[NikosR]

Hi,

My bike is still quite new, I've covered just a bit more than 1000km and I get a 7.2lt/100km indicated fuel consumption. I wonder if this is average of what indications other people are getting.

Pls. don't start quoting mpg indications as I'm challenged in anything but metric :???:

 

[vdlcinc]

On 2006-12-19 08:38, NikosR wrote:
Pls. don't start quoting mpg indications as I'm challenged in anything but metric :???:

LOL... yeah well the lt/100km is all Greek to me too... :-D

With all sidebags and topbox mounted, if I keep my speed to a max of 80mph (128.75kph)... I average about 4.5gallons/200miles...(just shy of 45mpg)... so with the help of the internet, that would be... 5.3lt/100km...

But mine is an '01 (completely different engine) with just over 82K miles (132,000 Km) on the clock...

 

[iceman]

my riding is not too spirited,about half the time 2 up,and often cruising on the open road (90-120kph).
My long term consumption figure is on 5.6l/100km at the moment (after a 6 hour cruisy ride on Sunday) but it sometimes goes up to about 6.
The instantaneous figure is interesting to watch - it goes up and down depending on how you are riding at the time.
My bike has done 11,000km

Grant

 

[DrTriumph]

My average is 4.7l/100km. I get better when touring and worse when rodding around town.

 

[flyingbiker]

All on the standard 19T sprocket, mostly one up with mix of LA slab (slow!) and canyon carving:
Best: 6.22 l/100km
Worst (but probably the best ride ): 4.99 l/100km
Average since purchase in May 05: 5.65 l/100km
Fuel conservation is not a priority when I buy a bike, but I like to track the numbers as one measure of the bikes health. Just switched to the 18T, so will see what (if any) measurable effect that has.

 

[NikosR]

On 2006-12-19 14:34, flyingbiker wrote:
All on the standard 19T sprocket, mostly one up with mix of LA slab (slow!) and canyon carving:
Best: 6.22 l/100km
Worst (but probably the best ride ): 4.99 l/100km
Average since purchase in May 05: 5.65 l/100km
Fuel conservation is not a priority when I buy a bike, but I like to track the numbers as one measure of the bikes health. Just switched to the 18T, so will see what (if any) measurable effect that has.

I wonder if you've mixed things up. 6.22lt/100km is a greater (worse) consumption than 4.99 lt/100km.

Regardless, it seems everybody is getting more milage than I am. Maybe it is that my bike is still new, or my spirited riding, or all the hills and bends over here combined with high speed highway riding.

 

[flyingbiker]

Of course - calcs are right but too used to thinking in terms of miles/gallon (which btw ranges from 38 to 47, using US gallons). That basically translates into a range of between 211 and 263 miles, assuming every last drop in the tank is usable - hence I fill up at 200 miles or less.

 

[ruscook]

My long term average is 5.85l/100K I weigh about 130Kg all kitted up.

If you want to see how a Sprint performs over all sorts of conditions over 29000Km have a look at this -
SprintST FuelConsumption

Russ

 

[ruscook]

On 2006-12-19 14:34, flyingbiker wrote:
Fuel conservation is not a priority when I buy a bike, but I like to track the numbers as one measure of the bikes health. Just switched to the 18T, so will see what (if any) measurable effect that has.

AS do I flyingbiker hence my use of a spreadsheet to track all fills and maintenance. The XLS version is here: Sprnit Fuel Consumption XLS

more details are available at my sprint site below.
Russ

[ This message was edited by: ruscook on 2006-12-20 03:21 ]

 

[flyingbiker]

Thanks for the links (the xls did not work for me, but the html was fine). Certainly the case consumption varys widely with 'style' of riding. While the real-time consumption figures are of little use to me (I suspect it is calibrated for Imp gallons), I noticed on the freeway as traffic flow changes that in 6th increasing revs/speed improves economy up to something like 75mph (getting to the canyons can get boring hence the distraction!) even though wind resistance = v**2 . On this premise I justified to the wife the smaller sprocket could reduce my fuel bills, and reduce helmet bonking through smoother accelarations

 

[ruscook]

flyingbiker the XLS link should now be fixed.

I like your logic re: the 18T sprocket. If I change I'm more likely to go 45T rear. Not quite as big a change (about 4% instead of >5%) but should still improve acceleration. Also doesn't impact chain length and adjustment at all.

