Vetter Challenge Advice.
 

I've got a 2014 Honda CTX700. I've been very happy with my summer time mpg records. Winter time wasn't so good, and the difference has been much more than any vehicle I've owned so far. Up to 10 mpg difference between my winter time commutes and summer time, but overall, I'm very happy with my motorcycle choice and amazed with what Honda has engineered with respect to this power train. It's a great commuter bike that is substantial and weather protective enough for light touring and highway commuting in relative comfort and peace of mind, yet it gets great fuel economy.

I've talked myself into going to the AMA Vintage Days Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge near Mansfield, OH and competing just to try and meet my own goals and to see if my mpg records are anywhere near reality, assuming a 2.3% trip meter error based on several GPS comparisons. My goal is to use no more than double Fred Hayes fuel by volume. I hope Mr. Vetter will let me run pure gasoline as long as I write what I paid for it on my receipt that I turn in, because I'm going after maximum fuel economy and am not as concerned personally with the minimizing the fuel cost of the run.

I'm still fairly new to PTW riding with only a couple of years under my belt, and so it's taken me a while to find gear, luggage, etc. that suits me. I'm a daily, state highway commuter, 55 miles per day. Recently, I found a helmet that is not so rough on my tiny noggin. A low-profile, Bell Custom 500. As a bonus, it seems as though that helmet has improved my mpg by at least 1.

One particular problem I've got trying to make myself a qualified participate in the event, and something I'm not very happy with, is passing the grocery bag test. I understand the purpose of the bikes in the event being usable, but I consider the bike I've got, the way I've got it, very usable, and it is the first vehicle choice out of the garage for my personal transportation. But even with a 55-liter box strapped behind me on the pillion seat that carries just about anything anyone could expect to carry on a bike, I can't near carry 4 bags of groceries, left in the bags, kept upright, and zipped up. The main problem is vertical height, which is said to be about a 20" requirement. My box is about 15" high interior space. I can add an extra large, zippable tote bag to the hinge side of my box. It's around 18" high, about 14" wide, and can expand to about 9" deep. I still don't think this will pass the test, because that will hold probably on one or two tall bags. Then what about the other two bags. Alternatively, I can remove the box and replace it with a 70 liter, Nelson Rigg bag that I believe is much taller. This will cost me over $100, and I don't need it except for the Challenge, and I still may not pass the test. I don't have the financial or mechanical know how to create a custom box and don't have the motivation to do so if I did. I kind of pride myself in simple, cheap luggage solutions that doesn't negatively affect fuel economy, which is what I've already got. And the only items I can't carry that I'd like to carry are very long items, and neither can streamlined bikes, so I don't really see the point of trying to force everyone into oval luggage choices, but it is what it is.

Any suggestions: should I even worry about the grocery test and just ride as a non-contestant, or should I try and pass the test and possibly fail anyway.

You can still participate in the Challenge if you don't carry the groceries, but won't be scored - as far as I understand.

I would contact Craig and ask for advice concerning how, specifically, the groceries need to be carried. If just adding the $100 bag will do it, buy that.

I think Craig would be happy to have you participate either way. Just try to satisfy the rules to compete, but if you don't just have fun. I don't understand a lot of the reasoning behind some of Craig's rules and requirements - but it's his game.

The impression I got was that everyone started with a full tank, and filled-up at the end to get the amount of fuel used on the trip. Running ethanol-free (at the start) would certainly be an advantage.

Good luck.


Jay

Yeah there is a detailed rant addressing previous complaints about the grocery bag test on Craig's website, which addresses some of the arguments some have made against the strict regulations, which have gotten more strictly enforced since 2011, even though, as far as I know, the rules have not changed; only the enforcement of the spirit of the rules.

Alot of traditional motorcyclist want to compete for a score, but think that not being able to rearrange the groceries to fit anyway they can is sort of an unnecessary and unusual requirement put in there just to favor the rounded shapes of the streamlined vehicles. From what little I know, I have to agree, since many top cases and saddle bags are actually more conveniently removed and ported into our houses (as in groceries) than it would be to remove the grocery bags and carry them in, and so, to me, it doesn't make sense that groceries must stay in bags and in all cases why the bags should have to remain upright as long as everyone can carry them without damaging the goods and they can be totally zipped up.

