'12, NC700X Fuel economy tests (officially, unofficial...)

[12NC700X]

I’ve had issue with fuel economy on the NCX since I purchased it just a few weeks ago from an individual in the DFW area. I bought this bike primarily for the fuel economy and its been a little frustrating to see everyone’s results on fuelly compared to my results. Suffice it to say I’ve become a little obsessed with finding those numbers and since I wasn’t seeing them in my normal riding activities, I decided to actively find my problem.

Testing was time consuming and mind numbingly dull. I did this primarily for myself, to see wtf my problem was and why I wasn’t seeing higher mpg numbers, as well as other NCX riders experiencing similar frustration with their mpg ratings. But, I also did this for potential buyers who may also want to know this info. I’m an NCX owner and like the bike, but my purchase decision was split between two similar bikes. Had I known what I now know, I may have opted for the Versys. (Sorry, guys.)

Before I get started with a description of the route and test plan, I’ll tell you all a little about myself and riding experience. I’m 5’9”, 190lbs. I started riding on the street in ’86. Since then, I’ve owned 17 motorcycles (including the NCX). My last 4 bikes, owned since 2006 were: ’04 ST1300, ’07 CBR1000RR, ’10 XV1900 Raider, ’07 DRZ400SM. The last 3 were owned concurrently (albeit briefly, wife said the CBR had to go! Booooo wife… but I had the Raider and DRZ for a year and a half.). I recently sold both the Raider and DRZ to purchase a new bike. I ride on average, 12,000 miles per year and it’s a mix of commuting, around town / urban, back road blasting and touring (and track days on the CBR and DRZ). Sadly, I don’t ride nearly as much as I used too.

Disclaimer – This isn’t science. If it were, I would have done this in a lab under perfect conditions (and I would have gotten a grant. ). I’m sure plenty of things could have been done differently and am certain there is a better method. I’m aware that the odometer is inaccurate by an unknown percentage (but it is consistent), I didn’t use a stop watch or trip computer to assist in calculations. Conditions and Calculations were kept simple: miles traveled/gallons consumed. I was mainly shooting for a set of guidelines to make sure I was consistent across all tests. Also, I am only human so a margin of error of -/+ 5% should cover any errors that I surely made. Lastly, respectfully, I’ll apologize in advance for offending anyone ‘cause some will likely not like the results or what I have to say about them. (So, stop reading NOW! But if you must, then read EVERYTHING before you reply. Thanks.)

I started the test last week by defining a 110 mile route for tests 1-4 starting at a gas station near home. Houston is notoriously flat and the roads chosen are relatively smooth, so hills and road condition should not be a real factor in mpg delivery. Weather conditions for both test days were similar; mild temps, humidity, wind etc.. Tests were conducted without luggage of any kind just the bike and rider. I rode the route, then retraced the route on the return trip home.

ROUTE – Main St > 610 S Loop East > 288 S > 1462 W > S on Cow Creek Rd. / Brazoria Co. Rd. 25 > E on 35 > 288 S > E on 3005 > Fuel up in Jamaica Beach (return)

Test Guidelines
1. Adhere to speed limits from zone to zone.
2. DO NOT exceed test speed limit.
3. Fuel ups – consistent top off.
4. Acceleration – Honda recommended shift points (39mph = 6th gear, tedious), zero to 60mph by “fifteen-one-thousand” + count. MPH zone change by “one-one-thousand” count per mph increase (5mph increase = “five-one-thousand” count)
5. Deceleration – Roll off throttle and coast into new speed zone. Roll off throttle and coast to stop at sign/red light, pull in clutch last 150ft. and downshift to 1st , coast to stop.
6. Hills/overpass/bridge – When safe to do so, DO NOT adjust for lost speed up hill. Coast on down hill. (This didn’t happen much.)

