DrkAngel

No!
Not per gallon ... per mile!

Per gallon of gasoline the precious gas bike will pollute
more than 6x the hydrocarbons
more than 45x the oxides of nitrogen and
more than 120x the carbon monoxide
of a car ...

turbo1889

@ DrkAngel


I already tried to repeatably explain to you that the results of the Myth-Busters program about motorcycle vs. car emissions is not directly applicable to the smaller, lighter, slower IC motorized-bicycles/mopeds/scooters with 50cc or less displacement that the proposed NY law that you are so upset about and have the very biased and thick skulled attitude about that appears to be that you would rather that e-bikes remain non-street-llegal in NY state rather then have a law that made them street-legal but also made IC motorized-bicycles/mopeds/scooters with 48cc or less displacement (the proposed NY law puts the limit at 48cc rather then the more common 49cc or 50cc limit allegedly to rule out many of the existing 49cc engines).

I got tired of trying to make you see that the Myth-Busters program you were referencing was not an apples to apples comparison because it was about full sized traditional American “Bad Boy Toys” type motorcycles which they themselves in their own article that you linked to admitted that two out of three of the motorcycles they tested were not ever made to meet any type of emissions standards whatsoever. I don’t think it is any great leap of logic and common sense to realize that if there were no emission standards which had to mandatorily meet by the manufacturer that unless there was considerable consumer demand for low emissions that emissions would have receive zero or nearly zero consideration in the design of those motorcycles. Considering that traditionally in America for at least the last half century motorcycles have been viewed as “Bad Boy Toys” rather then serious transportation very little if any argument can be made for consumer demand placing any emphasis on reduced emissions for those vehicles and rather a considerable argument can be made for the exact opposite. When it comes to “Toys” consumer demand is often for loud and dirty and more then one model of full size motorcycle has been specifically altered to sound “badder” and louder in order to improve sales so for noise pollution at least a solid argument can be made that consumer demand for full size motorcycles have actually been in the exact opposite direction do to their “Bad Boy Toy” image status.

On the other hand, in the entirely different direction, small light low speed cycles following the traditional European and Asian pattern. What is commonly referred to in the U.S. as “Mopeds” and “Scooters” are at least in Europe and Asia viewed not as toys but rather as sensible and efficient transportation and that produces entirely different consumer demand and expectations since they are viewed as tools rather then toys. People like their tools to be efficient, clean, and quiet – where as they like their toys “bad ass” which usually means loud, obnoxious, and dirty.

You insist on taking a TV programs data involving the test of only six vehicles selected by them which they will not release which exact models and makes they are and that calls itself “Myth Busters” and makes its money trying to disprove stuff that set out from the get-go with a pre-conceived bias of “busting” the myth that motorcycles produce less emissions then cars. That wouldn’t be the strongest postion to try to make a stand IF you were talking about motorcycles alone but probably a reasonably legitimate position if you limited to discussion just to American style “Bad Boy Toy” type full size motorcycles. Taking those apples and instead comparing them to oranges, namely an entirely different class of vehicle such as the much slower and lighter with much smaller engine European & Asian style Mopeds and Scooters (since when have you seen such a vehicle in the U.S. that wasn’t an import from Europe or Asia?) that was built not to be a “Bad Boy Toy” but rather built to be a tool for cheap and efficient transportation.

Two entirely different classes of vehicle built with two entirely different points of view to two very different markets looking for very different things. On is built to be a “Bad Boy Toy” and lives up to what it was built for the other is built to be cheap efficient transportation and also lives up to what it was built for and those objectives and results diverge in different directions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to just let this go and drop it since I had come to the conclusion that you were too biased to have a half way logical debate with concerning the issue but when you decided to keep after it and revive this thread by posting again with a new comparison after the thread had gone for two weeks without a post (06-09-2013 to 06-25-2013) making an illogical comparison of gallon to gallon for emissions rather then mile to mile in an effort to pump up your numbers even more I decided to do the research online and find the actual numbers for the emissions of the class of vehicle we are actually discussing and provide them in this thread in comparison to the numbers you put forward from a TV program made for ratings that aren’t even for the same class of vehicle. Most of what I found is from European and Asian sources, which logically makes sense considering that such vehicles are the exception in America but are the norm – even the sizable majority in some areas over there. Thus most of the emissions data I have found is in “grams per kilometer traveled” (g/km) and I will be using that as the common measurement of comparison and converting the other units to those units as the common unit of comparison. So lets start by providing some conversion factors which you can verify yourself if you so desire:

1 mile(mi) = 1.60934 kilometer(km)
1 gram-per-mile(g/mi) = 0.621371192 grams-per-kilometer(g/km)
1 horsepower(hp) = 0.745699872 kilowatts(kW)

In addition as I previously explained very clearly for CO2 out the tailpipe there is a direct chemical relationship between how much fuel is burned to how much CO2 is produced since the carbon content of the fuel is converted to CO2 when the fuel is burned with the aid of oxygen taken from the air. I looked this chemical relationship up and for general approximation with only a small margin of error across different blends of gasoline used around the world for gasoline:

Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces 8,782 grams of CO2.

This web-site offers a very convenient plug and play converter for going back and forth between various American and metric ways of stating the gas mileage of a vehicle and the resulting emissions of CO2 per distance traveled or vice-a-versa and I used it extensively rather then doing the math by hand:

https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-f...mgasoline.html

Feel free to use those to double check my numbers and also go ahead and look up those conversion factors and double check them as well if you desire. I will be doing some rounding to keep the numbers manageable. The last digit rounded using the standard +5 rounding rule.

---------------

I was able to find this excellent 2011 paper of European origin on the tested emissions of several different European mopeds that use different emissions control systems both two and four cycle: https://www.cambridgeparticlemeeting....o-Wheelers.pdf

Here is a screen shot of the emissions data I was after for the tested European mopeds contained in that paper:



I wanted to get actual numbers from that graph so I blew it up to 800% size in MSpaint and counted pixels to get numeric values to go with the height of each of those bars on the bar graph. The distance between the zero line at the bottom of the graph and the 1-g/km line is 67 pixels. Based on that from left to right on the graph:

CO emissions
----- Red Bar = 10 pixels = 10/67 = 0.15 g/km
----- Blue Bar = 436 pixels = 436/67 = 6.51 g/km
----- Yellow Bar = 20 pixels = 20/67 = 0.30 g/km
----- Black Bar = 56 pixels = 56/67 = 0.84 g/km
----- Green Bar = 25 pixels = 25/67 = 0.37 g/km

HC emissions
----- Red Bar = 17 pixels = 17/67 = 0.25 g/km
----- Blue Bar = 42 pixels = 42/67 = 0.63 g/km
----- Yellow Bar = 3 pixels = 3/67 = 0.045 g/km
----- Black Bar = 15 pixels = 15/67 = 0.22 g/km
----- Green Bar = 32 pixels = 32/67 = 0.48 g/km

NOx emissions
----- Red Bar = 13 pixels = 13/67 = 0.19 g/km
----- Blue Bar = 11 pixels = 11/67 = 0.16 g/km
----- Yellow Bar = 10 pixels = 10/67 = 0.15 g/km
----- Black Bar = 7 pixels = 7/67 = 0.10 g/km
----- Green Bar = 17 pixels = 17/67 = 0.25 g/km

HC+NOx emissions
----- Red Bar = 30 pixels = 30/67 = 0.45 g/km
----- Blue Bar = 53 pixels = 53/67 = 0.79 g/km
----- Yellow Bar = 13 pixels = 13/67 = 0.19 g/km
----- Black Bar = 21 pixels = 21/67 = 0.31 g/km
----- Green Bar = 49 pixels = 49/67 = 0.73 g/km

Notice that if you manually add the HC and NOx numbers produced by counting pixels you end up with nearly the same numbers as the combined HC+NOx graph bars numbers produced by counting pixels with a very small margin of error of only 0.00 to 0.02 g/km.

Now lets average the numbers of all five of the different designs to get an average idea non-CO2 emissions of what a late model commercially produced European Moped vehicle is putting out. As you may have noticed the CO (carbon monoxide) numbers for the blue bar 4-cycle carbureted engine moped are way too high and an abnormal anomaly compared to the others tested. That information combined with the fairly high HC and low NOx numbers with my knowledge of how IC engines, especially 4-cycle engines run tells me that the carburetor on that engine is out of adjustment and running too rich. Turning the mixture adjustment screw(s) in just a little bit on that carburetor would fix that in a jiffy. So I will do too averages for the CO one that includes the one engine that is running too rich and producing substantially higher CO as a result and one without:

CO Average = 0.415 g/km (does not include incorrectly adjusted 4-cycle carb)
CO Average = 1.634 g/km
HC Average = 0.325 g/km
NOx Average = 0.170 g/km
HC+NOx Average = 0.494 g/km

This time if we manually add the averaged HC and NOx numbers there is only 0.001 g/km difference between the manually added numbers and the average of the counting pixels numbers for the NC+NOx pre-added graph bars. This provides a really good double check that counting pixels is providing accurate numbers.

