

Wheelies are fun.

Bikes are also inherently a thousand times more fun to pilot.

And finally - my insurance is cheaper than your estate's, my registration is cheaper than your estate's and my inspections are cheaper than your estate's (or indeed, any car.)

 

[Labcoatguy]

A European is extolling the virtues of a bigger, heavier, and roomier vehicle to an American who prefers a lighter, better-handling vehicle. My head asplode.

 

[Spectre]

A European is extolling the virtues of a bigger, heavier, and roomier vehicle to an American who prefers a lighter, better-handling vehicle. My head asplode.

Yeah, I found it really funny that one of this forum's most vociferous advocates of the tiny car concept as 'more efficient' and 'better' gets oh so very defensive when confronted by something that makes his car look like a ginormous overweight barge. You'd think he'd be celebrating the fact that someone's found an even more efficient transport that's actually fun (instead of sleep- or vomit-inducing) to drive. But no, he's defending his slow, inefficient and highly underutilized cage instead.

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention - for those that are worshippers of AGW, the Honda makes roughly 1/3 less CO2 than the Skoda Octavia diesel. So it's better for the earth, in the terms of the earth-worshippers.

Edit 2: Come to think of it, I believe the 919 makes about the same horsepower from its 919cc mill as the Skoda does from the base 1900cc diesel...

 

[narf]

11. My car regularly exceeds the carrying capacity of a motorbike.
12. I'd like to see you deal with five hundred litres of cargo (half a cubic metre) on your bike. Depending on density that's easily a few hundred kg.
13. My car uses roughly as much fuel as your bike, not that much wasted there.
14. Four tyres mean my car does not fall over in the wet.
15. How long do your bike tyres last? No point in having only two if they have to be replaced much more frequently.
15. I have yet to spend anything on maintenance. Huge VW service intervals FTW.
16. I do not need to buy and wear special clothing to use my car. Quite impractical for the daily commute. Screw a minute saved from zooming through traffic if you have to put on and off your radiators first.
17. Quote some figures, I'd like to doubt that my insurance (considering coverage) and registration are that much more expensive. Insurance is about 210?/year with 100000000? coverage, registration is about 80? once (no need to renew), taxes are 80? annually.
18. A single inspection probably is more expensive. How often do you need an inspection though? Every two years or 30000km for me.
19. My car is capable of snow.
20. I don't think your bike does 4.5l/100km while doing 2.8s 0-100 as you claim. Your $18 for 190 miles equate to about 7l/100km and probably are not all spent at full acceleration. I have no idea why you pull insanely wrong figures from your ass.



Labcoatguy: There are plenty of reasons to ride a bike. He stated fuel efficiency while not exceeding my estate's figures. That's just ridiculously thirsty for a friggin bike.

Yeah, I found it really funny that one of this forum's most vociferous advocates of the tiny car concept as 'more efficient' and 'better' gets oh so very defensive when confronted by something that makes his car look like a ginormous overweight barge. You'd think he'd be celebrating the fact that someone's found an even more efficient transport that's actually fun (instead of sleep- or vomit-inducing) to drive. But no, he's defending his slow, inefficient and highly underutilized cage instead.

Considering "efficiency" as usability per litre your bike sucks. It uses the same amount of fuel as my large car with very little usability. I agree, a bike is more fun under the right conditions. However, it's a very bad example for efficiency. If you want efficient two-wheeled transport get a scooter or a bicycle.

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention - for those that are worshippers of AGW, the Honda makes roughly 1/3 less CO2 than the Skoda Octavia diesel. So it's better for the earth, in the terms of the earth-worshippers.

Let's see. Your figures suggest 7l/100km, that's 166g of CO2 per kilometre. The Octavia RS diesel uses 5.7l/100km and emits 149g/km. Going for the more frugal GreenLine you're looking at 3.8l/100km or 99g/km of CO2. 99 is smaller than 166, no?
Thinking in personkilometres, your bike still does 166g per personkilometre (83 if it can seat two, idunno). With three passengers, ie comfortable travel for adults, you're looking at less than 25g per personkilometre. That's three or six times less, depending on your seating capacity.
Thinking in tonnekilometres for cargo your bike will suck out too. No need to do an examplary calculation.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Even then, $17k for an XKR coupe is not the end of the world. Worlds better than spending it on buying and servicing a Volvo

Good point there.

