Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
OK, yer right. Looks like you and Coanda have this all sorted out, what do I know. Dopey me. Good Luck. (Aerohead just said pretty much the same thing as I did in different words fwiw.)
|
Except rather than saying "You can't do that", Aerohead discussed how it could be done. And it
is done... on motorcycles, airplanes, racing autos and even artillery munitions, as the examples provided in this very thread attest to.
I'm not looking at propelling the bike solely via air flow, I'm looking to at least partially fill the wake to lessen wake drag. On a small bike of limited power, every bit of energy wasted has a proportionally larger effect upon fuel economy than it would have on, say, a 200+ HP motorcycle that has no problem going 180 MPH naked.
Already, in just the little I've so far done with the bike (friction reduction via hybrid ceramic bearings in the rear gears and wheels, 15% taller rear gearing, tungsten disulfide in the engine and gear oil, and pre-heating the block prior to running the engine), I've gone from a historical average over 9574.6 miles of 65.851 MPG to the last tankful being 94.478 MPG (43.47% increase). And even that could be improved... I couldn't resist opening it up to WOT for 20 miles on one trip (because 85 MPH on a small bike is so much fun... watching the faces of people on the freeway as you buzz past them on a scooter that looks like it wouldn't do more than 50 MPH is priceless), and there were two trips climbing those steep Oakland hills.
Now imagine what a proper aerodynamic body will do for it, one that not only pushes as little air aside as possible, but also fills the wake to lessen wake drag. On top of that, imagine what a lighter frame, saving about 70 pounds of weight will do.