Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Motorcycles / Scooters
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-31-2016, 08:28 AM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cookeville,TN,USA
Posts: 79
Thanks: 7
Thanked 15 Times in 8 Posts
@Sendler or any other automotively smart members. I'm an owner of a 2014 CTX700 (faired model with standard shift and standard brakes).

Do you really think that the 471 parallel is more efficient than the 670 and why? And my question is focused more on the stock set ups of these bikes and power trains; not so much on what the potential of each engine is through gearing, body changing, etc; although feel free to discuss potential as well.

The reason for my inquiry is that back when I was trying to choose a new bike to trade my Piaggio BV350 for, I was looking for the best bike that best fit me and my body type for commuting, and I was also looking at mpg as one of the major factors. I was immediately attracted to the 670, because I felt that I'd prefer it's low-revving quality to a typical high-revving bike. I had never owned a traditional motorcycle (only scooters), so I had no previous biases towards higher revs like most riders would have. I had become a fan of low-end torque through my experience with diesel-powered vehicles; but the NC700X might have been just a little tall for my frame at a 32" seat height, much like the BV350 that I could not flat foot, which was 30.5 but had a wider seat.

Then the 500s came out, and I was looking at the F and the X as the seat heights were slightly lower, but I did not look at the R just because I thought that I might prefer the upright stance as I really liked the positioning of scooters; but when I was looking at real-world mpg (following posts, reviews, fuelly, etc.) it looked to me that conservative-riding riders were doing a little better with the NC700X than with the any of the 500s.

As I've posted before, I'm still almost 100% stock; except for a 12" Madstad windscreen and a milk crate strapped to the seat, and new Michelin P4s; and since the new tires, I'm achieving at least 77 for summer time commuting and at least 70 for winter time commuting. I can achieve low 80s for 200 mile trips in the summer time. The tires have added another 2-3 mpg even after correcting for the higher odometer error. I know that the 471 is rated at 71, versus the 700s top rating at 64, but I feel like I'm doing slightly better than if I had chosen any of the 471 choices as a stock rider; but of course, I can't know that for sure.

Now that there is the Rebel 300 and 500, there is maybe even a more perfect bike for me but I'm going to stay pat. The one thing I don't like about the Rebel, but streamline wannabes' would love is that even lower seat height than the CTX700. I really don't like the idea of going lower than I already am on the seat as it creates a visibility issue on blind hills and sort of causes a cramped up feeling for city riding with knees up so high, and there is a little of that on the CTX700 with my 30.5 inch inseam. I wouldn't want that to be even more pronounced, but for shorter riders, it'd probably b great.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-31-2016, 07:29 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 1,625

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 106.93 mpg (US)

Ninja 250R SE Green - '09 Kawasaki Ninja 250R SE
90 day: 65.9 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 34.81 mpg (US)

Kawi Ninja650 - '07 Kawasaki Ninja650
90 day: 54.85 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 100.72 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 79.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 203
Thanked 354 Times in 270 Posts
The CTX700 and the CBR500R both show about the same fuel economy on fuelly. Although I would have to expect the 500R's have a larger number of people that ride more aggressively. The NC700 has a large sample size and shows a nice curve at around 65 mpgUS. There only seems to be 1 300R with 21,000 miles there and it shows 75 mpgUS. The appeal for the new bikes is the low seat height to build a foot forward streamliner with less frontal area. Alan has gone to great lengths to make a new Ninja based streamliner with a chopped frame and a stretched swingarm to get a lower seat height but it is so much trouble he has yet to finish it since Craig got hurt. Now we have a ready made streamliner starting point with a low seat height that should be able to dethrone the carbed Vetter style Ninja twins which are already getting over 150 mpgUS.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
HHOTDI (12-31-2016)
Old 12-31-2016, 09:00 PM   #13 (permalink)
Rapturee
 
HHOTDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern Idaho...way up north!
Posts: 164

BUG - '00 VW Beetle TDI
90 day: 50.21 mpg (US)

