Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » The Lighter Side » Bike related Non-Hornet Discussion




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
Hornet Lord
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:02 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Somerset
I've just caught wind of the impending ULEZ for London.

It actually effects motorcycles now, anything which is not at least Euro3 (2007 onwards) has to pay £12.50 a day to ride central London.

Residents are being given a little extra time to change vehicles but commuters will be hit from 8th April onwards.

I'd expect there to be glut of pre-2007 bikes for sale around now/soon, both in and around London.
Might have to raid the piggy bank... :angel

I guess the small/independent bike shops in London will be super keen to unload their older stock too, locals won't be interested and after this date they'll have to charge you if you want to take a test ride... that is unless the traders have also been given resident dispensation.

BTW - Also effects cars too. Euro 4 for Petrol, Euro 6 for diesel.
And vans too...The fee is £100 for vans older than Euro 6, so expect a load of cheap vans too.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:29 pm 
Offline
Johnny English

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 1435
Location: Somerset
im after a fireblade , nice RR06 model please :angel

_________________
919


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
It's bang out of order hitting bikes like that - especially people who are commuting for work - bikes don't sit in traffic churning out fumes - bikes keep moving through the traffic and their commute times are much shorter (and therefore pollution produced much smaller) than cars as a result - what with humungous property prices and rent etc they are in serious danger of turning the capital into a ghost town full of empty properties owned by foreign speculators - working people and companies are already locating out of London because costs are too high.

BTW I'm also after a 06RR fireblade - definitely the one to have.

Saw an 06 going for 2,700 the other day - has 32k on the clock and which (if the bike is kosher) is a proper bargain seeing as most 06's are going for 4/4.5k.

I would buy it but I haven't finished rebuilding my Hornet yet and I want to concentrate on that before I start thinking about other bikes.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:15 pm 
Offline
Hornet Lord

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:39 am
Posts: 569
Location: Coventry/Sometimes Blackburn
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra- ... ecker-ulez

Fortunately or unfortunately, its not all pre 07 bikes that are now subject to charges.

That site says my F3 is exempt from the charges.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:09 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Dammit - my F4i is subject to the charge.

So basically the only people who can afford to drive or ride around London now are the ones who can afford the latest vehicles?

Why don't they just stop p*ssing about and call it Monaco on Thames? :Bang


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:41 pm 
Offline
Hornet Lord
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:02 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Somerset
Yeh, I said '07 onwards to give some age perspective but it's whether the bike meets Euro 3 emissions standard that is the deciding factor.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline
Hornet Baby
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:39 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Lower Saxony, Germany
So London will be the city of pedestrians and rich people from now on?
I do not own ANY bike with Euro 3 or more. If this would happen here, I would ignore the city and keep well clear of the rich men's zone.

My car is from 1991, and it has this sticker on the boot lid:

Image

That's all I have to say about that...

_________________
Cheers,
Michael

1998 CB600F PC34
2003 CB900F SC48
2001 CB500S PC32
1981 XL185S L185S


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:22 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Great sticker :angel

They are also forgetting the environmental impact of replacing older vehicles with new ones - the environmental/resource impact of purchasing a new car or motorcycle (even an electric one) every few years is far greater than maintaining a single car or motorcycle for 20 or 30 years!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
Darwin Award winner 2016
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 1178
I shared this thread on the VFR forum... is kind of worrying.

MOT motorcycle emission testing will be next... anyone regret removing there pair valve assembly? (I doubt it did enough anyway)

It looks like the days of riding older bikes are numbered.

_________________
60th cog in the Gear Driven Cam Appreciation Society.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
Hornet Baby
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:39 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Lower Saxony, Germany
@HOON 98: Right. Plus, after a couple of years (8? 10?) the batteries are toxic waste. At this moment, your environment-friendly vehicle is worthless as the batteries are the most expensive part of it. So, we have to expect a huge amount of toxics in the future.

Take my bikes for example. A 2003 Hornet, as good as new, 12,000mls. A 1998 Hornet, same condition, 6,500mls. A 2001 CB500S, showroom condition, 8,000mls. And an old 1981 XL185S commuter, really good, 7,000 mls. Should I scrap them and go for some new stuff because none of them is an Euro 3 bike? Doing 3,500mls a year with all those bikes together? They must be kidding.