Realistically, I'm looking to spend about $12,000 on a S60R and in the not so distant future I will be faced with fixing angle-gear ($2000) or changing the fancy 4C suspension ($5000). Why are performance cars so expensive to maintain? (cue the Miata bunch...)

 

[Spectre]

11. My car regularly exceeds the carrying capacity of a motorbike.

12. I'd like to see you deal with five hundred litres of cargo (half a cubic metre) on your bike. Depending on density that's easily a few hundred kg.

I've done it more than once.

13. My car uses roughly as much fuel as your bike, not that much wasted there.

You also have transmission lubricant that needs to be changed, more coolant that has to be used, more oil used per change, more expensive oil that must be used...

14. Four tyres mean my car does not fall over in the wet.

Gyroscopic stability means that my bike does not fall over in the wet unless the operator is being an idiot.

15. How long do your bike tyres last? No point in having only two if they have to be replaced much more frequently.

The ones I have right now will probably last about 20,000 miles... which isn't much less than what similarly positioned tires get on a car. (Avon Storm ST versus Michelin Pilots, which I usually only get 30K out of.) They also cost less than half what similar car tires would.

15. I have yet to spend anything on maintenance. Huge VW service intervals FTW.

Unless you sell it before then, you will.

16. I do not need to buy and wear special clothing to use my car. Quite impractical for the daily commute. Screw a minute saved from zooming through traffic if you have to put on and off your radiators first.

Takes maybe two minutes to dress. I save more than that in zipping through traffic in the first three miles of my journey.

17. Quote some figures, I'd like to doubt that my insurance (considering coverage) and registration are more expensive. Insurance is about 210?/year with 100000000? coverage, registration is about 80? once (no need to renew), taxes are 80? annually.

Insurance is $96/year for basic coverage (also, 100 million Euro coverage? Really? What do they expect you to do, set Hamburg on fire again?), my annual registration/tax is $42, my inspection is $14.50.

18. A single inspection probably is more expensive. How often do you need an inspection though? Every two years or 30000km for me.

Annually, but it's still cheaper than yours.

19. My car is capable of snow.

So are motorcycles.

20. I don't think your bike does 4.5l/100km while doing 2.8s 0-100 as you claim. Your $18 for 190 miles equate to about 7l/100km and probably are not all spent at full acceleration. I have no idea why you pull insanely wrong figures from your ass.

I pull full throttle accel quite often while riding, but no, I don't spend 100% of my time at 100% throttle. Neither does anyone else. Still, I'm not gentle on the right handgrip, and my last tank came out to a calculated 52.3mpg. You did make me go check my receipt, though. You're right, I didn't spend $18 on gas, though that was the total on the receipt.

I spent $13.32 on gas and $5 on lottery tickets. The station charged $3.659 per US gallon.

You can also figure that my average cruise is probably somewhere around 140kph and I'm not slow getting there.

Considering "efficiency" as usability per litre your bike sucks. It uses the same amount of fuel as my large car with very little usability. I agree, a bike is more fun under the right conditions. However, it's a very bad example for efficiency. If you want efficient two-wheeled transport get a scooter or a bicycle.

Scooters are more than a little unstable and get eaten by potholes, bicycles are far less efficient than a scooter or motorcycle. Sorry, try again.

As for efficiency, unless you constantly have passengers in your vehicle, which most people don't, you're just hauling around extra unused mass.

Usability per litre, interesting benchmark - is that something invented for ADAC? Or on the NCAP? And if that's your benchmark, a giant American box van or bus conversion is one of the most efficient cars in the world.

Let's see. Your figures suggest 7l/100km, that's 166g of CO2 per kilometre. The Octavia RS diesel uses 5.7l/100km and emits 149g/km. Going for the more frugal GreenLine you're looking at 3.8l/100km or 99g/km of CO2. 99 is smaller than 166, no?

I'm showing the Greenline as emitting 114g/km. The Hornet 600 cranks out a monstrous.... 18.3g/km. I don't have a link for the Hornet 900 here, but even if you quadruple it (for just a third larger engine,) it's still not going to be what the Skoda spews into the atmosphere.