MPG Test #1, 55MPH – Fuelly log book entry 12 – 113 miles @ 76.1 MPG
MPH / % total distance (accurate estimation)
30MPH / 4%
35MPH / 7%
40MPH / 6%
45MPH / 19%
50MPH / 3%
55MPH / 61%

MPG Test #2, 60MPH – Fuelly log book entry 13 – 113 miles @ 77.3 MPG
MPH / % total distance (accurate estimation)
30MPH / 4%
35MPH / 7%
40MPH / 6%
45MPH / 19%
50MPH / 3%
55MPH / 12%
60MPH / 49%

MPG Test #3, 65MPH – Fuelly log book entry 14 – 120 miles @ 73.3 MPG
MPH / % total distance (accurate estimation)
30MPH / 4%
35MPH / 7%
40MPH / 6%
45MPH / 19%
50MPH / 3%
55MPH / 12%
60MPH / 29%
65MPH / 20%

MPG Test #4, 70MPH – Fuelly log book entry 15 –116 @ 74.3 MPG
MPH / % total distance (accurate estimation)
30MPH / 4%
35MPH / 7%
40MPH / 6%
45MPH / 19%
50MPH / 3%
55MPH / 12%
60MPH / 29%
65MPH / **65MPH, max speed limit on this route, replaced 65MPH with 70MPH in each 65MPH Zone
70MPH / 20%

(I thought of putting the above info for all 4 tests into a spreadsheet with weighted averages to see the average speed over the total trip, but decided against it.)

OK, I am sure you have already noticed that trips #2 and #4 were performed at faster speeds and returned better MPG results. This was due to a 5-7mph headwind on the ride to the coast during tests #1 and #3, reducing MPG on tests #1 and #3 but improving MPG for tests #2 and #4 with the breeze at my back. Breeze and MPG were consistent between tests #1 and #3, then #2 and #4. Results were as expected, MPG decreases with faster speeds.

After looking at the results I saw that half (or nearly half) of the trip for tests #1 and #2 were at the test limits (55mph, 60mph). But, tests #2 and #4 were lacking distance at speed. So I decided to do a third round of tests.

This round of testing is simple: interstate driving at a given speed and just hold it. I chose I-45 between Houston and Dallas. There were a few rolling hills at gentle grades but nothing significant to impact test results. The same guidelines apply.

My intent was to get on the road super early and do 4 tests at 60, 65, 70 and 75, But, my first test was skewed thanks to Houston’s unpredictable bumper-to-bumper traffic. I wanted to add the results of entry 16 to show that the result is in-line with test #2 and I fully expected to see a number in the 74-75MPG range. However, this is only for consideration and not a member of the test data. Still an impressive number if you consider the conditions.

Fuelly log book entry 16, 60MPH – 52 miles @ 71.8 MPG
MPH / % total distance
<60MPH / 49% - 25 miles of stop and go traffic @ 6am for no apparent reason. Thanks Houston.
60MPH / 51%

MPG Test #5, 65MPH – Fuelly log book entry 17 –79 miles @ 69.4 MPG
MPH / % total distance
<65MPH / 3% gas stop - accel/decel
65MPH / 97%

MPG Test #6, 70MPH – Fuelly log book entry 18 – 81 miles @ 63.7 MPG
MPH / % total distance
<70MPH / 3% gas stop - accel/decel
70MPH / 97%

MPG Test #7, 75MPH – Fuelly log book entry 19 –80 miles @ 52.6 MPG
MPH / % total distance
<75MPH / 3% gas stop - accel/decel
75MPH / 97%

(I would be interested to see the results of other riders performing the same 4 (60,65,70,75mph) interstate/highway riding tests as above and report the results. Do you also see the dramatic drop from 70-75mph?)

As speed increases, MPG also seems to decrease at a linear rate, then you reach that point of diminishing returns between 70mph and 75mph and fuel economy goes out the window (but still a decent mpg number). It’s this drop off that explains why my mileage was so horrible on my first tank. I was running between 70-75mph with a 10-15mph headwind, saddle bags and trunk and I got 45.99mpg. It also explains problems I had on a recent trip to Kerrville, TX. There’s a lot of distance to most places in Texas and most Interstate and highway speed limits are 70-75mph and if you go west of Kerrville, TX the speed limit is 80 and 85mph. (Geez, how bad would those numbers be?)

I consider myself an average rider, meaning I think my MPG numbers will always be less than the maximum the manufacturer posts. I want to GO! And I think I will realistically end up in the 55-58 mpg range. What I’ve learned in this process is that the 80 mpg range is within reach and that there is definitely a level of skill involved with smooth throttle operation. Techniques such as shifting, coasting down hill and hyper-miling, can increase mileage. (I bow down to you gents that have mastered these). Other factors such as wind speed, drag created by luggage and rider load can decrease mileage. But, the number one contributing factor that directly impacts MPG is: hot, nasty, bad-***, SPEED! Slow down and you’ll see those numbers, or just ride and still get better than the average bike.

