My motorcycle
 

Hi all, after a few months only showing my car's fuel economy I added my Honda motorcycle and filled in the gaslog.
I think I face the same situation as with my car: nobody to compare with (European models only). Or does Honda have this type of MC also in the States?
I bought this bike brand new, and after braking it in I think I will see the same as with my car: a very steady fuel consumption with hardly any ups or downs (see my garage for details).
It surprises me that some of the other MCdrivers do a lot better than me (25%). I'm driving it really smooth, just as my car. 90% just as my car for daily commute (20 miles on way).
I guess the ones doing better do only (or a majority of) long distances.
Don't drive it in winter, it's a pleasure thing for summer.

Beautiful bike, unfortunately we don't have the privilege of getting some of the cool bikes you get, the NT700V is the closest we have. Your bike is available in Canada so there should be some data on here soon. 40 mpg doesn't seem all that bad though for a half fairing bike.

40mpg? That's an unexisting EPA rating I gave in myself.
I drive this CBF in the low 50's (see gaslog). So you see this as a success?
NT700V: we have it also. It's called Deauville in Europe.
You know Tepco, things can be so weird. If there's one thing I hesitated for to buy this bike, than it's the looks !! There are a lot better looking bikes on the market here. I always say: 'she drives way better than she looks'. I wanted a Honda. My previous one was so good I didn't want to change.
Thanks for your opinion.

https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/mod...ornet%2007.htm

Consumption average 19.6 km/lit


19.6 (kilometers / l) = 46.1020583 miles per gallon

There ya go.

:thumbup: Cool bike, not something available in the US, loks like a bit like Suzuki Bandit.

https://www.gassavers.org/garage_imag...ngo8kptnlz.jpg

Nice looking.
Europe gets all the neat smaller CC bikes.

Lol, quite a few of us here in Europe whine about the Japanese getting all those neat 400cc bikes :rolleyes:

Hi Alvaro,
I'm wondering how you manage to get that low fuel consumption with a big monocylindre. I owned in the past 2 big singles (Yamaha SZR660 and an Aprilia Pegaso 650). They both consumed a lot more than my current Honda 4-cylindre 600.
I also owned a Honda CB Sevenfifty (4 cylindre), that one consumed less than the Aprilia 650, but more than the Yam. You should know the first generation BMW F650 was produced by Aprilia and they were more or less a copy of each other.
So the worst bike I owned for fuel consumption was the precedetor of yours!

Yes, the 'old' F650s and those Aprilias have almost the same engine. AFAIK both are carbed.
The newer F650s are fuel injected though and drink much less than their predecessors. Even when I was just 'driving conservatively' I could stay between ~3-3.4l/100km with Teresa (In us mpg, it's the 70s). And with Pulse&Glide at the bottom of the 5th gear (~70-90km/h) she just shines (my best is 2.38l/100km, 98.9mpg). I'm quite tired of P&G though, but keeping the speed limits and avoiding braking (I anticipate and coast instead, may FAS when applicable) can still keep me under 3l/100km (above 80mpg) - at least, when it's not winter and there are 'details' (frequent villages, slopes I can take advantage) that justify slowing down.

(and I don't know how much it counts, but I also keep the tire pressure slightly above BMW recommended values, more like the sidewall max)

Anyway, I'm about to 'benchmark' my new commute route. We moved in the winter, now I live 25kms from my workplace instead of 60. No freeway here, but a nice, twisty backroad (which is called a main road, but I wouldn't call it one :D) with a village in between. May be ~8km of the route is inhibited area (50km/h max, even I don't keep it rigorously, but what matters is that I can't use 5th gear in these stages).

AFAIK fuel injection has not helped on motorcycles for fuel economy. I personally don't know of a motorcycle that has better economy with a FI compared to carbs. (CBR1100XX, VFR750<->VFR800,...). And if there are, than a lot more was changed (like on mine: CBF600 MY07 <-> MY08 : a whole different engine).
I also keep pressure a little bit above recommendation, but only a little bit as I don't want to take risks for the grip. Safety first.
This is interesting! My commute is 29kms one way. So now we can play in the same league! The percentage of miles driven with a cold engine is extremely important for FE. How's the benchmark so far? I will have a look in your gaslog.

