Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
The 700 is an amazing engine. A very bold move by Honda. We had someone ride a CTX700 with us at Ohio once and got mid 90's.
|
That was me. It was atypical to be sure. Mine was a straight shift that Honda used to offer in the States that I theorize could achieve much better than the dual clutch automatic for FE. I had not come within 13 mpg of that result before it happened and some of those low-to-mid 80s tank achievements were slower and more conducive to high mpg than was that 96.1 mpg run than I had. That was 2014 Vintage Days event. However, I never tuck back home, but in that ride I tucked except when braking or urban riding. It was hot. It was calm weather, and I had a large Dewalt tool box strapped in behind me. I kept RPM fairly low, but just like back home, I focused more on light throttle pressure than I did low RPM. The box was about 55 liter volume, narrow (like me) and tall. Vic suggested that my tucking, combined with the big box may have created a streamline effect. It was way, way more than I expected, because I'd measured my mpg probably over 100 times, and so I had very consistent results and fill method; etc. Back home, I could expect mid 70s for commuting and low 80s for a winding road trip in hot weather, but nothing into the 90s ever. I think my high up to that point was around 83.3 after correcting for the estimated trip meter error, which I always do in any vehicle.
I went back one more time; 2016 I think, and achieved 88 mpg; again tucking, but this time with rectangular milk crate behind me. Most other scores were better this second time around than the others did the first time I went, but for me, it was more like what I expected than 2014. The 2016 ride was super short though, and so none of us liquid fuel guys felt very good about having enough data (miles) for a good measurement. I'm 5'8 and weigh only a buck fifty.
The first time may have been an anomaly (although I usually don't get anomalies), but more likely the tucking with the big box gave me a partial streamline like Vic suggested. I'm real careful about how I measure mpg; much like most who do these sort of things as a hobby or interest. Just like right now I can tell you that my F150 has around a 1.8% pessimistic trip meter error and that the mpg calculator has an error that ranges between 1.3-2.0 mpg; the higher my actual mpg, the more the error by the computer. I get consistent results in all vehicles that I drive, because I observe and take notice to any possible variables, and therefore correct over time. I'm sure it's the same way for Sendler.
I've sold the bike and plan on getting a Mitsubishi Mirage; slightly used, in about a year and a half. Something cheap that I can commute in all seasons in safety and get up to 50 mpg. The only thing that fits that bill that I can think of that can satisfy a 61 mph, 58 mile round trip commute is a Mitsubishi Mirage. Must be manual shift. A diesel Chevy Cruze hatch could also achieve this, but remember, one of the rules is that it has to be cheap. The diesel isn't cheap.