Or my car. A 1991 Audi 80 (called 'Fox' in the USA) which has done 60,000mls in 27 years. No oil consumption at all, 7,5 litres per 100 km. This car will last longer than any evironment-friendly junk running with nuclear power.

Yes, electric power may be interesting some day. But today is not 'some day' as the problems with that kind of energy are NOT solved yet. And it is NOT 'protecting the environment' if you litter all those great running vehicles out there and produce new ones. This technological milestone needs TIME. It needs some politicians that wait for the engineers instead of telling them what to invent and when. And whatever happens: it is my decision whether the vehicle's end of lifetime is reached or not. This is not the goverment's task.

_________________
Cheers,
Michael

1998 CB600F PC34
2003 CB900F SC48
2001 CB500S PC32
1981 XL185S L185S


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline
Hornet Lord

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:39 am
Posts: 569
Location: Coventry/Sometimes Blackburn
Flyingbrick wrote:
@HOON 98: Right. Plus, after a couple of years (8? 10?) the batteries are toxic waste. At this moment, your environment-friendly vehicle is worthless as the batteries are the most expensive part of it. So, we have to expect a huge amount of toxics in the future.

Take my bikes for example. A 2003 Hornet, as good as new, 12,000mls. A 1998 Hornet, same condition, 6,500mls. A 2001 CB500S, showroom condition, 8,000mls. And an old 1981 XL185S commuter, really good, 7,000 mls. Should I scrap them and go for some new stuff because none of them is an Euro 3 bike? Doing 3,500mls a year with all those bikes together? They must be kidding.

Or my car. A 1991 Audi 80 (called 'Fox' in the USA) which has done 60,000mls in 27 years. No oil consumption at all, 7,5 litres per 100 km. This car will last longer than any evironment-friendly junk running with nuclear power.

Yes, electric power may be interesting some day. But today is not 'some day' as the problems with that kind of energy are NOT solved yet. And it is NOT 'protecting the environment' if you litter all those great running vehicles out there and produce new ones. This technological milestone needs TIME. It needs some politicians that wait for the engineers instead of telling them what to invent and when. And whatever happens: it is my decision whether the vehicle's end of lifetime is reached or not. This is not the goverment's task.

I largely agree with you.

Only thing I'll say is that the automotive sector is still profit and revenue driven. If the governments didn't force automotive companies to improve their emissions, nothing would actually improve emissions-wise. I do agree that politicians should be listening to engineers and understanding the science a bit more.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:05 pm 
Offline
Hornet Baby
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:39 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Lower Saxony, Germany
Take the "diesel affair" for example. What happened? The German Government forced the industry to improve the emissions. They told them to build cars that comply with Euro standards while running on an dynamometer.

And guess what, they did. What a pity, that did not had any effort on the road (as well as the fuel consumption does). But it fits the norm.
The trick was that the central unit recognized the test bench.

An affair, discovered by the United States. Don't tell me that a government, protecting their own industry, building gas guzzlers with 7 litres of displacement, is REALLY interested in the environment and the car exhausts. The american buyers got a compensation because everyone choosed the car by the CO output. What???

But now the government is concerned because the industry has to build cars that fit the norm on the road, not only at the bench. They want new, they want better, they want no emissions at all, That's fine for the next election. But you can't divide the emissions in halves every year.

In Hanover, where I live (well, in the vicinity), the mayor wants to get rid of any car that does not comply with at least Euro 4 and, from 2019 on, Euro 5. So, you will be not allowed to enter the "environment protection area" with a car elder than 2015, in some cases 2016. You bought an expensive car only two or three years ago and they're trying to keep you from using it. Are they nuts?

_________________
Cheers,
Michael

1998 CB600F PC34
2003 CB900F SC48
2001 CB500S PC32
1981 XL185S L185S


Last edited by Flyingbrick on Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Quote:
I shared this thread on the VFR forum... is kind of worrying.


I can't see the post Biggabit - it says you have to be logged in to view it.

Quote:
MOT motorcycle emission testing will be next... anyone regret removing there pair valve assembly? (I doubt it did enough anyway)

It looks like the days of riding older bikes are numbered.