 

[ziggie]

Did you use fully for all of this?did you try the old fashion pen and paper.i ask because fully and a gas app on my phone are always way off.just a thought.i do like what you have done.and look at all the ride time you got on it.

sent from my nc700x

 

[Antarius]

I have had nearly the same results. There is a huge drop over 70mph, for me down to 53mpg.

 

[bamamate]

I haven't made it down into the 50s but yes I've found that mileage drops over 70mph. Also keep in mind that with a head wind you need to add that onto your speed so 70 + a 10mph head wind is basically equivalent to running 80mph. I haven't tested this but a larger windscreen, I have the Honda Touring windscreen, may actually help since you being upright are like a brick wall to the wind.

 

[670cc]

Did you use fully for all of this?did you try the old fashion pen and paper.i ask because fully and a gas app on my phone are always way off.just a thought.i do like what you have done.and look at all the ride time you got on it.

sent from my nc700x

Are you saying that your gas app and Fuelly can't do simple division correctly?

Greg

 

[12NC700X]

I spot checked the numbers with a calculator but not for each entry. What I have noticed with the NC is that the Odometer displays only whole numbers. So, 3118 miles instead of 3118.5 miles. That means when you input your numbers into Fuelly you lose the tenths place. An example would be tests #1 and #2 above. Fuelly says 113 miles but my trip meter said 113.9 which would have returned 76.75mpg instead of 76.1mpg. I decided to not get into that because the numbers I am comparing mine too were also in Fuelly. This kept results same same.

 

[12NC700X]

If I add the actual tenths from my trip meter to this calculation, I also get 53mpg so this tells me that my mileage isn't a fluke. Thank you.

 

[12NC700X]

Headwinds were mentioned in the write up but not included in the calculations, for simplicity's sake. The headwind/tailwind in tests 1-4 was described by the NWS as 5-7mph, difficult to calculate unless you take a flat average of 6mph. Its easier to compare test #1 to test #3 (and test #2 and #4) because both had the same conditions, riding into the headwind. You can see a linear drop in mpg as speed increases. ( same for #2 and #4).

 

[n30r3l0ad3d]

I thought I would chime in on this as well, considering I did some testing of my own. First off, I am 250lbs 6'2. I have a rear hugger, and radiator guard installed, stock windshield. When I first got my NC, I took it 84 miles riding 2 up. I avg'd around 78 mpg on my first tank. Then, my mpg as time went on began to fluctuate going from 78 to as low as 55mpg. Single riding, I typically get around the advertised 64mpg. Below are my personal observations while commuting to work, no highway miles. Some country, some city.

Some things I will say is this:

1) The NC (at least mine) seems to get BETTER mpg while riding 2 up. (Every time I've had the wife on the bike, I get high 70's in MPG)
2) The NC does NOT like any wind whatsoever, and your MPG will take a hit. (1 week of harsh winds, I bearly got over 60 mpg)
3) Shifting into 6th at under 55 mph gains you no MPG, in fact I've found keeping it in 5th at 55mph gets better mpg ? I have no idea why, but this is true on my NC.
4) Getting on the throttle with the NC doesn't seem to alter the MPG, nor going easy on it. I've tried it both ways.
5) Mine has always ran rich. When I fire my NC up in the mornings, you can smell excess fuel coming out the exhaust. I asked dealer, said it was normal.

It's confusing and frustrating. But compared to my older honda I get a straight 43 mpg so anything above that is a win in my book. Then again, I have 2 other vehicles that get 12 mpg at best so, if you put it that way it's a huge win.

 

[davidc83]

I have been keeping track of my mileage on paper since I bought the NC700x in June. I entered the results today in Fuelly.com and my stats are as follows:
worst mpg for the tank- 63.7 mpg, this was during my 90+mph run with 4 miles at 105mph (gps)-I get my bikes once to triple digits
best mpg for the tank-78.6 mpg, this was my run thru the Smokey mountains on Labor Day weekend.
Average mpg-71.5 mpg since June.
This past weekend on an advrider ride in Hoosier country (lots of stop and go-country roads, lots of gravel) I got 77.4, 66.3, and 72.8 mpg.
I ride Interstate, 2 lane highway, and country roads (usually a combination of all three whenever I ride the NC700x).
Love this bike

 

[L.B.S.]

