Be glad you own an NT!

[junglejim]

JJ - changing the gearing for better fuel economy is not always a guarantee. In some cases, lowering the highway RPM drops the engine out of its best torque band so it may require more throttle to maintain the same speed. And the engineers at the factory who selected the gearing were not dummies. Just a thought...

I understand and agree - to a degree. The sensors and computers that control the engine are designed to operate best within a range of parameters. Outside of those parameters things don’t work well. I’m considering a small change using “gearing commander”. And to make matters worse I’ve added a Madstad windscreen that catches more air which is exponentially worse at higher speeds.

Others have done it and results are good unless big changes are made. The newer Tigers and most of the older ones run at lower rpms. I know Frosty’s runs about 500 less than mine at 60. I’m aiming at about a 200 rpm reduction at 60. (4300 to 4100).

The best way to improve fuel economy is to slow down or get off the interstate. The engine is certainly not over-reving. Too often I catch myself riding in 5th when I should have shifted up to 6th. I rarely shift down to pass unless I want a little more margin for safety.

I think Triumph was trying a little too hard to make an adventure bike out of it for marketing purposes. It is way more toward a road bike than a real adventure bike. And I ride on the road 99% of the time.

I’m still listening to all your sage advice though. Thanks

 

[Coyote Chris]

JJ - changing the gearing for better fuel economy is not always a guarantee. In some cases, lowering the highway RPM drops the engine out of its best torque band so it may require more throttle to maintain the same speed. And the engineers at the factory who selected the gearing were not dummies. Just a thought...

Actually, IMHO they are dummies....with the Kaw C10, we were always reaching for seventh gear. Someone actually changed the internal gears around to make the gearing taller. The NT is about right, as is the XT and VFR . The New FJRs added a sixth gear and made sixth taller, which it really didnt need, and first taller!!!!!!!! Ideally, I like wide ratios....first for crawling, sixth for hauling.

 

[Coyote Chris]

JJ - changing the gearing for better fuel economy is not always a guarantee. In some cases, lowering the highway RPM drops the engine out of its best torque band so it may require more throttle to maintain the same speed. And the engineers at the factory who selected the gearing were not dummies. Just a thought...

Almost invariably, dropping the engine speed and adding manifold pressure or throttle increases efficiency. Charles Lindberg went to the South Pacific in WWII as a factory rep for aircraft manufactures. He took a P38 and came up with his own engine power settings....he slowed the props way down by increasing their pitch and added manifold pressure and greatly extended the range of the aircraft. But you are correct. There is no absolute formula. My Subaru CVT transmission slows the engine way down at cruise and gets 33 Plus MPG. My stick 2004 CRV spins 2900 at 60 mph...too fast! The automatics spin the engine closer to 2300 and get better milage. Honda blew that one. My Matrix spins at 2300 at 60...its a stick....and it gets 38 mpg.

 

[Mellow]

There's some Tracer guys that have dropped the front sprocket 1 tooth and added 2 to the rear and it allows you to use the same chain length. Someone reported about a 4mpg increase. They also said you had to give it a little more throttle coming off a stop but the rest of the range felt fine and no perceivable loss of power. 4mpg would only be another 16-20 miles on the tank. Not huge but definitely easier/cheaper than trying to add an aux tank.

The one thing I hate about most bikes is the lack of range. I was spoiled by the ST1300 and almost 300 mile-range.

I've even been looking at the Africa Twin ADV Sports,, BMW GS, BMW RT and even the BMW F850 GSA but that one has a Chinese made engine and while I'm not a big fan of the Germans, I'm really against China, if that even matters.

However, the reason I moved from a Wing to ST1300 was something sportier.
From the ST1300 to Super Ten was something lighter and more durable off pavement.
From the Super Ten to Tracer was something even lighter, higher revving and sportier.

So, anything I go to from the Tracer puts me backwards with regards the the things I've been looking for the last few years.

I'm seriously looking at the RT but not sure how I will feel about the weight.

 

[DirtFlier]

"...some Tracer guys that have dropped the front sprocket 1 tooth and added 2 to the rear...Mellow"

I'd guess that dropping 1 tooth in the front and adding 2 teeth to the back would result in MORE highway RPM. Perhaps you meant add 1 tooth to the front and remove 2 teeth from the rear?

 

[Mellow]

"...some Tracer guys that have dropped the front sprocket 1 tooth and added 2 to the rear...Mellow"

I'd guess that dropping 1 tooth in the front and adding 2 teeth to the back would result in MORE highway RPM. Perhaps you meant add 1 tooth to the front and remove 2 teeth from the rear?

yeah maybe.. I didn't really pay that much attention to it and would have it I seriously considered it.. just not sure it would be all that beneficial as just controlling my speed would result in much better performance.. both would probably be really good too.

