Fuel Mileage

My wife and I took our new-to-us '02 scoots on a 156 mile ride this past weekend, most of it freeway riding, but about 35 miles of two-lane roads. Running at 70 mph indicated on the speedo, the GPS says 68mph. We measured the distance with GPS - the odometer on our bikes is also just a bit optimistic and said 160.6 miles for a real distance of 156.1 miles.

We filled up after our ride and calculated fuel mileage using the GPS distance. My bike got 49.9 mpg and my wife's got 50.5 mpg. She only weighs 135 lbs and I weigh 190, so she always seems to get a bit better fuel mileage on a bike than I do.

I've seen some folks claim getting fuel mileage in the 60's mpg. I'd think you'd have to ride pretty conservative to get that?

I have one fill so far. My bike is brand new. I did 149.8 odometer miles on 2.85 gallons which gives roughly 52 1/3 mpg. That was approximately 90% surface streets, 9.5% frontage roads and 0.5% interstate. I take off fast enough to stay with the front vehicles from traffic lights but not too heavy on the throttle. I weigh about 240. I'm hoping for at least a little boost once it's broken in but I'm happy with it as is if that's all there is.

Yeah, I would suspect our bikes would get into the mid-50's too if we weren't pushing big wind on the freeway like we did on our "shakedown" ride. We were very pleased with the bikes on the freeway, though. They handle crosswinds and turbulence from trucks really good. And we don't really ride all that conservative. We have always tended to run a few mph faster than the traffic so we can deal with what's in front of us and not in back. And we give heavy trucks a wide leeway - when we come up on one we have learned over time to hammer on the throttle and zip around it to get out of the turbulence zone and back into "clean" air, sometimes hitting ~80 mph on the pass.

We're going to do a 55 mph two-lane ride this coming weekend and check mileage again. Kind of nice to know what the range is under varying conditions. We have ridden in the past on weekends on US 2 from Superior, WI to West Glacier, MT and the gas stations aren't always open in those small towns on weekends. So you hit one and find the place locked up and it's 60 miles to the next one, you look at your fuel burn and go, "this is gonna be close......"

I got 55 on weekend trip. but then we have a bigger gallon than you ? and that was at 110 kph .

I never get less than 60mpg more often than not i get 64mpg. Unlike North America our gallons are a little more. Most of our roads are now down to 50-60 mph, on Motorways(freeways it is 70mph). The penalties for speeding can live with you (insurance wise for 5years). I choose to keep to the posted limits. I cruise most places, usually at 55mph,i'm out to enjoy my riding, and hope to do so for a lot longer yet. I find the one's that shoot past me breaking the speed limits, are usually caught up to at the next junction so , that's up to them.  

Chris Olson wrote:

I've seen some folks claim getting fuel mileage in the 60's mpg.  I'd think you'd have to ride pretty conservative to get that?

From what I've read on this forum, the newer (08's and up) get better mileage. It's all about the fun in my opinion.

Hi Yo wrote:

 From what I've read on this forum, the newer (08's and up) get better mileage. It's all about the fun in my opinion.

I wonder why that would be? The engines are the same - same compression ratio as far as I know. Same cams. Same fuel injection system. Same CVT I think. Same final drive ratio. Very few changes to the bike that I know of - they changed the fairing compartment doors at some point.

If the newer bikes do get better mileage, then as far as I can tell it could only be the fuel map for the injection being different?

I have a sneaking feeling that Honda did a few upgrades on the engine around that time without broadcasting it to the world.

MikeO wrote:

I have a sneaking feeling that Honda did a few upgrades on the engine around that time without broadcasting it to the world.

That should be able to be detected by changes in part numbers for engine components for the later years. Even if they changed something not immediately evident like valve or port angles in the cylinder head, it would require a new part number for the improved part, and probably a superceded part number for the earlier model years if the later part can work on them.

There's actually only a couple things that can increase thermal efficiency of an engine design to get better fuel economy from it. There's lot of things that can change volumetric efficiency to get more power. But more power usually equates to lower fuel economy unless you change the basic design for thermal efficiency.

I'm totally not mechanical but at what point did the oxygen sensor show up? Wasn't the '08 or '09? Would that have an effect?

