Motorcycles and fuel economy: the good, the bad and the ugly
TOG@Toil
recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
particularly fuel-efficient.
OK, OK, bike engines are astonishingly efficient in themselves, and I
know from experience that if one rides a modern superbike at gentle
(say 80mph max) speeds, you can eke out an astonishing mpg figure.
Quite a few Kawasakis seem to manage this trick. In fact, even the old
air-cooled ones did it, too.
And the Harley (and BMW airhead) fraternity have often trumpeted
amazing fuel consumption figures, omitting to acknowledge that at
60mph or below, anything will sip fuel. At Chimay, I encountered a
Brit with the same model of Triumph Trophy 1200 as mine, who claimed
50mpg-plus. As the Trophy Twelve was one of the most fuel-inefficient
bikes of all time (rivalled my Kawasaki H1 triple sometimes), I
concluded he never exceeded 55mph. So it's not just a Harley/Beemer
phenomenon.
And yes, low-powered singles are easy on fuel, but then they don't go
very fast, do they?
It's easy to identify the thirsty bikes - most two-strokes, including
any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
iffy, Bandit 12s, later model detoxed BMW airheads, Suzuki TL1000S,
Honda's Firestorm and Varadero.... but it's not so easy to pinpoint
the opposite. BMW's F800 seems to be amazingly frugal, and my own
K1100LT is surprisingly good. I remember the fuel-injected Moto Guzzi
Calfironia as being a fuel-sipper, too.
Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
their best at 10,000rpm and above?
Gyp
>
> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
I got > 50mpg from the Busa when I took it to Derbyshire a while back
--
Gyp
GSX1300RZ R80RT R65RS
replace .co.uk with .com to reply
Domènec
noticias news:c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> particularly fuel-efficient.
http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/
>the opposite. BMW's F800 seems to be amazingly frugal, and my own
http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/6-BMW/1043-F_800.html?powerunit=2
4.53 l/100km averaged by 53 users. That's only 0.4 more than my 250 scooter.
>K1100LT is surprisingly good.
http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/6-BMW/807-K_1100.html?powerunit=2
5.35 l/100km by 30 assorted flavours of K1100. Certainly good.
My personal best was 3.3l/100km cruising at legal speeds on a GPZ500S
ogden
> TOG@Toil wrote:
>
> >
> > Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> > Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> > their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
> I got > 50mpg from the Busa when I took it to Derbyshire a while back
He did say "at 60mph or below, anything will sip fuel"
--
ogden
gsxr1000 - the gentleman's sports-tourer
ktm duke - the practical cross-town commuter
Andy Bonwick
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
>recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
>particularly fuel-efficient.
>
snip>
>Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>their best at 10,000rpm and above?
The Tenere is pretty good with a mixture of 80mph motorway cruising
and 'as fast as I can go' commuting between home and Luton (20 miles)
seeing it return about 60mpg. It did return somewhere approaching
70mpg when I was riding it at a nice steady 65mph but that was so
fucking boring I've never done it since.
The 250 mile tank range is probably the best reason to use it for the
commute rather than using the 10R and riding like an even bigger twat.
Jeremy
@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> Any other candidates?
My old Sprint ST 955i was pretty frugal even when abused (I mean an easy
190+ miles unless really hammered up the French autoroutes when it was
still good for 170+ miles). However as I dont know the tank capacity
that may not be helpful information...
--
jeremy
K1200S
Andy Bonwick
>TOG@Toil wrote:
>
>>
>> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
>I got > 50mpg from the Busa when I took it to Derbyshire a while back
You should be ashamed of yourself.
TOG@Toil
> "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje de
> noticias news:c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-
>
> > I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> > recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> > particularly fuel-efficient.
>
> http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/
>
miles per (US or Imperial) gallon, or just it does do litres per 100km?
Pete Fisher
<c39c4380-b25a-4510...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
"TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> cast forth these pearls of
wisdom
>I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
>recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
>particularly fuel-efficient.
>
Yes.
>
>And yes, low-powered singles are easy on fuel, but then they don't go
>very fast, do they?
>
Ah. I was going to nominate Morini V twins (the old ones). 80 mpg easily
attained allegedly.
>It's easy to identify the thirsty bikes - most two-strokes, including
>any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
>iffy, Bandit 12s, later model detoxed BMW airheads, Suzuki TL1000S,
>Honda's Firestorm and Varadero.... but it's not so easy to pinpoint
>the opposite. BMW's F800 seems to be amazingly frugal, and my own
>K1100LT is surprisingly good. I remember the fuel-injected Moto Guzzi
>Calfironia as being a fuel-sipper, too.
>
>Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>their best at 10,000rpm and above?
In the case of Morini, Heron Heads perhaps.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
TOG@Toil
> In communiqué
> <c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-5254e9674...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ah. I was going to nominate Morini V twins (the old ones). 80 mpg easily
> attained allegedly.
>
> >It's easy to identify the thirsty bikes - most two-strokes, including
> >any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
> >iffy, Bandit 12s, later model detoxed BMW airheads, Suzuki TL1000S,
> >Honda's Firestorm and Varadero.... but it's not so easy to pinpoint
> >the opposite. BMW's F800 seems to be amazingly frugal, and my own
> >K1100LT is surprisingly good. I remember the fuel-injected Moto Guzzi
> >Calfironia as being a fuel-sipper, too.
>
> >Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> >Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> >their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
> In the case of Morini, Heron Heads perhaps.
They were good, the old ones, weren't they? Or the 350s were - I think
the 500s lost a bit.
IO remember roadtests of the late 1970s crediting the MV Agusta 850
America with something like 55-60mpg....
Pete Fisher
<4a63d4ed-0f07-4f3a...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
A specific fuel consumption of 0.43 to 0.46 lb/bhp/hr for the 350
apparently. Lambertini knows a thing or two about engine design. Good
torque and six speeds probably helped.
>IO remember roadtests of the late 1970s crediting the MV Agusta 850
>America with something like 55-60mpg....
