Until recently it was probably non-motorcyclists who took more of an interest in motorcycle fuel consumption than those of us actually out there on two wheels. There would surely have to be practical reasons, they might have imagined, to justify riders denying themselves the comfort and perceived safety of travelling in a tin box. From where we sit, though, the seductive forces are more likely to be factors like the pure joy of the ride, the satisfaction of constantly building on our riding skills and the ever present sense of “freedom” (however we interpret that term individually). There is one practical aspect of bikes that most of us have acknowledged for a while however – the sheer convenience of being able to cut through urban gridlock on a bike.

The times they are a-changing, though. The huge leap in fuel costs foisted on the community last year shocked everyone. While things are better currently, it’s more than likely only a temporary respite. So, it seems, fuel costs have become and will remain an issue for all motorists including the two-wheel brigade.

In my travels lately this has been demonstrated by motorcyclists enquiring and talking about the fuel consumption figures for various bikes to an extent I hadn’t seen previously. So this feature is MT’s response to that change.

GETTING THE RIGHT NUMBERS

It’s fair to say that MT has always tried to provide good indicative fuel consumption figures in road tests. However, given all the variables associated with the types of roads, choice of speeds, particular riding style and varying loads (and more) the figures calculated and quoted in good faith lack the precision required for comparison purposes.

It’s probably fair to assume that the question about consumption figures is most likely to be asked in relation to day-to-day use – when the bike is being used for commuting and general running around (if you’re going for a big fang, fuel won’t be on your mind, and long-distance touring figures are pretty predictable given the fairly constant throttle openings and speeds involved).

THE RIGHT ROUTE

What we’ve come up with is a loop starting and ending at the closest servo to MT’s palatial premises in suburban Oakleigh in Melbourne’s south-east. It takes in the whole range of road types and traffic conditions that an outer suburban commuter (that’s where most people live) would encounter.

Estimated at 100km from the map – long enough to be meaningful in evening out varying conditions – it averaged 95.6km on the trip odometers of the first guinea pig bikes.

CONTROLLING THE VARIABLES

• As a roughly oval loop through the city and suburbs it takes in some north, south, east and west to compensate for wind direction

• Riding it during morning or evening peak period should give similar results, given that the inbound and outbound distances are similar

• The urban speed is matched to traffic speed which is fairly consistent – from stop/start to 70-80km/h on the main roads and arterials and 30-110km/h on the freeway sections – all dependent on traffic flows

• The semi-rural section speed (through some twisties and sweepers) is limited to just fast enough for the fun factor to kick in – the sort of choice most riders would make

• Using great care when topping-up before and after the ride, using the same pump each time – an attempt to counter pump-to-pump meter inaccuracies that might skew results between bikes

• Riding like a typical commuter – working your way to the front at traffic lights and accelerating away swiftly and cleanly on the green to establish a bit of buffer space between you and the following traffic

USING THE LOOP

We reckon the figures we get from running test bikes round the loop will be realistic and representative for each bike and they will be useful for bike-to-bike comparisons.

We won’t be able to do fuel figures for every test bike (for example, we don’t get to bring all test bikes back to the office – as in the case of new model launch rides where we get taken to the bikes). But we’ll sample as broad a range of bikes as possible.

Look for figures in coming issues of MT

TRYING IT OUT

On a low-to-medium speed ride like this, with lots of stop/start components, the fuel consumption will be a function of the bike’s weight, the overall efficiency of the engine and transmission and whether the engine is working in its comfort zone to do the required job. Nakeds should be as good as faired bikes because the speeds aren’t high enough for aerodynamics to really come into play. Let’s see how what happened in practice…

FATHER BEAR

SUZUKI BANDIT 1250S

Dry weight: 227kg (est) Engine capacity: 1255cc

Result: 17.4km/lt (5.75lt/100km)

Verdict: So the big lazy Bandit did it easily and stylishly, delivering a figure that’s good for its size and very good compared with car figures.

MOTHER BEAR

BMW F 650 GS

Dry weight: 171kg Engine capacity: 798cc

Result: 28.6km/lt (3.49lt/100km)

Verdict: This mid-size bike, well able to meet all the demands of the ride including the quick bits and the hills, on a whiff of throttle, came up with an exceptional result by any standards.

BABY BEAR

VESPA LX125S

Dry weight: 110kg Engine capacity: 124cc

Result: 29.7km/lt (3.37lt/100km)

Verdict: The bambino. It produced the best figure, as you would expect. But it was only a nose in front of the BMW. At its best in an urban setting, it was pushing the envelope to cope with the 110km/h stuff. Lots of full throttle was also used to maintain speed on the steep stuff out among the foothills.