New 2012 Honda NC700X 700cc Parallel Twin!

[beemerphile]

Originally Posted by gqelements

I think it could be done for much less and (with a better rear shock) make it a really capable middle-weight adventurer...

The price estimate was for a set of spoked Excel rims on custom hubs with forks and brake components at KTM parts prices and an Ohlins rear shock. It makes some assumptions about how to work out the triple clamps and bearings without going complete custom there. Please explain how you would do it for much less and I"d be interested in the conversion. I already have the Ohlins shock.

[RblueR]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

A man marries a woman hoping she'll never change. A woman marries a man with a list of changes she plans to make on him.

Why is it when men buy bikes we act like chicks getting married?

Spot on

[RblueR]

Originally Posted by 100mpg

the 160/70 is what it come with....? oops!
But it is a road only tire. Something like this would be better on the trails. Of course they don't come in the right size...

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

[RblueR]

Originally Posted by RblueR

Spot on

...about women, that is.

[jcbrandon]

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

http://www.cycleworld.com/videos/hon..._challenge__1/

Some interesting fuel mileage numbers.

[rowdymoose]

Originally Posted by jcbrandon

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

http://www.cycleworld.com/videos/hon..._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...

[100mpg]

Originally Posted by jcbrandon

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

http://www.cycleworld.com/videos/hon..._challenge__1/

Some interesting fuel mileage numbers.

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

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by rowdymoose

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...

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

[jordan325ic]

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.

[showkey]

Originally Posted by jordan325ic

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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Mike Cash]

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.

[Tripletreat]

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.

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by jordan325ic

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.

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

[Mike Cash]

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.

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

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