Viewing entries in
Motorcycles

Why are Motorcycles So Pollutive?

2 Comments

Why are Motorcycles So Pollutive?

fog4.jpg

Let's start with a little-known fact: Motorcycles do not emit less than cars. There's a wealth of evidence to support this but if you want a snapshot, just look at the current EPA regulations - emissions regulations

This is how many grams of hydrocarbons + nitrogen oxides new road-legal motorcycles are allowed to emit per mile traveled, viewed alongside the comparable figures for large SUVs and cars. The California Air Resources Board estimates that even though motorcycles travel less than 1% of the miles covered by Californians, they account for about 13% of the smog - an astonishing figure.

This is surprising, because motorcycles are fantastically energy-efficient - both tank-to-wheel and well-to-wheel, to reuse terminology from my previous post. Even heavy Harleys and hardcore Hayabusas seldom get less than 35mpg. My own 2008 Yamaha WR250R gets an EPA-estimated 71mpg.

The good fuel economy coupled with the world's tiniest gas tank means I can get even farther away from civilization before getting lost and running out of fuel.

(as we can see, energy efficiency and air emissions are two distinct concepts of sustainability. In this post, I limit myself to discussing air emissions, to keep things in scope)

There's a sliver of good news for two-wheeled environerds, however: As CO2 emissions seem to scale proportionately with fuel consumption, motorcycles do emit 25-40% less carbon dioxide than comparable cars. As we know, CO2 is the chemical compound most commonly associated with global warming (both natural and anthropogenic).

But how does it make sense that ultra-lightweight motorcycles, powered by essentially miniature versions of the engines found in cars, emit so much more nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, even though they get great gas mileage and emit substantially less CO2? The answer starts with catalytic converters.

Go stick your head under your car and look for one of these box thingys sitting somewhere along your rusted exhaust pipe. These little cans have been on every street-legal car in the US since 1975. Catalytic converters are useful because they chemically reduce smog-causing nitrogen oxides to relatively innocuous elements, nitrogen and oxygen. They also oxidize toxic carbon monoxide and oxygen into carbon dioxide, and they turn leftover hydrocarbons into more carbon dioxide and water vapor. Modern 3-way catalytic converters have drastically reduced the annual emission of nitrogen oxides from vehicle exhausts in the last couple of decades alone; this has had a tremendous impact in helping replenish the ozone layer and putting a lid on the severity of acid rain in the US. These little cans are great, but they're not magic - they convert harmful combustion byproducts (nitrogen oxides and unburnt hydrocarbons) into somewhat less harmful chemicals (principally, CO2). Despite this tradeoff, they do great net environmental good because the additional quantity of CO2 emitted as a result of their use is far less harmful than the nitrogen and unburnt hydrocarbons that would spew out of exhausts otherwise.

Catalytic converters aren't the only emissions control systems on your car. Other devices help too - like air injection systems (which help catalytic converters work more efficiently at lower temperatures) and evap canisters (which keep the noxious chemicals in your gasoline from evaporating out of your tank into the atmosphere). These have been a success story in cars for years; why don't they work on motorcycles?

It turns out these gadgets - in particular, catalytic converters - are pretty fidgety. Catalytic converters alone have to contain precious metals like gold and titanium to function properly and this makes them quite expensive - typically adding $1,000 or more to the price of a new car. They're also heavy, bulky, and some only work above a certain operating temperature (that's why some cars idle really fast on startup - to warm up the emissions equipment quickly).

All of these characteristics of emissions controls - bulky, heavy, expensive, temperamental - have been made to work in the context of cars that weigh 4,000lbs and cost $20,000, but they are antithetical to everything motorcycle. They don't scale well in applications smaller than a car; a good catalytic converter, along with a host of other emissions-regulating components, might only add 5-15% to the weight and cost of a car, but the same system on a motorcycle could possibly double the MSRP, choking the small engine and burdening the lightweight chassis with a lot of proportionate extra mass.

