Hmm. I've finally now seen the episode and I have to say I'm not convinced:

Firstly, it seems like the bike was following the car and not taking any advantages of the way bikes can be ridden - lane splitting, at least in California, means that they are similarly on the road for a lot less time.

Secondly, highlight the fact that while emissions may be higher, trade that off against all the production, transportation costs /etc implicit in making that extra fuel available to cars. The fact that a lot of oil is pumped and tankered half way around the globe only increases the relative footprint of cars.

Thirdly, factor in the increased production costs of cars. All the extra metal, plastic /etc only goes to further increase the footprint of cars.

AFAIC, cars still seem to be the greater polluters and the solution is not to scaremonger, but to ask the question why don't we have better emissions standards on bikes? Europe seems to have a progressive plan for their implementation and the performance really hasn't suffered AFAICT. Personally, I'd happily take a 10bhp hit on performance on my next bike if I could save 10% at the pump and cause less emissions.

You must Log In to submit a comment
  • Jordan
  • 2011-10-04T16:40:14-04:00

Agreed, I'd gladly trade in 10% off the top end for increased economy and a cleaner ride. However, I bet with stricter regulations in place that could be achieved without any HP penalties, or minimum reductions at the very worse.


I was really surprised that the Mythbusters guys only added aero to the bike and didn't try to add any emissions quenching measures (new/bigger cat, etc).