Short Days and Hazard Lights

The days are getting shorter and I find myself riding in the dark more and more. My place of employment is about 28 miles away, if I take a direct route, and I usually try to be there between 7:00am & 7:30am. The ride takes about 40 minutes, which means I am leaving the house in the dark and get to the office around sun-up. This is a perfect part of the day to ride as I love watching the sun come up, but really, what part of the day is bad for riding?

For the most part, I like the controls on the ST, particularly those on the handlebars. After you figure out where they are, they become very intuitive. My wife's Honda Odyssey is very similar, once you figure out the multitude of buttons, (there's a lot, and they're everywhere; like flying the Space Shuttle), everything is in the right place. (I do, however, take exception to two of the 'environmental control' switches for the rear of the Odyssey. After 70,000 miles, they're still counter-intuitive to me.) Thankfully, the ST only has a few buttons and switches on the handlebars, all which are standard on every bike I've ever owned or ridden.

But... there are three non-standard buttons and a non-standard dial on the ST dashboard. Their uses are very straight forward though. The dial adjusts the headlight pitch. The headlights can be adjusted - raised or lowered - on the fly. There are eight increments on the dial that allow the rider to find that happy place. If you carry a passenger, or adjust you rear shock with too much preload, and your headlight is pointing in the trees or only shining 20 feet in front ahead, a quick turn of the knob and it's all good.

The three nearly flush-mounted buttons are placed to the right of the headlight knob, and control some of the information shown on the ST's dash board computer read-out info screen. The lower right button toggles between the two trip meters. The lower left button toggles between instantaneous fuel mileage (updated at ten second intervals), average fuel mileage, or just turns the mileage data off with one less piece of info cluttering the info screen. The top button is simply a brightness adjustment, with three increments, for the info screen. This top button I've been using a lot lately as I've been riding more in the darker hours. During the daytime, I like to set the info screen at its brightest. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps when the sun glares on the dash. When the sun goes down, I turn the brightness on the info screen down, where its brightness about equals the backlights in the analog tachometer & speedometer.

Of those four controls, two of them, the headlight dial and the info screen brightness adjustment, are intended to make functional adjustments between daytime and night-time riding. As such, they are frequently used in low-light, to no light conditions. I think Honda could have made them a bit easier to use in these conditions if the buttons lit up, or at least had a light halo around them. As they are, they're black buttons on a black dash. At night, it's just a whole lot of black nothing. When I do want to adjust them, unless I pass under a street light at the right moment, I have to grope my way around until I find them. The knob for the headlights isn't much of a problem, but finding the right buttons with my winter gloves still involves some trial and error. I try to dim the lights only to find I'm toggling between my trip meters.

There is one other nit I can pick about button location, but I'm not sure if I can attribute the problem directly to Honda. I have a set of bar risers on the ST that lift the bars 3/4" up and 1" back. They do make the riding position much more comfortable than I believe the stock position would be, (The risers were on the ST when I got it) but they place me farther from the dash, making the buttons harder to reach. Now, I'm a tall guy - 6' tall - with a longer than most wingspan. I can reach about 6'4", but I've still got to lean pretty far forward to reach the buttons.

Now, there's another button on the ST that is standard on many newer motorcycles, particularly tourers and sport-tourers; the Hazard switch. The ST has one located on the top of the left hand control cluster. For comparison, my BMW GS has a hazard switch located on the right of the dash, opposite the switch for the heated grips. Honda put it closer to the rider, but it's still necessary to let go of the bar to activate it. The problem I'm finding with it's location, and this (minor) problem may be attributed to the bar risers, is that when I lean forward to grope in the dark to find the the headlight dial or the info screen brightness adjustment, my forearm hits the hazard switch and activates the hazard lights.

These aren't huge problems. They are relatively minor in the grand scheme on the bike. (I have lived with bigger problems on lesser bikes.) Once the switches are set in the proper positions, you forget them. During daylight hours, these problems don't exist, and using the buttons is simple and intuitive. But, their existing design and configuration seem to make more work than it should be at night. Work that I'll have to get used to as the days keep getting shorter.

