[curt248]

Yeah I realize that when rearranged so the drag is out front it is easy to see, but when you look at articles about the subject they generally just talk about Cd.

I think it's more important to understand what the Cd is so you can understand its' true effect.

[lanbrown]

This might help some out:
Drag coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This should be looked at as well:
Drag coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of it is you are creating a hole in the air to go through; moving air out of the way. The second is that if you don’t close that hole, then there is a vacuum at the rear of the vehicle. If you don’t close it, then that will increase drag and the vacuum is requiring more energy to be exerted to overcome this. A bicyclist does not close that hole and thus the Cd is higher. Look at their helmets, ever wondered why they have the beak on the back of them? That is the reason why. This is also why you see the hump on the motorcycle racers suits.

Like a bicycle, a motorcycle doesn’t close the hole very well at all; this requires HP to be used.

A car will rev lower and have better aerodynamics to slip through the air. While the engine can be larger, it is more tuned for fuel efficiency than performance. The emissions are also tuned that way as well as the entire system more optimized for fuel efficiency.

Tires can also play a factor. Having tires that grip the road also means that they take more power to move forward.

[blue1000rr]

if you guys want to talk and bitch about drag and areodynamics and such start another thread.

but im not sure what i get for mpg. a lot worse then what i did on my gsxr750 i know that much

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by ghbzorro

Yeah, truck back home is a 2000 K-3500 Crew Cab with 6.5 turbo-diesel. Miss that thing! But that's another story. Now back to the issue.

I would be willing to bet that on average the 929 gets ridden faster than the Swift gets driven. If driven beside each other I would expect the Swift to burn fuel faster. It might have a pretty aerodynamic shape, but I would estimate that it has at least 3 times the frontal area, and maybe more.

Or maybe I should ask you how long your front wheel bearings have been seized and calipers seized/brakes dragging while pulling you and your parachute, LOL.

Final comment is that you shoudn't confuse the maximum power with the actual power produced at a given engine speed and throttle position. So while the 929 might be capable of higher power, I would expect that it would be producing less than the Swift at a given speed.

Wish we could do a real test!

A 6.5 liter engine is going to burn more fuel than a one liter bike engine any day purely due to the size of the combustion chambers. Unless it's using 6.5 times as much fuel as the bike I think you'd agree that the truck engine is probably more "fuel efficient" than the bike?

I drive and ride both fairly similarly but of course the bike gets me places faster than the car. Around town the car rarely gets above third gear and the bikes rarely above fourth. My '98 GSXR7 gets around 14.5kpl and my ZX6R gets around 18kpl.

Alongside each other at a constant speed I would also expect the car to burn more fuel despite the bike doing twice the revs of the car at the same speed. Considering it is a 40% bigger engine and the vehicle weighs over three times more than the bike I still think the car is burning its fuel more efficiently.

Around town I find the car uses more of the tacho than the bike. Probably 50% of redline or even a little more whereas the bike would be more like 40-45%.

The 929 has 135hp at the wheel and is perfectly linear. The car I haven't dynoed but I believe they run around 60-70ish so I tend to doubt the car will be producing more power than the 929 at any given road speed :-)

Three times the frontal area of bike and rider would be about right I'd say but aerodynamics are pretty minimal at real world speeds.

[dattaway]

I blame the short stroke of our engines. Get the mixture in there real quick and dump it quickly for a new batch. Our engines are horsepower sweatshops.

[bulldog12]

normal driving (under 100) i get 38 or so mpg. at the track i'm guessing under 20 mpg.

[ghbzorro]

Originally Posted by curt248

Am I on the right track?

That's exactly it. As an old friend used to say .. you hit your head right on the nail.

[Weasle1000RR]

I'm pretty sure this thread is about fuel economy. Not all of this other crap you guys are spewing. I bought my '06 1000RR brand new. It is still bone stock after 11,000 miles, and I average around 42 mpg city and 48 on the highway.

[bumble blade]

my 03 954 does less than 100mls on a full tank sometimes.everyone on this forum quotes all sorts of figures.but mine does'nt seem to come anywhere near some of the quotes i've read. so you know what i just live with it.

[Duke_954]

I get between 40 - 42 MPG commuting on a '03 954. Lots of easy roll ons and about 20 miles of highway 25 miles of slower driving. No stop and go.

[blue1000rr]

i didnt buy my 1krr to get good fuel economy if that was what i wanted i would have bought a rebel250

[jacobflyin]

Ok there is a lot of info on the post but my 954 all ways gets about 38 mpg and I never ride it under about 6000 rpms unless it's at a idel you don't get a sport bike to save money!

[kristribble]

2002 954-- track 50-70 miles before fuel light
street 90-120 miles before fuel light
yosh full pipe and pc3r with a map I got off here.

[conor]

Just got myself a new blade (2005 model), and have just performed a fuel economy test.

I rode around the city (and motorway) at exactly the speed limit.
Not 1KM over it at any time.

My fuel economy was
186KM and I used 14.75L when i filled up.

This translates to 7.93L/100KM, which is frankly rubbish.

I have tested my R6 in the same manner (a 2000 model), but it was a ride down the country which is a different test for sure.
The result was 81mpg (in US gallons).

Riding 4 sessions on the track uses up almost the entire tank -- almost -- the fuel light does not come on, but it does when I get home 20 minutes later. Mind you, the R6 on track is usually doing 13,000rpm!