Just been too lazy to do anything about it

Have a good one, Russ

 

[NikosR]

I wonder why people like to change to a lower drive ratio on the ST 1050? I find the acceleration and low down grunt more than adequate while at the same time I find myself looking for a seventh in high speed highway riding.

The only reason I would see would be city riding in heavy traffic, but that's not what the ST was made for. In any case, that's why God gave you a wet clutch for.

Things were different on the old ST, especially on the pre 02 models.

 

[ruscook]

I wonder why to Nikos, but am willing to try as so far, everyone who's lowered the gear ratio (on the 1050) raves about it nearly as much as the 955 owners.

Russ

 

[flyingbiker]

Guess we’re digressing into another topic, but… I too was inclined to not make the gearing change, but figured for <$30 and an hours effort (when it was pouring with rain so not losing ride time) I would give it a go. My sentiment was that it would only make a difference in 1st and top, as in between I would still change at the same revs. For the kind of riding I’m now doing I like the slightly faster take off in first and less need to slip the clutch when weaving through our miles of car parking (freeways) and side streets. I do like a relaxed top gear, but also noticed the slightly improved acceleration 6th now has (typical cruise revs have gone from 3600 to 4000). If I was going huge distances on the freeways I’d probably go back to a higher gearing, but nowadays given most of my riding are gratuitous trips to the mountains and airport the change suits me, but not to say it’s for everyone.

 

[vdlcinc]

On 2006-12-20 03:20, ruscook wrote:
AS do I flyingbiker hence my use of a spreadsheet to track all fills and maintenance. The XLS version is here: Sprnit Fuel Consumption XLS

Holy smokes, Russ... and I thought I was anal... :-D

I wish I had the patience to keep track of all that stuff too...

 

[Sprint2]

Stuffed if I know how some can get into the 5s let alone the 4s.The last 9 hours 50 minutes of touring riding I have averaged 6.3 litres per 100k.Vary rarely to I get under that(never in the 5s) and quite often its 6.5 or worse and thats with a standard tune,modified exhaust,K&N filter and 37000 ks.
Iceman, we must have better riding roads!!!

 

[ruscook]

On 2006-12-20 16:26, vdlcinc wrote:

On 2006-12-20 03:20, ruscook wrote:
AS do I flyingbiker hence my use of a spreadsheet to track all fills and maintenance. The XLS version is here: Sprnit Fuel Consumption XLS

Holy smokes, Russ... and I thought I was anal... :-D

Yeah, sad I know

I wish I had the patience to keep track of all that stuff too...

I only record kms, total paid, and cents per litre at each fill. Mostly this is on the docket except for the km, so it's not hard to keep/enter. The rest is just formula that I copy from the line below as I insert a new line. This means keeping the history on my bikes is easy. More than one dealer has been impressed when I had them these as printouts at trade in time... All maintenance, tyres, services and fill ups .

Feel free to grab the XLS version of the spreadsheet if it interests you (or anyone else)

Russ

 

[ruscook]

On 2006-12-20 21:52, Sprint2 wrote:
Stuffed if I know how some can get into the 5s let alone the 4s.The last 9 hours 50 minutes of touring riding I have averaged 6.3 litres per 100k.Vary rarely to I get under that(never in the 5s) and quite often its 6.5 or worse and thats with a standard tune,modified exhaust,K&N filter and 37000 ks.
Iceman, we must have better riding roads!!!

Hmmm. consider I weigh 130KGs kitted up and have done many a road i.e 80-150kms at a time, at 120-180 and some at 160-180 kph I don't know why you can't match that econonmy...

I use either premium unleaded or E10 both have a 95 RON ratingin in Oz.

Russ

 

[flyingbiker]

FWIW I'm using the equiv grade (premium unleaded, 95 RON I believe), but rarely see close to 100mph (160kph) - just difficult to sustain much over 85 on my local routes. In the mountains (majority of the miles) I probably don't get over 75mph (120kph), but it's a constant rolling on and off of the throttle. The worst numbers have been when I used the bike multiple times to commute. I'm a lightweight at 50kg in regular clothes, so that probably helps on both economy and accelaration Like Russ I just plug in the numbers from the fuel receipt and let the spreadsheet do the thinking. Also served me well when privately selling the last bike.