So that takes care of that source of information on the emissions for this class of vehicle, but unfortunately does not provide CO2 numbers as well, nor were fuel mileage numbers provide from which the CO2 emissions could be calculated. Of note for future reference was that the motors of the mopeds tested were rated for 2.3 to 4 kW of power output and were all 50cc or less and were limited to European max speed for such vehicles of 45km/hr with the exception of the lowest powered (2.3 kW) moped which would go as fast as its power would allow depending on conditions. It is clear though that these are an oranges to oranges comparison of the type of gas bike the NY state motorized bicycle law is talking about rather then the apples to oranges comparison involving full sized high speed motorcycles with significantly more powerful engines and greater weight and size.

One more thing that should be noted is that with one exception, namely the carbureted 4-cycle that is obviously running too rich on its mixture, all of the moped emissions tests showed that their emissions were well below the limits that they were designed to meet. Although it may seem self evident it is worth stating that if a vehicle or the engine that powers it was designed to meet certain emission standards provided it is running and tuned correctly the regulated emissions levels it was designed to meet can be considered the highest possible coming out of the tail-pipe when in use. This is an important when considering engines used to power home-built or kit-built motorized bicycles where emission test data is not available but information is available as to what regulated emission levels the engine was designed to meet by the manufacturer and will come into play further on in this discussion.

---------------

Next I was able to locate a very comprehensive 2012 nationwide study of India’s pollution emissions and strategies for reduction:

https://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energ...nt/methods.htm

Among many other sectors of India’s economy and the resulting emissions this study provides average emissions data for multiple vehicle types in their current nation wide transportation fleet. This is some very nice data to have access too for the purposes of this discussion because of all the large Asian nations and potentially of all the large nations on this planet India has the highest percentage of vehicles that fall into the category of light weight, low speed, high efficiency, low cost two wheeled gasoline cycles as show by this graph from another source which is arguably not quite as up to date as the information in the 2012 study:



The numbers from the 2012 study I linked too show that the percentage has remained the same or actually grown with the 2012 numbers showing that such vehicles represent approximately 52-million out of a total fleet of approximately 72-million. To translate that for the American mind set that would be like saying 5 out of 7 of all vehicles in existence and used for transportation on a regular basis are low powered, low speed, cheap and efficient mopeds/scooters in India. Most of that I’d guess is economically driven with a population that is poorer and looking for cheap efficient transportation that you don’t have to spend very much to purchase, keep going, and buy very much fuel for. In addition the numbers provided are not for current production new models but rather are an average of the existing fleet which provides an excellent reference for consideration of “the big picture” since not everyone is going to own a brand new or nearly brand new vehicle and some types of vehicles wear out and must be replaced earlier then others so some parts of a nations total transportation fleet are going to be updated quicker then others as newer and cleaner technologies come out because they wear out faster.

Here are the numbers:



The main category we are concerned with is what they refer to as “Two wheelers”, as confirmation that the vehicle category in question is not full size powerful, fast, and heavier motorcycles like Americans are used too thinking of look at the CO2 g/km number, as I mentioned earlier from that you can get the gas mileage which in this case works out too:

26.6 g/km of CO2 = 1.15 Liters of gasoline per 100-km = 205 miles per gallon of gasoline

At current technology levels you don’t get that kind of mileage with any motor bike bigger or faster then what us Americans would call a moped/scooter.

These are the oranges to oranges comparison for the type of vehicles under discussion but this is a mixture of both old and new bikes, a mixture of everything that was on the streets of India during that study. Lets pull out the CO, HC, and NOx numbers which logically should be higher then what was found in the European paper which provided emissions data for brand new current production mopeds:

CO Average = 2.2 g/km
HC Average = 1.42 g/km
NOx Average = 0.19 g/km

Basically, the most substantial improvement in the emissions of the new model mopeds in the Euro paper compared to the total old&new Indian fleet average is in the HC emissions and also in the CO emissions if you consider that the one carbureted 4-stroke was not running correctly and needed its carb mix adjusted and leaned out. There appears to be very little difference or improvement in the NOx emissions numbers.

Obviously some other comparisons can be made as well with all the other classes of vehicles that are averaged out as well in that table. Notable the “Cars and Jeeps” category (the “Taxi” category according to the text of the article in which that chart appears refers to diesel powered which apparently is traditional for taxi’s in India).

Granted these are not American cars and jeeps and are an average of the entire fleets emissions both new and old models but the following can be noted for comparison:

For CO2 per km driving a car/jeep puts out 197g more or 8.4x the CO2 then riding a moped.
For NOx per km driving a car/jeep puts out 0.01g more or 1.05x the NOx then riding a moped ~ practically no difference on that one.
For HC per km riding a moped puts out 1.17g more or 5.68x the HC then driving a car/jeep.

So if those are the only pollutants your going to take into consideration ON AVERAGE if you ride a moped instead of driving a car/jeep in India you are saving 197g of CO2 at the cost of putting out 1.17g more HC per km traveled. Regardless of whether you measure that in km or miles that ratio will stay the same and it makes hardly any difference on the NOx.

---------------

Okay, so those are some good numbers from some good sources for commercially produced mopeds/scooters following the European/Asian design pattern for those types of vehicles which if you want to get that kind of vehicle in America its most likely going to be imported from those areas (I’m going to trust those actual numbers for actual mopeds/scooters by actual big scientific studies way more then some ratings driven TV shows numbers that are based on an entirely different class and type of vehicle, namely the American style “Bad Boy Toy” big, powerful, fast, and way too often obnoxious, load, and dirty motorcycle.)

BUT, what about the home-built or kit-built motorized bicycles? Well lets start of by clearly acknowledging that the “China Girl” type two-cycle carbureted “bang, bang” motors and motor kits are at a 1970’s technology level and were never designed to meet any emission standards and that probably never even entered the minds of the designers, not to mention that ever single one of them imported into the U.S. since the year 2,000 was not legally imported to begin with (go visit some IC motorized bicycle forums for info on that) because of emissions issues among other things. I have already made it quite clear earlier in this thread that I agree that the “China Girl” type motors most certainly run plenty dirty and are probably worse then a car with the only exception being the CO2 simply because they don’t burn as much gas per distance traveled. About the only way to clean them up is to run them on pure ethanol mixed with bio-diesel for 2-cycle lubrication like you can do with old 2-cycle chain saws and 2-cycle outboard boat motors (google it if your not familiar with that process which allows old 2-cycles with 1970’s level of technology to run clean enough to pass modern emission standards especially the marine outboard standards in CA which are about as strict as it gets for off highway small engines) short of that I would agree with you – DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY !!!

