why are these so good on fuel ?

turnipbmw

turnipbmw

Registered user
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
4,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Aldbury
did 600 miles fri/sat giving bike a shake down and it averaged 57mpg

i.e about the same as my Superdream 400

but the Superdream is 200lb lighter and a third the engine capacity

I can barely push the 1100 unyet the Honda can be moved around like a bicycle.

Its ridiculous :nenau
 
I think it's fair to say it is something to do with the aerodynamics

I rode home in the rain yesterday and didn't get wet .... bloody weird! :eek:
 
Wish I could get that.

57. Not unless I ride very gently 52 normally on 1200rt.
Around 50 on previous 1100RT

If the bloody thing was geared properly, it would do over 60. A 5 and a half speed close ratio gearbox is useless for fuel economy. I tried going 1st, 3rd, 5th, and it makes no difference to normal riding. If 6th was geared at a sensible level & 1st where it was on the 1100s, bike wouldbe a lot easier to ride & much more economical.

Maybe you question should be: Why is the Honda so hard on fuel?

Myke
 
Myke Rocks said:
57. Not unless I ride very gently 52 normally on 1200rt.
Around 50 on previous 1100RT

If the bloody thing was geared properly, it would do over 60. A 5 and a half speed close ratio gearbox is useless for fuel economy. I tried going 1st, 3rd, 5th, and it makes no difference to normal riding. If 6th was geared at a sensible level & 1st where it was on the 1100s, bike wouldbe a lot easier to ride & much more economical.

Maybe you question should be: Why is the Honda so hard on fuel?

Myke
Click to expand...

of course you are right - but in a world where KTMs do 35 mpg its hard to be objective !
 
Mine - a pre OHC 1200RT - has averaged 54.8mpg over 18000 miles.
 
Mine's a 2005 model, normally averages 56mpg. Just done a 1000mile trip to Scotland and it was 52.3 average. Having panniers on at motorway speeds seems to make the main difference in bringing it down (I seem to recall that wind resistance is related to the cube of the speed??)

Either way, I'm happy with that return for the size and power of the bike :D
 
What a Drag....

GFJ said:
Mine's a 2005 model, normally averages 56mpg. Just done a 1000mile trip to Scotland and it was 52.3 average. Having panniers on at motorway speeds seems to make the main difference in bringing it down (I seem to recall that wind resistance is related to the cube of the speed??)

Either way, I'm happy with that return for the size and power of the bike :D
Click to expand...
:thumb +1

However, if I may be so bold or boring.....:augie:blagblah:blagblah

Aerodynamic drag force increases roughly with the square of the vehicle’s speed.

Aerodynamic drag power goes up by the cube of the vehicle’s speed.

For a theoretical ‘real life’ illustration:flag
Imagine you are travelling on a Scottish ‘B’ road at 50 mph then head onto a motorway (there are a few in Scotland )
and maintain, albeit, an illegal 75 mph.

Then the speed increase is x 1.5.
However the drag force to maintain this speed is not x 1.5 but now x 2.25.
The power force required to maintain this speed has now risen by x 3.375.

Which is why my 12RT can achieve close to 60 mpg on A/B roads sticking to the speeds limits
but when ‘blasting’ down the motorway it achieves nearer early 50’s.
Also on a motorway you and your bike are more exposed to the elements!

I feel that at 60 mph the 12RT is most comfortably poottling in 6th gear at 3000rpm and probably doing 60mpg.
A nice state of affairs.
Especially when petrol is £6 a gallon.:eek:

58.4 mpg over 13.5k :D
 
Myke Rocks said:
57. Not unless I ride very gently 52 normally on 1200rt.
Around 50 on previous 1100RT

If the bloody thing was geared properly, it would do over 60. A 5 and a half speed close ratio gearbox is useless for fuel economy. I tried going 1st, 3rd, 5th, and it makes no difference to normal riding. If 6th was geared at a sensible level & 1st where it was on the 1100s, bike wouldbe a lot easier to ride & much more economical.

Maybe you question should be: Why is the Honda so hard on fuel?

Myke
Click to expand...

The 1150RT's had a box with a high 6th, which was a bit like having an overdrive on an older British car. Only really of use on motorways & fast A roads, but the revs in top really did fall back.
 
Exactly!

Martyn H said:
The 1150RT's had a box with a high 6th, which was a bit like having an overdrive on an older British car. Only really of use on motorways & fast A roads, but the revs in top really did fall back.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Exactly as described. The other 5 ratios, properly spaced, are for normal riding. In such a bike, 5th where 6th currently is, 1st where it was on the 1100, & the other 3 equally spaced in between. What a joy such a bike would be in normal riding. Just because one has a 6th gear does not mean one should be using it at 30 mph.

Myke
 
Good on fuel ??? get a grip.

I have a bmw estate car with a 3 litre engine that averages 54MPG :rolleyes:

Bike fuel consumption hasn't improved one jot over the last 20 years.

If they'd kept pace with cars, bikes should be averaging at least 70MPG.
 
However the drag force to maintain this speed is not x 1.5 but now x 2.25.
The power force required to maintain this speed has now risen by x 3.375.
Click to expand...

Please can you explain your terminology? Specifically what is the "Power force"

Thanks

Mark
 
Simon_h said:
doesn't the F800st get about 70mpg?
Click to expand...

I'd try and find a better example than that.

I still own a BMW bike i bought new in 1980 that does 70MPG, and they've been getting worse while technology improves ever since.
 
Steptoe said:
I'd try and find a better example than that.

I still own a BMW bike i bought new in 1980 that does 70MPG, and they've been getting worse while technology improves ever since.
Click to expand...

so what has been gained in return for the loss in economy? Reliability...no. Power...no. Electric gizmo heavy toys...yes. I'd rather go balls basic and have the economy back. I haven't felt ABS kick in on my bike or any real difference in the suspension settings.
 
Cruising back to Glasgow from Derby yesterday I did 247 miles according to Google Maps (odometer indicated 262 so over reading by 6%). Cruising speed indicated 70 so if the speedo is as accurate as the odo i was doing about 66mph.

I averaged 54.8 mpg.

1969 R60/2 with panniers.

You'd think that they could do better these days wouldn't you.
 
Steptoe said:
Good on fuel ??? get a grip.

I have a bmw estate car with a 3 litre engine that averages 54MPG :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But it is diesel car. Is your consumption based on the readings from the trip computer or from brimming the tank and working it out the old fashioned way?
 
That's an easy one

ducatiparts.110mb said:
Please can you explain your terminology? Specifically what is the "Power force"

Thanks

Mark
Click to expand...

Think aircraft. Thrust.

A much easier way to envisage what is happening, especially if engine outputs through the gears were shown as thrust on a graph.

At first glance, Horsepower or Kw are similar, but not if you are looking at the overlap points.

Myke
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tsiklonaut
10.2016 Russia
Replies
15
Views
6,587
gspod
Tsiklonaut
10.2016 Mongolia
Replies
6
Views
3,926
patzx12
patzx12
A ramble around Romania and the Balkans
2
Replies
23
Views
11,346
Drumacoon Lad.
David Nimrod
Eight days to Istanbul ~
2 3
Replies
58
Views
10,641
David Nimrod
David Nimrod
Dellis
The North Cape - An itch that's been scratched...
2
Replies
37
Views
8,500
genon
genon


Back
Top Bottom