 

[eizbaer]

yeeaaah no i think this is going a bit too far, dont you think? in a way its getting ridiculous... you could go on for pages, but i dont think you'll succeed in convincing the other guy.
i guess its safe to say spectre prefers his bike, narf prefers his skoda... and everybody else can also pick whatever they think is the most reasonable - even if other people might think they're crazy. isn't being a human just annoying as hell because you have to accept stuff like that? it drives me nuts... but still, i live with it

 

[_HighVoltage_]

At least their debate is interesting since it doesn't involve any MX-5 references.

 

[narf]

I've done it more than once.

That looks safe and aerodynamic.

Gyroscopic stability means that my bike does not fall over in the wet unless the operator is being an idiot.

I was thinking of lateral grip.

Insurance is $96/year for basic coverage (also, 100 million Euro coverage? Really? What do they expect you to do, set Hamburg on fire again?)

Cause a single accident with a few injured, paralyzed or killed people and you will easily get into many millions of Euros of damages. If your insurance maxes out at a few ten or hundred thousand such an event would cripple you financially for the rest of your life. Not a problem with your bike though, likely you'll be paralyzed or dead yourself from said accident.

So are motorcycles.

Want a race in the snow?

I pull full throttle accel quite often while riding, but no, I don't spend 100% of my time at 100% throttle. Neither does anyone else. Still, I'm not gentle on the right handgrip, and my last tank came out to a calculated 52.3mpg. You did make me go check my receipt, though. You're right, I didn't spend $18 on gas, though that was the total on the receipt.

Averaging 52mpg and getting 52mpg while doing 0-100 in 2.8s is a massive difference. I have no data on that, but I would assume you'd be in the 5.2mpg range rather than 52mpg.

You can also figure that my average cruise is probably somewhere around 140kph and I'm not slow getting there.

That's illegal. I wouldn't post such things in public.

Scooters are more than a little unstable and get eaten by potholes, bicycles are far less efficient than a scooter or motorcycle. Sorry, try again.

Motorbikes are far more unstable and pothole sensitive than cars, yet you appear to ignore that.
A bicycle uses zero fossil fuel. Infinite MPG.

As for efficiency, unless you constantly have passengers in your vehicle, which most people don't, you're just hauling around extra unused mass.

Constantly, no. However, I have the freedom to do so. It would be so annoying to go home and switch vehicles just to take some shopping or a passenger with me.

Usability per litre, interesting benchmark - is that something invented for ADAC? Or on the NCAP? And if that's your benchmark, a giant American box van or bus conversion is one of the most efficient cars in the world.

You came up with carrying 500 litres of cargo.
Actually, super tankers would be much more efficient than anything else in terms of loading space per fuel consumed.

I'm showing the Greenline as emitting 114g/km. The Hornet 600 cranks out a monstrous.... 18.3g/km. I don't have a link for the Hornet 900 here, but even if you quadruple it (for just a third larger engine,) it's still not going to be what the Skoda spews into the atmosphere.

The Hornet is listed at around 300mpg. Your bike appears to be far far away from that, you'd have to multiply its CO2 figure by about six and get 110g/km. That's more than the 99g/km your site lists for the Octavia (http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/28997/SKODA-Octavia-Hatch-Diesel-Manual-5-speed) while being a million times more usable. Less fun, obviously.

yeeaaah no i think this is going a bit too far, dont you think? in a way its getting ridiculous... you could go on for pages, but i dont think you'll succeed in convincing the other guy.
i guess its safe to say spectre prefers his bike, narf prefers his skoda... and everybody else can also pick whatever they think is the most reasonable - even if other people might think they're crazy. isn't being a human just annoying as hell because you have to accept stuff like that? it drives me nuts... but still, i live with it

I can accept him choosing a bike, there are obvious reasons to do that - mostly fun. I simply disagree with his opinion of it being much more efficient than cars and with his blatantly wrong made-up figures. That's all.


