What’s with the crappy fuel efficiency?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pb80403
  • Start date Start date
Re: Re: Re: Re: What’s with the crappy fuel efficiency?

Actually the drag coefficient is the main reason why bikes have poor fuel efficiency and top speed. If you go to your local library you will discover an open university videotape that goes into precisely that matter.

Joker your point about a 160bhp car that does 186mph has absolutely no substance. A bike like the GS that has 100bhp and weighs 300kgs (with fluids and rider) has a power to weight ration of 0.33 bhp/kg giving a top speed of 135mph. On a 1400kgs car the same power to weight ratio would give you about 460bhp. Trust me that a 400bhp car will have a top speed of at least 170mph (the cayenne being a good example despite poor aerodynamics) which is way higher than the GS. The main reason is indeed the drag coefficient.

The secondary reason is that bikes produce significantly lower torque figures compared to equally powerful car engines.
 
Can someone decipher that for me --^

Joker your point about a 160bhp car that does 186mph has absolutely no substance

Why not? Surely the same amount of power with a different chassi would give you (some) indication of drag coefficient?
Just as a faired bike is faster than an unfaired bike - because it lowers the wind-resistance...?!

A bike like the GS that has 100bhp and weighs 300kgs (with fluids and rider) has a power to weight ration of 0.33 bhp/kg giving a top speed of 135mph.

I think you'll find (at the Open University?) that power-to-weight ratios affect acceleration (at lower speeds where wind resistance isn't a big factor)
Which means that for pure top speed it doesn't matter much if the bike weighs 300 kg or 400 kg given that the wind resistance is the same.
Or do you reckon that a fully loaded car is that much slower than one with just the driver and almost no fuel?

Trust me that a 400bhp car will have a top speed of at least 170mph.
But a bike with 400bhp will have a top speed of the regions of 250mph (very rough guestimate).

Wind resistance doesn't increase in a linear way. Which means the faster we go, the more drag, the more power we need.
Take a moped with a fat geezer on it - 120kg - with 1.5bhp surely that would no *nowhere* according to that reasoning.
The reason why it does is because the wind resistance at those low speeds is extremely low.

Which is why the initial comparison of a car doing 55ish mph on a straight road, compared to how I ride the GS to get it down to 45mpg is unfair.

Sure the GS' shape is far from slippery (especially compared to that Honda Hybrid car)

Another example is my girlfriends car and her (second bike)
Saxo 1.1l some 60 odd bhp, it does bang on 100mph on the GPS
Her Kawasaki ZXR400 (who's seen the best days) does easily over 120mph....

...i.e the bike has got lower wind resistance...
 
Its either me not be able to explain or you not wanting to understand!

So I will try the Socrates method instead.

Q:
A saxo has maybe 5 times the frontal area of an africa twin and the same power. Now, they both have approximately the same speed. How is that possible?

sleep on it...




TheJoker said:
Can someone decipher that for me --^



Why not? Surely the same amount of power with a different chassi would give you (some) indication of drag coefficient?
Just as a faired bike is faster than an unfaired bike - because it lowers the wind-resistance...?!



I think you'll find (at the Open University?) that power-to-weight ratios affect acceleration (at lower speeds where wind resistance isn't a big factor)
Which means that for pure top speed it doesn't matter much if the bike weighs 300 kg or 400 kg given that the wind resistance is the same.
Or do you reckon that a fully loaded car is that much slower than one with just the driver and almost no fuel?


But a bike with 400bhp will have a top speed of the regions of 250mph (very rough guestimate).

Wind resistance doesn't increase in a linear way. Which means the faster we go, the more drag, the more power we need.
Take a moped with a fat geezer on it - 120kg - with 1.5bhp surely that would no *nowhere* according to that reasoning.
The reason why it does is because the wind resistance at those low speeds is extremely low.

Which is why the initial comparison of a car doing 55ish mph on a straight road, compared to how I ride the GS to get it down to 45mpg is unfair.

Sure the GS' shape is far from slippery (especially compared to that Honda Hybrid car)

Another example is my girlfriends car and her (second bike)
Saxo 1.1l some 60 odd bhp, it does bang on 100mph on the GPS
Her Kawasaki ZXR400 (who's seen the best days) does easily over 120mph....

...i.e the bike has got lower wind resistance...
 