It's claimed that even the hardest testers seldom dropped below 60 mpg
on the 350s. But then they would struggle to reach 100 mph even in Sport
tune.
Pip Luscher
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
>recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
>particularly fuel-efficient.
<snip>
>It's easy to identify the thirsty bikes - most two-strokes, including
>any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
>iffy, Bandit 12s, later model detoxed BMW airheads, Suzuki TL1000S,
>Honda's Firestorm and Varadero.... but it's not so easy to pinpoint
>the opposite. BMW's F800 seems to be amazingly frugal, and my own
>K1100LT is surprisingly good. I remember the fuel-injected Moto Guzzi
>Calfironia as being a fuel-sipper, too.
My Quota used to reliably return about 55mpg until I had to drop the
compression ratio. Doesn't even make 50 now.
>Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>their best at 10,000rpm and above?
Lower revs always help simply by reducing mechanical friction. It also
reduces the proportion of the crank rotation where fuel is actually
burning: the engine runs closer to the theoretical isochoric
combustion of a true Otto cycle, but I'm not sure if that's a good
thing or not. I think I read somewhere that it can cause problems.
Engine tech: goood combustion chamber design; well mixed air & fuel;
enough but not too much turbulence in the combustion chamber;
stratified charge (GDI, for example); maybe VVT if you want
performance and economy; Turbos help Diesel economy at least. If
nothing else they *might* allow petrol engine combustion chambers to
be sized for optimum efficiency: too small and there's heat loss to
the walls; too big and you have slow combustion and (I think) other
problems; maybe increased risk of pre-ignition.
An engine that's running at a high volumetric efficiency through a
greater part of its operating life might be more efficient: petrol
engines generally cruise at part throttle, so there are pumping losses
at the throttle plate and the peak compression pressures are lower.
The easiest way to achieve this is to use a low-power engine and run
it harder.
--
-Pip
Domènec
noticias news:9c3a0cc4-f851-4085-81b9-
On 14 Sep, 18:30, Domčnec <domenec.sos.val...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> > recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> > particularly fuel-efficient.
> http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/
That's a nifty site. Is there any way of getting it to display in
I knew sir would appreciate.
miles per (US or Imperial) gallon, or just it does do litres per 100km?
http://www.eforecourt.com/l_100km_mpg_convert.htm
Shamelessly stealing the formula (from the page source code), you can
convert between from both units by simply dividing a constant by the input
fuel economy "x"-
US liquid gallon
answer = (235.2146 / x);
Imperial gallon
answer = (282.481 / x);
Which seems ok, as the conversion factor is 100*(litres in a
gallon)/(kilometers in a mile), and using 4.5 and 1.6 is near those two
contants.
Twibil
wrote:
>
>
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> particularly fuel-efficient.
My NT700V is delivering a bit over 53 MPG (US Gallons) so far, and
that includes both around-town stop-and-go chores and freeway cruising
at 85+.
Not awe-inspiring, mind you, but not bad at all for an
enthusiastically-ridden 475 pound bike that pushes a lot of air
around.
Ace
<plus...@live.invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:14:08 -0700 (PDT), "TOG@Toil"
><totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>>Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>>their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
>Lower revs always help simply by reducing mechanical friction. It also
>reduces the proportion of the crank rotation where fuel is actually
>burning: the engine runs closer to the theoretical isochoric
>combustion of a true Otto cycle, but I'm not sure if that's a good
>thing or not. I think I read somewhere that it can cause problems.
>
>Engine tech: goood combustion chamber design; well mixed air & fuel;
>enough but not too much turbulence in the combustion chamber;
>stratified charge (GDI, for example);
That's claimed to make quite a difference to recent VW "FSI" engines.
It's direct injection, which in itslef allows for better control of
the charge, and the stratified nature allows only the middle of the
cyclinder to be fueled when in low-load situations, with a much wider
spray, and more of it of course, under high koad/hogh throttle.
Certainly seems to work, letting me average about 28mpg (Imperial, of
course, == 23 US, 10 l/100km) out of the 300bhp VR6 in mine. And
although I'm often trying for economy by leaving it in high gear, I
don't exactly hang about.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
The GS500 does rather well on fuel, 70mpg is achieveable easily by
keeping the revs down and riding like a wuss.
Give any engine a dose of wellie and it will drink. One simple bit
of physics, friction is proportional to the square of velocity so
keeping the revs down is good.
Another thing to look at is bhp/litre, which is achieved by having
a hotter camshaft. Increased valve overlap means more unburnt fuel.
--
03 GS500K2
76 Honda 400/4 project
78 Honda 400/4 in black
98 Yamaha YP250 Majesty
Ben
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> particularly fuel-efficient.
>
> any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
> iffy, Bandit 12s,
Point of clarification... Bandit 1200s are notoriously shit, but the
Bandit 1250 is much much better. Mine returned 180 miles to an 18 litre
tank on motorway runs cruising at 80. Someone else can do the mpg sums.
--
GSX-R1000 K8
Champ
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Any other candidates?
I've generally got good figures out of my Kawasakis, the current ZX10R
excepted (usually 35~40mpg, I'm afraid).
Certainly touring Europe on my ZZR1100, with missus and luggage on the
back, at speeds up to 100mph, still used to return 50+ mpg. And most
of the other Kwacks I've had have been similarly impressive.
I recall another trip to Europe where at fill up time my GSX-R 1000
always required a couple of litres less than Mat Tab's Blackbird. In
fact I'd say that the early generation long-stroke Gixxer Thous were
phenomenally good wrt to specific fuel consumption, by which I mean
mph vs mpg.
It seems to me, my general dislike of Hondas aside, that they do often
conform to Dodger's description of how Honda set up the fueling of
their engines : "Throw in enough fuel to put the spark out, then lean
it off a bit".
--
Champ
We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed.
