Iron age machines - do bikes remain old tech for too long?

Does technology, in materials and electronic gubbins, seem to move at a fast pace in the world of four wheels or is it just me? Are there any production bikes using carbon fibre in load bearing areas? What about rear wheel steering, could be handy for those car park moments or making u-turns less of a chore. Is it just a matter of cost keeping these type of features from mainstream bikes or maybe technology being reigned in for matters of rider safety? I want a carbon framed bike with active rear wheel steer and a nice supercharged rotary engine, is it too much to give me what I want. dammit!

bikes are very quick and very powerfull as they are we dont need everthing to be carbon, it would cost too much make bikes too fast, who wants a 250mph bike for road use, you would probally die, and it would just be wasted money.

A 650cc modern engine hauling 169kg (?) of bike should be capable of returning.......80+MPG! its insane, most modern cars get better mileage despite all the extra weight and wind resistance...

Originally Posted by skidmarx

A 650cc modern engine hauling 169kg (?) of bike should be capable of returning.......80+MPG! its insane, most modern cars get better mileage despite all the extra weight and wind resistance...

Yep, it was hard to justify the bike on grounds of economy, when our car does similar mpg.

Looking at it the other way though, what mpg would you get from a car that could do 0-60 in just over 3.5 secs

That's a good point skidmarx, I hadn't even considered the very average fuel economy of most bikes. Got a Punto, engine basics date back to the '70's, and despite weighing about 6 times the SV's kerb poundage it'll easily give 40mpg+ week in week out in mixed driving. Why is it then that the SV doesn't return say 70mpg+ in the same conditions, can someone with tech savvy explain that?
Well svpilot if you want speed with economy in the car world you could get a Caterham or some such contraption. Their current CSR200 model does 0-60 in 3.7 and about 30mpg. Not too far from the SV which is a third the weight.
Is it aerodynamics that affect bike consumption, I now they'll have a low frontal area, buts is the overall drag coefficient still high?

[northwind]

If you buy a sporty vehicle, you've really got to expect sporty "economy". You wouldn't buy a Ferrari for a runabout... If you want an economic bike, consider a C90...

It'd be easily within the capacity of the big 4 to make very economic bikes, but the sad fact is economy doesn't sell in this market. Say Honda come out with the next version of the VFR, it's down 30bhp but gives longer service intervals and knocks on 100mpg (no idea if that's plausible but for the sake of argument). Imagine the response... "It's slower than last year's!" "Less powerful than bikes from the 80s!"

There's a name for an efficient, comfortable, practical bike... It's a car. Kwak's diesel trailie's been homologated for road use and ready to go for about 2 years, but they've only launched it for special order and armed forces, because they just don't think the demand's there.

[embee]

What the others say is about it, really.

As far as economy goes, the unavoidable facts are that open wheeled unfaired (and small sports bike fairings don't count) motorcycles with an exposed rider have abysmal drag coefficients, such that at open road speeds the total aerodynamic drag will be getting on for the same value as a small efficient hatchback car. A good car design will be in the Cd=0.3 ballpark, a basic bike will be nearer Cd=1.

Petrol engine economy only really comes with running at medium loads and engine speeds, the sort of conditions you get from a small hatch at 40 or 50mph in top gear.

Bikes are typically over-engined and under-geared so aren't an economy set-up, and run at very light loads/highish revs. This gives very good roll-on acceleration in top gear (compare that to a small hatch), but with the right size engine and gearing you could probably improve economy by 50% quite easily.....but that wouldn't sell much. A small diesel bike would be ideal for economy but modern diesel technology comes expensive.

Technology has improved significantly for bikes (fuel injection/catalysts, ABS, alloy frame stuff, radial tyres etc) but it'll always follow car stuff due to the scale of the industries and the economics/margins, but also the marketing startegies.

A lot of car technology is actually regulation driven, for example emission control originally starting back in the 1970s in the USA. Every time the EPA or CARB set new standards for emissions/economy, the manufacturers moaned about it but managed to comply. The bodies setting the regs are very clued up folk, and only set what they know the makers can actually achieve. The attitudes have changed in the last 10yrs or so such that quite a lot of technology is driven by the manufacturers now, because the markets have changed and buyers will pay for safety, economy, low emissions etc.

Originally Posted by XVS2005

bikes are very quick and very powerfull as they are we dont need everthing to be carbon, it would cost too much make bikes too fast, who wants a 250mph bike for road use, you would probally die, and it would just be wasted money.

EH???? Speak for yourself i want a 250mph bike please my busa is just soooooooo slow!

it has always seemed to me that bike have much more basic technolgy than our 4 wheeled counterparts, just look at the diffrence between the injection systems on a modern car and those of a modern bike

if anyone reads two there is an intersting article on why bikes have such poor fuel consuption

and lets not forget the humbel scooters which can apparently return 100mpg if riddern sensibley, even the pizzahut ones which are not high tech and have a huge square box on the back still were getting 60-70 miles from 5 litres and they were thrashed all the time! far enough they awful for the enviroment though thanks to the 2 smoke

Originally Posted by skidmarx

A 650cc modern engine hauling 169kg (?) of bike should be capable of returning.......80+MPG! its insane, most modern cars get better mileage despite all the extra weight and wind resistance...

You really think you on your bike with fuel, oil, air in the tyres, coolant and everything weighs 169kg? Also, I read somewhere that an R1 has the same drag coefficient as a Transit van, not too sure how true that is tbh.