Thread: How many kms does your full tank last?

Originally Posted by leech

CBR 250 2012
Tank : 13L. Usable -10L.
Range : 500 kms if kept at 70kmph on highway.
300 kms if kept at 130+ kmph on highway.

I have assumed that the bike can run 500 kms in 10 litres. 50 kmpl, thats impressive for a 250 cc bike!

Originally Posted by jack_daniels

KTM Duke 390

Kms - 6,500 km
Tank capacity - 11, Usable 9.5 I think,
Tank range -
1). With windscreen (Which is a must have)- 270-280 kms,
2). Without windscreen- 300-320 kms.
RPM - Under 5.5k,
Speed - < 100 kmph.

Note: The above data is considering optimum fuel quality and on highways. If fuel quality is below par and ride is within city, the range might drop to 250 km. (With windscreen)

i believe u have gotten it the other way round bro, with windscreen the range should be more on aaccount of higher aerodynamics...

----consecutive posts auto-merged-----

my brother, with a hornet 160, managed to elk out about 550 km from approx 10 ltrs (usable fuel)
mostly at 60-70 tho... dunno where he gets the patience to ride that slow tho

Originally Posted by madhavparashar

I have assumed that the bike can run 500 kms in 10 litres. 50 kmpl, thats impressive for a 250 cc bike!

I haven't got 50 kmpl, just 48.7, 49.8, and 46.2. All tests done with over inflated tyres.


The CBR also can go 70~100 kms more after the last fuel bar starts blinking.. Then the bike starts jerking.

Originally Posted by Kos

i believe u have gotten it the other way round bro, with windscreen the range should be more on aaccount of higher aerodynamics...

----consecutive posts auto-merged-----

my brother, with a hornet 160, managed to elk out about 550 km from approx 10 ltrs (usable fuel)
mostly at 60-70 tho... dunno where he gets the patience to ride that slow tho

No no. I have the MRA windscreen. Though it's a very large one. It's a proper touring windscreen. And I've seen the drop in mileage due to the wind resistance and it's quite substantial and noticeable.
Dunno about the smaller powerparts, etc windscreens though.

Originally Posted by jack_daniels

No no. I have the MRA windscreen. Though it's a very large one. It's a proper touring windscreen. And I've seen the drop in mileage due to the wind resistance and it's quite substantial and noticeable.
Dunno about the smaller powerparts, etc windscreens though.

well a properly mounted and angled windscreen (i dunno the specifics of your MRA windscreen) would reduce aerodynamic drag, as compared to wind hitting directly onto your chest, hence improving fuel efficiency, or acceleration... in the absence of a windscreen, your chest is a vertical wall for the wind, which would have noticiable drag.
in fact, in smaller powerplants, a windscreen would have a much less effect, simply because the speeds are not that great to begin with...

Originally Posted by Kos

well a properly mounted and angled windscreen (i dunno the specifics of your MRA windscreen) would reduce aerodynamic drag, as compared to wind hitting directly onto your chest, hence improving fuel efficiency, or acceleration... in the absence of a windscreen, your chest is a vertical wall for the wind, which would have noticiable drag.
in fact, in smaller powerplants, a windscreen would have a much less effect, simply because the speeds are not that great to begin with...

That's in Theory. But, in practice there is a NOTICEABLE difference. I hv calculated the same and found to be exactly 2 kmpl less mileage per litre which translates to a 20-25 km less tank range over the 11 ltrs of petrol.

Originally Posted by jack_daniels

That's in Theory. But, in practice there is a NOTICEABLE difference. I hv calculated the same and found to be exactly 2 kmpl less mileage per litre which translates to a 20-25 km less tank range over the 11 ltrs of petrol.

theory? well, as i said, maybe your windscreen is not correctly designed to give the best aerodynamic advantage. think about it. why would racing bikes be shaped the way they are if aerodynamics actually increases drag???

Originally Posted by Kos

theory? well, as i said, maybe your windscreen is not correctly designed to give the best aerodynamic advantage. think about it. why would racing bikes be shaped the way they are if aerodynamics actually increases drag???

I think what Jack is trying to tell you, is that his windscreen is not aerodynamically designed! It's designed for touring, thus causing more drag.

Originally Posted by Kos

theory? well, as i said, maybe your windscreen is not correctly designed to give the best aerodynamic advantage. think about it. why would racing bikes be shaped the way they are if aerodynamics actually increases drag???

The drag which you are saying is related to high speed racing I guess to reduce effect of wind on the rider. Is it related to mileage? Not sure. But at slower speeds (Below 70 kmph), frankly speaking I have noticed a drastic reduction in tank range from 20 to sometimes 50 kms (In bad traffic).
Whats your view on that? These are actual real world results after all. Btw here's my bikes pic. It's a normal windscreen I guess.

Originally Posted by leech

I think what Jack is trying to tell you, is that his windscreen is not aerodynamically designed! It's designed for touring, thus causing more drag.

haha true.
i realised that after i checked out the pic Jack posted (sorry i dunno how to use the "mention" feature of the forums)

Jack, ur right, your windscreen will definitely do nothing for increasing fuel efficiency. but does it reduce wind buffeting for the helmet??