ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Road warriors
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-17-2012, 04:04 AM   #3541
beemerphile
Beastly Adventurer
 
beemerphile's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Danielsville, GA USA
Oddometer: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by gqelements View Post
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.
__________________
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - Lee
Amateurs practice until they get it right, professionals practice until
they never get it wrong
beemerphile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 11:29 AM   #3542
RblueR
Intrepid Brother Bob
 
RblueR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Oddometer: 79
Thumb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cash View Post
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
__________________
2013 F700GS
RblueR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 11:37 AM   #3543
RblueR
Intrepid Brother Bob
 
RblueR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Oddometer: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mpg View Post
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
__________________
2013 F700GS
RblueR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 03:35 PM   #3544
RblueR
Intrepid Brother Bob
 
RblueR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Oddometer: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by RblueR View Post
Spot on
...about women, that is.
__________________
2013 F700GS
RblueR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 09:06 AM   #3545
jcbrandon
Just a guy
 
jcbrandon's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: high desert, Northern Nevada
Oddometer: 17
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.
__________________
-J. Brandon (yup, it's just J.)
Treat others as you would like to be treated
www.americansahara.com
jcbrandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 03:02 PM   #3546
rowdymoose
Carpe Diem-seize the carp
 
rowdymoose's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Marina del Rey, CA
Oddometer: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbrandon View Post
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...
__________________
2012 Honda NC700X
rowdymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 03:59 PM   #3547
100mpg
This sentance intent
 
100mpg's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: ionally finished in this space.
Oddometer: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbrandon View Post
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.
__________________
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth" - Steve McQueen
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-TALK (8255). DSI #694
100mpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:39 PM   #3548
markjenn
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Swellvue, WA
Oddometer: 10,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowdymoose View Post
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
markjenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 06:34 PM   #3549
jordan325ic
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Oddometer: 245
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.
jordan325ic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 08:27 PM   #3550
showkey
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Northern , IL
Oddometer: 1,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordan325ic View Post
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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
__________________
1982 CX500 Turbo ,2006 ST1300, 2012 NC700X
1971 CT90,1981 C70, 1986 TRX 250,
1993 TRX300 4X4, 2001 TRX500 4x4, 1987 XR250L
showkey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 10:05 PM   #3551
Mike Cash
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Oddometer: 121
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.
Mike Cash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 11:52 PM   #3552
Tripletreat
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Boise, Idaho
Oddometer: 505
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.
__________________
.................................................. ................
For all we know, this may all be just a dream; we come, we go like the ripples in a stream.
Tripletreat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:36 AM   #3553
markjenn
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Swellvue, WA
Oddometer: 10,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordan325ic View Post
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
markjenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 01:12 AM   #3554
Mike Cash
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Oddometer: 121
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.
Mike Cash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:20 AM   #3555
markjenn
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Swellvue, WA
Oddometer: 10,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cash View Post
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
markjenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014