Vetter Fuel Economy Challenges; Hollister CA 7/2/16, Mid-Ohio 7/10/16
 

It's competition time for us moto hypermilers but as always all motorcyclists are invited to join in the fun as we ride to push motorcycling performance into a new and different direction. The rides are fun and filled with great scenery and comradery.

The first 2 events of the 2016 season will be held at :

July 2 ,2016 as a part of the Hollister Rally events, meet at the Corbin Seat Factory, 2360 Technology Pkwy., Hollister CA 95023 with a full tank before the start at 11AM. The route will be around 100 miles.

July 9,2016, as a part of the AMA Vintage Days events, meet at the Comfort Inn Splash Harbor Motel , Lexington OH at 5 pm for the riders meeting and tech inspection.
July 10, 2016, meet at Splash Harbor motel at 7:30 AM for the Challenge start at * AM. The route will be around 160 miles.

Craig Vetter is still recovering from his collision with a deer but we hope to keep his dream alive promoting motorcycles that are efficient, relevant and fun. For more information on the Vetter Challenge go to Craig Vetter, designer and inventor of the Windjammer fairing,Triumph Hurricane Motorcycle Streamliners and fuel economy motorcycles

I had a good 2015 season with 2 second places overall ( 163 mpg and 152 mpg ) but I hope to return to the winner's circle in 2016. Competition will be tough against Alan Smith, Terry Hershner and Fred Hayes but it will be fun !
Wish me luck, I hope to see you at these rides.

Riding in from PA
 

Looking forward to seeing you in Ohio Low & Slow
I’m planning to be there again on my CF Moto Honda clone. Over the winter the body was lowered, Jan Vos gearing and a few other surprise features. Some for safety, some for fun. No way am I going to touch your numbers however.

Thank you Kraig Schultz for helping Craig Vetter organize Mid Ohio this year. And thank you Craig for starting all this.

http://www.craigvetter.com/

Schultz Engineering - Custom Motorcycle Parts and Renewable Energy Products


http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ru...ide-scoot.html

Ohio Challenge tech meeting Saturday July, 9 at 5:00 and competition Sunday at 7:30 AM?

I came and rode in the 2014 AMA event in a mostly-stock 2014 Honda CTX700. I was hoping to do well and showcase what this bike could do compared to any other stock bike of any size class and hopefully my good result would challenge the theory that keeps being proclaimed at these events that streamlining (only in a specified way) and 20-28 horsepower-capable machines are the keys to winning the challenge and maximum mpg on a motorcycle. It should have already been noted that this assumption is not necessarily the only way to excel in PTW mpg, as Mr. Hayes has won many with a different body and 30-34 horsepower many times.

I was additionally motivated by the fact that a previous event in 2013 included another stock bike with the same engine as mine, but a different style version and a DCT automatic transmission with ABS brakes. I saw that at that event, that NC700X stock bike achieved 70 mpg, and I knew that I was regularly achieving 73-78 from tank to tank, mostly commuting around home and felt like I could come there, show what the modern Honda power train could do; show that it's not always necessarily about smallest possible displacement with the least necessary horsepower irrespective of the body, but that higher torque in the mid range, combined with being easy on the throttle, even with a heavier overall weight, can absolutely compete with the RPM screamers. I'm no physics-minded person, but it doesn't take a genius to consider that if you've got extra torque available at or about 3400 RPM at 60 mph (as long as the displacement isn't overkill), you're likely generating modest power to do equal work, equally efficiently as a machine that's working nearer to its capability.

The reason I feel it is important to illustrate this idea of another way to achieve economy is, with a bike like mine, with its 52 peak horsepower rated and 44+ peak foot pound torque, 90% of which is available from 3000-5700 RPM in a 500 pound curb weight package wet, if it can be shown that a lower revving machine with more torque and more usable power down low than the traditional, high revving mc machine, then this shows that the minimalist approach is not the only approach and that some riders may prefer the refinement aspects of these lower-revving machines. The problem is, until Honda came out with this engine from their automotive division, the only examples of torquey motorcycles were low tech and liter+ engines in very heavy packages and Fred's diesel. But I think that, maybe, everyone chalked Fred's success 100% to it being diesel and Fred's expertise.

But if I could find a way to show up at one of those events, do really well versus the other stock bikes and get that CTX700 bike highlighted, as was done in the 2013 Quail event and the NC700X @ only 70 mpg, maybe that would change the discussion about focusing on these smaller cc bikes as the only way to streamline and achieve 130+ mpg.

