 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike
tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma :  
|
 Posted: 11:08 - 24 Mar 2014  Post subject: 'Decent' fork Gaiter Supplier |
 |
|
43mm stanchion
65mm slider
200mm 'free' length
Sick and bludy tired of crap, have to replace every year cos they are already perished, only meant to get rusty forks through a MOT sodding gaiters!
Dont NEED them for the MOT as forks are good; but like to keel'em that way, & all the gaiters in size range seem to be cheapo crap!
Would fit ariete in a blink, even though twice the price; but sizes only seem to be for dirt bikes, and either half the diameter or twice the length I need. Acerbis dont seem to do gaiters any more, just neoprene protectors or ABS guards.
Then down to looking at what's offered for classics, which is usually described by bike-fitment, not size, and still chance its the get you through a MOT crap every other bugger seems to be flogging!
Suggestions?
And dont say cut an ariette MX Hoover pipe in half!
Bought about seven or eight pairs in the last few years from different suppliers; and its OK for the 125's Ariette 'small' will go round thier spindly sticks, and don't tend to be too long (And pair on the Pup are still there for the third MOT with'em!). 750's though! Beginning to pig me off!
Any-one got a 'trusted' supplier of such items? Or do I just succumb to even Japanese bikes becoming ever more 'chinese' through aftermarket part replacement!
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?' |
|
| Back to top |
   |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| P.addy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P.addy
Red Rocket
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma :
|
Posted: 11:54 - 24 Mar 2014  Post subject: |
|
|
On a vehicle, a gaiter or boot refers to a protective flexible sleeve covering a moving part, intended to keep the part clean..
Gaiters ARE pleated rubber tubes enclosing the front suspension tubes of some motorcycles and mountain bikes with telescopic front forks. Gaiters protect the sliding parts of the front suspension from DIRT and WATER.
Similar gaiters to those described above find multiple uses on most vehicles. They are used at both ends of driveshafts, protecting constant-velocity joints from the ingress of dirt, and retaining the grease. They also prevent the ingress of dirt where one component slides within another, for EXAMPLE, on suspension struts or the ends of steering racks. Finally, they are also usually used to perform the same function on ball joints, which appear on suspension wishbones and steering tie rod ends. The gear stick gaiter is to resist dirt entering the ball joint at the bottom of the stick and to not have OIL or GREASE from the joint exposed to passengers. They are commonly leather, faux leather, rubber or a waterproof cloth.
My CB125, some Benly stuff, Land Rover...
Oh did I mention the day when I repeated myself over and over?
On a vehicle, a gaiter or boot refers to a protective flexible sleeve covering a moving part, intended to keep the part clean..
Gaiters ARE pleated rubber tubes enclosing the front suspension tubes of some motorcycles and mountain bikes with telescopic front forks. Gaiters protect the sliding parts of the front suspension from DIRT and WATER.
Similar gaiters to those described above find multiple uses on most vehicles. They are used at both ends of driveshafts, protecting constant-velocity joints from the ingress of dirt, and retaining the grease. They also prevent the ingress of dirt where one component slides within another, for EXAMPLE, on suspension struts or the ends of steering racks. Finally, they are also usually used to perform the same function on ball joints, which appear on suspension wishbones and steering tie rod ends. The gear stick gaiter is to resist dirt entering the ball joint at the bottom of the stick and to not have OIL or GREASE from the joint exposed to passengers. They are commonly leather, faux leather, rubber or a waterproof cloth.
My CB125, some Benly stuff, Land Rover...
Just giving you an example of how helpful your replies are.
Which I am going to tl;dr down here.
Go buy some neoprene, make your own ones.
OR
Get the plastic/rubber MX ones and pop some vaseline inside, cable tie the outers. Doesn't matter if they are too long. Your replies however, do. |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| CaNsA |
This post is not being displayed .
|
CaNsA
Super Spammer
Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Karma : 
|
Posted: 12:24 - 24 Mar 2014  Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Matt B |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Matt B
World Chat Champion
Joined: 01 May 2012
Karma : 
|
Posted: 12:58 - 24 Mar 2014  Post subject: |
|
|
How to make your own neoprene fork gaiters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Er4_pnUFs
Just cut up one of those wetsuits you have in your "special dress up box" Tef 
____________________
stinkwheel: He had an animated .gif of a cat performing fellatio. It's not socially acceptable. It can have real life adverse effects on other people. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| mudcow007 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
mudcow007
World Chat Champion
Joined: 01 Feb 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
smegballs
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| mudcow007 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
mudcow007
World Chat Champion
Joined: 01 Feb 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| waffles |
This post is not being displayed .
|
waffles
World Chat Champion
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Fizzer Thou |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Fizzer Thou
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| lihp |
This post is not being displayed .
|
lihp
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:43 - 25 Mar 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, motorcycle forks...
Ninety nine years ago, Alfred Angas Scott released the 1908 Scott.
It had water cooling, a lightweight duplex frame, and a low centre of gravity. It also had telescopic forks.
Its roadholding was pronounced superb. The forks had no damping, so you can imagine what the competition handled like.
Scott never persevered with telescopic forks. Later models of his motorcycles had girder forks.
The 1934 Fisker & Nielsen Nimbus – the first hydraulically damped telescopic forks in the world
In 1934, the Danish vacuum cleaner company Fisker & Nielsen (makers of the Nilfisk vacuum cleaner) decided they would build a motorcycle. They called it the Nimbus. It had an oil damped telescopic fork up front, the first time such an item appeared on a motorcycle. Between 1934 and 1960, Fisker and Nielsen built 12,000 motorcycles. 4,000 of them are still running today.
One model had a 20mm anti-tank cannon mounted on a sidecar frame. It’s wasn’t the sort of motorcycle that people took off you.
BMW were impressed. They added telescopic forks to the R17 model they released the next year. And they made telescopic forks their standard front end for twenty years.
God knows why.
The 1935 BMW R17: BMW adopts the telescopic fork
Telescopic forks dive under brakes, upsetting the stability of the motorcycle. The suspension is under stress at this time and not only does it lose most of its travel, but it loses sensitivity to bumps as the fork tubes bind and static friction takes over. The front wheel is held at the bottom of two long levers which have a large amount of mechanical advantage over the steering head, so the frame starts to twist. To minimize frame twist you have to brace the steering head, which makes the motorcycle top heavy. And while they’re not as bad as girders, the wheelbase changes as the suspension reacts to bumps or weight transfer.
The Honda TRAC system: Honda’s anti-dive for telescopic forks
But, they’re cheap to make. And they look kind of cool — all sleek and self-contained, not like those girder forks with bits going everywhere. So the stylists love them. And you can get a fair bit of travel out of them without the wheelbase changing too much.
BMW were considered leaders in quality and reliability, and most of the rest of the world followed.
In 1955, BMW abandoned the telescopic fork. The rest of the world didn’t.
But, over the years, the rest of the world made a big effort to engineer around some of the telescopic fork’s shortcomings. The dive under brakes could be reduced by using progressive fork springs, so most forks ended up containing a pair. The forks could be pressurized with air, making the spring rate even more progressive.
In 1968, BMW started using telescopic forks again. In 1970, all their motorcycles had telescopic forks.
Kawasaki’s AVDS: right thinking people took them off and blocked the holes with bolts
In 1969, Honda introduced TRAC – Torque Reactive Antidive Control. The brake caliper pivoted on its mounting. When the brake was applied, it rotated around its pivot and pressed against a valve which cut oil flow and increased damping in the fork.
By the eighties, Kawasaki had AVDS – Automatic Variable Damping System. Hydraulic pressure from the brake hose was used to close damping valves under brakes. Yamaha and Suzuki had similar systems.
The problem with this approach was that increasing damping doesn’t prevent dive. It just slows it down. Road testers never seemed to rave about how heavy compression damping under brakes made the motorcycle better. And in fact, in the mid nineties, Yamaha put a feature on their motocrossers called BASS (Brake Actuated Suspension System) which REDUCED damping under brakes in order to combat wheel hop.
Motorcycles got faster and heavier, and the forks got thicker to control the flex inherent in them. Designers started bracing the fork above the front wheel. Steering heads got better braced. Superbikes used to have 19 inch front wheels. Designers went as low as 16 inches, allowing them to reduce the length of the fork and its ability to feed stresses into the frame.
The Saxon-Motodd system: BMW’s “Telelever”
The next big advance in telescopic forks came in the eighties. The British company Saxon-Motodd connected the above-wheel fork brace to the front of a pivoted wishbone via a ball joint, and connected a spring-damper unit to the wishbone.
This design fixed several of the conventional telescopic fork’s shortcomings. For a start, stresses were fed into the frame at widely separated points instead of into an over-stressed steering head. There was less variation in wheelbase as the suspension cycled. Unsprung weight was reduced. The system had natural anti-dive.
It also kind of looked like a conventional front end at first glance, so it wasn’t going to upset the conservatives too much.
BMW incorporated this into their 1994 model range and called it “Telelever”. It worked well.
Surprisingly, no other manufacturers have seen fit to copy this design. Not only that, but BMW have retained telescopic forks for their competition motorcycles. Despite their innate shortcomings, telescopic forks have had the world’s best design and engineering brains working on them for nearly a hundred years, and a well designed and manufactured telescopic fork works pretty damn well.
But, the telescopic fork is at the end of its development cycle. Pretty well everything that can be done to make a telescopic fork better has been done. There are several other suspension technologies that are at the beginning of THEIR development cycles.
Indian were one of the first motorcycle manufacturers in the world. They had to grapple with the problem of providing suspension to their motorcycles early in the piece, and they came up with the trailing link fork.
Indian persevered with this idea for decades.
A 2006 US postage stamp celebrates the 1940 Indian Four, a luxury superbike with a pair of forks terminating in pivots for the two short links which hold the front wheel. These pivots extend backwards from the fork to the wheel mounting, but also forwards from the fork to join with a U-shaped arm which connects to a leaf spring jutting out from the bottom of the steering head.
The 1940 Indian Four: 1265cc of USA luxury
Earlier versions of Indian’s front end had spawned a notable imitator.
Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I, Germany was forced to abandon its air force. This was bad news for the aircraft engine manufacturer Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, and they desperately looked for alternative products to manufacture. They tried agricultural implements, furniture, and toolboxes; and then decided to turn their engine building skills to motorcycles. Their first motorcycle, the Flink, went on the market in 1920.
It was not a success.
In 1921, they put their second model, the Helios, to market. It didn’t sell well, either.
These two models were placeholders while BMW’s chief engineer Max Friz got his piéce de résistance ready for market.
BMW’s R32: their first sales success
The 1923 R32 had a 494cc flat-twin two-cylinder side-valve ‘boxer’ engine, an exposed driveshaft final drive, and a three-speed transmission. It had no front brake, but it had a big disk on the rear wheel, and pressing the brake pedal pushed wooden blocks against it. The chassis had a rigid tubular-frame with sprung seat, and it had trailing link cantilever suspension, just like the big company in America made.
BMW manufactured the R32 for three years, selling over 1,000 a year on the average; no mean feat in the hyper-inflated mess that was the economy of post-war Germany’s Weimar Republic.
Trailing link forks seemed to die with Indian, but they re-appeared recently on a power cruiser manufactured by, surprisingly, Honda.
The Honda Rune has a large pair of forks which look as though they telescope but, in fact, don’t. The forks terminate in pivots for the trailing arms, at the end of which is the front axle. Halfway along the trailing arms, they are connected to a U-shaped arm which conveys movement to the suspension – a pair of shock/spring assemblies mounted up near the steering head.
It separates suspension and braking forces, which many believe is a Good Thing.
The Honda Rune: trailing link in the 21st century
It looks trick, but it provides less than 100mm of suspension travel – about 30% less than most street bikes. But then, how much suspension travel do you need to ride on freeways?
The other way of adding suspension to the lower end of a set of forks was to let the wheel lead, rather than trail, the fork.