At least the ST doesn't have that same upside-down 'environmental' switch as my wife's Odyssey.

'Cool' has limitations

I've lost track of how many times I've been asked by someone, 'Which bicycle is best for me?' I usually reply with a couple of questions, the first of which is always, 'What kind of riding do you intend to do?' Most people don't know what kind of riding they'll be doing, but they've usually already got an idea of what kind of bike they want. Often times what they want, and what they want it for are not compatible. Rather than bike built for their intended purposes, they want a 'cool' bike. 'Cool' usually has limitations.

One thing that has always interested me is long distance, self-contained cycling. Touring. I AM interested in long distance competitions, such as the RAAM, but I know better than to aspire to that. Touring I can do. Consequently my favorite bicycle (for 18 years now!) has been my long distance rig: my Cannondale Tourer. Racks, bags, fenders. The works. It's not particularly cool, but it does everything I want it to do. My Honda ST1300 is becoming a similar bike.

This past Tuesday night I rode the ST down to Bakersfield for a seminar. From Fresno it's about 110 miles of long, straight, flat, dairy-strewn Highway 99. I've had the ST on a few multi-hundred-mile days in the three an a half months and nearly 7000 miles I've had it, but a good portion of those long days were mountainous and twisty. Fun stuff. This was the first opportunity I had to really see how I liked it (or it liked me) when the miles just droned on.

The short of it: Wheeeee! :)!

The long...

I filled the tank the night before anticipating the long ride. I took my usual 27 mile route to work and then left the office about a half-hour before rush hour. After I got out of town, and onto the ribbon of concrete known as State Route 99, I was able to settle into a grove. The stock ST does not have cruise control, or even a throttle lock for that matter. I know there are many riders who swear by their Audiovox CCS but I've found that in my part of the world, where it's long & flat for miles & miles, a throttle lock works fine. I like the throttle lock on my GS and use it frequently on long highway trips. The throttle springs on the GS are heavy and demand that you give your right hand a break after a while. You could either lock the throttle, or get off the bike every hour or so and practice the carpal tunnel exercise instructions usually included in new computer keyboards. I expected a similar situation on the ST but it was not to happen. When I first test rode the ST, I noticed how much lighter the throttle was. There's not a lot of pull coming off the fuel injector throttle bodies on the ST as there is on the GS's dual carburetor set-up. What that turned into on this long ride was a wrist that didn't get nearly as tired, nearly as fast. My hand and wrist still got tired, but it was from being held in one position, not from fighting with a heavy throttle.

However, the lightness of the throttle does have at least one drawback: it doesn't take much of a bump in the road to jiggle the throttle, even a slight bit, in a way that makes the bike lurch or hesitate. On uneven pavement, it can become quite difficult to hold the throttle steady. The ST is somewhat known for having a 'snatchy' throttle, but I wonder if the lesser resistance in the throttle may have something to do with it.

One thing I've found about the ST is how much aerodynamics play a role it the bike's being. On a bicycle, 75%-85% of a riders energy is used just to move through the air and to move the air around the rider. That percentage is dependent on speed; the higher the speed, the higher percentage of energy needed, used, or wasted (depending on your point of view). Motorcycles are no different. Especially with the ST and it's large frontal surface area. The dynamics of the windscreen positioning I'd figured out fairly early on. The higher it is, the lower the mileage is. Not a lot lower, but noticeable. I like the windscreen about 1/3 of the way up, most of the time. (When it's hot, I can't get it down far enough.) At 1/3 of the way up, it deflects most of the air and bugs over my helmet, but I can still easily see over it. In that position. I can open my visor most of the way and not have a face-full of wind. It also doesn't seem to affect the mileage too much.

