How far will your bike go on a tank?

[Hitcher]

Wooohooo - a penis race.

And no Viagra...

[phaedrus]

I get about 300K before the guage says empty. But I have pushed 400 without running dry, and I have a guestimation of 430

[What?]

Cars have damn near doubled in HP since the sixties,and improved in fuel ecconomy,why not bikes?

Not so simple, really. On the whole, bikes do put out a heap more horsepower for a given displacement than those of 40 years ago, but aerodynamics (on unfaired bikes) remain constant. Most of your fuel is going in to defeating air resistance. Take the fairing off a Busa or Blackbird and see what happens to the fuel consumption. Now compare an '05 Commodore's airflow characteristics to an A40 Devon...

[fishb8nz]

Usually do approx 280 km/week for about 7 litres. This week on a slow (even by GN125 standards) did 348 km for 7.71L, which equates to 45.16 km/litre or 127.7 mpg. 10.3 litr tank would give a theoretical 450 km but 380 for normal commuting. That's cheap commuting.

[marty]

Usually do approx 280 km/week for about 7 litres. This week on a slow (even by GN125 standards) did 348 km for 7.71L, which equates to 45.16 km/litre or 127.7 mpg. 10.3 litr tank would give a theoretical 450 km but 380 for normal commuting. That's cheap commuting.

fcukin hell!

[marty]

We talkin' Challenger or M! Abrahms?

the 70 tonne M1 for me

[tracyprier]

Doing the weekly commute and weekend fun stuff mine does 410 on 95.
That's about 40 more than what it was before I removed the catalytic converter element... bloody California emmission regs

[carver]

my dt 175 will do 153 km to 8.5 lt
which is approx 18 km a lt, with my usual thrashing
and 200 km to 1/2 a lt of stroker oil
its a pain, because the range is shit, anyone know where can get a tank from?
carver

[jeremysprite]

has done about 285 so far, on this tank, just on the edge of the red empty zone, then i'll turn it onto reserve for another 60k or so. and i thrash my bike a lot

[Monsterbishi]

Managed a new best fuel economy on the YZF750R this week, 174k's before the fuel light came on...

[Motu]

Not so simple, really. On the whole, bikes do put out a heap more horsepower for a given displacement than those of 40 years ago, but aerodynamics (on unfaired bikes) remain constant. Most of your fuel is going in to defeating air resistance. Take the fairing off a Busa or Blackbird and see what happens to the fuel consumption. Now compare an '05 Commodore's airflow characteristics to an A40 Devon...

But around town? Aerodynamics don't come into it.My XLV750 had about the same HP per cc as my 650 Triumph,both twins,but it only got half the mileage,something is wrong as far as I'm concerned.97.5% of riders haven't experianced a 100mpg bike that can cruise at 130kph and give those figures,they think half that is pretty damn good....well I don't.

[What?]

Hmmmmmmm, got me there, Motu. My Daytona managed about 65mpg, more if I had to push it some of the way...

[XTC]

I have the biggest penis - ok!?

You better spit that penis out then the owner might want it back!

[2wheels in Red Beach]

I get about 230 before I hit reserve. 200k's of that is commuting about 80k's of that spent in 3rd or 4th gear lane splitting.....

cost $18 for 230k's.

[Ixion]

But around town? Aerodynamics don't come into it.My XLV750 had about the same HP per cc as my 650 Triumph,both twins,but it only got half the mileage,something is wrong as far as I'm concerned.97.5% of riders haven't experianced a 100mpg bike that can cruise at 130kph and give those figures,they think half that is pretty damn good....well I don't.

Hm. My experience is that on a four stroke twin, twin carbs would give a very small extra usable power boost, at the expense of a very large increase in fuel consumption. My Speed Twin would easily do 100mpg, which compares interestingly with Mr What's (admittedly more powerful) Daytona.

So if twin carbs mean a small increase in power and a big increase in consumption, what will 4 carbs do I wonder.

Obviously, valve sizes and timing come into this too. I suspect modern bikes have these on the raw edge, to extract as much hp as possible, at the expense of very poor fuel economy.

Basically, once fuel consumption was an important factor in consideration of a new mount, top speed less important, so long as it was adequate. An extra 10mph at 100+mph was not considered a very useful benefit and not worth sacrificing 30mpg for . Nowdays top speed is everything, the only consideration. Manufacturers design accordingly. It is all part of the philosophy of racing bikes on the road, as opposed to practical transport.