But there are a lot of kits and scratch home-built motorized bicycles out there which use small “Lawn & Garden” type engines, especially the 25cc to 40cc weed-eater type engines. There are emission standards for such engines and using those emission standards you can calculate the maximum possible emissions from a bike powered by such a motor that isn’t “out of whack or misadjusted” using those emission standards. Even more importantly for the 4-cycle motors in that category there is currently significant consumer market pressure for those engines to run cleaner then the regulations require and the market for that nitch is such that manufactures can pull higher price points for motors that run substantially cleaner then the emission standards require and also run quieter. That particular trend in that market started back in 1994 when Ryobi “Pro-4” engine which was the “ice breaker” that opened up consumer demand for Lawn & Garden equipment powered by such small motors that were considerably cleaner and quieter then competing products and the manufactures of such products became aware that consumers especially professionals that used such tools for a living on a daily basis were willing to pay higher price points for cleaner and quieter motors in such products and especially 4-cycles which did not require the hassle of mixing oil with the gas. Infact, this introduction and discovery of a premium market actually proceeded the introduction of the first set of very liberal emissions regulations for off highway small motors in the U.S. which took place in 1997 and ever since there has existed a premium market for this small size of 4-cycle engine for professional commercial quality and high end personal Lawn & Garden care equipment. The three big players in this market for the U.S. are Ryobi, Honda, and Robin-Subaru. The current leader in the field is Robin-Subaru which openly advertises and brags that its EH025 and EH035 engines which “Produce only approximately one tenth the legal emissions”, “Up to ten times less emissions then competing products of similar size and power”, and “At least ten times less emissions then your old 2-cycle trimmer !!!” along with claims about substantially reduced noise, extended service life, and using straight unmixed gas including the cheap E10 blend auto fuel (10% ethonal) and not having to buy premium non-ethanol fuel which is necessary if you run 2-cycle and use a low quality mix oil that won’t mix with the alcohol portion of the fuel. Honda’s claims aren’t so specific and they don’t specify and actual quantitative number of “ten times” in their advertisements and product promotion but then their engines aren’t quite as expensive either. Ryobi comes out with an improved model every once in a while that usually leap-frogs what Robin-Subaru is putting out at the time but they don’t update their stuff as often so they usually only stay ahead for a short time before everyone else copies them. I’ve heard rumors that their new model planned for release in the spring of 2014 will include EGR valve technology which would be another first and another “ice breaker” you can chalk up to their brand name just like they broke the ice on the initial offering of a clean, quiet 4-cycle into this size of motor for Lawn & Garden tool applications and them also being the first to build one for LPG fueling which is a substantially cleaner fuel then gasoline will ever be (unfortunately that one was a commercial flop due to hard starting issues and the high price of the small disposable canisters they built it to use, could have been a success if they had solved the hard starting problem and used a refillable mini tank). So far the new Ryobi with EGR is only an internet rumor though, I hope it works out for them because if it does the next year after that models of the Robin-Subaru and Honda engines will also have EGR since it has been the pattern that if what Ryobi does works out as a success the other two follow suit the next year.

So, okay, what exactly are the emissions requirements for such engines? Well long story short, via EPA regulations such motors are “Class IV Hand Held” and from 2005 until present the maximum acceptable emissions from such an engine are 50g of CO per kW-hr and 50g of HC+NOx per kW-hr.

I personally have several motorized-bicycle powered by the Robin-Subaru EH025 engine and one motorized-bicycle powered by the Robin Subaru EH035 engine. Up until now I never bothered to check what the actual emission standards were that the manufacturer claims they produce ten times less emissions then the standards I just used them because they were the manufacturer making the clearest and most direct claim as to how much lower their emissions were and also because they of they are a commercial duty rated motor with a considerably longer service life and they have a very high reputation on motorized-bicycle forums online and are considered the cream of the crop if you want to buy quality. I started out with the one bike using the EH035 which is the bigger motor but future builds and kits I did with the smaller EH025 because I found I didn’t need as much power as the bigger motor puts out because I like to pedal along with the motor and I get even better gas mileage with EH025 and it is cheaper and more commonly available then its big brother.

The EH025 is rated for a continuous power output of 0.55 kW and a maximum power output of 0.81 kW. The EH035 is rated for a continuous power output of 0.81 kW and a maximum power output of 1.18 kW.

All of those motorized bicycles will “cruise” at about 25 miles per hour speed on the flat with various amounts of effort on my part on the pedals required as well, the one with the bigger EH035 engine will go that fast without me pedaling at all unless I’m caring a load, the ones with the EH025 I usually need to be pedaling.

So, lets do the math:

Assuming the Robin-Subaru company makes its claims of 1/10th the required emissions limit using the larger maximum power output:

EH025 = ( 50 g/kW-hr * 1/10 * 0.81 kW ) / 25mph = 0.162 g/mi = 0.101 g/km
EH035 = ( 50 g/kW-hr * 1/10 * 1.18 kW ) / 25mph = 0.236 g/mi = 0.147 g/km

I also know that depending on conditions I get between 100 and 150 miles to a gallon on the EH035 powered motorized bicycle (call it 125 mpg) and depending on conditions I get between 150 and 200 miles to a gallon on the EH025 powered motorized bicycles (call it 175 mpg) and from that the average approximate CO2 emissions can be calculated. So in conclusion these are what the numbers for those bikes are looking like:

EH025
----- CO2 = 31.18 g/km
----- CO <= 0.101 g/km
----- HC+NOx <= 0.101 g/km

EH035
----- CO2 = 43.66 g/km
----- CO <= 0.147 g/km
----- HC+NOx <= 0.147 g/km

I don’t think a motorized bicycle using a Honda motor will do quite as well, but don’t know for sure since they aren’t as clear about how much cleaner their engines are (and I suspect not quite as clean). A Ryobi is up in the air and could be better (their LPG fueled engine) or worse. There are of course other less known and trusted brands making these 4-cycle weed-eater and similar Lawn & Garden equipment engines and the 2-cycles as well which if you get one 2005 or newer model shouldn’t do any worse then the regs. require.

We can also do a hypothetical 2-cycle build using a 1.5 kW engine in the 30-something cc range that theoretically is as dirty as allowed and barely meets the regs. by the skin of its teeth and only gets 100 mpg but still goes 25mph (with a full kW and a half of power it should go at least that fast even with some-ones overweight Aunt Bertha riding it and not pedaling at all):

( 50 g/kW-hr * 1.5 kW ) / 25mph = 3.00 g/mi = 1.864 g/km

Hypothetical Dirty 2-Cycle 3?cc
----- CO2 = 54.57 g/km
----- CO = 1.864 g/km
----- HC+NOx = 1.864 g/km

Well, anyway if you use a 2005 or newer U.S. off highway motor in the 20 to 50cc size range that is approximately the range of emissions you will end up in depending on how good/clean of an engine you choose to use in your build or in the case of a kit that includes the motor is included in the kit. Most will be rated in horsepower not kW so you have to do the conversion and then figure your speed and mileage to calculate your maximum emissions per mile assuming you didn’t futz with the motor in ways the changed it so it won’t meet the original emissions standards it was built too. Very few such engines will produce more then 1.5 kW of power output and with pedaling you can do 25 mph speed with only half a kW of sustained power which provided your running one of the cleaner engines in the class makes for a lot less emissions and just as important to me at least even better mileage.



---------------



Okay, so now with some actual good numbers for the actual class of vehicle we are actually talking about under our belt and not some hypothetical numbers pulled from a TV show about a very different class of vehicle where they only tested six vehicles, of which only three were bikes and of those three bikes two by their own admission were never designed to meet any emission standards where as all three of the cars were (talk about a slanted test to give a desired outcome).

Now we need some good numbers for comparison for the car side of the equation. We already got some numbers from the India data in the process of getting there numbers for this class of vehicle which they should be very familiar with especially compared to an American TV program with three cars and three big full size high speed motorcycles considering that they have approximately 52 million of these low powered, low speed, 200+ mpg average fuel consumption little moped/scooter type vehicles running around their roads out of approximately 72 million total road vehicles. But after all we do want to make a comparison with American cars since this is after all a discussion concerning a potential law for a U.S. state, namely NY state. The only reason we had to go to European and Asian sources for actual emissions data is because for the commercially produced vehicles of this type apparently Americans don’t know %*$%$* about them, or at least most Americans don’t. Heck I had to dig deep into forest service compliance programs just to find the actual regulations for the off highway engines of various sizes since they are mandated to change out their equipment as the regs change and they aren’t allowed to keep using old equipment that no longer meets current emissions standards and it was an Asian source were I finally found the on-highway emission regs. for commercial mopeds/scooters in the U.S. which just happen to be among the most lax in the world (back to that “toys” vs. “tools” attitude where people like their toys obnoxious and dirty to be more fun were as tools need to be quieter and cleaner):











Thankfully though, it wasn’t too hard to find some decent pictures and graphs for car emissions along with some decent data at least for HC and NOx. CO2 obviously is easily calculated by mileage. The CO figures were a little more difficult to find by I managed to find some good pictures and graphs that included that as well. Before I begin I should start out with that there a whole bunch of different measurement for the HC including but not limited to VOC, NMHC, NMOC, TOG, NMOG, THC, etc . . . Some of those measurements don’t include the methane (NM = non-methane) some of them also include other unburned fuel based tail-pipe or evaporative emissions that are not true hydrocarbons. Long story short though the numbers for gasoline fueled vehicles are within 90% to 105% of each other regardless of the various methods of measurement, only when you get into alternate fuels are there substantial differences. Here is a link to an EPA document about all that: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrd.../420r05015.pdf

Here is the first one from the U.S. department of transportation showing the average improvements in both heavy truck and light passenger car emissions from 1967 model year to 2002 model year:


Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/...ook/page15.cfm

Lets quickly convert the light passenger car emissions for both years to g/km to match up to our moped/scooter motorized-bicycle data:

Light Passenger Car VOC (HC)
----- 1967 = 9.2 g/km
----- 2002 = 0.87 g/km

Light Passenger Car NOx
----- 1967 = 12.9 g/km
----- 2002 = 0.75 g/km

Light Passenger Car CO
----- 1967 = 54.4 g/km
----- 2002 = 8.8 g/km



Okay, now lets move up to the present crop of cars on the road which surprisingly haven’t shown that much improvement in the last couple years with at least one source showing emissions have gone up slightly since 2009 which was the lowest year for them:


Source: https://corporate.ford.com/microsites...-data-tailpipe


Found that one using google image search, don’t have a direct source link but its got the CO emissions that the Ford data doesn’t have.