With the advent of one-piece spring/damper units, the leading link fork became a reasonable alternative. One of the most famous racing motorcycles of all time, the Moto Guzzi V8, had leading link forks. The spring/damper units were mounted close and parallel to the forks. A triangular bracket welded to the rear of the fork mounted the pivot for the links.
The Guzzi 500 V8 never went for long enough for someone to complain about its handling. It had the usual limited travel of leading link forks, but it tended to race on nice smooth tracks, so it didn’t matter a lot.
The 1957 Guzzi V8 GP racer: leading link front suspension
A few years later, one of the biggest selling motorcycles of all time sported a leading link setup, too: the Honda 50 step-through. And my own first motorcycle, purchased in bits at the age of fifteen, had leading link forks and was a Honda as well: the 305cc C77 (the engine was used as a template by Laverda to build their first 750 twin).
At the time I bought my C77, I was not old enough to ride on the road. It made a poor bush-basher.
The trouble with leading link (and indeed trailing link) is that the links are independent. Look at the picture of the Guzzi. If the springs are slightly mismatched, the front wheel will twist during suspension travel and go out of alignment to the rear wheel.
This problem was recognised many years earlier, and solved by an English engineer called Ernest Earles. His solution was to make a rigid swingarm to hold the front wheel. In order to make it rigid, it had to be pivoted BEHIND the wheel, so the fork bent back at a severe angle.
BMW caught on to Earles’s design, abandoned the engineering abomination of telescopic forks, and started fitting Earles forks to the front of their machines in 1955.
The Earles fork: strong yet heavy, but the natural anti-dive made up for a lot
While heavy in terms of the reciprocating mass of the entire front end, the Earles fork was reasonably rigid and the unsprung weight was reasonably low. It still had a large front end to twist a small steering head, but it also had natural anti-dive built into the geometry. The swingarm was pointed slightly down – under brakes the motorcycle would try to go over the top of it and it would extend the suspension rather than compressing it. This was good for BMW riders, as their engines stuck out the side a long way, and would hit the ground if you applied the brakes while leaned over.
Earles’s design had the other advantage that suspension travel could be quite long with minimal variation in wheelbase.
In 1961 Husqvarna entered several bikes in the Coupe d’Europe. Their leading link-forked model came fourth. Their tele-forked model came first.
BMW discontinued Earles forks after 1970, as fashion dictated the return of the telescopic fork. The last blast for leading link forks was during the 1970s, and was mostly on dirt bikes. There was a small Spanish bike called El Gato, a few Greeves’, a Hagglund military motorcycle, a CZ 125. A Zundapp, from memory, as well.
Husqvarna’s 4th place winner in the 1961 Coupe d’Europe
In racing, they didn’t acquit themselves exceptionally badly. Neither did they acquit themselves exceptionally well.
And they just went out of fashion. Telescopic forks were easier to style, and while the brakes got in the way of steering and suspension, teles had been around since the 1930s. Over the years some pretty good engineers had applied themselves to the telescopic fork’s shortcomings. And a well designed telescopic fork made to close tolerances, mounted in a strong frame and looked after could provide formidable performance.
The next big development in suspension wouldn’t come until the late 1970s. And it wouldn’t be picked up by a big manufacturer for another thirty years.
You could try Proline Sports |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| map |
This post is not being displayed .
|
map
Mr Calendar
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Marmalade |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Marmalade
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| GeorgeB. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
GeorgeB.
Crazy Courier
Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Matt B |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Matt B
World Chat Champion
Joined: 01 May 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike
tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nowhere.elysium |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nowhere.elysium
The Pork Lord
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Karma :
|
| Posted: 09:42 - 26 Mar 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
Out of a mild curiosity, I clicked on the 'show this post' button, just to see if Teflon-Mike had any witty retorts to the scathing deconstructions of his posting style, and was greeted with this gem: | Teflon-Mike wrote: | objeda |
According to Google, that's the Croatian word for meal, so I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest that you've totally lost it.
Silly Teffers, motorcycles are not dinner.
____________________
'10 SV650SF, '83 GS650GT (it lives!), Questionable DIY dash project, 3D Printer project, Lasercutter project |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| map |
This post is not being displayed .
|
map
Mr Calendar
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| lihp |
This post is not being displayed .
|
lihp
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 11:38 - 26 Mar 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike wrote: |
Roger... Roger.. oh roger.... WHO but kids and loonies actually 'ride' motorbikes any more? |
Since you asked.
Motorcycles are an attractive form of personal transportation for many people. They can serve as a secondary vehicle for recreational use, as well as a primary vehicle in congested regions, offering relative ease of parking and travel. Motorcycles differ from other motor vehicles in their costs and impacts, size, and traveler exposure. In a series of related sections, this paper
quantifies the safety, fuel use, energy, emissions, space demands, and other differences inherent in motorcycle use, as compared to cars and trucks. Thanks to results of a new U.S. survey, the paper also describes who is more likely to own or have owned a motorcycle and which types of riders are more likely to ride more often, while exploring motorcyclist demographics, opinions, and behaviors. In this way, this paper tackles two questions: Who rides? And who pays? This work seeks a comprehensive examination of motorcycles as a unique mode by exploring the characteristics of different types of riders and conducting a comprehensive benefit-cost evaluation of motorcycle use across a wide range of metrics.
4,462 persons were killed in 4,187 fatal motorcycle crashes across the U.S. in 2010. Overall motorcyclist crash rates (per vehicle-mile traveled, or VMT) are more than twice those for passenger cars: 785 vs. 353 per hundred million miles travelled in 2008 (1). Their fatal crash rates are about 20 times higher: 27.67 vs. 1.31 per hundred million miles travelled in 2009 (2).
Like pedestrians and bicyclists, motorcyclists are vulnerable users insofar as they are unprotected by the physical carriage of a vehicle. Unlike pedestrians and bicycles, motorcycles allow their riders to travel at high speeds, greatly increasing rider risk of serious injury, and death, in the event of a crash (3).
Many factors contribute to motorcycle (MC) safety issues. According to the U.S. Fatal Accident
Record System (FARS) database (4), there were 1,972 single-vehicle fatal motorcycle crashes in
2010: 1,257 involved running off the road (ROR), and 504 were rollovers or overturns. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the fatal ROR crashes involved the motorcyclist running into or down an embankment or hitting a fixed object (such as a guardrail, barrier, curb, ditch, culvert, or sign).
Multi-vehicle collisions are also a significant safety issue. The average MC weighs just one-tenth that of many or most LDVs (e.g., the Suzuki GS500E weighs 424 lbs. [5], while the Toyota Camry and Ford F-150 pickup weigh in at 3240 lb. and 5000 lb. [unloaded]). Such weight imbalances translate to tremendous deceleration differences during a crash, putting riders at clear disadvantage.
In 2010 there were 2,215 fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving MCs, of which 52% were angle collisions, 15% were head-on, and 17% rear-end collisions, with the remainder comprising sideswipes and other crash types. 47 percent of multi-vehicle fatal MC crashes occurred at intersections (including 302 of the angle collisions), compared to 38% of fatal multi-vehicle collisions among all vehicle types in the U.S. This suggests that riders have higher risks at intersections, with car-driver awareness and visibility (of riders and their MCs) potentially crucial to improving motorcyclist safety. Additional safety concerns include alcohol (a factor in
32% of fatal motorcycle crashes, vs. 28% among all fatal crashes), speeding (a factor in 40% of fatal motorcycle crashes vs. 31% among all fatal crashes), horizontal curvature (57% of single- vehicle fatal crashes vs. 32%) and vertical curvature (39% of single-vehicle fatal crashes vs.
30%).
Helmet use is a key variable in crash outcomes, but only 66% of riders choose to wear law- compliant helmets (6). NHTSA (7) estimates that helmets reduce the probability of death (in the event of a crash) by 37% for motorcycle operators and by 41% for passengers, with likelihood of serious injury falling 13% that of minor injury by 8%. If all motorcyclists had been helmeted in
2008, 822 lives could have been saved with total economic savings over $1.3 billion (7). McKnight and McKnight’s (8) study of 50 riders under varying helmet conditions concluded that helmet use has no negative impacts on riders’ auditory or visual perceptions, and Fagnant and Kockelman (9) estimated that higher helmet usage is correlated with lower crash rates. Daniello
et al. (10) cite several studies indicating that those who obtain MC training are more likely to wear a helmet and other protective gear.
Vehicle technologies have significant potential for reducing the number and severity of motorcycle crashes. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS) prevent tires from locking up and skidding, in reaction to unexpected hazards. Teoh (11) calculated that MC owners with ABS installed (21% of model-year 2003 through 2008 bikes) experienced 37% lower fatal MC crash counts (per registered vehicle year), which may be partly explained by more risk-averse riders investing in ABS-enabled MCs or exhibiting lower riding distances. Alternatively, such owners may travel more than others, and enjoy a greater-than-37% reduction in their death rates. More details are needed to disentangle such results. ABS can also be integrated with systems that electronically apply optimal braking to front and rear wheels (12), rather than relying on an operator’s snap judgment to properly balance braking in critical situations. Hurt et al. (13) confirmed that riders often under-brake their front and over-brake their rear wheels which may cause loss of steering or total control. Additional emerging motorcycles safety enhancements include gyroscopic stability control, a feature that could reduce the probability of motorcycle run-off-road crashes, rollovers and overturns, comprising 30% of fatal motorcycle crashes in
2010 (14).
While safety impacts are a key MC concern, it is important to view each mode holistically. A
second major difference between MCs and other vehicles is the amount of space they require.
For example, motorcycle parking spaces measure approximately 4 ft x 8 ft, rather than 8.5 ft x 18 ft for cars and trucks (15). This 76% savings (not accounting for access and egress paths) allows for more efficient use of limited space, particularly densely developed areas. Litman (16) estimates total urban and CBD parking costs to lie between $1000 and $4400 per light-duty- vehicle space, per year in North America, depending on location and type of parking facility. With approximately four motorcycles per standard space, economic benefits of roughly $750 to
$3300 may be realized for a motorist switching to a motorcycle who regularly parks downtown.
Research also shows how motorcycles impact traffic flows. Yperman (17) noted that during free- flow or near free-flow conditions, motorcycles in Europe and Asia behave like other vehicles,
meriting a passenger car equivalency (PCE) value of 1. However, if and when traffic comes to a stop, he posits that MCs will be driven between travel lanes or on shoulders and may exhibit a PCE value of 0. Yperman estimated that a motorcycle’s PCE ranges between 1 and 0.5 (motorcycles per passenger car) for moderately to more heavily congested traffic conditions (before motorcyclists may begin to drive between lanes, as allowed in Europe but generally not in the U.S.). He suggests a PCE value of 0.5 for most applications. Additionally, all state laws permit motorcycles to use high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes with just a single rider (18).
While these values can mean substantial travel savings for everyone, MCs’ higher crash rates can counteract such benefits, by adding incident-related delays. The FHWA (19) estimates that 25% of U.S. congestion comes from is attributable to traffic incidents (including crashes, vehicle breakdowns, weather and other events), indicating that increased motorcycle use should lead to more incident-related traffic delay. Nevertheless, a holistic perspective of mitigation and contribution to traffic congestion points towards a net mobility benefit when switching towards greater motorcycle use.
Energy, emissions and noise also are important points of comparison, across modes, vehicle makes and models, routes, and riding/driving behaviors. Smaller motorcycles with less powerful engines typically achieve higher fuel economy and produce fewer emissions, while larger motorcycles and engine sizes can result in worse fuel economy and higher emissions than
evident in many cars. Aggressive riding or driving will also consume more fuel and generate more emissions.