The slipstream created by the very forward rear-view mirrors is hardly noticeable until you let go of the bars and pull your hand out of it. The handlebars are wider than the windscreen, but your hands and arms feel virtually no wind at all because of the mirrors. Put your hand on the tank or your lap and your upper arm gets a big helping of wind blast. There's also nearly no wind at all down near your legs. The space between the lower faring and the saddle bags seems to be void of any breeze. I'm sure that lack of circulation doesn't help remove any of the oft complained about engine heat away from the rider's legs.

One thing I noticed, completely by accident, was that dropping your feet off the pegs, drops the fuel mileage. On one particularly long straight stretch, I dropped my feet off and pointed my toes toward the ground, just to stretch a bit. At the 75MPH I was traveling, there was enough wind to keep my feet from touching the ground. (At 65MPH, my toes would touch down.) As I did this, I saw the fuel consumption-o-meter scrub off 3-4 miles per gallon! I thought it may have been a fluke, but I tried it four or five more times at different times through the ride, with the same results.

Also on the subject of ST aerodynamics: it doesn't take much of a headwind to increase fuel consumption. Likewise, a good tailwind decreases the consumption crazy good. Drafting near a semi-truck produces similar results, but taking an already inherently dangerous activity and making it that much more dangerous by riding in, or near, the blind spot of a semi to save a few pennies is just plain stupid. So, don't be stupid; leave the drafting in NASCAR.

At the end of the day, I'd gone 277 miles. From home, to work, to Bakersfield, than back home. I did it on one tank of fuel and still had plenty to get to work again the next day, getting 306.3 miles out of the tank before I filled it. It took 6.699 gallons for an average of 45.72 miles per gallon. I think it could have been better, but when you consider that I did most of the trip around 75 miles per hour, that number gets more impressive. (Even more so when you consider that it was California gas.)

The more I ride the ST, the more I WANT to ride it. It's not as exotic (or yuppie) as the BMW R1200RT I was looking at (and really wanted), or as flashy as a Yamaha FJR or new Kawasaki Concours (and, man, those are suh-weeet looking bikes). The ST is certainly not as 'cool' as the others, but it's is doing everything I want a bike to do for me.

And that's what's important.

MPG and Gas Station Attendants

Regardless of how the computer on the ST calculates the mileage, or whether or not it gets worse mileage on a full tank, overall, the STs mileage impresses me. I pulled into the gas station this morning with 309.5 miles on the clock since my last fill-up. I went through the usual routine of handing the attendant $40 and said, "It'll only take about $30." I like watching the look on the attendant's face; she always looks out at the bike and looks back at me. Her eyes always say, "Yeah, right" as she hands me back $10.

Just trust me....

It took 7.23 gallons. At $3.859 a gallon, it came to $27.90. The look on the attendant's face always changes to one of awe (as she's getting me my $1.10 change).

"Does that bike really hold that much?"

I always reply "Yeah. It does.", but I'm thinking 1) If the bike didn't hold that much fuel, where would I put it? and 2) I've answered this question for you like a dozen times. Why are you always suprised?

I get the "Does that bike really hold that much?" question from other gas stations too. It's usually followed by, "What kind of mileage does it get?" With the price of fuel now, the non-motorcycling public is keenly aware that motorcycling community has something on them. On average, the ST gets about 42 miles per gallon. With this last tank, it got 42.81 mpg.

Curious Mileage

For the past few months (and 5000 miles) my ST has been averaging a solid 42 miles per gallon. Some tanks net a bit more between fill-ups, some a bit less, but their combined average is right at 42mpg. Three of those tanks have netted less than 36 mpg. One less than 33 mpg.

I usually let the tank run about 3/4 of the way down to near empty (and into the flashing bar) between fill-ups, with somewhere between 250-300 miles per tank. When I do put gas in it, I always fill it up. There have only been a few times - three to be exact - where I filled a mostly full tank, with about 100 miles or less on the bike since my last fill up.