Both of those are google image finds from the text of a 1,000+ page .pdf download they want nearly $40 to download so I wasn’t going to pay that to have the full source data when the information in those graphs will do just fine.



Long story short for a modern light passenger car:

Ford 2009 lowest emissions year:
----- NOx = 0.05 g/mi = 0.031 g/km
----- NMOG (HC) = 0.07 g/mi = 0.043 g/km
----- Equivlant HC+NOx = 0.12 g/mi = 0.075 g/km

Toyota Corolla (unknown year but looks to be in same period as Ford 2009 data)
----- NMOG (HC) = 0.025 g/km
----- CO = 0.808 g/km
----- NOx = 0.124 g/km
----- CO2 = 157 g/km

Test car for speed-vs.-emissions graphs in big expensive download:
----- CO = 1 g/km (approx minimum)
----- NOx = 0.3 g/km (approx minimum)
----- HC = 0.06 g/km (approx minimum)
----- CO2 = 175 g/km (approx minimum)


Test data for cars built and marketed to meet certain U.S. EPA emission standards from big expensive download:
~ NLEV
----- NMHC (HC) = 0.07 g/mi = 0.04 g/km
----- CO = 0.8 g/mi = 0.5 g/km
----- NOx = 0.11 g/mi = 0.07 g/km
~ LEV
----- NMHC (HC) = 0.09 g/mi = 0.06 g/km
----- CO = 0.95 g/mi = 0.6 g/km
----- NOx = 0.15 g/mi = 0.09 g/km
~ ULEV
----- NMHC (HC) = 0.04 g/mi = 0.025 g/km
----- CO = 0.7 g/mi = 0.4 g/km
----- NOx = 0.08 g/mi = 0.05 g/km


Then lets take that information we have from a scattering of different sources for different light passenger car models right-before or during the 2010 year and put it together as an average to get a feel of where we are and combine that with the information for the earlier years of 1967 and 2002 were the work was already done for us by the department of transportation. Do that and you end up with a line of logical progression like this for passenger car emissions:

Light Passenger Car HC (regardless of how it is measured)
----- 1967 = 9.2 g/km
----- 2002 = 0.87 g/km
----- 2010-ish = 0.047 g/km

Light Passenger Car NOx
----- 1967 = 12.9 g/km
----- 2002 = 0.75 g/km
----- 2010-ish = 0.11 g/km

Light Passenger Car CO
----- 1967 = 54.4 g/km
----- 2002 = 8.8 g/km
----- 2010-ish = 0.66 g/km

Finally we need some CO2 emissions data to go with that. Since we can easily calculate CO2 emission from miles per gallon this graph will do nicely:



Lets be generous and call it an average of 25 miles per gallon for our 2002 year and call it an average of 30 miles per gallon to go with our other 2010-ish modern vehicle emissions data and via. simple calculation that gives us:

2002 CO2 = 218.3 g/km
2010-ish CO2 = 181.9 g/km

turbo1889

IN CONCLUSION

So Now with those numbers under our belt do some comparisons between both the 2002 and 2010-is car data and the numbers we have tacked down for both commercial production vehicles in this class and home-built or kit jobs with the exception of the “china girl” engines which might stand up fairly well against the 1967 car numbers but don’t have a prayer against a newer car for anything other then CO2 emissions comparison.



If I put the 2011 European moped emissions information against the 2002 U.S. car in a head to head comparison and assume 100 mpg fuel efficiency (a very low estimate) for the fuel efficiency of those mopeds then:

~ Approx 1/4th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 163.7 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 1/6th to 1/21 the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 7.1 to 8.4 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 2/5th the HC emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.545 g/km of HC emissions)
~ Approx 2/9th the NOx emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.58 g/km NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put the Average Indian “Two Wheeler”, not a new one, average of current fleet of that vehicle type, against the 2002 U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/8th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 186.7 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 1/4th the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 6.6 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 1.6x the HC emissions per same distance traveled (extra 0.55 g/km of HC emissions)
~ Approx 1/4th the NOx emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.56 g/km NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put I put our Hypothetical Dirty 2-Cycle 3?cc Lawn & Garden 2005 or newer engine powered motorized bicycle up against the 2002 U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/4th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 163.7 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 2/9th the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 6.9 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 1.15x the HC+NOx emissions per same distance traveled (extra 0.24 g/km of HC+NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put I put my EH035 engine powered motorized bicycle up against the 2002 U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/5th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 169.6 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 1/60th the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 8.65 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 1/11th the HC+NOx emissions per same distance traveled (save 1.47 g/km of HC+NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put I put my EH025 engine powered motorized bicycle up against the 2002 U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/7th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 182.1 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 1/87th the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 8.7 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 1/16th the HC+NOx emissions per same distance traveled (save 1.52 g/km of HC+NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put the 2011 European moped emissions information against the 2010-ish U.S. car in a head to head comparison and assume 100 mpg fuel efficiency (a very low estimate) for the fuel efficiency of those mopeds then:

~ Approx 1/3rd the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 127.3 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 2/3rd to 2.5x the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.24 to extra 0.97 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 6.9x the HC emissions per same distance traveled (extra 0.278 g/km of HC emissions)
~ Approx 1.5x the NOx emissions per same distance traveled (extra 0.06 g/km NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put the Average Indian “Two Wheeler”, not a new one, average of current fleet of that vehicle type, against the 2010-ish U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/7th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 155.3 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 3.3x the CO emissions per same distance traveled (extra 1.54 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 30x the HC emissions per same distance traveled (extra 1.37 g/km of HC emissions)
~ Approx 1.7x the NOx emissions per same distance traveled (extra 0.08 g/km NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put I put our Hypothetical Dirty 2-Cycle 3?cc Lawn & Garden 2005 or newer engine powered motorized bicycle up against the 2010-ish U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/3rd the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 127.3 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 2.8x the CO emissions per same distance traveled (extra 1.2 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 11.9x the HC+NOx emissions per same distance traveled (extra 1.7 g/km of HC+NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put I put my EH035 engine powered motorized bicycle up against the 2010-ish U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/4th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 138.2 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 1/5th the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.513 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 94% the HC+NOx emissions per same distance traveled (call it even but technically saved 0.01 g/km of HC+NOx emissions)

---------------

If I put I put my EH025 engine powered motorized bicycle up against the 2010-ish U.S. car in a head to head comparison then:

~ Approx 1/6th the CO2 emissions per same distance traveled (save 150.7 g/km of CO2 emissions)
~ Approx 2/13th the CO emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.56 g/km CO emissions)
~ Approx 2/3rd the HC+NOx emissions per same distance traveled (save 0.056 g/km of HC+NOx emissions)


















Well, those numbers actually match up with the actual vehicle type under discussion and are valid apple to apples comparisons rather then trying to pull numbers from a TV program about full size high speed American "Bad Boy Toy" motorcycles and trying to stretch those numbers out to fit an entirely different class of vehicle that is built to be a tool rather then a toy for low cost efficient transportation. The differences in the numbers is striking in the TV programs data about the motorcycles and the European, Asian, and U.S. EPA Class IV handheld low power off road engine emission standards is striking. With the motorcycles it was the CO (carbon monoxide) that was the big offender of the three emissions other then CO2 and it was the hydrocarbons which were the least problematic. That is exactly flipped for the mopeds/scooters and Class IV handheld motors that are used for many builds and kits. The HC are the big offender and CO is among the least problematic in comparison with modern cars.

Now that we have some actual numbers in hand we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense or not to produce one gram or less per kilometer traveled of a non-red-line pollutant to reduce emissions of a global red-line polutant by 100 grams per kilometer traveled.