I’ve had issue with fuel economy on the NCX since I purchased it just a few weeks ago from an individual in the DFW area. I bought this bike primarily for the fuel economy and its been a little frustrating to see everyone’s results on fuelly compared to my results. Suffice it to say I’ve become a little obsessed with finding those numbers and since I wasn’t seeing them in my normal riding activities, I decided to actively find my problem.

Had I known what I now know, I may have opted for the Versys. (Sorry, guys.)

Other factors such as wind speed, drag created by luggage and rider load can decrease mileage. But, the number one contributing factor that directly impacts MPG is: hot, nasty, bad-***, SPEED! Slow down and you’ll see those numbers, or just ride and still get better than the average bike.

So take my reply as simply a mattery of curiousity; please do not read anything into it, that isn't there.

Say a Versys (or 650 'Strom, or whatever) was suddenly plopped down in front of you, as an even trade for your NCX.

Would you immediately do a trade? If so, why? What exactly is it that you think you are missing from the NCX's repertoire, that the other bike choice would remedy?

If you think your mileage isn't as good as it should be, swapped to a Versys, what would you do if your economy was equally not as good compared to other Versys owners on Fuelly? Would you shrug off that "failing" as simply a fact of life because the Versys "has more power, you just have to ride it with specific determination to realize any economy" or something?

If the Kwak had average or even slightly better mpg figures than other examples, but still fell short of most NC700X's, would that get it the seal of approval because: "it is close to an NCX for mileage, but you get lots more power"

See, I'm just trying to determine the root cause of your initial "what I know now" premise. If you did get your NCX primarily for the fuel economy, what is it about other bikes that have proven to *not* get as good mpg's as an NCX, that constitutes a worthwhile trade off, to want instead?


For me personally, the MPG numbers were actually at the very bottom of my wish list. (still a factor, but at the bottom of the pile)

LBS "Reasonable" motorcycle wish list, prior to the NC700X being built:

1: Cargo storage capability. (cubbies, places to put stuff, hide stuff, store stuff. Go figure, it's my Kryptonite, lol)
2: Simple owner servicability. (like screw and locknut valves, no absurd electronics like CanBus, chain final drive)
3: Midsize Parallel Twin, that's NOT a 360* crank, with gear driven counterbalancer/s.
4: Gigantic fuel tank capacity. (bummed that the NCX has such a wee little fuel cell)
5: 270* crank. This has always been my secret very favourite P.Twin design configuration!
6: A bit more suspension travel, and ability to venture off pavement a little bit, dependent on owner's desire.
7: Twin "normal" round headlights, OEM LED tail/brake lights.
8: Honda.
9: Non outrageous price.
10: Great fuel efficiency. (if I can't have a supertanker fuel cell, well I guess this has to suffice)

As you can see, Honda pretty much read my mind word for word, on exactly what I wanted!

Power wasn't even a tiny remote consideration in my musings. I admit to being a bit luke warm about the super low redline. Ideally I would prefer say, an 8K one, even if that meant a drop in a bit of MPG's. (gasp) Not for performance sake, merely because I'm used to all my bikes always having higher redlines.

I would have paid a couple thousand more dollars without batting an eye, if I could have got an NCX with Gear Driven Cams instead of chain.

Also note, glaringly missing from my list is any braking or suspension requirements. This is nearly always able to be better solved by the aftermarket industry, so OEM stuff doesn't stop or sway me. (there is a bad pun in there somewhere, forgive me lol)

I can't think of another motorcyle that even comes close to how well the NCX suits me, so I'm always intrigued by the little things that make or break another's wish list.

 

[Naked_Duc]

Fuelly averages can be misleading. It's averages from ALL different type of rider size, riding style, road/riding speed. One guy at 160lbs getting 75MPG average, riding 45-50 mpg in the backroads, doesn't mean the next guy at 250lbs would get the same average going 80 mpg on the interstate. The averages are for references.

