Fuel Efficiency

[biscuit]

Question: Is the FJR more fuel efficient with the windshield up or down? It would seem that the windshield offers a more aerodynamic profile than the rider. This is related to cruising speed and slower. I'm getting around 45 to 47 mpg on general cruising without the windshild up. No long trips on the road yet. Any experiences along this line?

Thanks,

Biscuit

 

[TriggerT]

If you want the best MPG, put the shield all the way down, and get down behind it. You will look like you are trying to qualify, but that is the best MPG set up. Otherwise I suppose it just depends on the size of the rider, what you are wearing, etc., etc.

 

[Constant Mesh]

Select the instantaneous MPG readout on the display. Now take a run down the road at a constant speed, say 65 mph, and move the shield to different positions. Observe the indicated MPG for different shield positions. I don't how often the value updates but it should be every few seconds.

Of course the effect will be more pronounced the faster you go.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Things that affect fuel economy:

• weight, gotta get all that 'avoirdupois' up-to-speed
• friction, resistance to rolling -- think low tire pressure
• riding style, aggressive -- lots of throttle v/s conservative
• aerodynamics, (especially over 60mph) maybe 'windshield angle'? -- often expressed as "coefficient of drag"
• and (where motorcycles, usually, score poorly): frontal area -- the 'area of square feet frontal picture' -- the windshield lowered would be better, here, than the windshield raised (I think?)

 

[ionbeam]

• slipstream, the low pressure area behind the motorcycle, it is actually trying to pull the motorcycle backwards

 

[ponyfool]

45 to 47 mpg? Quit yer bitchin'!

Around town, I used to get 35, but with the new shit they call gas, with the same riding style, I'm getting 29 on average. On the freeway at or near the speed limit, I get about 45, but with the new gas (ethanol), I'm getting 39.

 

[PMC FJRider]

I have the Cal Sci tall windsheild and found that my over all average went down to about 39-42 MPG. This is running at about 80-85 mph over about 180 mile range everyday (90 each way to/from work). I cut my stock sheild down a while back and usually put that on when it gets hot. I noticed that over the same range and speed, my mileage is better at about 45-48mpg.

All that said, lately I have slowed a little to see what kind of mileage I get with the tall windsheild. Dropping my overall speed to around 70-75, I have been averaging around 46-48 mpg consistantly. Interesting

 

[twowheelnut]

Um, duh?

TGIF! :lol:

 

[user 10225]

All other things being equal (which they never are), windshield down reduces the amount of air your bike has to push out of the way in order to move forward.

For me, I'm pulling about 35-39mpg on the highway (avg 80mph) with the shield up, and about 45-48mpg with the shield down. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[odot]

Keeping your tire pressures at around 68 psi will increase your fuel mileage about 4 more per gallon. There's less contact area on the tire to the ground so there's less friction.

 

[Ignacio]

Resisting urge.....NEPRT....NEPRT....anecdotal spew....Friday......where's the point about E-10?...it'll come....odot makes me giggle sometimes.....waiting for somebody to say mileage increases if you have a bigger shield all the way up....it'll come...end of random thoughts.

 

[twowheelnut]

Medicate, Iggy. It's whats for breakfast.

 

[PMC FJRider]

Um, duh?


TGIF! :lol:

Yep

 

[Bustanut joker]

Keeping your tire pressures at around 68 psi will increase your fuel mileage about 4 more per gallon. There's less contact area on the tire to the ground so there's less friction.

Horse shit! It's 72.99674 psi for the best mileage buddy! an a chain hooked to the vehicle in front of ya. an Amsoil on the shield helps too.

:jester:

 

[rainbowrider]

I would think any negative aspects involving the juxtaposition of the airflow mass when combined with rolling resistance of a postive nature, including the rate of dynamic acceleration in which revolutions per minute are maintained at hyper-speeds, and taking into physical account aggressive conservatism of a concentrated yet neutral aerodynamic flow of minimal resistance around the superimposed body mass, should, quite frankly, result in positive measurement of any calulated energy flow. :dribble: In other words, windshield up - good, windshield down - bad. Or is it the other way around? :blink: What were we talking about? Thank god it's Friday!!!! :yahoo:

 

[odot]

yer in management, aren't ya, rainbow?

 

[Bustanut joker]

I would think any negative aspects involving ass nature, at hyper-speeds, and taking into account aggressive resistance around the ass, should, quite frankly, result in positive measurement of any :dribble: In other words, up - good, down - bad. :blink: What were we talking about? Thank god it's Friday!!!! :yahoo:

This easier for ya to understand odot?

Oh Boy :yahoo: It's Friday an I'm ready!!!

:jester:

 

[El Toro Joe]

45 to 47 mpg? Quit yer bitchin'!
Around town, I used to get 35, but with the new shit they call gas, with the same riding style, I'm getting 29 on average. On the freeway at or near the speed limit, I get about 45, but with the new gas (ethanol), I'm getting 39.

We must have better gas in the east, cause I'm gettin the same mileage...they got shit for gas out west & it cost's more...HAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[twowheelnut]

We must have better gas in the east, cause I'm gettin the same mileage...they got shit for gas out west & it cost's more...HAHAHAHA!!!!

How's dem winter heating bills, sparky? HAHAHAHA!!!!