Chris, I'm not engineer and accept gratefully your explanation.

The Parts Numbers business is interesting: it seems that Piaggio merely transferred the part number to the new/replacement part when upgrading so effectively no-one noticed the difference.
I wonder if Honda did the same.

LDB wrote:

I'm totally not mechanical but at what point did the oxygen sensor show up? Wasn't the '08 or '09? Would that have an effect?

The O2 sensor itself wouldn't.  But if they put a catalytic converter in the newer models and changed the fuel map to meet EPA (in the US), it might.

Didn't know they put an O2 sensor on the later ones.  But an O2 sensor is only really needed for a catalytic converter to make sure there is enough oxygen being admitted to it so it can burn any HC's that escape in the exhaust without overheating the cat.  The engine's ECU varies the air/fuel ratio accordingly, using the signal from the O2 sensor.

So, do the later bikes have a catalytic converter too?

Edit:
I just looked my '02 over in detail. It's a really simple injection system. All it has is a cam sensor for crank angle info, engine coolant temp, rpm, throttle position and a combination MAP/intake air temp sensor. The injector drive signal is constant and the ECU grounds the injector to fire it. It's a very, very basic injection system with a pre-programmed fuel map. It does no adjustment for air/fuel ratio to optimize fuel economy, other than varying for manifold pressure and air temp.

If the later bikes have O2 sensor with closed loop feedback to the ECU, then it would make sense they would get better fuel economy with no mechanical changes to the engine at all. The O2 sensor indirectly monitors air/fuel ratio, making more precise control of the injection event possible than is possible with the system I have in my '02.

Quite interesting, actually. The type of injection system on my bike can be "fooled" into running lean by burning gas with 10% ethanol in it. The bikes with o2 sensor can't be "fooled" that way, as it will pick up high oxygen content in the exhaust and richen the mixture to compensate for it. Therefore, I would suspect that with the newer bikes with O2 sensor, you SHOULD see some improvement in fuel mileage if you burn gas with no ethanol in it (if you can get it). On my bike it wouldn't make any difference.

Fuel Mileage----based on 2 new SilverWings and lots of miles......SilverWing (US miles/gallons) is 50 mpg machine overall-----based on 2 new Burgman 400's---they can and do 60 mpg on long trips.


Of course throttle hand has something to do with it-----down/tailwind I have seen 56 mpg or so with SilverWing. I have resigned myself to the truth...it is 50mpg machine on reg.

I buy only cheapest gas....but when I am in Chattanooga buy the corn free kind----notice little difference in gas mileage.

My understanding is the 2012 has a CC and therefore an O2 sensor. I've been thinking about a Leo Vince exhaust. It drops the CC but has a fitting for the O2 sensor so there's no alarms or warnings. I'm not sure what, if anything, it will do to the mileage. I bought the bike sort of planning for and definitely hoping for 50mpg average. Based on my first fill I think it's feasible.

If you use lighter weights in your variator, you could be using more fuel every time you start from a stop. The lighter weights require a higher rpm to engage the belt which engages the clutch. I noticed a drop of 3 mpg when I went from 28gr rollers to 24gr Dr Pulley sliders. That is my thoughts.

My incredibly limited knowledge of operation is that the lighter weight rollers are to boost acceleration. I don't need to do that to suit my driving style or preferences. My goals are mpg and reliability.

LDB wrote:

My incredibly limited knowledge of operation is that the lighter weight rollers are to boost acceleration. I don't need to do that to suit my driving style or preferences. My goals are mpg and reliability.

Have you checked if you have rollers or sliders. And what weights are they?

No, I haven't checked anything. It's a brand new 2012 so whatever came stock is what's in there.

The Silver Wing has plenty of power and acceleration. I don't know why anybody would want to put in lighter rollers or sliders - unless you're into stoplight drags and getting consistently beat. I can see where heavier than stock might be beneficial for a touring machine (possibly). But at the same time I don't think the Swing's engine likes to run much below 4,000 rpm. Reducing rpm at cruising speed requires increased throttle opening to make the same power. Increased throttle opening causes increased cylinder pressure, which in turn increases load on piston skirts, bore walls, rods and bearings.