The best I can understand his reasoning is that he wants everyone to streamline, because there is nothing else that can be learned without streamlining. I'm not very physics minded, but I don't see how that's possible considering the automobile manufacturers keep making more horsepower-capable machines with equal or better fuel economy with heavier curb weight, and in some cases, no less drag, even after lots and lots more engineering work has been done with automobiles than we've seen with PTWheelers. If it were true that all we need do is keep reducing the required hp to run the course due to reduced drag and that nothing else effect fuel economy, then how come the bike winning the races has a 670 cc engine, is not fully streamlined like his scooter, and has a peak output of at or about 31.

Sorry to go on a little rant; I'm not really that upset or anything and will be glad to participate in any context, but do wish that Craig would give up this idea that everyone will one day see the advantages of his style of streamlining and that, although other bike and scooter types may not have all the efficiency advantages as his image of the future of bikes, and many riders will still want to ride their styles of bikes even if they are far less efficient. If the rules weren't so restrictive, maybe there would be more contestants and we could compare different styles and different makes from different manufacturers, modified or not.

As for pure gas, yes it would give me advantage mpg wise, but would hurt me in the contest, because the contest winners are ranked in dollars and cents, and while I can get 3% better fuel economy, I'd be paying 10% or more for the ethanol-free gas, and I would write what I paid on the receipt at the end point. In other words, I would be honest and not just let them calculate the E10 price when I actually paid a higher price; whatever that might be.

Thanks for the advice. I thinking about a Rubbermaid Action Packer, which was a finalist back when I was shopping for a cheap top case, but at the time, I thought it a bit too big. But for this event, it may be the cheapest and easiest way to go, if I decide to try to meet the grocery bag test.

If it's not in the rules...

Play by the rules, but I wouldn't penalize yourself if it's not specifically noted.

It is a competition after all.

Well I'm not dead set on running ethanol free, and it will be sort of a hassle in central Ohio where it's not available in every small town like it is here in TN. There will be others using different fuels, e.g., electricity and biodiesel that will not be available at the end point fuel station, so there is nothing wrong with using a different fuel as long as the price paid is reported and road tax is added in. It may put me in the alternative fuel category, but I don't care about that. My rationale for hurting myself follows:

I'm not going to win; not even close, but running ethanol free may possibly cause me to lose one place at the most, even if I do carry the groceries and am deemed a qualified contestant due to the amount it raises my cost versus what I gain in MPG. The last time the event was ridden on this course, lots of riders did their personal best. Fred came in at or about 160 mpg on his diesel, and I can't see myself exceeding 81 mpg, because I rarely exceed that here at home, even on a trip at slow highway speeds. But here is the hard part about me filling up with E10. It's not what I usually do. I want to ride in the event, as much as possible, the way I ride at home, and I've used E10 only once, and couldn't stand seeing that loss in mpg. One of the reasons I want to ride in this ride, other than seeing these other fuel misers, is to see what kind of mpg that I'm really getting compared to my own records, and if I run E10, it's going to be skewed.

And now back to my luggage dilemma...I've decided to go with a collapsable, water-proof, zip-top hunters bag strapped to the right side of my tool box. It was $39 with free shipping from LLBean. The box is strapped to the pillion half of the seat and doubles as a back rest. I'll probably velcro and strap the bag to the box. I will probably not pass the grocery test, but it will be close, so I might. I don't think I'll have enough space that is tall enough vertically for the four bags, but it's possible it will work.

I looked at the previously-reported Rubbermaid Action Packer. I could get it for only $7 more than the bag I just ordered. It would definitely hold the groceries. It's longer, wider, and taller, and interior space is much bigger than my box, because my box has alot of indentations cutting down on interior space as compared to exterior dimensions. The Action Packer does not.

The Action Packer is just small enough to where it would sit solid on my pillion seat as long as I bolted it to a 2x12; cut slits in the 2x12 and in the box and then ran my 2 lashing straps around both the 2x12 and the bottom of the box and around the seat; and then latch the seat to the bike. It would be secure, but it would never be used except for this event, because it would be wider than my body and wider than the fairing, and I think it would cause extra drag; plus it would sit farther back than what I want and is bigger than what I want, and I don't like the way the top latches on. My Dewalt Tough box is much better for what I need as a daily commuter, is much stronger, and has a regular tool box latching system that is real strong and real convenient. I want to run in the event with my box, because it's always there when I ride. The bag, unlike the Action Packer, I will use from time to time if I wanted to add extra luggage space for a particular reason. It will be removable, and if I use it, instead of the Action Packer, I will be following the spirit of the rules more closely, because then I'll be riding like I really ride.