ZX10R | Hayabusa | GPz750turbo
neal at champ dot org dot uk
rick
"Jeremy" <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.26f9c4711...@News.Individual.NET...
My RS sits at around 50-55 mpg unless I *really* cane it when it drops to
the mid 40s. I did see 60 mpg once when I was on a run back from Derbyshire
last year but I was bimbling at close to legal speeds all the way (yawn).
--
Rick Brown
Sprint RS 955i
Salad Dodger
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit iffy,
Mine was quite good on a run. High forties at a steady 90-100.
Blackbird was shocking round town, but not bad at all in its preferred
environment.
CB1300 is particularly frugal - 40mpg in town, where the B'bird would
return 28. >50mpg on a cross-country jaunt is a walk in the park.
Wing is less frugal since I got the clutch fixed.
Salad Dodger
<salad....@idnet.com> wrote:
>Wing is less frugal since I got the clutch fixed.
Oh, and on its first Chimay run, the CBX used as much fuel as darsy's
400 Four, and sweller's Guzzi 850.
Combined.
Beav
"TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c39c4380-b25a-4510...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> particularly fuel-efficient.
>
> OK, OK, bike engines are astonishingly efficient in themselves, and I
> know from experience that if one rides a modern superbike at gentle
> (say 80mph max) speeds, you can eke out an astonishing mpg figure.
> Quite a few Kawasakis seem to manage this trick. In fact, even the old
> air-cooled ones did it, too.
I must've got a Friday afternooner then. I don't think I've ever had more
than 37mpg out of mine.
--
Beav
Pip Luscher
ten miles per litre ~= 45.5 mpg.
--
-Pip
frag
@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
And which medium sized bikes that are OK for commuting, whilst still fun,
return good MPG?
--
frag
MicroPlanet Gravity Newsreader V3.0 http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/
ogden
All of my bikes have done some miles to a tank. The Bandit was a bit
thirstier, the KTM seems slightly more frugal. But, generally, some
miles. To a tank. For some money.
HTH.
Ace
>In article <c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-5254e96742d2
>@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
>And which medium sized bikes that are OK for commuting, whilst still fun,
>return good MPG?
Gixxer thou. What else?
Scraggy
>I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
>recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
>particularly fuel-efficient.
>
Data for my K1100LT
http://preview.tinyurl.com/27d4om6
R1150RT
http://preview.tinyurl.com/R1150RT
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
the man with no idea
> In article <c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-5254e96742d2
>
>
>
> > Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> > Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> > their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
> And which medium sized bikes that are OK for commuting, whilst still fun,
> return good MPG?
>
crap, I've enjoyed mine. I generally aim to make good progress and get
200 miles from a tank, perhaps 45 mpg with 80-110 mph on the
motorways, 60-100 mph for NSL. It has a nice riding position, is good
for filtering, fairly damage resistant and they are cheap to buy and
insure. Although it's probably a bit underpowered by group standards,
my mates had trouble keeping up with me in Scotland and round the
Nurburgring (they were on a B12, CBR600, Multistrada and an original
Hyabusa).
frag
says...
Weeeellll, I'll add the caveat that it's got to be available for about £1500
or so.
Something that I can leave outside the front door at home, the back door at
work, and not be concerned in the slightest that some twat in a Transit will
have it away overnight.
(either that or I'll add a remote controlled ignition device into the petrol
tank to give said scrotes a severe case of singed eyelashes)
Andy Bonwick
>In article <fmmv86p21djjr54in...@4ax.com>, b.ro...@ifrance.com
>says...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:15:29 +0100, frag <ne...@ukrm.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-5254e96742d2
>> >@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> >>
>> >> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>> >> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>> >> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>> >
>> >And which medium sized bikes that are OK for commuting, whilst still fun,
>> >return good MPG?
>>
>> Gixxer thou. What else?
>
>Weeeellll, I'll add the caveat that it's got to be available for about £1500
>or so.
>
>Something that I can leave outside the front door at home, the back door at
>work, and not be concerned in the slightest that some twat in a Transit will
>have it away overnight.
>
So you want a piece of shit that's fun to ride and gives good MPG?
Have a word with Sweller because he's thinking of selling his K75 and
while your definition of fun might not include fighting a 20 year old
bike through roundabouts in a hurry it'd certainly make me laugh.
It'll also be reliable, turn in good MPG and is highly unlikely to be
stolen. I think he's even got a pair of hard panniers for it so you
don't have to worry about your sandwiches getting wet and you've got
somewhere to store waterproofs.
?
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> particularly fuel-efficient.
The best single tank mileage I ever got on a road trip was while
returning from Laguna Seca to Santa Barbara, CA on my GT750 two-stroke
triple.
This was no 55 mph economy run, the Water Buffalo loved to cruise at
80 to 90 mph where it would actually lean surge at a quarter
throttle...
I filled up in Salinas, and didn't stop anywhere along Highway 101,
and I had the prevailing wind at my back all the way down the Salinas
Valley to the Gold Coast.
I thought I might run out of gas, but I didn't go onto reserve, as I
descended from the top of the shortcut San Marcos Pass (saves 15
miles) into Santa Barbara.
Total 222.25 miles / 4.5 gallons = 49.38mpg = 4.76 Liters per 100 km
http://www.convertworld.com/en/fuel-consumption/Liters+per+km.html
Monkey
news:c39c4380-b25a-4510...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
Downsizing plus turbocharging to give similar power / torque for less cubes,
plus direct injection, is the current preferred method on petrol cars.
Possibly a bit bulky for bikes though (turbo plus beefier FI pump), and a
lot more expensive than just a bigger bore. Lean-burn has promise if you put
a beefy enough aftertreatment system on to mop up all the NOx, but again,
that's bulky and pricey.
--
ZX6R F2 - The Gravelseeker
BOTAFOT #121, BBB #2
The Older Gentleman
> Lean-burn has promise if you put
> a beefy enough aftertreatment system on to mop up all the NOx, but again,
> that's bulky and pricey.
