This relates more to fuel consumption generally, than specifically Scrambler, but in my experience (almost 50 years on bikes now) fuel consumption doesn't change significantly when the bike's run in. May be some slight variation, but nothing that I've ever actually noticed, or measured. I've always found it to be fairly consistent throughout the life of the bike (with me).
However, type of riding, like in town or open highway makes a HUGE difference. Put a bike on track and it'll use twice as much fuel, at least. That last is not so relevant for the Scrambler I agree, but you WILL get noticeably worse consumption when in town and especially in traffic.
Riding style also makes a lot of difference. Some riders use more fuel than others. Not sure of the exact actions that cause this, but I suspect heavy handed use of the throttle has a lot to do with it, whereas you can actually go just as fast (or faster) with more careful control.
Be careful when comparing tank range between different bikes as different riders can have a very different concept of how full is a tank. Some diligently stick to the manufacturer's recommended "no higher than the bottom of the neck" while others (like me) ignore that nonsense and fill it to the brim. On most bikes this can be several litres difference and as far as I'm concerned, definitely worth doing. Why not, what 'damage' can it possibly cause? OK, I wouldn't fill it to the brim and then leave it in hot sunshine as the fuel would expand and overflow. Still not a big deal really and if instead you're simply going to ride off and immediately use up some of that fuel, then it makes sense to use the max. capacity of the tank.
Having said that, I think filling up while astride the bike is asking for trouble. Too easy to make a mistake and pour petrol all over yourself and/or drop the bike. Leaning over on the side stand makes less difference in any case than actually filling to the brim rather than to the manufacturer's recommended level.
I understand that bikes are mostly ridden for fun and not just as cheap transport, but to dismiss the cost of fuel as irrelevant is at the very least being disingenuous to those who need to be careful with such expenditure, or indicates someone with more money than, well, they probably should have. I ride an approx. 2,500 mile European trip every year, avoiding highways as much as possible and picking the best roads to ride (Alps, Pyrenees etc). In 2008 I used a FireBlade for this trip and it returned 53.4 mpg. That was calculated from the distance covered (according to ODO - usually quite accurate) and quantity of fuel purchased (I kept a record). An impressive figure for such a hugely powerful machine.
But I sold that FireBlade and as I like V4s, I became very enamoured with the Aprilia Tuono V4R. Stunning bike to ride and great looking IMO. But during my research I discussed with an owner of said motorcycle an almost identical trip he had just completed on his V4R and I asked him about overall fuel consumption. "About 33 -34 mpg" he replied.
I do understand that one doesn't buy a sports bike to worry about fuel consumption, but this is outrageous. Both the above bikes are essentially the same performance, but the cost of the difference in fuel used on such a trip by those 2 bikes would more than pay for the pair of tyres that would be mostly used up on the trip. So you can airily dismiss fuel costs as irrelevant, but I think that comparison really puts it into perspective. Choose one of those bikes and get a free pair of tyres every 2,500 miles.
Well it convinced me and I bought another FireBlade in 2012 and took all the plastics off and converted into a naked roadster - which I still have and it is a truly great bike. For anyone who's interested:-
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3ncaz56xe7stlcg/AAAGdry_fx0B9sxPP2xd60xsa?dl=0
I have since realised that all the Aprilia V4s suffer from appalling consumption. As someone wrote "The Aprilia V4 engine is a remarkable feat of engineering. To make such a small engine use so much fuel is, remarkable."
One more thing, electromagnetic radiation emanating from a mobile phone cannot ignite fuel. The original reasons for banning their use at fuel stations was concerns about dropping them and possible causing a spark. But that seems to have been forgotten now.
So, happy fuel consumption.
However, type of riding, like in town or open highway makes a HUGE difference. Put a bike on track and it'll use twice as much fuel, at least. That last is not so relevant for the Scrambler I agree, but you WILL get noticeably worse consumption when in town and especially in traffic.
Riding style also makes a lot of difference. Some riders use more fuel than others. Not sure of the exact actions that cause this, but I suspect heavy handed use of the throttle has a lot to do with it, whereas you can actually go just as fast (or faster) with more careful control.
Be careful when comparing tank range between different bikes as different riders can have a very different concept of how full is a tank. Some diligently stick to the manufacturer's recommended "no higher than the bottom of the neck" while others (like me) ignore that nonsense and fill it to the brim. On most bikes this can be several litres difference and as far as I'm concerned, definitely worth doing. Why not, what 'damage' can it possibly cause? OK, I wouldn't fill it to the brim and then leave it in hot sunshine as the fuel would expand and overflow. Still not a big deal really and if instead you're simply going to ride off and immediately use up some of that fuel, then it makes sense to use the max. capacity of the tank.
Having said that, I think filling up while astride the bike is asking for trouble. Too easy to make a mistake and pour petrol all over yourself and/or drop the bike. Leaning over on the side stand makes less difference in any case than actually filling to the brim rather than to the manufacturer's recommended level.
I understand that bikes are mostly ridden for fun and not just as cheap transport, but to dismiss the cost of fuel as irrelevant is at the very least being disingenuous to those who need to be careful with such expenditure, or indicates someone with more money than, well, they probably should have. I ride an approx. 2,500 mile European trip every year, avoiding highways as much as possible and picking the best roads to ride (Alps, Pyrenees etc). In 2008 I used a FireBlade for this trip and it returned 53.4 mpg. That was calculated from the distance covered (according to ODO - usually quite accurate) and quantity of fuel purchased (I kept a record). An impressive figure for such a hugely powerful machine.
But I sold that FireBlade and as I like V4s, I became very enamoured with the Aprilia Tuono V4R. Stunning bike to ride and great looking IMO. But during my research I discussed with an owner of said motorcycle an almost identical trip he had just completed on his V4R and I asked him about overall fuel consumption. "About 33 -34 mpg" he replied.
I do understand that one doesn't buy a sports bike to worry about fuel consumption, but this is outrageous. Both the above bikes are essentially the same performance, but the cost of the difference in fuel used on such a trip by those 2 bikes would more than pay for the pair of tyres that would be mostly used up on the trip. So you can airily dismiss fuel costs as irrelevant, but I think that comparison really puts it into perspective. Choose one of those bikes and get a free pair of tyres every 2,500 miles.
Well it convinced me and I bought another FireBlade in 2012 and took all the plastics off and converted into a naked roadster - which I still have and it is a truly great bike. For anyone who's interested:-
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3ncaz56xe7stlcg/AAAGdry_fx0B9sxPP2xd60xsa?dl=0
I have since realised that all the Aprilia V4s suffer from appalling consumption. As someone wrote "The Aprilia V4 engine is a remarkable feat of engineering. To make such a small engine use so much fuel is, remarkable."
One more thing, electromagnetic radiation emanating from a mobile phone cannot ignite fuel. The original reasons for banning their use at fuel stations was concerns about dropping them and possible causing a spark. But that seems to have been forgotten now.
So, happy fuel consumption.
