Motorcycle of the Future concept leaves out fuel savings
Somebody forgot to send the memo to Tim Cameron that the world is in need of a future without fossil fuels. Whenever anybody brings up the future in the automotive world, fuel cells, alcohol based fuels and other biofuels along with electricity are always part of the mix. Not so with the so-called "Motorcycle of the Future" that was designed by Cameron. Instead, the project focuses on minimizing damage in the case of a tip-over and reducing the cost of fixing the bike when it has been damaged. These ideas are noble in and of themselves, but what look into the future is complete without replacing gasoline? Being a concept, the inclusion of an electric system or even just the ability to run on biofuels should have been part of the project, IMHO.
The design does bring up a problem with the current crop of motorcycles, though. It is certainly true that from time to time, bikes will end up off their wheels and on the ground. This is a normal part of bike ownership, especially when the rider is inexperienced. Beginner bikes should certainly have some sort of safety built into them, like this future design concept promises. I'd just like to see the features protecting a battery instead of the gas tank, that's all!
[Source: Gizmag]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Navigator 8:55PM (7/14/2008)
I have a Triumph Sprint RS with very similar styling (half faired top and belly fairing), but they don't sell those now. Seems that the styling didn't catch on. Also, the 955 with standard gearing always gets 50 mph, and still has tremendous performance. Smaller motors may seem to be more economical, but don't forget they have to pull 650 pounds or more (rider and bike).
Reply
rgseidl 12:23PM (8/16/2007)
There are scooters for commuting in good weather and running errands. For those, electric propulsion could be very attractive, epecially if they are really trikes.
However, no amount of green tech will ever make high-powered motorcycles such as the one depicted above environmentally friendly. Their one and only purpose is to deliver insane acceleration and top speeds to testosterone-driven boy racers and sad middle-aged bankers who like to pretend they're still all that. Aggressive driving style and inherently lousy aerodynamics nullify the fuel economy benefits of low curb weight when compared to a car.
In a way, it's refreshing to see a motorcycle design concept that doesn't even pretend to be green. I don't approve of motorcycles, mostly because they are death traps, but at least Tim Cameron is being honest about his objectives.
Reply
ThunderStik 12:37PM (8/16/2007)
RG,
Actually they generally get quite a bit better mpg than most cars. The aero is usually pretty good on them also.
So anybody that likes to go fast or have fun riding is a "boy racer" or "sad middle aged banker"?
You could have saved some time and just posted."I dont like motorcycles" and got your point across.
We should be happy people are riding bikes. Less traffic space taken up on the highway and those people are not burning more gasoline in a SUV. They are are doing their part knowingly or not.
I think its a sharp well laid out bike and anything to make them easier to work on is great.
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 9:27PM (8/16/2007)
All - there are studies that show that cycles produce more emissions than cars, but the well-to-well emissions are actually less because the cycles spend more time moving and less time idling.
Additionally, if your goal is to save gas and you don't care about emissions, then a bike is the way to go.
Reply
J 8:16AM (8/17/2007)
The problem with american bikes is that are primarily seen as a luxury item. whether they are sport bike touring bikes or sport bikes they all include their own brand over the top styling.
Cruisers are covered in chrome and more time is spent on sound and look than efficiency or safety.
Sport bikes ridiculously fast forego many safety features in the interest of being light and "purist". All the work that is done to improve efficiency goes to HP.
I currently have an 82 nighthawk 450 and its great, but there really is NO modern equivilant..
Honda Yamaha kawasaki, why can't you make a bike for me? All I want is a bike that:
-gets at least 50mpg
-is fuel injected
-has latest technology for brakes geared towards more casual riders (ABS and maybe LBS)
-make it faster than the average car(350-500 should be more than enough)
-don't make it it look like something its not. (keep it simple, naked)
-price it right!
Reply
Praeliber 9:37AM (8/17/2007)
Hey guys, I'm the owner of a suzuki katana 600cc 99. This bike meet euro II emission control and achieve 5 liter/100km (still manage to do a 1/4 miles in 11.9 seconds !). Find a car that can do that and cost 8 grand (brand new !). Recent bikes ARE green - most of the bikes sold today have catalytic converter, fuel injection, etc., and meet euroIII standard. Plus, as said, take less space, reduce traffic time etc. etc. When you're not rich but want to go green and still have fun, modern motorcycle are a good way to do so.
Reply
Chris 10:21AM (8/17/2007)
@J: Almost every motorcycle manufacture out there makes a bike that meats or beats what you're asking for.
Go take a look at a used Ducati 620 Monster. It's got more power than you'll ever know what to do with, will get at least 50mpg, meets euroII emission standards, has the best breaks in the industry (Brembo...and my opinion) and has a very comfortable riding position. That's just a single manufacture.
@RG: Don't come on here and flame all motorcycles for being inefficient.
Reply
Peter Hansen 10:32AM (8/17/2007)
Well, here I am a "sad, middle-aged man" who has had more fun (and who has learned more about safe driving) riding motorcycles (over 30 years now) than rgseidl will ever know.
Reply
Peter 8:21PM (8/17/2007)
There is not reason bikes shouldn't have to meet car standards and should have been for some time.
As someone who bicycles/runs/walks near public roads I hate the crap the belches out the back of bikes. These are right up there with lawnmowers for emissions.
Reply
RockStoneSteel 11:04PM (8/17/2007)
Exactly why are we whining about motorcycles here? They are inherently more fuel efficient than cars, and the emissions ARE regulated. They only take a fraction of the steel, rubber, and other resources to manufacture compared to a car. They cost a fraction of a new car.
And for all of you greenies, addition of an "electric system", by which I presume you mean electric drive motors, would probably not benefit such a light weight vehicle with a generous power to weight ratio. My Honda ST1100 gets about 45 mpg whether in traffic or on the highway. Additionally, the gross inefficiencies of "bio-fuel" would add little advantage here to the rider or the environment.
I'm just not seeing the problem here.
Reply
Tim Cameron 7:38PM (8/27/2007)
Actually Jeremy, I 'got the memo' about 27 years ago, when I decided that I would rather use a motorcycle as my essential transport, than drag a ton and a half of metal and plastic on four wheels around with me everywhere I went.
Although the Swann bike has no overtly 'green' features, the fact that an existing similar style of motorcycle already gets around 50+mpg, whilst meeting Euro 2 emission rules, puts such a design ahead already when compared to many existing options.
Several of the Swann bike's features were added to make it a little easier for an existing car driver to theoretically transition over to two wheels to take advantage of the attendant benefits in emission reduction and fuel savings, by adding a degree of safety and practicality to 'sweeten the deal'.
I am currently working on several studies for advanced, lightweight, high efficiency motorcycle designs specifically as urban transport. I will be adding these designs to my website when completed later in the year. If this is of interest, I could notify you when this occurs.
Reply