 

[junglejim]

Almost invariably, dropping the engine speed and adding manifold pressure or throttle increases efficiency. Charles Lindberg went to the South Pacific in WWII as a factory rep for aircraft manufactures. He took a P38 and came up with his own engine power settings....he slowed the props way down by increasing their pitch and added manifold pressure and greatly extended the range of the aircraft. But you are correct. There is no absolute formula. My Subaru CVT transmission slows the engine way down at cruise and gets 33 Plus MPG. My stick 2004 CRV spins 2900 at 60 mph...too fast! The automatics spin the engine closer to 2300 and get better milage. Honda blew that one. My Matrix spins at 2300 at 60...its a stick....and it gets 38 mpg.

And most engines are tuned to reduce emissions more than for best fuel efficiency. Motorcycles have a very high hp to weigh ratio. They cruise at well below the most efficient rpm/hp combination because of the engine size we like to have. I’m guilty too. I don’t want to ride a Grom.

I remember trying to shift my C10 into the non-existent 7th gear lots of times. I did the same thing on the NT but not as much. I’ve never reached for 7th gear on the Tiger. More often I forget to up shift because the smooth engine gives little feedback.

 

[Phil Tarman]

Mellow said: "I'm seriously looking at the RT but not sure how I will feel about the weight."

Back when I was riding my C10, I test rode an '08 or '09 RT and it was absolutely the most comfortable bike I've ever been on. But with all my knee replacements, it was just too heavy for me.

 

[Coyote Chris]

And most engines are tuned to reduce emissions more than for best fuel efficiency. Motorcycles have a very high hp to weigh ratio. They cruise at well below the most efficient rpm/hp combination because of the engine size we like to have. I’m guilty too. I don’t want to ride a Grom.

I remember trying to shift my C10 into the non-existent 7th gear lots of times. I did the same thing on the NT but not as much. I’ve never reached for 7th gear on the Tiger. More often I forget to up shift because the smooth engine gives little feedback.

The Nt not so much reaching for another gear. The VFR is so smooth you can stay in 5th gear or even 4th and not even know I have one or two to go.....A Ford engine engineer told me that they hate sticks. They want the computer to decide the shift points for fuel economy and emissions. I am pretty happy with the gearing of my three bikes that I have now. The XT has "launch assist" so its really hard to kill the engine at a stop light. The instantaneous MPG meters are entertaining, but at the end of the day, if I get 45 out of the FJR or low 50s out if the other two, The money difference of getting a few more MPG is nill. If you slow down, you can save a whole bunch of money and also get run over and put in alot more time on the road. 80 is better than 55 on empty roads. Who remembers the 55 speed limit? Who wants to go back?

 

[Phil Tarman]

Driving from Denver to Ogden, UT, during the double nickel days was awful. Once I was traveling with my daughter and her baby. The baby started crying at Rawlins and we got stopped for doing 70 about 10 miles out of Rock Springs. The patrolman asked how old she was (6 months) and if she was OK. She was fine but tired. He let me go. I think I got two tickets on I-80 during that time and haven't gotten but once since.

 

[junglejim]

Most WI highway’s are still 55 mph. A lot of 4-lanes are 65. My country has about 1 mile of 4-lane and it is 55 speed limit. So my entire county is 55 max. Some of the best motorcycle roads are 45 speed limit. Both MI and MN are higher speed limits. However WI seems to have an exemption for drinks.

State Patrol will pull you over for more than 5 over. Most towns will give you 10 over and most sheriff deputies will give you 15 over. I’ve been pulled over at least 4 times for 5 over (but only 1 ticket).

 

[Warren]

Most of my riding is on two lane back roads where the speed limits range from 45-60 and the roads usually are more interesting. I much prefer those roads over the interstates where traffic is usually hauling along at 80 and the landscape is boring. I understand in some states the only way to get anywhere is on interstates but fortunately where I live I can go anywhere I want easily on two lanes

 

[mikesim]

I much prefer the two lanes and avoid the super slab whenever possible.

Mike

 

[Beermebeerme1]

I much prefer the two lanes and avoid the super slab whenever possible.

Mike

These aren't super slab bikes. Sure, they'll do it but it's not where they are best. 2 lanes and twisty Hill country is where they shine.

 

[Coyote Chris]

I much prefer the two lanes and avoid the super slab whenever possible.

Mike

The older I get, the more I like 2 lane lightly traveled roads. I feel safer also as well as having more fun....People over on the XT forum wanted to know how I got 11,500 miles out of my OEm Rear tire. The WeeStrom is perfect for putzing along two lane roads in Idaho....no racing...no hard stopping....just enjoying.

 

[Nick Wilkinson]

Chains and sprockets are cheaper to manufacture, thereby reducing the initial purchase cost of a machine. They are cheaper to replace. For the racers it is quick to change overall gearing. They are the most fuel/power efficient transmission when new. The trouble is that they do not remain new and as they wear, performance is lost and it is an unpleasant matter maintaining them. In their favour, they do tend to slow the corrosion at the back of the bike.