I'm going to go with what I've got coming and have fun. Thanks for the feed back. Please share any ideas that could help me have a good run for a one-time event.

Craig will be interested in having your CTX700 in the group as it is one of the few new motorcycles offered with a true fuel economy engine. I wouldn't bother trying to carry the groceries. You can still ride.
.
I hope you are an experienced group rider because the group is run very tight and very fast. "The way we really ride" with no "tricky riding" such as pulse and glide or engine off coasting up to the stop sign. 10 mph over speed limit and 10 foot staggered groupings on narrow roads with bad shoulders. The same guys always seem to claim the front ( Fred, Vic) where you set your own spacing, while the newbies get relegated to the back where the group gets packed really tight when Craig tries to pass you to "tag" you out of the competition. If you get uncomfortable with that, just let him past and enjoy your ride behind him. Your result will say "failed to keep up" but you can tell us here how you did.
.
Don't bother trying to skew the results. Just fill up with 87 pump gas.

There is a method to the grocery rule. Part of it is to make motorcycles more useful to more people. The practical reasons being cited for not owning a motorcycle include no cargo capacity, no weather protection, and no rider safety. Streamlined bodies can address these problems and retain the essential riding experience. The goal is to challenge cars and buses in passenger-miles per gallon of fuel. The target is 500+ passenger-miles per gallon. Motorcycles are slowly catching up. The question we are looking at now is whether a larger engine run at low rpm is more efficient than a small engine running at higher rpm to get the same power and mass rate of flow.

Thanks for the comments. This gives me some things to contemplate. Obviously, you've got experience with the rides and appreciate you giving me some insights into the ride. I'm not an experienced group rider. I'm a daily commuter. I've ridden in a couple of charity rides, which were very slow. On the last one, I went out front with the sport bikes once, and stayed in tight with my partner who was on a Hybusa, but we weren't going all that fast. I didn't realize it was like how you've stated. That Craig tries to pass like it's a race or something. I guess this is real-world riding for some riders, but not normally the way I commute, but I can deal with that. If I can't keep up, or if I think it is unrealistically fast compared to real-world commuter rides, I'll just let him pass; and hopefully, the way you've described it, I can still have my numbers posted in the results. I don't ever do any kind of hyper mileing stuff around home. I just ride at speed limit and ride steady, don't rev up or idle unnecessarily. I don't normally ride at 10 mph over the speed limit, but I don't normally go under either, but I do understand that most auto drivers do average 10 over, so I've got no problem with that kind of ride.

I'll just run regular E10, because that's what it seems like everyone so far wants me to do, and it will be much easier logistically, since I'm not trailering my bike up there. If I were to run ethanol free, I'd have to ride up to Ashland after a seven-eight hour ride (because that's the closest place with e-free gas); buy a small gas tank; fill both my bike and the gas tank up, so that I can start out full with the rest of the group; check in at Motel 6 in Mansfield (the only room I could find around); then ride down to the Bellville Comfort Inn by 6:30; then ride back up to Mansfield; then ride back down by 8 the next morning; and then ride one-hundred and forty something miles. Then rest, and then do the long ride back on Saturday.

Running E10 will not be skewed with regards to the rest of the group, but it will be skewed for me, because I never run with it, and when I do, I'm not happy with the mpg number that I record. I'd would much rather compare my results in the event with my records back home to see how I'm really doing with respect to mpg in a controlled test; and I'm not so concerned how I do versus everyone else. But I regress. I do understand why some may not like just one gas rider running w/o ethanol. I guess I can just multiply my results in the event by 1.03 to get a good indication of how I would have done running my preferred fuel, but that may not be the actual difference that would have occurred.

