Hypermiling the Blue Ridge Parkway - 94.6 MPG !!!

[dduelin]

I have checked my odometer against the GPS enough times to be comfortable with a 3% odometer error so I use 97% of indicated miles for the distance traveled / fuel replaced. It actually starts out with a new rear tire (Z8) around .976 and as the tire wears it drops closer to .97.

I also try to ride at least 75 miles and return to the same pump. Sure, it's not to a high standard as these things go but it is my standard and I use it primarily against myself cuz I'm riding against myself on my roads.

I applaud the 94.6 number. I doubt I could restrain myself on the BRP and achieve anything like it. That road is not meant for hypermiling.

I got 90 once but it was a short +/- 30 mile distance between two pumps. After I set up a standard gas loop for myself the best I did was 84 something.

 

[L.B.S.]

Yesterday I recorded 72.61 US mpg (fie and fiddlestix with % error musings and ponderings over odo versus sat nav and pump discrepancies, etc., I say, dammit! LOL Leave me to my rosy outlook and fuzzy feelings of happy happy wit teh stone knives and bearskin method I calculate my fuel efficiency, please )

This was 356 km's (221 miles) travelled on the one fill up (almost completely off pavement/gravel/logging roads/4x4 trails!!!) a huge amount of 1st and 2nd gear high (er) rpm on/off/on/off throttle, and I had nearly 3 litres of fuel left!

lalalalalalalala I finally get awesome mpgs now lalalalalalalala

 

[helix_rider]

I haven't had my bike for long, only 2 fill-ups, but I'm thinking the gear I ride drastically affects my MPG. I have a tight fitting Scorpion jacket and EXO400 helmet that I had from a previous bike...used it for the first fuelly fillup...then bought a Fly Patrol jacket and Trekker II helmet. I love the new jacket and helmet, but the jacket is loose (comparatively) and has huge vents (ideal for me for summer) while the helmet that I love in terms of looks is bigger and has the monster visor. With the new gear, my 2nd fillup dropped my fuelly significantly (10+ mpg). I understand it makes sense, and it will only cost me $3 every 420 miles or so...not anything to be concerned about...just figured I'd vent my frustration with the lowest fuelly number on the site

 

[yticolev]

I Use my Odometer for fuel mileage because it's easier. I'm sure the GPS isn't perfect though, but I bet its not far off. Most of the time my GPS is locked on 8 satellites, they not only tell the speed and distance, they also tell you the elevation. So I'm betting they don't loose very much on hills.

As far as I'm concerned, 94.6 mpg is the number to beat.

Altitude is great, but I'd be surprised if they actually integrate the delta to calculate distance the wheel rolls versus linear distance traveled on a flat plane.

So if the NC is capable of 95 mpg at 45 mph, I would guess that 110 mpg is easily obtainable at 35 mph (which is pretty much minimum speed in 6th gear). If anyone has the patience for it (not me), and can find a place similar to the Blue Ridge Parkway where that is a safe speed If anyone wants to beat the standing record that is.

 

[dduelin]

In fact GPS is incredibly accurate measuring elevation and grade over time & distance. The original specification was driven by a desire to navigate in three dimensions so ICBMs could be fired from moving platforms and hit targets with an accuracy within 1.5 meters. I know a manufacturer through my business that makes GPS units for surveying that are accurate within inches.

Inaccuracy in our use comes may come from the update speed of non-mapping GPS units. On twisty roads a typical update rate of 60 times a minute will "straighten" out tight radius curves as the unit connects the update dots with straight lines if the unit is moving fast enough across the earth. Of course, practically no one uses non-mapping GPS anymore as existing cartography has been digitized and loaded in mapping software.

 

[turbodieseli4i6]

Altitude is great, but I'd be surprised if they actually integrate the delta to calculate distance the wheel rolls versus linear distance traveled on a flat plane.

