What's More Environmentally Friendly? | MythBusters | Season 8 Episode 12 | Full Episode
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- Does riding a motorcycle contribute less to air pollution than driving a car for the same period?
Using science as a tool, Hollywood special effects experts attempt to debunk rumours, urban legends and popular myths that have captivated the minds of many individuals.
#MythBusters #FactOrFiction - บันเทิง
- Were you ever a kid?
- No.
I love Jamie 😆
First RPG I don't remember roll playing games on mythbusters
It’s the other kind of RPG… The one that fires rockets!
@@matthewlo7868 nothing gets past captain obvious
16:42
Be careful not to confuse them at home or you'll need a new play group in less than a second.
@@apawhiteTechnically, if someone is using it literally at home, they most likely don't have to worry about that because they're probably going to join the old friend group.
Its so fun to see Jamie actually get excited at something
most environmentally friendly? train + bike combo, nothing will beat that except big oil.
Hell yeah brother!!! Public transit is the best!!!!!
Indeed, also a boon to the wallet. Retired before 50 riding a bicycle. I learned at UT/Austin in Micro economics the average household spends far more on their transport than their home mortgage. I could quickly pay off my home mortgage (my only loan in life/tax deductible) increase my pension quickly , save for kids Uni and retire early. I also got a job in the Netherlands so my bike was paid by work, and every km ridden I received same tax free money as car drivers received. Good for the wallet, environment and mind/body.
@@DivineBearFalcon Usually in the Netherlands you don't get a bike from work cause they assume you have your own.
Worth noting, now that a lot of motorbikes are 4 strokes (just like cars) you would expect the emission profile to be the same if you bought a 4 stroke bike. Which means the motorbikes should be massively better on all metrics because they burn so little fuel. However I think there's still a fair number of 2 strokes on the market, plus most secondhand bikes will be 2 strokes.
2 stroke engines are delightfully simple (and light, helpful for motorbikes) machines, there's a reason that they were used for everything except cars (from outboard engines to chainsaws). But they overlap what would be the intake and exhaust strokes of a 4 stroke engine by design. Which means there's much more unburnt fuel going out the exhaust. Add to this the subpar compression and you get a lot of nitrous oxides, carbon monoxides, and hydrocarbons coming out the tailpipe, which are all a product of incomplete combustion. The unburnt fuel in particular is sometimes an issue in parks, where motorbikes (alongside ATVs and similar vehicles) are starting to face some restrictions on where they can ride, as it could be a wildfire risk.
I don't think they would have been silly enough to pick 2-stroke bikes for this exercise... it would have been completely hopeless with one of those little stinkers from the get-go, with unburnt hydrocarbons being off the charts. You can trust your nose on that one!
I can't help but think that bikes seem to be substantially hampered by low systems complexity brought about by space and weight constraints. The "new bike" seems to have been rather worse at cleaning up its exhaust than the "00s bike" with more emissions despite much lower fuel consumption.
do you realize this episode was aired in 2010, 14 years ago?
Err it’s worth noting that all the bikes in the video were 4 stroke.
And unless you’re in a country where it’s almost exclusively 50 or 125cc bikes the majority of used bikes are 4 stroke. For decades the only new 2 strokes were like single cylinder off road bikes or 50cc mopeds.
Most of the 2 stroke motorcycles died off in the 70’s!!!
Almost all road bikes have been 4 strokes for the past 50 years. But with regards to air pollution, they will be worse then cars. This is due to their optimization for small size, low weight, and high performance. Automobile engines have more headroom to implement features that reduce pollution - and it is mandated by law. Just look at the size of the catalytic converters on bikes vs cars. Cars now have multiple catalytic converts, multiple oxygen sensors, and a pile of other tech that results in cleaner operations. But while cars might be cleaner bikes will consume less fuel so, from a CO2 perspective, bikes are less harmful.
I feel that is somewhere where government regulations need to step in. Maybe banning or at least restricting the use of 2 stroke engines.
Damn, Adam has some pipes on him
RPG 7 does have thermobaric and anti personnel frag warheads as well, sadly won't ever be able to put that to the team
I believe they were not super accurate with RPG ammunition choice. It's no use firing at a human with HEAT warhead, as it clearly does not produce very much pressure and shrapnel, there are anti-personnel warheads with just high explosive charge for that purpose. Both of them would probably be dead in that case.
Nevertheless, what a spectacular episode it was. I miss mythbusters so much.
Not likely. Anti-personal weapons are usually designed to have as small a damage area as possible. A hand grenade is designed to have very low penetration power so that you can throw it into a room and a simple wall will protect you.
Well, you can't directly compare anti-personnel ammunition designed for indoor and for field usage. RPG ammo is definitely the latter, and it certainly has greater blast radius. After all shooter must stay at least 60 ft away from his target, if he wants the rocket to become armed as we learned from the episode.
