I've never in my life met anyone who has bought a bike and taken mpg in to consideration. It's just something that doesn't happen.

One of my mates sent me a txt last year saying he'd worked out that his 900 had done 47mpg. I txt him back saying he was a sad ba5tard for knowing that.

 

That quote above tells me that you DONT know a reasonable amount about bikes, it tells me you are aware of the sportsbike market (R1, GSXR, ZXR etc)

It tells me that you dont know about touring bikes, street bikes, adventure/trail bikes, comuting bikes etc, etc, etc.


The same principle to returning good mpg is the same on a bike as it is in a car.....good road reading so you dont need to constantly brake/accelerate, and good throttle control.

 

Maybe that is why there aren't more on the road, a lot of bikers ride it at the weekend and spends thousands on it, treat it like a baby, decorate it with bits of carbon, polishes it, tells people how fast it is and how poor it is on fuel because its just so damn beasty, I suppose it doesn't matter if you only ride it fifty miles on dry Sundays between February and October and drives a Diesel Audi 99 percent of the time.

I *get* the speed thing, honest, but a lot of bikes are treated as playthings rather than transport.

What I am getting at is I think there is more of a place for bikes other than teenagers of mopeds, weekend warriors and couriers.

By rights a bike should do a lot better mpg than a car, 47 is pretty good but it should be better, maybe more people who arent speed freaks would consider one if there was an advantage in running costs, most sports bikes will cost more to run than a small car, most people dont need to do 190 mph and would find 0-60 in three seconds utterly terrifying, most people don't want to be heard three counties away due to having removed the already quite loud exhaust and swapped it for a megaphone. Bikes can be cool but some miss the point, try too hard and go so over the top its hillarious.

I kind of like the Italian post war approach they took with the Vespa, i.e. pressed steel panels, cheap to make and fairly desirable, trouble is they are so small and as standard puny. A lot of developing countries use the Honda Cub and similar as delivery wagons, family transport etc but over here the moped just says teenager, oddball, skint or cabbie doing the knowledge, they are too slow for motorways and nobody wants one.

What bikes are there that fit the economy bill, have "adequate" performance, don't look to heinous, are quiet, comfy and can be used to move a reasonable ammount of luggage. Obviously, I will buy a turbo Hayabusa to restore my testosterone levels at the weekend.

 

My ole man commuted to Blackfriars from the edge of Kent in the seventies for several years on a CZ or was it MZ ,eastern european anyway and as ruff as **** despite being fairly young - basically becuase it was cheap and cheap to run

Im not sure this type of vehicle exists in the minds of motorcycle producers today - or indeed the last 25 years

- this could be where Jacko is coming from

 

Yes I think you see where I am coming from, I remember those MZ's, something along those lines but more modern, low maintenance and not quite as "ruff".

 

I had the TL remapped locally and my mate got his Gixxer 1000 done without Dynojet stuff. Yoshimura also do the Yoshi box but that could be Suzuki only.

Edit: forgot to quote this in response to the post on page 1

 

J4CKO, market forces would suggest there isn't the demand you suggest. There are bikes like the Suzuki Burgman which are like big scooters with auto transmission etc. The thing is, cars are so cheap these days and bikes compartively expensive that bikes are simply toys these days for most. And who wants an economical toy?

 

Oh, and no-one has mentioned the appalling aerodynamics of bikes.

 

I commute to work on a dr200, 3 mile each way, and I fill up every 7 or 8 weeks (£12) ,I duuno the mpg, but its a lot cheaper to run than any car

 

My ZX12R used to return an average around 45 mpg being ridden pretty hard but not having its fergibblers revved off it! it really wasn't necessary anyway, it left most things for dead! Most of the others I had would manage around 50-60 mpg.

My elderly Meriden Bonneville will manage around 60 being ridden fairly fast but not being hammered since I would like it to last for a bit.

