Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys,

I'm curious to hear from people who ride with a Clearview shield, especially the XL variety. I recently got one for my 650 and I feels like it's causing the bike to work much harder.

Last night I did a ride, twice in a big loop at speeds from 45 to 90. I wasn't intending to do a comparison on my first loop, I was just enjoying the weather, so I didn't really open up the Burgman with the stock windshield until I was about a quarter mile from my exit. I got the bike to about 86 or so before letting off the throttle for my exit and it felt like it had plenty left. Silky smooth.

Then I put on the Clearview and it felt like it was accelerating slower. It felt like it took longer to get to 70, and it topped out at 90, not a hair faster. I was in Drive mode for both tests. The bike also felt like it was dealing with more turbulence for lack of a better word, being slightly shoved back and forth. Not enough to have to compensate for, but enough to make me put down my pizza and beer and take my feet off the dash.

Kidding aside, I'm wondering if others have noticed similar experiences with their Clearview shields, or larger shields in general. I often see people talk about their MPG on their Burgmans, and the numbers seem quite spread out. I'm curious how much of that is people with larger shields vs stock windshields. I don't really drive 90+ MPH, I'm quite content just keeping up with the flow of traffic on any given road, but I don't want to put undue stress on the engine or burn more gas necessary to get from A to B.

Is this all in my head, and if not, is it enough extra workload on the motor that I should be concerned about it? I'm already a bigger rider at 270 so I don't want to add insult to injury on the poor thing. It's got to last me at least 5 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Hi,
I debated between the Clearshield and the GIVI. I purchased the latter as they had better pricing and I had previous experience with it as I had one on a Honda Silverwing. I have a 2011 Burgman 650 with 67 miles on it. I see no difference between the stock shield and the GIVI in performance or handling. I like it a lot as I am out of the wind now. Especially in our cold WI weather. I notice by your post that you have been up to 80 mph with 300 miles on yours. That exceeds the warning parameters of the break in period. I have so far kept my tach below 4000 rpms. So I have not had mine up to highway speeds yet. I do however have lots of experience with the windscreen from my Silverwing. I feel that it was a good purchase.
Ron ( The Seebs)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Used both and have the CV on now...never noticed that..you are probably noticing the decrease in pressure from the wind around you and equating it to being slower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Seebs said:
Hi,
I notice by your post that you have been up to 80 mph with 300 miles on yours. That exceeds the warning parameters of the break in period.
Good eye. I just haven't updated the mileage on the forums yet, thanks for reminding me. I babied it for the first 600 miles, by the book. Got the 5 year extended Suzuki warranty on it as well. Planning on keeping this thing a long time.

I'll do more testing today and get some actual numbers from the RPM's at various speeds and report back what I find. I'll also reset the trip fuel meter between each and see if it reports any difference in fuel consumption with each windshield.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
To your question of slower acceleration and the engine working harder with the Clearview my answer is 'maybe,' but I really haven't noticed.

It seems logical that a larger windscreen surface area creates more resistance, thus requiring the engine to 'work harder' (rev higher, use more fuel) to overcome it if you want to maintain the same rate of acceleration as with a lower resistance screen . But that harder work is well within its performance envelope shouldn't effect engine longevity. If it did, no one would want to ride on windy days. (The mathematical/physics question is probably pretty complex as it would have to take into account surface area, shape (aerodynamics), rate of acceleration, sustained cruising speed, size and weight of the rider, etc).

I'm assuming that you got the Clearview to enhance the quality of your ride by knocking down wind noise and buffeting. If your experiment reveals that you are indeed accelerating more slowly and using more gas, what are you going to do? Anyway, your data will be useful to members who need to evaluate the tradeoffs between comfort and performance when deciding on a replacement screen.

Congrats on the new ride!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Today I decided to ride across town to Cyclegear and get a smoked shield for my helmet. I still have the Clearview on my bike, so I decided to go through town and avoid the highway since it was pretty windy out.