SAE HP = torque x rpm / 5252

It takes a baseline amount of hp to move your Swing down the road at cruise speed. If you reduce rpm at that cruise speed you have to increase torque to maintain the same speed. I suspect the Swing's engine realizes its best life and least load on its components at 4,500-5,500 rpm,

Chris Olson wrote:

 I don't know why anybody would want to put in lighter rollers or sliders - unless you're into stoplight drags and getting consistently beat.  I can see where heavier than stock might be beneficial for a touring machine (possibly).  But at the same time I don't think the Swing's engine likes to run much below 4,000 rpm.  Reducing rpm at cruising speed requires increased throttle opening to make the same power.  Increased throttle opening causes increased cylinder pressure, which in turn increases load on piston skirts, bore walls, rods and bearings.

SAE HP = torque x rpm / 5252

It takes a baseline amount of hp to move your Swing down the road at cruise speed.  If you reduce rpm at that cruise speed you have to increase torque to maintain the same speed.  I suspect the Swing's engine realizes its best life and least load on its components at 4,500-5,500 rpm,

Many of us have replaced the stock rollers with aftermarket sliders for 2 reasons. The first is vibration reduction. I have seen some Silverwings that had ridiculous vibration and belt slap caused by premature full front variator engagement. The rollers cause the sheaves to push together too early, forcing the drive belt to the outer edge of the sheaves, lowering engine rpm and increasing the engine's load on acceleration. Just watching the tach on low speed acceleration shows the engine holding at under 3k rpm while the variator "hooks up". Sliders delay the variator hookup, allowing the engine rpm to climb upwards of 4k while accelerating, depending on the slider weights. This puts the engine much closer to its torque peak, which is 5k rpm. Driving a stock Silverwing and one with 24gr sliders is like night and day. Fuel consumption increase is negligible ( one forum member apparently lost 3 mpg), as the engine isn't being loaded down trying to accelerate, and it is so much smoother. I would gladly trade off a 3 mpg loss for no vibration, much better acceleration, and less stress on the engine. Your last sentence hits the nail on the head for describing why one would replace the stock rollers with lighter sliders.

Bigbird,

I have stock rollers and 8900km on my Wing. It seems to me that the vibration is worse when the engine is warm, say after riding a while.
Is there a reason for this?

after reading all the issues with aftermarket exhaust and clutch weights and windshields. think I will leave the 05 SW stock. only has 865 kms. not even broke in compared to the 375,000 miles I put on the 1500 Gold Wing.

Ken VB wrote:

after reading all the issues with aftermarket exhaust and clutch weights and windshields.  think I will leave the 05 SW stock. only has 865 kms.  not even broke in compared to the 375,000 miles I put on the 1500 Gold Wing.

Like you, Ken, I'm totally happy with my bike stock. Both of our bikes here have stock rollers in the variators and neither one exhibits a problem with premature "shift up" or full engagement. There is some vibration on initial acceleration - BUT the bike has a parallel twin, and not a four or six cylinder engine. The nature of the power delivery of a twin is not as smooth as 4's and 6's.

I wonder if anybody ever developed a curve or graph of the proper ratio change in the CVT vs rpm, from clutch engagement to full variator engagement?

It all comes down to preference. One group likes the stock setup and lives with stock. Another group likes the stock setup and feels some customising makes it even better. Not that either one is right or wrong, they are both doing what's right for themselves.   

I like stock Hondas. I am not very mechanical. I am satisfied with the acceleration and cruise of the Swing. I recently rode through three tanks of gas, much of it hiway miles at 55 - 65 mph. I averaged 54 mpg on 87 octane. Good roads, few hills, generally light traffic and clear weather. I am impressed with the very small vibration in the bars or the mirrors. At 75 plus there is no mirror vibration. Darned good I would offer, esp. for a twin.

We went on a little 160 mile breakfast ride this morning on our bikes - all two lane roads with some starting and stopping at stop signs and 55 mph riding. Plus some slower riding thru some small countryside towns. On fillup, again my wife beat me by a little bit, although it's hard to fill the tank exact each time. Mine figured out to 52.6 mpg and my wife got 53.1 mpg.