So if the NC is capable of 95 mpg at 45 mph, I would guess that 110 mpg is easily obtainable at 35 mph (which is pretty much minimum speed in 6th gear). If anyone has the patience for it (not me), and can find a place similar to the Blue Ridge Parkway where that is a safe speed If anyone wants to beat the standing record that is.

I would bet you could get real close under the right conditions. So many variables, not including the time.

I know my NC's speedometer/odometer is close enough to my GPS that I don't worry about it. Now on my old Goldwing, the calculations would be very different.
MPG using the odometer would be 47 mpg, but the GPS would be 38-40.

 

[rexbaum]

Great looking bike!!! I bought the same color!

Good to hear this report! I am traveling to the Rocky Mountains, most elevations are over 9000 feet. The past few years my mileage on my FZ6 went from 40 mpg at sea level to almost 80 in the mountains! If the NCX can average in the 60's at sea level, I expect it to get close to the triple digits in the mountains! More to come, we leave on June 6!

 

[yticolev]

In fact GPS is incredibly accurate measuring elevation and grade over time & distance. The original specification was driven by a desire to navigate in three dimensions so ICBMs could be fired from moving platforms and hit targets with an accuracy within 1.5 meters. I know a manufacturer through my business that makes GPS units for surveying that are accurate within inches.

Inaccuracy in our use comes may come from the update speed of non-mapping GPS units. On twisty roads a typical update rate of 60 times a minute will "straighten" out tight radius curves as the unit connects the update dots with straight lines if the unit is moving fast enough across the earth. Of course, practically no one uses non-mapping GPS anymore as existing cartography has been digitized and loaded in mapping software.

I poked around the Net a bit on this question and did not come up with a clear answer. Of course you are right about missiles but consumer GPS is not military accuracy (or didn't used to be), and it is not clear which consumer units in fact calculate actual road miles traveled rather than 2D miles even though they have altitude capability. A number of sources seemed to say that consumer GPS ignores altitude for calculating miles traveled as the error ends up not being significant. Lots of sources did agree with you to say undulating roads or paths, particularly switchbacks, end up significantly wrong. This included one guy who actually rolled out the miles with an engineer's tool with four consumer GPS units attached.

 

[Daniszeman]

I have a question about this - what was your total weight including gear and accessories on the bike during this trip? I am wondering if 30 pounds, or maybe even 15 pounds makes a significant difference in terms of MPG for our bikes.

 

[670cc]

I have a question about this - what was your total weight including gear and accessories on the bike during this trip? I am wondering if 30 pounds, or maybe even 15 pounds makes a significant difference in terms of MPG for our bikes.

My weight plus everything added to the bike was probably under 250 pounds. Wind drag would play so much of a larger role in efficiency, such that 15 or 30 pounds weight gain or loss would be insignificant.

We discussed weight and aerodynamics as they apply to efficiency in another thread: http://nc700-forum.com/forum/nc700-general-discussion/3975-strange-thing-fuel-economy.html

Greg

 

[n30r3l0ad3d]

Best I've ever achieved was near 84 mpg with a passenger. I never saw that again once the bike broke in. I average around 60-74 mpg. Congrats 670.

 

[Old Can Ride]

I could never do this. When I get on the bike it has already passed the 250 lbs mark. Then I start adding stuff. Will never see this gas mileage!

 

[gregsfc]

I own a CTX700 (with fairing), manual transmission and brakes; not an NCX. I felt like that the CTX and CTXN (naked) may actually get a little worse mpg than the NCX only due to the first reports from owners coming in before I took delivery of my own, personal bike. Thought that maybe the CTX, for some reason, might be a little less aerodynamic or have more drag for whatever reason. Most of the CTX owners over on that forum, however, own the "D" model as a percentage compared to the NCX owners.

I'm still waiting to borrow a GPS to figure out my trip meter error. For right now though, I'm using 2% error in my calculations. Therefore, when I record my miles between fuel ups when topping up, I multiply the miles shown on the trip meter by 98%; hopefully giving me a fairly accurate measurement of mpg. I know that there is at least some error in the trip meter, because it records approx. 1% to 1.5% more miles over the same trips as my car and my wife's car.

