Not all of it is aimed at fuel efficiency as a first effect, but all of it is necessary in order to fully outfit the bike for testing.
Reducing blowby from ~3% to ~1% via WPC treatment of the cylinder and gapless top ring won't give a large fuel efficiency effect, but it'll certainly help engine longevity given that I'll be experimenting with water injection. The WS2 treatment of the cylinder will reduce friction and help in the event alternative fuels remove the cylinder oil film.
Getting rid of the OEM stator and ground-shunt voltage regulator won't help much either in terms of fuel efficiency (it'll only save about 100 watts being shunted to ground, or about 0.877% of total engine output), but the new alternator will increase generating capacity of the bike, and the second flywheel being magnetically driven from the first will act as a means of damping engine vibration, giving better NVH.
The roller lifters replacing flat tappets won't help fuel efficiency much... except that they allow a faster valve lift and seat with a slightly longer open duration, which helps engine breathing.
The rear sprag clutch will certainly have a moderately beneficial effect on fuel economy, considering that I'll be able to throttle down and coast, whereas now engine braking means no coasting.
The no-overlap cam grind and expansionary exhaust are to allow me to run on fuels that would cause backfire if there were valve overlap (and to make up for the loss of power that the non-overlapping cam grind brings about due to lack of blow-through scavenging). It'll also help to prevent backfire when I'm heating the fuel prior to injection and doing ozone injection experiments, since the fuel will be close to ignition prior to it reaching the cylinder.
The constant temperature intake most certainly will have a beneficial effect on fuel economy... during cold days, my MPG drops to 55, on warm days it rises to 75. The constant temperature intake will allow me to adjust the intake air temperature to that which is most efficient. Eventually, it'll be load-based so if more power is needed than the engine can deliver given the intake air temperature, the intake air temperature will be adjusted lower.
By the same token, more closely controlling the coolant temperature via PWM-controlled electric pumps will not only do away with the power drain of the OEM pump (which can take upwards of 1/4 HP (~1.64% of total engine power) at WOT, whereas the new mag-drive pumps both running at full tilt, with the microcontroller thrown in, only consumes ~22 watts), but will also allow the coolant temperature at the cylinder head to be precisely controlled for maximum efficiency. The micro-controller is programmed to increase coolant temperature at low engine load for more efficient operation, and decrease temperature under heavy engine load to reduce knock. It'll monitor coolant, cylinder head and exhaust temperatures for overheat, and kick on both pumps and both fans in that event until the overheat condition is resolved. The dashboard display will give feedback on how the system is operating.
Swapping some of the fuel out for water... that's an unknown, but what is known is that water is a far superior expansion medium than air (water expands to steam at ~1:1600 ratio whereas air expands at ~1:37.75 ratio given the same in-cylinder temperature delta), which will contribute to cylinder pressure and thus engine power while lowering fueling requirements, and while also quenching combustion temperature peaks to knock out NOx production, lessening the amount of heat being wasted via the cooling system, and acting as an octane booster to damp lean knock.
http://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/index.php
====================
0.0073656109805262 mole of air
60 F
174.5 cc
1 atmosphere
0.0073656109805262 mole of air
1292 F
15.58 cc
37.753100472841 atmosphere
====================
You'll note that the saturation temperature for steam at that pressure is only about 480 F. So the steam from water injection will be highly superheated.
http://www.turnkeyips.com/assets/ste...sure_table.pdf
The new trellis frame won't in and of itself help with fuel efficiency, except it'll provide a feet-forward seating arrangement with a low frontal area and easy mounting of the aerodynamic body, while also saving weight and providing better access to the bike's mechanicals for work to be done. The forkless front end will also improve handling. The longer and lower stance of the bike will make it almost impossible to do an endo.
The aerodynamic body will most certainly provide much better fuel efficiency.
A toroidal infinitely variable transmission will not only save that ~8% energy wasted in the traditional CVT and rear gears, reducing it to ~2%, but will allow a closer match between engine speed and road speed to increase time spent at the engine's most efficient BSFC.
A new programmable ECU will not only control fuel injection, but water injection as well, allowing me to do away with the extra fuel injected as coolant under heavy engine load, and allowing me to burn lean lambda, which will have a very beneficial fuel efficiency effect.
The piezoelectric transducer in the intake is for experiments pertaining to full vaporization of the fuel prior to it hitting the cylinder. The effects on fuel economy are unknown... which is sort of the reason for experimentation, after all.
The ceramic heat shield coating on the piston crown, cylinder head, exposed parts of the valves and the intake and exhaust ports are for several reasons... protection of the metal during ozone experiments, lessening heat loss to metal engine parts, and protection of the piston and head while burning alternative fuels (some of which burn hotter than gasoline).
You said most of what I was planning would give negligible results at best... which changes, in your opinion, would give negligible results?