I'm pretty happy with that. And, yes, from our standpoint the Swing has plenty of acceleration power bone stock. Under what I would consider normal acceleration from a stop sign, the Swing's CVT seems to hold the rpm's at about 3,200 until the variator gets up to full engage. However, if I hammer on the throttle and accelerate quite hard, then it goes up to 4,000 - 4,200 rpm during acceleration. The torque compensation, thru the "pull" side of the belt under more power input, causes the variator to not fully engage quite as fast under harder acceleration.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with how it works at all. I suppose if you like more rpm's under lighter acceleration, then lighter rollers or sliders would suit you. But not for me.

I venture to suggest that where one lives has a great deal to do with whether or not a vehicle should be tuned or even if that vehicle is suitable for the environment in which it finds itself.

In the days of American muscle cars a few people owned them over here, in England. They were totally unsuitable here. Our roads are generally narrow and constricted in other ways. About the forthest one can drive in one direction is 600 miles. I read somewhere that in Australia people will drive that far to go to a party and come back the next day......and that's to their next-door neighbours!
Horses for courses: do you want a nice (lazy) bike which will plod on for miles on a capful of petrol or a crotch-rocket which whizzes aggressively from place to place, guzzling gas?
Simplistic perhaps but you get my drift I'm sure.

MikeO wrote:

do you want a nice (lazy) bike which will plod on for miles on a capful of petrol or a crotch-rocket which whizzes aggressively from place to place, guzzling gas?

That is one of the best ways of putting it that I've ever seen.

We had ST1100 Pan European's for many years. Honda built the ST to compete against the BMW's on the autobahn and twisties in the Swiss Alps. They imported a very limited number of them to the US every year, and really there is no place in the US you can ride them, legally, to their capability. They don't even really start to run until they get to 80 mph and 90-100 mph is a nice comfortable cruise speed.

Back when the speed limit in Montana was "reasonable and prudent" my wife and I made the run on US2 from West Glacier to the ND border in a little over 5 hours on a hot day when it was 100F in the shade. We pulled into Havre to take on fuel and a lady State Patrol in one of those Mustang cruisers pulled in behind us and got out. She told us she had followed us for about 20 miles with her foot right on the floor and we were still pulling away from her. And then her car overheated and she had to back down. We talked for a bit and turns out she was a motorcycle rider too in her off-duty hours. She left, telling us to keep it out of three digits and everything would be fine.

We're a little older now, but our "new" Swings are actually more comfortable than the ST's, and we're thoroughly enjoying the more laid back riding compared to what we used to do. We no longer feel the need to zip across the state of Montana in 5 hours.

we used to help out on the Alberta 2000 kms in 24 hr rally. we ran a stop check at Jasper park where speed limit averages 70 kph.. the two lead guys on BMWs would check zip right past us at over 100 MILES P Hr.. they ran radar for the rest of the pack. would call back when spotted police or got stopped. then the rest would slow down..ST 1100s and 1300s were part of that pack.. very fast bikes. I tryed to do it on my sons RC 51 in 2002.. my back couldnt handle the seating position after 5 hrs.the 130 mph was no big deal..but couldnt hardly walk after 5 hrs..

This is a photo of me with my ST1100 - this would've been taken at Brainerd International Raceway circa 2003 or 2004:



The Honda ST's became popular with LD Riders because of their handling, speed, 300 mile range with 25 mile reserve at a high wick setting, dead reliabilty to 150,000 miles with minimal maintenance, and they got a huge air-cooled gear driven alternator on the rear of the engine case that can easily power a full bikeload of heated clothing and gear and electronics.

The thing is, we rode 1,000 and 1,500 mile in 24 hour rallys, rode these bikes to Deadhorse, Alaska, and basically put 130,000 miles on them in 7 years. When we sold them in 2009 we were burnt out on riding. We retired from riding until we recently got our Silver Wings. We want something different now - we want to stop and smell the roses so to speak. There's an around Lake Superior in 24 hours rally coming up. We're going to leave the starting line on the Silver Wings - but we're not going to burn ourselves out again. We're going to take 5 days and see some of the things that we never got to see before because we were more intent on getting some worthless certificate instead of having fun and enjoying ourselves.

