Weight+style vs. mileage

[deeptekkie]

I get incredible mileage (with stock gearing) & I ride like a posessed banshee. (Top end)
The one thing I seldom do? I hardly ever get near the redline when going through the gears. (I know it sounds crazy but I think I get better mileage with regular instead of high-octane!) JMWPTO!

(Just my warped, perverted, twisted opinion. Feel free to make it your's)

 

[FinalImpact]

. . . I still wanna know how people with the -1 front are getting 60+mpg. I'm a bit on the "day'um" side (gabriel iglesias) but I usually shift at 3.5k and accelerate slower than soccer moms...

Its also about the engines load. Although you may have dropped RPM's with a sprocket change, it also increased the load on the engine which doesn't always give favorable results as this is not a torque based engine. EDIT: Meaning - if you do lots of stop and go, this may hurt more than it helps. If miles are all hi-way miles, that's different.

Higher loads during take off mean, more fuel is added to the burn so MPG drops.

Also; My observation on my used 08 was that I was getting 42 ~ 44mpg when it had less than 5000 miles on it. Now at 7#### plus miles, i'm getting into the 50's in the same riding conditions. The big difference that I can see is the weather and maybe now the bike is broken in?!!!!
It was in the 50's F then and now its in the 80s F.

IMO: Staying/being in low gears more often hurts mpg.
Example:
If held at 5000 RPM for 1 minute in 1st gear = 0.38 miles traveled.
If held at 5000 RPM for 1 minute in 6th gear = 1.01 miles traveled.

Maybe ditch the soccer mom take off and get'R going up to cruise speed!

 

[ChevyFazer]

Its also about the engines load. Although you may have dropped RPM's with a sprocket change, it also increased the load on the engine which doesn't always give favorable results as this is not a torque based engine. EDIT: Meaning - if you do lots of stop and go, this may hurt more than it helps. If miles are all hi-way miles, that's different.

Higher loads during take off mean, more fuel is added to the burn so MPG drops.

Also; My observation on my used 08 was that I was getting 42 ~ 44mpg when it had less than 5000 miles on it. Now at 7#### plus miles, i'm getting into the 50's in the same riding conditions. The big difference that I can see is the weather and maybe now the bike is broken in?!!!!
It was in the 50's F then and now its in the 80s F.

IMO: Staying/being in low gears more often hurts mpg.
Example:
If held at 5000 RPM for 1 minute in 1st gear = 0.38 miles traveled.
If held at 5000 RPM for 1 minute in 6th gear = 1.01 miles traveled.

Maybe ditch the soccer mom take off and get'R going up to cruise speed!

I read a article a while back that completely compliments eveeything you just said and basicly what it was sayin is that you dont want to short shift to get good mpg you want to take the engine up into the rpm band closer to max hp or tq rating before you shift because the engine will not struggle as much to accelerate vs down low...not saying to floor it everywhere you go but to keep the same amount of throttle you normally use but hold it for longer until you shift. Example if you normally shift around 5k take it on up to 7k or 8k before you shift. I know it sounds like a contradiction but if you think about it at 8k the engine hardly has to work at all to climb a extra 10 to 20 mph vs at 5k.

Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk

 

[Smittyboy]

I wonder where that magical tipping point is where power overcoming the load gets outweighed by gas consumption. You can feel the start of the torque curve around 6k, but if it is spinning faster than necessary, where does the extra power do more harm than good?

 

[ChevyFazer]

It wiuld do more harm then good if you were giving it full throttle but at half or less it wont get the fuel to do it....so I would say and try to just experiement with it and see what works best for you
Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk

 

[FinalImpact]

I wonder where that magical tipping point is where power overcoming the load gets outweighed by gas consumption. You can feel the start of the torque curve around 6k, but if it is spinning faster than necessary, where does the extra power do more harm than good?

Prolly when the front tire leaves the asphalt! :rof: :spank:


I used to be able to get 24mpg in my Cleveland powered V8 with 4spd (no over drive) and Holly 780cfm. Its all about lightly working the engine through its RPM band. The more load you impose it must either A) retard the timing to keep from detonating (costs MPG). B) add more fuel to cool the incoming fuel charge C) downshift to reduce the load.

Basically lugging peaky engines like the FZ causes it to consume more fuel. So if you think about the next gear, pulling enough RPM to land it in a range that it makes good torque when the next gear hits but doing so at a rate that doesn't load it excessively. A vacuum cage would tell you about the load. Besides, revving it lightly improves water and oil flow for best cooling and uniform temperature throughout the engine block = better burn = more efficient.

 

[Guitar Man]

You didn't mention how often you generally go through a tank of gas. 1 day of solid riding or 3 weeks of daily commuting? Huge difference even when all other vairables are held constant.

I bet if you rode through no traffic twisty roads and spent an entire tank of gas while only stopping once in the middle to take a break for 10 minutes and without really hitting any stop signs, your mileage would be much higher. If you were to "ride the pace" in 5th or 6th gear on this ride it would climb yet again.

A key factor that appears to largely overlooked is the fact that a tank of gas that lasts two weeks where the bike is turned off and on several times and the rider hits stop signs and stop lights will yield much worse MPG than a tank that is spent over the course of 5 or 6 hours of solid riding in the mountains.

That all makes sense. City riding is most likely the cause.