I don't know what else changed in the f650 models beside the FI, but it's a common experience - the fuel injected models drink much less than the older, carbed ones.

As for the commute: I have no meaningful data yet, my last tank was the one I started at the end of December :( It's still better than my last winter's ones (3.33 vs 3.6+ l/100km).
But spring is here, temperature is rising and I can ride on a daily basis, so I'll have a lot of data soon. And gas may change too. I don't know anything specific, but abrupt changes in FE before and after winter are quite suspicious.

...a few days later: just finished that tank: it's getting better with the weather. Now my average became 3.08l/100km (76.35mpgUS) on this distance. Sometimes it's longer though, when they close the freight gate of the industrial zone. Then I have to go 2km more. And I also visited my mother, who lives at the other end of the town, that gives ~32km for one way, but we went 2-up and with package there, so that could hardly improve my FE :D
(And there are a number of counter-timed lights in there. Should the fingers break of who designed their operation :thumbdown:)

Impressive!
I have the impression it's impossible to go below 4 l/100 km on mine. Today I took my CBF out (a shame: first time this year...) and my driving style can be described as 'aggressive'. Something is holding me down for driving really economical with my MC !! And my best FC ever on this bike I had by emptying a tank on one single day, driving pretty fast in the south of Belgium (wonderfull roads) with some friends on a hot day.
I do really everything I can to drive economical with my Honda Civic, but the CBF: pfff...! She always invites me to rev and overtake everything I see on the road. And you know what? I tried once or twice last year not doing this and driving her like my Civic for daily commute. Difference: only 0,2 l/100 km approx. It doesn't really seem to bother her how she's driven.
By the way: I don't know of any MC that improved FC by putting injection on an existing engine. I do know the other way around: CBR1100XX Blackbird (90's). Fuel consumption went up dramatically by switching to fuel injection. Another well known (European) example: the first VFR800i (90's). A lot thirstier with the injection than the carb VFR750, BHP almost the same.
Your BMW: I don't know all details, but engine, frame, transmission... a lot has changed compared to the original carburettor F650Funduro (you remember: that's how she was called). That's why I think it's dangerous to point at the injection for your low FC. I also remember the Funduro's consumption was lower than the Aprilia's. Guess that was because BMW used a 'classic' 4 valve cylinderhead but Aprilia a complicated 2 spark 5 valve head.
Do you know anybody else who drives a BMW like yours to compare consumption?

There are quite a few of us :)

It seems that 4-4.5l/100km is kind of an upper limit for these CS/GS F650-s, you need to do something very unreasonable to make them drink more. And it's not hard to go under 4l with them, 3.5 can be pretty normal if you "drive like your Civic" (though I don't know how you do this :)).

When I got the bike I started in a very conservative style (I was a complete beginner, first licence, first vehicle) in the highest possible gear (I was already aiming for efficiency so I'm not the best example) and got 3.1-3.5l/100km. It took a few months to beat 3l, but it was on a longer commute, mostly freeway where I was actually daring to go in the semis' pace.

Later when I got the taste of coasting and went to the lowest rpms of the highest gear I could beat it on a regular basis and agressive Pulse&Glide could further improve my FE. My best result is 2.38l/100km. I filled with omv carrera 100 that time and I don't know how that could affect my FE (in theory it shouldn't); my 2nd best result is 2.53l, filled with carrera 95.

Once I had an experiment when I used the freeway as it's 'intended', and was even speeding - then I actually could exceed 4l.

Now I have a shorter commute and mostly abandoned P&G (though I glide down steeper downhills, that's fun ;)) because that somewhat ruins the joy of the ride plus I'm not sure I'm doing a good thing overall, probably making more junk by killing something in the transmission, parts are made with energy and materials and stuff, you know. And even Teresa may get angry with me, I don't want it :D But I still use the highest possible gear which means shifting at 3500rpms at most. At a steady 80km/h the engine rotates at 3200 rpm in 5th. At 50km/h it's 2500 in 4th but that feels a bit of a stretch, I usually go between 50 and 60 in town, which means 3000rpm at most. This Rotax redlines at 7k (and it really does, the electronic limiter kicks in, I've tried it in my freeway experiment, 175 km/h per the speedo is the end :D).