HighVoltage: https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/06/30/miatacouchhaul1_450_1.jpg

 

[eizbaer]

At least their debate is interesting since it doesn't involve any MX-5 references.

true, true... its not gotten to a point where i think tl;dr yet

I can accept him choosing a bike, there are obvious reasons to do that - mostly fun. I simply disagree with his opinion of it being much more efficient than cars and with his blatantly wrong made-up figures. That's all.

i can totally understand that, and my thoughts follow a similar pattern. yet i still dont think you'll ever win him over or make him admit to using "blatantly wrong made-up figures" (there are sources... i haven't looked further though, so i dont care), no matter how long this goes on. at a certain point, this turns somewhat religious... i dont think you two want to start a top-gear-esque challenge to find out the real truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I'd like to weigh in. It is a very tricky discussion that narf and Spectre are leading. I can't really agree with either of them. I would like to agree with narf (mostly because I despise motorcycles), but I also see Spectre's point (most people don't really need an estate or a SUV as a daily driver. A bike would be more efficient).

 

[narf]

i can totally understand that, and my thoughts follow a similar pattern. yet i still dont think you'll ever win him over or make him admit to using "blatantly wrong made-up figures" (there are sources... i haven't looked further though, so i dont care), no matter how long this goes on. at a certain point, this turns somewhat religious... i dont think you two want to start a top-gear-esque challenge to find out the real truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth?

Nah, bedtime soon. Then work. Then going out with the family for school holiday starting celebrations plus belated birthday celebrations. Then a movie. After that I probably can't be assed to start again.

I'd like to weigh in. It is a very tricky discussion that narf and Spectre are leading. I can't really agree with either of them. I would like to agree with narf (mostly because I despise motorcycles), but I also see Spectre's point (most people don't really need an estate or a SUV as a daily driver. A bike would be more efficient).

Judging by Spectre's figures vs mine his bike really is not much more efficient than my estate. Factor in some shopping and the guy with the bike as a daily driver will end up doing additional trips by car, screwing up any sort of efficiency he had going.
If you go by what you need, I could make do with a Fabia pretty much all the time right now - needed the larger car back when I bought it though. Still wouldn't survive with just a bike instead. In fact I sometimes do, whenever I swap cars with my sister's Fabia turbo when she needs a larger car. We live and work a short distance apart each, so swapping is really convenient. That's all the car you almost ever need, and it's another good chunk more efficient than my estate while still not being a diesel.

As soon as you start having a car on top of your daily driver bike all the theories about less maintenance etc. disappear.

 

[Spectre]

I'd like to weigh in. It is a very tricky discussion that narf and Spectre are leading. I can't really agree with either of them. I would like to agree with narf (mostly because I despise motorcycles), but I also see Spectre's point (most people don't really need an estate or a SUV as a daily driver. A bike would be more efficient).

I also have two (I think) unanswerable points that the car can't match.

Which is more likely to get an object of your romantic attentions to go for a ride?
"Hey, baby, let's go for a ride in my Skoda wagon." - or - "Hey, baby, let's go for a ride on my motorcycle."

Also, what happens if she says yes?
You can sit next to each other with a center console in the way in the wagon... or you have have her boobs pressed into your back while she clings to you for dear life.

This is part of why when you get married, women often want you to get rid of the bike...

I also get inherently better parking than cars.

I was thinking of lateral grip.

Gyros > grip.

Also, ice riding!

Cause a single accident with a few injured, paralyzed or killed people and you will easily get into many millions of Euros of damages. If your insurance maxes out at a few ten or hundred thousand such an event would cripple you financially for the rest of your life. Not a problem with your bike though, likely you'll be paralyzed or dead yourself from said accident.

So in that respect Europe is worse than the US - even where there's deaths, damages usually don't go that high.

Bike insurance is cheaper because they physically can't cause nearly as much damage as a car that's gone out of control can. Also, while it is true that you are more likely to be injured in an accident on a motorcycle, the stats as of about 10 years ago were that if you were in a serious accident you were actually more likely to die in a small car (due to the time consuming process of extrication as opposed to scoop-and-run for the emergency personnel.) I'd also point out that many motorcycle riders in this very forum have crashed and strangely are not paralyzed or dead.

Want a race in the snow?

No, but that's mostly because I don't trust others in the snow.

Averaging 52mpg and getting 52mpg while doing 0-100 in 2.8s is a massive difference. I have no data on that, but I would assume you'd be in the 5.2mpg range rather than 52mpg.

OK, let's try that with different phrasing. I get 52mpg while regularly, frequently, and several times per hour running 0-60 in 2.8 seconds (onramps, stoplights).

That's illegal. I wouldn't post such things in public.