It took some saving and rescheduling, and some hardship, but I made it to the event. I stayed in a Motel 6 about 20 miles away from the meeting place to stay in budget. I worried a little about how E10 , possibly reformulated 87 gas may hurt my mpg versus back home. I debated about trying to come up with a bigger box to carry the groceries or just keep my 53-liter Dewalt tool box on there that always gives me everything I need in so far as luggage space, and I had to take along chain lube and lube the hard way for this long trip. In the end, I decided that I'm no carpenter and also in protest to the 4-bag grocery rule, I'd just ride the way I always ride accessory wise with a Madstad screen and my Dewalt box. I'd tuck when it made sense to tuck, and I felt I'd do very well. After all, the NC700X didn't carry the groceries and a fuss was made about it at the Quail event.

My result: During the ride, I was amazed at how slowly the fuel gauge was dropping as compared to back home. A streamliner rider asked me how it was going. I replied conveying my amazement. This was going to far exceed my best ever; obviously attributed to the tucking, because I'd been on slower charity rides back home and had never exceeded 83 on a single tank, and that was on pure gasoline.

Back at the gas station, I filled up, did the math based on my trip meter, and I came up with nearly 97 mpg. This was going to blow the event leaders away. There would be a group of pictures and quotes, etc., etc. There was going to be lots of questions about how this was possible? The official results put my number even higher; almost 102, as the distance used was higher than my measurement

I talked to Craig, Fred, Allan and others. It was known by many how well I did. They seemed impressed. I crashed in Columbus, OH on the way home getting in to some loose pavement pebbles that were unseen near the shoulder of the interstate. I limped back in hurting more and more as I went. I sent emails to Craig and others telling about how I enjoyed meeting everyone and my big mishap back home. Craig replied and stated that they were going to post some things about my accomplishment.

Nothing ever happened. My results were posted indicating that I got a whopping 20 mpg above the next-highest stock bike and only about 1.5 short of Craig's streamlined Helix that's reportedly 16 horsepower versus my 52 horsepower vehicle.

Now it may seem as if I'm whining but I'm not. I'm suggesting that, going forward, these events should get back to more openness to promoting and/discussing technologies and techniques and less about what has already been shown over and over with these 250 cc streamlined machines. What Allan, Vic, and others are doing is truly amazing and should not be minimized and they are great guys doing great things, but there are other styles and ways of achieving amazing results, and if I had some mechanical skill and were financially able, and if I didn't think my spouse would kill me, I'd streamline and show that a streamlined bigger bike could absolutely compete with the big boys (figuratively speaking), although probably around the 500 cc range with the same engineering would likely maximize the higher torque theory of efficiency in a NA, automobile-style gas engine.

I healed and fixed the bike and then began riding again October 2014 only to crash a second time in November 2014, but this time in an unavoidable crash caused by a cager pulling right out in front of me and another cager. I fixed the same damage the second time and healed a little more slowly in this higher speed layover, but this time decided to sell and quit riding. But after one-and-half years with my amazing bike not selling, I'm riding again. New tires, adjusted for trip meter error, achieving more than 75 mpg so far. The only negatives of this bike is that there are competitors out there with more stopping power, which is suddenly more important to me now, and it drops mpg excessively in cold weather; down to mid sixties dead of winter.

Anyway, it's great being back, and I'll be keeping up again with mc eco maximizers with keen interest.

The CTX700 has a great fuel economy engine and is a very bold move by Honda to even bring to market. And unfortunately doesn't sell with gas at $2.50 / gallon all over the USA.
.
I have been saying for years that the Ninja 250 engine is actually not a very efficient engine design despite the streamliners consistantly getting over 150 mpgUS in competition versus your 100. Streamlining a motorcycle works. Your bike could probably get pretty close to that with full on streamlining. The Ninja engine was never intended to be fuel efficient. Those are price point performance bikes with a short stroke, 13,500 redline, and cams and intakes that are tuned for peak power at the top of the range. Honda has a much bigger comittment to fuel economy across a large range. Alan and Craig like the Kawasakis because there are literally 100,000's of good used examples all across the US that sell in the $1-2,000 range.
.
The CBR250R actually made quite a tip in the apple cart to challenge the Ninja when it came out in 2011 with fuel injection. My last 5 tanks are averaging well over 110 mpg on a fast highway commute. The CBR125R preceded that in '07 with a shorter stroke and fuel injection and could probably break 200 in a challenge if anyone ever showed up with one of those in full Vetter guise. The square stroke Honda 500's are also designed to be very fuel efficient yet powerful enough to carry two people cross country. Similar to your 700 in power and fuel economy with regular users on Fuelly. The Honda PCX150 is a brilliant machine with an AVERAGE real world user mean of close to 100 mpg on Fuelly with hundreds of accounts. No babying required. An engine design that has been updated three times in five years to squeeze out efficiency, bodywork updated after three years to incorporte led headlights, eco start-stop with an ACG starter/ generator, ect. Honda is very serious about this machine and it's place in personal transportation as humanity moves forward. But only a top speed of 64 mph.
.
Of course Honda has always been since day one about providing an affordable way for the common man to get where he is going with the different Postie bikes and monkey bikes that people in less developed nations use to survive.

