디젤바이크 에 대한 미국인들의 반응

[hyun]

전에 '벌거벗은 임금님' 이라는 제목으로 디젤 오토바이에 대해 열띈 논쟁을 했었죠...그 내용을 종합해서 미국의 motorcycleusa 라는 온라인 게시판에 올렸더니 우리와 마찬가지로 공감도 있고 반대도 있고 하네요......그냥, 참고 바랍니다 ^-^;;

<Johnny Monsoon>
Eat more possum...
(엿 먹어라...)--->라는 뜻인지?

<1KPerDay, 하루에천키로>
wrong thread, Johnny?
(그럼 안되죠, 죠니?)

<TeqMod>
hyun1505 said...
Turbocharged any 800cc light vehicles or 2000cc diesel RV (like Hyundai Santafe) can overtake any of 800cc American bikes any time on the high way, even better fuel efficiency than those two wheels as well.
(hyun1505 가 말하길...
어떠한 800시시 터보장착 경차도, 2000시시 디젤 싼타페도, 마음만 먹으면 고속도로 상 이라면 현재 출시되고 있는 어떤 800시시급 아메리칸 차량들을 따라 잡고 연비도 훌륭합니다.)
I kinda doubt it but hey lets get the competitors and head out fo a race.
(과연 그럴까요? 그럼 한번 나가서 경주 한번 해봅시다)
With a screen name like "Hyun1505" and continuous comparisons with Hyundai vehicles I kinda think this is a marketing plot aimed towards the wrong audience.
(그 Hyun1505 로 아이디를 가지신분이, 계속해서 현대 차량을 비교하는데, 저는 이것이 잘 모르는 사람들을 목표로 하는 (현대의)마케팅 전략이라고 생각 합니다)
It was pretty boring but everytime I started to nod off I thought of burning a few gallons of fuel carving up some twisties and it woke me right up.
(꽤 지루한 글이긴 했지만, 매번 끄덕 거리면서 얼마 안되는 연료를 태우면서 좀 잘못됬다고 생각 했습니다, 저를 일깨워 주었네요)

<1KPerDay, 하루에천키로>
Missed this part... AH HAHAHAHAAA!! Classic!
(이걸 빼먹었군요... 하하하하하!! 고전풍 이라!)
"you are right the bike should be very stylish!, ignore all trivial!, the something like efficiency, performance doesn’t match Mr. Bike because you are so special, you are really nice!!”
("맞아요! 말씀하신 대로 그럼요, 바이크는 당연히 멋 으로 타고 다니셔야죠, 무슨소리 예요, 연비나 효율이나 성능은 바이크 님과는 어울리시질 않습니다, 워낙 특별하신 분이신데, 정말 멋지십니다")

<ianisme>
I completely agree with your point. Bike manufacturers have definitely gone down the performance route at the expense of good fuel consumption. I don't think bike engines are inefficient; they have chosen to utilise the efficiency in the pursuit of power.
(귀하의 지적에 전적으로 동의 합니다
오토바이 회사들은 훌륭한 연료소모율을 할 비용으로 절대적으로 성능추구의 길로 노력해왔습니다
저는 바이크엔진이 비효율적 이라고 생각 하지는 않습니다
그들은 그 효율을 출력으로만 추구했고 활용하기로 선택해 온것 입니다)
Other factors come into play when your start comparing the efficiency of a bike with a car. The major influence, as speeds increase, is aerodynamics. Even the most unaerodynamic car is usually way ahead of the best bike. At speed, most bikes have the aerodynamics of a barn door.
(다른 요소들은, 아마 차와 바이크 각각의 효율을 비교한다면 어떤 맹점이 나타납니다.
속도가 증가함에 따라 중요한 변수는 공기역학 에 관련됩니다.
심지어 가장 빈약한 공기역학설계의 차도 가장 우수한 공기역학의 바이크 보다는 대개는 한수 앞섭니다.
속도가 나면, 대부분의 바이크 들은 마치 헛간의 문짝과 같은 공기역학이 됩니다.)
The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is an inverse square equation, so anything that cuts the drag coefficient down becomes more important the faster you go. A car has a nice, smooth shape that cuts through the air. Typically it will have a drag coefficient (CD) of around 0.3. A bike with rider onboard will more likely have a CD of about 0.7 or worse!
(공기역학적 마찰을 극복하기위해 요구되는 힘은 제곱에 반비례 합니다, 그래서 마찰계수를 낯추게 되면, 빠르게 될수록 더 낮게 됩니다
차는 공기를 가르는 아주 부드러운 형상으로 되있습니다.
보통 0.3 정도의 마찰계수(CD) 를 가지게 됩니다
라이더가 탑승한 바이크는 약 0.7 또는 더 나쁜 CD 를 갖게 됩니다)
You can look back at older bikes and say they were capable of much better fuel consumption, and you would be correct. On the other hand, they were also very slow compared to modern bikes so drag was not a major factor in the equation. That is why mopeds, such as the Honda Cub, can achieve around 100mpg.
(옛날 바이크들을 보게 된다면, 연비가 아주 훌륭함을 알수 있습니다, 귀하의 말씀이 정확 합니다.
한편으론, 지금의 바이크 들과 비교하면 매우 느리죠, 그래서 마찰은 방정식의 주요 변수는 아니었습니다
그것이 혼다 Cub 와 같은 모페드가 왜 갤런당 100 마일을 갈수 있는가 입니다)

