M.P.G. ????

[ZRX61]

My previous GSXR1000s always did 40 mpg when touring. 30 being thrashed on Sundays and around 17 mpg on track.

My ZRX is similar, mid 40's all week, low 30's on Sundays for some reason...

[Dickyboy]

Can someone tell me how that is supposed to be 'green'?

The whole burning stuff that has grown recently rather than burning stuff that died millions of years ago is greenwash, you're still burning stuff & producing CO2 ffs

[Mr. Dazzle]

The whole burning stuff that has grown recently rather than burning stuff that died millions of years ago is greenwash, you're still burning stuff & producing CO2 ffs

Go away and think about that a bit more

Where did the carbon in recently grown stuff come from?

[KungFooBob]

My 500 Bullet EFI does circa 80mpg if I thrash it.

Ridden like a nun it'll do 100+.

But then it does have the performance of a very torquey 125.

[Asian Boss]

You're just getting slower

I think he's got you there Y-dog. Have them on the brakes and gan it up on t'back wheel.

[demographic]

On the Bonneville "miles per gallon" refers to how many miles I can do before a gallon of fuel has leaked out the exhaust pipes.

I feel your pain.
I do have smaller and far nicer looking tanks for my 500 (shown here minus its spannie and with a few other bits removed) but it does drink it at a fair rate so the tank thats fitted is the four gallon US gallons though) desert tank.
Seems to use fuel more or less at the same speed as if I just cut the fuel pipe and let it piss onto the floor.

Its bloody ugly but does add a bit of weight over the front so its not all bad...

[mangocrazy]

The whole burning stuff that has grown recently rather than burning stuff that died millions of years ago is greenwash, you're still burning stuff & producing CO2 ffs

Go away and think about that a bit more

Where did the carbon in recently grown stuff come from?

You're conveniently leaving out the energy input required to turn plant matter into ethanol and the indisputable fact that fermentation generates large amounts of CO2. Unless you live in the tropics and have a ready supply of sugar cane available, the energy component (sugars) of material such as corn is much lower and it has been calculated that energy input is nearly equal to energy output when using corn to create ethanol.

Then there are a whole world of other issues to contend with; both sugarcane- and corn-based production of ethanol have the potential to drive food prices up and decrease global food security. A leading source of animal feed, corn is a key input for the U.S. dairy, poultry, and beef industries. Corn is the most widely used agricultural product in processed food, as well. As demand for corn to supply the rising number of ethanol refineries has soared, so have corn prices, resulting in higher prices for consumers on a wide range of food products.

And every acre/hectare of arable land used for ethanol production is no longer available for human and animal food production.

Basically the whole thing is a shitshow, with the only real beneficiaries being landowners pocketing subsidies.

[Mr. Dazzle]

You're just pissed off abot your warped tank aren't you? I feel you, I've got the same issue on an old Speed Triple.

I don't deny it's not as simple as "corn in - petrol out" but to say "you're still producing CO2" shows you don't remember your O level science lessons at the least You also don't have to use fossil fuels to produce them, so even if the energy balance were 10:1 if you made it all using electricity from renewable sources you wouldn't emit any energy related CO2.

You could also just as easily point out a whole laundry list of side effects from producing petrol that are conveniently forgotten . In fact lots of people already have

[mangocrazy]

You're just pissed off abot your warped tank aren't you? I feel you, I've got the same issue on an old Speed Triple.

Damn right I am. That and the faff I've had to go to in order to protect my old bikes from the ravages of ethanol.

I don't deny it's not as simple as "corn in - petrol out" but to say "you're still producing CO2" shows you don't remember your O level science lessons at the least You also don't have to use fossil fuels to produce them, so even if the energy balance were 10:1 if you made it all using electricity from renewable sources you wouldn't emit any energy related CO2.

This is taken from a National Geographic article and gives its source: 'However, when tallying carbon dioxide emissions, one also has to consider the fossil fuel used to produce and harvest the corn and then convert it into ethanol. Fossil fuels currently power corn planting and harvesting machinery as well as the manufacture of inorganic fertilizers. These processes result in considerable amounts of carbon dioxide emissions, to the point where driving a car on corn-based ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions only 15——22%% less than driving the same car on traditional gasoline (Tilman & Hill, 2007; Bourne, 2007).' Add to that the CO2 produced during fermentation of the corn, and CO2 savings really are negligible.

You could also just as easily point out a whole laundry list of side effects from producing petrol that are conveniently forgotten . In fact lots of people already have

That's just 'whataboutery'. Ethanol is supposed to be so much better and greener than old dino juice. But is it really?

[The Spin Doctor]

Can someone tell me how that is supposed to be 'green'?

The whole burning stuff that has grown recently rather than burning stuff that died millions of years ago is greenwash, you're still burning stuff & producing CO2 ffs

The point is it's grown recently... therefore it's fixed CO2 from the atmosphere in the last year or three... rather than a few hundred million years ago.

And you can keep repeating the cycle... grow stuff - fix carbon dioxide - burn stuff - release carbon dioxide - grow stuff etc. That's why it's green.

There's no way to fix the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Why do people assume bio fuels would be produced by burning fossil fuels?

It obviously doesn't get the headlines like a 1000bhp Tesla, but EV or synthetic fuel powered farm equipment is definitely a big thing! Electric tractors are the ideal EV, they don't have to drive very far, you don't care about the weight and they've got lots of space.

They obviosuoy don't fuel tractors solely on bio fuels right now, but until you start making bio fuel there's nothing to fuel with them with...its a little bit chicken and egg. To say that "growing corn for fuel produces loads of fossil fuel CO2" is a bit short sighted innit?

[mangocrazy]

My point was mainly that biofuels are lauded as being so 'green', but the actual energy input required to produce these fuels are significant to the point of parity under certain circumstances. Obviously if you choose plant input that is more energy dense (such as sugar cane) then the delta between energy input and output is higher and more worthwhile. However as much of the plant input is stuff like corn (is sugar beet also used?) then efficiences are much lower. The cynic in me would suggest that this is due to the vested interests (large landowners etc.) applying pressure to government bodies to stipulate that the plant input is suitable to the landowner's preferences.