Could this Vectrix ad claim be true?

no, you are correct Mik.
CO2 emmissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burnt.

Vectrix should probably hire an engineer to keep the salesmen in check.

Matt

Some knucklehead with a calculator probably divided the results of testing by the number of cylinders, to ascertain that a single bike cylinder might produce more Co2 than a single car cylinder, given the enormous efforts applied to the larger vehicles in reducing emissions. What they fail to take into account is that bikes run on fewer and generally smaller cylinders, therefore the amount of Co2 produced in the task of moving a person from point A to point B might be far less on a bike than a car or truck.

However, when you need to quote statistics and findings, you just gotta play with what works for your cause! HAHA!! ;-)

Sales pitches should never be taken as gospel. ;-)

I bet the conversation went something like this:

Tech guy: "Did you know that a 2-stroke scooter is a really bad polluter?"
Marketing guy: "Really, can I use that in an ad?"
Tech guy: "Sure, whatever, I need to get out of this meeting and back to work"
Marketing guy produces version 1 of a brochure: "A typical motorcycle/scooter produces significantly more pollutants"
Marketing boss: "well that's kind of weak. what are pollutants? that's an engineer's term. We should say C02 - everybody's heard of that! And more pollutants than what? How about one of those big smelly trucks we see?"
Marketing guy: "Hmmm, but folks don't generally drive 10 ton trucks to work - is that the right demographic for us?"
Marketing boss: "OK, ok, add something about cars"
Marekting guy: "How about this: A typical motorcycle/scooter produces significantly more CO2 and pollutants than a large diesel truck, and far more than a modern low emission automobile?"
Marketing boss: "I like it"
CEO: "well done marketing boss"
Marketing boss: "thank you, now about my bonus?"
Marketing guy: "hey, what about me?"
Tech guy: "Huh? I never said that"

Or something like that... ;)

Yes, it's not the CO2, but the other pollutants that would normally be reduced by a catalytic converter. Check out this article from Alan During (excerpt below).

________________

What you may not know is that motor scooters, like motorcycles, are dramatically worse for local air quality than passenger cars, pick-ups, and SUVs. The problem is that pollution-control equipment is hard to fit on a small vehicle. The Idaho Statesman examined the issue in its August 8 article “Is your scooter a polluter?” (No link; it’s behind the Statesman’s pay wall.)

“The cleanest scooter is still dirtier than a car," said John Swanton, air pollution specialist with the California Air Resources Board.

. . .

Some motorcycles emit as much hydrocarbon in 10 miles as a car driven 850 miles, according to Environmental Protection Agency studies.

Car engines use much more fuel and create more pollution than motorcycle engines, but sophisticated emission-control devices prevent much of a car's emissions from getting into the air, said Wayne Elson, environmental protection specialist with the EPA's Seattle office.

When it comes to reducing fuel consumption and improving global climate conditions, a motorcycle or scooter is still the better choice, Swanton said.

But when it comes to reducing smog and improving local air quality, "the Hummer is better than a small scooter because it has more sophisticated emission controls," he said. "Its emissions are pretty low relative to a motorcycle."

Motorcycles and scooters that meet EPA emission standards are still more polluting than cars because the federal emission standards are more lenient for motorcycles.

The maximum emission standard for motorcycle hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide is 2.25 grams per mile, compared with .098 for cars, meaning a motorcycle can emit 23 times more ozone-forming pollutants as a car does and still meet EPA standards. The carbon monoxide standard for motorcycles is about six times higher than a car's standard.

EPA’s air quality rules for new motorcycles and motor scooters are scheduled to tighten in 2010 (pdf), but they’ll remain far laxer than are the rules for four-wheelers (pdf, see page 3).

That’s why I don’t so much want a motor scooter. For rural riding, where air quality isn’t an issue, a scooter might be fine. But for city travel? I don’t want the karma of six or twenty-three cars’ worth of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, or carbon monoxide.

When people want to make headlines they always take the worst (or best) statistics.

I bet they are using the stats from a 250cc 2 stroke old style scooter. Probably one that needed the oil to be premixed with the fuel.

What has to be taken into account is:

When fuel is delivered to a petrol station it is by big thirsty tankers. Most cars aren't as good on fuel as a scooter so before this extra fuel is used in a car, it's cost more to move it to the pump.

When a bike has an oil change it's less than a car.

More coolant is used in a car which has to be delivered to the shop or other distribution point.
This also goes for all parts and consumables used in a car service, from brake shoes/pads, disks, you can go on and on. There's simply more.

There's far more materials and components in a car to build it in the first place, which all have to be manufactured and delivered. (More fuel)

To recycle or dispose of the car at the end of it's life has to cost more than a bike, I mean, again, there's more of it.

There's far more paint on car, more energy to produce the paint and to deliver it, spray it. You can go on and on.

It's so difficult to quantify without looking at the whole picture. I read somewhere that to cycle to work is worse for the environment than using an electric bicycle. The extra calories needed to cycle comes in the shape of food which has to be grown, produced, delivered, cooked, etc etc. whereby it costs less to the environment (according to the article) to charge up the pedalec's battery pack.

Motorbikes of 2-stroke engines consume and pollute more than 4-stroke ones. It is true that certain 2-stroke engine bikes have a higher consumption than certain 4-stroke diesel or even gas engines.
My 125cc Gilera CX has a higher consumption than the newest of the 1.4 TDI Volkswagen Polo!!!
Its 7 litres/100km compared to 4 litres/100km

Motorbikes of 2-stroke engines consume and pollute more than 4-stroke ones. It is true that certain 2-stroke engine bikes have a higher consumption than certain 4-stroke diesel or even gas engines.
My 125cc Gilera CX has a higher consumption than the newest of the 1.4 TDI Volkswagen Polo!!!
Its 7 litres/100km compared to 4 litres/100km

Exactly. I've had some horrors, when I lived in Spain my Derbi, Puch and Ossa, all premix were terrible. The Ossa 250 did about 11 litres per 100Km! But my goodness did it shift, 45 BHP from a 250!!!!!!

Simon