I've read all the stuff about the reasoning for the grocery bag test on Craig's website, and was just shaking my head in confusion at Craig's rationale; the airplane analogy and all; it just doesn't seem like it's got any relevance to an MC event that is supposed to encourage usable and fuel efficient motorcycles, and just don't believe that the average American is going to suddenly decide to ride on powered two wheels no matter how much stuff it holds. I don't think that's what keeps non riders from becoming riders, and the current, average rider wouldn't even think of riding that low and being that covered up. I think the reason most folks don't ride powered two wheelers is mostly because we've become an overly-cautious and pampered society, and it's the fact that it's on two wheels, and that people would actually have to do something extra besides sit down and push a button or turn a key in order to transport his or herself to another location. I'm not stating that I personally disagree with the concept of streamlining motorcycles; I do agree with streamlining if that's your thing, but the idea that everyone who rides is going to be riding one of those, "this is how it should be done" machines is no more likely than everyone will start driving 2,000 lb roadster with low-drag cars, because they are more efficient than pickup trucks and minivans.

The way things are today in the real world without manufactured streamlined bikes, if one wants to ride a steamlined bike, he or she has to have alot of money to do it or alot of mechanical skills, and time, or a combination of all three. I have none of those, but I do have an MC that I ride in all seasons to work, that I can use for just about everything when I'm solo, except if I need to carry something very long, or if there is icy roads. I appreciate good mpg with highway capability and am excited to finally go somewhere and meet other people who think the same way. With all that I've got going with my ride, I feel like it is within the spirit of the Vetter rules, without having to carry four tall bags of groceries in an upright position, so I've decided not to make the changes that would let me pass; only to make the changes I need to make this long trip, which is adding a thin, tall bag to my current box.

Anyway, enough with my useless philosophy. I can't wait to get up there; check out all the rides and riders, and do as well as I can with ethanol fuel.

I use a diy luggage system with a large duffel bag for cross country trips. It is actually more aero too.
.
.
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...19376758_n.jpg
.
.
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...63194120_n.jpg
.
.
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...19514637_n.jpg
.
.

Really like the soft-bag, plywood or 1X idea with any kind of soft or hard bag or box. I love luggage that is cheap, inventive, useful, and easily undone. That flat-bottom rope system passes all my likes for luggage.

My first top-case choice was a garage sale, Dewalt soft tool bag with hard bottom rails; about 28" long, but not tall enough for the groceries upright. Doesn't look like the previous pics are tall enough either but very functional, useful and practical just the same and would carry the groceries, just not the way the rules call for them to be carried. My Dewalt tool bag was too long strapped to my seat and drooped down too much rear of the seat and around the sides; no operational issues with it, but just not very functional if I'd ever put any kind of weight in it. Plywood or 1X would have let that system work the way sendler has pictured it.

I just got to thinking that I believe there is something in the Vetter Challenge rules that states the luggage must be part of the body work and that no soft bag will be allowed anyway. This second thought makes me believe that my soft bag, attached to my box, will not be allowed and neither would a plywood-based soft bag, and possibly, since my hard box is strapped around the seat, it may not pass either. I'm still not going to do anything out of the ordinary to pass the grocery-bag test. I need the LL Bean bag (Bean bag; no pun intended) for my trip anyway. If I don't pass due to something stupid like a particular rider preferring a soft bag to a hard bag or the bag and box being strapped, instead of bolted or welded on, I'm not going to stress over it.

The streamlining folks are trying to push an agenda and trying to keep things equal among all the steamlined bikes, but for only slightly modified bikes, I don't see the point of forcing any kind of structural standard other than it holds the groceries w/o damaging them and the load and bike or trike being safe. I understand their point of useful, future bikes and trikes, and it is Craig's show, so he and they can do what they want, since no one else is doing any kind of similar event, but it would be nice if a regular guy, on a regular MC, could show up and be a legitimate competitor, since he or she is going to be at a disadvantage anyway being non-streamlined.

Of course it can be stated that nothing more can be learned other than what we know about necessary horsepower to accomplish the rides, but saying it doesn't make it true. An average pickup truck gets far less fuel economy than an average car, but that's no reason why folks in pickups shouldn't be able to show up a 4-wheeler fuel economy event and compete just to illustrate how all different kinds of techniques and technologies may improve fuel economy in pickups. That's my point about this 2 and 3 wheel event. It's not like MC folks have other choices with less restrictive rules that include them.

