|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
From: Colorado
I Ride: XX + FJR
Posts: 43
|
"Your mileage may vary"
The problem with any attempt to specify the range, or even the mileage, is that it varies hugely depending on the mix of city/highway mileage, and additionally depends greatly on individual style. In the USA, we have the EPA which has tried for decades to give meaningful numbers for mileage. The goal was only ever to provide a number that consumers could use to compare vehicles, which consumers seemed never to be able to understand, but with the advent of hybrid cars, it became apparent that despite their best efforts, their comparative numbers exaggerated the advantage of hybrid vehicles.
At steady speed, i.e. with highway driving, energy is spent only on overcoming aerodynamic drag and friction. The energy spent on overcoming aerodynamic drag while driving a given distance, is proportional to the square of the velocity. Fuel comsumed per distance covered at 125 kilometers per hour, for example, will be a whopping 56% greater than at 100 kph. If it happens that you are going so fast that the gear you need to use, in order to achieve the power needed to overcome the greater aerodynamic drag at higher vehicle speed, is not the tallest gear available, the fuel consumption will be further reduced by the fact that the number of rotations of the engine over the given distance will be greater. This effect is not a consideration for motorcycles where the maximum speed is achieved in the tallest gear. But for cars and bikes that have a really lazy top gear, anytime that you do not use that gear, or anytime that you are using a lower gear than you could potentially be using, you will of course pay a penality in fuel consumed per distance travelled.
The variable valve timing will likely improve the mileage, but how much is anyone's guess at this point. Fuel injection improves the mileage by not allowing the amount of hydrocarbons entering the chamber to exceed the amount that will chemically react with the amount of oxygen that enters the chamber. Additionally, the standard practice is to run the engine extremely lean whenever there is no demand for power, as indicated by the throttle control being fully closed. With a carburetor, anytime that the throttle is closed to the idle position, the engine operates at the power level that is needed for the engine to idle, which means that the slowing of the engine and the vehicle is not as rapid as it would be if it were possible to cut the power completely. With fuel injection, anytime that the demand for power is not increasing, the mixture ratio can be leaned slightly to the stoichiometrically "correct" point where the emissions are minimized, which is not necessarily ideal from the standpoint of fuel consumption, but is still better, from that standpoint, than the slighter richer mixture that yields greatest power. Whenever the throttle control is closed completely (which does not close the throttle itself completely), as long as the clutch is engaged, the fuel and the power can be cut completely. The inflow of energy that the engine requires to overcome its internal friction will then be drawn from the vehicle, effectively enhancing the engine braking effect. The downside is that it leads to abrupt transitions into and from the fully closed throttle position, which can be especially annoying if the throttle position sensor is adjusted improperly, i.e., if these transitions occur whenever the rider or driver tries to hold the throttle steady at a position that is not quite fully closed.
I expect that the C-14 will get better mileage than the old Concours, when ridden comparably, but just how much better remains to be seen, and no matter how much better it is, it won't come close to making up for the difference in fuel capacity. Personally, I will be content with the fuel capacity, and while I can certainly understand why anyone accustomed to the old Concours would be unhappy with this, I can't help but point out that overall, the number of ways that the new C-14 will be an improvement over the old Concours, is so great that it would be a chore to identify and enumerate them.
The use of the Concours name is a little dubious, because this is a very different bike. It isn't so much a re-interpretation of the old concept, as it is a product targeted specifically at a market that is lucrative at the present time. It is no coincidence that the MSRP announced for the C-14 in the USA, matches the MSRP for the FJR1300A.
At the same time, it could be argued that the original Concours originated the genre that begat the likes of the ST1100, ST1300, FJR1300, and K1200GT. When first introduced, the Concours was a Ninja that was set up for comfort. The ST1100 followed, then eventually the previous implementation by BMW of the GT concept using the older in-line four, and then the FJR and the improved efforts by Honda and BMW. Kawasaki is about to take back that which is rightfully theirs to claim, and they seem determined to do so in way that will make a statement. I kind of dig that, and in the overall scheme of things, having to wait a few months longer than what we were expecting is not such a bad thing. Patience, after all, is one of the supreme virtues.
|
Second that last one. I still think I want one, BUT (big but) a bit disapointed in the small fuel capacity.