As to what I mean by red-line vs. non-red-line pollutant. Once you push nature beyond its ability to clean up a a particular pollutant or otherwise restore itself faster then you are messing things up you have passed the red-line and things are going to get progressively worse if you continue. For example you can only catch fish out of lake as fast as more baby fish are made and grow up. If you catch fish faster then that the population of fish will steadily go down until you either stop or things are pushed beyond another line known as the point of no return and their isn't enough fish to sustain a breeding population and they die out. Currently we are beyond the red-line on a global scale for both CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and O2 sequestration from it. We are putting out CO2 into the atmosphere and using up O2 faster then plant life can catch up and absorb the CO2 and give off O2 and the CO2 content is steadily rising and the O2 content steadily decreasing. For that particular pollutant there is solid evidence that we are beyond the red line on a global scale, regardless of whether that creates or is a significant contributing factor to global warming or not such behavior cannot continue in the long run. In contrast there is also clear evidence that we are below the red-line on traditional "smog" (HC+NOx) and CO pollutants based on the fact that as those emissions have been cleaned up (over the last four decades for cars but over the last century for industrial sources since the industrial revolution) air quality has improved. When you reduce your emissions to the point where nature can catch back up and clean up faster then you are putting out you are by definition back below the red-line.

Paying the cost of 1 gram of pollutant to keep from emitting 100 grams of another pollutant makes sense unless the 1 gram is really bad stuff that makes up in potency for the wide quantity differential. How much more sense does it make if the 100 grams is a pollutant which you are beyond the red line on a global scale and the 1 gram of pollutant is one that has already been brought down well below the red-line on a local much less global scale with the exception of only a few localized areas. Yes, at one time in some cities the smog so bad that they had to keep the street lights on during the day to light the roads but that was over half a century ago not to mention that small four cycle engines are an emerging technology that is coming into its own currently to the point where some parts of the market are progressing faster then the emissions regulations and are instead being driven by consumer demand instead. Emissions control for gasoline cars has stagnated over the last few years while for the small 4-cycle engines we are using to power our motorized bicycles the pace of progress is aggressively accelerating.

AS I SAID BEFORE - you need to get a clue about the new cleaner 4-cycle small engine technology that is just starting to come into its own and ignoricos like you who pay way too much attention to TV programs and make huge leaps beyond logic based on stuff in them about stuff that ain't in them !!!

For starters you can quite coming to conclusions about tools based on toys. Here is a good example of what happens with motorized stuff as toys + people without any emissions regulations whatsoever (remember that 2 of 3 of the motorcycles in the TV show by their own admission were never made to meet any emission standard and combine that with their American "Bad Boy Toy" status):


Source: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02033.pdf

It should also have something to say about jumping to conclusions about one vehicle type based on data for another vehicle type. At first glance one might think that snowmobiles and ATV's might have similar emissions both are off road "toys" one for when there is snow and one for when there isn't snow. Huge difference though isn't there. Try to get some actual numbers, and even then from one brand or model to another there can still be considerable differences even when they are in the same class.

DrkAngel

My point is that while electric bikes are a step towards a more economical-ecological future ...
Gas bikes are a way to prolong petroleum dependency ... while contributing a massive increase in pollution!

turbo1889

As of yet electric bikes cannot cover it all - someday they may, significant developments in battery technology will most likely be necessary far beyond where that technology is now. You are choosing to ignore this and are willing to shut out emerging gas bike technology even at the expense of electric bikes road legality as well that is nearly as clean if not as clean or cleaner in some cases for pollutants other then CO2 then gas cars and is a rapidly improving tech with substantial reductions to CO2 pollution in the mean time.

Gas bikes by using many times less petroleum then full size cars reduce petroleum dependence and possibly even more importantly reduce stress levels on supply. The stress levels on supply is what drives accidents like that problem with BP and all the goo they spilled in the Gulf (not to say they weren't a pack of irresponsible idiots but irresponsible idiots mess things up on a lot bigger scale when put under stress and pressure to produce at any cost). Are they the ultimate answer - no - but using off the shelf components I have managed to build several that produce substantially less CO2 while at the same time producing less of the other pollutants you bring up namely, CO and HC+NOx then an average modern gas car with modern emissions controls and went to the bother of sourcing and crunching the numbers to demonstrate that and considerable improvements in the technology to go even cleaner is not only possible but has already been developed and just hasn't quite made it to "on the shelf" readily available status but is moving in that direction, especially low pressure computer controlled port injection technology combined with computer modulated EGR and three way exhaust catalyst post treatment which I have right now in the form of a wrecked Japanese 41cc scooter in my shop right now that I was able to purchase at salvage price and just have to tear the motor and computer control and exhaust catalyst systems out of and see what I can turn it into especially since the Jap. technology is like ten years ahead of what you can get off the shelf in the U.S. even their cold start emission specs are impressive much less the hot run.

LEARN TO READ, I posted two motorized bicycle combinations using the Robin-Subaru (Jap. tech dumbed down for the U.S. market) mirco 4-strokes that produce less emissions per distance traveled that I personally own and use that not only produce substantially less CO2 while at the same time producing no more and even less emissions then a car of CO and the HC+NOx smog emissions not to mention the other combinations that the increases in non-CO2 polutants are in the sub-gram range in exchange for triple digit decreases in the CO2 emissions. And that isn't even bringing into the case how using substantially less gasoline fuel also reduces emissions in the supply and refining process especially the HC emissions. Your "point" is based on false ASSumptions based on false leaps of logic from "seen on TV" data that by their own admission is biased. Time to re-examine the foundations upon which your prejudice is based.

DrkAngel

Sorry I felt my previous post was of obvious truth to everyone.
To be more precise-clear I offer a direct comparison ...

My eBike = 1800-2500 eMPG (equivalent MPG based on price)
Gas Bike = 100-150 MPG

My eBike = 80 - 90% energy efficiency
Gas Bike = 10 - 20% energy efficiency

My eBike = As low as 0 ppm CO2 emissions (Percentage from renewable emission free increasing annually!)
Gas Bike = Slightly less CO2 (Per gallon) than a car because! - lack of emission controls leaves smog components, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide, in their untreated form.

My eBike = Uses increasingly renewable and emission free energy.
Gas Bike = Uses increasingly scarce-costly fuel while producing the same Carbon output per gallon but a much higher output of the traditional "pollutants", hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide, compared to present cars.

My eBike = Forward looking Green energy!
Gas Bike = Prolonging dependency on a proven pollution spewing, global ecosystem damaging energy source. Worse! All the anti-pollution devices from the last 4 decades are not used, increasing the traditional (immediate affect) pollutants exponentially!

rebel1916

Why shouldn't mopeds be regulated?

turbo1889

They are, at least in terms of federal emissions regulations for new commercial models being manufactured or imported into the U.S., currently some motors exceed the regulations by up to ten times so you can build gas-bikes that are 10 times or more cleaner then the regs. require with off the shelf technology. Not saying that everyone will do that but pointing out it is possible and that currently at least in some nitch markets consumer demand is pushing some of the engines used to build these gas-bikes to be cleaner then the regs. require. I agree that the regs. are still a good thing to have in place anyway.

Point under discussion is a matter of road legality by state law. DrkAngel has made it clear in previous posts that he would rather that his state of NY continue its policy of making e-bikes non-road-legal rather then have a state law passed that not only makes e-bikes road legal but also makes mopeds road legal as well. He wants a law that makes e-bikes road legal but does not make mopeds road legal, and he is so viciously biased against gasoline powered mopeds/scooters/motorized-bicycles that he is even willing to sacrifice the road legality of e-bikes to keep them non-road-legal. To back his position up he is willing to twist facts and make deliberate slanted comparisons not on an apple to apples basis but rather a deliberate apple to oranges basis to try to back up his position. The most recent evidence of his willingness to stoop to such levels is using "per distance traveled" figures for e-bikes and cars and refusing to us the same "per distance" apples to apples comparison for mopeds/scooters/motorized-bicycles. Since mopeds/scooters/motorized-bicycles use from 1/3 to 1/20 the amount of fuel to travel the same distance as a full sized car (depending on which gas-bike is compared to which gas-car) this means he is deliberately and maliciously using a warped/slanted comparison to give the gas-bike a 3x to 20x disadvantage in the comparison from the get-go. Its like racing someone and making them take 3 to 20 laps around the running track around the football field to reach the finish line while you only take one lap and then trying to call it a fair race and hoop it up that you won the race.

turbo1889

A better comparison would be equivalent eMPG based not on the price of the electricity (coal is way cheaper then petro per amount of power generated and dirtier and nearly half of U.S. electricity is coal power) but rather on an emissions equivalent, the easiest and most direct comparison method being to use CO2 equivalent eMPG using the current standard electric power source generation. That is how the EPA does it for the equivalent MPG for electric cars in their calculations, namely equivalent CO2 production MPG to charge using a standardized mix of U.S. e-grid power. Don't worry, your e-bike will still come out ahead using that standard of measure. Most full size electric cars get between 60-120 mpg equivalent using CO2 equivalency instead of price equivalency. (Note, this also means though that strictly on CO2 equivalency a gas-bike that gets better then 120 mpg will produce less CO2 per distance traveled then an electric car, but an e-bike will get even better CO2 equivalent mpg).

