Motorcycles and fuel economy: the good, the bad and the ugly

Having been a passenger in the cargo netting in the boot of Ace's car,
I'd like to concur with your plush seated findings, in spades.

 

I meant, the price of petrol (gasoline) in other countries around the
globe, OK.

And your point is?

 

Not at all. The individual consumers are insulated from the sorts of
prices that people in other parts of the world have to pay.

Sure, but your motor industry continues to produce gas-guzzling V8s[1]
with appalling levels of inefficiency without the market compaining.
Even you 'compact' cars tend to have >2litre engines kicking out very
little power for very poor gas mileage.

Every time I get a rental car over there (several times a year) I'm
astonished at how shit they are.


[1] Not that I have a problem with big engines, but they really,
really should be getting either proper levels of power or fuel
efficiency, whereas most do neither.

 

But Cd is based on frontal area so if the frontal area is smaller, for
the same Cd, the absolute drag is smaller.

 

We have not been insulated from global fuel prices, so much as we have
been subject to different tax policies, as we pay - in general - the
same retail price for refined petroleum products that Europeans do, we
simply pay far less in taxes at the pump.

Those tax differences are the result of a numerous political
calculations that that result from very complex social, historic,
cultural, and geographic differences between Europe and North America.

I think most Americans are well aware of how much people pay for fuel
in Europe; however that doesn't factor into their daily economic
lives, any more than the price of fuel in the U.S. (or Canada) has
much effect on the daily economic lives of most Europeans.

 

You seem to have forgotten the rather large impact of the much lower mass of
the bike. The bike is only that quick because it's much lighter, not because
of the drag.

 

Depends somewhat.

If you use the bike a lot, your tires will use too (unless you idle it
all day long). You'll need more service, and the resale value while not
exactly rise, either. But pretty much everything except for
taxes/insurance will be affected directly by use.

Yes, I realize the exact calculation depends on a bunch of factors. The
point I wanted to make is that fuel consumption is not such a major part
of the overall cost of a bike that many people care deeply about it.

cu
.\\arc

 

Iirc, mass doesn't affect the top speed; it affects the time it takes
to arrive at the top speed; i.e. as you put it, how quick the vehicle
is. Typically, the top speed is drag-limited *IF* the gearing is
optimized, whether in a heavy car or on a light motorcycle.

 

Bit of both, innit.

Phil Irving "Tuning for Speed", pages 2710 - 274. Including the famous
graph of BHP/MPH.


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

But the rolling resistance is related to the mass.

 

Suzuki found similar with the later Gixxers and the Hayabusa.

 

Odd how you can apply logic and the basic principles of physics
correctly with regard to motorcycles, but blatantly contradict them
with your impossible 9-11 conspiracy theory. Funny how blind faith
and fear can affect your thought process...



Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/




--

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org







--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

snip

Personally I think its outrageous that weve got cars thatll do 60 to
the gallon, yet most bikes struggle to do 50. At least give us the
option, ok you want the performance on the twisties, but on the
motorway or good A roads Id like economy. This is all possible at a
flick of a switch, its just a little black box ffs...

 

Nothing to stop you doing it now if you get a bike suitable for a Power
Commander V. They let you switch between two maps, & also work as
closed loop, so a little bodged flap to reduce the air inlet would also
reduce the fuel.

Or you could do it the old fashioned way - with the throttle.

 

I do do it the old-fashioned way... I ride a BMW R1150GS...

 

Or buy a 1600cc diesel car for economy and a full on sports bike for
fun.

I don't own a car so I use a 660cc single cylinder bike with a big
fuel tank when I don't want to have to make frequent fuel stops and I
also have a 1000cc sports bike that needs filling every 100 miles and
makes me laugh every time I ride it. I don't see what's outrageous
about that.

 

But frequent electrically-generated stops?

 

Oh, do **** off, there's a good chap.

 

Sorted without surgery. How are the farmers these days?

 

But the technology is there to do both on one bike, the best of both
worlds at the flick of a switch (which wouldnt add a great deal to the
overall cost of a bike, surely) I just dont understand why none of the
major manufacturers do this, especially on bikes like the Honda
VFR800...

Shall I go and get my slippers and pipe now?