Agree with all you've stated and wish I were wired in a way that I'd tinker with my CTX700 and could have come to the AMA event with my bike streamlined, because, evidentially 100 mpg in a stock 670 cc bike with 47 hp at the wheel and tucking did not seem to get anyone that makes commentary about these events to even pause and question the assumptions they've made about maximizing mpg on PTWs. The narrative always seems to be one should show up with limited hp and a specific body shape and that little else matters. I really like what Fred did with his bike where the body was streamlined differently, requiring that he tuck during the events (not the Vetter prescription) and then he'd have 30-35 horsepower available (also not prescribed), but yet he'd most-often win.

I think that if I had chosen Honda's 250 available at the time of my purchase, instead of the CTX700; I'd Likely be averaging above 90 in my commutes and I wonder how the newer 300 or the previous 250 would do in a challenge versus a Kawasaki. I'd put my money on a Honda, but I guess we'll never know. I don't regret my choice in the CTX, as I love the mid-range power of the CTX, and the comfort level. My last tank came in at 79. It does really well during the hot summer months, but really drops when I start facing cool mornings. Fred Hayes told me it was because Honda must have designed it to run too lean, and he said he was surprised that they designed it that way.

All vehicle's fuel efficiencies drop in cold weather. The air is denser, causing more drag. And, there is more waste of the heat energy of the fuel due to having to heat up the incoming air more and still spitting it out the tail pipe hot. And there is also a switch over to winter fuel at some point in the season which has a different blend that contains less energy per gallon than summer gas.
.
All of these modern fuel injected Hondas have an O2 sensor. They will adapt to form the correct mixture at any reasonable temp or altitude.

Every machine benefits from streamlining from bicycles to tractor trailer rigs. The reduction in drag allows gearing changes that in turn let us focus on peak torque rpm. Neither modification is difficult or expensive.

My intent was not to minimize the effect of streamlining. I absolutely agree. I do not think it is easy though for those who are not mechanically inclined, and even harder is for some mc owners to make two or three trips per year to places far away from his or her home to compete in these rides. There is no way, for instance, I could make room for these events in my budget or calendar, and even if I could, the spouse would throw a fit. Especially since my one and only trip far away from home on a bike resulted in me getting injured on my bike.

However, I'm sure that their are many owners of efficient mc's and scooters, e.g. Honda's 150, 250, 300, 500, and 650. BMW's 650 that go on rally and rides and do modifications that could get involved in streamlining and hypermiling. The biggest problem and a point of frustration is that hardly anyone has interest in this endeavor, and so we can't know what some of these power trains can do.

My main point is that if one were to take an mc that does not have a typical high revving engine where torque and horsepower move linearly through an extremely long range, like some of Honda's new power trains, and streamline it, even as it is higher capable hp than what is continually suggested at these events, then I feel like these newer engines could compete with the Kawasaki 250s pretty well.

It all comes back to the lack of interests in mc mpg and I'm not just referring to the prospect of comparing more streamlined bikes. These events should have fuel economical bikes and scooters and their riders show up with many brands, styles and displacements of stock bikes; fuel up, line up and go, and the results should be published and discussed and high achievers touted. I was sort of disappointed at the lack of media coverage, the few participates of both streamlined bikes and stock back at the 2014 event. Comparing stock bikes can give good indications of how they'd compare streamlined and so manufacturers' engineering should be a big part of what these events are all about. I was also sort of disappointed that it seemed a little like a good old boys ride with everyone else just kind of there. For instance, I feel like my achievement of beating the number two stock bike by 20 mpg, and the fact that I was near Craig's result should have been highlighted or at least mentioned instead of just listed among the group that was just there.

