Speed & Consumption

[Lou Girardin]

and there will be a marked difference in fuel consumption between a fully faired bike and a naked one above 80kph.

I found that the half faired, larger engined, heavier Bandit used less fuel than my RF9.

[quickbuck]

Some time ago (When fuel was about $1.50/l) I rode super carefully to work and back each day to see how long my fuel would last. I got a few more miles out of a tank (compared to if I rode it hard). This equated to about$2.00 at the time.
I had more fun riding spiritedly, and would happily afford the $2 for the fun.
Then, I took my bike in for a carb balance and chucked on a new chain and sprockets, and get the same tank range I did when I rode carefully.
Of course the maintenance didn't come cheap, but was obviously required.

What I am really trying to say is, the price of fuel is still a little cost compared to the overall cost of running a bike.
I just pour fuel it, pay for it, and have fun. After all that is why I ride.

Yeah, I know

[McJim]

I found that the half faired, larger engined, heavier Bandit used less fuel than my RF9.

Fair point Lou - the top fairing is probably the more important part as it deflects the airflow around the least aerodynamic part of the bike (the rider) so the fact that it was only half faired compared to the full fairing on your RF9 would only be a negligible difference. Also extra mass will increase a vehicles' terminal velocity for a given application of force (i.e. it's harder to get a heavy bike moving but you can keep a heavier object moving at the same speed with less force) and the gearing may have been different.

Now you've got me travelling into the realms of pedantic physics - I need a beer.