Really? 80mph is already legal in Texas now; 85 mph was coming through the legislature back in April. And even if it wasn't, you can run up to 99mph in unincorporated areas and still only get a written warning that doesn't go on your record or really do much of anything.

Motorbikes are far more unstable and pothole sensitive than cars, yet you appear to ignore that.
A bicycle uses zero fossil fuel. Infinite MPG.

Motorcycles can have a more compliant suspension than a car, too - see the supermotards and the dualsports.

Bicycling does actually use fuel. It takes quite a lot of fuel to produce and deliver the food the cyclist eats to make up for the calories expended in riding - more than you do while driving or riding a motorcycle. That doesn't even begin to measure the value of lost time since the bicycle is so slow.

Constantly, no. However, I have the freedom to do so. It would be so annoying to go home and switch vehicles just to take some shopping or a passenger with me.

Strange, I don't have to change vehicles to bring shopping home or pick up a passenger.

You came up with carrying 500 litres of cargo.
Actually, super tankers would be much more efficient than anything else in terms of loading space per fuel consumed.

Supertankers are not cars, land vehicles, or even vaguely street legal.

The Hornet is listed at around 300mpg. Your bike appears to be far far away from that, you'd have to multiply its CO2 figure by about six and get 110g/km. That's more than the 99g/km your site lists for the Octavia (http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/28997/SKODA-Octavia-Hatch-Diesel-Manual-5-speed) while being a million times more usable. Less fun, obviously.

Hm, guess that reference was wrong, I didn't notice they'd blown that. I'll go look up another one.

I can accept him choosing a bike, there are obvious reasons to do that - mostly fun. I simply disagree with his opinion of it being much more efficient than cars and with his blatantly wrong made-up figures. That's all.

Not made up, going by the data here on my MPG app.

 

[Matt2000]

I'll admit that practically speaking a bike would be better for me because they're so cheap to run and I don't currently use the carrying capacity of the land rover or its off road ability. I don't care so much about practicality though, I pay for the pleasure of owning and driving it.

 

[narf]

I'll admit that practically speaking a bike would be better for me because they're so cheap to run and I don't currently use the carrying capacity of the land rover or its off road ability. I don't care so much about practicality though, I pay for the pleasure of owning and driving it.

It would only be cheaper if you got rid of the car. Maintaining both will just add up costs.

I also have two (I think) unanswerable points that the car can't match.

Which is more likely to get an object of your romantic attentions to go for a ride?
"Hey, baby, let's go for a ride in my Skoda wagon." - or - "Hey, baby, let's go for a ride on my motorcycle."

Also, what happens if she says yes?
You can sit next to each other with a center console in the way in the wagon... or you have have her boobs pressed into your back while she clings to you for dear life.

This is part of why when you get married, women often want you to get rid of the bike...

This was an issue about efficiency, no? We all agree that in the right conditions a bike is much more fun.

If a center console is stopping your fun then you're not trying hard enough. Also, lots of space in the back vs no space anywhere on the bike

...and what does she want instead of the bike? That's right. (Only valid where the MPV idiots have not spread.)

Also, I'm sure she will be thrilled to go shopping on your bike.

 

[Vette Boss]

I think I can answer the top one. You could say "Hey baby, let's take the Aston to a fancy dinner, then sexytime later".

 

[rickhamilton620]

If another fucking imp stops or slows down significantly on an on ramp one more time during my commute, I will get out of my car and punch them.

Seriously, one afternoon, some idiot in a first gen Focus stopped on the on ramp (with several "large enough" gaps he could have been into) and as a result I had to floor my car to make it onto the highway with any semblance of urgency. If the car didn't sound like it was going to explode whenever i floored it i wouldn't have minded as much...

This morning...it was a guy in a 2011 Accord...again...stopping at the end of the on ramp... when the way is clear.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Some women you wouldn't even have to take to dinner - "Hey baby, I have an Aston. Let's make sexytime now."

 

[Emarline]

Which is more likely to get an object of your romantic attentions to go for a ride?
"Hey, baby, let's go for a ride in my Skoda wagon." - or - "Hey, baby, let's go for a ride on my motorcycle."

Of the two, honestly, I'd personally go for the Skoda. For some reason I've never much liked motorcycles. It's important to me to have at least a modicum of safety and, well, there's a reason ER departments the world over call them "donorcycles". Personal preference, I guess.