<anrfknm>
and another urban legend is born.
i ride, because i wasn't born with wings.
(또다른 도시의 전설이 태어났군요
나는 탄다, 왜냐면 나는 날개를 갖고 태어나지 않았기 때문이다!!)


---------------------------------------------------------------

'방장의 essay' 게시판의 '벌거벗은 임금님1,2,3,4' 의 내용을 종합한 것 입니다

<hyun1505>
Re: The Emperor’s New Suit?

Some years ago, seen in a TV documentary program, it was about a new energy system very handily obtainable through our general environment something like water or hydrogen (sorry, I couldn’t remember exactly) and it was to replace the current petroleum based energy, that was issued by an inventor of that energy system and he is still insisting his logic.

His claim was that, if his system is commercialized, the whole industry will be up-heaved, so the current industry leaders like oil makers, internal combustion engine makers, and government have got together and driven his logic vain into a scientific fiction, and so he is made a victim of their plot.

It’s because his system will ruin the existing petroleum industry and government will get lost tax resources from those industries, so he says it’s inevitable plot to prevent such headache impacts, seemed it is a sheer problem in government’s position.
Dimmed my memory, but even in my view, his invention looked simple and ambiguously supported theory and I thought then him just an old mentally victimized person.

Or well, it’s actually nothing but a fiction!
But, what I am sure is that there is one sheer proof those current industry leaders have since wielded their power.
I will tell you a fact as far as I believe.

This is an already-disguised poker game made by government, car industry, and its relevant industries.
Comparatively small power motorcycle industry have been no other choice but to survive between such the huge conglomerates, but as a matter of fact the motorcycle makers have originated their faults by themselves.
The one of the biggest faults is, even though the survivalism and profitability are the first priority of the enterprise, that the bike makers have neglected their consumers’ rights to be taken.
Simply says, they have focused on the profitability only, a short-sighted strategy.
To mention two definite faults, the one is they have made ambiguous machine (motorcycle) classification as they want.

The other one is 'have totally ignored the Fuel Efficiency’.
As to ambiguous classification, we know the car has distinctive classes like sports car, recreational vehicle, passenger car, but I dare to say the m/c (motorcycle) has been intentionally classified by the commercial strategies.
Of course, the m/c has distinctive classes like off-road, on-road, super sports too, but questions begin with the street bikes representing the on-road, which brings biggest revenue.
Let me see…

If we look one like American Style (or Custom, sometimes Cruiser Type?) genre, we know it has so many classifications for itself since Harley or through Harley. …what a various kinds, so I never know any at all.

If we see sports, yes it also varies like F type, Replica Racer, Sports Naked, Sports Tourer------

From when have we varied the m/c classes?
Due to this kind of variation, it could cause the m/c gradually to be luxurious and make it further beyond the m/c’s nature, which stands for “by minimum cost, freely convenient riding”.

So, the increased costs have riders restrained from running their bikes and so result in shrinking m/c public base.
Therefore, the world m/c markets have been getting much smaller than those of automobile and could never even imagine extending markets at all.
The bigger fault is there, that m/c makers have totally ignored the fuel efficiency.

Get the one of persons who mostly don’t have knowledge of m/c and ask him, whether it is 125cc or 1000cc bike, how much the bike does consume the gasoline comparing to the car, particularly to a passenger car.

Most people believe the bike gets far less fuel consumption, probably thinking at least 5 times, or rather, some 10 times less than do a car.

But, the reality is upside down that the 800cc American style bikes consume more gasoline than a 800cc light passenger car, Suzuki GSX1300 series eat far more than a 1300cc sedan, the Honda Valkyrie gorges further than does a 1500cc sedan, and moreover the 230kg of Honda Magna 750 not only takes slightly more liter but costs two times higher fuel fee than 2200kg of a 2500cc Diesel MPV in the lower diesel pricing country like Korea.

If the people realize these facts, they will not hesitate to reply like “for what reason do you ride it?”
Quoting a German m/c expert’s note, the superiority in fuel efficiency has been lost, due to the fact that all research and development in the motorcycle section during the last three decades has just and only gone into improving power output, totally neglecting fuel efficiency.
In some ways, I feel the urge to charge the bike makers with dereliction of their duty that they have faded away the nature in bike itself. That’s Guilty.
Of course, we know the 4 cycle 125cc bikes still get good fuel efficiency like combined 30km/liter, but what I have to say is “we neither did nor do what we can”……It is possible for the 125cc to do 100km/liter in the present technology.
140ps of gasoline 2000cc passenger car is often said quite nice performance.

