Aufgeblassen47
New member
I get only 33 with 1 up.
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
WHY Does The Ryker Get such POOR MPG???
- Thread starter Aufgeblassen47
- Start date
I get only 33 with 1 up.
Raknid
Member
You are correct, but it is not just about frontal cross section. How cleanly the object moves through an airmass is impactful too. For a motorcycle or three wheeler - with a rider perched on it - that is not a smooth service at the frontal, midsection or tail. So the surrounding airmass is very disrupted and flows are not smooth - and the rider and bike do not move through in a slippery fashion. Many jagged shapes and voids.
Jsmith8695
Member
I just filled up again yesterday. Again all rides are 2 up in ECO mode. 116 miles and 3.2 gallons = 36.2 mpg. I am a conservative driver most of the time. With my wife as passenger I am very conservative.
bikerbillone
Well-known member
Is the Ryker reasonably comfortable for your wife?
The one main factor for not very good mileage with the Ryker
and the Spyders is the Rotax engine.
It develops it max horse power at high rpm and that is where
it runs best and gets it best mileage. Lugging this engine
at low rpm and the mileage will suffer even more.
The Rotax and the auto trans in the Ryker were made for each other.
Even though its not the most fuel efficient engine it is a proven
bullet proof design for its small size that will take a beating.
and the Spyders is the Rotax engine.
It develops it max horse power at high rpm and that is where
it runs best and gets it best mileage. Lugging this engine
at low rpm and the mileage will suffer even more.
The Rotax and the auto trans in the Ryker were made for each other.
Even though its not the most fuel efficient engine it is a proven
bullet proof design for its small size that will take a beating.
Aufgeblassen47
New member
Only time will tell if this notion is indeed correct. :shocked:
Highwayman2013
New member
It's a CVT, twist the throttle and go. No shifting.
He may have been talking about the similar motors used in the snow machine and ATVs. They seem to be able to take a licking and keep on ticking. cueman
Hardly a notion, the Rotax engine has been around since the 1920's.
Used in autos, aircraft, quads, snowmobiles, motorcycles, you name it.
One tough little engine that like to rev and work hard.
Aufgeblassen47
New member
But they run at rediculously high RPMs at any speed!!! :yikes:
Hey guys - Since CVT drives are new to a lot of bike riders, here's a fairly descriptive video on a CVT drive.
While this differs from the BRP clutch, it shows the same working principles. While these clutches are simple in operation, on motorcycles they have always been prone to problems. Unlike a gear box transmission, the CVT drive require maintenance on a mileage schedule.
Enjoy- Mike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWqlfDZnmQ
While this differs from the BRP clutch, it shows the same working principles. While these clutches are simple in operation, on motorcycles they have always been prone to problems. Unlike a gear box transmission, the CVT drive require maintenance on a mileage schedule.
Enjoy- Mike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWqlfDZnmQ
Tslepebull
Active member
I admit that I was surprised to find out BRP used the same final drive ratio on the 600 and 900 CC models. On all of my other shaft-drive bikes (BMW) the smaller motor models used a higher final drive ratio (higher RPM at a given speed) than the same model with the larger motors. The ROTAX engine produces a relatively flat torque curve and would operate more fuel efficiently at 1,500 RPM's lower at highway speed.
Rob Rodriguez
New member
I have been riding snowmobiles with the same clutch(es) found on the Ryker for about 30 yrs. They have been trouble free, dare I say bullet proof under some very harsh weather and riding conditions. Only maintenance required is a belt change and quick cleaning. That can be done in 5 minutes on a sled. It will take a bit longer on a Ryker because of housing covering that area. This type of CVT drive system has been used since the 60's that I know of on all types of recreational vehicles. My experience started in the 80's with them. Sleds, quads, sxs, etc from a number of manufactures, not just BRP use this set-up in outside air temperatures from -40 to over 100 degrees on vehicles that travel through, water, mud, dirt, snow, ice. It's very rare users of these vehicles say, I blew my clutch. The entire clutch system has very few parts and even fewer moving parts. They are used in the powersports business specifically because they are known to be reliable, effective, easy to service and cheap. I think they have proven their reliability over the years.
I agree, the clutch system is nearly bulletproof.
They take much more abuse in an off-road machine than it will ever see in the Ryker.
Jsmith8695
Member
My wife reports being comfortable on the rear seat. We have the passenger comfort seat with the high folding backrest.
My wife absolutely hates it with the same seat and backrest. I will admit the Ryker seems a little tippy riding 2 up