The majority of the MPG on Fuelly (globally) fell within 60 to 70, which is what you should expect in real life. Now that you are getting below the low end of that range, you will have to ask yourself, are you doing anything different than what everybody else is doing? Going 75mph with a head wind will kill your mileage regardless which bike you ride. On top of that, you got luggage, too, which is acting like a boat anchor when you are flying down the interstate. I don't blame you though. Houston is flat as hell and the road is wide freaking open. It'd silly to go 65 when everybody is going 80.

Looking at Versys on Fuelly. The mpg average fell between 40 and 50. I wouldn't be surprised if you get below 40 riding the Versys. That would make 55mpg look really good, wouldn't it?

But if the Versys tickles your fancy, then by all means trade for a Versys. Life is too short for whining.

 

[12NC700X]

Life is too short for whining.

Thanks for this. Much appreciated.

 

[12NC700X]

So take my reply as simply a mattery of curiousity; please do not read anything into it, that isn't there.

Say a Versys (or 650 'Strom, or whatever) was suddenly plopped down in front of you, as an even trade for your NCX.

Would you immediately do a trade? If so, why? What exactly is it that you think you are missing from the NCX's repertoire, that the other bike choice would remedy?

Here are the criteria I used to choose this bike;
1. Don't mind if it sits outside
2. Fuel economy
3. Utility
4. Power delivery
5. Deal on purchase / budget
6. Touring
7. Back road blasting

It was a dead tie (for me) between the Versys and the NCX with scores of 5.5 of the 7 criteria (DRZ had a score of 5). I opted for the NCX based on fuel economy over the Versys and power. That's why I am so focused on fuel econ (but now that I see I have to ride slow to achieve that, I wont be focused on it going forward). Had I known I would get the same gas mileage as I got on my DRZ (ride it all day WFO and get 50mpg), I would have put a seat and trunk on it to cover the utility and comfort issues it had, and just keep it. Since I'm not seeing the mpg numbers and will realistically probably not see the stellar numbers that everyone else has, I would opt for power and get the Versys. I rode both a few times prior to purchase and yes the Versys has the NCX in power and its noticeable (it's also "buzzy"). If I had bought the Versys, there would be zero focus on fuel econ., because that was not a reason I considered that bike.


SO live and learn. But, yes, anyone out there with a Versys or DRZ that wants to trade, PM me... It doesn't mean I don't think the NCX is a good bike, it just doesn't meet my needs.

 

[Trippin]

And here I am happy with 60 on a 4 day trip...

Thanks for doing this, always interesting to see the numbers

 

[anglachel]

Fuelly averages can be misleading. It's averages from ALL different type of rider size, riding style, road/riding speed. One guy at 160lbs getting 75MPG average, riding 45-50 mpg in the backroads, doesn't mean the next guy at 250lbs would get the same average going 80 mpg on the interstate. The averages are for references.

I just want to say this again, weight on the motorcycle doesn't matter nearly as much as aerodynamics. Weight matters for starting and stopping. Just for maintaining a speed (almost any speed you are going to be doing outside of idling in first gear) aerodynamics is key. This is why the op saw the decrease in mileage as speed increased, this is why if you hold the throttle locked and lay down on the frunk you will speed up.

Aerodynamics is the key to this.
Even riding two up (as someone else mentioned) can improve your MPG's so long as you are now more aerodynamic (i.e. the person behind you is smaller provides a smoother surface that flat back.)
Changing from a 3/4 to a full face helmet will improve gas milage, because the full face helmet is more aerodynamic.

If you want to get better milage, get handguards, get a windscreen, get luggage that is a better shape, or a lightweight carbon fiber shell to encompass the whole bike.

The same is true for cars, bicycles, and anything else that moves, if you can reduce friction you can increase efficiency. the prius has a very low drag coefficient, the Model S has door handles that fold flat to improve drag...

There are only three main sources of friction on a bike, and that's rolling resistance from the tires, wind resistance from the air, and internal resistance (from things like the chain, transmission, bearings, alternators, water pumps, etc. that can be dealt with through proper maintenance). The last one honda mostly took care of for us, all we need to do is keep up on lubrication. The first one, the only thing you can do is change the surface you are riding on, or change your tires, and there are practical limits to both of those (tires need to stick to go around corners...). We are a long way off from the practical limits on aerodynamics, particularly sitting up right on our bikes, with vented jackets (that keep us cool but provide resistance in the wind as well) and highway pegs that add more surface area to the front of the bike while our legs hang off the sides more...





