Vetter Fuel Challenges

[bschloop]

Originally Posted by sendler

+1 front, -2 rear for the CBR250R is easy. One person made a custom +2 front sprocket but you have to eliminate the chain keeper to use that and could end up with the chain touching the cases if it got loose. And of course first gear would start to get pretty long.

I already have +1 front, and -2 rear for mine, with the streamlining it still feels like it is gearing limited which is why I am considering the possibility of a taller 6th gear.

To all of the comments on winning. I already consider myself to have won. I get to ride with some really awesome people, in a really cool event. That in itself is a win. Also, my previous goal was to achieve 100 mpg plus on a budget of under $1000, and I did 118 mpg on about $900, so I have been quite successful in meeting my goals to date.

This year I'd like to see 120+ mpg, and then work from there.

[gregsfc]

That's what I like to see. I root for everyone who comes to put in their best effort, learns and comes back with a better result the next time (hopefully). I want to see everyone break their own personal mpg or mpg-e number; irrespective of the cost for each fuel and the bike type or the level of modification. That's what makes this all exciting to me. I know bschloop has a different machine this time and maybe seems a little disappointed in his numbers at home, but something is missing here; it seems to me, something can be changed or tweaked and a great improvement is possible; and maybe we'll learn it at the event. Sendler and Nate and Paul have all shown that the 250 single is very, very economical. Nate achieved over 100 last year on a very stock-like bike, so the 250 single should stand up against just about any liquid-fueled power train vehicle that has been brought to the event that can make the ride day-in-and-day out, and can be used as a daily commuter or tourer with few compromises. I mean, Sendler could tell us more, but it looks like to me; he's mostly designed, built and mounted a tail, optimized gearing, maybe some windshield optimization, knows how to ride for economy w/i the spirit of the rules, and has a small-to-medium-build as a rider; and yet he achieved at or about 144 last year. Nate and Paul have done very well with fewer and more minor mods; so I've got to believe that Ben can bring his (your) FE way, way up with a CBR250R as the base machine. Is it turbulence, drag, not optimized with respect to gearing, or something else...we don't know, but even Alan and Vic concede that if their near-perfect streamliners were powered by the Honda single, they could achieve even higher, so there is a piece of the puzzle missing in my opinion.

Personally, I've not chosen not to do anything new to mine, but want to come and see, basically what happened last time and if there is a chance to get such an amazing number out of a stock CTX700 one more time. I'm not going to re break the conical washers that hold my windshield mount on the bike like occurred to me just before the event started in 2014, and I'm not going to repurchase a Dewalt ToughCase to strap on the pillion portion of the seat, but I am going to try and do everything else pretty much the same and see what happens, and I really, really want to see what everyone else does with Fred, Alan, Vic, Ben, Scott, Paul, Nate, Finnie and any other fuel-mising bikers that might show up. And I think the tires I've got on mine this year are superior to last time (Michelin P4s versus the old Battlaxs'), so even if it were an accidental, lucky streamline effect last time, I came last time with an ability to hit low 80s on a day ride that's not too fast. But with this new tires, unless there is a bigger odometer error that I'm unaware of, I can now hit mid 80s, so my goal for the event, with tucking maybe helping; maybe not, is to hit upper 80s. And if I do that, I'm a winner. And if it I achieve near 100 once again, then I'll have to sit on my hands to keep from waving at myself, even though I know I'll be far off the official leader board and not a grocery carrier.

I root for the e-bike riders and their rides as well, but the main thing I want to see from them, because they already blow us away with respect to energy use per mile and for the trip, is that I want to see them become more practical and usable for such a ride as a 150+ day trip. Requiring a lot of long stops for this trip and all the bulk they must add, and the high initial cost is a little disheartening when I look at this as the future for me personally, although I do believe they are already very practical for commuting and such; but for a day-long ride, like this event is supposed to represent, I want to see them do this ride with less and less charging time and less bulk on their vehicles. So for them, I hope to see requirements in future events that ask more from the e-bikes in that regard; tighten it up a little each year. Shorter and fewer stops. That would be good I think, and the right way to push or challenge them, because we all know they use much less fuel.

