View Single Post
Old 07-05-2014, 10:43 AM   #153 (permalink)
sendler
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 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: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,315 Times in 968 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by changzuki View Post
[B]This may be a really cost effective way for folks to gain mpg's on the cheap.
Not suggesting that adding ballast to a commuter is a great way to improve daily fuel economy as an ecomod. Just stating some theory and examples of how adding mass to an over powered to weight vehicle can, counterintuitively, improve the result of effective PnG. You have to admit that adding 1300 pounds and still improving economy by 22% blows all weight weenie theories out of the water. Reducing weight and rotational mass makes for big improvements in PERFORMANCE in a race, but has little effect on economy of an over powered road vehicle if you don't have to touch the brakes as on a well known commute or cross country trip.
.
I have already added weight to the CBR250R on all of my competitions. Carrying an unnecessary 40 pounds at my first Vetter challenge and 30 pounds extra at the GGP. I would have to strip the bike with no luggage, lighter exhaust, and lithium battery to perform your test.
.
I often read comments by ecomodders that are worried that proposed aero mods will add weight to the vehicle. My point is that the weight of the mod, such as putting a full nose and tail on a motorcycle, is way down the ladder of importance compared to the economy that is gained from the improved aerodynamics.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
UltArc (07-06-2014)