Mathematically they’re equivalent, but the feelings could not be further apart.

    • beefcat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s kind of shocking how bad motorcycles are at fuel efficiency given how much less mass they have to move

      • senseamidmadness@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My understanding is that the motorcycle/rider combination in most cases has a very poor coefficient of drag and that’s the largest issue at highway speeds.

        Depends strongly on the motorcycle, however, as there are so many different kinds with varying amounts of bodywork. Some are absurdly efficient, like the Honda Grom, which routinely achieves over 100MPG.

      • senseamidmadness@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Must be something pretty modern with fuel injection!

        I was very heavily generalizing; there are so many different kinds of motorcycles and they vary so widely in fuel efficiency that it’s really hard to average. Here in the US, the average new motorcycle sold is a 700-pound monster with an engine larger than 100 cubic inches of displacement. (Again, generalizing a bit, but Harley-Davidsons still make up over 4 out of every 10 new motorcycles sold here.) Harley-Davidson’s largest model, the Electra Glide Ultra Classic, gets less than 40 MPG and weighs well over 800 pounds.

    • DigitalDilemma
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kinda depends - my R1200GS would get around 55mpg (Imperial 4.55l gallons, not the smaller US gallons) when riding gently. My 411cc Himalayan is up around the 100mpg mark . 125s are easy to get well over 100mpg with, so the scale is probably fairly linear modified by tune and riding style.