SC engines run at less than stoichiometric - something like 20:1, IIRC.
Didn't know NOx was a problem, though.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400Fx2 Triumph Street Triple
Kawasaki GT550x2 Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250 Damn, up to ten bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Polarhound
for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
costs associated with bikes, including but not limited to lower tire
mileage and increased replacement frequency to maintenance costs, extra
required gear to lessen the safety gap and that in many parts of the
world, the bikes end up getting 0mpg while parked during the unpleasant
months.
^..^ Lone Wolf
"TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c39c4380-b25a-4510...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Wotcha.
> And yes, low-powered singles are easy on fuel, but then they don't go
> very fast, do they?
<<waves>>
90+ mpg out of the B33.
--
--
^..^ Lone Wolf
www.moonshiners.org.uk
Colin Irvine
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>their best at 10,000rpm and above?
Small cylinders are generally more efficient than large ones.
--
Col on hol
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk/
steve auvache
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
>recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
>particularly fuel-efficient.
>
Nice idea for a discussion thread but sadly it seems to have deteriorated
faster than usual into not very helpful maths about which I care little as
my concern is not mpg but mpt and it is never far enough.
However I look forward to you being able to publish your conclusions in
the near future and trust you will tell us when and what to go out and buy
in order to view them.
--
steve auvache
steve auvache
>
>All of my bikes have done some miles to a tank.
>
>HTH.
Indeed it does as it shows I am not the only one who measures fuel use by
a sensible yardstick.
--
steve auvache
Domènec
news:c_Tjo.28430$y85....@newsfe13.iad...
Then you should consider lower adquisition cost, lower parking cost, and
consider the time they save as a highly negative cost (which can be easily
calculated as long as one knows how much earns per hour). Riding pleasure is
more difficult to estimate in terms of money.
At the end it is a matter of total cost of ownership per mile.
The Older Gentleman
> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring.
No, it's not.
>Arguments
> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
> costs associated with bikes, including but not limited to lower tire
> mileage and increased replacement frequency to maintenance costs, extra
> required gear to lessen the safety gap and that in many parts of the
> world, the bikes end up getting 0mpg while parked during the unpleasant
> months.
The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
Dr Zoidberg
"TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c39c4380-b25a-4510...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
My Hornet 600 was pretty poor on fuel - under 40mpg when ridden harder but
not much more than 45 when treated gently.
It was certainly worse than the Thundercat it replaced.
The only efficient two wheeled vehicles I've had have been modern Vespas.
--
Alex
Beav
"Ace" <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
news:uqev86dn1be8ud8t7...@4ax.com...
> Certainly seems to work, letting me average about 28mpg (Imperial, of
> course, == 23 US, 10 l/100km) out of the 300bhp VR6 in mine. And
> although I'm often trying for economy by leaving it in high gear, I
> don't exactly hang about.
What've you done to get 300bhp out of yours Ace?
--
Beav
Ace
It came that way. It's the 3.6l version in the R36. Big load-lugging
4wd estate, so it doesn't half surprise other drivers when you floor
it.
Mind you, I did once try that on a motorway split when a BMW was
coming up in the outside lane, only to find he kept with me all the
way, then breezed past when I pulled across. How are you supposed to
recognise an M5 from the front anyway?
Monkey
news:1jotzn5.1ignpu3cddc9yN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Monkey <mon...@surfREMOVEbum.freeserve.remove.uk> wrote:
>
>> Lean-burn has promise if you put
>> a beefy enough aftertreatment system on to mop up all the NOx, but again,
>> that's bulky and pricey.
>
> SC engines run at less than stoichiometric - something like 20:1, IIRC.
> Didn't know NOx was a problem, though.
Anything that uses a cat has to operate a stoich., or the cat won't work (or
rather it'll work fine for CO and HC, but not NOx). A NOx trap is needed to
meet emissions with a lean-burn engine.
Some bedtime reading: http://ect.jmcatalysts.com/pdfs/2,2%20Lean%20Burn.pdf
Monkey
news:1c7096l30ets7032p...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:14:08 -0700 (PDT), "TOG@Toil"
> <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And what sort of car engine tech might help?
>>Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
>>their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
> Small cylinders are generally more efficient than large ones.
Nope - for a given total cc, fewer, larger cylinders generally have lower
friction, and hence better economy than more, smaller cylinders. More
cylinders win on power, 'cos they can rev higher without self-destructing.
Interesting article here:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/tuners/112_0710_the_science_of_speed/index.html
Page 6 goes into cylinders vs power / economy.
frag
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:50:10 +0100, frag <ne...@ukrm.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <fmmv86p21djjr54in...@4ax.com>, b.ro...@ifrance.com
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:15:29 +0100, frag <ne...@ukrm.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <c39c4380-b25a-4510-8abf-5254e96742d2
> >> >@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> >> >>
> >> >> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> >> >> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> >> >> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
> >> >
> >> >And which medium sized bikes that are OK for commuting, whilst still fun,
> >> >return good MPG?
> >>
> >> Gixxer thou. What else?
> >
> >Weeeellll, I'll add the caveat that it's got to be available for about £1500
> >or so.
> >
> >Something that I can leave outside the front door at home, the back door at
> >work, and not be concerned in the slightest that some twat in a Transit will
> >have it away overnight.
> >
> So you want a piece of shit that's fun to ride and gives good MPG?
Yep.
I was thinking of dog eared SV650s or Bandit 600s.
> Have a word with Sweller because he's thinking of selling his K75 and
> while your definition of fun might not include fighting a 20 year old
> bike through roundabouts in a hurry it'd certainly make me laugh.
Heh. As MK is 99% roundabouts I think I'll find something lighter.
Like this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/images/2007/07/23/warandpeace_470x355.jpg
> It'll also be reliable, turn in good MPG and is highly unlikely to be
> stolen. I think he's even got a pair of hard panniers for it so you
> don't have to worry about your sandwiches getting wet and you've got
> somewhere to store waterproofs.