Ok Joker, if you really need a scientific explanation here it goes.
(sorry guys this came out so long)

Drag is quite simply the retarding force that air exerts on any body moving through it. Drag is typically represented as a drag coefficient. The drag coefficient or Cd is determined by dividing the force exerted on a body by the square of the speed times frontal area times the density of air, or Cd=F / ((speed2) x frontal area x d/2). The reason that we even bother to calculate Cd is that it is relatively independent of vehicle speed and a good indicator of how "aerodynamic" a vehicle is. From this formula you get a number like 0.6 which incidentally is the Cd for an average faired sport bike. For comparison, the Cd of a Ford Probe is roughly 0.34.

If you want to go fast on a bike then the name of this game is low drag. When cruising around town at anything close to legal speeds drag is not really a concern. The force requirement basically goes up as a square of the speed you're traveling, which means that the horsepower requirement goes up as the cube of speed. In other words if your bike uses 1 bhp at 30 mph to push you through the air then it would take 8 bhp at 60 mph and 64 hp at 120 mph. Now strap in for some really big math. A typical motorcycle (with the rider upright, no fairing) can roughly obtain a top speed (in mph) of 30 times the cube root of its power (in hp), or Vmax = 30 x (power)1/3. For a faired sport bike, with the rider tucked behind the fairing, the factor increases from 30 to about 35. The other forces such as frictional losses in the bike's drive train or the rolling resistance of the tires consume little of a bike's total power output at 100+ mph speeds.

The first way to reduce drag, by reducing what is called the frontal area. The frontal area is simply the surface that faces into the wind. The more frontal area your bike has the more drag your bike has. The streamlined bikes used for top speed runs are a good example of low frontal area and low drag coefficient or Cd. They are built as narrow and thin as possible to keep the frontal area to an absolute minimum. They are long and gently curved, similar to a teardrop, to reduce Cd. For the home engineer the simplest way to determine the frontal area for a given machine is to take a photo of it head on from a measured distance. Then the total forward facing area is measured from the photo.

Components like the front wheel, mirrors, and fairings or windshields all add frontal area to a bike. And then obviously there is how the rider sits on the bike. When you sit in an upright position on a bike your body creates much more frontal area than when you sit in a crouch and therefore more drag as you move through the air. When a road racer sits up when braking into a corner their body creates extra drag and thus slows them down, but when back on a straight-away they once again crouch to minimize their frontal area for maximum speed.

Not only is the front of the bike important, but how the air rejoins at the rear is critical to low drag. A conventional cooling system for a bike produces considerable drag despite the relatively low volume of air that flows through it. This is because the intake and exhaust routes for the cooling air are often very inefficient and bring the air to an almost standstill compared to the speed of the surrounding air. This so-called cooling drag can be a substantial amount of the bike's total drag.

Thed other major contribution to drag is the turbulence created by the bike. As air flows over a bike it swirls around the different parts of the bike trying to fill the partial vacuum created behind the bike. A good example of turbulent drag is the buffeting felt by a rider behind a windshield or large faring. The buffeting is caused by air rushing to fill the partial vacuum that has been created on the backside of the faring. This turbulent drag is not only the largest source of drag most often it is also the easiest to cure.

Turbulence creates a sort of pulling force or suction on the bike. Blending shapes together and eliminating sharp corners and intersections between different areas lessens the turbulence. Giving air a smooth route to follow can be seen in the much more organic shapes of modern sport bikes. One of the most critical areas for a bike is the tail section. To keep the airflow smooth the tail should fill the void that is created behind the rider and bring the air flowing all around the bike gently back together.


** For those keeping score, the Cd is not completely independent of speed, but is a function of the Reynolds Re number (which is basically a measure of how turbulent the flow is). Typically, Cd decreases with increasing Re until Re ~ 1,000,000, at which point Cd increases due to the onset of flow separation and turbulence.
 
'stou koufou ti porta....'


Alex said:
Ok Joker, if you really need a scientific explanation here it goes.
(sorry guys this came out so long)

Drag is quite simply the retarding force that air exerts on any body moving through it. Drag is typically represented as a drag coefficient. The drag coefficient or Cd is determined by dividing the force exerted on a body by the square of the speed times frontal area times the density of air, or Cd=F / ((speed2) x frontal area x d/2). The reason that we even bother to calculate Cd is that it is relatively independent of vehicle speed and a good indicator of how "aerodynamic" a vehicle is. From this formula you get a number like 0.6 which incidentally is the Cd for an average faired sport bike. For comparison, the Cd of a Ford Probe is roughly 0.34.

