Roundup

ROUNDUP

CYCLE WORLD

A THOUSAND MILES PER GALLON

By now most people have seen the Yamaha commercial with the Exciter I rider explaining how it gets 1000 mpg and then 2000 mpg and finally 8000 mpg. In the end the commercial concedes the bike gets about 75 mpg. That’s about what our test Exciter I got, so the figure is believable. But how far can a motorcycle go on a gallon of gas? Is a thousand miles per gallon possible?

There have been vehicles (calling them motorcycles or cars or any other normal term wouldn’t be right) that have achieved an over-1000 mpg figure in tests. For instance, at the Shell-Motor Mileage Marathon in England this year a Honda 90-powered three wheeler won the competition by getting 1370 mpg. Anyone who’s ever owned a Honda 90 knows the motorcycle doesn’t get 1370 mpg, 90 mpg being a little closer to a valid figure. But the potential, as demonstrated by the mileage winner, is there.

To get such incredible mileage, the engine was substantially reworked. The piston ran without an oil ring to minimize friction and the 5w oil operated in a total loss system. Compression was increased to 12.5:1 and the cam timing was changed to make slower engine speeds more efficient. Valve lash was increased to reduce valve overlap. Maintaining engine heat is very important to increasing thermal efficiency, so the cylinder barrel was insulated from the crankcase by a thick gasket, the exhaust wrapped around the cylinder and the top end of the engine was insulated to hold in heat.

To keep the intake mixture vaporized the long intake tract included a grid heated by a diesel engine glow plug. A fuel injection system pressurized by an air tank helped start the engine with a rich mixture and then leaned out the mixture for the running cycles. Cycles? Cycles!

An engine is most efficient running at wide open throttle so the most air is ingested and the mixture is compressed as much as possible. So the 90cc engine was started by an electric starter (controlled by a computer) and then accelerated the machine slowly, shutting off when it reached a set speed. The average speed of the 9.5 mi. run was 10 mph, so the maximum speed was likely around 20 mph, the machine coasting down below 10 mph and then accelerating above 10 mph when the engine was started.

If 1370 mpg sounds incredible, think about the Mercedes-Benz team that achieved 2418 mpg on its tiny diesel engine. And then there’s an experimental Subaru 360cc vehicle designed to get 100 mpg at a speed of 100 mph. Both the Subaru and M-B designs are three wheelers.

Closer to home was the 1980 Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Run held during the Vetter Rally in Colorado Springs. Because of an undisclosed time period set for the 93 mi. fuel economy run, average speeds were much closer to normal riding than those attained by the special three wheelers. In fact, the average speed for the round-trip between Colorado Springs and Cripple Creek worked out to 41 mph, so> none of this 10 mph coasting could be used.

Lammy Johnstone was the official winner with 97.9 mpg on her Harley-Davidson Sportster. An even higher figure of 101.7 mpg was achieved by Ed Lary who was disqualified for modifying the headlight cover of his Harley-Davidson Sturgis’ fairing. All the bikes in the competition were equipped with Vetter fairings and the top mileages were all recorded by two-cylinder motorcycles. Don Zacher on his BMW R80 and Jim Lane on his 80 cu. in. Harley Sturgis came in with 87.7 mpg.

These figures are even more surprising considering the terrain for the fuel economy run: mountainous high elevation roads. At over a mile above sea level the thin air richened mixtures and lowered engine efficiency.

Naturally the winners don’t always get 100 mpg. Special preparation of the motorcycles and special driving techniques were required. And the ultra-high mileage vehicles get incredible preparations. For 100 mpg, a well lubed chain, high pressure in the tires, slightly thinner engine oil and maybe leaner carb jetting and advanced ignition are enough. For the super-economy machines such measures as low-tension piston rings for less friction, modified cam timing with less lift and overlap and shorter duration, smaller carbs or fuel injection, insulation to keep engine heat high and the narrowest, hardest tires available are just beginning points.

Riding technique is as important as machine preparation, and for a 100 mpg figure there was no doubt lots of coasting down hills and chugging the engines in high gears at low engine speed.

Anyone who has owned a single carb Triumph 500 or some similarly mild motorcycle might not be impressed with a 75 mpg 250 or other small machine because that was a normal mileage figure for a single carb Triumph. Motorcycle gas mileage has generally decreased as the performance of motorcycles increased. If motorcyclists wanted motorcycles that could only wheeze along at 70 mph flat out and required the assistance of No-Doz for attacks at the quarter mile there would be no trouble getting 75 mpg out of a bike, whether it be a 250 or a 500 or a 900cc machine.

Fortunately for those of us who enjoy humiliating Corvette drivers and like the feel of arms pulled taut, motorcycles have never developed towards fuel-efficient transportation devices. They have become instruments of sport.