I was hoping my wife could ride with me on the SW.but she has arthritis bad and cant get on the back. that was why I bought the GW Trike. oh well. guess Im going to solo again. till I can afford a Can am Spyder with automatic.

Ken VB wrote:

I was hoping my wife could ride with me on the SW.but she has arthritis bad and cant get on the back. that was why I bought the GW Trike.  oh well.  guess Im going to solo again. till I can afford a Can am Spyder with automatic.  

Ken, I sympathize. My wife has RA and it is hard for her to get on AND off the Silver Wing. That is the reason I got the Goldwing. She still has problems but not as much. More room etc.

Chilliwing wrote:

Bigbird,

I have stock rollers and 8900km on my Wing. It seems to me that the vibration is worse when the engine is warm, say after riding a while.
Is there a reason for this?

I would think that as the engine, variator, and belt case heat up, the belt can get softer and looser, thus flopping around more.

Chris Olson wrote:

 There is some vibration on initial acceleration - BUT the bike has a parallel twin

The engine in my Silverwing 600 is the same parallel twin, with countershafts designed to reduce the inherent imbalance, as yours. Since mine has no vibration on initial acceleration, I can reasonably attribute your vibration to the drivetrain. You have rollers, I have sliders. It seems to me like you're dismissing the use of sliders in the variator. Perhaps you should try them.

bigbird wrote:

The engine in my Silverwing 600 is the same parallel twin, with countershafts designed to reduce the inherent imbalance, as yours.

No, I'm not really dismissing the use of sliders vs rollers, just that I don't need sliders. The system that's in the bike works fine for me.

As a ME at Cummins for 19 years, I don't wish to get too deeply into the topic, but I'll explain as best I can.

The "inherent" imbalance you refer to cannot be "fixed". As I'm sure you are aware, when you counterbalance an engine with piston pairs that move together (i.e. parallel twin with 360° crank) you can only counterbalance for primary or first harmonic. You can do nothing about secondary balance.

You have reciprocating, rocking, and torsional moments to deal with. When a crankshaft rotates 90° from TDC on any given cylinder the rod is at its maximum angle from bore centerline and this angle causes the rod small end to be lower than the 1/2 way point in its stroke. Because of this, the piston moves less distance in its stroke from 90 to 270° of crank rotation from TDC than it does from 270 to 90°. The mean piston speed is faster on the top half of the stroke than it is on the bottom half.

With a constant angular velocity of the crank, the inertial force of the piston mass is greater during the top half of the stroke. Because the inertial force is created not by a steady speed, but by acceleration and deceleration of mass, the strength is proportional to the square of crankshaft rotational speed, making secondary imbalance (i.e. second, tertiary, etc harmonics) speed sensitive.

You can adjust for secondary balance at one point in the engine's speed vs power curve by changing weights in the CVT. But the inherent problem with the secondary, tertiary, etc. imbalances will just be moved to a different point.

That all being said, the vibration in my bike from a dead stop on acceleration is caused by the fact that the parallel 360° twin has only one power stroke per revolution, and it has nothing to do with engine balance. With the lighter weights you are simply running the engine at a higher speed at the same point, which results in higher fuel consumption but the power pulses from the crankshaft are less noticeable. Since SAE HP = torque x rpm / 5252 you also have higher available power at the rear wheel at any given CVT reduction ratio - again at the expense of fuel economy because you cannot create power from thin air - you have to burn fuel to get it.

So this is merely a preference issue, and not something that provides inherent advantages. After spending the money on, and believing the hype, surrounding the sliders I am sure you would want to believe it is "better". But "better" is relative. For me, if I was into stoplight drags (which I'm not), then I would maybe consider modifying the CVT. But for my riding style the stock setup suits me fine.

Chris Olson wrote:

bigbird wrote:

The engine in my Silverwing 600 is the same parallel twin, with countershafts designed to reduce the inherent imbalance, as yours.

No, I'm not really dismissing the use of sliders vs rollers, just that I don't need sliders.  The system that's in the bike works fine for me.

As a ME at Cummins for 19 years, I don't wish to get too deeply into the topic, but I'll explain as best I can.

oh please enlighten us with the long version!  

hotwings wrote:

oh please enlighten us with the long version!  

