Wasted Power in 900?

[Tslepebull]

OK, I agree that burning the rear tire and incredibly quick roll on are cool and all, but is that extra power wasted? If the gear and CVT ratios are so low relative the engine torque curve that the rear tire breaks loose under anything but very gentle throttle application, what is the point? I would prefer a slightly higher final drive ratio that would reduce RPM at interstate speed. A 30% reduction in RPM from 6450 at 75 mph to 4,500 rpm at 75 MPH would likely increase fuel mileage from the current 30 mpg to something around 40. This would correspond to the RPM/road speed ratio similar to the F3 which is approximately 30% heavier than the Ryker thus needing more power. The CVT would still match RPM to input when power was needed (such as for passing) but the cruising ability of the Ryker might be improved. It might even actually improve the 0-60 time by reducing wheel spin and allowing full power application at launch.

Now maybe all the hot-rodders out there might disagree with me but this just looks like an opportunity for the aftermarket to produce a gear set for the final drive that would provide this as an option. Or, ,maybe BRP is listening to the results of their beta testers, and there should be a different final drive ratio for the 600 vs 900 version.

 

[ARtraveler]

It's all about what floats your boat. You can never have to much power. When I had my V-max Venture, I only went over 100 once. But...I knew the power was there to get up and go if wanted or needed. :yes:

 

[Tslepebull]

Don't get my wrong, increased top speed is not my goal and I don't want to reduce the power that the engine makes. I just want to influence how that power is delivered to the rear tire and how that influences traction and fuel mileage. For the record my daily driver is a Chevy Colorado diesel truck; I really appreciate torque in reserve. The truck actually gets better highway MPG than my Rally; just at the increased cost of diesel vs regular.

 

[ARtraveler]

Don't get my wrong, increased top speed is not my goal and I don't want to reduce the power that the engine makes. I just want to influence how that power is delivered to the rear tire and how that influences traction and fuel mileage. For the record my daily driver is a Chevy Colorado diesel truck; I really appreciate torque in reserve. The truck actually gets better highway MPG than my Rally; just at the increased cost of diesel vs regular.

All good points. Good discussion points. :yes:

 

[cueman]

I believe when the Rykers get some higher brake in miles on them the miles per gallon will increase. My guess would be about 40 with a gentle hand. cueman

 

[glennm]

OK, I agree that burning the rear tire and incredibly quick roll on are cool and all, but is that extra power wasted? If the gear and CVT ratios are so low relative the engine torque curve that the rear tire breaks loose under anything but very gentle throttle application, what is the point? I would prefer a slightly higher final drive ratio that would reduce RPM at interstate speed. A 30% reduction in RPM from 6450 at 75 mph to 4,500 rpm at 75 MPH would likely increase fuel mileage from the current 30 mpg to something around 40. This would correspond to the RPM/road speed ratio similar to the F3 which is approximately 30% heavier than the Ryker thus needing more power. The CVT would still match RPM to input when power was needed (such as for passing) but the cruising ability of the Ryker might be improved. It might even actually improve the 0-60 time by reducing wheel spin and allowing full power application at launch.

Now maybe all the hot-rodders out there might disagree with me but this just looks like an opportunity for the aftermarket to produce a gear set for the final drive that would provide this as an option. Or, ,maybe BRP is listening to the results of their beta testers, and there should be a different final drive ratio for the 600 vs 900 version.

I agree 100%. When I am on the highway lower rpm and better fuel economy is what I am after. In the twisties I am not concerned with fuel economy. As Tselebull has said the bike could handle both easily. Fuel economy of the Ryker is what has put me off somewhat so far as I want it as a regular ryder pre and post retirement. If I twist the throttle all too much then I expect fuel economy to drop but if just cruising around I would like it to be good and the engine not revving its heart out.

Hopefully a test ride in the next couple of weeks will indicate when and which way (Ryker/FS s) I should jump.

 

[Michaelscs]

The efficiency & function of CVT clutches is based on the gear ratio of the final drive. A change in gear ratio will probably not allow clutches to shift out properly or at all. The gear change would require clutch changes, such as weights, springs & helix. CVT clutches found in snowmobiles, atv's and the Ryker need RPM to function properly. A 30% RPM reduction would turn the Ryker into a dog. I'm not saying the Ryker couldn't be geared and clutched to somewhat lower RPM, but I doubt that a significant enough change could be made to greatly effect gas mileage. BRP, Polaris and similar companies have a great deal of knowledge and experience with CVT transmissions and I'm sure they've done a great deal of testing to find the best compromise between economy and performance.

I would suggest the best way to increase economy and loss of traction is the Eco mode and throttle control.