Kid Hauler - '01 Ford Excursion Power Stroke, Limited
90 day: 19.25 mpg (US)

babyR - '12 Honda CBR250r

Westy - '72 VW Type 2 Camper Westy

F350Crew - '90 Ford F350 Crew Cab 4x4 Long Bed
90 day: 13.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 696
Thanked 31 Times in 23 Posts
With the recent purchase of of my 2012 CBR250r I had hoped to have it all striped down and have some body work done to it already. Shamefully, with working so many hours these past few months i haven't even started the Baby'R Streamliner. Although I would be thrilled with 150mpg, i think there is potentially more available there with the little CBR! :{)

2012 CBR250r 416 original miles!

Last edited by HHOTDI; 12-31-2016 at 09:04 PM.. Reason: added pic
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 09:33 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 1,625

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 106.93 mpg (US)

Ninja 250R SE Green - '09 Kawasaki Ninja 250R SE
90 day: 65.9 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 34.81 mpg (US)

Kawi Ninja650 - '07 Kawasaki Ninja650
90 day: 54.85 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 100.72 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 79.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 203
Thanked 354 Times in 270 Posts
How many miles on it now?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 10:53 PM   #15 (permalink)
Rapturee
 
HHOTDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern Idaho...way up north!
Posts: 164

BUG - '00 VW Beetle TDI
90 day: 50.21 mpg (US)

Kid Hauler - '01 Ford Excursion Power Stroke, Limited
90 day: 19.25 mpg (US)

babyR - '12 Honda CBR250r

Westy - '72 VW Type 2 Camper Westy

F350Crew - '90 Ford F350 Crew Cab 4x4 Long Bed
90 day: 13.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 696
Thanked 31 Times in 23 Posts
sadly Scott, the same as the day i brought it home! It is still sitting at #416! i have gone out and started it a few times this fall and let it run for 15-20 mins. I have been working all fall/winter so far on another project with my girls. The 72' Westy and i've just about got it finished enough to be road worthy! About $4k later and a lot of my labor! As soon as the "non-hippie" bus is up and running then i get to start the Baby-R Vetter Fairing project! :{


Last edited by HHOTDI; 12-31-2016 at 10:57 PM.. Reason: added pic
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 06:28 AM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cookeville,TN,USA
Posts: 79
Thanks: 7
Thanked 15 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHOTDI View Post
. Although I would be thrilled with 150mpg, i think there is potentially more available there with the little CBR! :{)
Please clarify or elaborate HHOTDI. More potential than which models? Do you think just more than Ninjas' and bigger bikes like mine? The new 300 CBRs'? The new Rebel 300s? Or are you saying more than any production gas bike when ecomodded to the extreme?

I get what Scott is saying about the new Rebel 300. It's so low already, so no frame cutting needed; it starts light like the other 300s; it's already got one of the most economical mc power trains ever mass produced that is already highway capable, but would be even more so when made more slippery; and so it's a bike now out there that someone could buy used in a few months and then modify it much more easily, simply and cheaply than other bikes available before now. It would likely break through the 200 mark if it were on a ride like the typical AMA with good warm weather and a ride that is impossible to convoy at a high speed safely on the run.

But it seems to me that if Alan and Vic wind down, that there are no young whipersnappers' coming up that have the finances, skill, and time, and are motivated to do a Rebel 300 project that I know of? From what I've seen and read lately, the electric folks are the one's doing most of the work, and while I'm interested in their work, I'm so far unimpressed due to how heavy, elaborate, complex, expensive, low ranged and impractical they are compared to what is possible with a new generation Honda streamliner. I think the electrics may start winning the contests regularly, but from a practicality and daily rider concept, the gas streamliners are far, far ahead.

Most of us like what we like in what we want to ride, 200 mpg be dam*ed, including me, and that's a good thing. So I don't know if we'll get to see two or three of these built and ridden in the challenges, but I wouldn't do it if I was able . My interest and desire would be to Ecomod a lower revving, bigger cc, higher hp bike just like Fred did and show whoever might care that there is more than one way to achieve great mpg on power two wheels than the minimalist approach, and small displacement, so often proclaimed by Craig as the only way. But that doesn't mean I'm not absolutely fascinated by what others are doing and improving upon in different ways.

