 |
Today, on the way to work, the cheapest 87 octane gas I saw was $3.31 per gallon. Six weeks ago, I saw the same (but at a different station) for only $2.69, $0.62 per gallon cheaper. That's a 23% increase. Ouch. Conversely, over the years, motorcycle fuel economy has been dropping, in spite of the now widespread use of electronic fuel injection. What's the deal?
One is that cruisers, unlike sportbikes, have been packing on the poundage. The heavier a vehicle is, the more energy is needed to accelerate it up to speed. That's just basic physics. Which begs the question, "Why aren't the manufacturers making lighter bikes?" How about aluminum frames? (Yes, a few Star models have them.) Fewer bolted-on chrome pieces? Plastic bodywork, fenders and tanks?
All of those ideas are too expensive? Are you telling me it costs more to make a lower tech cruiser than it does to make the flavor-of-the-month high-zoot sportbike that is nothing but lightweight parts?
The second, and perhaps the greatest culprit, is that like fast-food, we Americans have insisted on super-sizing our cruisers. Once upon a time, a 900cc cruiser was big. These days, that doesn't even qualify as a middle-weight! 2.3 liter engines? There are lots of cars that don't have engines that big!
With the sharp rise in the price of gas over the last couple years, more and more people are looking at motorcycles as a more viable means of transportation, at least for their daily commute. But what's the incentive when one can get the same kind of mileage out of an econo-box? Plus, the econo-box can carry 3 passengers plus luggage. Sure, it's not as fun or as sexy, but you don't need to put on a whole weird set of clothes to drive it, either.
Now I've got spilchis in my genektagazoint. I'm all verklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.
|
Share This
|
|
|