A sampling of 229 recent MC models returns fuel economies between 26.6 and 123 miles per gallon (mpg), with a simple (non-sales-weighted) average of 53 mpg (5). Chester and Horvath (20) estimated a 41 to 45 mpg average MC fuel economy, versus 33.7 and 25.1 mpg for new U.S. passenger cars and light trucks, respectively (and existing-fleet averages of 23.8 mpg and
17.4 mpg, respectively) (21). Of course, most such vehicles can hold 4 persons or more, though Santos et al. (22) estimate average U.S. vehicle occupancies of 1.67 persons per private vehicle trip. The new Zero S fully electric motorcycle greatly surpasses the most energy-efficient autos, with manufacturer-estimated fuel economy of 487/273 mpg (city/highway) equivalent for electric operation, using EPA (23) recommended methodology. This may be compared to the
Toyota Prius C, which operates at 53/46 mpg, and the Chevrolet (hybrid-electric) Volt, stickered at 95/93 mpg equivalent for electric operation (24). The electric Zero S is also a very low-noise vehicle, but presumably no safer than other motorcycles.
Chester and Horvath (20) estimate that 2- and 4-cylinder motorcycles require 30% less energy (per person-mile traveled [PMT]) than pickup trucks and 15% less than sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), though they consume 17% more energy when compared to 4-door cars (sedans). Most energy savings are due to lower operating costs. Chester and Horvath assume higher MC manufacturing energy needs (per PMT) due to MCs’ lower annual mileages and lifespans. If one assumes equal annual miles-traveled by all modes, lower energy consumption from MC parking, and equal energy usage for insurance, road construction, and lighting, MCs are estimated to use
4%, 31% and 42% less energy than cars, SUVs and pickups, respectively, over their lifetimes
(pivoting off Chester and Horvath’s [20] energy results).
Chester and Horvath (20) also computed and compared modal emissions based on 14 source categories, ranging from manufacture and operation to evaporative losses and various infrastructures. Table 1 illuminates differences in Chester’s and Horvath’s (20) running emissions, which are aggregate values reflecting results of multiple studies from the U.S., Asia, and Europe. Emissions are reported for MCs with and without emissions controls, like catalytic converters, secondary air injection, and electronic fuel injection. Such controls have been necessary for many new models to meet EPA standards that took effect in 2010.Though some newer models may satisfy EPA standards without catalytic converters (and reduce emissions by other means like more efficient fuel injection), manufactures such as Harley-Davidson have included catalysts on all newer models since 2010.
Several conclusions may be drawn from this evaluation. First, sports bikes perform worst among MCs, and 2-cylinder MCs generally perform better than 4-cylinder MCs. Emissions controls typically halve VOC, NOx and CO emissions, but have no impact on other emissions.When comparing 2- and 4-cylinder MCs to other vehicles, MCs produced lower running emissions (per PMT) for GHG (26% to 64% reductions), SO2 (27% to 64% reductions), NOx (30% to 98% reductions), and PM (21% to 65%). Their VOC emissions rates, however, are uniformly higher (173% to 2400% higher), as are CO rates when operating without a catalytic converter (73% to
341% higher).
Emissions regulations imposed on manufactures ultimately drive down U.S. emissions rates. Interestingly, the US EPA (25) allows MCs to have far higher emissions than it does LDVs (in part because of MCs’ relatively low usage and the costs of testing so many small-sales vehicles). For example, MC engines tested at 18,600 miles of use can emit up to 1.29 grams per mile (gpm) of any combination of hydrocarbons (HC) and NOx, while the most polluting LDVs are
restricted to no more than 0.018 gpm of hydrocarbons and hydrogen oxide (HCHO) and 0.2 gpm of NOx. MCs are capped at 19.3 gpm of CO, compared to LDVs’ 4.2 gpm. Furthermore, the EPA regulates LDVs’ non-methane organic gases (NMOGs) and PM emissions, but sets no such requirements for MCs. Motorcycles are also exempt from smog checks, though agencies like the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have previously proposed such legislation. Many imported MCs conform to Euro III exhaust standards, which are more stringent than EPA standards for most pollutants (26). European standards are also set to become more stringent (the Euro V standard) by 2015, with maximum CO emissions for MCs to be 5.1% and 12.4% of current EPA standards on HC and NOx, respectively. While motorcycles only comprise a small proportion of US travel (3% of registered vehicles and 0.7% of VMT in 2009 [2]), reducing MC emissions appears to be low-hanging fruit, if the US wishes to make continued gains towards improving air quality. Before pursuing such regulatory changes, however, implementation cost considerations should be examined in detail. Regulatory changes should also be enforceable, and enforced. CARB (27) noted that over one-third of on-road motorcycles had their OEM exhaust systems replaced by aftermarket pipes, which likely involved permanent removal of the catalytic converter, negating many required emissions improvements.
In addition to possible emissions impacts, removing exhaust pipes can impact MC noise. Though noise’s external costs are difficult to quantify objectively, many sources, such as Eriksen (28), EEA (29), and Cotana et al. (30), cite MCs as having significantly greater noise costs than LDVs. For example, Delucchi and Hsu (31) estimate MC noise costs at 2 to 8 times those of LDVs, and Litman’s review (32) characterizes noise costs as $0.132 per MC mile in urban areas, or 10 times greater than those of LDVs.
Motorcyclists can purchase a wide variety of aftermarket exhaust pipes to improve engine performance, add power by lowering weight, or simply customize their MC’s engine sounds. Such pipes may not meet EPA noise standards of 80 dB (measured at 50 feet, with constant engine speed at 50% maximum RPM) (33) and they can be further modified by removing or changing baffles within the muffler. Such modifications are difficult to identify when enforcing regulations, especially since sound level meters are rarely used to enforce noise laws. For instance, Frisman (34) noted how in 2002 less than 4% of Connecticut’s motorcycle-noise violators were cited for “exceeding decibel limits;” the remaining 96% were for cited for “causing unnecessary noise” (44%) or having “improper/defective mufflers” (52%).In-use requirements are left to U.S. states, which often set their own standards and testing procedures. Ten states regulate noise in the 80 to 88 dBA range, three have noise limits of 90 dBA or more,
15 states have no statewide MC noise regulation, and the remainder require a muffler and/or prohibit aftermarket exhaust systems altogether (35). However, since testing methodologies vary, based on measurement distance and engine RPMs, these limits are difficult to compare objectively. The American Motorcycle Association advocates a standard methodology using the Society of Automotive Engineers’ SAE J2825 test, with passing noise limits up to 100 dBA for motorcycles with 3- and 4-cylinder engines (35). This test requires a decibel-meter, a tachometer, and other basic testing materials. Though these resources may not be available to some small
local police agencies, the test provides a consistent and simple approach to standardized testing that is approved by most motorcycle riders, and provides a step more comprehensive noise regulations. The test was officially adopted in Maine (36) and New Hampshire (37) and is reportedly being used by a handful of cities across Canada (38).
Of course, having laws in place and enforcing them can mean two very different things. California’s SB 435 was challenged for its required MC smog checks, so its focus changed to cracking down on loud exhaust pipes. After this version of SB 435 passed in 2010, state law enforcement officials were granted power to cite riders without EPA-certified stickers on 2013- and later-year models (39). Without consistent and easily enforceable noise regulations across the U.S., most violations may be treated case by case, since many noise complaints derive from quiet neighborhoods, where a single, known MC owner can create local issues and be uniquely identified.
To strengthen this review of MC’s costs and benefits, a nation-wide crash-histories survey was developed by the authors and disseminated online by Survey Sampling International. 1257
American adults were randomly selected, 246 of whom were motorcyclists (current and past riders), enabling an assessment of differences in MC riders and non-riders. The survey purposely over-sampled MC riders, and MC registrations comprised one out of 18 reported
household vehicles across the sampled population, compared to a U.S. rate of one in 30 vehicles (1). All 246 “riders” were then sorted according to riding frequency (riders who ride or previously rode almost every day [daily], about once a week [weekly], about once a month [monthly], or less than once a month [yearly]) and according to ownership status (current motorcycle owners [owners], current riders who are not current owners [current riders], and former motorcycle owners who no longer ride [former owners]).
Former riders were asked why they no longer own a motorcycle. Top responses included simply no longer needing a motorcycle (38 offered this as their primary reason, and 33 offered it as their second reason), safety concerns (30 and 41 respondents, for primary and secondary reasons, respectively), and cost or other financial issues (20 and 17, respectively). Among those noting safety issues, 6 persons remarked being personally involved in a MC crash, a number cited friends who had been hurt, someone noted, “too many nuts in cars on the road”, and one sadly remarked, “too many friends died on bikes.” Additional issues that respondents noted included (in order of importance) a lack of riding enjoyment, lack of cargo space, lack of adequate riding ability, lack of passenger space, aging-related issues, and moving across the country.
Table 2 details respondent characteristics, riding habits, perceptions and habits, with the “all motorcyclists” category representing results for the 222 who responded to all questions and the “non-motorcyclists” category representing those who have never owned a motorcycle or ridden one on a frequent basis. Weights were used to account for the (full) sample’s over- representations of women (originally 65% of survey respondents) and motorcycle ownership.
For more motorcyclist details (and behavioral predictions), see Fagnant and Kockelman (9). For more crash-related statistics (and behavioral predictions), based on the larger sample, please see Chen and Kockelman (40). For detailed text of questions asked, please see www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/SURVEY_UScrashhistories_Spring2012.pdf.
Table 2 values offer several meaningful results. For example, riders are well represented in all riding-frequency categories, though a plurality were weekly riders. More motorcyclists are former owners than current owners or current riders, and males are heavily represented among all MC status categories and all riding frequencies. Motorcycling respondents reside in slightly larger households (both children and adults), with higher proportions that are married and full- time workers.
Respondent motorcyclists report an average of 15 years of riding experience and 3680 miles riding each year, with those who ride more often averaging greater annual mileage and have generally been riding longer. Trip lengths vary substantially between the groups, with average trip lengths increasing as riding frequency falls.
Only 8% of motorcycle riders use their motorcycle primarily for work, school and errands- related travel (i.e., non-discretionary travel), while the remainder is split between primarily recreational and leisure travel, and a roughly equal combination of non-discretionary- and recreation-related travel. Daily riders, however, are most likely to ride for functional purposes only, and only 10% likely to ride solely for recreational purposes. Most riders (62%) also generally ride in groups, with only 15% typically riding alone and the remainder stating that they often ride both alone and in groups.
Less than a third of respondents report having received formal MC training. Daily and yearly riders, along with former MC owners, report the lowest training rates, the latter of which suggests that motorcycle training rates may be increasing among riders. 72% of respondents report always wearing a helmet, and only 6% never wearing one. Similarly, 93% of respondents state that they would wear a helmet if legally mandated, which is more than NHTSA’s (6) 84% observation of total use (in states requiring helmets). Just-yearly riders report the highest helmet use rates (88% report “always”), while current riders appear the least likely to always wear a helmet (62%). Since 21% of these current riders report usually wearing a helmet, it is possible that they prefer to use a helmet, but rely on others to borrow or rent one when riding, and/or forgo a helmet on shorter or recreational trips, where they anticipate fewer hazards.
Respondents’ MC engine sizes vary from under 100 cubic centimeters (cc) to 2200 cc, with an average engine size of roughly 760 cc. Ownership status suggests that engine sizes are rising, with current owners reporting much larger sizes (1073 cc engines, on average) when compared
to former owners (592 cc average), with current riders falling between (855 cc), possibly because some are reporting a previously owned motorcycle engine size and others report on MCs recently borrowed or rented.
Motorcyclists report driving or riding about 0.5 mph faster than non-motorcyclists, on average (a result that is statistically significant at the 10% level). One sees a trend of riding or driving
slower and valuing safety more as a respondent’s riding frequency falls, with average speed over the posted limit down 24% and willingness-to-pay for safety up 156%, when comparing daily riders to yearly riders. Motorcyclists support impaired-driver policies, such as mandatory ignition interlocks for persons convicted of one and two or more DUI convictions, at (statistically) higher levels than non-motorcyclists. There was no statistically significant difference in their support of (or opposition to) other safety-related policies, including red light cameras, automatic speed enforcement, speed governors, or vehicle impoundment for DUI offenders.
A multinomial logit (MNL) model (see, e.g., McFadden [41] and Greene [42]) was used to investigate which types of people are more likely to ride a MC. This model was chosen because
it may be used as an effective tool where persons are making discrete choices, such as whether to own a motorcycle.
