Which would you prefer?

[stewgnu]

20% more hp...

Or

20% more mpg...

 

(Say All else remaining as is)

[docc]

power, please

[Scud]

I'd take the 20% better fuel economy. Reasons?

 

1: for extra range on long rides. (That would be about 30 extra miles between fill-ups on my V11)

2: save a bit of money

3: my bikes have plenty of power already

[docc]

See? See there? I knew the *voice of reason* would soon prevail . . .

[Chuck]

I've never heard anyone say, "That would be a nice motorcycle if it only had a little less power.."

[footgoose]

20% less weight. oops, sorry.... more power please

[Scud]

But Stew says we don't have to give up any power to get 20% more MPG. I'm ready to send in my money for whatever Stew's new product is. But probably some oil company will buy the invention and hide it so they can sell more oil. It's all a big conspiracy man... 

 

...debunked though:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nobodys-fuel/

 

^ the 200 mpg carburetor story.

[stewgnu]

It’s an odd thing- new machine releases usually focus on power output over economy. Is that cos we’re nearer the limits of engineering with fuel economy? There always seems to be a bit more hp to be squeezed out of new models. Maybe it’s just that power is sexy baby and high hp figures allow proud sausage-swingin?

[68C]

My car gives better mileage than my V11. Of course my car was designed by computer to have little wind resistance, where of course I am not so blessed.

[Bill Hagan]

Get both with an ebike?  

 

Sigh.  

 

Bill

[Cabernet]

I've never heard anyone say, "That would be a nice motorcycle if it only had a little less power.."

 

Err, Marc Marquez.

[JBBenson]

I'll take better fuel economy. I was going to say "more HP" but I am of the school that it is more fun to drive a slow bike fast, than a fast bike slow. Same goes for  cars.

 

I recently drove a McLaren on one of those track day events. It was fun, and the car itself was impressive, but it all boiled down to point-and-hammer-throttle, point-and-hammer-throttle. There wasn't much finesse or skill needed, no perfect line to find and follow: the massive horsepower and grip made up for any deficiencies on my part.

 

What I was thinking the whole time was, how fun would it be to take my old BMW 318Ti onto this same track to "she what she'll do" with her 1.8L chipped engine and 5 speed, winding her out, keeping her on the boil, and picking that perfect line to keep the speed up through the curves. That sounded fun.

 

Yeah, and those paddle shifters on the McLaren? I don't get it, sorry. Lame.

[LowRyter]

No one rides a motorcycle for economy- cough-cough  -tire bill.

 

More power.  Always.

[czakky]

Depends on the machine. I say 50hp is more than enough for me on the streets. I’m rarely (never) throttle pinned on a tight turn on the Guzzi. Yet it’s mostly unpractical nature makes me want more. A more practical machine like a FJR or something could do with better mpg.

 

All in all motorcycles are not practical therefore, POWER!

[PJPR01]

Would 20% more power or 20% more mpg result in 20% more fun?  Whichever does that...I'm for it.  All the Guzzis I'm riding have plenty of power and get very decent mileage and are loads of fun, but one can never have too much fun.  Mileage is just an economic impact for the most part (other than fueling intervals), power usage depends on the roads ridden, so I vote for more fun!

 

So what's the magic gadget that will yield one or the other?  Inquiring minds want to know...