Way too much math. The point is that the Swing's engine has the same balance problems as a single cylinder engine, with an advantage of having a power stroke on every revolution. The counterbalancers do not completely balance the engine - they merely cancel the rocking couple produced by a heavily counterweighted crankshaft. Its power delivery will never be as smooth as say an inline-four. The second and third harmonics will still show up as higher frequency vibration, even though the lower frequency (primary balance) vibrations can be reduced by counterbalancing.

Honda has one of the most impressive engineering departments on earth, and very little escapes them when arriving at a production design. Riding the Silver Wing, it is apparent to me that Honda's engineers arrived at a compromise of best fuel economy vs engine performance, component life and rider perception of how smooth the bike is overall. Folks like Dr. Slider do not have the engineering and R&D resources that Honda has. They can come up something like lighter slider weights in the variator that improves one aspect of the Silver Wing's performance, but at the cost of reduced performance of another aspect. So just because one person does a modification from stock and considers it the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't mean that same modification will be suitable for everybody.

Chris Olson wrote:

 Folks like Dr. Slider do not have the engineering and R&D resources that Honda has.  They can come up something like lighter slider weights in the variator that improves one aspect of the Silver Wing's performance, but at the cost of reduced performance of another aspect.  So just because one person does a modification from stock and considers it the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't mean that same modification will be suitable for everybody.

Man, you sure are opinionated about a modification that you have absolutely no experience with. My answer would be: "Wow, so many members here are happy with Dr. Pulley sliders instead of Honda's rollers. I wonder why. Maybe I should investigate instead of implying they're stupid for challenging Honda's engineering dep't."

Your forum cred is rapidly going down the tubes with engineering diatribes suggesting that you've got it right and we've got it wrong.

Be that as it may, I'm going out for a ride on my smooth 360 degree counterbalanced 582 cc parallel twin Honda Silverwing scooter with its great accelerating and lower highway rpm engine.
And I'm not even a mechanical engineer.

bigbird wrote:

Maybe I should investigate instead of implying they're stupid for challenging Honda's engineering dep't."

No implications of stupidity. Implications of rider preference.

Quote :

Your forum cred is rapidly going down the tubes with engineering diatribes suggesting that you've got it right and we've got it wrong.

That is fine - then I will no longer contribute. I have enough experience with engines and drivetrain to tell you that while the modification you push so heavily does indeed provide the performance characteristics you describe, it also operates the engine in a less efficient part of its power and tuning curve for some riders and their riding style. Best BSFC for any internal combustion reciprocating engine is achieved at WOT at peak torque. Under partial throttle conditions it is moving target. Based on the fuel consumption figures I have achieved, Honda did a pretty darn good job and my opinion is that it would quite difficult to improve upon it without extensive dyno testing - which I guarantee you Honda has already done.

bigbird wrote:

Chilliwing wrote:

Bigbird,

I have stock rollers and 8900km on my Wing. It seems to me that the vibration is worse when the engine is warm, say after riding a while.
Is there a reason for this?

I would think that as the engine, variator, and belt case heat up, the belt can get softer and looser, thus flopping around more.

Makes sense......thanks..

Rollers or sliders is a topic of discussion like D siding rear tire .for me the Its the best mod improvement you can make , along with hyper pro spring that will be my next modification. My only problem with the sliders was the V light on tripping out on till i replaced the drive and face plate and problem solved.Sliders and DS in my opinion ( don't knock it till you try it) 

Chris Olson wrote:

hotwings wrote:

oh please enlighten us with the long version!  

Way too much math.  The point is that the Swing's engine has the same balance problems as a single cylinder engine, with an advantage of having a power stroke on every revolution.  The counterbalancers do not completely balance the engine - they merely cancel the rocking couple produced by a heavily counterweighted crankshaft.  Its power delivery will never be as smooth as say an inline-four.  The second and third harmonics will still show up as higher frequency vibration, even though the lower frequency (primary balance) vibrations can be reduced by counterbalancing.

