2010 fuel consumption

[davnjud]

i have definitely increased fuel consumption by up to 10% since I changed from worn out conti OEms to dunlop roadsmart. only getting 50mpg at constant 70 mph. this on shell optimax and with retuned engine. raised windscreen might be also a factor but after playing with tobs i think the tyres are the main thing. anyone else noticed this with roadsmart ?

have improved on this a bit by checking tyre pressures !

 

[Edventure]

38 mpg this weekend though it was a somewhat spirited ride, ahem.......

 

[davnjud]

screen position makes a huge difference

with the increased cost of fuel getting the best mpg seems more important these days. As the posts above show i was unsure why my fuel consumption seems to have dropped from 56 to 50 mpg from a tank full and was n't sure if this was due to earplugs ( unwittingly revving more) , more confident riding style, new tyres, engine mileage now 9500, drifting tune status or windscreen.

did a little experiment today zero-oing fuel consumption on a flat road at 70 mph -

screen in fully up position with adjuster upper locating lugs removed - 51mpg.

then adjusted screen to mid position - same road/ speed - 59mpg.

so that's no less than a 16% improvement in consumption or to put it another way another 30 miles/ £3 free out of each tank. at speeds higher than 70 it would be even more different. so definitely worth considering your screen position for longer distance motorway trips to improve range as well as cruising speed. a quieter cockpit as i had with the screen fully up comes at a cost - good earplugs are worth much more than their weight in gold

 

[Balders1450]

"All depends on the right hand, up to 4000 revs 56 mpg, hard revving down to 44 mpg" The puter is not accurate!

When I worked it out using the trip it's 47mpg!

 

[davnjud]

agree that throttle use will affect consumption - in my test i was just holding a steady part throttle at 70mph on the same flat road. for a while was getting over 61mpg indicated today leading my wife at snails pace as she build up to direct access !

 

[Balders1450]

agree that throttle use will affect consumption - in my test i was just holding a steady part throttle at 70mph on the same flat road. for a while was getting over 61mpg indicated today leading my wife at snails pace as she build up to direct access !

I just put my screen on it's lowest setting, so should now get more!
Will check next ride.....

 

[Kintessack GSr]

Yep I agree my 2010 adv getting 50-51mpg 2500 miles no oil consumed so far.

 

[snerkler]

I think my enigne must be starting to 'bed in' as I'm now getting around 47 mpg as opposed to 44-45, even though I'm probably riding more aggresively now than I did before. by the time it's serviced I might be up to 50mpg

 

[squid]

My new Audi is averaging 68MPG - 86MPG on a clear motorway.




I'm afraid bikes have stood still in the fuel stakes.... 10years ago 47mpg would have impressed a car driver.

 

[Oldrat]

Been getting 44 -46 from my 2010. Had a punt at the weekend and got it down to 37 though. Needs more oil now as well. Still it's quite a fun way to burn money though

 

[snerkler]

I think my enigne must be starting to 'bed in' as I'm now getting around 47 mpg as opposed to 44-45, even though I'm probably riding more aggresively now than I did before. by the time it's serviced I might be up to 50mpg

Latest tank was 51.3mpg

 

[LBL]

Been doing some faster riding of late, down to 41mpg and using oil, at least i no what oil to put in

 

[Balders1450]

On a good "play" after my 12,000 service got in in low 40's, but with the screen right down and riding normal 49 mpg, so it up on previous mpg!

 

[Simon_h]

lowering the screen really makes that bigger difference?

 

[snerkler]

lowering the screen really makes that bigger difference?

I don't think so, I think he's joking and is more to do with riding "normal". I'm sure some physics guru will be able to calculate how much drag the screen causes and can argue that it reduces consumption, but I'd be surprised if it's any more than negligible. Plus whatever reduction in drag you get from having your screen lower you increase the drag from your body so would probably cancel out anyway, or maybe even increase it

 

[Simon_h]

I don't think so, I think he's joking and is more to do with riding "normal". I'm sure some physics guru will be able to calculate how much drag the screen causes and can argue that it reduces consumption, but I'd be surprised if it's any more than negligible. Plus whatever reduction in drag you get from having your screen lower you increase the drag from your body so would probably cancel out anyway, or maybe even increase it

that's what I was thinking hence the surprise....although the RT is considerably more economical than the GS so I didn't know if there was merit in the screen angle.

 

[snerkler]

that's what I was thinking hence the surprise....although the RT is considerably more economical than the GS so I didn't know if there was merit in the screen angle.

The RT has a bigger screen and also you sit lower therefore if you lower the screen it will probably still pass over your head and so you'd still not get drag from your body. (this is just me applying common sense and I've no evidence to back this theory up). How much this would influence economy though I've no idea, but reducing drag definitely helps with economy.
There may be other factors such as gear ratios and overall streamlining. Lets face it the GSA has the aerodynamics of a brick

 

[macpants]

51.3 almost all the time. Mainly fast A roads at 70ish. Dont really worry too much about the fuel type either. I put in any old unleaded.

 

[The Nutter]

200 mile motorway trip, legal (ish) speed, 57mpg. Ride back, bit faster + headwind 49mpg. 235 mile ride out with friends, little motorway and mostly empty B roads 61mpg.

 

[JohnnyBoxer]

Those figures are appalling...................my (10 yo technology) 1150GSA does 45-55+mpg and my G650 Single does over 75mpg at similar speeds

BMW can get the F800 twins to achieve over 80mpg.................