I do realize that streamlining takes load off all engines and allows for all powered bikes to run at highway speeds at less than peak power, saving fuel, but what I'm suggesting is that maybe an engine that has much higher capable torque much lower on the tachometer can feasibly compete with the prescribed 21-28 horsepower mc's in both set ups: stock and streamlined, and since so few folks streamline, it'd be nice if these events had more stock competitiveness, and maybe some of them do, but if they do, it's not being communicated in the publishing of the results.

Anyway, I'm through with my rant. Hope someone tells us soon what happened at the 2016 ride, and I do appreciate that some people do what they do to make these events happen. I just wish it was a little more participated and better covered, but this is the world we live in.

I do think a bigger engine running at a lower RPM can do pretty well, but there are a few mechanical factors that will hold it back. The numbers are good, but the potential is much more limited. I have a SV 650, and I've seen over 60 mpg in normal back-road riding - which is pretty good IMO.

A small engine running near its peak torque and close to WOT has significant advantages in efficiency over the larger engine running low RPMs and small throttle openings. That's fine for some things like mileage competitions, but in the real world it doesn't leave much for passing or accelerating.

For the competition, a streamlined 125-250cc single would most likely be the most efficient, but your CTX can do pretty well and still be a very useful all-around street bike.

I would like to see more stock bikes run in the competition, just to see what they can do compared to more purpose-build streamliners. I am impressed with what people can do with their small homebuilt streamliners though.

I did 105.6 on a stock CBR250R in the Ohio 2012 Vetter challenge with a 100 liter duffel bag on the back full of 50 pounds of camping gear. I was averaging 93 on my fast highway commute. The next year I took the 2009 Ninja250 with a similar luggage set up though most of it was unloaded, and got 87 mpg. Normally 73 on the highway. Last year at Ohio the CBR250R was back and with a truncated tail but still no nose. I got 117 mpg. The new Michelin Pilot street tires I took off of the R3 are way more fuel efficient the the Bridgstone S20evo that replaced them and seem to be about 10% better than the IRC that came off the CBR 31,000 miles front and 16,000 rear). so I hope to be closer to 130 this year if the weather is better. It was raining last year. My last 5 tanks on the commute have been around 115 real world.
.
Keep in mind that there is alway some fill error and maybe some "wishfull filling" during competitions and the top guys are using only about 1 gallon so any error can make a difference. I would like to see the fills become "observed" as there was one competitor that was actually seen dumping in from a soda bottle at the museum stop.
.
Though because of the fill plate in my bike and actually seeing the fuel I can get fills with .005 gallon acuracy when I want. Which is every time. Fuel logs for regular commuting are much more useful to see what any bike really gets. It seems most people don't use a log even though they talk about high competition results. My stock CBR250R with no mods other than a +15% gearing change got 135 mpgUS on the track at Watkins Glen for the Green Grand Prix fuel economy challenge. Twice.

Building a fairing need not be anymore challenging than making plywood furniture or a swing set. The big hurdle is the fiberglass but I have found that sheet metal or plastic formed like paper model shapes can be easier. See the HPV shell software at recombents.com.

I'm glad you brought up the SV650, and I agree that the potential is limited for larger displacement engines, including Honda's 670 cc for these competitions versus an engine that can just barely make the speed requirement before streamlining, because the smaller the engine, the less fuel it will consume generally speaking, but it is in the real world where a mid-size bike like mine has some advantages in safety and refinement w/o the fuel economy drop off that one would expect. I would expect that a streamlined CTX700 or NM4 would not reap the same level benefit than a minimum-displacement bike in the 125-300 setup exactly the same, because the 670 cc twin is already only mildly stressed with the weight and drag on the highway versus the smaller bikes, but my point is that if this 670 cc is already efficient enough to achieve 80mpg or so in this competition w/o tucking, that in streamline form, we'd see a bike with double the capable horsepower, and even more than double torque, at least 100 more pounds, and at least 125 mpg, versus--say--160 using the proclaimed minimalist approach.