I'm not even asking for more classes of winners; just to be allowed to compete without having to spend big bucks to do it. I can still show off my bike anyway w/o passing the grocery-bag test, but I won't get a placed score if I can't, and that's a shame, because I can carry the groceries just as easily, and my bike is just as useful; past, present, or future as the streamliners in a practical, every day sense. And my bike doesn't have all the cross wind issues either. It just doesn't have quite the top speed or achievable mpg as it would if I were rich and didn't work full time and could streamline my Honda.

This is the bag that is pictured.
.
Outdoor Products Large Utility Duffel, 90520 | Duffels & Totes | Travel | GEAR | items from Campmor.
.
His reluctance toward soft bags is that they change shape according to what is in them so you would have to compete with actual groceries in your bag to be fair. It would be nice to establish a stated volume for the rules. We use a different type of bag where I come from :D which are much more space efficient than the big paper bags he specifies.
.

I disagree with the speeding part (it isn't how I really ride) but hey, it's his contest.

There are many complaints about this. But he is trying to maintain year to year consistency of the events and that is how it has always been. It's a Mountain West/ California thing. From what I have read, Everyone drives insanely fast out there. And it goes back to his desire to promote actual road worthy vehicles. No 60 mph topped out competition machines allowed.

Oh well. For six months I rode a GoldWing in Cali- not all that far from Vetter's place- and I didn't speed. Actually I went 55 in a 65. Oh- nobody shot me either.

Mine is mostly a commuter bike, and while the route goes along what is technically highways from my home and work, it is not what Google Maps calls a highway. They are state highways, and the old U.S. highways; sometimes they're two lane and sometimes four, depending on the stretch, and if folks out here in the rural south try to run 70+ on these highways, which I'm sure they'd like to, where the county mounties and troopers aren't so out numbered, they'll have lots of tickets and high auto insurance.

I run 55-65. Usually from speed limit to 6 or 7 above; no tickets. Any faster, and I'd have tickets. When I travel to one of the larger cities, e.g. Knoxville or Nashville, I'm amazed at how fast people drive even on the state highways and city streets. I guess the cops just are too out numbered to do anything or they don't care about getting caught. Not sure, but it's alot faster traffic than when I lived in K-Town back in the 80s.

Out here, Utah, most people run about 70mph on the freeway (thru the Salt Lake area) and once out of the urban areas, 75-80 mph is not uncommon. Running thru Wyoming (I-80) you will see folks at 80+ .

It will be interesting to see how fast we go during Craig's Wendover to Ely competition. My stock bike (Ninja 250) will keep up on the highway at 75 all day long. With aero mods it will be interesting to see how it performs.

Jeff

I bet you'll have no trouble keeping up with the pack. Maybe you won't have to run WOT with the mods you've made.

In the AMA Days event, I'm not so worried about getting passed by an old Helix, but I would like to run a steady pace, which may or may not work if people are towards the back varying their speeds to try and pass.

This being my first-time ride at a Vetter event, I'm sure I'm going to learn alot about what "not" to do that I can't even fathom at this point. Right now, with what I've learned on here, I've sort of got a strategy in mind. I'm thinking if I can run towards the front; maybe just behind Fred and his partner; which I can easily do with the capability of my bike, I may not have to keep watching folks coming up on me. I'm not that accustomed to running tight in a group-ride pack. I'm a daily commuter in a rural area, and normally when I'm commuting, I stay way back when I come up on someone, so this will be a new experience for me. However, lately I've gone on a couple of rides with a guy with on a Hyabusa. I've practiced some staying in tight behind him through turns and all. The bike I've got should be able to perform well and still get great mpg up to about 65 mph. Not sure what happens beyond that. Probably not too good.

During my rides with my riding partner, I've been able to keep the bike in 5th and 6th gear most of the time through the twisties behind him, but some of the tighter curves I had to downshift to 4th, and yet I've been able to keep the RPM between 2800-4000. The CTX700 has still beeen able to return near 80 mpg with this fairly-aggressive riding being a large portion of the miles. My partner says he can't shift up above 4th in the twisties, because he loses all his torque and his engine bogs. I told him that my bike was just the opposite. If I go into a curve, and I've chosen to low of a gear, I find myself having to shift up very quickly in order to have the grunt I need to drive hard out of the curve. My bike performs somewhat like my diesel car, where I need to be careful not to downshift too much; just not the same extreme as my diesel where torque is peaked between 1800-2400.