Les

 

You are probably right, those who want one want a snorty fast one and the rest are too scared or bikes aren't practical enough and buy cars, I think that there should be a market judging by the amount of space cars take up and the majority only having one occupant, the number of massively quick bikes as a proportion of the total number if applied to cars would mean that the roads would be full of Ferraris, Zonda's, Porsches etc if the same criteria were used buy car buyers.

The diesel motorbike has already been done and can do 200 mpg with old technology, I expect its fairly purgatorial to ride but seeing what diesel cars used to be like and what they are like now I expect that a viable, comfy bike that uses diesel could be developed pinching from the development already done by the car companies, ok the engines are bigger and heavier but then some sports bikes have 1300 cc fours, half the capacity, perhaps 2 or 3 cylinders and a small light pressure turbo I am sure could be developed, Smart cars have something along those lines.

I just think that though car technology is advancing, bikes do but just get lighter and more powerful but don't take advantage of the lighter weight in any other way than even more epic acceleration, I am doing a lot of cycling to and from work but am realistic that its not really viable for really long journey, being as that it relies on me to do the pedalling and has a realistic maximum speed of 20 mph on the flat, I like being on two wheels but fancy something that wont cost more to run than a car.

I think we have hit a peak in terms of car power and size and they will start getting smaller again, the BMW X6 probably being the absolute zenith of excess and pointlessness, I know going on about economy is a bit pointless on a performance car website but looking forward I think fast cars will be like fast bikes, weekend toys, the governments plans have been thwarted due to the current financial situation but be under no illusion it will continue if things improve, I personally dont want to have to do public transport, its horrible so I would like to consider alternatives, the motorbike is fantastic but there needs to be models with low environmental, co2 etc impact, and I think 75% of the fun of two wheels can be had on a slower bike. Imagine putting a gallon of diesel, chip fat, bio diesel etc and being able to do a whole weeks motoring ?

J4CKO, now going to his shed to invent 200 MPG diesel bike, it may be some time, I may be distracted by titty books and brown ale....

 

Yes, hat has been at the back of my mind as being a reason, its not so much the bike as the lump sat on top of it in the airflow.

 

Oi, I resemble that remark

 

Rev, riding a pushbike makes you painfully aware of the effect of airflow.

I now have a fetching lycra outfit but I am not sure whether I can get away with it, I cant face the walk down the office dressed like a fat Freddie Mercury....

 

I use a GSX-R750 fgor commuting through London on a pretty well daily business. I certainly don't hang about, though I do make an effort to be smooth, and I average as near as makes no difference 10 miles for every litre I put in (don't totally trust fuel lights so zero the trip every time I fill up and expect to refill around the 150 mile mark).

Open roads I get around the same because I'm using higher gears. On a trackday I'll probably double my fuel consumption. But the maths is easy - on the road I spend 99% of the time below 8000rpm. On the track I spend around the same proportion above 8000rpm (up to 16000).

Bike/rider combinations really do have appalling aerodynamics as well - a quick look at the dustbin faired GP bikes of the early 50's will show you what you need to make a bike slippery but unable to handle sidewinds or high speed cornering very well - and obviously that makes a huge difference on the open road.

Bikes aren't very torquey, they rev a lot. One of the downsides is that you need to use far more fuel (relatively) pulling away and getting up to speed than a larger engine. That contributes a surprising amount in town.

There have been diesel bikes. Indeed the US army use them (not sure if we do yet) but that's nothing to do with economy and everything to do with the fact that bikes were the only thing in service that needed petrol so they were a pain in the bum to support in the field. Convert to diesel and that's one less bowser you need... Look here for more info: Diesel bike

But someone further up really got the point I think. Bikes simply aren't made for economy, generally, because it's not what sells. Simple as that. Though it's also worth bearing in mind that most mere mortals riding hyperbikes would probably be quicker on a 250 or 400. But that's an argument for a different thread...

SB

 

They aren't that bad! My GSX-R750 costs about 15 quid to fill and gets me about 130 odd miles In comparison my ST takes 50 quid or so to fill and gets me 260 miles!!! lol

 

Right I don't know if this has been mentioned yet as I haven't read all of the posts.