The SV650 is a perfect example to illustrate my point. When one compares a typical, but well-engineered mc engine that was designed with fuel economy as at least one major factor in it's design, to Honda's bold, new choice that offers a similarly-sized engine extracted from the automobile industry; a few interesting things happen. There is a curb weight discrepancy of 30-40 pounds, but tires/wheels are exactly the same. The point you made about top-end performance is well taken, and this has been the problem for Honda with this entry. They have been raked over the coals for this power train by enthusiasts and mc media outlets due to the fact it hits the rev limit at 6500 RPM, it's not-so-impressive performance north of 70 mph, and the fact that for the first time in this size and style of bike, one has to short shift for best and most refined performance. The typical, high-revving mc, comparing near-equal displacement, in near-equal components to an automotive-style power train, will always produce more peak power, and therefore, will provide better performance at the top end and overall performance. And this is why most reviews regarding Honda's 670 versus other 650-700 bikes, gets a bad score.

But this limited high-end performance aspect from this unprecedented entry from Honda, is why it is so efficient. You're experience in the SV650 can return at or about 62 mpg along backroads. My experience, with my CTX700 with the manual shift can return, in normal riding (not lugging or tucking, but revving to 3500 or so between gears, which is pretty quick on this bike due to its torque curve), in warm weather, is at or about 78.

Most motorcycle enthusiasts in this range have an expectation of performance, but the Honda 670 provides a performance style more akin to a mid-size or compact sedan, a large scooter, or a big, torquey cruiser; and so it has been mostly scooter enthusiasts, downsizers from big bikes, and beginners who have sought out this bike, and most of them choose the DCT automatic, which gives up at least 3 mpg and a touch of performance to the straight shift. And this is a shame that this concept has been rejected by and large by the media and the consumer base, because this efficiency advantage of a lower-revving engine can be applied up and down the displacement range until we reach a point at which the auto-style engine cannot provide an acceptable peak horsepower for highway transportation, which is likely at or about the 400 cc range, compared to a similar set up with a 250 cc.

Multiply displacement by rpm to get volume flow of A/F. This gives a rough comparison.

I can't find results of the Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge (2016 AMA Vintage Days) anywhere; not even through a search on here. Has it gotten so low interest that one can't find any news, or have I just gotten that bad at researching on the web?

There is no official result yet since the winning numbers are close to a tie and one bike is electric. It is coming down to what value to use for the cost of electricity to determine the winner.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know what was going on.

I know that Craig has argued this point in the past, stating it's only the cost of fuel or energy that matters, but I wish someone helping with posting results would calculate and post the mpg-e values for the electrics just so we can compare them from an energy standpoint. Energy density comparisons will always be the same unless a fuel itself changes, but cost comparisons are fleeting from one region to another and over time, and he never had any qualms showing us diesel and biodiesel mpg along with the cost comparisons; and I've never heard or read anyone arguing that the way KW/hrs are converted to a gasoline base equivalent was flawed in any way, so I'm not sure of the objection of including that information.

I think maybe the e-bikes may get more attention if people saw how they equated on a gallon of gas equivalent. I know I can figure it myself, but I can't show it to all that may be interested like the officials of the event can.

Right now the key issue with electrics is range. Cost wise they are still roughly double in price of a comparable gas unit but efficiency is so much greater. The recharge time is at least 45 minutes versus 10 minutes at a gas pump. They really shine in stop-and-go traffic.

Wh/mile are being shown in the results.

I agree. I follow the technology somewhat and root for it, but I'm not going for cordless electric on anything larger than a weedeater at this point, and even a $100 weedeater is frustrating, mainly because the e-industries that compete against gas power won't get together and offer us a single set of charging systems and battery compatibility. When I buy a stinky, loud, unreliable, and overpowered gas weedeater, at least the fuel dispensers from gas stations and from cans work for adding fuel to my machine no matter the brand or product type; at least I can expect that my range will not start dropping every year until I replace my fuel tank; and at least, if I do need a new fuel tank, it won't be the most expensive component on my gas weedeater, or be obsolete wherein I cannot even replace it.

So while I hail the fuel efficiency of electric motors via battery power, I'm not yet a fan. If the e-industry worked more closely together to make their versions of power more competitive, I would be more of a fan.

Cool. I hate going in and having to calculate the mpg-e myself; when all others are already listed for me.

Have the results from this year's challenges been posted yet?

I use an electric mower, trimmer, and chain saw because my lot is small enough to use extension cords. For the open road a diesel/electric system would make sense for a long distance vehicle a la locomotives which are also looking into using natural gas.