All worthwhile, but does it have the footpegs mounted like the 1200GS?
I had to get rid of mine as they were welded onto the frame so I couldn't
knock up a new hanger to adjust them to my knackered knee.
The Older Gentleman
> Anything that uses a cat has to operate a stoich., or the cat won't work (or
> rather it'll work fine for CO and HC, but not NOx). A NOx trap is needed to
> meet emissions with a lean-burn engine.
So do SC engines use a cat, then? I thought they did.
the man with no idea
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently.
>
> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
A recent mag had an article about future engine developments and
included direct fuel injection and ultra-lean-burn; variable valve
timing and lift; variable displacement/cylinders; variable compression
and variable stroke.
Monkey
> Monkey <mon...@surfREMOVEbum.freeserve.remove.uk> wrote:
>
>> Anything that uses a cat has to operate a stoich., or the cat won't work
>> (or
>> rather it'll work fine for CO and HC, but not NOx). A NOx trap is needed
>> to
>> meet emissions with a lean-burn engine.
>
> So do SC engines use a cat, then? I thought they did.
I don't know much about superchargers, but I always thought they operated at
stoich, same as everything else that has to meet emissions standards.
Doesn't seem to make sense to boost an engine (for more power) then run it
lean (which gives less power / better fuel consumption) - especially as SCs
screw your fuel economy.
Polarhound
> "Polarhound" <polar...@comcast.net> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> news:c_Tjo.28430$y85....@newsfe13.iad...
>
>> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring. Arguments
>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
>> costs associated with bikes, including but not limited to lower tire
>> mileage and increased replacement frequency to maintenance costs,
>> extra required gear to lessen the safety gap and that in many parts of
>> the world, the bikes end up getting 0mpg while parked during the
>> unpleasant months.
>
> Then you should consider lower adquisition cost, lower parking cost, and
> consider the time they save as a highly negative cost (which can be
> easily calculated as long as one knows how much earns per hour).
Parking cost? What parking cost?
Time saved? You mean like the time saved by the couple of hours to do
an oil change (including getting the items, doing the job and disposal
afterwards) as opposed to paying $15 for someone to change my car's oil
in 20 minutes while I read the newspaper and drink complimentary coffee?
Polarhound
> Polarhound<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> Arguments
>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
>> costs associated with bikes, including but not limited to lower tire
>> mileage and increased replacement frequency to maintenance costs, extra
>> required gear to lessen the safety gap and that in many parts of the
>> world, the bikes end up getting 0mpg while parked during the unpleasant
>> months.
>
> The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
the economy debate anyways, even before you throw in the
eleventybillion-dollar-an-ounce super-duper-ultra-mega-uber-synthetic
oil people seem to have this perverted fascination with these days.
Just another case of widespread selective memory on actual ownership costs.
Domènec
> On 9/15/2010 1:33 AM, Domčnec wrote:
>> Then you should consider lower adquisition cost, lower parking cost, and
>> consider the time they save as a highly negative cost (which can be
>> easily calculated as long as one knows how much earns per hour).
> Parking cost? What parking cost?
I park the bike in front of my office. Colleagues coming by car have to rent
a parking place in the city center. That's a grand a year.
> Time saved? You mean like the time saved by the couple of hours to do an
> oil change (including getting the items, doing the job and disposal
> afterwards) as opposed to paying $15 for someone to change my car's oil in
> 20 minutes while I read the newspaper and drink complimentary coffee?
What you are talking about is negligible, and not what I meant.
I mean the time saved in my daily commute in traffic jams. Motorcycle is 50
minutes a day less than public transportation an 35 minutes less than car.
That is some 150 hour a year, near a month salary. It is a month of labour
time I can evote to other things, and that has a value.
If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented country, but
there is a fucking planet out there which is not always like your country.
Champ
<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9/15/2010 2:06 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> Polarhound<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> Arguments
>>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
>>> costs associated with bikes
>> The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
>Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
>tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
>the economy debate anyways
My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
£500 (~$750).
hth
--
Champ
We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed.
ZX10R | Hayabusa | GPz750turbo
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Polarhound
> If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented country,
> but there is a fucking planet out there which is not always like your
> country.
Not my fault your government taxes you up the ass, no vaseline, for
anything and everything from TVs to being able to use the roads. I
guess they have to pay for those 4.5M government owned and monitored
security cameras somehow...
Polarhound
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:34:55 -0400, Polarhound
> <polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2010 2:06 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> Polarhound<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring.
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>>> Arguments
>>>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
>>>> costs associated with bikes
>
>>> The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
>
>> Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
>> tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
>> the economy debate anyways
>
> My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
> £500 (~$750).
Mine need them every 40,000 or so, at a cost of $220 including mounting
and balancing when I bought them last year.
wessie
@newsfe18.iad:
Bought them in Walmart?
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9804
--
wessie at tesco dot net
BMW R1150GS
Colin Irvine
Ta. I must admit I was thinking of power, whereas the OP was about
economy.
Higgins
And, once again, you miss the point by a mile.
The Older Gentleman
> > So do SC engines use a cat, then? I thought they did.
>
> I don't know much about superchargers, but I always thought they operated at
> stoich, same as everything else that has to meet emissions standards.
> Doesn't seem to make sense to boost an engine (for more power) then run it
> lean (which gives less power / better fuel consumption) - especially as SCs
> screw your fuel economy.
Sorry. SC = Stratified Charge. Like the Citroen HPi engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection
You'll be telling me TC stands for turbocharged next :-))
The Older Gentleman
> > The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
>
> Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
> tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
> the economy debate anyways, even before you throw in the
> eleventybillion-dollar-an-ounce super-duper-ultra-mega-uber-synthetic
> oil people seem to have this perverted fascination with these days.
>
> Just another case of widespread selective memory on actual ownership costs.
The OP was a technical question about fuel efficiency, not actual
ownership costs. Yet again I stress: you miss the point.