On the way out of the store I looked up and saw Hell on earth approaching. I jumped on the bike and made a beeline to the highway. On the way back I hit 80 MPH, and looked down and saw I was doing about 5500 RPM (which is very reasonable I think). I made it back to my side of town and hopped off the highway just in time to get caught in the rain. It's 45 - 55 all the way home from there, but I got caught in about 10 red lights.

Even still, I've ridden in the rain a lot, and this was the driest I've ever been in such a situation. I didn't even have to change pants when I got home. My legs were bone dry. This was a first.

So, while I still plan to do some actual testing with real numbers, my experience today showed me most of the issue may have just been in my head. 80 MPH (about 73 MPH actual) at around 5500 RPM seems pretty reasonable since that's about as fast as I'll be riding, and the wind (rain) protection is quite good with the Clearview.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,279 Posts
My experience is that I get about the same gas mileage with the Clearview and the OEM windshields. Same with top speed. I am running a Clearview Large with vent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
I don't remember specifics but no doubt my 400 labors with the Givi on. I don't think I can get the speedo up to 90? Not what I bought it for, but reading about others hitting 100mph, I was thinking I got a turd. I'd guess at a loss of 5 mph?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
With opinions being like rectums, everyone has one, heres mine. I have owned two 650's, the first one came loaded including the GIVI shield. It was far better than the stock one which still hangs in my garage, should any one want one cheap. Any way the GIVI developed cracks around the mounting holes, so I replaced it with a Clearview with vent, which I liked much better overall. My second Burgie came with a GIVI shield which I just a week or so back replaced, with another Clearview. I do believe that the bike may work a bit harder at higher speeds due to the fact that I'm probably pushing at least 10 or more square inches of plastic through the air as I go down the road. I think on my previous 650 standard, it cost me about a mile or so per gallon, but I like the vent, and the tint for my ride. I recently posted the Givi in the classifieds on this site, should someone want it for a 650 Exec. model. Shiny side up!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,279 Posts
One thing I will add to my prior post. The Clearview did cost me a little in mileage when I first installed one on my 2005. I got that back when I installed a GIVI V46 topcase on the bike. Seems the combination of the screen, me and the topcase is more aerodynamic than just the shield and me. I installed both the Clearview and the top case on the 2007 Exec when I bought it so my comparisons come from my time with the 2005.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
I have the tall Givi and have the same observations as the O.P with the Clearview regarding turbulence and wind resistance.

I chopped off 3 or 4 inches of a damaged Givi shield and drilled 2 2-inch holes at the bottom, in front of the instrument cluster.

There's much less turbulence and the indicated gas mileage jumped from 17.x km per liter to 19.x km per liter (40mpg to 45mpg) on roads where i ride 55 MPH. 40 mpg indicated is 45 actual.

It was clear that the engine had to work less, and that the directional stability was improved.

The only reason for switching back to the tall Givi is that the modified screen looks like it's been in an accident, which it has.

I think the Madstad principle of air flow on both sides of the windscreen is the way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Heck of a storm this morning, wasn't it?

I can't compare the two, since my 650 came with the vented Clearview. I can say, though, that I get a steady 50mpg on the the backroads, a bit less on a mostly freeway commute. 80mph indicated (72 real) is at about 5000 rpm, so it's not straining the bike much if at all. Add in the comfort and the weather protection (I was commuting in February), and I'm glad I have it.

BTW, what part of Raleigh are you in? I live over in Durham, but work near 440 & Capital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
I e mailed Clearview last summer and they said they weren't making windshields anymore? I have a Givi now, but the vacuum or back pressure drives me crazy. I'd like to buy a Clearview with a vent if they were making them again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
Clearview doesn't make a windshield for 2007+ AN400s (a head-scratcher as these models have the worst stock screens out of any Burgman made). For a while, Clearview was promising a screen, but they never came through with one. My guess is they couldn't design a screen that didn't need supporting brackets, and didn't want to complicate their business model by having to source the additional parts. I ended up with a Givi AirFlow which I'm very happy with. Take a look at it as it's split shield design probably negates all vacuum/backpressure issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
So I finally got some testing time in.