Four categories of individuals were assessed as previously discussed, including current MC owners, current riders, and former MC owners. Weights were applied based on gender and motorcycle ownership, as noted in the previous subsection. Stepwise elimination was conducted on potential explanatory variables using Biogeme software and a maximum likelihood estimation process until only variables statistically significant at a 5% level or better remained (so variables like Age, Years Licensed, Number of Children and Commercial Drivers Licensing were removed). Elasticities were also estimated for each covariate to determine practical significance by increasing variable values by 1% and observing resulting changes in motorcycle status likelihood. The resulting model and coefficient elastic impacts are shown in Table 3.
Model coefficients may be interpreted to understand which types of persons are more likely to own motorcycles, be current riders or former motorcycle owners. As expected, model results highlight how men are more likely than women to own and/or ride a MC at some point in their life, with male gender emerging as the single most influential parameter for current riders and former owners. Singles are estimated to be less likely than married persons to ride or have owned a motorcycle, everything else constant (including age and gender). This may be due to higher disposable incomes in two-earner households and/or joint ownerships (where a spouse claims to own the MC even though his/her partner may be the primary rider). In contrast, divorced individuals are more likely to be current MC owners (passenger and cargo needs would be lesser in their new family arrangement) and former owners (possibly because their spouse got the motorcycle in the divorce). For similar passenger and cargo reasons, as the number of adults in a household increases, the model results suggests less likely (current) ownership.
Those with higher levels of education were estimated to be less likely to be current or former motorcycle owners, while those with high household incomes (over $150,000 per year) were more likely to be current riders. The high income-current rider connection likely represents a greater ability of these individuals to afford renting or leasing a motorcycle. In contrast, unemployed individuals were less likely to be current riders, also possibly due to financial considerations. Retired persons appear less likely to be current riders, which may be linked to decreasing physical ability. However, retirement may have a net-neutral impact on ownership since retired individuals have more time for riding (and lower cargo and passenger needs) and may purchase a motorcycle when they previously rented one.
Finally, persons with more traffic violations on their records are estimated to be less likely to be current MC owners or riders, while those who at one point had licenses suspended are more likely to be a rider, ceteris paribus. Presumably, those who are more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors, such as MC riding, are (on average) more likely to engage in behaviors that may result in a license suspension or revocation. After controlling for that variable, costly violations in one’s past may reduce disposable income previously available for leisure-oriented riding.
The crash-histories survey, described above, gives one a sense of “who rides” (and how often, for example). This paper now turns to the question of “who pays?”, by pursuing a benefit-cost analysis.
To comprehensively view motorcycle travel from a holistic perspective, it is crucial to
understand both who rides and what the personal and societal impacts are from this unique mode. In order to better understand these impacts, various MC designs and operator assumptions were evaluated against multiple LDVs. Comparisons reflect differences in crash frequencies and costs, congestion impacts, parking requirements, ownership costs, air pollution, and noise, under multiple driving environments. Comparisons allows for variations in rider behavior and experience (i.e., helmeted vs. non-helmeted, and novice, average, skilled) for four levels of roadway congestion. Benefit-cost ratios (B-C) summarize the relative utility of switching from a
PC or LDT to a motorcycle mile per mile, or as one’s primary vehicle. All values are in 2012$
unless otherwise noted.
Vehicle makes and models can vary considerably, but top sellers tend to dominate many markets. This analysis considers the top-10 selling passenger cars and light-duty trucks for year 2010 (43) and 10 motorcycles, selected from the U.S.’s top-five selling brands (Harley-Davidson, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, and Suzuki) (44). These “top 10” MCs offer an even mix of cruisers and sport bikes (with cruisers typically representing heavier motorcycles, where riders sit relatively upright, and sport bikes tend to be lighter, faster, and more maneuverable). Motorcycles are evaluated as a perfect substitute and thus primary mode of travel, so they are evaluated on the same VMT as LDVs (which average 11,000 miles of use per year in the U.S. [1]), which places them at a disadvantage, due to lower expected lifetimes (measured in total miles traveled before vehicle retirement/loss). Chester and Horvath (20) suggest that the average LDV covers 176,000 to 187,000 miles during its lifetime, while sport bikes and cruisers average only 60,000- to
75,000-miles, respectively. This distinction results in higher per-year ownership costs for motorcycles, versus LDVs, across the sample of 20 vehicles considered, despite motorcycles’
47% to 63% lower purchase prices (versus the average car and light-truck, respectively). Table 4 also considers maintenance, tires, and insurance costs to be ownership costs, based on AAA’s (45) annual Driving Costs guide for cars and light trucks, and Chester and Horvath’s (20) estimates for MCs.
LDVs’ NOx, VOC, CO, and PM2.5 running emissions were estimated with EPA’s (24) Green Vehicle Guide air pollution scores and valued using guidance from NHTSA’s (46) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) analysis ($4,400 per ton of NOx, $1,887 per ton VOC, $168,480 per ton PM2.5 and Ozbay and Berechman’s (47) valuation of CO (at $20 per ton). MC emissions assumptions are those used by Chester and Horvath (20) for two- and four-cylinder MCs with catalytic converters (since most manufacturers began employing catalysts or similar emissions- reducing technologies to meet current EPA standards by 2010 [27]). Emissions modeling software (EPA’s MOVES and CARB’s EMFAC) were also run, at the national and state (California) levels, to confirm these estimates. Though there was some variation across results,
air quality costs are minimal relative to other costs in this comparison, so Chester and Horvath
(20) aggregate rates are used, reflecting multiple sources and some real-world data.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) impacts are calculated using average combined fuel economies, assuming
19.4 pounds of CO2 are released per gallon of gasoline burned (48) at a cost of $50 per ton,
based on guidance from Lemp and Kockelman (49), EPA (50), CRA (51), and Fisher et al. (52).
Though this analysis considers only running (tailpipe) emissions, rather than life-cycle costs, MCs are estimated to be less costly to society in terms of carbon emissions, thanks to higher fuel economy. Higher fuel economy also translates to reduced operating costs, which are calculated assuming a summer 2012 U.S. gasoline price of $3.50 per gallon (24).
Comprehensive crash costs were estimated using USDOT guidance (53), with pure market impacts (excluding non-economic factors such as the value of life and pain and suffering) estimated by NSC (54). The largest non-market crash impacts were for fatalities, with comprehensive (market and non-market) fatal crash costs reaching $6.2 million, compared to just
$1.45 million from market impacts. Crash rates were obtained from NHTSA (1, 2), with injury-
severity distributions and property-damage-only crash rates estimated using NHTSA’s 2010 GES database. At-fault allocations by injury severity were estimated from Kim and Boski’s findings (55), based on 2774 multi-vehicle motorcycle crash records in Hawaii.
As discussed earlier, noise costs are based on Litman’s (32) aggregate assessment of noise by vehicle class in urban areas, which considers estimates by Delucchi and Hsu (31), Maibach et al. (56), and others. Motorcycle parking-space savings are evaluated using annual surface-parking cost estimates for urban locations from Litman (16). Each parking space is assumed to hold either one LDV or four motorcycles, as discussed earlier (15).
Finally, congestion costs between vehicle types are compared under the assumption that light trucks, passenger cars, and MCs hold unique PCE values. Kockelman and Shabih (57) estimated through-traffic PCE for small SUVs and pickups at 1.07 and 1.14, respectively, by measuring mean headways and delays for vehicle types departing congested intersections. Motorcycle PCE values were assumed at 0.5, as suggested by Yperman (17) and Maibach et al. (56). Congestion costs for each vehicle type are estimated for three levels of freeway congestion (v/c ratios of 0.7,
0.9, and 1.1), using a variation of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) link-performance equation and methods found in Lemp and Kockelman (49):
Motorcycles are estimated to provide sizable travel-time savings, similar to variations in the PCE values. While some congestion reduction can be expected by MCs’ more compact size, the actual PCE is a highly variable number, as Yperman (17) noted, shrinking as speeds decline, and possibly converging on zero in situations where MCs can “filter” in between lanes, such as in many high-density developing cities and perhaps places like California, where some riders pass stopped vehicles, along a lane stripe. PCE values are expected to increase (well beyond the 0.5 assumed here) when traffic speeds rise, since MCs are given more space by following vehicles (and have no reason to tailgate or regularly pass others under uncongested conditions).
Table 4 compares the above cost categories for passenger cars, light trucks, and four categories of motorcyclists, corresponding to relative rider skill, awareness of safety, and risk taking behavior. The first three categories – novice, average, and skilled – seek to represent the wide range of riders on the road, including those who defy average statistics by taking many precautions (e.g., wearing protective gear and taking training courses) or, conversely, neglecting such precautions and taking other risks (such as consuming alcohol before riding or driving recklessly). This range is represented by simply multiplying crash rates and thus costs by a factor of 0.5 for skilled riders and 1.5 for novice riders. While this range may extend further, to capture all types of riders, the +/- 50% scaling probably represents most riders.
Benefit-cost ratios were computed based on the costs and benefits of using a motorcycle, relative to driving a PC or LDT. Since MC costs exceed MC benefits under all but one of the 32
scenarios (4 congestion levels across 8 vehicle/rider types) considered in Table 4 (due to high crash costs), an additional B/C ratio, excluding crash costs, is included for comparison. Finally, Table 4 reports the MC crash rate (relative to PCs or LDTs) that would be required to move the B/C ratio (including crashes) to equal 1. This metric indicates at which crash crate MCs become more costly to society as a whole (including their owners’ costs) than their LDV counterparts. Crash costs (and B/C ratios which include crash costs) report values for both helmeted and non- helmeted riders, separated by a slash.
As Table 4 values suggest, motorcycles’ various benefits appear to be severely negated by added crash costs, which, even for the skilled (and helmeted) riders (who can arguably reduce their accident risk by 50%), never return B/C ratios greater than 1. The sole exception to this distinction is helmeted riders in severe congestion, who never crash on their own and are never at fault in a multi-vehicle collision; but even under these very optimistic conditions, the B/C ratio is over one only when MCs are compared to LDTs. While motorcyclists may enjoy some reduced parking and operating costs, these do little to offset the fact that most current MC models are likely to provide fewer lifetime miles of travel than the average LDV (which shelters its interior from rain and other environmental factors, serves more travel purposes [such as multi-person trips], and is crashed less often). Though motorcycles do show greater benefit in highly
congested situations, costs overshadow benefits when including crashes in all scenarios.
Depending on congestion conditions, MC crash costs must fall to a range of 0.8-2.2 or 1.8-3.6 times the crash costs of PCs and LDT, respectively, to become competitive with each vehicle type (i.e., provide a B/C ratio of 1.0, relative to the base LDV). With current MC crash costs 13
to 14.5 times greater than those of the average PC and LDT, MCs require substantial safety gains to improve competitiveness, with safety gains required not just to eliminate riders’ own mistakes, but those of drivers as well. However, with greatly reduced crash rates and improvements in
other areas (like emissions and noise), MCs may be able to reach (and surpass) benefits of LDVs. If emissions and noise costs were reduced to those of cars and LDTs, MCs’ total costs (ignoring crash cost differences) should be substantially lower than those of passenger cars (and far below those of LDTs, which are already more costly due to their higher sales prices).
It should also be noted that MCs may never become reasonable substitutes for LDVs, due to their demands on rider balance, coordination, and stamina, while exposing riders to the elements, including poor climatic conditions. Mannering (64) refers to a 50- to 60-mile commute on a MC an “excruciating ordeal” for most people, especially in heavy traffic or during unpleasant
weather.
