Announcement

**Anonymous** · 06-09-2004, 04:25 AM

I don't know about the windjammer, but when I installed a windshield on my 450 the fuel economy went from 52.5 to 45 mpg. Down 7%. Also, the difference between running at 60 mph and 75 mph is a 20% loss in fuel economy. Wind drag sure adds up fast!

Michael

**scotty** · 06-09-2004, 09:32 AM

Im wondering if it was not the older style windjammer that spreads out like a sail. I'm not disagreeing with nything but just thinking out loud.

My kz1300 has a large fairing and lowers but the design seems a bit more modern in that it is narrower. I took the monster for a run on a straigt flat road. i covered 100 miles((at an almost steady 62-65 mph)) after topping off the tank when starting and refilled it at the same station and pump. I calculated 57 mpg. Takeing into consideration that i may not have been exact in my topping off i would suspect thet the true results were around 50mpg.
I never expected such mpg from such a large bike and attributed it to the fairing. Now these comments seem to tell that the fairings do not improve the gas mileage.
It is an extremely interesting topic.

**Anonymous** · 06-09-2004, 01:56 PM

Windjammer & Economy

Hi Chaps, thanks for the relies. The Windjammer IV is around 1979 vintage or may be a little later, I'm not sure. Seen the same fairing on early Goldwings too. I have a picture but cannot work out how to upload it, it is a little different to my local Suzuki website.

Ahh, just read the FAQ regards images. I have nowhere to link to so sorry I can't show you a picture.

Ken

**Anonymous** · 06-09-2004, 02:02 PM

you will definitely lose some mpg but just think how comfortable you will be! 8)

**lartross** · 06-09-2004, 08:14 PM

I think I've read a windshield of fairing actually improves you gas mileage because of improved air flow around you and the bike, in most cases. Course, my memory isn't what it used to be and it wasn't all that good then.

**Anonymous** · 06-09-2004, 11:06 PM

I've got an old ugly universal fairing I used to use on my 650.I know my mpg was about 100 with it and it's a little over 80 without it.I also noticed my rpm's were lower with it.I just wish it wasn't so ugly.It's a thin black pvc thing that just runs flat down the forks and screwes to the holes the reflectors went in.Sticks out about 6 or 8 inches on each side and goes up to hand shields and windscreen.It has 2 round rods that fasten it to the handlebars from the windscreen part.Anyway,by looking at this flat,huge thing.I would never guess it would actually help the aerodynamics.I guess anything is more aerodynamic than my fat @$$.

**bgmart450** · 06-10-2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by ElKaBong

I've got an old ugly universal fairing I used to use on my 650.I know my mpg was about 100 with it and it's a little over 80 without it.I also noticed my rpm's were lower with it.I just wish it wasn't so ugly.It's a thin black pvc thing that just runs flat down the forks and screwes to the holes the reflectors went in.Sticks out about 6 or 8 inches on each side and goes up to hand shields and windscreen.It has 2 round rods that fasten it to the handlebars from the windscreen part.Anyway,by looking at this flat,huge thing.I would never guess it would actually help the aerodynamics.I guess anything is more aerodynamic than my fat @$$.

100 mpg or per tank?!?
I thought I was doing ok at 40 mpg....

**fastpakr** · 06-10-2004, 02:38 PM

80-100mpg doesn't concern me nearly as much as the statement that revs went down, which is physically impossible.

**SqDancerLynn1** · 06-10-2004, 02:40 PM

The rear bags & top box in GOOD condition go anywhere from $100-300
The Suzuki specific brackets will be hard to find? You may have to modify an existing set to fit your bike

**Anonymous** · 06-10-2004, 04:42 PM

hehe,mpg!hehe sorry.That was suppost to be tank.
fastpakr,Would that indicate something is wrong with my bike if rpm's went down a couple hundred with the fairing?This bike sat for 10 years and it's only been back on the road for the last few months.I think it is running very good.Or could it be the fairing was against the tach cable and not letting it work propperly?

**Anonymous** · 06-10-2004, 05:34 PM

Thanks for the replies guys regarding the Windjammer. At the moment my GS850 without fairing and riding two up total load approx 440lb returns 140 miles at 70 - 80 mph from absolutely full to going onto reserve.I have never run it totally out of reserve. I guess maybe 170 per tank full of 4.9 imp gal. Sorry, I can't relate that to US gals as unsure how to convert.
When I get the tank and panels back from the paint shop I will be able to test it out with the Windjammer on and see if there is any difference.
Thanks again...

Ken

**Anonymous** · 06-10-2004, 08:48 PM

Would that indicate something is wrong with my bike if rpm's went down a couple hundred with the fairing?

With a manual transmission, and assuming that the tires and gear ratios have not changed, and the clutch is not slipping, it is impossible to have the rpms change for any particular speed under different loads (in the same gear). Not saying the tach didn't indicate it, just saying the rpms would have been the same.

**Anonymous** · 06-11-2004, 07:36 AM

I put a National Cycle touring screen on my 81 GS1000G and fuel consumption improved from 16 kms/ltr naked to 20 kms/ltr screened.

It was model F15 I think and leans back at a sporty looking angle but gives good body coverage. Considering it cost $150 it will have paid for itself in fuel when I've spent $600 into the tank. That means about 30 fills.

It must be a very wide and upright screen that will increase fuel consumption over the windage around the rider's body.

Kim

**Planecrazy** · 06-14-2004, 11:26 AM

Unfortunately my Odometer fails to register mileage properly, although oddly enough the speedo still appears to display proper speed.

On the Spring Midwest Rally trip this weekend my total accumulated miles seemed down consistently by about a third over everyone elses, even though when they said we were going 70mph that's what the needle showed on my dial too ... broken odometer gear maybe?

Anyway, having said that, I have a Windjammer V on my 1100G, and using someone else's mileage I obtained between 40 and 43 mpg per leg. Don't know what the bike was doing prior to installation of the Vetter, but I'm satisfied with the mpg I'm getting, and suspect that it probably went down a little. The upright windshield on this fairing is generating more resistance than I think I did (I'm an average sized guy).

By the way, I also have Vetter hardbags mounted in the rear, so I'm probably catching air with them as well...

Regards,
Steve 8)

Announcement

Windjammer & Economy?

Windjammer & Economy?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment