I find it rather impossible. unless there is something very unique about your bike. Is it what your dashboard is showing, or you count how many liters you put in the tank vs the distance covered? I ride in Thailand too, and so does my friend. Perhaps, driving below 100km/h, we get 25km/l tops.I ride in the north of Thailand, mix of highways, mountain roads, odd bit of offroad. I get 30.7 km/l consistently. I'm not slow and not manic fast just MOR.
Yes computer calculate wrong (my opinion) so I also set on display to show me range. Last trip computer show 4.4l/100km, when I refill motorbike and see how much I make km it was 4.1l/100km.I leave my TRIP COMPUTOR ('15 V650) at RANGE, simply because (IMHO) - the MPG figures are NOT correct.
Showing the range can be very misleading as it be set by the consumption that the bike calculates. Sometimes it jumps a lot... You think that you have enough fuel and then... 0 Kms.I leave my TRIP COMPUTOR ('15 V650) at RANGE, simply because (IMHO) - the MPG figures are NOT correct.
The gearing doesn't effect the speedometer and the fuel consumption isn't based on the amount of fuel in the tank.I think that the only things that are accurate on the display of the dashboard, are speed (if you did not change the gearing), rpm, the number of km covered, (maybe the engine temperature), and time . if the manufacturer cannot figure out how to indicate precisely the fuel level, most of the other averages will be at most just approximate.
I would blame this on the tire weight trailmax mission tires are basically the heaviest tires out there. They tend to weigh two to three times as much as a regular tire also you upped the width and what that actually does, when you don't change the wheel as well, is that it forces the tire into inappropriate geometry making it rounder and taller than it actually is supposed to be, it's a very different situation from when you put wider tires on a truck, so your math based on the written size probably doesn't line up with reality because you deformed the tire putting it on a wheel width made for a 130 rear. Just looking over the math on this making some assumptions that the tire you chose doubled the weight of the wheel I believe it's actually about doubling the amount of torque required to spin it... The 300 only has 25Nm max to give my assumption is that from a standstill the bike probably doesn't have sufficient torque to spin that heavy tire, since the trailmax mission was targeted at large adventure bikes like the big GS's and versys 1000's with over 100Nm it would go unnoticed in such an application because they have piles of torque to spare while we don't. Likewise your braking has likely suffered greatly as well correct? Try a lighter tire like the Karoo 3 I had them on my DR650 they are very light, look tough, and perform well. You might consider going back to the original tire size as well or at the worst a 140 variant.I drive 120km per day commuting, which includes mountain passes, rural area and open road.
Average speed 100km/h, with probably 50% at 120 to 130 km/h.
Have done 13000 km in 6 months on the original tyres with average indicated fuel economy of 25 km/l.
Changed to a set of 50/50 Dunlop Trailmax Mission tyres in sizes 110/80-19 and 150/70-17.
This relates to the front being slightly smaller but 10% wider, with the rear being 0.3% larger in diameter and 15.4% wider.
Right off the bat the bike lost a lot of power, I can no longer just accelerate from 50km/h in 6th gear and have to use a lot more throttle to get going in any gear.
With standard tyres, speedo was overreading by 6km/h at 120km/h, now only 2km/h.
Indicated fuel consumption went down to average of 23.9 km/l.
What boggles my mind is how anybody comes to the conclusion that going to a 15 tooth sprocket would improve anything concerning driveability, power and fuel consumption on this bike!
Just changing the tyre size and tread pattern, dramatically changed the driving characteristics of the VX completely.
Where previously I could basically leave it in top gear, now I have to wring it’s neck and change gears more frequently to get going.
Short of it, leave the bike as is, it works best all round with standard gearing and standard tyre size.
Still think it’s an awesome machine!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The gearing doesn't effect the speedometer and the fuel consumption isn't based on the amount of fuel in the tank.
Since the speed sensor is at the rear wheel, wouldn't changing the rear sprocket give a false reading on the speedometer?The gearing doesn't effect the speedometer and the fuel consumption isn't based on the amount of fuel in the tank.
Never owned one, maybe Harley's and the like? Most of my bikes and my friends bikes it's been on the front axle. Makes sense Kawasaki is using the ABS ring if it's already there kind of makes me wonder why they don't do that with cars as well.That's good to know. Some bikes have the speed sensor connected to transmission gear though...
708.3 metres per tank. That is what I wrote and that is what I meant.You mean 408 kilometers