1. Fuel Efficiency: CNG is less energy-dense compared to petrol. This means that to achieve the same range as a petrol-powered bike, a CNG-powered bike would require a larger fuel tank, which would add weight and reduce fuel efficiency.
2. Fuel Storage: CNG is a compressed gas and requires high-pressure storage tanks. These tanks are bulky and can take up a significant amount of space on a bike, limiting design flexibility and practicality.
3. Refueling Infrastructure: The infrastructure for CNG refueling is not as widely available as petrol stations. Setting up and maintaining CNG refueling stations requires specialized equipment and trained personnel, making it more challenging for bike manufacturers to provide a convenient refueling experience.
4. Engine Modifications: Converting a petrol engine to run on CNG requires significant modifications, including changes to the fuel injection system, ignition timing, and valve timing. This adds complexity and cost to bike manufacturing.
5. Performance and Power: CNG has a lower energy content per unit volume compared to petrol. This means that CNG-powered bikes may have reduced performance and power output compared to petrol-powered bikes, affecting acceleration, top speed, and overall riding experience.
6. Emission Control: While CNG produces fewer harmful pollutants compared to petrol, achieving stringent emission standards with CNG can be more challenging due to the leaner air-fuel mixture and potentially higher nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. This requires additional emission control systems, which can add complexity and cost to bike design.
Given these challenges, petrol continues to be the more practical and widely adopted fuel for bikes, considering factors such as fuel efficiency, refueling convenience, engine compatibility, and overall performance. However, advancements in technology and infrastructure could potentially make CNG a viable alternative for bikes in the future.