This work conducts a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and costs of MC riding while exploring the characteristics, behaviors and attitudes of motorcycle riders, as well as factors that make individuals more likely to ride. Motorcyclists are at higher risk of crashing than passenger cars and light trucks, and the injury outcome is much more likely to be severe. At the same time, motorcycles have significant benefits for space savings, roadway capacity benefits and typically have superior fuel efficiency when compared to passenger cars and light trucks. Motorcycle life- cycle energy consumption is generally superior to SUVs and pickup trucks, though more consumptive than sedans. Motorcycle emissions profiles are also generally preferable for M gases, NOx, SO2 and particulate matter and less preferable for VOC and CO. Noise impacts are an issue with an inconsistent patchwork of regulation applied across states and localities.
The survey conducted in this investigation indicates most riders use their motorcycle for recreational purposes and ride in groups, though about half also use their motorcycle for functional purposes and about also 40% ride solo. Less than a third of the surveyed riding population received formal motorcycle training, though training rates appear to be increasing. Motorcycle helmet use appears lower among riders who currently ride but do not own their own motorcycle and motorcycle engine size appears to be increasing. Motorcycle rider respondents also showed strong support for policies that combat operating a vehicle under the influence.
In the motorcycle rider and ownership model, the most practically significant variables were male for all categories of motorcycle riders and the number of household vehicles for current motorcycle riders (both factors increasing likelihood), while the number of adults in a household was found to decrease the probability of current motorcycle ownership. The factors with the greatest impact on increasing riding frequency were riders who traveled for both functional and recreational purposes, and riders who had all their vehicles insured.
A benefit-cost analysis of switching from a PC or LDT to MC returned B-C ratios ranging from
0.07 to 0.59 when considering crash costs, and 0.91 to 3.22 when neglecting relative crash differences. While high MC crash rates do carry a high cost, even for the better/safer riders, lower vehicle lifespans and higher emissions and noise costs also limit MC values. The analyses also suggest that MC crash costs would have to fall to within 88% to 223% of PC rates and
181% to 369% of LDTs (rather than their present 1300% and 1450% levels [assuming 50% helmet use], respectively) to return B-C ratios of 1.0. While MCs’ benefit-cost ratios doubled between uncongested (v/c = 0.5) and severely congested (v/c = 1.1) cases, they remained below
1 in all cases, unless the added crash losses of switching to an MC were ignored.
When examined as a whole, this work provides transportation analysts, policymakers and decision makers with key insights to the benefits, costs and overall implications of motorcycle use, while illuminating factors common to different types of motorcycle riders and common traits among those who ride more frequently. Motorcycles may provide many benefits to some riders, but their high external costs and increased crash risks dramatically limit their social value as a primary travel mode and limit their effectiveness in addressing continuing transport concerns: congestion, safety, and air quality.
hth |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Matt B |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Matt B
World Chat Champion
Joined: 01 May 2012
Karma :
|
| Posted: 11:55 - 26 Mar 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
____________________
stinkwheel: He had an animated .gif of a cat performing fellatio. It's not socially acceptable. It can have real life adverse effects on other people. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 11:56 - 26 Mar 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
| PhilDawson8270 wrote: | The following |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked.
Motorcycles are an attractive form of personal transportation for many people. They can serve as a secondary vehicle for recreational use, as well as a primary vehicle in congested regions, offering relative ease of parking and travel. Motorcycles differ from other motor vehicles in their costs and impacts, size, and traveler exposure. In a series of related sections, this paper
quantifies the safety, fuel use, energy, emissions, space demands, and other differences inherent in motorcycle use, as compared to cars and trucks. Thanks to results of a new U.S. survey, the paper also describes who is more likely to own or have owned a motorcycle and which types of riders are more likely to ride more often, while exploring motorcyclist demographics, opinions, and behaviors. In this way, this paper tackles two questions: Who rides? And who pays? This work seeks a comprehensive examination of motorcycles as a unique mode by exploring the characteristics of different types of riders and conducting a comprehensive benefit-cost evaluation of motorcycle use across a wide range of metrics.
4,462 persons were killed in 4,187 fatal motorcycle crashes across the U.S. in 2010. Overall motorcyclist crash rates (per vehicle-mile traveled, or VMT) are more than twice those for passenger cars: 785 vs. 353 per hundred million miles travelled in 2008 (1). Their fatal crash rates are about 20 times higher: 27.67 vs. 1.31 per hundred million miles travelled in 2009 (2).
Like pedestrians and bicyclists, motorcyclists are vulnerable users insofar as they are unprotected by the physical carriage of a vehicle. Unlike pedestrians and bicycles, motorcycles allow their riders to travel at high speeds, greatly increasing rider risk of serious injury, and death, in the event of a crash (3).
Many factors contribute to motorcycle (MC) safety issues. According to the U.S. Fatal Accident
Record System (FARS) database (4), there were 1,972 single-vehicle fatal motorcycle crashes in
2010: 1,257 involved running off the road (ROR), and 504 were rollovers or overturns. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the fatal ROR crashes involved the motorcyclist running into or down an embankment or hitting a fixed object (such as a guardrail, barrier, curb, ditch, culvert, or sign).
Multi-vehicle collisions are also a significant safety issue. The average MC weighs just one-tenth that of many or most LDVs (e.g., the Suzuki GS500E weighs 424 lbs. [5], while the Toyota Camry and Ford F-150 pickup weigh in at 3240 lb. and 5000 lb. [unloaded]). Such weight imbalances translate to tremendous deceleration differences during a crash, putting riders at clear disadvantage.
In 2010 there were 2,215 fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving MCs, of which 52% were angle collisions, 15% were head-on, and 17% rear-end collisions, with the remainder comprising sideswipes and other crash types. 47 percent of multi-vehicle fatal MC crashes occurred at intersections (including 302 of the angle collisions), compared to 38% of fatal multi-vehicle collisions among all vehicle types in the U.S. This suggests that riders have higher risks at intersections, with car-driver awareness and visibility (of riders and their MCs) potentially crucial to improving motorcyclist safety. Additional safety concerns include alcohol (a factor in
32% of fatal motorcycle crashes, vs. 28% among all fatal crashes), speeding (a factor in 40% of fatal motorcycle crashes vs. 31% among all fatal crashes), horizontal curvature (57% of single- vehicle fatal crashes vs. 32%) and vertical curvature (39% of single-vehicle fatal crashes vs.
30%).
Helmet use is a key variable in crash outcomes, but only 66% of riders choose to wear law- compliant helmets (6). NHTSA (7) estimates that helmets reduce the probability of death (in the event of a crash) by 37% for motorcycle operators and by 41% for passengers, with likelihood of serious injury falling 13% that of minor injury by 8%. If all motorcyclists had been helmeted in
2008, 822 lives could have been saved with total economic savings over $1.3 billion (7). McKnight and McKnight’s (8) study of 50 riders under varying helmet conditions concluded that helmet use has no negative impacts on riders’ auditory or visual perceptions, and Fagnant and Kockelman (9) estimated that higher helmet usage is correlated with lower crash rates. Daniello
et al. (10) cite several studies indicating that those who obtain MC training are more likely to wear a helmet and other protective gear.
Vehicle technologies have significant potential for reducing the number and severity of motorcycle crashes. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS) prevent tires from locking up and skidding, in reaction to unexpected hazards. Teoh (11) calculated that MC owners with ABS installed (21% of model-year 2003 through 2008 bikes) experienced 37% lower fatal MC crash counts (per registered vehicle year), which may be partly explained by more risk-averse riders investing in ABS-enabled MCs or exhibiting lower riding distances. Alternatively, such owners may travel more than others, and enjoy a greater-than-37% reduction in their death rates. More details are needed to disentangle such results. ABS can also be integrated with systems that electronically apply optimal braking to front and rear wheels (12), rather than relying on an operator’s snap judgment to properly balance braking in critical situations. Hurt et al. (13) confirmed that riders often under-brake their front and over-brake their rear wheels which may cause loss of steering or total control. Additional emerging motorcycles safety enhancements include gyroscopic stability control, a feature that could reduce the probability of motorcycle run-off-road crashes, rollovers and overturns, comprising 30% of fatal motorcycle crashes in
2010 (14).
While safety impacts are a key MC concern, it is important to view each mode holistically. A
second major difference between MCs and other vehicles is the amount of space they require.
For example, motorcycle parking spaces measure approximately 4 ft x 8 ft, rather than 8.5 ft x 18 ft for cars and trucks (15). This 76% savings (not accounting for access and egress paths) allows for more efficient use of limited space, particularly densely developed areas. Litman (16) estimates total urban and CBD parking costs to lie between $1000 and $4400 per light-duty- vehicle space, per year in North America, depending on location and type of parking facility. With approximately four motorcycles per standard space, economic benefits of roughly $750 to
$3300 may be realized for a motorist switching to a motorcycle who regularly parks downtown.
Research also shows how motorcycles impact traffic flows. Yperman (17) noted that during free- flow or near free-flow conditions, motorcycles in Europe and Asia behave like other vehicles,
meriting a passenger car equivalency (PCE) value of 1. However, if and when traffic comes to a stop, he posits that MCs will be driven between travel lanes or on shoulders and may exhibit a PCE value of 0. Yperman estimated that a motorcycle’s PCE ranges between 1 and 0.5 (motorcycles per passenger car) for moderately to more heavily congested traffic conditions (before motorcyclists may begin to drive between lanes, as allowed in Europe but generally not in the U.S.). He suggests a PCE value of 0.5 for most applications. Additionally, all state laws permit motorcycles to use high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes with just a single rider (18).
While these values can mean substantial travel savings for everyone, MCs’ higher crash rates can counteract such benefits, by adding incident-related delays. The FHWA (19) estimates that 25% of U.S. congestion comes from is attributable to traffic incidents (including crashes, vehicle breakdowns, weather and other events), indicating that increased motorcycle use should lead to more incident-related traffic delay. Nevertheless, a holistic perspective of mitigation and contribution to traffic congestion points towards a net mobility benefit when switching towards greater motorcycle use.
Energy, emissions and noise also are important points of comparison, across modes, vehicle makes and models, routes, and riding/driving behaviors. Smaller motorcycles with less powerful engines typically achieve higher fuel economy and produce fewer emissions, while larger motorcycles and engine sizes can result in worse fuel economy and higher emissions than
evident in many cars. Aggressive riding or driving will also consume more fuel and generate more emissions.
A sampling of 229 recent MC models returns fuel economies between 26.6 and 123 miles per gallon (mpg), with a simple (non-sales-weighted) average of 53 mpg (5). Chester and Horvath (20) estimated a 41 to 45 mpg average MC fuel economy, versus 33.7 and 25.1 mpg for new U.S. passenger cars and light trucks, respectively (and existing-fleet averages of 23.8 mpg and
17.4 mpg, respectively) (21). Of course, most such vehicles can hold 4 persons or more, though Santos et al. (22) estimate average U.S. vehicle occupancies of 1.67 persons per private vehicle trip. The new Zero S fully electric motorcycle greatly surpasses the most energy-efficient autos, with manufacturer-estimated fuel economy of 487/273 mpg (city/highway) equivalent for electric operation, using EPA (23) recommended methodology. This may be compared to the
Toyota Prius C, which operates at 53/46 mpg, and the Chevrolet (hybrid-electric) Volt, stickered at 95/93 mpg equivalent for electric operation (24). The electric Zero S is also a very low-noise vehicle, but presumably no safer than other motorcycles.
Chester and Horvath (20) estimate that 2- and 4-cylinder motorcycles require 30% less energy (per person-mile traveled [PMT]) than pickup trucks and 15% less than sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), though they consume 17% more energy when compared to 4-door cars (sedans). Most energy savings are due to lower operating costs. Chester and Horvath assume higher MC manufacturing energy needs (per PMT) due to MCs’ lower annual mileages and lifespans. If one assumes equal annual miles-traveled by all modes, lower energy consumption from MC parking, and equal energy usage for insurance, road construction, and lighting, MCs are estimated to use
4%, 31% and 42% less energy than cars, SUVs and pickups, respectively, over their lifetimes
(pivoting off Chester and Horvath’s [20] energy results).