Took both windshields out on the same road going the same direction. I didn't bother going above 80 (about 72 - 73 actual) because it's not how I ride, and I was looking for real world tests.

Both the stock windshield and the Clearview XL ran 80 MPH at 5000 RPM, so the bike doesn't appear to be working harder. I guess it either all in my head, or just a consequence of riding at different times / directions with different headwinds.

I don't even know the words to describe what I experienced between the two other than the say they're just different. I feel like the stock windshield offers adequate wind protection. I think the Clearview XL offer better wind protection.

However, for around town, I also think the stock windshield just makes the bike feel more... fun. I can't really explain why. The Clearview makes the bike feel more tame. Less sporty, but better suited for touring.

I'll probably keep both, and use the stock for around town or shorter road tips, and summer riding. I'll use the Clearview for multi-day trips and winter riding, because it's a little quieter and makes it easier to hear the intercom.

One more thought on the subject, I personally cannot tell any different with the vent open and with it closed on the Clearview. I've ridden both ways now for about 200 miles each, and while it might let a little more air through which would be nice on a warm day, it doesn't do anything noticeable to alleviate the air pressure issue. I don't have a top case, just using the stock Executive backrest. Someone above said the top case helps, but I can't really test it.

Ok, I think I've exhausted this subject. Next week we'll talk about turning the storage compartment under the seat until a bbq smoker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
I think you got it exactly right. I use my 650 mainly for touring where the larger Clearview is a big plus. In riding around town, the last thing I see myself as is 'sporty.'
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
CarolinaStory said:
So I finally got some testing time in.

Took both windshields out on the same road going the same direction. I didn't bother going above 80 (about 72 - 73 actual) because it's not how I ride, and I was looking for real world tests.

Both the stock windshield and the Clearview XL ran 80 MPH at 5000 RPM, so the bike doesn't appear to be working harder. I guess it either all in my head, or just a consequence of riding at different times / directions with different headwinds.

Snipped ...........
Ok, I think I've exhausted this subject. Next week we'll talk about turning the storage compartment under the seat until a bbq smoker.
You went to some inconvenience to conduct this test but to be frank making an observation like '80 mph at 5000 rpm so the bike does not appear to be working harder' is unfortunately not proof of what you are trying to quantify. In simple terms if all things were equal (wind direction, road grade, tyre pressure, steady speed etc) then the bike will always do 80mph at 5000rpm. If they were not equal then for the adverse case additional fuel would be necessary to maintain the 80mph/5000rpm relationship.

Sometimes one can over think things - if the bigger screen gives you a much better riding experience then any small fuel penalty is worth it - especially if you live in a low cost fuel area. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
NormanB said:
In simple terms if all things were equal (wind direction, road grade, tyre pressure, steady speed etc) then the bike will always do 80mph at 5000rpm. If they were not equal then for the adverse case additional fuel would be necessary to maintain the 80mph/5000rpm relationship.

Sometimes one can over think things...
Over thinking is a hobby of mine. :)

I'm not an engineer or a mechanic, but I don't think I understand your thoughts on the constant 80 MPH to 5000 RPM equation. Assuming the bike remained a constant variable, then yes I can see how this would be true. However, I was changing windshields which changes the aerodynamics of the bike. How could I increase the fuel consumption without affecting the RPM's?

If I were attach a parachute to the back of the bike, assuming it could still maintain 80 MPH, you're saying it will continue to do so at 5000 RPM, it would just burn more fuel to do so?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or facetious, I just didn't think it worked that way.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I could in fact still be burning more fuel with the Clearview than I am with the stock windshield, even if the RPM's are consistent, which was the point of the test in the first place. We might need matching lab coats to get to the bottom of this. haha
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top