My partner said that he will average 30-32 mpg on that kind of riding, but that 70+ mph on the interstates, he can get around 37. I told him that I would say it would probably be the opposite for me. I can still do very well mpg wise even with alot of heavy throttling (or at least that's what I'm learning from these kind of rides), as long as I can keep the RPM relatively low. Even though I've never ridden on the interstate @ 70+, I'd guess that my mpg would drop substantially even though it would be far less pulling back on the throttle than these twisty rides.

I'm not a physics-minded person, so I don't know if there is really anything to this theory in my mind, or if my theory is already proven or disproven, but I feel like that low-end, torque-peak machines have an advantage in a fuel economy contest compared to not-so-torquey machines with similar levels of horsepower, and that's part of the reason why Fred does so well. He can keep his bike in the meat of his torque range, and at the same time, be running around 3,000 RPM. Up hills and all. That's sort of how my bike is tuned, except that I've got the disadvantage of multiple cylinders, and what puts me at an even bigger disadvantage, mine is spark ignition. There is a whole laundry list of factors that make diesels more efficient, from the fuel, to the combustion, to the lack of a fuel-air mix requirement. But, at least with respect to the torque curve, I've got only a slight disadvantage as compared to Fred, because my torque also comes on at about 3K just like him and his bikes.

Reading on craigvetter.com, there is lots of discussion about concepts that seems to minimize the importance of engine design or type, but instead all the focus for maximizing fuel economy on two and three wheels deals with limiting horsepower, engine displacement, and lowering drag. I don't even read alot about transmissions and drive trains, but those have to be huge factors. There is some discussion about cylinder size, number, and arrangement, but other than that, I've not found anything dealing with the torque curve, and how a 650+ displacement engine can out do 250's (even if it is a diesel), which I thin think is a big oversight when looking at fuel economy, and I think Fred is proving that on every ride. But I don't really know anything; just rambling and rooting for diesel power!

Greg, Alan and Fred are pretty close. Last May Fred's mileage was 149.68 mpg over a 116 mile course and Alan achieved 144.28 mpg.

I get what you are saying about diesel vs. gas but I think I'd rather ride Alan's bike over a longer distance vs. Fred's. Alan's looks much more comfortable.

Fred
http://www.craigvetter.com/images/20...er-web-400.jpg

Alan
http://www.craigvetter.com/images/20...ding-Ninja.jpg

So, they go to the trouble of streamlining their bikes and then ride in each other's dirty air? :confused:

I'm also surprise to learn that they ride like that and leave so little room to maneuver. I live in Ohio and ride on these types of roads. You never know when you'll encounter Amish road apples, animals, or cellularly-distracted drivers veering in your lane. I don't mind speeding, but give me room.

Congratulations Alan!!! :thumbup:

Must have been a crazy tail wind on the highway leg for Alan's streamliner to improve from 133 mpgUS last year with no changes to the bike.
.
Maybe he has been reading Ecomodder to learn some "tricky riding".

Alan mentioned to me that the weather and road conditions were pretty ideal for the competition. Calm winds, gentle rolling roads, and only about 10 miles of freeway at 70-75 mph. The competition in Wendover, NV will be different with higher altitude, most likely winds, and higher speeds so I'm sure everyone's mileage will suffer somewhat.

Alan said that Craig Vetter will be adding the Ohio competition to his web page. www.craigvetter.com

Jeff

This is the same Ohio course as it has been for the last three years. He is usually around 130 mpgUS on this course and logs 90's on trips.

The full results are posted on craigvetter.com. Congratulations to Alan and the rest of the riders. Wish Carol Vetter a happy birthday too.

Linky: 2014 Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge, Vintage Days

I'm actually figuring 201 mpge for the Illuminati and a whopping 385 mpge for the streamlined Zero electric motorcycle. The interesting thing this shows, gas in the USA is really cheap compared to electricity. they figured $0.12 / kWhr but I actually pay $0.16 so a Nissan Leaf will cost $5.44 to go 100 miles. The same as a 58 mpgUS Prius. The Honda CTX700 showed an excellent 101.8 mpgUS which is right up there with my CBR250R and a lot bigger and more powerful.