If you want to go fast on a bike then the name of this game is low drag. When cruising around town at anything close to legal speeds drag is not really a concern. The force requirement basically goes up as a square of the speed you're traveling, which means that the horsepower requirement goes up as the cube of speed. In other words if your bike uses 1 bhp at 30 mph to push you through the air then it would take 8 bhp at 60 mph and 64 hp at 120 mph. Now strap in for some really big math. A typical motorcycle (with the rider upright, no fairing) can roughly obtain a top speed (in mph) of 30 times the cube root of its power (in hp), or Vmax = 30 x (power)1/3. For a faired sport bike, with the rider tucked behind the fairing, the factor increases from 30 to about 35. The other forces such as frictional losses in the bike's drive train or the rolling resistance of the tires consume little of a bike's total power output at 100+ mph speeds.

The first way to reduce drag, by reducing what is called the frontal area. The frontal area is simply the surface that faces into the wind. The more frontal area your bike has the more drag your bike has. The streamlined bikes used for top speed runs are a good example of low frontal area and low drag coefficient or Cd. They are built as narrow and thin as possible to keep the frontal area to an absolute minimum. They are long and gently curved, similar to a teardrop, to reduce Cd. For the home engineer the simplest way to determine the frontal area for a given machine is to take a photo of it head on from a measured distance. Then the total forward facing area is measured from the photo.

Components like the front wheel, mirrors, and fairings or windshields all add frontal area to a bike. And then obviously there is how the rider sits on the bike. When you sit in an upright position on a bike your body creates much more frontal area than when you sit in a crouch and therefore more drag as you move through the air. When a road racer sits up when braking into a corner their body creates extra drag and thus slows them down, but when back on a straight-away they once again crouch to minimize their frontal area for maximum speed.

Not only is the front of the bike important, but how the air rejoins at the rear is critical to low drag. A conventional cooling system for a bike produces considerable drag despite the relatively low volume of air that flows through it. This is because the intake and exhaust routes for the cooling air are often very inefficient and bring the air to an almost standstill compared to the speed of the surrounding air. This so-called cooling drag can be a substantial amount of the bike's total drag.

Thed other major contribution to drag is the turbulence created by the bike. As air flows over a bike it swirls around the different parts of the bike trying to fill the partial vacuum created behind the bike. A good example of turbulent drag is the buffeting felt by a rider behind a windshield or large faring. The buffeting is caused by air rushing to fill the partial vacuum that has been created on the backside of the faring. This turbulent drag is not only the largest source of drag most often it is also the easiest to cure.

Turbulence creates a sort of pulling force or suction on the bike. Blending shapes together and eliminating sharp corners and intersections between different areas lessens the turbulence. Giving air a smooth route to follow can be seen in the much more organic shapes of modern sport bikes. One of the most critical areas for a bike is the tail section. To keep the airflow smooth the tail should fill the void that is created behind the rider and bring the air flowing all around the bike gently back together.


** For those keeping score, the Cd is not completely independent of speed, but is a function of the Reynolds Re number (which is basically a measure of how turbulent the flow is). Typically, Cd decreases with increasing Re until Re ~ 1,000,000, at which point Cd increases due to the onset of flow separation and turbulence.
 
absolutely true, although I think flow separation and turbulence occurs far before re=1,000,000, maybe around 10,000 to 100,000 ...
 
Wind resistance is not the whole answer. It explains why, at a given high steady speed, you might need more of the bike's 100hp than of the cars. But steady high speed running is not my experience of bike riding in the UK and it is not the basis of the consumption figures quoted.

There is a second cause of fuel consumption and that is the energy used in accelerating the bike - and which is lost again as heat from the brakes. The bike weighs less than the car so Newtonian mechanics says it needs less force to accelerate it and therefore consumes less power. But I suspect that when the bike accelerates, it does so harder than the car , making the power consumption and therefore the fuel consumption similar. But without a datalogging session, there is no way of knowing what part wind resistance plays and what part is acceleration, transmission losses, etc

Then there is another factor - what you the punter actually wants. And for most bikes that is performance first second and third. When did you last go into a bike dealer and ask him what was the fuel consumtption of some bike you were considering? Have you ever done that ? Neither have I and the manufacturers know it. So fuel economy is not a design factor - power is. Thats why there are no mass produced diesel bikes and why there are such abortions as the hedge-abuser.