I've topped up three times and am so far extremely happy and impressed with the fairing model with the standard transmission and brakes. I've recorded 80.4; 77.8; and 82.0; respectively. The first tank was during break in, so there was some extremely slow highway riding mixed in as I was varying my speed between 45 and 62 in a mostly 55 mph speed zone. The second tank should be representative of my regular highway commute. And my third tank included a couple of longer trips with maybe one commute mixed in, but part of one of the trips was riding in a head wind @ 64 mph for about 95 miles, so I was excited to learn that I was still topping 80 mpg even with some higher speed riding.

 

[Red NC]

I felt like that the CTX and CTXN (naked) may actually get a little worse mpg than the NCX

My wife and I took an 1100 mile trip through OH, PA, MD, VA, WV back in late July. She has a 2014 CTX700N and I have a 2013 NC700X, both were less than two months old at the time of the trip. We gassed up and recorded mileage at the same time throughout the trip and our calculated mileage was nearly identical !

 

[dduelin]

I own a CTX700 (with fairing), manual transmission and brakes; not an NCX. I felt like that the CTX and CTXN (naked) may actually get a little worse mpg than the NCX only due to the first reports from owners coming in before I took delivery of my own, personal bike. Thought that maybe the CTX, for some reason, might be a little less aerodynamic or have more drag for whatever reason. Most of the CTX owners over on that forum, however, own the "D" model as a percentage compared to the NCX owners.

I'm still waiting to borrow a GPS to figure out my trip meter error. For right now though, I'm using 2% error in my calculations. Therefore, when I record my miles between fuel ups when topping up, I multiply the miles shown on the trip meter by 98%; hopefully giving me a fairly accurate measurement of mpg. I know that there is at least some error in the trip meter, because it records approx. 1% to 1.5% more miles over the same trips as my car and my wife's car.

I've topped up three times and am so far extremely happy and impressed with the fairing model with the standard transmission and brakes. I've recorded 80.4; 77.8; and 82.0; respectively. The first tank was during break in, so there was some extremely slow highway riding mixed in as I was varying my speed between 45 and 62 in a mostly 55 mph speed zone. The second tank should be representative of my regular highway commute. And my third tank included a couple of longer trips with maybe one commute mixed in, but part of one of the trips was riding in a head wind @ 64 mph for about 95 miles, so I was excited to learn that I was still topping 80 mpg even with some higher speed riding.

I was looking at the CTX last week at a dealer. I have to admit that pictures make the bike look more bulky or awkward than it is to the naked eye. I liked it compared to the naked version the CTX700N. I see no reason why the CTX would not get comparable mileage to the X version. The frame, wheels, and running gear are identical as far as I recall. Nice looking bike - what color is yours?

 

[gregsfc]

To dduelin...

I've got the red CTX700 (the model with the fairing and grab hanles; all stock; no accessories. Madstad is developing a larger windscreen for it. It'll probably be $225-$275, but unlike the OEM screen, it will actually work. The OEM tall screen gets mixed reviews but mostly bad. I just ordered a Bestem T-Box 2012 maroon (used, repackaged) for $70 and free shipping. I'm going to get my uncle help me build a rack and supports. I'm not in to spending $800 for OEM storage or even $280 for a Honda rear carrier. I've studied and researched it, and I see no reason why I can't build a decent looking mount for a decent looking top box with 42 liter storage and have no more than $200 to add riding storage to this bike.

There must be some extra margin for dealers in the standard fairing model. The dealer sold it to me for $7200 with a list price @ $7800 with no dealer fees. I don't think they are coming off the "D" model or either of the naked models by $600, so I don't think the extra price for the fairing model is really going to be $800; but maybe it is if you choose the DCT/ABS model.