>I was reading a copy of Two Wheels yesterday and noted that the fuel
> economy figures of some of the bikes mentioned were pretty bad - in
> the 6-7l/100km range. Granted, these were fairly powerful sports
> bikes (don't ask makes and models, I can't remember) but I still found
> that pretty surprising for vehicles which, after all, only weigh a
> couple of hundred kilos and have engines of 1000cc of less in the
> majority of cases.
>
> So what's the story? It doesn't make sense to me that a small
> engined, light bike would record similar fuel consumption to a bigger
> engined, heavier shopping trolley type hatchback. Is it just that the
> bike engines are in a...

>
> "Marco" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:da5da394-0ab2-4d6b-9cf6-
>
>

>> So what's the story? It doesn't make sense to me that a small
>> engined, light bike would record similar fuel consumption to a bigger
>> engined, heavier shopping trolley type hatchback. Is it just that the
>> bike engines are in a higher state of tune, or does the fact that they
>> rev harder use more fuel?

>
> A combination of both really.
>
> Most bike engines are tuned to make a lot of power for their size, and
> generally need to be worked harder to do anything spending a lot of their
> time above 3-4000rpm (often *way* above that). On the other hand, most car
> engines of around the same capacity tend to be lo-po econoboxes designed with
> efficiency in mind and spend most of their time at very low rpm by ...

>I was reading a copy of Two Wheels yesterday and noted that the fuel
> economy figures of some of the bikes mentioned were pretty bad - in
> the 6-7l/100km range. Granted, these were fairly powerful sports
> bikes (don't ask makes and models, I can't remember) but I still found
> that pretty surprising for vehicles which, after all, only weigh a
> couple of hundred kilos and have engines of 1000cc of less in the
> majority of cases.
>
> So what's the story? It doesn't make sense to me that a small
> engined, light bike would record similar fuel consumption to a bigger
> engined, heavier shopping trolley type hatchback. Is it just that the
> bike engines are in a...

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:26:15 -0000, LSx-Australia
> here.com> wrote:
>

>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:16:18 +1100, Noddy PCM code reading says:
>>

>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_XJkK_OzA8&feature=related
>>>
>>> Fucking idiot :)

>> LOL
>> Like the boastful Ozone and then it fucks up in his tracks. :-)

>
> You and Noodelle are aperfect match...are you the one who gave him the
> insight into what it felt like to have his cock sucked by a bloke.
>
> Oh BTW I did have something of a similar experience many years ago in
> a Mini race at Amaroo.
> I was on pole, led up the hill and lost it on cold tyres on the next
> turn.

> On Dec 19, 9:56 am, nos...@usenet.fake (Blue Heeler) wrote:

>> I remember being stunned that on a total runcost basis it was neck and
>> neck between the Honda 400/4 (lovely bike by the way, fondly remembered)
>> and a 6 cylinder panelvan. You lose track of the little things with time
>> but I remembet things like tyres being a great leveller of costs in that
>> the tyres ont he bike (K81 or K181) lasted only a few thousand K, but cost
>> abotu the same as the Michelins on the van that ran 40,000 miles. Petrol
>> of course was cheaper on the bike, but in those dars rego for a >250cc
>> bike wasn't all that much less than a 6cyl car (in QLD) at any rate.

>
> Interesting that you should say that. You're on a winner here in the
> ACT if you ride a <300cc bike, as the annual rego fee for that is
> $178.45 whereas anything over 300cc is $448.80 (which seems like a bit
> of a rip off to me considering that a <975kg car costs $601.25). So
> if you're riding say a 500 or 750cc bike, you're only about $150 a
> year better off on rego and apparently no better off on fuel (and
> paying more for tyres going by your example).
>
> Do bikes need more frequent servicing than cars? ...

> I was reading a copy of Two Wheels yesterday and noted that the fuel
> economy figures of some of the bikes mentioned were pretty bad - in the
> 6-7l/100km range. Granted, these were fairly powerful sports bikes
> (don't ask makes and models, I can't remember) but I still found that
> pretty surprising for vehicles which, after all, only weigh a couple of
> hundred kilos and have engines of 1000cc of less in the majority of
> cases.
>
> So what's the story? It doesn't make sense to me that a small engined,
> light bike would record similar fuel consumption to a bigger engined,
> heavier shopping trolley type hatchback. Is it just that the bike
> engines are in a higher state of tune, or does the fact that they rev
> harder use more fuel?

>it was the helmet's fault.