18's sure look to have the right parts.

JP4 said:
They're maxing fuel efficiency for profitability, not emissions reductions.

I wonder what emission controls are forced upon commercial aircraft jet engine manufacturers? I suspect none.

I'm also curious as to the amount of emissions produced by one 787 transatlantic flight versus a year's worth of emissions for all 2-t off-road bikes in Europe and the Americas.

It seems the international technocrats pick and choose who emission reductions apply to. Illogical madness I say.

Rant over, back to your scheduled programming ...
Click to expand...
That was what I was getting at. We may be burning dirtier per gallon, but per year probably produce fewer tones of carbon than one intercontinental flight
 
pscook said:
I can say that airlines are squeezing every single percent out of their current fleets. The higher the price of fuel, the higher the price of travel. This is why the 787, 777X, 737Max as well as new and updated Airbus models are being designed and sold. Boeing recently released an improvement package that provides 2% fuel burn per seat on the 777, and it is a big deal.
[/IMG]
Click to expand...

Getting the most out of fuel typically increases emissions. Not the other way around. The problem isn't just unburnt fuel. IIRC as fuel is burnt it produces oxides of nitrogen. This mean the more fuel is burnt the more it produces these specific emissions. One study I've read found that by decreasing efficiency by 1% in a coal fired boiler, NOx dropped by 20-60 percent. I realize we don't all burn coal in our dirtbikes or airplanes. But clearly getting the most power out of an engine of any kind will result in higher emissions. Not lower.

Obviously this means that airlines would much rather reduce fuel consumption by providing higher burn rates to get the most out of the fuel they are carrying. Not carry more fuel to get the same distance and lower emissions.

This is all really way over my head. But I'm pretty sure I've got that right. Feel free to call me out if you are smarter than me. You probably are. :D
 
A German dealer put the 18' in a scale, 107,8kg with Twinwall handle bar and reinforced cluch cover, ready to ride but without gas


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
 
If the new bike is still that robust and reliable as the old ones, I don't care about a few pounds....


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
 
Tech51 said:
So 15+ heaver than a 17 300xc and 9,500 if the price stays @ 8490
Click to expand...
KTMs that are actually ready to ride are all around 250 lbs or so. Even more, once you start adding armour, etc.. They're not as light as some would try to have you believe.
 
3beejay3 said:
KTMs that are actually ready to ride are all around 250 lbs or so. Even more, once you start adding armour, etc.. They're not as light as some would try to have you believe.
Click to expand...



2017 husky tx300 - 243.7
skid guard
hand guards
linkage guard
tubliss
enduro engineering rotor guard
Full of fuel ready to ride.

As far as I'm concerned within 10-15 lbs difference is in the ballpark.

I'd be very pleased with 250
 
Tech51 said:
So 15+ heaver than a 17 300xc and 9,500 if the price stays @ 8490
Click to expand...

Who here would pay $9,500 USD for a 2-stroke? That's ~$1,000 more than Beta and $300+ more than Husqvarna, right? Is there typically a straight conversion from EUR to USD for new bikes?
 
Beta--------------------------------------------GG
8190 euro = 9156.67 in USD right now and 8490 euro = 9492.07 in USD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

webmaster
Forum Resource Manager for manuals, etc.
Replies
2
Views
104
webmaster
webmaster
SS109
Tusk Talon 120/90-18 Rear Tire
Replies
1
Views
1K
farmerj
farmerj
F
Damaged cylinder plating
Replies
4
Views
48
(F5)
(F5)
SS109
How To: Night Ride Course Markers
Replies
0
Views
2K
SS109
SS109
SS109
Fieldline Surge Tactical Hydration Backpack
Replies
0
Views
3K
SS109
SS109
Back
Top