These results should match the official results that Craig will post on his sight when he gets a chance.
.
Schultz Engineering - Custom Motorcycle Parts and Renewable Energy Products
.
Check out the video interviews also.

Great post! Thanks, and congratulations on the Honda with a tail!:)

Honda engineering much better represented in this ride than the one I attended two years ago where I kicked the other stock mc's tails with my CTX700 by 12 mpg, but none was against any modern,stock Honda in the small to medium range in that ride. Two 250s did really well in stock form. Like to have seen a Forza and a full streamlined Honda, but still impressive and should make a statement about how economical some Honda models are. Wish I could have attended this one to see if I could replicate around 100 mpg like I did in the 2014 event. Have not come close to that since, but that ride brings some high numbers every year, and they did in 2016 as well. If anyone thinks it's not valid, they'd be wrong though, because I carefully recorded and calculated just as I do at home for the 2014 ride, and my calculation put me at 96.9, which was about 14 beyond my best and 14 better than any tank since, yet the ride is round trip; has stop and go, but also some slow highway and higher speed interstate in it. The official results that year took me up to near 102, as they sort of took the median of everyone's trip meter, which I thought was not a good way to determine distance. The big difference for me had to be that I was tucking most of that ride, and if I had come to this one, I'd tuck again, but won't risk it back home commuting.

Electrics are amazing with respect to super-low energy use. So much more of a difference than one sees with comparing compact cars where the difference is more like 2.5 times better for average electric versus average spark ignition, but a typical stock mc around the 650 range might return 50-55, save Honda mcs', and the Zero S should easily return 200 driving equally. All three e-mc's returned over 300 mpg-e; curious about how they didn't finish one, two and three, but I'd have to figure some things out to see how 360 mpg-e would fair with my utility company + road tax. I just looked at my last bill and I'm at $.11 per KW/hr. and my guess is that at the rate I pay, the e-mcs' would have easily won here, though you won't see me go out and spend $16K on a mid-range mc and then thousands more for more batteries and charging power only because I'm impressed with the fuel economy. Have to respect the technology though; strange how the media and public seems not to care that a 100 mph-capable mc can get 300 mpg-e!

If you do the math, 92wh/mi * 135 mi equals 12.42kwh at $.11/kWh that comes to $1.36 before road tax. Vic's ninja at 187 mpg *135mi comes to .72 gallons at $2.05/gal, or $1.47 including road tax. If road tax comes to even $0.15, or approximately 10% that puts the gas bike ahead, or if the price per kWh is closer to the $0.13/kWh that I pay in Michigan, that puts the electric even further behind. As for the media, they have ignored almost every advancement in fuel efficiency for years, why would that change now.

Just goes to show that gas is way too cheap in the USA right now. Yet we won't raise the road tax anywhere near the levels of the rest of the world to get people to stop blowing so much of it up in the air even though the highway funds for road repairs are completely upsidedown.

Thanks for doing the math. That's great information!

Isn't Vic's 187 the highest so far in a modern-era Vetter event for a gas-only streamliner? I remember Alan got 181 or so in 2014, and it seems like he's got that number stamped on his bike as his own, personal record.

Interesting...Even at my cheap electric rate, a streamlined electric achieving 360+ mpg-e still loses to a 187 mpg gas bike, with gas over $2.00, which is about $.13 more per gallon for gas than what I can find regular E10 for currently in middle TN. So even though my electric rate is cheap in TN, so is my gas. I normally use pure gasoline in my bike and lawn mowers, which is not even available in some states; but that stuff cost around $.50 more per gallon, which of course doesn't make sense financially, but it sort of helps reduce maintenance and storage woes with regards to the mowers, and it's just a way for me to protest ethanol for my bike, because I can justify it for my bike, since it doesn't cost much anyway, but in my 4 wheelers, it's just too much more money for just a little better mpg, so I can't force myself to buy it.

I'm not stating that I expected the media to suddenly get interested; I'm commenting only that I don't understand why this is so...how huge numbers can be published for these electric bikes and nobody but a few weirdos even care or take notice. Maybe part of it is that many Americans have been desensitized seeing huge mpg numbers published for this and that, and so they don't stop and think much about what that means. I noticed that when I used to spout off the real-world mpg of my diesel car; especially back in the days when no one had a modern-built, unmodified car that could get upper 40s (this is during the Prius 1 & 2 days and before many e-cars and more efficient gas cars), back then, it would cause little reaction from people when I'd say that's about 58% better mpg than the gas version of the same car. But, if I presented my low-fuel usage another way, that the car could go 700 miles in a real-world scenario, on 14 gallons of diesel, then they'd be impressed. It's almost as if a lot of people getting 15-25 mpg in their own vehicles just don't understand the significance of the difference in fuel usage when it's presented as miles per gallon.