I should add that I do the math the old fashoned way, with a pencil & paper. The fuel consumption average-o-meter on the bike is next to useless, and while the speedometer & odometer are generous in their numbers, they are consistent, which is key. That consistency is reflected when I fill up by filling the tank to the same point every time with the bike on the center stand. To take it one step further, most of my fill-ups have been at the same pump at the same station. (That may actually be an OCD.)

The thing I found interesting was that the three tanks that netted my worst mileage were the same three tanks where I hadn't gone very far between fill-ups. The tanks where I've netted the best mileage were tanks that I ran nearly dry, whether commuting or riding on longer day trips.

My riding style doesn't change from fill-up to fill-up. I certainly haven't changed it to see if riding slow vs. faster changes the mpg; I just ride it. I also haven't been riding with it loaded down one day and unloaded the next, or spent large amounts of time with the windscreen all the way up instead of down. The only thing that changed was the amount of fuel still remaining in the tank at fill-up time. Granted, this bike is still relatively new, with only 5500+ miles, and three tanks of fuel (out of 23) really isn't a lot to make a good comparison, but it seems like the ST gets poor mileage when the tank is full, and that the mileage gets better as the tank drains. This is only an assumption, but since the bike is averaging 42 mpg overall, I don't know what else to make of it. I know that a gallon of fuel weighs more than a few pounds, but I can't see the weight difference between 7.5 gallons and 1.5 gallons making a lot of difference to the 1300cc mill in the ST.

The First 5000 Miles.

This past Thursday I hit 5000 miles on the ST. Not 5000 on the odometer, but 5000 miles since I've had it. For those of you who may be counting, the bike had 376 miles on it when I got it, meaning I passed 5376 miles on the odometer. (Hey, I knew all that math I took in college would eventually pay off.) Since I bought it in the first week of July, those 5000 miles have happened in about 10 weeks, mostly commuting.

As a whole, I'm very happy with the bike. It's money well spent. I've found it to be comfortable and fuel efficent, which, at this point in my life, are two things high on the priority list. With so many options with the windscreen position, it's almost impossible to not be able to find a sweet spot for the wind. All the way down and you receive a full face blast of air from mid-chest up. Half-way up and the air is directed just over your head with a bit of back pressure on your shoulders. Put the windscreen all the way up and the world goes silent. Quiet enough to hear the engine valves ticking. In addition, the created back pressure pushes you toward the dash, which is a bit un-nerving the first few times you feel it.

The gas milage has been great. It's averaging a respectable 42 miles per gallon. Considering my GS gets in the low 30 MPG range, it's about a 33% increase. Most of the tanks have been fairly consistent, but I've had some oddball tanks in there too, with milages in the mid to high 30s. Interestingly, the three tanks with the worst gas milage, also had the shortest distance between fillups. The tanks that got the best mileage out of them were when I stretched the distance between fillups to 250-300 miles. All I can figure is that it has to do with the weight of the fuel. A full tank weighs more - a lot more - and the mileage suffers accordingly. The mileage increases as the weight of the bike decreases with the draining of the tank. If it's getting in the high 30s with a full tank, it would be safe to assume that it's getting hig 40s to low 50s when the tank is near empty. I don't know if that's correct, but the theory works in my head. Of course, the ST gets the best mileage on the freeway. One run to the coast and back netted 46.3 mpg over nearly 260 mostly freeway miles.

The STs powerband is scary linear. You don't really feel it coming on, but all of a sudden, there it is. All of it. I jumped around a semi a few days after I got it and the engine just burbled along. When I settled back into my lane, I looked down and saw that I was into triple digits on the speedo. The speed didn't scare me as the bike was rock steady; the fact that I got to that speed without realizing it did. Most bikes let you know you're going fast, either with the wind blast or engine noise. (Add semi-knobby tires, like on my GS, and you think you're going fast before you actually are.) Not so much with the ST. Between the lack of (traditional) engine noise and a monsterous pocket of quiet provided by the faring, I'm is fairly sheltered from the outside world. There's not even wind around my legs.