Oh dear. Another one.
And if you *do* want to talk about comparative ownership costs, you're
comparing apples and onions unless you specify capacity sizes etc.
Otherwise all those poor people in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos etc would be
running around in uber-economical Cadillacs instead of on small-bore
motorcycles, wouldn't they?
No, the issue is technical developments about fuel economy and engine
development. That has more of an environmental slant that a cash slant,
actually, since fuel costs are not a big part of vehicle ownership
anyway, and anything that ekes out the oil supply a bit longer has got
to be a Good Thing.
Wouldn't you agree?
(Awaits answer 'no')
Ace
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:34:55 -0400, Polarhound
><polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 9/15/2010 2:06 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> Polarhound<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring.
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>>> Arguments
>>>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
>>>> costs associated with bikes
>
>>> The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
>
>>Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
>>tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
>>the economy debate anyways
>
>My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
>£500 (~$750).
Fahck! Mine's still on its originals at ~50000km. Although TBF a lot
of that was on mthe winter tyres, but both sets are still good.
Motorway driving, I suppose. Oh, and a light right foot, perhaps?
Andy Bonwick
I didn't realise Spain had that many cameras.
Cab
And you think that you live in a free country? Wow.
--
Cab :^) - Cogito sumere potum alterum
Z1000ABS : http://www.rosbif.org/ukrm
The ALL NEW ukrm website : http://www.ukrm.info
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org
Champ
<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Arguments
>>>>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
>>>>> costs associated with bikes
>>
>>>> The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
>>
>>> Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
>>> tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
>>> the economy debate anyways
>> My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
>> £500 (~$750).
>Mine need them every 40,000 or so, at a cost of $220 including mounting
>and balancing when I bought them last year.
<shrug> So you drive a piece of shit. Figures.
Champ
>>My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
>>£500 (~$750).
>Fahck! Mine's still on its originals at ~50000km. Although TBF a lot
>of that was on mthe winter tyres, but both sets are still good.
>Motorway driving, I suppose. Oh, and a light right foot, perhaps?
Having been a passenger in your car, I don't think your right foot is
notably lighter than mine :-)
However, most of my miles are A roads, with quite a lot of
accelerating, braking and cornering. And I was using Toyos, which,
while pleasingly grippy, especially in the wet, didn't last to well.
However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at £385 for the set.
We'll see how they last.
Krusty
> On 9/15/2010 6:44 PM, Domčnec wrote:
>
> > If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented
> > country, but there is a fucking planet out there which is not
> > always like your country.
>
> Not my fault your government taxes you up the ass, no vaseline, for
> anything and everything from TVs to being able to use the roads.
All of which are better than living in a country where filtering is
largely illegal.
> guess they have to pay for those 4.5M government owned and monitored
> security cameras somehow...
Which country do you think someone called Domčnec might live in?
--
Krusty
Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Tiger 955i Tiger 885 Fantic Hiro 250
darsy
darsy
> However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at £385 for the set.
> We'll see how they last.
I have Kumhos on the RX - perfectly acceptable for a 230bhp car, and
even cheaper than Falkens.
--
d.
darsy
> Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> their best at 10,000rpm and above?
generally, I'll "Take the Ogden" on this question and not really care,
but it has to be said the fuel consumption on my 'Blade was awful.
That said, not all Honda's are like that - the awful 6v Benley I
bought from you didn't ever seem to use any petrol at all.
--
d.
Champ
wrote:
>On Sep 16, 10:45 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at Ł385 for the set.
>> We'll see how they last.
>I have Kumhos on the RX - perfectly acceptable for a 230bhp car, and
>even cheaper than Falkens.
Noted, ta
Krusty
> I've been looking at a few posts on reeky and ukrm about fuel economy
> recently. I was wondering whether one can point to bikes which are
> particularly fuel-efficient.
>
> OK, OK, bike engines are astonishingly efficient in themselves, and I
> know from experience that if one rides a modern superbike at gentle
> (say 80mph max) speeds, you can eke out an astonishing mpg figure.
If you ignore toodling around at slow speeds, weight & aerodynamics
seem to be the most important things. Hence I generally expect
superbikes to use far less fuel /for their power/ than lardy old
tourers.
E.g. the MV makes close on 200bhp/litre compared to the 955's
100-n-a-bit, yet they both do high 40s mpg. The Tiger actually uses
more fuel on the motorway than when ragging it on the back roads due to
the barn door aerodynamics. The MV otoh sips it on motorways as it was
the most aerodynamic production bike around when it came out.
> It's easy to identify the thirsty bikes - most two-strokes, including
> any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
> iffy, Bandit 12s, later model detoxed BMW airheads, Suzuki TL1000S
Apparently the TL ups the fuel by 10% in 6th gear which may partly
explain it (dunno if that's common with ram-air). They've also got very
aggresive cam profiles for a road bike to get the power up, which is
great for willy-waving at Ducati owners but makes the throttle body
balance absolutely critical if you don't want to keep banging your nose
on the visor when crawling in traffic.
ogden
> Polarhound wrote:
>
> > On 9/15/2010 6:44 PM, Domènec wrote:
> >
> > > If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented
> > > country, but there is a fucking planet out there which is not
> > > always like your country.
> >
> > Not my fault your government taxes you up the ass, no vaseline, for
> > anything and everything from TVs to being able to use the roads.
>
> All of which are better than living in a country where filtering is
> largely illegal.
>
> > guess they have to pay for those 4.5M government owned and monitored
> > security cameras somehow...
>
A country called 'Foreign'.
--
ogden
gsxr1000 - the gentleman's sports-tourer
ktm duke - the practical cross-town commuter
ogden
You don't half tell some WOPRs.
darsy
> Krusty wrote:
> > Which country do you think someone called Domènec might live in?
>
> A country called 'Foreign'.
A country called "Even George Orwell couldn't save us from Fascists".