That is a cause for concern!!! Surely not - we make up such a small number of the vehicles on the road - if you counted up the people riding 20 year old bikes you are only talking about a few thousand machines, many are only ridden occassionaly anyway - it would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut - it would also mean banning classic cars and I can't see how they could justify that? I guess the fact that it's still not illegal to ride an old school 500cc 2 stroke (which has to be really polluting) is encouraging?

Quote:
Flyingbrick; Plus, after a couple of years (8? 10?) the batteries are toxic waste. At this moment, your environment-friendly vehicle is worthless as the batteries are the most expensive part of it. So, we have to expect a huge amount of toxics in the future.


Yes - excellent point, some of the metals they use in the construction of these batteries are relatively rare and expensive - which means high costs and finite material resources.

Quote:
Take my bikes for example. A 2003 Hornet, as good as new, 12,000mls. A 1998 Hornet, same condition, 6,500mls. A 2001 CB500S, showroom condition, 8,000mls. And an old 1981 XL185S commuter, really good, 7,000 mls. Should I scrap them and go for some new stuff because none of them is an Euro 3 bike? Doing 3,500mls a year with all those bikes together? They must be kidding.


I agree, I can't see how they could justify such drastic action against motorcycles which are the smallest, least congestion inducing vehicles on the road - they could make a rational case for eliminating larger 4WD vehicles with enormous engines that spend a lot of time stationery in traffic james belching out fumes - but not motorcycles.

Quote:
it is my decision whether the vehicle's end of lifetime is reached or not. This is not the goverment's task.



Yes absolutely - we have to ram home the point that hanging onto and maintaining our older vehicles represents significantly less environmental impact and cost than having to scrap them and have a new vehicle made to replace them.

Quote:
anz243k; Only thing I'll say is that the automotive sector is still profit and revenue driven. If the governments didn't force automotive companies to improve their emissions, nothing would actually improve emissions-wise.


I have no problem with improvements in efficiency and emissions etc - but they should not penalise the owners of older vehicles - particularly a minority running relatively small, light vehicles like motorcycles which cause negligible environmental impact.

Quote:
In Hanover, where I live (well, in the vicinity), the mayor wants to get rid of any car that does not fit at least Euro 4 and, from 2019 on, Euro 5. So, you will be not allowed to enter the "environment protection area" with a car elder than 2015, in some cases 2016. You bought an expensive car only two or three years ago and they're trying to keep you from using it. Are they nuts?


Yes - this is a totally unreasonable approach to the issue - they should allow these cars to reach the end of their natural mechanical lifespan when the cost of replacing major components cannot be justified and the car is scrapped - those cars that survive into classic status are likely to be owned by a relatively small number of enthusiast DIY mechanics who are able to keep them running and who will represent a negligible source of pollution.

If we want to hang onto our vehicles it's important that we organise and band together in order to make our case to legislators - otherwise we will wake up one day and find out that a bunch of clueless green fanatics has taken us off the road . . . :halt


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:08 pm 
Offline
Hornet Lord
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:02 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Somerset
However...

ULEZ is about clean air only, not full environmental impact.
I tend to agree that where you have a high concentration of people living and working you should have more strict regulation on all forms of pollution. ULEZ is at least localised, for now...

With respect to bikes vs cars, bikes are often more polluting than an average car and sports bikes often do less mpg too.
I know at my household, both the thirstiest and the most effieceint vehicles are motorcycles, and my car is a van!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:26 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Quote:
ULEZ is about clean air only, not full environmental impact.
I tend to agree that where you have a high concentration of people living and working you should have more strict regulation on all forms of pollution. ULEZ is at least localised, for now...


Yeah, I can cope with regulations in urban areas - but forced scrappages are a step too far.

Quote:
With respect to bikes vs cars, bikes are often more polluting than an average car


Yeah - I'm sure that's true on paper - but I'm willing to bet that I produced less pollution on my 20 year old 1000cc Yamaha YZF on my commute into the centre of London than people doing similar journeys in modern cars - the main reason being that my Journey was half or three quarters the length of a car doing the same journey, plus I was hardly ever crawling along or sat stationery in traffic with the engine in it's most inefficient, polluting mode.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:30 pm 
Offline
Darwin Award winner 2016
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 1178
HOON98 wrote:
Quote:
I shared this thread on the VFR forum... is kind of worrying.


