Chris Kelley
Turbocharged
That point has been made before. Most of the time 5th is fine, however cruising at 80+ mph out here in the plains for a long period of time can get a little tedious.
longer range cruising needs...
- Thread starter Robm422
- Start date
That point has been made before. Most of the time 5th is fine, however cruising at 80+ mph out here in the plains for a long period of time can get a little tedious.
Rocket3Pilot
Supercharged
I'm sorry, I just find that really hard to believe that you're getting 45mpg with the mods it takes to make 250HP. Doesn't add up compared to everyone else's numbers. I think 35mpg would be a trick. Maybe you meant 45kpg?
Chris Kelley
Turbocharged
I'll let IMFASTOO explain the why and how, but most of the folks that get the higher end Carpenter kits report improved MPG and 45ish is not unheard of. I'll see if I can dig up some threads.
IMFASTTOO
Living Legend
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,394
NO my friend others with the big motors get 40 or over and I have to be on the Highway and just cruising no hot rodding or youll ruin the fuel savings your good driving habits contribute to fuel savings
BigNorm
Boobie Inspector
I'll bet I get better fuel mileage too if I stop riding like an *******. 
245 would be lots of fun.
245 would be lots of fun.
Joesmoe
IMOKUR2
So, TANSTAFL.
The Rocket engine follows a philosophy of relatively unstressed (low reving, low compression) components last longer, and a consequence is the engine operates relatively inefficiently.
That is indicated by most of the fuel economy numbers we are seeing.
This for many years -- up through basically 1973 -- is what the US car industry did. There were large, gas guzzling engines, that gave decent performance ("no replacement for displacement") by virtue of their size.
If one is willing to alter the engine, it is possible to do it in such a way, that combustion temperatures are increased, and the fundamental theoretical efficiency can go up.
I have not studied Carpenter, Lush, et. al., though from what I have read this is in part what they are doing.
Pilots of piston engine aircraft have the luxury of a near constant RPM, and once reaching cruising altitude, will carefully lean the mixture watching like a hawk the exhaust gas temperature.
Long distance flyers (and I mean extra long distance not covered by the owner's manual) have been known (like racers) to lean the mixture beyond what is recommended by the engine manufacturer, counting on the engine(s) making the one flight, and then being rebuilt.
Jet engines in aircraft have the same opportunity. Usually governed by maximum allowable Forward Turbine Inlet Temperature (FTIT), as the manufacturers were able to improve the metallurgy and cooling tricks for the turbine blades, the temperature increased and so did the absolute performance and fuel economy.
The Rocket engine follows a philosophy of relatively unstressed (low reving, low compression) components last longer, and a consequence is the engine operates relatively inefficiently.
That is indicated by most of the fuel economy numbers we are seeing.
This for many years -- up through basically 1973 -- is what the US car industry did. There were large, gas guzzling engines, that gave decent performance ("no replacement for displacement") by virtue of their size.
If one is willing to alter the engine, it is possible to do it in such a way, that combustion temperatures are increased, and the fundamental theoretical efficiency can go up.
I have not studied Carpenter, Lush, et. al., though from what I have read this is in part what they are doing.
Pilots of piston engine aircraft have the luxury of a near constant RPM, and once reaching cruising altitude, will carefully lean the mixture watching like a hawk the exhaust gas temperature.
Long distance flyers (and I mean extra long distance not covered by the owner's manual) have been known (like racers) to lean the mixture beyond what is recommended by the engine manufacturer, counting on the engine(s) making the one flight, and then being rebuilt.
Jet engines in aircraft have the same opportunity. Usually governed by maximum allowable Forward Turbine Inlet Temperature (FTIT), as the manufacturers were able to improve the metallurgy and cooling tricks for the turbine blades, the temperature increased and so did the absolute performance and fuel economy.
IMFASTTOO
Living Legend
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,394
YES rode my 09 CLASSIC this weekend on some nice twisty country roads with my Buddy on his BMW 1000RR and hes a Road Racer so it was a fun ride and I still did 37 MPG not bad for playing VALENTINO ROSSII'll bet I get better fuel mileage too if I stop riding like an *******.
Rocket3Pilot
Supercharged
Well that's pretty impressive! I don't get it but it sure makes a case for the Carpenter upgrades. Extra HP and extra mpg at the same time! Thanks for the post, I stand corrected.
rocketjohn
Top Fuel
Where stock Rocket engines are largely understressed, as Joesmoe implies, folks like Carpenter pull miracles out the engine, but dynamically you are running it close to the wall all the time. In other words, the understressed engine will go far longer than one that is made to do all that it can, all the time. I say choose your mods carefully, try to hang onto longevity. And yes, we'd benefit from spread out gears with a higher fifth, or possibly a sixth giving a mild overdrive ratio.
IdahoRenegade
.060 Over
I picked up my R3R a bit under a year ago and have about 13k on it now. Only thing is no really long days, about 350 max. And on the rides I have done I find it pretty comfortable (best of any bike I've owned). But still had planned a few upgrades-plan on an aftermarket seat over the winter at the least. "Butt burn" is my single biggest long distance complaint.
Anyway, just made plans to meet up with my brother the week after Labor Day and do a 10 day trip, will be around 5k miles, with a few long (600+ days) to grind across the plains states and Montana. So, no time to order a "custom" seat. I have hwy bars and pegs, and a crampbuster (don't know how you could ride w/o that) and the stock windshield. I plan to order a few more comfort items today, looking to verify some P/Ns.
Brakeaway cruise control. The web site says the 7CP04 is right for this bike. However, it also says "not compatible with heated grips". I don't have heated grips but want to add them in the future. Are there any options that are compatible?
Airhawk-what size? I would assume the "Cruiser R large" but want to make sure. Does anyone know if this adds enough height to allow you to slide back a bit w/o catching on the lip of the seat? I feel the seat kickup is part of my problem, would like to be able to slide back and straighten the knees a bit.
I find the stock windshield is "OK"-I don't feel a lot of buffeting, but things do get noisy at highway speeds. Probably partly do to a lower end helmet (G-Max modular). I find that not a lot of modulars fit me-the chin bar hits my chin. G-Max works better than most. Anyway, do "laminar lips" or any other windshield extensions help significantly in deflecting air and reducing noise?
Thanks all. I'm reading through the entire thread as well-hopefully am not asking too many questions that have been answered.
Anyway, just made plans to meet up with my brother the week after Labor Day and do a 10 day trip, will be around 5k miles, with a few long (600+ days) to grind across the plains states and Montana. So, no time to order a "custom" seat. I have hwy bars and pegs, and a crampbuster (don't know how you could ride w/o that) and the stock windshield. I plan to order a few more comfort items today, looking to verify some P/Ns.
Brakeaway cruise control. The web site says the 7CP04 is right for this bike. However, it also says "not compatible with heated grips". I don't have heated grips but want to add them in the future. Are there any options that are compatible?
Airhawk-what size? I would assume the "Cruiser R large" but want to make sure. Does anyone know if this adds enough height to allow you to slide back a bit w/o catching on the lip of the seat? I feel the seat kickup is part of my problem, would like to be able to slide back and straighten the knees a bit.
I find the stock windshield is "OK"-I don't feel a lot of buffeting, but things do get noisy at highway speeds. Probably partly do to a lower end helmet (G-Max modular). I find that not a lot of modulars fit me-the chin bar hits my chin. G-Max works better than most. Anyway, do "laminar lips" or any other windshield extensions help significantly in deflecting air and reducing noise?
Thanks all. I'm reading through the entire thread as well-hopefully am not asking too many questions that have been answered.
Similar threads