2014 Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge, Vintage Days

The Illuminati Motor Works '7' would have placed 4th overall. That says a lot!

http://craigvetter.com/images/2014-C...i-7-49-web.jpg

It was ideal for riding and getting great fuel economy from a weather standpoint, but I still can't figure out why some got such great numbers, including myself. There was really quite a bit of stop-and go through towns, rolling hills with consistent speeds when we were out in the open, which means, down the hills we were engine braking and not tucking (only Fred and myself tucked from what I saw, but were tucked less than 50% of the ride).

Yes the riders stay tight but no where near to the point of drafting or not having clean air. There was almost no wind, and it was round trip, so there could not have been one of those one-direction, tail wind anomalies, and some of the rides came in about what one would expect, e.g. Vic, and the Vespa scooter and the DR200 and the 500 Ascot. Everyone else though, did very, very well. Better than it seems for real-world conditions, but believe me, it was real world. Traffic sometimes kept us below the speed limit, but the slow goers that we got behind occasionally did that speed up and slow down variation thing, so I don't see how that put some of us over the top. If slow-fast-slow-fast was the key, then why didn't I do that well on charity rides that were actually slower than this ride.

The only difference for me than my back home trips was the tucking, but for Allan, Fred, Craig, and me, it had to be considerably better than normal, and I'm not sure why. When I got over to the hotel that morning, I was worried about it still being a little cool, because the Honda 670 Parallel does not do well mpg wise in cool weather. Fred says it's because it runs so lean and that Honda must not accounted for that for cold weather. Anyway, I pumped up my tire pressure to 40 and did a little ride before fueling up. I knew that some would be right on time and have warm engines at the start. I didn't want to be at a disadvantage, so I made sure mine was warm too. By the time we started though, it had warmed considerably.

I'm not sure what drove our numbers so high. Craig said it was the first time that he got 100 or better. I've found, by comparing my trip meter a couple of times versus a GPS, that my trip meter is about 2.3% optimistic, and so, using my own calculations, I came up with about 97 mpg for my ride, which is about 13 mpg better than my all-time high, and I'm ethanol free back home. But the leaders decided to go with a higher trip distance based on an average or something like that, and that drove my number, as well as everyone else's number a little higher, but is still close and still works for a comparison basis, however I'm not sure why they don't run a few GPSs and take the median of those instead of vehicle trip meters.

Professor Golf, who has a similar box as mine directly behind his seat on his Zero stated that he thought that my box helped my number, but I ride with this box back home. But maybe the box, in conjunction with tucking, is what put me so far out of my normal mpg.

A few minor issues I'd like to complain about in a respectful way. The stock diesel was DNF, but it still got listed up there with the contenders. I think that it should have been in the middle list with the nobodies like myself who couldn't hold the groceries. Sure, it was getting in the 130s when it went kaput, but it didn't finish, and that should be at least a big of a penalty as not being able to carry groceries in a specific way. It was stated before the competition that the only alternative-fuel vehicle was the stock diesel; nothing about the streamlined diesel, yet Fred was declared winner of the alternative-fuel class. Craig stated that the car would have finished 4th, but they count differently than I do. If you look at the list. Out of all the vehicles that could carry the groceries and that also finished, the car is 3rd best; not 4th.

I looked at my electric bill. It's 10.5 cents per KWh using TVA power. We do a little better down here, but I think that cheap gas has always been the reason we can't get past it.

One thing that the Ilumini 7 guy stated that still worries me about battery-powered vehicles. To paraphrase, he said that when the batteries were new, the car could have gone nearly 200 miles in our kind of ride, but now that they're 5 years old, our ride was near the limit. They could have made it to about 160 he said. So if Li Ion battery replacements at five years is something like $1K, this wouldn't be a big deal, but costs being what they are to replace car batteries being more than the value of a 5-year-old electric car--now that's a problem! And to be forced between a choice of substantial reduction in range capability or spending thousands and thousands for batteries, I think we're still going to be stuck on petroleum-based fuels for a while longer.

I was behind Alan most of the ride. Nothing tricky by him or anyone else. We got separated into subgroups a couple of times due to traffic lights, but other than that everyone seemed to be moving together; accelerating together, etc. He was waving at passerbys going the opposite direction. That could be considered tricky inside that cage of his.