Chester and Horvath (20) also computed and compared modal emissions based on 14 source categories, ranging from manufacture and operation to evaporative losses and various infrastructures. Table 1 illuminates differences in Chester’s and Horvath’s (20) running emissions, which are aggregate values reflecting results of multiple studies from the U.S., Asia, and Europe. Emissions are reported for MCs with and without emissions controls, like catalytic converters, secondary air injection, and electronic fuel injection. Such controls have been necessary for many new models to meet EPA standards that took effect in 2010.Though some newer models may satisfy EPA standards without catalytic converters (and reduce emissions by other means like more efficient fuel injection), manufactures such as Harley-Davidson have included catalysts on all newer models since 2010.
Several conclusions may be drawn from this evaluation. First, sports bikes perform worst among MCs, and 2-cylinder MCs generally perform better than 4-cylinder MCs. Emissions controls typically halve VOC, NOx and CO emissions, but have no impact on other emissions.When comparing 2- and 4-cylinder MCs to other vehicles, MCs produced lower running emissions (per PMT) for GHG (26% to 64% reductions), SO2 (27% to 64% reductions), NOx (30% to 98% reductions), and PM (21% to 65%). Their VOC emissions rates, however, are uniformly higher (173% to 2400% higher), as are CO rates when operating without a catalytic converter (73% to
341% higher).
Emissions regulations imposed on manufactures ultimately drive down U.S. emissions rates. Interestingly, the US EPA (25) allows MCs to have far higher emissions than it does LDVs (in part because of MCs’ relatively low usage and the costs of testing so many small-sales vehicles). For example, MC engines tested at 18,600 miles of use can emit up to 1.29 grams per mile (gpm) of any combination of hydrocarbons (HC) and NOx, while the most polluting LDVs are
restricted to no more than 0.018 gpm of hydrocarbons and hydrogen oxide (HCHO) and 0.2 gpm of NOx. MCs are capped at 19.3 gpm of CO, compared to LDVs’ 4.2 gpm. Furthermore, the EPA regulates LDVs’ non-methane organic gases (NMOGs) and PM emissions, but sets no such requirements for MCs. Motorcycles are also exempt from smog checks, though agencies like the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have previously proposed such legislation. Many imported MCs conform to Euro III exhaust standards, which are more stringent than EPA standards for most pollutants (26). European standards are also set to become more stringent (the Euro V standard) by 2015, with maximum CO emissions for MCs to be 5.1% and 12.4% of current EPA standards on HC and NOx, respectively. While motorcycles only comprise a small proportion of US travel (3% of registered vehicles and 0.7% of VMT in 2009 [2]), reducing MC emissions appears to be low-hanging fruit, if the US wishes to make continued gains towards improving air quality. Before pursuing such regulatory changes, however, implementation cost considerations should be examined in detail. Regulatory changes should also be enforceable, and enforced. CARB (27) noted that over one-third of on-road motorcycles had their OEM exhaust systems replaced by aftermarket pipes, which likely involved permanent removal of the catalytic converter, negating many required emissions improvements.
In addition to possible emissions impacts, removing exhaust pipes can impact MC noise. Though noise’s external costs are difficult to quantify objectively, many sources, such as Eriksen (28), EEA (29), and Cotana et al. (30), cite MCs as having significantly greater noise costs than LDVs. For example, Delucchi and Hsu (31) estimate MC noise costs at 2 to 8 times those of LDVs, and Litman’s review (32) characterizes noise costs as $0.132 per MC mile in urban areas, or 10 times greater than those of LDVs.
Motorcyclists can purchase a wide variety of aftermarket exhaust pipes to improve engine performance, add power by lowering weight, or simply customize their MC’s engine sounds. Such pipes may not meet EPA noise standards of 80 dB (measured at 50 feet, with constant engine speed at 50% maximum RPM) (33) and they can be further modified by removing or changing baffles within the muffler. Such modifications are difficult to identify when enforcing regulations, especially since sound level meters are rarely used to enforce noise laws. For instance, Frisman (34) noted how in 2002 less than 4% of Connecticut’s motorcycle-noise violators were cited for “exceeding decibel limits;” the remaining 96% were for cited for “causing unnecessary noise” (44%) or having “improper/defective mufflers” (52%).In-use requirements are left to U.S. states, which often set their own standards and testing procedures. Ten states regulate noise in the 80 to 88 dBA range, three have noise limits of 90 dBA or more,
15 states have no statewide MC noise regulation, and the remainder require a muffler and/or prohibit aftermarket exhaust systems altogether (35). However, since testing methodologies vary, based on measurement distance and engine RPMs, these limits are difficult to compare objectively. The American Motorcycle Association advocates a standard methodology using the Society of Automotive Engineers’ SAE J2825 test, with passing noise limits up to 100 dBA for motorcycles with 3- and 4-cylinder engines (35). This test requires a decibel-meter, a tachometer, and other basic testing materials. Though these resources may not be available to some small
local police agencies, the test provides a consistent and simple approach to standardized testing that is approved by most motorcycle riders, and provides a step more comprehensive noise regulations. The test was officially adopted in Maine (36) and New Hampshire (37) and is reportedly being used by a handful of cities across Canada (38).
Of course, having laws in place and enforcing them can mean two very different things. California’s SB 435 was challenged for its required MC smog checks, so its focus changed to cracking down on loud exhaust pipes. After this version of SB 435 passed in 2010, state law enforcement officials were granted power to cite riders without EPA-certified stickers on 2013- and later-year models (39). Without consistent and easily enforceable noise regulations across the U.S., most violations may be treated case by case, since many noise complaints derive from quiet neighborhoods, where a single, known MC owner can create local issues and be uniquely identified.
To strengthen this review of MC’s costs and benefits, a nation-wide crash-histories survey was developed by the authors and disseminated online by Survey Sampling International. 1257
American adults were randomly selected, 246 of whom were motorcyclists (current and past riders), enabling an assessment of differences in MC riders and non-riders. The survey purposely over-sampled MC riders, and MC registrations comprised one out of 18 reported
household vehicles across the sampled population, compared to a U.S. rate of one in 30 vehicles (1). All 246 “riders” were then sorted according to riding frequency (riders who ride or previously rode almost every day [daily], about once a week [weekly], about once a month [monthly], or less than once a month [yearly]) and according to ownership status (current motorcycle owners [owners], current riders who are not current owners [current riders], and former motorcycle owners who no longer ride [former owners]).
Former riders were asked why they no longer own a motorcycle. Top responses included simply no longer needing a motorcycle (38 offered this as their primary reason, and 33 offered it as their second reason), safety concerns (30 and 41 respondents, for primary and secondary reasons, respectively), and cost or other financial issues (20 and 17, respectively). Among those noting safety issues, 6 persons remarked being personally involved in a MC crash, a number cited friends who had been hurt, someone noted, “too many nuts in cars on the road”, and one sadly remarked, “too many friends died on bikes.” Additional issues that respondents noted included (in order of importance) a lack of riding enjoyment, lack of cargo space, lack of adequate riding ability, lack of passenger space, aging-related issues, and moving across the country.
Table 2 details respondent characteristics, riding habits, perceptions and habits, with the “all motorcyclists” category representing results for the 222 who responded to all questions and the “non-motorcyclists” category representing those who have never owned a motorcycle or ridden one on a frequent basis. Weights were used to account for the (full) sample’s over- representations of women (originally 65% of survey respondents) and motorcycle ownership.
For more motorcyclist details (and behavioral predictions), see Fagnant and Kockelman (9). For more crash-related statistics (and behavioral predictions), based on the larger sample, please see Chen and Kockelman (40). For detailed text of questions asked, please see www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/SURVEY_UScrashhistories_Spring2012.pdf.
Table 2 values offer several meaningful results. For example, riders are well represented in all riding-frequency categories, though a plurality were weekly riders. More motorcyclists are former owners than current owners or current riders, and males are heavily represented among all MC status categories and all riding frequencies. Motorcycling respondents reside in slightly larger households (both children and adults), with higher proportions that are married and full- time workers.
Respondent motorcyclists report an average of 15 years of riding experience and 3680 miles riding each year, with those who ride more often averaging greater annual mileage and have generally been riding longer. Trip lengths vary substantially between the groups, with average trip lengths increasing as riding frequency falls.
Only 8% of motorcycle riders use their motorcycle primarily for work, school and errands- related travel (i.e., non-discretionary travel), while the remainder is split between primarily recreational and leisure travel, and a roughly equal combination of non-discretionary- and recreation-related travel. Daily riders, however, are most likely to ride for functional purposes only, and only 10% likely to ride solely for recreational purposes. Most riders (62%) also generally ride in groups, with only 15% typically riding alone and the remainder stating that they often ride both alone and in groups.
Less than a third of respondents report having received formal MC training. Daily and yearly riders, along with former MC owners, report the lowest training rates, the latter of which suggests that motorcycle training rates may be increasing among riders. 72% of respondents report always wearing a helmet, and only 6% never wearing one. Similarly, 93% of respondents state that they would wear a helmet if legally mandated, which is more than NHTSA’s (6) 84% observation of total use (in states requiring helmets). Just-yearly riders report the highest helmet use rates (88% report “always”), while current riders appear the least likely to always wear a helmet (62%). Since 21% of these current riders report usually wearing a helmet, it is possible that they prefer to use a helmet, but rely on others to borrow or rent one when riding, and/or forgo a helmet on shorter or recreational trips, where they anticipate fewer hazards.
Respondents’ MC engine sizes vary from under 100 cubic centimeters (cc) to 2200 cc, with an average engine size of roughly 760 cc. Ownership status suggests that engine sizes are rising, with current owners reporting much larger sizes (1073 cc engines, on average) when compared
to former owners (592 cc average), with current riders falling between (855 cc), possibly because some are reporting a previously owned motorcycle engine size and others report on MCs recently borrowed or rented.
Motorcyclists report driving or riding about 0.5 mph faster than non-motorcyclists, on average (a result that is statistically significant at the 10% level). One sees a trend of riding or driving
slower and valuing safety more as a respondent’s riding frequency falls, with average speed over the posted limit down 24% and willingness-to-pay for safety up 156%, when comparing daily riders to yearly riders. Motorcyclists support impaired-driver policies, such as mandatory ignition interlocks for persons convicted of one and two or more DUI convictions, at (statistically) higher levels than non-motorcyclists. There was no statistically significant difference in their support of (or opposition to) other safety-related policies, including red light cameras, automatic speed enforcement, speed governors, or vehicle impoundment for DUI offenders.
A multinomial logit (MNL) model (see, e.g., McFadden [41] and Greene [42]) was used to investigate which types of people are more likely to ride a MC. This model was chosen because
it may be used as an effective tool where persons are making discrete choices, such as whether to own a motorcycle.
Four categories of individuals were assessed as previously discussed, including current MC owners, current riders, and former MC owners. Weights were applied based on gender and motorcycle ownership, as noted in the previous subsection. Stepwise elimination was conducted on potential explanatory variables using Biogeme software and a maximum likelihood estimation process until only variables statistically significant at a 5% level or better remained (so variables like Age, Years Licensed, Number of Children and Commercial Drivers Licensing were removed). Elasticities were also estimated for each covariate to determine practical significance by increasing variable values by 1% and observing resulting changes in motorcycle status likelihood. The resulting model and coefficient elastic impacts are shown in Table 3.
Model coefficients may be interpreted to understand which types of persons are more likely to own motorcycles, be current riders or former motorcycle owners. As expected, model results highlight how men are more likely than women to own and/or ride a MC at some point in their life, with male gender emerging as the single most influential parameter for current riders and former owners. Singles are estimated to be less likely than married persons to ride or have owned a motorcycle, everything else constant (including age and gender). This may be due to higher disposable incomes in two-earner households and/or joint ownerships (where a spouse claims to own the MC even though his/her partner may be the primary rider). In contrast, divorced individuals are more likely to be current MC owners (passenger and cargo needs would be lesser in their new family arrangement) and former owners (possibly because their spouse got the motorcycle in the divorce). For similar passenger and cargo reasons, as the number of adults in a household increases, the model results suggests less likely (current) ownership.