I love my blade though, and I could'nt care less how shitty the economy is :-)

[bladeracer]

Although you were riding within the speed limit were you using the lower gears or lugging it along in sixth?
I followed a Police bike a couple of years ago for about 10km just to see if I could and I _really_ struggled to ride that slow. I sure couldn't do it every day :-)

I finally managed to accurately measure my fuel economy on the 929 at one circuit.
8.4kpl averaged over practise, qualifying and three races in the dry.
Next weekend I'm racing at a much faster circuit so I'll measure it there as well.

[conor]

Good point, I would never ride a bike (inline four) under 4000rpm.
So in the city I would use first and second gear.

On the motorway, 4th gear is approx 120kph (our speed limit) at 4000rpm (IIRC)

This is my first time riding a 1000cc bike, it's surprisingly different to the R6 (seat position especially), but I really like it.

The steering is not as quick as on the R6, and naturally it is a heavier bnike, but I'm in love. The wife is not super happy of course, as I spent 2K on the R6 getting new suspension fitted, and a major service. Then I binned it on track. She is still mechanically perfect, it just moved my plans forward for a new toy!

I've done 50,000miles on the R6 and a ton of track days. Great bike, gotta love the repsol blade though. Sweet bike.

[curt248]

It must have been that you were riding it in first and second gear. My car has a little computer that tells me the mileage. When pulling a trailer I would leave the car in third (overdrive off) and then let it shift to 4th(overdrive). The mileage via computer was always much better in 4th.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by conor

The steering is not as quick as on the R6, and naturally it is a heavier bnike, but I'm in love. The wife is not super happy of course, as I spent 2K on the R6 getting new suspension fitted, and a major service. Then I binned it on track. She is still mechanically perfect, it just moved my plans forward for a new toy!

The new '08 has changed everything.

[conor]

> The new '08 has changed everything.

Agreed, but it is far too ugly for my taste. I spent a huge amount of time - a week :-) - choosing what new bike I wanted. I really couldn't decide between a new bike (08 model), or an older R1, blade, Gixxer 750, gixxer thou or a twin like a ducati 999, RSV mille or what.

After much reading I finally decided that the difference between all the thousands is incredibly minimal, and the final decision was down to how it looked. I found an 05 repsol blade in the UK, and went for that. I like honda's reliability, even though it is not as exciting as an R1, gixxer or a kwak zx10r.

Like the 08 blade, the 08 zx10r is an ugly beast, albeit better looking face than the blade. The blade is THE bike though, traction control, slipper clutch, engine etc., etc. but on the road you won't notice the difference.

My R6 has uprated suspenders front and back, braking wave disks with HEL titanium brake lines, a sigma slipper clutch and it whoops ass out of thousands at our local circuit. (Mondello park really suits a 600)
This is why I choose a blade for the road, I'll pick a new bike when it gets to 50,000mls/76000kms like the little yam. :-)

[lanbrown]

The '08 blows the competition out of the water. More power, less weight and the handling of a 600. Suzuki, Kawasaki or Yamaha cannot claim that. The Euro RR according to most charts shows that it is #2 in peak power, but kills the others in the mid portion.

The blade does not have TC.

[slickwill]

I have tested my R6 in the same manner (a 2000 model), but it was a ride down the country which is a different test for sure.
The result was 81mpg (in US gallons).

I think you missed something in your conversion to US mpg. There is no R6 that is getting 81 mpg.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by slickwill

I think you missed something in your conversion to US mpg. There is no R6 that is getting 81 mpg.

I think it is possible, it would have to be a long straight road with a steep downgrade witht he clutch pulled in but engine running.

[ghbzorro]

Originally Posted by lanbrown

I think it is possible, it would have to be a long straight road with a steep downgrade witht he clutch pulled in but engine running.

Or a recently calibrated speedohealer.

On a more serious note, when the test is over such a short distance, and using such small fuel quantities, it doesn't take much measurement error in absolute terms to have quite an impact on the results. Though this might be an extreme case.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by ghbzorro

Or a recently calibrated speedohealer.

On a more serious note, when the test is over such a short distance, and using such small fuel quantities, it doesn't take much measurement error in absolute terms to have quite an impact on the results. Though this might be an extreme case.

That is why I said long; maybe 100 miles or so. Maybe even staying being a truck to reduce drag; like 3 feet behind.

[bladeracer]

I wouldn't rule it out completely.
I got _very_ close to 30kpl on the 929 over about 90kms when I was trying to reach the next gas station on a trip across Australia. I think I was doing about 70kph with a throttle lock in sixth lying as low as possible with everything tucked in.
I think that's about 70usmpg?
When you absolutely _have_ to conserve your fuel you _can_ get some amazing mileage but it sure isn't any fun and could never be related to real world riding.

[conor]

Originally Posted by slickwill

I think you missed something in your conversion to US mpg. There is no R6 that is getting 81 mpg.

Yep, I totally miscalculated. Here are the facts and you tell me what it should be ;-0

Distance (in miles) from Dublin to Lifford in Co. Donegal (Ireland)
135miles and I used 10.5 Litres of fuel. I was in sixth gear most of the journey and toddling along at the speed limit of 100kph or 120kph depending on type of road.

On the way up I filled the tank half-way as I was going a tad faster running late for a wedding.

In the city I get 120 to 130 miles before the red light comes on. Which is what 40mpg? (imperial)


let me know the result guys ;-0

[bladeracer]

I'm tired but that (135miles/10.5litres) works out to about 20.7kpl which is what my ZX6R gets around town if I don't work it too hard.

[conor]

Maybe I've forgot how much fuel I used so, it was two years ago!
Could well have been less. I remember doing a calculation at the time and it was 65mpg (imperial), which I thought was 81 us mpg.

I was out last night partying with the lads, so my head is a tad fuzzy today :-)