Some people do have complaints about the ST, but I find them to be fairly minor annoyances rather than things to really complain about. The biggest complaint I've read about was the engine heat that roasts the rider's legs. Well, the exhaust headers are located just in front of the pegs and the heat exhaust holes in the lower cowl do direct the heat toward the riders feet, but I wear boots and long pants every time I ride so the heat's not really an issue to me. I feel the heat more if the windscreen is up in a mid to high position. The low pressure vaccuum created by the unfurreled screen sucks the engine heat up toward me. I don't really think it's something to complain about- it's an interesting example of physics and thermodynamics - and I think in the winter, it'll be a nice way to keep warm. It can be annoying in the summer heat, but when the air coming over the windscreen is just as hot as the heat coming off the engine, it's kind of a non-issue.

Some of the other complaints I read about were the snatchy fuel injection and the bike's weight. It is a big, heavy bike. No doubt about that. The heft does disappear on the road, but at low speeds, in an uneven intersection, or just trying to push it up my driveway, I become painfully aware of what 750 pounds of bike feels like. It carries much of the weight low (except when it's fully fueled), and once I found out "where" the bike was, it became manageable. The throttle snatchiness is also managable, but it does require some thinking at times. Every fuel injected bike I've ridden has had some degree of snatchiness to it. Some more than others. The ST is on the 'more' side of that list. If the throttle is closed all the way during a ride, it will jerk a bit when you give it more gas, unless you use the clutch. If I roll the throttle back without completely cutting off the fuel, it doesn't jerk when the time comes to give it more. Use the throttle correctly in conjunction with the clutch and the ST is silky smooth. My only complaint about the throttle comes when riding over rough pavement. The throttle and fuel injection seem to be more sensitive to wrist input than on other bikes I've ridden. If I get shook around, and my throttle hand gets shook around, the bike sometimes begins to lurch making the rough road worse, making the shaking worse, making the lurching worse... and so it goes. A handfull of clutch stops it every time.

A couple of complaints I do have about the ST have to do with the rear "luggage" rack and the handlebars. Even thought the saddle bags are huge, the rear rack is next to useless. It's too small to be of much good and there are no tie-down points anywhere near it to strap a bungie to. A larger, aftermarket rack may have to be installed in its place. While I like the bars risers on the handle bars, and the sitting position they provide, I wish they could be rotated out a bit, maybe 2 or 3 degrees, to a more natural hand position. As they are, I have to ride with my elbows in a bit more than natural to keep from kinking my wrists too far. (It's not as bad as it sounds, but the problem does exist.) Also, I can seen the bars ends, or more particularly, the clutch & brake levers, in the mirrors. I don't know if that problem is created by the bar risers or not. I don't think so.

My biggest complaint, and this is a true complaint, is the speedometer/odometer inaccuracy. Comparing the indicated speed & distance with a GPSr found the ST to be 6%-7% generous. For Honda - or any company for that matter - to make such a high precision motorcycle, they should be able to figure out how to make an accurate speedometer & odometer.

I've long been interested in long distance riding, particularly in long distance bicycle touring. My Cannondale touring rig is very capable of tirelessly chewing up hundreds of miles at a time, however the CDale's motor (me) needs a break now and then. The ability to travel long distances, where the ride is more important than the destination is very appealing to me. I like to be moving. With that in mind, I've wanted to become a member of the Iron Butt Assocation for a number of years now. The GS seemed like a logical choice to do an IBA ride on, but it never happened. With the motorcycles I had prior to the GS, an IBA ride was not an option. At least not a smart one. The ST, like my C'Dale, is a very capable machine. An IBA ride will be happening soon. With a sister that lives just under 500 miles to the east, and a cousin who lives about 750 miles north, I have two turn point around destinations for a 1000mi/24hr or 1500mi/36hr ride. (Both my brother-in-law and my cousin are motorcyclists and understand that it's about the ride, not the destination.)