Those with higher levels of education were estimated to be less likely to be current or former motorcycle owners, while those with high household incomes (over $150,000 per year) were more likely to be current riders. The high income-current rider connection likely represents a greater ability of these individuals to afford renting or leasing a motorcycle. In contrast, unemployed individuals were less likely to be current riders, also possibly due to financial considerations. Retired persons appear less likely to be current riders, which may be linked to decreasing physical ability. However, retirement may have a net-neutral impact on ownership since retired individuals have more time for riding (and lower cargo and passenger needs) and may purchase a motorcycle when they previously rented one.
Finally, persons with more traffic violations on their records are estimated to be less likely to be current MC owners or riders, while those who at one point had licenses suspended are more likely to be a rider, ceteris paribus. Presumably, those who are more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors, such as MC riding, are (on average) more likely to engage in behaviors that may result in a license suspension or revocation. After controlling for that variable, costly violations in one’s past may reduce disposable income previously available for leisure-oriented riding.
The crash-histories survey, described above, gives one a sense of “who rides” (and how often, for example). This paper now turns to the question of “who pays?”, by pursuing a benefit-cost analysis.
To comprehensively view motorcycle travel from a holistic perspective, it is crucial to
understand both who rides and what the personal and societal impacts are from this unique mode. In order to better understand these impacts, various MC designs and operator assumptions were evaluated against multiple LDVs. Comparisons reflect differences in crash frequencies and costs, congestion impacts, parking requirements, ownership costs, air pollution, and noise, under multiple driving environments. Comparisons allows for variations in rider behavior and experience (i.e., helmeted vs. non-helmeted, and novice, average, skilled) for four levels of roadway congestion. Benefit-cost ratios (B-C) summarize the relative utility of switching from a
PC or LDT to a motorcycle mile per mile, or as one’s primary vehicle. All values are in 2012$
unless otherwise noted.
Vehicle makes and models can vary considerably, but top sellers tend to dominate many markets. This analysis considers the top-10 selling passenger cars and light-duty trucks for year 2010 (43) and 10 motorcycles, selected from the U.S.’s top-five selling brands (Harley-Davidson, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, and Suzuki) (44). These “top 10” MCs offer an even mix of cruisers and sport bikes (with cruisers typically representing heavier motorcycles, where riders sit relatively upright, and sport bikes tend to be lighter, faster, and more maneuverable). Motorcycles are evaluated as a perfect substitute and thus primary mode of travel, so they are evaluated on the same VMT as LDVs (which average 11,000 miles of use per year in the U.S. [1]), which places them at a disadvantage, due to lower expected lifetimes (measured in total miles traveled before vehicle retirement/loss). Chester and Horvath (20) suggest that the average LDV covers 176,000 to 187,000 miles during its lifetime, while sport bikes and cruisers average only 60,000- to
75,000-miles, respectively. This distinction results in higher per-year ownership costs for motorcycles, versus LDVs, across the sample of 20 vehicles considered, despite motorcycles’
47% to 63% lower purchase prices (versus the average car and light-truck, respectively). Table 4 also considers maintenance, tires, and insurance costs to be ownership costs, based on AAA’s (45) annual Driving Costs guide for cars and light trucks, and Chester and Horvath’s (20) estimates for MCs.
LDVs’ NOx, VOC, CO, and PM2.5 running emissions were estimated with EPA’s (24) Green Vehicle Guide air pollution scores and valued using guidance from NHTSA’s (46) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) analysis ($4,400 per ton of NOx, $1,887 per ton VOC, $168,480 per ton PM2.5 and Ozbay and Berechman’s (47) valuation of CO (at $20 per ton). MC emissions assumptions are those used by Chester and Horvath (20) for two- and four-cylinder MCs with catalytic converters (since most manufacturers began employing catalysts or similar emissions- reducing technologies to meet current EPA standards by 2010 [27]). Emissions modeling software (EPA’s MOVES and CARB’s EMFAC) were also run, at the national and state (California) levels, to confirm these estimates. Though there was some variation across results,
air quality costs are minimal relative to other costs in this comparison, so Chester and Horvath
(20) aggregate rates are used, reflecting multiple sources and some real-world data.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) impacts are calculated using average combined fuel economies, assuming
19.4 pounds of CO2 are released per gallon of gasoline burned (48) at a cost of $50 per ton,
based on guidance from Lemp and Kockelman (49), EPA (50), CRA (51), and Fisher et al. (52).
Though this analysis considers only running (tailpipe) emissions, rather than life-cycle costs, MCs are estimated to be less costly to society in terms of carbon emissions, thanks to higher fuel economy. Higher fuel economy also translates to reduced operating costs, which are calculated assuming a summer 2012 U.S. gasoline price of $3.50 per gallon (24).
Comprehensive crash costs were estimated using USDOT guidance (53), with pure market impacts (excluding non-economic factors such as the value of life and pain and suffering) estimated by NSC (54). The largest non-market crash impacts were for fatalities, with comprehensive (market and non-market) fatal crash costs reaching $6.2 million, compared to just
$1.45 million from market impacts. Crash rates were obtained from NHTSA (1, 2), with injury-
severity distributions and property-damage-only crash rates estimated using NHTSA’s 2010 GES database. At-fault allocations by injury severity were estimated from Kim and Boski’s findings (55), based on 2774 multi-vehicle motorcycle crash records in Hawaii.
As discussed earlier, noise costs are based on Litman’s (32) aggregate assessment of noise by vehicle class in urban areas, which considers estimates by Delucchi and Hsu (31), Maibach et al. (56), and others. Motorcycle parking-space savings are evaluated using annual surface-parking cost estimates for urban locations from Litman (16). Each parking space is assumed to hold either one LDV or four motorcycles, as discussed earlier (15).
Finally, congestion costs between vehicle types are compared under the assumption that light trucks, passenger cars, and MCs hold unique PCE values. Kockelman and Shabih (57) estimated through-traffic PCE for small SUVs and pickups at 1.07 and 1.14, respectively, by measuring mean headways and delays for vehicle types departing congested intersections. Motorcycle PCE values were assumed at 0.5, as suggested by Yperman (17) and Maibach et al. (56). Congestion costs for each vehicle type are estimated for three levels of freeway congestion (v/c ratios of 0.7,
0.9, and 1.1), using a variation of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) link-performance equation and methods found in Lemp and Kockelman (49):
Motorcycles are estimated to provide sizable travel-time savings, similar to variations in the PCE values. While some congestion reduction can be expected by MCs’ more compact size, the actual PCE is a highly variable number, as Yperman (17) noted, shrinking as speeds decline, and possibly converging on zero in situations where MCs can “filter” in between lanes, such as in many high-density developing cities and perhaps places like California, where some riders pass stopped vehicles, along a lane stripe. PCE values are expected to increase (well beyond the 0.5 assumed here) when traffic speeds rise, since MCs are given more space by following vehicles (and have no reason to tailgate or regularly pass others under uncongested conditions).
Table 4 compares the above cost categories for passenger cars, light trucks, and four categories of motorcyclists, corresponding to relative rider skill, awareness of safety, and risk taking behavior. The first three categories – novice, average, and skilled – seek to represent the wide range of riders on the road, including those who defy average statistics by taking many precautions (e.g., wearing protective gear and taking training courses) or, conversely, neglecting such precautions and taking other risks (such as consuming alcohol before riding or driving recklessly). This range is represented by simply multiplying crash rates and thus costs by a factor of 0.5 for skilled riders and 1.5 for novice riders. While this range may extend further, to capture all types of riders, the +/- 50% scaling probably represents most riders.
Benefit-cost ratios were computed based on the costs and benefits of using a motorcycle, relative to driving a PC or LDT. Since MC costs exceed MC benefits under all but one of the 32
scenarios (4 congestion levels across 8 vehicle/rider types) considered in Table 4 (due to high crash costs), an additional B/C ratio, excluding crash costs, is included for comparison. Finally, Table 4 reports the MC crash rate (relative to PCs or LDTs) that would be required to move the B/C ratio (including crashes) to equal 1. This metric indicates at which crash crate MCs become more costly to society as a whole (including their owners’ costs) than their LDV counterparts. Crash costs (and B/C ratios which include crash costs) report values for both helmeted and non- helmeted riders, separated by a slash.
As Table 4 values suggest, motorcycles’ various benefits appear to be severely negated by added crash costs, which, even for the skilled (and helmeted) riders (who can arguably reduce their accident risk by 50%), never return B/C ratios greater than 1. The sole exception to this distinction is helmeted riders in severe congestion, who never crash on their own and are never at fault in a multi-vehicle collision; but even under these very optimistic conditions, the B/C ratio is over one only when MCs are compared to LDTs. While motorcyclists may enjoy some reduced parking and operating costs, these do little to offset the fact that most current MC models are likely to provide fewer lifetime miles of travel than the average LDV (which shelters its interior from rain and other environmental factors, serves more travel purposes [such as multi-person trips], and is crashed less often). Though motorcycles do show greater benefit in highly
congested situations, costs overshadow benefits when including crashes in all scenarios.
Depending on congestion conditions, MC crash costs must fall to a range of 0.8-2.2 or 1.8-3.6 times the crash costs of PCs and LDT, respectively, to become competitive with each vehicle type (i.e., provide a B/C ratio of 1.0, relative to the base LDV). With current MC crash costs 13
to 14.5 times greater than those of the average PC and LDT, MCs require substantial safety gains to improve competitiveness, with safety gains required not just to eliminate riders’ own mistakes, but those of drivers as well. However, with greatly reduced crash rates and improvements in
other areas (like emissions and noise), MCs may be able to reach (and surpass) benefits of LDVs. If emissions and noise costs were reduced to those of cars and LDTs, MCs’ total costs (ignoring crash cost differences) should be substantially lower than those of passenger cars (and far below those of LDTs, which are already more costly due to their higher sales prices).
It should also be noted that MCs may never become reasonable substitutes for LDVs, due to their demands on rider balance, coordination, and stamina, while exposing riders to the elements, including poor climatic conditions. Mannering (64) refers to a 50- to 60-mile commute on a MC an “excruciating ordeal” for most people, especially in heavy traffic or during unpleasant
weather.
This work conducts a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and costs of MC riding while exploring the characteristics, behaviors and attitudes of motorcycle riders, as well as factors that make individuals more likely to ride. Motorcyclists are at higher risk of crashing than passenger cars and light trucks, and the injury outcome is much more likely to be severe. At the same time, motorcycles have significant benefits for space savings, roadway capacity benefits and typically have superior fuel efficiency when compared to passenger cars and light trucks. Motorcycle life- cycle energy consumption is generally superior to SUVs and pickup trucks, though more consumptive than sedans. Motorcycle emissions profiles are also generally preferable for M gases, NOx, SO2 and particulate matter and less preferable for VOC and CO. Noise impacts are an issue with an inconsistent patchwork of regulation applied across states and localities.
The survey conducted in this investigation indicates most riders use their motorcycle for recreational purposes and ride in groups, though about half also use their motorcycle for functional purposes and about also 40% ride solo. Less than a third of the surveyed riding population received formal motorcycle training, though training rates appear to be increasing. Motorcycle helmet use appears lower among riders who currently ride but do not own their own motorcycle and motorcycle engine size appears to be increasing. Motorcycle rider respondents also showed strong support for policies that combat operating a vehicle under the influence.
In the motorcycle rider and ownership model, the most practically significant variables were male for all categories of motorcycle riders and the number of household vehicles for current motorcycle riders (both factors increasing likelihood), while the number of adults in a household was found to decrease the probability of current motorcycle ownership. The factors with the greatest impact on increasing riding frequency were riders who traveled for both functional and recreational purposes, and riders who had all their vehicles insured.