But there is a diesel 1900cc passenger car (VW Bora) with 150ps at lower rpm and much lower fuel consumption, and moreover it has never-compatible torque with that of 2000cc gasoline that never dares to resist from the starting to the acceleration of diesel.
But you see we bike have not made any efforts nor improvements so far at all.

Yes, we did somewhat but best driven only in the direction of power output.
Look at the American style bikes, which have become a definitely commercial genre that I think very undesirable.
Taking a cold view, in a one word, does it show prominent performance? Or gives excellent fuel efficiency?
Turbocharged any 800cc light vehicles or 2000cc diesel RV (like Hyundai Santafe) can overtake any of 800cc American bikes any time on the high way, even better fuel efficiency than those two wheels as well.
We had ought to make a very ideal bike, but now, what a stupid so luxurious and vain…American, Naked, Replica, F version, or Chopper?…huh!!…….. Isn’t it the motorcycle is just a motorcycle?
As I’ve early pointed out, the m/c makers have caused themselves guilty and invited market loser by self!
Every year, every bike show?…..every time you see the bike makers have boastfully launched all the way so unchangeable technology, see the DOHC inline 4 cylinder engines just slightly modified every year, very outdated OHVs and OHCs with every florid ad copies, but if you see details, nothing has changed at all, absolutely not at all.
The latest compact sized 800cc diesel engine has been already developed and it can be easily adapted for motorcycle.

It is from MCC, a Chrysler division (Germany) and is an engine producing 42ps 3 cylinders with turbocharger.
The amazing fact is the engine weight is just 62kg.

The present Vulcan 500’s engine weighs 61kg.

What does that fact mean?….. Isn’t it another laughingstock of the automobile makers?

This engine is not the innovational technology, it rather will be more generalized as time goes by.

If that 62kg MCC diesel adapts a high pressure injection device like common rail, it will probably produce near 60ps, maybe up to 70ps if further squeezed.

Even that time, still using all the way same gasoline OHC or DOHC, the less weighted two-wheeler still consumes more fuel than the 10 times heavier RV and still lets them occasionally pass my bike on the high way? ……. Is there any stupid logic other than this on earth?
Do we really want to be “The Emperor’s New Suit”?

“Oh! nice bike, so cool … you are right the bike should be very stylish!, ignore all trivial!, the something like efficiency, performance doesn’t match Mr. Bike because you are so special, you are really nice!!”……the auto makers will probably tell us like that with ridiculous look.

It would be so natural that we buy 1/10 price, run and consume 1/10 cost and fuel, but even so we make it much convenient and faster than all those of four-wheeler.
But, now all are reversed, which is very strange scene ---huh, how can I explain this!

Hyun Kim

[소요랑객]

음냐! 8기통 코베트 엔진을 얹은 보스호스~ 그런 괴물을 타는 코쟁이들이니 반응이 그럴거라는 것은 이해가 되는데 "~Another urban legend is born. I ride, because i wasn't born with wings." 이분 시인이네요? 라이더의 선언서로 딱이군요?

[소요랑객]

저는 두가지로 생각을 해보았습니다. 하나는 바퀴가 두 개달린 F1 레이싱카... 그리고 또 하나는 스쿠터의 안장을 더 낮추고 휠베이스를 키우고 캐빈이 달린 것~ BMW C1이 그런생각에 거의 부합되는데 안장이 훨씬 낮으면 숏다리 걱정 안해도 되고 전도해도 다칠 염려가 없을 것 같은데...어때요?

[뱀파이어]

미국애들이야 기름값 싸고 전통적으로 휘발유엔진을 선호하니 디젤바이크에 큰 관심이 있으리라곤..캐빈이 있는 바이크는 다좋은데 정면충돌이나 추돌시 라이더가 튕겨나가질 못하고 바로 프레임과 충돌할 우려가 크지않을까요..안전밸트를 채용하면 해결? 완전 경차네..경차 반으로 쪼갠 미래형 바이크^^

[뱀파이어]

지금의 바이크처럼 엔진중심의 프레임이 아닌 객실중심의 프레임을 사용하고 안전밸트까지 채용한 바이크라면 슬립이나 저속충돌시 꽤 안전할 것 같습니다..근데 사람들이 좋아할까요? 안전밸트 매고 타는 바이크..바이크만의 느낌이 많이 줄어들 듯..

[소요랑객]

바이크가 아니라 완전히 일인용 두바퀴 경차지요!

[hyun]

C1이 좋긴 하지요...그러나 값이 너무 비싸지요...한 800만원 하나요? 독일 에서도 비현실적인 가격 때문에 판매가 부진한걸로 알고 있습니다.......제 생각엔, 그저 크루즈가 제일 좋네요..한국에서만 인기가 없어 가격이 아주 좋기 때문이죠^-^; ㅎㅎ