--
d.
ogden
> On Sep 14, 6:14 pm, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Any other candidates? And what sort of car engine tech might help?
> > Diesels, obviously. Anything else? Engines not tuned to perform at
> > their best at 10,000rpm and above?
>
> generally, I'll "Take the Ogden" on this question and not really care,
> but it has to be said the fuel consumption on my 'Blade was awful.
My Bandit 12 had a problem with tank range, but the problem there wasn't
the consumption, it just needed a bigger tank to make up for it.
If I wanted economy I'd ride a C90. Off a fucking cliff.
darsy
> darsy wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 10:45 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at £385 for the set.
> > > We'll see how they last.
>
> > I have Kumhos on the RX - perfectly acceptable for a 230bhp car, and
> > even cheaper than Falkens.
>
> You don't half tell some WOPRs.
I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
--
d.
ogden
> On Sep 16, 1:45 pm, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> > darsy wrote:
> > > On Sep 16, 10:45 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at £385 for the set.
> > > > We'll see how they last.
> >
> > > I have Kumhos on the RX - perfectly acceptable for a 230bhp car, and
> > > even cheaper than Falkens.
> >
> > You don't half tell some WOPRs.
>
> I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
darsy
> darsy wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 1:45 pm, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> > > darsy wrote:
> > > > On Sep 16, 10:45 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at £385 for the set.
> > > > > We'll see how they last.
>
> > > > I have Kumhos on the RX - perfectly acceptable for a 230bhp car, and
> > > > even cheaper than Falkens.
>
> > > You don't half tell some WOPRs.
>
> > I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
>
> Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
--
d.
ogden
It's a strange game, the only way to win is not to play.
Domenec
> Polarhound wrote:
> > Not my fault your government taxes you up the ass, no vaseline, for
> > anything and everything from TVs to being able to use the roads.
> Which country do you think someone called Domènec might live in?
It is a Catalan name, so it could be Andorra... but I think it
wouldn't help him much.
http://www.theonion.com/video/nation-of-andorra-not-in-africa-shocked-us-state-d,14211/
Greetings from Mumbalumba,
Domènec
Domenec
George would be kinda disappointed today...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pajTPOgv1Zc/RnU9ymJ7uiI/AAAAAAAAANM/qGS4KA7j7S8/s400/Orwell.jpg
darsy
> On 16 sep, 14:46, darsy <da...@sticky.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 1:43 pm, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> > > Krusty wrote:
> > > > Which country do you think someone called Domènec might live in?
> > > A country called 'Foreign'.
> > A country called "Even George Orwell couldn't save us from Fascists".
>
> George would be kinda disappointed today...
>
> http://jodo.co/GeorgeOwned
yes. I know.
--
d.
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
Can I play? I've got friends with access to nukes...
Doug Payne
> It's easy to identify the thirsty bikes - most two-strokes, including
> any Kawasaki triple, Trophy Twelves, Honda CBR1000s seemed to be a bit
> iffy, Bandit 12s, later model detoxed BMW airheads, Suzuki TL1000S,
> Honda's Firestorm and Varadero.... but it's not so easy to pinpoint
> the opposite. BMW's F800 seems to be amazingly frugal, and my own
> K1100LT is surprisingly good. I remember the fuel-injected Moto Guzzi
> Calfironia as being a fuel-sipper, too.
My F800GS averages around 4.7 l/100km. That's everything including long
runs at 130+ km/h on Conti TKCs, and single-track at lower speeds. If I
baby it, I can do a lot better. I don't baby it much; where would be the
fun in that? It's set up for high-octane gas; if I'm forced by
circumstance to use lower-octane, the consumption suffers by about 15%
(although it otherwise runs just fine).
My R1150RT is a pretty consistent 5.0 l/100km. That's almost all
high-speed touring, one-up, 3 hard cases with not a ton of stuff in 'em.
At 180 lbs, I'm not terribly large either.
I have no idea if that's good or bad, since I've never really cared
about mileage per se, at least in terms of $$ consumed. The GS has the
computer and display built-in, so it's easy to keep track of. I'll keep
track of the RT on maybe one run per year. I use the numbers as an
indicator that all is well with the bikes. Or not, as the case may be. I
just like 'em to be consistent.
darsy
you have no idea what we're talking about, do you?
--
d.
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
>On Sep 16, 5:36 pm, Andy Bonwick <nos...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote:
When has that ever mattered?
steve auvache
<dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Polarhound wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2010 6:44 PM, Domčnec wrote:
>>
>> > If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented
>> > country, but there is a fucking planet out there which is not
>> > always like your country.
>>
>> Not my fault your government taxes you up the ass, no vaseline, for
>> anything and everything from TVs to being able to use the roads.
>
>All of which are better than living in a country where filtering is
>largely illegal.
>
>> guess they have to pay for those 4.5M government owned and monitored
>> security cameras somehow...
>
>Which country do you think someone called Domčnec might live in?
Mexico?
--
steve auvache
Domènec
news:trk496599ptpoq4kl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:07:46 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"
>>Which country do you think someone called Domènec might live in?
> Mexico?
Pinche güey!
ogden
> On Sep 16, 5:36 pm, Andy Bonwick <nos...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:00:37 -0700 (PDT), darsy <da...@sticky.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Sep 16, 1:56 pm, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> > >> darsy wrote:
> > >> > On Sep 16, 1:45 pm, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> > >> > > darsy wrote:
> > >> > > > On Sep 16, 10:45 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > > > However, the last set I fitted were Falkens, at £385 for the set.
> > >> > > > > We'll see how they last.
> >
> > >> > > > I have Kumhos on the RX - perfectly acceptable for a 230bhp car, and
> > >> > > > even cheaper than Falkens.
> >
> > >> > > You don't half tell some WOPRs.
> >
> > >> > I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
> >
> > >> Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
> >
> > >Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
> >
> > Can I play? I've got friends with access to nukes...
>
> you have no idea what we're talking about, do you?