 

[Tslepebull]

I agree that BRP has great engineers and I do not claim to have any engineering training. That being said the 600 and 900 versions use the same final drive gears (according to BRP part numbers). This suggests to me that the additional torque of the 900 engine could allow adequate performance with lower RPM at speed and the advantage of better fuel mileage. When I contacted BRP prior to purchase and asked about the design goals for MPG at 70 MPH they proposed 39-47 MPG (6 to 5 L/100 km) according to engine size, load, and temperature. I would be very satisfied with 39 MPG as it would increase my maximum range per tank from the current 150 miles to 200 miles. That is with a measured hand and in eco mode.

 

[Ryker2112]

Not sure that anyone would "upgrade" to the 900 with higher displacement for better fuel economy.

Personally, I wrote off the 600 because I want more fun when solo and to ensure enough torque for 2-up riding to be enjoyable.

To be honest, I hadn't even thought about fuel economy as part of the equation, if cost of ownership were part of the equation, I probably wouldn't be considering at Ryker at all and would focus on a touring machine.

This feels like the little sports car of the 3 wheeled world, far more about feeling and emotion than sensibility.

 

[ARtraveler]

RE: Fuel Economy

Most of us have not even considered fuel economy as a part of the buy/not buy equations. When we are talking $30K for the Spyders (off topic), it was not even a consideration. I am sure the same statement can be made for the Rykers. Let's have some fun... Who cares what the mileage is? :roflblack:

 

[Sarge707]

I,m getting 32 after 430 miles BUT that means nothing to me because I got the F3 that can get 36-37 with no problem. I Love the Ryker for the hooligan factor But I really think young couples buying a bike would be better of with a Great Bargain on a low mileage F3 because the Ryker is more taxing and tiring to drive long distances Just because it IS so intense with the road it makes you keep paying attention. I took the Ryker and F3 on the Same exact 75 mile backroads trip last week and they both excel BUT they both do in a different way. I have come to love the 6 speed manual (With Vacuum assist) on the F3 because it makes me work Real hard to be as Quick thru corners as the Ryker. BUT I feel more secure pushing the F3 and Its Much More pleasant on the highway. I guess I gotta keep them both ?

 

[Cornholio]

I literally never thought about fuel economy when buying. Are you all really concerned about fuel economy for a toy? Even if you are 30MPG is not too bad

 

[cueman]

I'm concerned about fun! Your mpg is good to know when out and about, plus it gives us something to talk about for the people in the bad weather areas. :chat: cueman

 

[glennm]

At $6 a US gallon it is probably more in the front of my mind.
A test ride will hopefully push it into the "doesn't matter" category.
I expected (incorrectly as it turns out) with all the improvements in motor vehicle emmissions and economy that modern bikes would also have come a long way. Just didn't expect it to use more than my wife's turbo Juke and that too has fun factor.
Went for a couple of test rides on two wheelers in the past fortnight and really keen to get back out there.

 

[chris56]

I got my (900 std) last week, made a (too) short test for a serious statement , I have the FOX on the back and still the original shocks on the front, she was hopping around like a "dancing queen", too cold to find the right adjustments for the shocks.. but I also felt that the RPMs are much higher on the same Speed than on my Spyders ..
I changed my back-tire to the Toyo (cannot find "normal" tires for the front 1) - I think the difference of the MPGs of the Rally and the 900 Std could be 5-10% because of the different tires .. I also use a larger wind-shield on mine, maybe this changes also the MGS a little ..now waiting for warmer temperatures here in Austria !!

 

[blacklightning]

The best milage that I have been able to get on any of my spyders was approx. 42 on my 2014 RT. My current F3T gets about 36 mpg and I am happy with that. But this is coming from someone who had a build 440 in his 73 road runner. That thing was getting a good 6 mpg on premium fuel, mixed with racing fuel. 106 was the best fuel, but a good 100 octane would work nicely as well. That was a load of fun.

 

[ca8920]

Good Plan.... Keeping Both..... :doorag::spyder2:

 

[glennm]

The best milage that I have been able to get on any of my spyders was approx. 42 on my 2014 RT. My current F3T gets about 36 mpg and I am happy with that. But this is coming from someone who had a build 440 in his 73 road runner. That thing was getting a good 6 mpg on premium fuel, mixed with racing fuel. 106 was the best fuel, but a good 100 octane would work nicely as well. That was a load of fun.

42 equates to about 50mpg (imperial) for us and that is where I expected the Ryker to be. Under 40 I am not so fussed about. Getting 40 to 50 out of an F3/RT is very heartening as with the bigger tank means a longer range than the Ryker. Booked in to ride the 600 this Friday as there apparently are no 900s available as demos. Going to try a F3 and maybe RT as well. This may end up being my only transport in a couple of years so want to be comfortable I made the right decision. Of course any Spyder/Ryker is the right decision!

 

[hiebie]

I figure mine in smiles per mile.

 

[glennm]

I figure mine in smiles per mile.

Yep I think that will be the overriding factor once I get a ride!