Just like a message I recently sent to Kraig regarding my excitement that bschloop is coming back to the event, even if it is a totally different machine. Different bikes; styles, brands, levels of modification, etc, all teach us something if we have the spirit of wanting to learn. As far as official places, bschloop has a history of success and that's part of why its cool that he (you) have chosen to come back and ride. Craig placed him 3rd in 2012 behind Fred and Vic, but as a cost per mile, he (you) was technically 4th (counting the 2nd diesel); but at any rate, 108.5 mpg back in 2012 was right up there; it was 9.5 mpg down from second place no matter whether he was considered 3rd or 4th. So we know he (you) has the ability to put on a good showing. Kraig thinks so too!

[gregsfc]

I went back and looked at the history of the mid-Ohio event, and it looks like to me that there was a big jump for just about everyone in 2013 compared to the previous two years, and then it sort of eased upward as one would expect after that; but the years bschloop was riding, Alan and Vic were not too far above 100 even after getting the Vetter treatment, and so 108 back then was a really good score, and Fred just blew everyone away, except for the one-year wonder who beat him in 2012.

The first two years, the ride was shorter; in 2012 it was very short, and that probably hurt most liquid fuelers. I see that in 2013, the distance used for calculation was at or about the same as it was the year I came and rode, and that was 154 miles. In 2015, it was listed at 140, and in 2016, I think the group got separated and there were two distances used depending on the rider and what actual route each ended up taking.

And in the interest of being transparent, I'd like to report that in 2014, my trip meter showed 150.1 (if memory serves). I rode only the event miles. I didn't ride from the fuel station to back behind the Inn before the ride started. It wasn't in the rules, but most riders rode around. I thought that odd for an FE contest, and I wanted to do my best and not handicap myself, and I didn't start up until I was told to after breaks. Others started up early and idled unnecessarily in my opinion. I didn't ride around anywhere like some riders did during breaks at fuel stations and stores and the museum, etc.. I thought it was odd that some riders did, even top contenders. After topping back off, Craig and his team were asking everyone what their odometers/trip meters showed and that they were going to take the average of everyone's or maybe the mode or median, but you get the point. Well this seemed odd, because, for one thing, some of the riders rode around some when they didn't have to like mentioned above, which I thought was a bad idea for an FE contest unless everyone was going to use their own calculation, which would also not be a good idea, and for another, I thought it was well-known knowledge that most Japanese and European trip meters tend to be a bit optimistic; especially the older ones. Anyway, my best guess back then and even now for my trip meter is 2.2% optimistic; and so for 2014, I did my calculations for myself and came up with at or 146.8 as my best-guess, actual distance estimate, and mpg at or about 96.9, and that's the claim I always make. My official score was something like 101.82; so that's about 5 mpg optimistic compared to my own record for fuelly, etc.

Now I'm not suggesting that we go back and change these numbers. Just like Sendler has written about the refuel inconsistencies that could or may exist from rider to rider and ride to ride, we're going to have some inconsistencies in the distance variable as well, but whatever distance is decided on, at least with this variable, unlike topping off, it effects us all equally, as long as none of us are riding extra or idling extra, but then that's on them in these events, and besides, my numbers may not be any more accurate than the 154 listed, and this wouldn't account for all the improvement anyway over the years. This would be bad for year-to-year comparisons also, because now we're coming up on year 5 since back when the winner was at or about 140ish and contenders were under 110, and I don't know if the errors are consistent from year to year; but I am suggesting that bschloop may perform a little better than he expects versus the other riders; especially if we're not going to use a 4 wheeler and a couple of GPSs to verify the distance, and if we do use a different measurement of distance that brings down the range, then it'll still affect us all equally.