I have been suprised by the amount of comments I've received from other people about the bike. I'm used to getting comments about the GS. It's an odd bike and most people just want to know what it is. But I expected the ST to blend in and not be noticed as much, but I've found the opposite to be true. Many people think it's a BMW R1200RT, then do a double take when they see the Honda wings on the tank. Some ask if Honda is copying BMW. Maybe, but this is the second iteration of a bike Honda's had since 1990 when BMW was still producing the R100RT. The early ST was radically different from the RT of the same period. I don't think Honda or BMW copied each other, as much as I think that they just ended up in the same place from two very different directions.

I've got a list of add-ons that seems to grow continually. Headlight and radiator protectors, driving & fog lights for the front, LED Brake lights and reflective panels for the sides & rear, and a sheepskin seat cover for my rear, to name just a few. Tires will be needed eventually too, but right now, the Bridgestone Battlax BT020s seem to be wearing very well.

It's safe to say that I'm looking forward to the next 5000.

Odometer/Speedometer Error

When I bought the ST, I knew there were some inherent errors in the speedometer. Much of the discussion on the Internet says that it's in the range of 6%-8% generous. I know that when my speedometer shows 80 mph, I'm actually only doing about 75+/- mph. That works out to be about 6%-7% for me.

Although all the discussions I've read have been about the speedometer, I've read very little about the odometer. That's not to say that the discussions aren't there, I just haven't seen or read them. Today I went on a ride with a few friends and decided to bring my GPS along. Bringing the GPS along is actually a regular occurrence, but today I wanted to compare GPS distance to the odometer distance; I hadn't done that before.

At the end of the ride, my odometer showed a trip of 151.7 miles. The GPSr showed 145.1. An increase of about 4.5%. I asked my riding buddy how far his trip meter showed: 144.8.

I've heard that motorcycle manufacturers make their speedometer with an error on the plus side. Apparently it's for safety purposes. If we think we're going faster than we are, we'll slow down sooner and not get hurt. I'm not sure what the logic is here: motorcycle manufacturers have created some very powerful, highly refined vehicles, why can't they get their speedometers and odometers to measure correctly. And, if they don't trust us to know how fast we're really going, should we really have, or should they manufacture. a bike that can go that fast anyway?

Low Fuel?

I filled up before work this morning after a slow, fuel-conserving ride into work. My fuel light came on last night on the way home. It's designed to flash when there are four or five liters (a bit more than a gallon) left. The info center on the dash then begins a countdown of how many miles you have left before you run out of fuel. When I run on the freeway, I can really stretch out the fuel consumption. Pick the right gear and engine speed and it'll tell you it's getting 55+ m.p.g. Pick the wrong gear, or get caught in traffic, and the countdown drops a lot faster than the amount of miles you're actually traveling. The first time I saw the countdown in heavy traffic, I watched it drop 9 miles from the timer in only 2 miles traveled. This morning, I got stuck behing a line of cars (30 maybe) going through a four-way stop at a construction zone. All the stop & go and idling sucked everything out of the timer. By the time I got through, it said I was out of fuel. No miles left. Game over. And I was nowhere near a gas station as I got on the super-slab freeway. I took the last 14 miles to the station near my office at a very law abiding pace to get everything I could of any fuel I had left.

It took 7.015 gallons. The manual says it'll take 7.7 so apparently, I still had a ways to go. But from that 7.015 gallons, I got 305.3 miles! That works out to 43.52 miles per gallon. Cost wise, it worked out to $0.091 a mile. Nice!

I'm liking this new bike.

4000 Miles and Counting

This morning on my way to work the odometer on the new ST hit 4376 miles. I bought it with 376 miles on it. That gives me 4000+ miles since July 3rd. I know for some riders, that's not much, but when you consider that I ride more for utilitarian purposes (commuting) rather than for fun (weekend rides to the coffee house), that's quite a few miles in nine weeks.

Observation

How observant are you? Can you pass this test?



Just for the record, Lora & I both failed.