New excuse to lower the speed limit

[MD]

I got curious after reading this, so I decided to test what the 675's economy is like at different cruising speeds yesterday.

The Daytona has a current litres used per 100km display. It seems quite accurate and responds to the slightest change in gradient or head wind speed - which made it bloody hard to get a steady readout.
Remember, these rates are cruising at a constant speed with no acceleration at all. Tank holds 17.4 litres claimed.

Results;
90 kph = 4.5 l/100 = tank range of 386 km
100 kph = 5.1 l/100 = tank range of 341 km
110 kph = 5.7 l/100 = tank range of 305 km
120kph = 6.1 l/100 = tank range of 285 km *

* this 285km range happens to be what I get if I don't thrash it for a whole tank full.

The scary bit that I don't want the Greens to know, is that by just dropping form 90 kph to 88 kph (which the bike seemed to navigate itself to?) would get 4.0 to 4.1 l/100. So 80kph might just be a fuel saver. That's an additional 38 km from a tank from just a 2 kph drop! I was too scared to sample 80 kph on a straight open road. Worth knowing though if I'm running out miles from civilisation.

Another scary result from using this display was how bad 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears are at sucking the good oil, even if you take off as gently as possible.
I assumed that a constant 4000rpm would return about the same level of consumption, no matter what gear the bike was in. How wrong I was.

So all the Greenies have to do is ban 1 & 2nd gears in all vehicles, problem solved.

As much as I hate to admit it. They do have a point that within a range, reductions in speed can produce exponential decreases in fuel consumption.
Bastards!
ps- it's really fun to watch the readout go mental when you go full tit through the gears .

[Pwalo]

I got curious after reading this, so I decided to test what the 675's economy is like at different cruising speeds yesterday.

The Daytona has a current litres used per 100km display. It seems quite accurate and responds to the slightest change in gradient or head wind speed - which made it bloody hard to get a steady readout.
Remember, these rates are cruising at a constant speed with no acceleration at all. Tank holds 17.4 litres claimed.

Results;
90 kph = 4.5 l/100 = tank range of 386 km
100 kph = 5.1 l/100 = tank range of 341 km
110 kph = 5.7 l/100 = tank range of 305 km
120kph = 6.1 l/100 = tank range of 285 km *

* this 285km range happens to be what I get if I don't thrash it for a whole tank full.

The scary bit that I don't want the Greens to know, is that by just dropping form 90 kph to 88 kph (which the bike seemed to navigate itself to?) would get 4.0 to 4.1 l/100. So 80kph might just be a fuel saver. That's an additional 38 km from a tank from just a 2 kph drop! I was too scared to sample 80 kph on a straight open road. Worth knowing though if I'm running out miles from civilisation.

Another scary result from using this display was how bad 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears are at sucking the good oil, even if you take off as gently as possible.
I assumed that a constant 4000rpm would return about the same level of consumption, no matter what gear the bike was in. How wrong I was.

So all the Greenies have to do is ban 1 & 2nd gears in all vehicles, problem solved.

As much as I hate to admit it. They do have a point that within a range, reductions in speed can produce exponential decreases in fuel consumption.
Bastards!
ps- it's really fun to watch the readout go mental when you go full tit through the gears .

You are exactly right. If we could all suddenly appear on a straight, flat piece of road then travelling at 90k would be the most effecient way to travel. It's just the actual driving with other traffic, corners, hills, etc that's the problem.

Mind you it is possible to increase your economy by simply looking ahead and being smooth on the throttle, just like a MotoGP rider with a limited amount of fuel to last a race.

[Usarka]

The traffic lights at motorway on-ramps cause every car to stop and accelerate.

transit actually stated that the side by side lanes are partly to encourage cars to accelerate quickly.

Which is BAD for greenhouse emmissions.

I might write a letter to the greens pointing this out....... (edit, im a kiwi i cant be arsed)

[Swoop]

I don't think either concept would make for pr0n that I'd want to watch.

It would be an excellent "snuff" movie, however.