If I'm not mistaken your using the e-Zip brushed e-bikes so 60%-80% efficiency is more like it for a brushed electric motor. You are correct that brushless electric motors can get up to 90% efficiency converting the electricity from the batteries mechanical energy. There is also some losses in efficiency in charging the batteries as well. Battery charging efficiency depending on the type of batteries and charger technology can range anywhere from 40% to 90%. So with an electric vehicle you have two efficiency number, one for how efficiently the batteries are charged from the outside power source and then how efficiently the electric energy once stored in the battery is turned into mechanical energy by the drive system. Either way though you are correct that the total energy transfer from charging source to pavement is higher for electric vehicles then it is for IC petro engine powered vehicles. So in general principle what you are saying there is correct just not quite those exact numbers, but pretty close.

Also, I'm not sure about the % efficiency numbers you have there for an IC gasoline engine, they seem a little high to me, don't know for sure though since I haven't researched that exact number. (Yes, I realize that leaving them as high as you put them if they are actually lower would bolster my position but if the numbers are wrong they are wrong. The look too high to me, could be wrong though.)

AGAIN, you can't use "per distance" for both your e-bike, an electric car, and a gas car and then suddenly switch to "per gallon" for the gas-bike. Getting from point A to point B is the whole point (bad pun) of transportation. Every transportation emissions comparison I have ever seen is "per distance" or "per unit of weight, per distance" and ever so rarely "per unit of weight, per distance, per the inverse of the travel time". The first is the simplest and is just from point A to point B equivalency, the second is a little more complex and is usually associated with the moving of large quantities of freight and cargo (such as rail vs. heavy truck vs. waterway transport of cargo) and the third most least used comparison I've seen also takes into account the time factor as well as in getting their twice as fast is better.

The only reason you are using "per gallon" and especially why you are only applying it to the gas bike is because you are trying to slant the comparison in an deliberate malicious act of intellectual dishonesty.

True, on the increasingly renewable content of electricity. You fail to acknowledge the also increasingly renewable content of fuel alcohol to gasoline, currently that is at 10% and soon to be raised to 15%. Again - if you are using less fuel to travel the same distance you take that into consideration instead of being intellectually dishonest and switching to "per gallon" because you want to ignore that fact.

Yes, some sources of electricity are indeed forward looking green energy, but nearly half of U.S. grid power is still coal generated which although coal fired power plant emissions control technology has come a long way over the last century for some pollutants it is still dirtier per the same amount of power generated then a whole lot of other power sources including other fossil fuels. Of all the fossil fuels out there natural gas is pretty much the cleanest and therefor in my opinion is the best choice for covering what renewables have not yet been built up to carry. It should also be acknowledged that about 1/5 of U.S. e-grid power is nuclear fission sourced which is potentially the most dangerous pollutant of all and everything else pails in comparison.

Using 1/3 to 1/20 as much petro to travel the same amount of distance reduces how much petro is used total unless you make up by it by doing a whole lot more traveling (personally, with a gas-bike with pedals with a small enough engine that needs me to help out by continuing to pedal I travel less total distance per year then I would if were driving a car where all I have to do is sit on my ass and hold one little peddle down with light toe pressure). Reducing the amount of petro used is highly desirable not just because of the CO2 (and other) emissions on the consumer end but all the ecological stresses in the entire supply chain from drilling the oil well through the refining and transportation process.

You are correct that the current traditional (non-CO2) emissions control technology for the small IC engines used in gas-bikes has not yet caught up with what is currently used on the larger IC engines used in full size cars on a per same volume/mass exhaust gases comparison basis. BUT, on a per distance traveled basis for the most efficient class of two wheeled gas-bikes it is very close to or has already caught up depending on the exact model and configuration of engine is used and the technology is continuing to aggressively advance. I have already provided examples with actual emissions numbers for light gas-bikes that match or produce lower traditional (non-CO2) emissions then modern cars that use off the shelf currently available technology and components. And most of those that don't are within the sub-gram range from closing the gap while sustaining incredible mutli-fold reductions in CO2 at the same time. You apparently not only have trouble with intellectual honesty, but also have reading trouble. I have openly and clearly acknowledged were emissions are indeed legitimately higher in some cases and even provided the numbers for that, I can be intellectually honest why can't you? Do you have trouble with critical thinking skills?




---------------

Your initial claim was not that e-bikes are a cleaner alternative then gas-bikes (of equivalent speed and power to e-bikes not full size, high speed motorcycles), I would have made absolutely no argument with such a claim in general with only the added point that how much cleaner an e-bike is depends on the source of electricity that its batteries are charged from but almost any commercial source of electricity, with the possible exception of nuclear, is cleaner and more efficient per distance traveled then even the cleanest gas-bike that can be built with todays off the shelf technology - no argument there

Your initial claim was that gas-bikes (of the size indicated in the law code under discussion which have equivalent speed and power to that of an e-bike) are dirtier then cars and driving a car would be preferable to riding one of them.

When challenged concerning this you chose to use data from a sensationalized TV program based not on the kind of gas-bikes under discussion but rather on full size high speed motorcycles of which by their (TV programs) own admission they only tested three cars and three motorcycles and two of the three motorcycles were never designed to meet any emissions standards whatsoever where as all three cars were built to meet some level of emissions standards. In short, you chose to use admittedly biased data from a small sample case non-professional study on an entirely different class of vehicle then what was under discussion.

Then after two weeks of this thread lying dormant you decided to take things to an ever lower level of intellectual dishonest and posted again stooping to an even lower level and choosing to make the comparison even more slanted by trying to continue to use "per distance traveled" emissions data for e-bikes and gas cars while instead using "per gallon of gas consumed" instead of "per distance traveled" for the gas-bike which since the gas-bike uses 1/3 to 1/20 the gas to travel the same distance as a gas car makes for a 3x to 20x disadvante due to the non-linear apples to oranges comparison.

If you want to pull that kind of comparison process then you at least need look up the emissions produced from generating and delivering the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to your wall socket. Run the comparison that way and you will find your e-bike getting the short end of the stick compared to a gas car which obviously isn't fair since the e-bike can travel so much further on that amount of energy and "per distance traveled" it works out to be much cleaner then the gas car. You, however, cannot be intellectually honest enough to give that same level of fair weight measurement to the gas bike.

In the figures I researched and posted there are some things that although not nearly as bad as the faulty TV program data you posted do show certain pollutants as being higher in some comparisons for some gas-bikes compared to some cars on a "per distance traveled" basis. I was intellectually honest enough to post that information even though I could have made a better case for my side of the debate to omit it or twist the data like you have shown you are willing to do. I, however, am not willing to stoop to the level you are.

DrkAngel

Motor Efficiency
Permanent magnet brush motors typically attain +80% efficiency. My ETEK brush motor is rated at 84% efficient (88% peak). Brushless (permanent magnet) are typically in the +90% efficient range. Series wound brush motors do suffer down into the 60% efficiency range.
IC 4-stroke (4 cycle) engines are typically rated at 15% efficient, 2-stroke (2 cycle) at 10%. High efficiency engines can push into the 20% region.
(Diesels are another story)
Battery Efficiency
Though I started with inefficient SLA batteries with <60% efficiency, I quickly graduated to Lithium Cobalt cells, with ~98% charge and discharge efficiencies (under moderate rates).


Off Highway - MotorCycle (4 cycle), per minute, outputs more toxic pollutants than 10 cars.
Worse than I predicted, the 2 cycle pollutes 2x as bad, worse than 20 cars!
The lesson I hope to share is that non-emission regulated engines are an enemy to the environment ... NOT A BENEFIT!!!.



Fortunately, for me, I live within 50 miles of Niagara Falls ... so I subsist on Hydro electricity.

Besides being a hydro electric region, some forward thinking persons are financing a major wind power development a few miles out of town. Forward thinking due to lack of profitable return on investment for 10-15 years ... but then they will have a bountiful and self-perpetuating retirement income.