But the main bike manufacturers are japanese. In order to get comparable speed to a average car I think you are looking at a 250-400 four stroke. Until recently japanese law has prevented them making engines of this size above a certain horsepower. Basically they had the ability to make an engine with decent power and fuel economy but weren't allowed to make them. Also the fact that they weren't allowed to do it means that engine development at this size is years behind the larger bikes.

Recently the power limits have been aboloshied, hence the arrival of the kawasaki zxr250 with other bike manufactures following suit.

Performance of at least a 2.0L Ford focus and probably 100mpg

 

I used to think that until I got a 999 last year. Prior to that, I'd had a numerous inline 4's, and the difference is vast.

As for using the bike, it's been sat in the garage since late November, but I can see the day fast approaching that I'll be using it for work again. It's not the sort of bike I'd like to ride through winter, and likewise, with all the **** spraying up from other road users, I don't want to get covered either.

There are some hardy souls who ride everyday, but I'm not one of them. My decision to ride or not to ride all year is not based on mpg, but on the cold and wet factor, and I'm fortunate to have the choice of when I drag the bike out the garage.

 

When we did the coastrode trip the three bikes all returned around 40mpg

3 brand new bikes. One R6 Yam, one FJR 1300 Yam and an Aprilia Shiver 750

We went through every type of road from tiny little Highland roads to sitting in London traffic (even on a bike you have to sit and wait sometimes.)

The R6 in particular is a track focused weapon and i would doubt any car would return that sort of mpg over 3500 miles in all those conditions.

Remember car makers have been under attack for their 'claimed' and real world mpg. Bikes seem not to suffer such a discrepancy.

Car makers stand by green claims - 20 May 2008 - BusinessGreen

5t.

 

What did the R6 return ?

What I am getting at is the given the weight of something like an R6, when you arent using a lot of revs it should do a lot more than it does, given it only weighs what, 160 kilos compared to even a tiny car these days weighing probably 1100 kilos due to all the safety kits and more solid construction they have these days, as bikes have got lighter, cars have got heavier but generally better on fuel.

I am still pondering reasons for this, so what has come up so far is,

Performance Bias of a lot of current bikes

Aerodynamics (wonder what the CD of a sports bike/rider is compared to a car ?)

Relative size of the engine, 1000 cc 200 kilo bike is like 5 litre 1 tonne car

Relative power output, bhp per tonne, average litre sportsbike is Zonda territory (and then some).

Thermal effeiency

Japanese regulations

Lack of development focused on economy compared to cars

Lack of people who care

Petrol being the main fuel



I am not an eco maniac but I like effeciency, I like not wasting money and not getting hammered by the government, I think its going to get to the point where the average punter cant run a big thirsty car, Hybrids seem to be a sledge hammer to crack a nut, Hydrogen still looks as far away as it did ten years ago, electric is still crap so I reckon, smaller, lighter and probably with two wheels is the way to go if you really dont want to share your personal space and compromise your schedule on public transport.

 

As i said they were all the same at 40mpg.

I was on the R6 so light bike it maybe but it was hauling my weight (16 stone) and luggage it was never meant for.

Also all its power is top end so you do need to rev it a fair bit to get it going with all that weight on. On a motorway it is still pulling 5 or 6k rpm compared to just 2k on the FJR so it is always working harder. I thought 40mpg from a bike that as you say isn't designed to get good mpg was very respectable.

Another issue is the EU regulations. MCN i believe did a piece where they took all the cats off a CBR600 and fitted a powercommander (basically chipped it). They got an extra 10bhp, another 6mpg and the emissions weren't much different. The law just states "must be fitted with a cat" as opposed to letting the tech teams come up with a solution themselves. If someone can get that difference with half an hour in a garage imagine what Honda's r&d would do if they were left to get on with it?

Same for the car world really. My WRX now runs 273 bhp has the same fuel use it always did and still passes the MOT as the emissions aren't a problem. all i did was map it and take a cat out!

5t.

 

5t, I had my Saab remapped and was concerned about emissions, need not have worried all the levels were minuscule, nowhere near the allowed maxima.