But never mind, I have checked myself again, and found that frag rocket has a very distinctive shape, it's just a tube with no conical liner. So "they" in my first comment should probably go to the Hollywood rather than mythbusters. How (un)surprising.
Mythbusters was my only reason to watch Discovery Channel.
The car vs. motorbike data is giving some mixed signals. Here's my take on some of the phenomena seen:
1. The 2000s car (obviously a Ford of some description) seems to have a very efficient catalytic converter setup (possibly integrated into the exhaust manifold as common these days) while being run fairly rich, which brings down HC emissions and generates barely any NOx though obviously at the expense of mediocre fuel mileage.
2. The 80s car may have been using one of these "lean burn" affairs which were all the rage back then. Hence decent fuel efficiency but NOxtastic as burning lean increases temperatures and NOx generation.
3. The '90s Accord suffers a bit from being biased more towards fuel efficiency (so more NOx than the newer model) as well as an old-style catalytic converter setup that places it relatively far from the engine still.
4. Seeing the most unburnt HC among cars in the 80s model is not surprising, it would tend to have the most piston and piston ring wear, and who knows what condition the valve stem seals would have been in.
5. I reckon the '80s bike was a bit of an oil burner (possible reasons see above). It's about the only explanation for the combination of high HC and NOx and decent fuel mileage I can think of. It might also have been suffering from poor fuel atomization in the carb though. No cat, obviously.
6. The '90s bike seems to have been running fairly rich, reducing NOx in favor of more CO and unburnt HC.
7. The '00s bike probably ran even richer (hence lower mileage and lower NOx) but had a cat to keep CO and HC at bay.
8. The modern bike's cat doesn't seem to have been terribly effective.
My impression is that bikes tend to be space and weight constrained and favoring older, mature technology and lower complexity. They don't sell in the same numbers either. In sum this gives car manufacturers a lot more leverage in fueling and exhaust cleanup facilities, engine control and ECU programming. A good kick in the rear end by applicable emissions standards also provides the necessary motivation (well... or at least the motivation to cheat, as exemplified by Dieselgate).
Hey great analysis 👍 yeah the 2000’s sports bike has probably the most precise but rich fuel map for peak power but has the longest exhaust out of all the models with probably the biggest and cleanest cat which most resembles one that can be found on a car ( can’t remember if this model even had separate muffler and cat)
But yeah the new single cylinder bike probably has its catalytic converter placed wherever the engineer found any space and is as small as possible whilst still passing the norm for its class when new….
The motorbike improvement is only on the aerodynamics, the real culprit is the engine itself, Adam & Jamie should have done something about this.
I agree, but it would have probably taken a lot of production time...
This was clearly scam episode prepaid by the doomsday cult of climate change. Since they had to go infront of scumbama in white house the show went downhill.
the cat is most likely the cause for the reduction in emissions. if they would put a mini cat onto the bikes, it would change drastically.
Just a cat on its own doesn’t help much. I’m pretty sure the 2000’s bike had a catalytic converter but they’re always a generation or two behind compared to cars.
On top of that most bikes have engines tuned for performance. Typically with short stroke high lift cams and richer fuel mapping. There have been super efficient motorcycle engines one being from Honda which was basically a 1,3 litre 4 cylinder Honda jazz cut in half making a very low power but smooth and torquey twin with excellent mileage and emissions compared to similar models. They could have chosen a certain model of bike and changed cam timings gearing mapping etc but then it kind of leaves the scope of mythbusters.
But remember: they’re special effects specialists, not engineers; I think that might be a bit outside of the scope of their knowledge and skill sets.
I swear, Adam Savage is my spirit animal.
At 46:20, there's a single frame where the shape charge spans from the acrylic to outside the frame. Goes to show how stupidly fast these are.
4:07 no i do not know what its like to get my car smogged 😂
Should also have looked at the emissions and fuel consumption per passenger.
Because all of the tested cars look like they could seat 4 people. where as fitting two people n the motorcycles tested might already be pushing it for some of them.
So if you can fill your car with friends, family or coworkers, they'd be better than bikes even in fuel consumption and CO2 per person moved from a to b.
The real myth is the scam the doomsday cult of climate change is pushing. CO2 is not pollution, it's as important as oxygen and water. No CO2 = no food = no life
7:17 sometimes it's very obvious that Adam is nuts. Completely nuts 😂
"What's more environmentally friendly"? not building roads and streets for cucumbers cucumbering around in their automobile cars.
but it's funny to see that the MB team got brainwashed like everyone (mfdo) else in america. "It's more economical to burn gas instead of gas!!1"
And as soon as you want to carry a second Person and luggage, one bike is not enough.
Your exhaust on the bike with the water drop design is inside the bubble, isnt this kinda dangerous considering the gas cant really escape and you are sitting inside?
Nice mythbusting guys ❤️❤️❤️
It's funny that most of their bikes were passing California emission standards, except they aren't tested for registration.