Robert C

I don't have a dog in this race; but, you are forgetting transmission inefficiencies. I have seen cases where the transmission losses for electricity have exceeded the load, this was after it had been metered. Of course, there are distribution costs in the case of petrol as well.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this race; but, I found your data interesting. I happen to like moth e-bikse and light motorcycles. Both are interesting devices; however, they meet different transportation needs and really are not interchangable as part of the transportation mix. For intermodal, of course, I would go ebike. for a car ot heavy motorcycle replacement, a light motorcycle or scooter would be a better choice. As it is often said, different horses for different courses.

I want to again compliment you for adding some data to this discussion.

turbo1889

Your numbers for brushed electric motor efficiency sound a little high compared to the numbers running around the endless sphere forum and the specs I have for a bunch of motors saved on this laptop, do you have some references you can link too?

Thanks for confirming/clarifying the efficiency numbers you gave for IC gas engines. I haven't done much research on the efficiency numbers for IC engines just focused on fuel consumption & emissions per distance traveled so I'll take your word for the efficiency numbers on the IC gas, at least for now.

I would certainly agree that engines that were never designed with emissions in consideration are usually very dirty. "Never designed with emissions in consideration" and "no emissions regulations" are not necessarily the same thing but usually go together. Consumer demand in some cases can effect emissions considerations as well. That graph is from a .pdf I linked too in my post above and shows what "Big Boy Motorized Toys" emissions look like when there are no emissions regulations. As I already explained in my above post with people in general and Americans especially they seem to think toys are more fun when they are dirty, load, and obnoxious and at least where noise pollution is concerned there is solid evidence with full size motorcycles that are viewed as toys rather then tools in the customers mind where manufactures have lost market share by introducing models that were quieter and gained market share with loud obnoxious models. Its not too far of a leap to see how that "toy" attitude can play into the tail-pipe emissions as well with consumer demand.

That is where there is a considerable difference with the European and Asian style mopeds/scooters where in the cultures of origin they don't have a "toy" status but rather a "tool" status and that does have an effect on how consumer demand drives production goals including noise and tailpipe emission pollution in contrast to the American "toy" motorcycle status best symbolized by the roaring, obnoxious, visible smoke cloud belching, oil dripping, throbbing Harley.

Even Americans when something has a "tool" rather then a toy status produce a different kind of consumer demand and evidenced by the nitch market that has existed since 1994 in the Lawn & Garden power tool market where companies have been able to sell at higher price tags premium level equipment that is quieter and cleaner and openly advertised as such and resulting in a strong selling nitch market, especially among professional lawn care contractors and Golf Courses and such. Since 1997 there have been some kind of emissions regulations in place for such tools so the emergence of that market driven demand for cleaner quieter IC gas motors to power those tools pre-dates the introduction of the first set of very lenient regulations. Reasonable emissions regulations that weren't so lenient weren't fully phased in until 2005 a full nine years later and to this day in that market there exists a nitch market where consumer demand is driving cleaner and quieter small IC engines to the point where the present leader in that market Robin-Subaru with its EH025 and EHO35 micro 4-cycle engines is producing motors that run at least ten times cleaner then what the emissions regulations for that class of engine require and are opening advertising as such and are selling their engines at two to three times the price of their cheaper dirtier competitors engines and consumers are not only paying that kind of premium for those benefits but the last one I purchased I had to wait three months to get shipped to me because they were back-ordered because people were buying them up faster then they could get them into stock.

Okay, so great for the Lawn & Garden boys right - But how does that relate to motorized-bicycles of the kind that the NY state law under discussion is talking about?

Well, most IC gas motorized bike kits for sale right now that are not of the "China Girl" dirty old school 2-stroke variety use these same kind and size of motors built for the Lawn & Garden power tool market. From what I have seen the premium quality Subaru-Robin motors are not the top pick but rather the second top pick. The cheaper Honda 4-cycle engines of comparable design but lower price point where the company doesn't make quite so specific of a claim and just claims they are cleaner and quieter then competing 2-cycle designs are the top sellers but even then those are in the same class of premium micro 4-cycle motors that are being marketed and solid into the nitch market within the Lawn & Garden tool market where there is consumer demand that is willing to pay more for cleaner and quieter motors, and as I said the Robin-Subaru offerings in the same class aren't far behind in second place.

Long story short, the engines that are being used for everything but the junk "China Girl" bicycle motor kits are indeed emissions regulated engines they are just regulated under the Lawn & Garden power tool standards and the best sellers are the cleaner and quieter 4-strokes that go above and beyond the emissions standards and openly advertise as such and are demanding and getting higher price points. In the Lawn & Garden IC gas powered tool sector, especially the professional/commercial higher quality tools for the last 19 years, almost two decades, consumer demand has been as big if not a bigger driving force for cleaner burning engines then the government emissions regulations. That isn't something that happens very often, but sometimes it does and it works out to great advantage for those of use running gas bikes as well because it provides us with a good source of cleaner, quieter, higher quality, efficient small IC gas engines and some of us like myself are taking full advantage of the situation.

I already calculated the emissions numbers for you and provided them for you in my posts above showing that for my bikes that are powered by the Subaru-Robin engines the PER DISTANCE TRAVELED emissions of CO2, CO, and HC+NOx are ALL below that of produced by driving an average 2010-ish gasoline car:


I want to be very clear on this question - Why are you choosing to viciously attack people like me and others to the point where you are would rather have no law passed and e-bikes remain non-road-legal in NY then have a low passed that not only makes e-bikes road-legal but also allows people to also be road-legal who use off the shelf components and commercially available off the shelf IC motorized bicycle kits that include those high end premium motors available right now today that produce less pollution, not only CO2 but the other emissions you brought up as well per the same distance traveled in direct comparison to the average modern emissions controlled car and also burn substantially less petro for the same distance traveled which may have even greater ecological benefits in the form of reduction of the stress upon the petro supply?

Me, I'm on the Salish & Kootinee Confederated Tribes e-grid which pulls power from Kur hydro-dam for about half the year covering the whole load for their grid with extra to sell to other grids and then a natural-gas fired turbine generating plant combined will buying power from other grids to cover the off season. Plus I've got solar cells and a couple small wind turbines mounted on my roof with a Ni-Fe batter bank and a line tie inverter some sometimes I cover it all myself and sometimes I have a full battery bank and extra to share and send a little bit back their way and make the meter run backwards; but usually though I make a little over half of my power myself and buy the make up from their grid.

And, yes, I run both e-bikes and ma-bikes (my name for a bike that uses a very small efficient IC gas motor that works and performs just like an e-bike only with a small gas motor instead of an electric motor) as well as pedal only bikes and a car and a heavy hauler truck. The car would get used a lot more if I didn't have the ma-bike option as well (truck only gets used when absolutely necessary to haul or two a whole bunch of stuff when absolutely necessary).

I am not an environmentalists with whack-brained ideologies who is willing to stoop to an intellectually dishonest level to back them up with an almost religious fervor.

I am a "Conservationists" - which long story short means:
----- I don't believe in not catching fish to eat, I do believe in only catching fast as fast as they grow back.
----- I don't believe in not cutting trees down for timber, fuel, etc . . . I do believe in only harvesting them in a responsible manner and most certainly never faster then they grow back.
----- I don't believe in not hunting, I do believe in honorable taking of game for food not for sport and only in a responsible harvest that never exceeds the replacement threshold.
----- I do not believe in immediately stopping the use or "having a war on" any or all of the fossil fuels, I do agree that long term they are not sustainable and that we do need to start developing and moving towards renewables and what fossil fuels we use in the meantime should be done as cleanly as reasonably possible (I do not consider hard core enviro nuts reasonable people) and stretch it out and make what we have go as far as reasonably possible.
----- I do not believe in banning cars because they pollute and are dangerous, I do believe that if we can make them cleaner and safer who should do so, and we should limit their use and use more efficient forms of transportation as circumstances allow.
----- Heck, even when it comes to nuclear fission I don't believe in an all out complete ban and cease and desist at every level. I think it is way too dangerous of a pollutant to mess around with for something as mundane as generating civilian electricity. I'd much rather you burn dirty coal with an open smokestack then run a nuclear fission reactor to generate electricity. Under the right (wrong) conditions a single nuclear power plant can be the source of a near ELE on potentially a planetary scale. The two serious accidents we have had so far one in the Ukraine and one in Japan were childs play compared to how bad things can really get, both of those were contained and didn't get anywhere near as badly as is theoretically possible. Even then though there are a few applications were nuclear power is the only thing that will do the job, deep space probes being one of them. The rover we just put on mars is nuclear powered and will be able to explore that planet for years and years and two deep space probes we have launched that are now out deep beyond the orbit of Pluto are both nuclear powered. No other energy source is powerful enough in a small enough and long enough lasting package to do those jobs. But it should only be used for those kind of applications and then with the greatest care. Having a bunch of nuke power generating plants out in the open with open air waste tanks with enough nuclear waste in them to irradiate a good portion of the planet if dispersed is insanity bet even that kind of insanity does have a very limited practical use and I'm willing to acknowledge that.