On the Pegaso, someone at f650.hu does have one and confirmed that it drinks much more than the FI f650s.
I think the difference between carbureted and FI'd models depend on many things, but if one or the other is much more thirsty there must be a serious problem. A messed up program/map, or a badly set up carb. Or something else, I'm no expert :o I only know 2 kinds of bikes that have both versions, they're smaller ones (Hyosung GV250, we have the carbed model; Honda CBR125R, a cute small bike I have to try some day) and there's no significant difference in the models' FE.

(OK, it's not fully true: the FI'd Teresa's FE deteriorates more at winter than the carbed Ciliegia's. Cold weather is the time when the 250 can beat the 650...)

Hi Alvaro,
What is pulse and glide? I see this everywhere on this forum, but have no idea what it is.

Fuel injection: in the 90's they were definitely not more fuel economical than carburettors.
Reasons (i guess):
- cost (on a MC the % of this cost is high), so ECU capacity (mappings, speed,...) was not the best on the market.
- dimensions of the ECU. On a car it doesn't matter that much, but on a MC the smallest ECU possible was the best choice. This meant again not the most performant unit.
- amount of sensors was by far less compared to cars (no lambdasensor, mapsensor,... e.g.).
Nowadays all FI models have got all they need, just as cars and FE is good, allthough the catalyser and the 14,7/1 mixture takes some extra fuel.

The F650's reasons for being more fuel economical than my CBF (again my own thoughts):
- a one cylinder has less total friction losses than a 4-cylinder
- bit lighter bike
- less powerfull (approx 50 BHP ?)
- doesn't invite to rev the engine...;)

Pulse and Glide (aka P&G): Accelerate, coast in neutral, accelerate again, coast in neutral again, repeat...

It uses the engine in a more efficient way and allows you to waste less, resulting in improved FE (usually). I'm not sure how appropriate it is on motorcycles.

i-DSi - what you write about ECUs makes sense. Not that I don't see modern bikes drinking like crazy...

a one cylinder has less total friction losses than a 4-cylinder - it does probably count. Heard it quite a few times.

lighter - sure it is. In the beginning I was qite afraid of heavy bikes so it definitely contributed my choice. I definitely wanted something under 200kg, even if it can't be as small as the little CBR (I let myself be persuaded that a 125 won't be safe on the freeway. No regrets though, now I have something very capable :))

less powerful - I'm curious how much it counts. I mean, if another firmware let this cylinder rev at, say, 8000 instead of 7000, it could be more powerful, but if I wouldn't

rev it more, could that change FE? On a side note, most of the f650.com crowd warn anyone against using this engine under 4000rpm while I seldom rev it over 4k :D For some reason Teresa usually makes me a cold-blooded rider. It may be because of the given name. I named her after a Claymore warrior, a very strong, highly professional woman with a touch of sick humour - and while she looks cold, she's a good person inside, you know, kind of a mother figure for the little Clare :)

I couldn't have done that much P&G without this attitude :D And it definitely helps with Teresa but doesn't seem effective with the 250cc Ciliegia. My very best is 2.86l/100km on my previous, 2*61km commute 1-up, 2nd best is 3.02; but can do like 3.2-3.3 without it 2-up... if I subtract the extra weight probably nothing remains. Even city driving doesn't hurt her FE (can cruise at 40km/h in 5th at ~3k rpm), while Teresa gets worse there (she needs 70 for 5th and 50+ for 4th).

I think the difference may be because the 250 V-twin already operates at a nice load out of town (so the higher pulse loads won't really improve its FE) while the 650 doesn't reach its efficient range when cruising at ~80-90km/h. I may be wrong, though.

Ciliegia may improve by changing the gearing, may try next time. Revs 7000 at 100km/h, could use a 'longer' transmission (someone went from 14:46 to 15:42 and reported his bike working better than before :))

Oh man, this is weird.
- you don't control your vehicle (car or MC) like you would when being IN gear all the time
- you just waste fuel while coasting in neutral

I have some kind of other tactics (for my car): I accellerate and than I put the Civic in 6th gear with an extremely light throttle and I lift my foot the moment I expect I will have to brake. When lifting my foot in 6th gear at approx 60 km/h the engine brake is almost 0, while the fuel consumption is also 0. Guess I can win nothing extra with P&G and it's another thing to concentrate on in the already hectic Belgian traffic (less safe).