Other than a too-low road tax in America, our fuel prices also get subsidized by the fact that the U.S. tax payers spend about $50 billion per year to ensure the free flow of crude oil and refined fuels around the world for the benefit of the entire world. This $50 billion estimation of the cost to keep oil and fuel distributed around the world is not reflected in the price of our fuel.

Yes, I believe 187 mpg is the top modern figure. The electric bikes have room for improvement in reducing air drag. Hopefully the price/Kwh of batteries will eventually improve along with the price of power from hydroelectric generation.

I like some of subtle changes that it looks like the event included (or didn't include) this year. I state "looks like", because I'm looking from a far. But what I mean by looks like is that it seems from everything that has been published so far that there were some changes (all to the good); especially as it relates to how the challenge was conveyed and communicated to the public and to the riders who are not part of the organizing; it seemed much more transparent: ..."the results"...were more descriptive and comparable and concise; non-4-bag-grocery-riders were listed up with the other riders, which makes it appear that the ride is not so clickish for only the streamliners..."the interviews"...on youtube were fabulous. I especially liked getting a good look at Scott's bike and what he had to say, and would love to do something similar to my commuter bike but just have zero carpentry skill; and I really liked that some pictures and quotes were taken of stock-bike riders and they got to show off them and their bikes, because that's part of why they came most likely; the comrade and to score well and get recognized for scoring well, i.e. the two CBR250s..."the stat details"... (the pdf version) gave lots of mileage comparison information; how stats were computed; what fuel cost measurements were used, exactly how road tax was applied to the e-bikes; and what electric rate was charged and how that conclusion was made, etc. And the most encouraging part of this challenge, as compared to the one I attended was... "the amount of self reflection or self assessment communicated in the article about how the event went; good and bad; and how to make it better next year". Now maybe this last point had gone on before, but it wasn't communicated to the public and riders as well as this one.

Now for my rant about how to make this ride more inclusive: To me, besides the distance I must travel to join in on a challenge and the fight I must have with my spouse, and the fact that these challenges get almost no media attention and nearly no participation beyond the streamlining community (which is probably no one's fault involved in organizing these events), the most discouraging, averse, logistically challenging, and the most subjective and unequitable part of these challenges for the near-stock bike rider has to be the 4-bag grocery rule.

My first argument, which is a rehash that's been made by many would-be riders and one-time participates, is that a motorcycle does not have to carry four big bags of groceries to be a very useful motorcycle. Of course this is subjective on what we all think is useful and there has to be some parameter set, and there is no set level that everyone would agree on, and so four tall, big bags has been decided as the parameter. But of course this favors traditional streamlined bikes to low riding, tucking-for-the-streamline-effect bikes, because that extra height is not needed or wanted and so luggage space has to be created outward, but for the inventive and those with the means like Fred and Scott, it has been shown itcan still be done, but then what that does is that everyone else who participates that does not have some sort of streamlining, is just sort of riding to ride, and we can all do that at charity rides back home if we're doing it just to see what we can achieve or for riding comradery .

I debated hard about attending the challenge in 2014. I knew my 54-liter Dewalt box wouldn't cut it, but on the other hand, with my lack of mechanical skills and lack of means to have someone build something for me, my choice was to use my very useful box and get on the "B" list, or put some kind of huge Rubbermaid box on my seat, which would have hurt my score and possibly had made my bike more unstable. So I showed up in 2014 with a 54-liter Dewalt tool box turned sideways on my pillion seat; the same way I always had it set up back in those days. The front rested against my back. It was water proof; it was about the same width as my body, and my bike was still very safe and stable but could probably carry only about 3 bags. In 2014, my own computations put me at 96.9 mpg, but sort of an average of the miles ridden were used instead of a GPS distance, and so my official mileage came out at 101.82 or something like that. The next best stock bike; a DR200, came in at 20 mpg under my score. But in 2014, even though I spoke with other riders like Alan and Vic and Fred who were amazed with my score on my stock bike, me and my bike did not get interviewed or photos taken.