Honda has one of the most impressive engineering departments on earth, and very little escapes them when arriving at a production design.  Riding the Silver Wing, it is apparent to me that Honda's engineers arrived at a compromise of best fuel economy vs engine performance, component life and rider perception of how smooth the bike is overall.  Folks like Dr. Slider do not have the engineering and R&D resources that Honda has.  They can come up something like lighter slider weights in the variator that improves one aspect of the Silver Wing's performance, but at the cost of reduced performance of another aspect.  So just because one person does a modification from stock and considers it the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't mean that same modification will be suitable for everybody.

I think you forgot to factor in the gravitational pull that the gantry fly has on the flux capacitor!

Chris Olson wrote:

 Based on the fuel consumption figures I have achieved, Honda did a pretty darn good job and my opinion is that it would quite difficult to improve upon it without extensive dyno testing - which I guarantee you Honda has already done.

The reason Honda uses rollers instead of sliders is because Dr. Pulley has patented their design, and unless Honda pays royalties, cannot use or copy the sliders. The sliders are more expensive than rollers, due to construction materials, volume production, etc.
Honda still will save a buck where possible. There's not a single machine, vehicle, part, or device in the world that cannot be improved upon with ingenuity, desire, or greed as a driving force. Dr. Pulley has done that for every CVT application in scooters, go carts, etc.

Have a look at the engineering and operation of the sliders here:

http://www.unionmaterial.com/rollerweight6.htm

tinman wrote:

Sliders and DS in my opinion ( don't knock it till you try it)

All I'm saying is that it cannot be claimed to be "better" as a blanket statement. It is a total rider preference issue, much like two riders riding a particular bike with a manual transmission - one likes to shift at 4,000 rpm while the other wraps it out to redline before shifting.

I come from the long distance riding group, and have been in that group for years. Fuel economy, range, and rear tire life (and now belt life on the FSC600) are way more important to me than getting a better zero to 60 time. The slider folks are going to have to accept that I don't ride like they do, so that modification has a high probability of introducing characteristics (and other maintenance issues) in the bike that I don't like.

bigbird wrote:

Have a look at the engineering and operation of the sliders here:

http://www.unionmaterial.com/rollerweight6.htm

bigbird, I am totally familiar with them.  I have a set in the variator on my Roketa Bali 150 scooter with 21,000 km on it.  There are various reasons I do not want them in the Silver Wing.  The 150 is my zip around town bike, the Silver Wing isn't.

Edit:
I will add that this is a couple of our other bikes - the red one is mine, the black one is my wife's:



We got sliders for both these bikes. They are still in my 150 and work fine. They didn't work right in my wife's little 50. The CVT ratio changes were very jerky with the sliders, so I took them out and put 17gr rollers back in.

Just the point that I am NOT 'knocking' you guys' slider setups. I know they do indeed do what's claimed as far as performance. But they also do some other things that I don't like in some cases, and which I'd rather not have to deal with on the Silver Wing. And one of those is fuel economy. It went thru the floor on the 150 and it doesn't even make 60 mpg with lighter weights in it. But the acceleration of the 150 is pretty dismal to the point where it's not even safe to ride in traffic, and it did improve that.

Chris Olson wrote:

 that modification has a high probability of introducing characteristics (and other maintenance issues) in the bike that I don't like.

Can you elaborate on that statement?

bigbird wrote:

Can you elaborate on that statement?

Read above - I made an edit on the same topic instead of adding another post.

Chris Olson wrote:

bigbird wrote:

Can you elaborate on that statement?

Read above - I made an edit on the same topic instead of adding another post.

So jerky operation in 1 of your 2 little scooters and reduced fuel economy are your only "gotcha's" for your not using sliders in your Silverwings?

bigbird wrote:

So jerky operation in 1 of your 2 little scooters and reduced fuel economy are your only "gotcha's" for your not using sliders in your Silverwings?

No, mainly because I do not need them. I just had the variators off both of our bikes at 18,000 miles when I put new belts in. They are both in perfect condition yet with no flat spots in the rollers or indentation in the sheave ramps at the full engagement point. They both work fine as they are, stock, provide smooth ratio changes, excellent acceleration, and excellent fuel economy. I'm not going to "fix" something that ain't broke.

Chris Olson wrote:

 They both work fine as they are, stock, provide smooth ratio changes, excellent acceleration, and excellent fuel economy.  I'm not going to "fix" something that ain't broke.

Mine was so "broke" that I had no choice but to fix it.