As far as pure engine efficiency is concerned, an engineer would look at the bmep which is little different on bike engines and those of modern cars.
 
My car is a VW Passat TDI Pumpe-duse 130BHP and 228 Nm Tourque. It is turbocharged and intercooled with direct injection from camshaft driven unit injectors at phenomenal pressures for fuel atomisation with electronic controls for accurate fuel metering and knock prevention. You could say its near state-of-the-art for diesel combustion technology.

So what?

If you drive one, you'll know how much grunt these engines produce and how many MPG you get even when driven hard. Such attributes would be excellent for a GS style bike providing the turbo was well matched for the application. You would get huge amounts of lazy torque from low revs and some serious fuel tank range for long distance touring. A GS Adventure that does 600+ miles to the tankfull yet can still upset sports bikes anybody?

One day, just maybe ??????
 
The only trouble with a turbocharged intercooled engine would be weight. A lot of it actually. The turbocharger would weigh at least 7kg, you would need a more elaborate exhaust manifold thus adding weight again and the intercooler would be another 7kg at leat. Combine that with the greater weight of a diesel engine which needs to have stronger internals to handle the huge pressures involved and the cost of all the new technology to be developed for bike useand you will be looking into a not so appealing opportunity.
 
Diesel bikes already exist - they aren't turbocharged of course, but I don't think a massive amount of new technology would be needed. The main reason we can't buy them now is lack of demand by consumers.
 
Can we have some examples please beacause i don't know of any

Well there used to be a diesel engine in an Enfield - produced zilch hp and was as slow as a very slow thing.

The army have had developed a diesel engined bike (to avoid needing 2 types of fuel). Currently produces about 24hp. Lots of articles around if you do a search. Here's one:

http://www.motorbikestoday.com/features/Articles/diesel_bikes.htm

Paul
 
Glad we sorted out that all bikes don't have terrible aerodynamics. :D

I won't fire you guys up again :) Please have a beer instead - much more productive. :D

Paul, you might actually encounter those Diesel bikes at the finish of the rally - in 2002 they did the rally :)

:D
 
TheJoker said:
Glad we sorted out that all bikes don't have terrible aerodynamics. :D :D


I think we sorted out that all bikes do have terrible aerodynamics....
But what the heck, lets have a beer instead :beerjug:
 
7kg each for a turbocharger and intercooler for a bike Alex?? Surely thats a bit heavy. You wouldn't need a particularly big one, even with an integral wastegate, and optimum boost pressure would be pretty low too. The engine could remain as a boxer twin with the fuel pumps built into each cylinder 'pumpe-duse' style. If needed, an aluminium air-to-air intercooler could go in front of or above the oil cooler with plastic air ducting through the frame, and the turbo could be mounted next to the gearbox before the end can. As a diesel has no throttle plate there is almost no turbo lag so you get boost from just above idle right through to the redline, giving increased volumetric efficiency. Also, the turbo robs wasted energy from the exhaust leading to a quieter exhaust note. The only possible downside could be emissions, solved through precise fuel metering by an ecu. An EGR valve could reduce unburnt hydrocarbons.

In engineering terms, it would not be particularly difficult to develop, and would be a killer bike for the Dakar where the increase in fuel efficiency/economy would allow for less refuelling or a smaller main fuel tank and smaller jerry cans for the same range, thus saving weight and increasing speed and practicality.

Come on BMW, if you make it, I will buy one (price dependant of course !!).
 
The huuuuuge amounts of torque would also make for an.... "interesting" :rolleyes: driving experience. Wheelspin in anything but the roughest tarmac and wheelies in 5th anyone?? :D

I think you're wrong about the size and weight of the turbo and intercooler for this engine size. I have a Smart car which is turbocharged and only 700cc. The turbo is a good 5kg and the intercooler is about 40x40x10cm and weighs another 5kg. The car works at 0.7bar boost. As the beemer has a biger motor the same turbo size could be used for the motor to run at low boost, perhaps 0.4bar.

The amount of piping required is a matter of concern, as well as cooling. The turbo would have to be somewhere not accidentaly accessible as it get very very hot.

Also, the specific output of the motor would increase, necesitating the use of more efficient cooling i.e. water cooling.
 


Back
Top Bottom