Ha. I knew exactly what Andy's post would be before I read it, and I
knew exactly what your reply to his post would be before I read that.
Go me.
Monkey
news:Nucko.70999$IH1....@newsfe18.iad...
>> My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
>> £500 (~$750).
Yebbut yank tyres are made of stone and are designed to go long distances in
straight lines. Show them a corner, and they don't.
We have bends over here, see, and need a tyre that doesn't turn like it's
got roller bearings on the outside edge.
--
ZX6R F2 - The Gravelseeker
BOTAFOT #121, BBB #2
Monkey
news:1jowgy2.1thvfrs1krjb10N%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Monkey <mon...@surfREMOVEbum.freeserve.remove.uk> wrote:
>
>> > So do SC engines use a cat, then? I thought they did.
>>
>> I don't know much about superchargers, but I always thought they operated
>> at
>> stoich, same as everything else that has to meet emissions standards.
>> Doesn't seem to make sense to boost an engine (for more power) then run
>> it
>> lean (which gives less power / better fuel consumption) - especially as
>> SCs
>> screw your fuel economy.
>
> Sorry. SC = Stratified Charge. Like the Citroen HPi engines.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection
>
> You'll be telling me TC stands for turbocharged next :-))
Ah-righty. Didn't know about the lean-burn aspect of direct injection, but
now I do, ta. Sounds like although the AFR is technically very high, not all
the air in the cylinder is actually involved in the combustion process, so
the amount of extra NOx is way lower than with lean burn and traditional
fuel injection.
Steve P
> On 9/15/2010 2:06 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> Polarhound<polar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> Arguments
>>> for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the
>>> extra costs associated with bikes, including but not limited to
>>> lower tire mileage and increased replacement frequency to
>>> maintenance costs, extra required gear to lessen the safety gap and
>>> that in many parts of the world, the bikes end up getting 0mpg
>>> while parked during the unpleasant months.
>>
>> The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.
>
> Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
> tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
> the economy debate anyways, even before you throw in the
> eleventybillion-dollar-an-ounce super-duper-ultra-mega-uber-synthetic
> oil people seem to have this perverted fascination with these days.
>
> Just another case of widespread selective memory on actual ownership
> costs.
I don't know where you buy tires, or what kind, by my cost per tire for
either the bike or the car is $100. I get 20k miles out of bike tires (two
seasons/years), and maybe 50k out of car tires (four years) if I don't ride
the bike. By riding the bike, I extend the life of my car tires by two
years. So it's a wash. There is no additional cost to run tires on the
bike.
Not only is that true, but I do all the maintenance on the bike myself,
where the car is maintained by a local garage, so the overall cost of
maintenance favors the bike. Oil changes are at the same mileage interval
for both car and bike. And changing the oil in the bike costs $10 less than
for the car, and that's using premium oil in the bike and doing it myself,
while having generic crap put in the car by the local garage, who, btw,
takes my waste oil for his waste oil furnace, at no cost.
The only addition cost associated with operating my motorcycle that I can
find, is the added cost of insuring a second vehicle, which is mostly, if
not completely offset by the overall fuel economy of combining a 50MPG bike
(400 gals per 20k miles), with a 25MPG car (800 gals per 20k miles).
In the end, I use 600 gals of fuel/year combined (400 car, 200 bike),
compared to 800 gals of fuel for the car alone. The car runs the cheapest
fuel I can find, call it $2.75/gallon for 400 gals, or $1100, and the bike
runs 91 octane or higher, call it $3.00/gallons for 200 gals, or $600 for a
combined total of $1700. The car alone would be $2.75 for 800 gallons, or
$2200. I save $500 bucks in fuel costs by riding the bike.
The cost of insurance on my bike is little more than $500/year, so it's paid
for by the fuel savings and the savings in overall maintenance costs
(mechanic's labor). Seems to me I at least brake even, and the world gets an
additional 200 gallons of fuel in reserve, which if not converted to
gasoline, is some greater amount in crude, and probably #2 fuel oil. Even if
it were an even trade of gasoline for #2 fuel oil, that 200 gallons will
heat an energy efficient house for an additional six to eight weeks (about
1/3) of the typical New England deep heating season.
--
Steve Paul
EKIII, BS284
'93 Lowrider Sport Convertible
Shaun
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:54:53 +0100 in uk.rec.motorcycles, Champ says:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:34:55 -0400, Polarhound
>>
>>>Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
>>>tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
>>>the economy debate anyways
>>
>>My car needs a set of tyres every 10,000 miles. And they cost around
>>£500 (~$750).
>
>Even my bog standard low powered vauxhall gets through £300 or so of
>tyres in 20K miles.
The tyres will still have more trade in value than a 20K mile
motorbike
Monkey
news:4c9275b1...@news.virginmedia.com...
> The tyres will still have more trade in value than a 20K mile
> motorbike
Worst. Troll. Ever.
The Older Gentleman
> not all
> the air in the cylinder is actually involved in the combustion process
Yes. That's the clever bit.
ISTR that the Ford Orbital two-stroke car engine, that never made
production, was an SC engine as well.
I could be wrong. Anyone?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400Fx2 Triumph Street Triple
Kawasaki GT550x2 Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250 Damn, up to ten bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Cab
> "Shaun" <shaun.ja...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:4c9275b1...@news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > The tyres will still have more trade in value than a 20K mile
> > motorbike
>
> Worst. Troll. Ever.
That was a troll? I thought it was an idiot.
--
Cab :^) - Cogito sumere potum alterum
Z1000ABS : http://www.rosbif.org/ukrm
The ALL NEW ukrm website : http://www.ukrm.info
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Monkey"
<mon...@surfREMOVEbum.freeserve.remove.uk> saying something like:
>especially as SCs
>screw your fuel economy.
Not if they're set right.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<domenec.s...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented country, but
>there is a fucking planet out there which is not always like your country.
Recall, you're answering a Septic who probably has a bike as a weekend
plaything, not a commuter.