All of that being said.
the cost difference in gas is roughly half from 30 mpg (best my car gets) to 55 mpg (worst I can imagine myself getting on the NC) and only half again from 55mpg to 100mpg (best I can imagine getting on the NC) it goes from 12 cents per mile, to 6 cents per mile, to 3 cents per mile... 3 cents per mile is what all aerodynamic increases we could manage (shy of putting a carbon fiber shell over the whole thing) is likely what we can manage...

 

[SergeantChuck]

Here are the criteria I used to choose this bike;
1. Don't mind if it sits outside
2. Fuel economy
3. Utility
4. Power delivery
5. Deal on purchase / budget
6. Touring
7. Back road blasting

This isn't a personal attack so wanted to state that up front. If a person was focused strictly on fuel economy I wouldn't think a Versys would hit the list. If you look at the results on fuelly(which may or may not be accurate) the Versys best average is 49MPG. You would have to depelete an entire tank of fuel riding at 80MPH into a strong headwind to accomplish that on the NC. A CBR250 is comparable with 65MPG. The Vstrom is close with 51MPG but the NC is sitting at 67MPG and the lowest average is 53MPG. Of course all these numbers are taken from Fuelly so who knows how reliable they are but they give you a general idea of where a bike stands.

Someone else said it earlier. There are lots of things that will determine your fuel economy. You could go out and buy a Versys and find your asking the same question on their forum. Why are all you guys getting the fuel mileage your getting and I'm only getting this? Could be your riding style, your route, your speed, or drag.

Fuel economy was not a factor when I bought this bike. I'm sure it was for many here. If it was a factor I think a person would be hard pressed to find another bike on the market that gets 67MPG globally. .

My Criteria

1. Is it a Honda - Check
2. Is it reliable - Check
3. Good for commuting - Check
4. Lot of Storage - Check
5. Pleasing to my Eye - Check

Cost and fuel economy were just a plus. I really wanted the Repsol CBR1000RR but I'm very happy with my NC.

 

[n30r3l0ad3d]

I can weigh in on the Versus situation as well. The only thing that bike had on the NC, was a bit more power and what felt like a better rear brake. That's it. The ride was horrible, the bike didn't handle as well as the NC, and NO FRUNK STORAGE. NO FRUNK STORAGE. Did I mention, NO FRUNK STORAGE? Because I will say it again. NO, FRUNK, STORAGE.

Trust me, the NC was the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Naked_Duc]

I can weigh in on the Versus situation as well. The only thing that bike had on the NC, was a bit more power and what felt like a better rear brake. That's it. The ride was horrible, the bike didn't handle as well as the NC, and NO FRUNK STORAGE. NO FRUNK STORAGE. Did I mention, NO FRUNK STORAGE? Because I will say it again. NO, FRUNK, STORAGE.

Trust me, the NC was the lesser of 2 evils.

n30r3I0ad3d, you forgot to mention the FRUNK! Of all the good things you talked about the NCX, you failed to mention the frunk. C'mon maaaaan.

Yah, I agree. "The grass is always greener on the other side" so the pursue for perfection, for some, will never end. This might be the case for the OP.

 

[Naked_Duc]

I just want to say this again, weight on the motorcycle doesn't matter nearly as much as aerodynamics. Weight matters for starting and stopping. Just for maintaining a speed (almost any speed you are going to be doing outside of idling in first gear) aerodynamics is key. This is why the op saw the decrease in mileage as speed increased, this is why if you hold the throttle locked and lay down on the frunk you will speed up.

Completely agree there. Weight plays a factor in stop and go where you have to change speed often. The more weight you carry, the more energy you have to spent to accelerate that mass. Plain physics. I would also argue that it does play a small part even at constant highway speed, here's why.

Most people are weight-height proportional with somewhat consistent density. So if you are a light rider like me (150lb), you tend to be shorter (5'7). If you are a heavier rider, you tend to be taller and bigger. EXCEPT for OLD CAN RIDE. So at highway speed (70mph), I can hide tuck behind the Honda tall screen just fine. But if you are 6'1, 240, your helmet and shoulders are poking out of the air stream. You would require a larger windscreen which creates a bigger air bubble. Your bigger legs are sticking out more, as well. All of which creates bigger wind resistance.

It may not be that much of a difference. But as your speed increase, the difference would be magnified.