I didn't expect to come anywhere near 97 in 2014, so for me, almost 102 was icing on the cake, but if we run either of the two proposed routes, we'll have a long ride, and I think that will be good for all of us. However, something that I think will hurt me personally is the long stops for recharging. My bike does much better fully warmed up, so a lot of stops, and especially if they are long, will likely hurt my score, but I absolutely support a ride that allows the e-bikes to finish, so I'm not against it as long as it's reasonable. Maybe I'll point the radiator towards the sun.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by gregsfc

Maybe I'll point the radiator towards the sun.

Good idea. Under chin tanning mirror. And insulation on the tank. I bet the fuel gets pretty warm on a fuel injected bike.

[gregsfc]

According to a quick google search, HHO has something to do with a hydrogen generator. Is that right?

But no matter what that stands for, why would HHO guys/gals showing up getting 100-300 mpg make the current competitors seem silly. Right now, someone with some mechanical and construction skill can take a $6K gas-powered brand-new bike; much cheaper than that if buying used; put a lot of time and effort in this hobby and with less money than what someone with a golf hobby would spend in a couple of years, come to the mid-Ohio and achieve near 200 mpg on a regular, gas-powered, modified motorcycle. Isn't 200 in between 100-300?

We have competitors with modified e-bikes that are achieving well over 300 mpg-e with batteries and plugging up at this event already. If I'm not mistaken, any number over 300 is more than 300.

So I ask again, why would HHO riders (whoever that is) make everyone look silly when they come in at 100-300 mpg or mpg-e? Yes they are welcome. Please come if you exist or come after you exist. More and newer technologies are good, but we're not going to look silly on ICE and/or e-bike until someone shows up with something that generates nuclear reactive power for propulsion; or has a way to remove friction from the atmosphere while riding as a method of drag reduction, but in the case of the latter, we'll never get them stopped to give them the trophy, and in the case of the former, no one will want to be near them unless it's low-energy nuclear power, and if its that, none of us will even care if we look silly, we'll just want to be there, and we'll join the rest of the world at apologizing to Pons and Fleischmann's families!

[Grant-53]

To keep the engine temp up keep an insulated blanket handy during stops. Using alternator power to produce hydrogen and oxygen is not very efficient. Using water / alcohol injection in a higher compression engine is a proven way to reduce pre-ignition. So far we have seen essentially stock engines. Super tuned 50cc engines such as the MotoID Ruckus project could produce enough power but would run at high rpm. The old record of 472 mpg was set by a Honda 125cc increased to 185cc.

The Hayes Diesel was advertised once at $19-20k; compare to the gas version. I did price a 900cc 3 cyl. Kubota diesel and the dealer quoted $1800. At some point the quest for 500 mpg will be met; the question will be, "Will the machine be an every day commuter?" Anyone for a winterized PCX 150? Expect some 125cc 6 speed bikes with lowered clip-on bars and a full body shell.

[sendler]

Batteries already kill ICE from an energy standpoint. And eventually will win on a cost/ mile when a suitable carbon tax is implemented. Terry's streamlined Zero can do 290 mpge in a fast challenge and did his Iron Butt 1000 which was a very fast moving average speed of over 75 mph at 270 mpge. From the charger.

[Grant-53]

The good news is that electrics are very efficient. The bad news is they are twice as heavy and cost twice as much. Terry got his charge time down to 45 minutes with multiple chargers. E-bikes shine in urban 'stop and go' traffic due to regenerating braking. Dynamic braking replaces the need for anti lock systems. For long distance touring or rural use, biodiesel makes sense. Everyone benefits from drag reduction.

[Grant-53]

Sendler, what is the max weight rating for the PCX150? The little 50cc scooters, NQ50 and SB50P, are rated for 188 to 200 lbs.

It is a discussion for another thread but carbon taxes will not address the fundamental issues of climate changes. Solar cycles and land use may prove to have the greatest impact. Energy conservation is good idea in any event.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

Sendler, what is the max weight rating for the PCX150?

397 pounds load.