Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

gregsfc · 12-31-2016, 08:28 AM

@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.

12-31-2016, 08:28 AM	#11 (permalink)
gregsfc EcoModding Apprentice Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Cookeville,TN,USA Posts: 118 Thanks: 15 Thanked 22 Times in 11 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.