In addition, motorcycles models in America are typically sold in far fewer quantities than car models, so bike manufacturers lack the incentive to invest substantial fixed costs into refining their engines to reduce emissions. Gas bikes have to scrimp on their emissions equipment, and they pollute the air accordingly.

It gets worse when you consider how often motorcycle exhausts are gutted or replaced after leaving the factory. There exists an entire subculture of humans who live for opportunities to bolt more shiny things to their shiny rides.

exhaust

I have not been able to locate a number for exactly how many two-wheelers run completely derestricted exhausts, but my anecdotal observations suggest that a large proportion of riders do it - every time you hear a motorcycle roar past at more than ~84 decibels, it's likely running an aftermarket can (the maximum sound law varies by state, but manufacturers usually just produce one model that is 50-state legal). This market for aftermarket exhaust systems is composed of well over 200 companies - each one shinier, louder and more pollutive than the last.

These systems, labeled for "show" or "closed-course use only", are frequently sold to street users with a wink and a tacit agreement not to inform the authorities. Modifying your vehicle's emissions equipment is illegal in the US (even for non-road engines) and aftermarket pipes are seldom equipped with even the pathetic catalytic converters found in stock motorcycle exhaust pipes.

These are not practical people.

While sometimes these exhausts are installed for purely cosmetic reasons (the vanity of the typical chromed-out hot-rodder cannot be overstated), sometimes riders have no choice but to rip out the anti-emissions components and replace them with derestricted substitutes. This is because some motorcycles - mostly offroad-biased competition bikes - are too "choked up" by their anti-emissions gear to even run properly. For example: The KTM EXC enduro machines, street legal since 2007, are infamous for being practically unrideable from the dealership. The evap canisters cause the bikes to stall at intersections, while the excessively lean air-fuel mixture causes erratic engine performance and overheating. Of course, the first thing a rider does after buying such a bike is rip off all the emissions "junk", rejet the carburetor so it burns more fuel and replace or derestrict the exhaust.

294765_2233396348625_1838961418_n

This is a lose-lose-lose scenario - manufacturers are forced to charge more for emissions components that riders consistently scrap, so these bikes are still dumping loads of noxious chemicals into the air and nobody's happy.

So, in answer to our title question: It's not just that gas motorcycles are inherently pollutive - it's a complete failure for our laws to correspond with either the goals of sustainability or the interests of riders. The status quo is not merely unsustainable; it's nonsensical.

It's true that there have been some technological gains in recent years that limit the insanity - most notably, the gradual replacement of mechanical carburetors with electronic fuel injectors for fuel delivery has allowed for very precise control of the quantity of atomized gasoline that enters the cylinder during the combustion cycle. Done well, this reduces emissions without burning up the engine or ruining its performance.

There's still a long way to go before gas-powered motorcycles can earn their reputation for environmental friendliness and efficiency. The question that remains is: Can motorcycle emissions control technology move faster than the politics of sustainability, or is the gas-powered two-wheeler soon to go the way of the banished two-stroke?

2 Comments

Motorcycles, Motorcycles, Motorcycles (Part 1 - Safety and Perception)

Comment

Motorcycles, Motorcycles, Motorcycles (Part 1 - Safety and Perception)

img_2577-e1352582362462.jpg

I get a lot of judgment from Americans when I tell them I ride motorcycles. "Isn't that dangerous?" they say, or the less sensitive ones: "I call them DONORcycles!" Everyone's an expert, keen on telling me why I should know better. They have a point. Motorcycling is intrinsically dangerous, sort of like having a pet dragon. As if the harsh elements to which you're exposed aren't enough (wind, weather, road hazards, bird poo), you're sharing the road with drivers who range from (frequently) inattentive to (often) disapproving to (rarely) downright hostile; even though I have a motorcycling license and a street-legal machine, I actually prefer riding off-road over dealing with oblivious soccer-moms, texting teenagers and road-raging rednecks - even though I'm more likely to encounter bears, snakes and curiously common printer-scanners distributed along the trail. Should I tell my dad he's about to hit that office printer?