After seeing these rides in real life, and no disrespect to Alan, Vic, or Craig, but Fred's streamliner is much better as a home-made, modified vehicle, from a quality and fit and finish standpoint. It wins best-looking streamliner by any measure. Additionally, one can sit up and still feel like he or she is riding a MC. One other thing I noticed was that my torquier 670 and Fred's two torquier diesels, when I was up there with them just behind the Harleys leading,, we didn't drop off or slow our speed whatsoever up the hills. Together, when it was our three rides up front, there would be some separation between us and them each time. Not alot but a few hundred yards or so. The 250s would slow ever so slightly in the natural lag caused by increasing throttle input, and waiting on the power response. A natural occurance in vehicles that get torque @ higher RPM. Me and the diesels though, we just trucked right up w/o our power trains even detecting a difference. I think that's a positive attribute. A more refined riding experience. To say that Alan and Fred are close fuel economy wise, that is true, but Fred's diesel is much more capable when he needs it or wants it to be with 31 hp and 35 peak foot lbs of torque at the wheel.

Back in the day, Craig's competitions were no-holds-barred - whatever you could think of to get the big numbers.

The entrants were tiny and smooth, and the numbers were over 400 MPG.

Things have changed, and the competition is more practical now. No tricky riding (P&G) and no more tiny bikes that require a tight tuck. The big winner (edit: back then)was obviously doing P&G, as he modified the trans so he could get a neutral from top gear.

Some info and photos about those days from Craig's site - 1983 Fuel Economy Contest

I miss those days...

There was definitely something odd going on with the fill ups this year. Many of the known competitors were up 20-30% over last year with the exact same bike.
.
All vehicles get lower economy in cold weather. There is more wasted energy in heating up the incoming air.
.
The Hayes streamliner is looking good this year with the new tail. I'm surprised he didn't win. He always wins. But I don't understand why his fuel capacity is so small that he has been seen to dump fuel into his tank from a pop bottle at the mid way break. I wonder if he has done anything to improve the handling? Seeing the way that thing shakes in truck wakes in downright scary.

1. I don't see how there was anything odd about the fillups other than everyone is on their honor to fill to the same level before and after. This was my first thought about my own ride; either I somehow filled more to the top before starting than I did when I returned or at any fill up I've ever conducted, or something different or better about the Shell gas near the hotel, which I used both before and after. I even used the same pumps as I was the 2nd one in and went right back to the same spot and filled the same way to the same level. The better or more energy-dense gas theory falls through, because my next tank, with the same fuel, from the same pump, running around the Mansfield area, netted me around 78 mpg. The idea that I somehow got more gas in the tank than I ever have before theory also falls through, because on the way home I experimented with this; vented until I got to the tippy top, and my mpg was from 77-80, which is back to normal.

2. I vaguely have an understanding about the factors that cause worse fuel economy in the winter time, but this is significant. All vehicles I've had lose mpg in the winter, maybe 4-5 percent, but I've never had one that loses 12%. My diesel car doesn't lose that much, and the winter blend fuel is much less energy dense than summer; not so much difference with gasoline blends. On my first tank going up to the Vetter event on the CTX700, I started with a cold engine and it was 57 degrees outside. I was going a little faster than in the event and I didn't tuck, but that still can't explain how the same vehicle that got 97 in the event, 80 in regular summertime commuting, got only 69 on this cooler ride. Fred knew the answer. I don't understand his explanation, but I think he's on to something. He's got something that regulates his water temp he says and he told me that his doesn't vary that much. In fact, that's how I started the conversation. I asked him if he loses much mpg in cold weather. He said no.

3. Yeah, I saw Fred's streamliner squirrel around a few times, like when his tires would contact the yellow paint or something, but most of the time he was steady. Of course it was very calm out that day. He killed the engine once at an intersection and had to catch back up to get in his spot up front. I think he said that he was inadvertently in 2nd gear or something like that. It took him a little bit to get it started. He was still cranking when I passed him. His wife says that's the same bike that does the Bonneville flat runs, except they replace the saddle boxes with a tail. No gearing change or anything she said. Same configuration except for the tail. And he has another one that is turbo charged, but the one in the Vetter events is the non-turbo charged version that has topped out at 130 mph or so.