But I remiss and am going to pretend that four, full big grocery bags is necessary to have a transportation future with motorcycles. It is at this point where the details of the rules make absolutely no sense. I'll use a hypothetical to make my point: Lets say for instance, someone shows up with a bike with removable saddle boxes and an easily removable top box that all together provide 90 liters of luggage capacity, and this hypothetical bike rider registers to ride in the challenge; and it doesn't matter whether he is streamlined or not; whether his bike and accessories can get 30 mpg or 150 mpg; this guy just wants to be a full-fledged competitor with a very usable bike and see what he can do and has added more luggage than he needs for riding back home just to be a legitimate rider. Maybe he wants to beat his all-time best, or maybe he wants to show to fellow riders in his own riding community that his bike can exceed ???mpg if ridden smartly. This hypothetical bike has all three boxes with a one-button unlock system, and therefore, in the real world, he could ride to the grocery store and park, unlatch his boxes; load his three empty boxes in an empty shopping cart out there in the parking lot (there are always lots of carts near by). He goes in the store; buys the groceries, and instead of putting the groceries in shopping bags at the self checkout, he then loads them in the three boxes; puts them back in the cart. He then takes the groceries that went straight to his boxes out to his bike and mounts them back on the bike; puts the cart in the corrale. When he gets home, he takes the boxes off his bike; one under his arm, the other two carried by hand; carries them into his home; puts up his groceries; and then the next time he goes outside, he mounts the empty boxes back on his bike. This sounds like a lot of steps, but it is really no more intrusive than someone who uses his or her own bags at the grocery store or someone who uses the store bags; and who is to say that this bike is any less useful than a bike that can handle grocery bags in an upright position; that are kept in the bags; but that's what happens. He just barely misses the 4-bag rule, because he has to take groceries out of the bags to fit, and so now, he can still compete, but he has a weight handicap, and so he can't do his best.

Just sayin'

I did mention about the bags this year since I use the plastic bags when I go shopping. Seven smaller plastic bags fit for transportation much more efficiently than four big square bags.
.
Maybe you will want to make the trip next year so you can be there in case Kraig has us do videos again

I'd love to come to the 2017 challenge at AMA Vintage Days if I can get permission from the "boss". I laid it down in Columbus riding home in 2014; had a chance to total it, but decided to get it fixed; finally got it back around October. Then on about the third time I had ridden it since getting it fixed, a cager pulled right out in front of me and another cager (we were side-by-side) going about 58 mph; it was not commuting but a short trip up to see some friends in Kentucky. When this happened on the way back home, I laid it down again to miss a T-bone collision.

I then tried to sell it on consignment for a year-and-a-half, but couldn't get any kind of real money for it. Now I'm riding again and am excited about achieving even better mpg with the new P4s, as I figured the mpg I was getting with the over worn Battlaxs' would be the best I'd ever see.

So it's sort of a sore spot with my wife me riding again, and especially with regards to going up in to Ohio again.

But these days I've got a pickup truck. So maybe, we'll ride up there hauling the bike for the event in 2017. I'll have to build that idea up slowly, but she'd be more inclined to not get upset if we hauled it up there, and even more so if she came with me.

Sorry to everyone reading about the rant. I am grateful for the Vetter Challenges as the only game around. I'm just sort of stoked right now about riding with some fuel mising folks but don't like the idea of building something on my bike that can fit that much stuff. If I could come up with some kind of tail for mine, which I'd love to do but mine would be ugly if I built it, I'd show up with the CTX700 with tail and maybe I could at least replicate that amazing feat I achieved in 2014 that was 14 mpg above my all-time best. I have zero interest in changing my frame or the bodywork of my bike, but unlike Scott's, mine has forward controls and an extreme upright position, sort of like a scooter with regards to the riding position. So I'm thinking I need to mess with a different windshield solution to bring the air up at the same angle as the fairing but farther back than it comes now (it's very far forward of my body) maybe smaller mirrors; maybe have to adjust the handle bars farther back just a touch, so the windshield misses the bike parts; maybe figure out a way to lower the seat via a thinner pad (can go only 1/2" or so); then maybe a tail but it has to look decent; and it has to have an easy removal so as to lift the bike for chain maintenance. As far as gearing, 5th gear is very useful right now for in-town riding. Sixth gear puts me at or about 3300 RPM @ 60 mph, so my RPM is already pretty low, and I'm not a lugger type of person. So if I change the sprocket size(s), I wouldn't want to adjust it very much.