On-road or off, you have no roll cage, no airbag, no seatbelt, no radio, no air conditioning, and usually no ABS or traction control (no girlfriend either, because you probably talk about motorcycles too much). And you're sitting on this object which has a deep-rooted gravitational desire to tip over and dump you onto the pavement at 70mph. You must be bonkers.

It comes as no surprise that street motorcyclists are killed about 21 times more than car drivers per mile traveled. Given the sample size (the entire motoring population of the USA), you don't need to be Nate Silver to know that's about as significant as statistics get. Any normal person would conclude, therefore, that they raise their chances of dying in a traffic accident by a factor of 21 simply by riding a motorcycle. Thankfully, we are not normal people; we are budding econometricians, and any nerd worth her salt should spot the error here.

In ecospeak we could call it "omitted-variable bias" but you may be more familiar with the umbrella adage "correlation does not imply causation."

Basically, the normal person has assumed that the mere act of riding a motorcycle, holding all other factors constant, raises his chances of dying in a traffic accident by 21 fold. However, there are many factors correlated with motorcycling which are not caused by it and these could lead to crashes (for example, riding at excessive speed or forgoing proper training). Sure enough, we see these additional factors reflected in the traffic safety data - "37% of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding, compared with 23% for passenger car drivers." A quarter of motorcyclists in fatal crashes were riding without licenses, compared with 13% of car drivers. Motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents are also much more likely to be alcohol-impaired than car and truck drivers.

What this tells us: riding isn't necessarily much more dangerous than driving a car. The people who ride motorcycles tend to be risk-seekers and their bad decisions have damaged the motorcycle's reputation by association. This is self-reinforcing; as riding becomes perceived as more dangerous, more risk-seeking people choose to get in on it and make it even more apparently dangerous on the whole.

This causal distinction is crucial for two reasons: 1) If we control for these variables (speeding, DUI, etc.), we get a more accurate picture of how dangerous riding is and 2) Recognizing the impact of these variables encourages motorcyclists to manage their risks more effectively (e.g. wearing proper gear, obeying traffic laws, riding sober, etc.). You can have a lot of fun on a motorbike, even if you don't chug beers and fly down the highway at 100mph with your front wheel up in the air (that's known as being a "Squid").

How big of a difference do these factors make? The (unfortunately titled) Hurt Report (full text here, summary here) contains a lot of data pertaining to the causes of motorcycle accidents. The report is old (1976-'77) and limited in scope (City of Los Angeles and the surrounding rural areas) but its findings are still applicable in determining and mitigating causes of crashes. Wear gear, ride sober and take a motorcycling safety course and you've gone a long way toward reducing your risk.

It's great than the government has budgeted so much for highway safety research - approximately $815m per year. But I find it surprising that nobody, even with the charitable help of the AMA, can cough up just $8m to repeat the Hurt study in a modern, broader setting. It could save a lot of lives.

I think I have a pretty good idea why motorcycle safety is so low on the public's priority list: The perception is that motorcycling is inherently, necessarily incredibly dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that it seems like nothing can be done to mitigate its risks. People assume that motorcyclists have forfeited the right to government assistance in assessing and managing their risks effectively. This is a judgmental approach - we should focus on what we can do to educate people about their choices using science and reason, rather than writing them off as a group of hooligans who have given up on living.

If you're interested in specifics about motorcycling safety, I recommend Proficient Motorcycling by David L. Hough and its sequel. Total Control by Lee Parks is another book on riding, more specifically geared toward technique.

There is risk in everything. I feel - quite strongly - that people should be allowed (indeed, encouraged) to choose their risks and to take responsibility for the outcome. But if I - as a motorist, taxpayer, lawmaker, whatever - can help people identify and minimize their risks through education, I believe those tax dollars are well spent.

Comment