For instance, I love to watch how the forward-leaning, tucking, sport bike guys keep creeping up towards the so-called only-way-to-do-it Vetter machines, and I say that with great respect and reverence for those guys and their work, but I still love to see their methods challenged. Scott's run last year was amazing with basically just a tail and gearing changes, and I used to love to see what Fred could do with, supposedly, too much horsepower and torque, 31 & 35 respectively, and the wrong kind of streamline shaping.

Getting Honda 250s or 300s in this thing with the same level of work as has been done with the Ninjas would be really cool, but it's not for me personally even if I were able. I like cruising at or about 3000 RPM at 60+ mph and would love to see how far I could take that technology; not to win of course, but a 120 score would be an amazing thing with 47 rated horsepower engine and 500+ pounds on two wheels.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 07:37 AM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 1,625

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 106.93 mpg (US)

Ninja 250R SE Green - '09 Kawasaki Ninja 250R SE
90 day: 65.9 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 34.81 mpg (US)

Kawi Ninja650 - '07 Kawasaki Ninja650
90 day: 54.85 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 100.72 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 79.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 203
Thanked 354 Times in 270 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregsfc View Post
Please clarify or elaborate HHOTDI. More potential than which models? Do you think just more than Ninjas' and bigger bikes like mine? The new 300 CBRs'? The new Rebel 300s? Or are you saying more than any production gas bike when ecomodded to the extreme?
I would say that given equivilent streamlining, the Honda 250 fuel injected single is the easiest off the shelf path to a winning highway fuel efficiency than any other production ICE vehicle. AND they are completely reliable in any weather and utilize an O2 sensor and a huge (for a motorcycle) catalyst. If you are willing to use a sport riding position as in the Hayes bike. The new Rebel300 will be that much better for a Vetter style streamliner kit due to the Bobber style ergonomics even though the cam is not tuned quite as much for efficiency as the 250 was.
.
Electric drivetrains beat the round trip energy consumption and carbon emissions of the best ICE engines by at least 2:1 and the only reason the latest Vetter challenge wasn't dominated by the three electric bikes was that the competition is based on cost per mile and gas is ridiculously cheap in the USA right now.
.
Just because we have the technology to suck the oil out of the ground at an alarming rate, doesn't mean we should. And we need to increase the road tax back up to at least where it was 20 years ago so we can afford to fix our roads. And start phasing in a carbon tax at the source to spur new clean tech and raise the price of carbon based energy and get people to quit blowing so much of it needlessly up into the air with their new pick up truck.
.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 07:46 AM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cookeville,TN,USA
Posts: 79
Thanks: 7
Thanked 15 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
The CTX700 and the CBR500R both show about the same fuel economy on fuelly. Although I would have to expect the 500R's have a larger number of people that ride more aggressively. The NC700 has a large sample size and shows a nice curve at around 65 mpgUS.
Since you brought up speculation on aggressive riding, just a couple of points and this is just speculation based on my perception of things.

#1 I don't have a perception on the profile of the typical 500 cc rider, but I don't see how it could be worse than the average CTX owner. From what I can tell there are hardly any CTX700 owners, at least the one's on the forum, that do anything close to conservative riding or have any interest in the great potential of that power train or their machines have at achieving great mpg. Over at that discussion board, there are all sorts of performance threads; riders discussing how they don't like to use the top gear; how they wish it had more top-end performance; how it performs best at or about 5000 RPM; how they're going to get a more sporty bike to supplement their CTXs; subjects I know nothing about, as I ride mine like a typical commuter would drive a car. If I start a thread over there about anything having to do with practicality, there will be no discussion, or there will be negative responses. Most don't want the CTX700 to be an economical bike.

Moreover, there is even a bigger group on that forum who are wealthier, older, often handicapped, and usually big bodies and they often ride 2 up. Lots of talk about all kinds of fuel-draining farkle and conveniences. These are usually those who owned big touring bikes when they were younger and they treat these bikes like they're big luxury bikes, at least as much as possible.