Presently, in some countries the enviromentally friendly vehicle are complying or surpassing the more stringent European emission standards (such as Euro6), or California's zero-emissions vehicle standards (such as ZEV, ULEV, SULEV, PZEV), or the low-carbon fuel standards enacted in several countries.
All i know is that my 650 bike used more fuel than my hybrid....not to mention carrying 1 person.
Agreed 👍 The second bit should've at least been mentioned in the episode imo.
Even if (when you try hard enough) you can make the argument that its at least less polluting in _SOME_ ways, you lose 3 seats and some storage space, while filling those will make the car pollute a bit more because its moving more weight, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as 4-5 motorcycles.
16:55
I wonder if there are also recoilless rifles that don't have a shape charge. That are essential grenade launchers that fire in a straight line.
Hey! Lol! It's clearly my Bike.
A Yamaha WR250R.
No! It's not fast.
Yes!It's Fun lol
In the movie "Until the End of the World" bu Wim Wenders, there is a scene with a couple of police motorcycles which look a lot like the modified bike in this episode. Not an exact match, but fairly close.
Because it's all paid by wef and the doomsday cult of climate change to push their scam
15:55
This is when the idea of a "carbon footprint" was still widely believed. Today most know that it is nonsense, if you don't have a private jet your carbon footprint is negligible and most pollution comes from corporations.
Seriously. You checked the % of toxins, but did you, bother to multiply by the volume of output. That is to say the "pollution = % of toxins × volume output." (p = t% × o) not (p = t%) Hello, mathematics required.
They clearly did that - the numbers in the presentation are all grams/mile.
Thats a total polloution measure, not a relative one.
The percentages you're referncing are comparisons between the bikes and the cars.
@neshirst-ashuach1881 , a relative number would actually mean more. Because there is a big difference between the pollution made by a small single cylinder fuel injected 4stroke made after 2003, as modern motorcycles DO have catalytic converters, the same as a car, since 2003 and are subject to the same standard tests, by law now... And a big pre 2003, 4 cylinder, 4 carby sports bike like I ride, or a husky cr 500 2 stroke like I ride on week ends. My bikes are totally bad for the enviroment, but small modern bikes are not. In fact there is nothing in common between them. A comparison would be welcome. And will show modern bikes are better for the environment and better than cars. Anyone want to give me money for a modern bike and save the world is welcome. Lol. So you need to compare fuel injected bikes with cats to fuel injected cars with cats. Otherwise it is rubbish. Having said that, go mythbusters. You guys rule.
@neshirst-ashuach1881 ,omg. Think about it. A bike under the exact pollution requirements that is lighter and has a smaller and more advanced engine with less volume output CAN NOT produce more pollution than a heavier car with a larger engine and more exhaust output no matter what you think. You can stand up for them as much as you like but plain logic says your wrong and embarrassing yourself. They either fudged the numbers or stuffed up. Not the first time they got things wrong either by the way and by thier own admission. 😁😆😅🤣😂
okay but what is the percentage composition of exhaust gasses?
if co2 is the majority that's more important, right?
All the gases are bad in their own ways. CO2 for warming, CO is poisonous, NOx causes acid rains and respiratory issues in people. So all are bad!
The real myth is the scam they were pushing for the doomsday cult of climate change. In reality CO2 is not pollution, it's as important as oxygen and water. No CO2 = no food = no life. You can't have effective photosynthesis without at least 600ppm in the atmosphere. We have barely 0.04%
It’s arguably the least important because CO2 is relatively harmless compared to the other ones….
Back then it was a real problem (look up acid rain for a while it was a real concern with rising nitrous oxide) but today those emissions are kept in check fairly well so today most people are trying to tackle co2 as it’s the big one that hasn’t seen big improvements yet.
@@helljester8097 I think we are finding out CO2 is not relatively harmless.
Co2 a baddie yeah right trust the science hahahahahaha
First😂
First to cry for the attention mommy didn't give you because she doesn't love you
Co2 is not the enemy.
I wish we could mute just adam
you can just press M once he opens his mouth
I love this "ecofriendly" bs !
More fuel for my Chrysler 300C SRT ... without any eco bs.
Mopar or no car.
My God, Adam is intolerable. No wonder Jaimie doesn't want to spend any of his free time with the guy.
I remember the first time I started thinking exactly that: when he started doing the fake British accent every episode! Then he just got worse as it went on. How Jamie put up with it in the later seasons is beyond me.
Very interesting to see that people dislike him! He was always my favourite
@@vogelvrouw Its not so much dislike him as dislike how he became that obnoxious kid that a) thinks they're funny, and b) constantly craves attention. I watch and like his Tested vids and he's a totally different person than he was in the mid to later Mythbuster years.
@anwaanjiimiz that's fair honestly! I do see how that type of person can be annoying and tiring
The chances of a fatality in a motorcycle accident are approximately 30 times higher than in a car.
Which is good for the enviornment since that Human no longer emits any CO2 (at least once he's done rotting I guess)