Get past your ideology long enough to do some critical thinking, like the man without a dog in the fight said. Different vehicles to do different jobs. When an e-bike can do everything that an ma-bike can do and an electric car can do everything that a gas car can do I will seriously consider simplifying down to just the e-bikes and an electric car and not having to have the ma-bikes or gas car too. Short of some kind of un-foreseen groundbreaking innovation though in battery technology far beyond what is available today though, I don't see that happening in my life-time.

DrkAngel

Etek Motor - by Briggs and Stratton - Brush motor with >88% peak efficiency
eMotorcycle ETEK info

turbo1889

@ Robert C

In regard to what you said about interchangeability between e-bikes and the sort of IC gas bikes we are talking about in this thread. I personally find the greatest use/need for the use of the gas bikes for trips where I would normally use an e-bike in the Winter months. In the cold and the wet IC gas engines have been far more reliable and effective for me then electric motors and battery packs. I don't think most of what is available for e-bikes the engineers that designed them ever considered what happens in cold wet weather where you can never completely seal out the moisture and metal parts shrink and cause binding due to thermal contraction and plastics become brittle.

DrkAngel

I ride my eBike most all Winter long ... in Buffalo area weather. The most important consideration is to keep the battery warm.
Built my own studded tires!


Got ready for next severe Blizzard

turbo1889

Figured out to do my best to keep the battery warm if possible a long time ago. Troubles have been, electrical due to the corrosive nature of road road goop/salt mix, mechanical in the electric motors both direct drive hubs, geared hubs, and mid-drives including but not limited too locked up bearings due to thermal shrinkage of the outer race while the inner shaft kept warm by motor heat expanded, moisture doing a freeze/thaw cycle inside the casing and working magnets loose that catch and grab and make the motor tear itself up, almost every plastic component in the motor and electronics, especially the gears in motors with plastic gears getting brittle and cracking or shattering due to extreme cold and I suspect thermal shock when they got warmed up too fast and in some cases when it was really cold and windy have had the batteries get too cold even when under load and packed in an insulated bag. Then there is the problem of running out of battery power 2/3 of the way back home in the middle of a blizzard because the motor had to work so much harder and longer cutting tracks in deep snow and fighting a 40-mph head wind when under normal conditions I can go twice that distance on a charge.

I obviously use ma-bikes as an alternative to driving a car for traveling distances non-stop that no e-bike I have ever seen has the range to accomplish (I've done 300 miles in a single day before). But Mr. Robert C's comment was in regard to situations where a ma-bike is used as a substitute for an e-bike rather then where it is used as a substitute for a car. For me those are the bad winter weather days where I have learned from way too many experiences that e-bikes aren't currently up to the challenge at least at current technology levels with the possible exception of maybe building one with a fat girth like a motorcycle (which would make it a PITA to pedal) and doing a totally sealed mid-drive arrangement built into a wide frame with EVERYTHING motor, batteries, controller, all wires inside that totally sealed and well insulated box built into the frame with the drive system going through the bikes bottom bracket inside the box and a pull cable type throttle going to an electric throttle inside the sealed box. And when I say sealed and insulated I mean like air tight seal and insulated like a 72 hour cooler box. That might work but I still wouldn't trust it completely until it proved itself. Long story short, I've learned from experience that e-bikes can't take the level of abuse that Montana high mountain country and east side flat land country are capable of delivering plus the range problem if your fighting a blizzard and use up your battery before getting home late at night when normally you would have more then enough battery for that distance but because of conditions your out of power with a long way still to go and if you are running your lights of your battery you can end up in an even worse pickle if you don't have enough power to keep your lights going under pedal power alone at night in a blizzard.

Nope - I've learned ma-bike with lights running off of a battery charged by a mag. coil and an extra quart of gas with high alcohol content tucked away in the pannier bag is the way to get through reliably in bad winter weather. Someday the e-bike tech might be up to the task but I've learned too many times the hard way that it currently isn't for that application.

E-bikes are great, I really like their smooth quite power and they have a better "feel" to them especially a mid-drive that has the motors gearing matched perfectly to the pedals. It can be like dancing with a beautiful woman who knows just how to move just a micro-second ahead of you in the steps by feeling which where you are leading on the dance floor while still letting you lead. But for some jobs that smooth fine woman ain't the right pick for the job and you need an tough brute of a woman that will pull through stuff that will trip the fancy dame up.

And, yes, I'm an old hand when it comes to studded snow tires and also chains for bikes for the winter both home-made and commercial (for decent chains you still have to make your own, commercial boys still haven't gotten that right for a commercial version).

DrkAngel

Didn't attack anyone ... except the politicians that ignored eBike legalization until gas powered bikes were included, then they excluded the vast majority of more efficient-less polluting 4-stroke motors. (2-stroke motors use much more gas and produce 200% the toxic pollutants of 4-stroke motors).

My main objection is that in order to take an ecological step forward (eBikes) we are forced to take a step backwards (gas bikes).

rebel1916

Yeah, my point is that the electric ones are mopeds too. And should be treated as such.

DrkAngel

The New York State eBike Law is merely to verify at the State level, that electric assist bikes, meeting the federal guidelines, are certified by the State, as bicycles, not motorized vehicles.

Federal law classifies eBikes:
with working pedals
with <750w motor output
of <20mph motor only capability
are to be regarded and regulated as a bicycle - not a motorized vehicle.

Mopeds are a whole different animal.

Loose Chain

If it has a motor on it it should have a tag and stay off paths and trails and be limited to road use only. Why do you think an electric motor powered moped is any different than a similar gasoline powered moped? They are too fast and too heavy to be considered a bicycle or be treated as a bicycle. Get a tag and get on the road with the other scooters, motorcycles and mopeds.

Scaliboy62

Because these things are not a danger @ 20 MPH, they are a great aide for people with bad knees & hypertension who is on a tight budget like myself. Students, people who have lost license who have to get to work & get a new lease on life, couples looking for a great outdoor weekend hobby that burns calories & is cheap & really fun, the more e-bikes on the road less dirty gas guzzling ozone layer eating cars.
I used to drive my car 10k miles a year every year like clockwork for last 20 years , now less then 5k i drive it other 5k on the e-bike, lost 19 lbs & saved a ton of dough. Think forward my friend

lwik

I read the article and they seem to be focused on the abuse of eBikes. With delivery people blazing through town and 30mph to make deliveries and breaking the road laws for the most part. This makes it bad for people who use eBike responsibly. I have been planning my cross county bike ride with e-assist. I would hate to roll in to a town that is anti eBike and get a $1K fine without knowing what the law is. I think there should be some ebike laws to prevent the abuse of them for people who would use this technology responsible. But complete outright bans on eBikes a NY has done is just stupid and everyone suffers.

EBikeFL 

Unfortunately, this bad riding behavior is not confined to just a handful of e-bikes in the delivery sector. I spoke with a local bicyclist here in Orlando who uses his regular bicycle to deliver fast food and he told me that he rides in the same manner. He intentionally goes against traffic and doesn't obey any of the vehicle laws. He says it's the only way to get his deliveries to their destinations in time. All this for sandwiches which cost on average $6 each. As a result the city of Orlando has come down hard on penalties against bicyclists riding in this manner. Speed isn't the problem; it's the riding behavior which causes other vehicles to brake hard or swerve to avoid these riders. In city streets, cars have very little room to negotiate especially when a bicyclist pops out of nowhere.

A good example of this bad riding behavior can be seen in the movie Premium Rush (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1547234/). I still like watching the movie though because there aren't many bicycle movies out there.

lwik

Ya, that sucks. This business owner has a flawed business model if he is breaking laws to get his product to the client on time. But I guess in a way it is good. If the cops just bust the people breaking the laws then the ones riding correctly are not bothered. Passing sweeping laws is bad. I would hate to ride in from another state with an ebike obeying the laws and get a ticket because it is an eBike.