#2 Most CTX700s out there are automatic. I think that 65 mode is reflected in that number. Honda rates the DCT at 61 and 64 for the standard. I think they are both underrated, but that the straight shift may have more than a 3 mpg advantage. Nothing else explains my high numbers.

I got 75 or 76 commuting with the original tires. Now I'm at 77 and that's putting a little cold-weather riding in the average. I do not hypermile. Do not lug. Accelerate with traffic. I do not tuck. This is from tank-to-tank; not hwy only calculated. It is odometer corrected miles shown x .978. I'm using regular E10 gas. The bike is basically stock. The Madstad screen did not increase mpg. I'm smaller and lighter than the average man, and my speed is only slightly slower, but not below the speed limit. I achieved 96.9 by my own records at the AMA tucking, starting with a warm engine, and I've often achieved 81-85 on similar trips of my own only not tucking and starting cold. I don't see a 500 achieving that number in any variety on such a ride. A stock, standard CTX700 should get at least 73 when ridden within the law and ridden with FE in mind by the averaged sized person in warm weather, but hardly anyone owns one of these without saddle boxes, and I'd say near 80% is DCT. I can't know for sure, but I don't think that if I owned a CB500F, R, or X, I'd be getting the same mpg riding the same way and routes I'm riding now. If I owned a 250 or 300, I'd likely be achieving near 90 based on your early numbers, and the fact that my commute is slower than yours. I'm from 59-65 mph on state highways, five traffic lights, one small town, very rural. But I think the 670 cc in stock, standard transmission form is #2 in the current HPS list for both the CTX and likely the NCX as well. City mostly riding may flip them, but for alot of highway riding, those higher consistent revs wouldn't make up for the .99 cc advantage by my way of thinking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 08:05 AM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cookeville,TN,USA
Posts: 79
Thanks: 7
Thanked 15 Times in 8 Posts
[QUOTE=sendler;530917
.
Electric drivetrains beat the round trip energy consumption and carbon emissions of the best ICE engines by at least 2:1 and the only reason the latest Vetter challenge wasn't dominated by the three electric bikes was that the competition is based on cost per mile and gas is ridiculously cheap in the USA right now.
.
Just because we have the technology to suck the oil out of the ground at an alarming rate, doesn't mean we should. And we need to increase the road tax back up to at least where it was 20 years ago so we can afford to fix our roads. And start phasing in a carbon tax at the source to spur new clean tech and raise the price of carbon based energy and get people to quit blowing so much of it needlessly up into the air with their new pick up truck.
.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with your political assertions; I agree about the energy use advantage, and the price of oil should reflect the cost it takes to secure it's flow around the world, and fuel price should include enough tax to pay for the exhaust and production cleanup from pollution, maybe as a fuel tax. And I love electric motors. I think road tax should be enough to pay for roads, and heavier, more wheeled vehicles should pay more of the share, but that fuel type or emissions should have nothing to do with a pure road tax.

But the cheapest electric bike that can make my one-way commute is $17K and trips are out or would have to be modified. And so if my employer would let me recharge and double my pay, maybe I could buy one and commute on it. I'd love to be able to do that, but the FE challenges make me wonder if that $17K bike would make the 30 miles considering what they've got to do to make the trip.

Anyway, I'm absolutely not against what they're doing, but am somewhat put back and surprised by all the battery size and weight considering what Zero advertises on range..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 08:48 AM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 1,625

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 106.93 mpg (US)

Ninja 250R SE Green - '09 Kawasaki Ninja 250R SE
90 day: 65.9 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 34.81 mpg (US)

Kawi Ninja650 - '07 Kawasaki Ninja650
90 day: 54.85 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 100.72 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 79.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 203
Thanked 354 Times in 270 Posts
The Honda 700 is a very fuel efficient engine. A very bold move by Honda. It very well might actually beat the 500. Neither one will get within 15% of the single given the same dedicated rider.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com