Thanks for explaining Holy Cow !

Hi Alvaro,
The advantage of having a bit less powerfull MC than my 78 BHP CBF is that yours will be much quicker in its ideal 'operating window' where efficiency will be very good. If you tune her to rev to 8000 rpm, without changine anything to the midrange, than effect on FE is nothing. Problem: it's impossible to tune an engine to go higher in to revs and produce more BHP without 'hurting' the midrange (intake will need changes, moving the rev limiter 1000 rpm higher makes no sense at all and doesn't produce extra BHP).
Imagine we both cruise at 90 km/h: yours will be more economical.
But if we both cruise at 160 km/h....mine will consume less fuel.
About the 4000 rpm limit: don't worry. They probably talk about WOT under 4k rpm. But the way we drive (extremely low load at low revs) there's no danger damaging your engine. It's especially on big one cylinders dangerous to go full throttle at a low rpm because the pressure on the bearings and cylinderwalls is high while the oilpressure might be unsufficient to fight this pressure.
In my car 1500 rpm is my underlimit. I never even touch the throttle under this rpm. And I only push the pedal very light between 1500 and 2000. WOT = 3500 rpm in my car.
On my MC 3000 rpm is my underlimit. But it's a small 600 16V... idle speed is around 1750 rpm.

It's not quite like that.
- The only control you lose is the ability to accelerate instantly, which you already don't have with your 6th gear strategy.
- Coasting in neutral is more efficient than anything in gear. While you do spend some fuel idling the engine, you coast further than you'd roll in any gear that keeps your engine in DFCO. All those extra revolutions of the engine don't come for free.

It's certainly not right for everyone, but it is a valid technique.
- Some people don't feel that they can drive safely without having instant acceleration available (I recommend those people drive automatics or use the lowest gear possible at all times).
- Some people drive in places where it is illegal.
- Some vehicles do not accept neutral coasting (my wife's Isuzu's transmission overheats with extended neutral coasting).
- As I said, having no experience on motorcycles I can't say if it's valid for motorcycles.

For me it feels safe and comfortable :D I can always count on the Newton physics :D Anyway, I don't literally shift to neutral: that's too far (would have to shift through all the gears down to N then back) and shifting out of N while rolling too fast makes the gearing grind which is scary enough... I just hold the clutch instead, so it's very quick to get into gear again (matchin the revs is recommended though :)).

Coasting in FAS is a bit trickier and I don't do that as often as in 'neutral'. I know a few places where it's very beneficial, though :D FASing a MC too often is not good anyway, I think, because they have much smaller batteries than cars have.

On the validity of coasting or P&G on bikes:
- I think they're worse at it than cars because of the much less momentum (they're much lighter) vs their worse aerodynamics. But I have no experience with cars, so it's just a guess that they lose speed much quicker. Once I saw a bus (I sat on one of the first seats to see the instruments, I was studying pros' techniques :D) coast through half of our village (from 70 down to 40km/h, and yes, that 70 was illegal) before using the engine, though, so I may be right :D I can coast to the next street there, at most :D
- But I also think that most of them need it badly because they cruise at legal speeds with so low load that they must be inefficient. i-DSi, if your CBF is tuned to higher speeds (OK, I'm not an expert here :D) it may can take advantage of it :)
- I also think we need more reasonably tuned MCs. At least we who don't use them as toys. I would never take advantage of a setting that makes my bike the more efficient at 160km/h :rolleyes:

I'm gonna try some P&G with my car !
But it will be hard to see any result, as my fuel consumption decreases anyhow now. No more freezing days, and already some 'spring-look-a-like days'. Went from a very steady 5,4~5,5 (last months) to 5,2 l/100 km in the dashreading the first 100 km of this tank fill (real consumption is higher and reflected in my gaslog). It will be the first spring and summer time for me in this Civic. But in summer I will use my MC again.

Yeah, the best time to experiment is when everything is steady.