And to answer the next question, we expect they shall remain so.

FUTURE SMOG

At the last meeting of California’s Air Resources Board the smog people indicated that catalytic converters might not be the hot tip for motorcycles. That might be history.

Although the board members are reluctant to set smog standards that would require catalytic converters, the staff members who actually prepare the air pollution regulations for the board happen to like catalytic converters. They like the converters so much there are new smog rules being drawn up that would almost certainly require catalytic converters to be installed on large motorcycles.

In the words of the CARB staff report, “catalyst technology will also allow manufacturers to recalibrate engine parameters which should result in better fuel economy and performance while achieving lower emission levels.’’ The CARB staff probably believes in the Easter Bunny, too.

What the CARB has proposed is an HC limit of 0.25 grams per kilometer, CO limit of 12 g/km (unchanged), and a NOx limit of 0.6 g/km. The Nox limit is what might demand catalysts. There is no limit to NOx emissions now on motorcycles and the existing 5 g/km HC and 12 g/km CO limits have tended to create motorcycles that put out more NOx.

Of course what the CARB staff wants isn’t what the board will approve. Several months ago the major motorcycle manufacturers were granted a delay in meeting emission rules when they were able to convince the board there were unexpected problems in adapting the motorcycles to future standards.

At that time the board questioned whether catalytic converters should be installed on motorcycles because motorcyclists demand excellent performance from their machines and might tamper with catalyst-equipped motorcycles.

While the CARB ruling would appear to affect only California motorcycles, some companies might be forced to sell California models nation wide and that could affect all motorcyclists.

EDUCATION WORKS

In most endeavors education is assumed to increase skill and is, therefore, a Good Thing. But the professional safety establishment has been opposed to motorcycle rider education because it figures more people trained to ride motorcycles means more motorcyclists and it surely doesn’t want people riding motorcycles.

Fortunately, there is a growing block of evidence that motorcycle training works. Latest of the studies is a comparison of accident figures, riding habits and use of protective clothing between motorcyclists who have taken the MSF’s Motorcycle Rider Course and a similarly sized group lacking the MRC training. The study was conducted at thirteen Northern Illinois counties where the MSF course is available through state universities. One hundred riders were in each group.

Overall the MRC group had fewer accidents and got fewer tickets than the control group. About half the accidents for either group involved other vehicles, but the MRC group sustained fewer injuries in the accidents. That may be due to the protective equipment. The MRC group generally wore more protective equipment. A full 73.3 percent of the MRC group wore helmets, compared with 55 percent of the control group wearing helmets. The MRC group also tended to wear bright clothing and gloves more often than the control group.

Riding habits were markedly different. The MRC group rode less and tended to ride more in town and on short trips. While 49 percent of the control group rode on long trips, only 12 percent of the MRC group used their motorcycles for long-* trips. The control group included 84 percent who used their bikes for commuting, 73 percent for running errands and 98 percent who said they used their motorcycles for leisure riding, while the MRC group only had 26 percent commuting, 27 percent running errands and 70 percent riding for leisure. Also, the control group averaged 100 to 200 miles of riding per week, while the MRC group rode less than 100 miles per week.

What the figures show is the MRC group as beginning riders used their motorcycles less often, but were more safety conscious. Most of the MRC riders, 72 percent, had never ridden motorcycles before taking the course, while the control group averaged more than 2 years of riding experience.

GETTING SAFER

Motorcyclists crashed more last year than ever before, but because there were more motorcyclists around, the accident and fatality rates actually declined.

According to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, there were 177,984 motorcycle accidents in 1979, a 7.3 percent increase from the 1978 figure. But the number of motorcycles registered went up 10.4 percent in 1979 to 5.3 million. Fatalities rose 4.8 percent, to 4850 in 1979. All that adds up to a ratio of 334.34 accidents per

10.000 registrations and 9.08 fatalities per

10.000 registrations.

SUZUKI'S WILD ONES

Styling doesn’t get much more radical than that of Suzuki’s GS 1100 Katana shown for the first time at the Cologne motorcycle show. Both the futuristic 1100 Katana (Japanese for dueling sword) and a GS650 Katana were styled by former BMW stylist Hans Muth. The 1100’s chassis is normal GS1100 with dual shocks but with GS 1000-type forks. The GS650 was all-new, though the engine looks much like an over-grown GS550 powerplant. The show bike was equipped with a shaft drive, triple discs, conventional suspension front and rear and simpler styling than the 1100.

No word of production plans has been mentioned by U.S. Suzuki, though a highly styled GS1100S is expected for 1981. All the Suzuki motocrossers shown at Cologne were equipped with Suzuki’s Floater suspension. The 125 was liquidcooled and the open bike was a 465cc.