New 2012 Honda NC700X 700cc Parallel Twin!

Recently saw a 700X fitted with these:http://www.heidenautires.com/images/K73rear.png

...about women, that is.

The first video in the Cycle World Honda NC700X Adventure Challenge was released today:

http://www.cycleworld.com/videos/honda_nc700x_challenge/honda_nc700x_challenge__1/

Some interesting fuel mileage numbers.

Thanks for sharing! Very interesting to see the range of mpg's. I've still yet to get over 70...but I haven't done any riding over 20 miles in one stint yet either...

wow. LAST place was 74! I am very impressed.

I'd like to see how they measured fuel consumption accurately over a 71-mile distance. Getting accurate fuel economy ratings in a short test like this is notoriously difficult, especially when you're trying to accurate measure about 0.8 gallons. Filling the tank, then refilling at the end at a common everyday gas pump just doesn't cut it. Me thinks whatever they did, it probably biased the results high.

- Mark

This was specifically a fuel mileage challenge and they gave the results to the second decimal place, and they started at the Honda headquarters. I have to imagine that they emptied the tanks, filled them all with an exact amount of fuel, did the course and then drained and measured the remaining fuel to determine MPG. It would not be difficult at all to do. I am sure the people at Honda and Cycleworld have some idea of how to get accurate numbers for these sort of tests.

+10 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know about for bikes, but when my company wanted to do some tests on our trucks the dealership came over and fitted electronic precision metering devices between the tanks and the injectors somewhere and I believe they were accurate down to milliliter levels.

It is at least conceivable that such devices could be put on bikes during testing. At least it would be nice if they bothered to mention how they did if for the test.

FYI, the December issue of Motorcycle Consumer News tests the NC700X. I think the editor exhausted his list of superlatives on this one. The testers love the bike!
I've read other tests that also are very complementary, but MCN has greater credibility in my view, as it does not accept advertising.

You can imagine what you please, but I'd be surprised if they went to this trouble and even if they did, there would still be sources of substantial error, error much more than a hundreth of a mpg. So even if they did this, reporting two-decimal points accuracy is completely bogus and means nothing. Calculators can give you any number of decimal points you want.

If you want to accurately measure absolute fuel mileage over short distances, you have to fit some pretty sophisticated instrumentation. Without this, the best you can usually do is to very carefully measure the fuel tanks by weight before and after. But you have to have some sophisticated scales to measure very small changes in weight in relatively heavy tanks.

- Mark

0.01 gallons is more than one fluid ounce (128 ounces per gallon). How the hell hard could it possibly be to weigh that?

If one gallon of gasoline is about 6.15 pounds, then one fluid ounce of gasoline weighs about 0.04 pounds.

A dry weight ounce (1/16th of a pound) is 0.0625 pounds.

That means in order to get two decimal place accuracy you're only talking 2/3 of an ounce (dry weight)....hardly calling for high tech equipment borrowed from a rocket scientist. Any decently reliable kitchen or meat scale should easily give accuracy of two digits just by eyeballing the ounces....perhaps even three or maybe four if you're that anal about fuel mileage.

The problem is not weighing accurate 2/3rds of an oz, it is weight a fuel tank that weighs about 35 lbs (steel tank with fuel pump, filters, etc. with a couple gallons of fuel in it) to the nearest 2/3rds of an oz. (Again, I doubt Honda pulled these bikes apart to remove and carefully weigh the fuel tanks, but I don't know.)

We're all just speculating. Mine is that Honda wasn't especially rigorous in this "test". This is a Honda PR event, not a scientific test.

- Mark

Start with an empty tank. Measure out some fuel. Put it in the tank. Ride. Drain the tank. Measure the fuel that remains. Do the math. Get it within 2/3 oz and you have two decimal place accuracy. Nothing hard about it.

You guys remind me of a guy I once trained while driving trucks in the U.S.

We went to the truck stop to weigh the truck and he couldn't believe the scale read out only to the nearest hundred pounds, thinking that was lousy accuracy. I pointed out that on an 80,000 pound vehicle that was one-eighth of one percent. And since it was rounding up or down no more than about fifty pounds we were actually talking one-sixteenth of one oercent....0.000625. It could measure to the nearest EIGHT HUNDRED POUNDS and still be getting two decimal place accuracy. Even on a truck half that big, four hundred pounds is two decimal place accuracy.

If the testers were able to measure the fuel, by volume or weight, to within a fraction of an ounce....something easily done with no high-tech equipment....then getting two decimal accuracy is as easy as rolling off a log.

Would like to know which bike setup got which mpg? Transmission and baggage are huge impacts. What mode was DCT in?

To pick nits, that article is a "first ride" not one of MCN's rigorous reviews. Look at the test of the KTM 990 in the same issue for the differences between a review and a first ride. I am sure MCN will do a rigorous review in the near future and it will probably do well. Rider and Cycle World both did in-depth comparison reviews in current issues and spent more time on the reviews than first impressions.

Edit for correction: I am sorry I was looking at the first impression review in the MCN Oct. issue. I'll look forward to seeing this full test in the Dec. issue.

Don't waste your time with the doubters. There is lots of fuel mileage information coming out in various places documenting the NC700X's mileage returns under a variety of riders and conditions. Any one of them taken in isolation could be challenged by a doubting Thomas but in total it is clear the NC700X easily gives high 60's low 70's ridden in a normal sporting manner. Mind the rpms and keep a steady hand to the speed limit and it can easily approach 80 mpg.

The December 2012 issue has a complete test. They still like it and averaged 60.4 mpg. Only 1 decimal place

Pat Flynn got 83.95 mpg on the fully-optioned NC700X with standard transmission
I got 79.11 mpg on a basic NC700X with standard transmission
James Pratt got 75.83 mpg on a basic NC700X with the DCT option
John Lewis got 74.68 mpg on a basic NC700X with standard transmission

Pat's bike had every factory option. The hard side cases and top box were removed for the mileage challenge.

I believe the major factors in Pat's win were the taller windscreen, his attention to staying tucked behind it, and that he is the lightest rider in the group.

John and I were on identically equipped bikes yet I beat him by almost five miles to the gallon. I also weigh more than he does. James beat John while riding a DCT bike and being the biggest guy in the group. I don't know how he used the DCT transmission. I suspect he just left it in D mode.

So cool to have the comments from an actual participant! What are your impressions of the bike thus far?