A benefit-cost analysis of switching from a PC or LDT to MC returned B-C ratios ranging from
0.07 to 0.59 when considering crash costs, and 0.91 to 3.22 when neglecting relative crash differences. While high MC crash rates do carry a high cost, even for the better/safer riders, lower vehicle lifespans and higher emissions and noise costs also limit MC values. The analyses also suggest that MC crash costs would have to fall to within 88% to 223% of PC rates and
181% to 369% of LDTs (rather than their present 1300% and 1450% levels [assuming 50% helmet use], respectively) to return B-C ratios of 1.0. While MCs’ benefit-cost ratios doubled between uncongested (v/c = 0.5) and severely congested (v/c = 1.1) cases, they remained below
1 in all cases, unless the added crash losses of switching to an MC were ignored.
When examined as a whole, this work provides transportation analysts, policymakers and decision makers with key insights to the benefits, costs and overall implications of motorcycle use, while illuminating factors common to different types of motorcycle riders and common traits among those who ride more frequently. Motorcycles may provide many benefits to some riders, but their high external costs and increased crash risks dramatically limit their social value as a primary travel mode and limit their effectiveness in addressing continuing transport concerns: congestion, safety, and air quality.
hth
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Thanks!
Do you know where I can get fork gaiters for one of them?
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Fizzer Thou |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Fizzer Thou
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:17 - 26 Mar 2014 Post subject: |
|
|
Now I have a headache 
____________________
Just talk bikes.What else is there?
Always have a 'Plan B' |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| yen_powell |
This post is not being displayed .
|
yen_powell
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| P.addy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P.addy
Red Rocket
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma :
|
Posted: 15:40 - 26 Mar 2014  Post subject: |
|
|
| Rogerborg wrote: | Do you know where I can get fork gaiters for one of them? |
Sure,
Ah, motorcycle forks...
Ninety nine years ago, Alfred Angas Scott released the 1908 Scott.
It had water cooling, a lightweight duplex frame, and a low centre of gravity. It also had telescopic forks.
Its roadholding was pronounced superb. The forks had no damping, so you can imagine what the competition handled like.
Scott never persevered with telescopic forks. Later models of his motorcycles had girder forks.
The 1934 Fisker & Nielsen Nimbus – the first hydraulically damped telescopic forks in the world
In 1934, the Danish vacuum cleaner company Fisker & Nielsen (makers of the Nilfisk vacuum cleaner) decided they would build a motorcycle. They called it the Nimbus. It had an oil damped telescopic fork up front, the first time such an item appeared on a motorcycle. Between 1934 and 1960, Fisker and Nielsen built 12,000 motorcycles. 4,000 of them are still running today.
One model had a 20mm anti-tank cannon mounted on a sidecar frame. It’s wasn’t the sort of motorcycle that people took off you.
BMW were impressed. They added telescopic forks to the R17 model they released the next year. And they made telescopic forks their standard front end for twenty years.
God knows why.
The 1935 BMW R17: BMW adopts the telescopic fork
Telescopic forks dive under brakes, upsetting the stability of the motorcycle. The suspension is under stress at this time and not only does it lose most of its travel, but it loses sensitivity to bumps as the fork tubes bind and static friction takes over. The front wheel is held at the bottom of two long levers which have a large amount of mechanical advantage over the steering head, so the frame starts to twist. To minimize frame twist you have to brace the steering head, which makes the motorcycle top heavy. And while they’re not as bad as girders, the wheelbase changes as the suspension reacts to bumps or weight transfer.
The Honda TRAC system: Honda’s anti-dive for telescopic forks
But, they’re cheap to make. And they look kind of cool — all sleek and self-contained, not like those girder forks with bits going everywhere. So the stylists love them. And you can get a fair bit of travel out of them without the wheelbase changing too much.
BMW were considered leaders in quality and reliability, and most of the rest of the world followed.
In 1955, BMW abandoned the telescopic fork. The rest of the world didn’t.
But, over the years, the rest of the world made a big effort to engineer around some of the telescopic fork’s shortcomings. The dive under brakes could be reduced by using progressive fork springs, so most forks ended up containing a pair. The forks could be pressurized with air, making the spring rate even more progressive.
In 1968, BMW started using telescopic forks again. In 1970, all their motorcycles had telescopic forks.
Kawasaki’s AVDS: right thinking people took them off and blocked the holes with bolts
In 1969, Honda introduced TRAC – Torque Reactive Antidive Control. The brake caliper pivoted on its mounting. When the brake was applied, it rotated around its pivot and pressed against a valve which cut oil flow and increased damping in the fork.
By the eighties, Kawasaki had AVDS – Automatic Variable Damping System. Hydraulic pressure from the brake hose was used to close damping valves under brakes. Yamaha and Suzuki had similar systems.
The problem with this approach was that increasing damping doesn’t prevent dive. It just slows it down. Road testers never seemed to rave about how heavy compression damping under brakes made the motorcycle better. And in fact, in the mid nineties, Yamaha put a feature on their motocrossers called BASS (Brake Actuated Suspension System) which REDUCED damping under brakes in order to combat wheel hop.
Motorcycles got faster and heavier, and the forks got thicker to control the flex inherent in them. Designers started bracing the fork above the front wheel. Steering heads got better braced. Superbikes used to have 19 inch front wheels. Designers went as low as 16 inches, allowing them to reduce the length of the fork and its ability to feed stresses into the frame.
The Saxon-Motodd system: BMW’s “Telelever”
The next big advance in telescopic forks came in the eighties. The British company Saxon-Motodd connected the above-wheel fork brace to the front of a pivoted wishbone via a ball joint, and connected a spring-damper unit to the wishbone.
This design fixed several of the conventional telescopic fork’s shortcomings. For a start, stresses were fed into the frame at widely separated points instead of into an over-stressed steering head. There was less variation in wheelbase as the suspension cycled. Unsprung weight was reduced. The system had natural anti-dive.
It also kind of looked like a conventional front end at first glance, so it wasn’t going to upset the conservatives too much.
BMW incorporated this into their 1994 model range and called it “Telelever”. It worked well.
Surprisingly, no other manufacturers have seen fit to copy this design. Not only that, but BMW have retained telescopic forks for their competition motorcycles. Despite their innate shortcomings, telescopic forks have had the world’s best design and engineering brains working on them for nearly a hundred years, and a well designed and manufactured telescopic fork works pretty damn well.
But, the telescopic fork is at the end of its development cycle. Pretty well everything that can be done to make a telescopic fork better has been done. There are several other suspension technologies that are at the beginning of THEIR development cycles.
Indian were one of the first motorcycle manufacturers in the world. They had to grapple with the problem of providing suspension to their motorcycles early in the piece, and they came up with the trailing link fork.
Indian persevered with this idea for decades.
A 2006 US postage stamp celebrates the 1940 Indian Four, a luxury superbike with a pair of forks terminating in pivots for the two short links which hold the front wheel. These pivots extend backwards from the fork to the wheel mounting, but also forwards from the fork to join with a U-shaped arm which connects to a leaf spring jutting out from the bottom of the steering head.
The 1940 Indian Four: 1265cc of USA luxury
Earlier versions of Indian’s front end had spawned a notable imitator.
Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I, Germany was forced to abandon its air force. This was bad news for the aircraft engine manufacturer Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, and they desperately looked for alternative products to manufacture. They tried agricultural implements, furniture, and toolboxes; and then decided to turn their engine building skills to motorcycles. Their first motorcycle, the Flink, went on the market in 1920.
It was not a success.
In 1921, they put their second model, the Helios, to market. It didn’t sell well, either.
These two models were placeholders while BMW’s chief engineer Max Friz got his piéce de résistance ready for market.
BMW’s R32: their first sales success
The 1923 R32 had a 494cc flat-twin two-cylinder side-valve ‘boxer’ engine, an exposed driveshaft final drive, and a three-speed transmission. It had no front brake, but it had a big disk on the rear wheel, and pressing the brake pedal pushed wooden blocks against it. The chassis had a rigid tubular-frame with sprung seat, and it had trailing link cantilever suspension, just like the big company in America made.
BMW manufactured the R32 for three years, selling over 1,000 a year on the average; no mean feat in the hyper-inflated mess that was the economy of post-war Germany’s Weimar Republic.
Trailing link forks seemed to die with Indian, but they re-appeared recently on a power cruiser manufactured by, surprisingly, Honda.
The Honda Rune has a large pair of forks which look as though they telescope but, in fact, don’t. The forks terminate in pivots for the trailing arms, at the end of which is the front axle. Halfway along the trailing arms, they are connected to a U-shaped arm which conveys movement to the suspension – a pair of shock/spring assemblies mounted up near the steering head.
It separates suspension and braking forces, which many believe is a Good Thing.
The Honda Rune: trailing link in the 21st century
It looks trick, but it provides less than 100mm of suspension travel – about 30% less than most street bikes. But then, how much suspension travel do you need to ride on freeways?
The other way of adding suspension to the lower end of a set of forks was to let the wheel lead, rather than trail, the fork.
With the advent of one-piece spring/damper units, the leading link fork became a reasonable alternative. One of the most famous racing motorcycles of all time, the Moto Guzzi V8, had leading link forks. The spring/damper units were mounted close and parallel to the forks. A triangular bracket welded to the rear of the fork mounted the pivot for the links.
The Guzzi 500 V8 never went for long enough for someone to complain about its handling. It had the usual limited travel of leading link forks, but it tended to race on nice smooth tracks, so it didn’t matter a lot.
The 1957 Guzzi V8 GP racer: leading link front suspension
A few years later, one of the biggest selling motorcycles of all time sported a leading link setup, too: the Honda 50 step-through. And my own first motorcycle, purchased in bits at the age of fifteen, had leading link forks and was a Honda as well: the 305cc C77 (the engine was used as a template by Laverda to build their first 750 twin).
At the time I bought my C77, I was not old enough to ride on the road. It made a poor bush-basher.
The trouble with leading link (and indeed trailing link) is that the links are independent. Look at the picture of the Guzzi. If the springs are slightly mismatched, the front wheel will twist during suspension travel and go out of alignment to the rear wheel.
This problem was recognised many years earlier, and solved by an English engineer called Ernest Earles. His solution was to make a rigid swingarm to hold the front wheel. In order to make it rigid, it had to be pivoted BEHIND the wheel, so the fork bent back at a severe angle.
BMW caught on to Earles’s design, abandoned the engineering abomination of telescopic forks, and started fitting Earles forks to the front of their machines in 1955.
The Earles fork: strong yet heavy, but the natural anti-dive made up for a lot
While heavy in terms of the reciprocating mass of the entire front end, the Earles fork was reasonably rigid and the unsprung weight was reasonably low. It still had a large front end to twist a small steering head, but it also had natural anti-dive built into the geometry. The swingarm was pointed slightly down – under brakes the motorcycle would try to go over the top of it and it would extend the suspension rather than compressing it. This was good for BMW riders, as their engines stuck out the side a long way, and would hit the ground if you applied the brakes while leaned over.
Earles’s design had the other advantage that suspension travel could be quite long with minimal variation in wheelbase.
In 1961 Husqvarna entered several bikes in the Coupe d’Europe. Their leading link-forked model came fourth. Their tele-forked model came first.
BMW discontinued Earles forks after 1970, as fashion dictated the return of the telescopic fork. The last blast for leading link forks was during the 1970s, and was mostly on dirt bikes. There was a small Spanish bike called El Gato, a few Greeves’, a Hagglund military motorcycle, a CZ 125. A Zundapp, from memory, as well.
Husqvarna’s 4th place winner in the 1961 Coupe d’Europe
In racing, they didn’t acquit themselves exceptionally badly. Neither did they acquit themselves exceptionally well.
And they just went out of fashion. Telescopic forks were easier to style, and while the brakes got in the way of steering and suspension, teles had been around since the 1930s. Over the years some pretty good engineers had applied themselves to the telescopic fork’s shortcomings. And a well designed telescopic fork made to close tolerances, mounted in a strong frame and looked after could provide formidable performance.
The next big development in suspension wouldn’t come until the late 1970s. And it wouldn’t be picked up by a big manufacturer for another thirty years.
tl;dr
You could try Proline Sports |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 12 years, 188 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.71 Sec - Server Load: 0.93 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 249.46 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating