I have had almost identical experiences with my experiments.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

(08-08-2020, 07:51 AM)darrell Wrote: Did not want to start a new thread on fuel mileage.

Twice in last 3 days I have pulled in to a station with 10 and 11 miles to empty showing on the dash and GPS. Both times I was able to add 4.5 gal of fuel in to what is supposed to be a 4.8 gal tank capacity. At 50 mi/gal the 0.3 gal remaining would get me about 15 miles. If all this is correct I would not want to challenge myself to get past the 0 remaining indication unless I had extra fuel with me.

Cosmo Kramer, you ain't...........

The biggest impact I've found to fuel mileage has been a windshield change. Going from stock to the mid-size Z-technic shield dropped my fuel mileage from 50 to 48-mpg using 89AKI E10.

I lived in Texas for many years, my house was at 26 feet elevation. Seven years ago I moved to Colorado, near Boulder, 5280 feet elevation. For a handful of years, before relocating, I would trailer a motorcycle and spend a month in CO, I always got better gas mileage in CO. Same bike, same rider, same style. I don't know why, I can't explain it, but I got the same results with several bikes, not just one.

(12-06-2019, 12:08 PM)darrell Wrote: Wayne (GG) asked in another post how I was achieving the 50 mpg on my RS.

The two photos below are from my 2019 5845 mile trip in June to GA, SC and NC for the Helen Ride-In and traveling those states and the 2019 July 7265 mile Continental Divide ride.

I have not reset our Nav Vs after our Colorado trip and have not ridden since then.
Mine shows over 53 MPG and Debbie's shows over 51 MPG for the trip.
I don't keep track of average speed

(08-08-2020, 02:05 PM)Lee Wrote: I have not reset our Nav Vs after our Colorado trip and have not ridden since then.
Mine shows over 53 MPG and Debbie's shows over 51 MPG for the trip.
I don't keep track of average speed

I used to get just about 48 mpg before switching to my K&N Filter and Remus Hexacone muffler. Now I can't seem to do better than 42.8 mpg. That's a significant difference, and I don't ride that fast.

(08-08-2020, 02:20 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote: I used to get just about 48 mpg before switching to my K&N Filter and Remus Hexacone muffler. Now I can't seem to do better than 42.8 mpg. That's a significant difference, and I don't ride that fast.

...but maybe you ride faster than you did when you first got the bike....

(Commuting's not usually great for mileage - has your ratio of commuting to touring changed?)

(08-08-2020, 04:44 PM)Ray Wrote: (Commuting's not usually great for mileage - has your ratio of commuting to touring changed?)

Not really ... I was commuting when I got the 47+ mpg and since I got the S1000R I tend to ride the RS like its a touring bike (although I "blow out some carbon" once in a while ).

Stands to reason if it is flowing more air then more gas has to be proportioned to keep the right ratio. Ah well compared to the S1000R its economical. That thing only manages 37 mpg and 150 miles per tank.

(08-08-2020, 02:20 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote: Now I can't seem to do better than 42.8 mpg.

If you look at the average efficiency on my NAV V post under the performance thread, you'll see that my efficiency was 42.8 mpg - a match to 3 significant digits. Coincidence?

(08-08-2020, 05:48 PM)Ray Wrote: If you look at the average efficiency on my NAV V post under the performance thread, you'll see that my efficiency was 42.8 mpg - a match to 3 significant digits. Coincidence?

Aha! No matter how I ride - steady or giving it the beans from time to time - I get 42.8 mpg, and now you have the same mysterious mileage ... to the same significant digits as well. I am starting to think that this is no coincidence. Too suspicious if you ask me.

Anyone else see fuel consumption lower than 42.8 mpg?

(08-08-2020, 06:00 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote:

(08-08-2020, 05:48 PM)Ray Wrote: If you look at the average efficiency on my NAV V post under the performance thread, you'll see that my efficiency was 42.8 mpg - a match to 3 significant digits. Coincidence?

Aha! No matter how I ride - steady or giving it the beans from time to time - I get 42.8 mpg, and now you have the same mysterious mileage ... to the same significant digits as well. I am starting to think that this is no coincidence. Too suspicious if you ask me.

Anyone else see fuel consumption lower than 42.8 mpg?

Well.... For what it's worth, I drift above 50 mpg fully loaded and touring on good asphalt. The mileage on the NAV V was from a flat, relatively straight and high speed loop - STL-Toledo-Chi-town, which included about 80 miles of gravel (with the traction control off).

Still gets back to Darrell's theory - which I share. MPG is primarily controlled by the right wrist. As demonstrated by your purchase of the R and the K&N filters and aftermarket can, you seem like a more aggressive rider now, than when you bought the bike.

(08-08-2020, 05:44 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote:

(08-08-2020, 04:44 PM)Ray Wrote: (Commuting's not usually great for mileage - has your ratio of commuting to touring changed?)

Not really ... I was commuting when I got the 47+ mpg and since I got the S1000R I tend to ride the RS like its a touring bike (although I "blow out some carbon" once in a while ).

Stands to reason if it is flowing more air then more gas has to be proportioned to keep the right ratio. Ah well compared to the S1000R its economical. That thing only manages 37 mpg and 150 miles per tank.

I get 45 mpg out of my S1000XR and 54 mpg from my RS. As mentioned before, that's a function of the right hand twist. On the XR, the computer says I average 45 MPH, pretty slow, I don't do much 70 MPH highway on my day rides.

(08-08-2020, 06:23 PM)Ray Wrote: Still gets back to Darrell's theory - which I share. MPG is primarily controlled by the right wrist. As demonstrated by your purchase of the R and the K&N filters and aftermarket can, you seem like a more aggressive rider now, than when you bought the bike.

Sometimes I am. Other times I ride everywhere at 45 and everybody is passing me.

I am sure I am still much slower than Bruce, Dawn, John and a whole bunch others as well.

(08-08-2020, 06:00 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote: Anyone else see fuel consumption lower than 42.8 mpg?

Ours can drop to 40 or less when riding 80 mph into a strong headwind.

Our speed, wind speed and wind direction affect our mileage more than riding hard.

(08-09-2020, 08:33 AM)Lee Wrote: Ours can drop to 40 or less when riding 80 mph into a strong headwind.

Our speed, wind speed and wind direction affect our mileage more than riding hard.

OK, so mine is not stuck on 42.8.

I tend to agree that relative speed (including wind) and also load on the bike affects consumption more than the occasional bit of riding hard.

On a recent trip down to and back from southeastern Ohio the 1250RT averaged 47.4 mpg. That 47.4 mpg included 400 miles of interstate at 75 - 80 mph, 300 miles of back road riding at a brisk pace and 400 miles of fast interstate riding on the way back home.

Traditionally I seem to get much better gas mileage riding backroads briskly than I get on the interstates. For me I would estimate the mpg difference is about 10%.

Wayne is most of your riding on the interstate?

(08-09-2020, 01:51 PM)Olgry1 Wrote: On a recent trip down to and back from southeastern Ohio the 1250RT averaged 47.4 mpg. That 47.4 mpg included 400 miles of interstate at 75 - 80 mph, 300 miles of back road riding at a brisk pace and 400 miles of fast interstate riding on the way back home.

Traditionally I seem to get much better gas mileage riding backroads briskly than I get on the interstates. For me I would estimate the mpg difference is about 10%.

Wayne is most of your riding on the interstate?

When I am touring, yes, most of my miles are on the Interstate or other major highways, and I set the cruise on 75. The RT's 47.4 mpg is quite good for those speeds and the weight of the bike. When my RS had stock air filter and muffler I was also getting close to 48 mpg.

Today I had to take the RS for a bit of exercise, so I reset the fuel economy and took off for 69 miles in mid-90's temperatures. Tried to keep the wrist in check but there was a line of cars on a Sunday drive that I had to get by. Managed a bit better than the long-term average 42.8 mpg I had before.

   

(08-09-2020, 02:26 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote: When I am touring, yes, most of my miles are on the Interstate

You need to get over that habit

(08-09-2020, 03:48 PM)Lee Wrote:

(08-09-2020, 02:26 PM)Grumpy Goat Wrote: When I am touring, yes, most of my miles are on the Interstate

You need to get over that habit

Ain’t that the truth. But then I have to learn to slow down.

For me, when not camping, I need to minimize motel costs so, point A to point B is the way to go. Maybe when I retire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

   

Comparing the US-numbers, I have on a couple of really slow trips with pillon on smaller roads here in Norway had 4,0 l/100km on my R1250RS.
Then riding typically at max 90km/h.