Quote:
I can't see the post Biggabit - it says you have to be logged in to view it.


Sorry mate wasn't aware... basically expect this to be rolled out everywhere

Post 23

Sooner than you think by the looks of things


....from last Thursdays Birmingham evening mail..


Image

_________________
60th cog in the Gear Driven Cam Appreciation Society.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:43 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Cheers Biggabit :D

As motorcyclists we need to band together and fight our corner on this - it's not as if we don't have some good, solid, rational arguments on our side - e.g. there are only a few thousand of us, and historically we are responsible for less pollution and congestion than any other type of vehicle - applying this kind of treatment to us lot would be totally disproportionate and unfair.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:25 pm 
Offline
Darwin Award winner 2016
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 1178
[quote="HOON98"]Cheers Biggabit :D

As motorcyclists we need to band together and fight our corner on this - it's not as if we don't have some good, solid, rational arguments on our side - e.g. there are only a few thousand of us, and historically we are responsible for less pollution and congestion than any other type of vehicle - applying this kind of treatment to us lot would be totally disproportionate and unfair.[/quote]

The trouble is where there's revenue to be made...

Last couple of posts.

By introducing a pollution tax many commuters would be unable to pay £50-£60 per week in order to get to work. As there are no alternative cost effective transport available then many would simply stop working as these additional costs could not be justified or paid on received current wages. Many additional taxes are being levied in all people whether they earn an income, receive pensions or any other type of benefits to assist them in day to day living expenses. Could you justify/afford an additional £2400 (£60 * 40 weeks) pounds expenditure just to commute to your work? and that does not include the extra 2 hours daily travel time trying to use available public transport - if the system does not collapse first with the increase in passenger numbers. Where is these campaigners logical thinking??

But people won't stop working
And as you say it is another form of taxation.

The interesting point for me will be if government reduce their contribution to the council's citing increased revenues from other sources.

Will we then have arrived arrived at a local income tax scheme by stealth - at least in part?

_________________
60th cog in the Gear Driven Cam Appreciation Society.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:48 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Yeah, sounds like another stealth tax

This is a good point;

Quote:
By introducing a pollution tax many commuters would be unable to pay £50-£60 per week in order to get to work. As there are no alternative cost effective transport available then many would simply stop working as these additional costs could not be justified


With all the costs people are having piled upon them these days in the form of high housing costs, extortionate rail fares etc imposing even more costs in the form of pollution taxes such as these could be the straw that breaks the camel's back - the capitalist system that delivered genuine possibilities of material and social advancement in the post war years is no longer delivering these incentives for hard work and enterprise to enough people enough of the time, and consequently a sizeable section of the (younger) population are seriously questioning the point of exerting themselves in a system that increasingly appears to be rigged against them.

I've got a lot of sympathy for green/environmental causes but in the case of pollution legislation I think they need to be a little more nuanced - putting motorcyclists - a small minority riding small vehicles who do not contribute to congestion - in the same class as the multitude of drivers of large 4wd vehicles clogging roads all over the country is unfair.

I mean - how often do you pass another bike when you go out for a ride - we are such a tiny (and relatively benevolent) minority it's ridiculous putting us in the same category as someone driving a Range Rover.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:11 am 
Offline
Hornet Lord
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:02 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Somerset
It won't be rolled out everywhere.

That newspaper article is just showing that some tree huggers in Birmingham have a petition, big whup.. :finger

Our government just don't work that way. The ULEZ zone is an EU initiative, and thankfully should be one of the last ones that we hear about.
That kind of action is not the British way, if it were then all classic vehicles would already have been banned. We are much more moderate & reasonable country, and very soon we will be allowed to be again.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline
True Horneteer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 am
Posts: 1600
Location: In The Garage
Quote:
It won't be rolled out everywhere.


I hope so - so many bikes out there - so little time to enjoy them all. :D


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

Board index » The Lighter Side » Bike related Non-Hornet Discussion


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
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

Search for:
Jump to: