How quick is your FJR?

DrQ · Aug 3, 2007

Do these numbers look correct? Does anyone know if the AE differs from the grip clutch?

Motorcycle Consumer News Stats, unkn. year....

FJR

0-60 2.97 sec

0-100 6.84

1/4 10.68

Top 152.6

60-0 117.8'

637 lbs.

madmike2 · Aug 3, 2007

Eye dunno.... :unknw: .....

and this matters because..... :umnik2:

~~1.) There is a need to shock the cruiser riders?~~

2.) This information will impress the sportbike crowd?

3.) Using motorcycle test information is ore fun than threatening: "My dad can beat up your dad!"?

4.) Any of we, who are mere mortal FJR owners, could never duplicate what professional riders hired to do motorcycle testing can do, and they use the best-of-??? numbers, not a one-time best shot? :twitchsmile:

It's dog-pile Friday, but I have deleted the rest of his posting. DrQ, if its important to you, go to the local dragstrip and have someone time you.

Edit: IIRC, the AE is marginally slower than the standard "clutch" model. Of course, most of us are not racing them but rather enjoying the wide torque band and actually riding ours. There have been numbers posted by different magazines concerning he AE and the "standard" model. Do more research.

DrQ · Aug 3, 2007

It may not matter to you sporto, which means it doesn't matter to you. Speaking on behalf of others in a derogatory fashion advertises a significant intellectual dysfunction in you.

2WheelTiger · Aug 3, 2007

DrQ,

He's not being mean. He's being a ****, which is different on this board.

DICKS incite thoughtful discourse of differing opinions. (Or so it's said.)

Get used to it. There's no harm intended. It's just the way some of us old crotchety *******s express ourselves.

IMHO, those numbers are "corrected" figures which is mathematical cheating. FORTUNATELY, this kind of mathematical cheating is applied equally to all machines, so comparisons are easy. However, I have yet to meet anyone who's gotten within 6% of those numbers. Most people can't break into the 10's, and very few have really good 60' times.

152.6 is probably realistic, but was that with or without bags? I turned 137 with the bags last weekend on the GPS and there was more to be had. Running out of racetrack was the only limit.

0-100 numbers require equipment few of us have, and much of that equipment is sensitive to wheelies, so the numbers can be questionable.

I guess your real question was: "Do these numbers look correct?"

Yes, they look correct for the part of the planet where they were derived.

2WheelTiger · Aug 3, 2007

MadMike,

Yes, a 1/4 mile time of 10.68 will impress the heck out of most sportbikers. Very very few literbikers ever get into the 9s because they're inexperienced. Very very few of them think a shaftie can wheelie or haul azz.

I don't see any real problem with giving them cause to respect S/T bikes and guys who could be their 'gramps'. If they respect us, they might listen to us. In the log run we might save one from himself.

boogahboogah · Aug 3, 2007

Numbers look correct. Minor variations exist between cycle mags tests.

According to magazine reviews, AE is slightly slower.

drew231506 · Aug 3, 2007

Andre said:
DrQ,He's not being mean. He's being a ****, which is different on this board.

DICKS incite thoughtful discourse of differing opinions. (Or so it's said.)

Get used to it. There's no harm intended. It's just the way some of us old crotchety *******s express ourselves.

IMHO, those numbers are "corrected" figures which is mathematical cheating. FORTUNATELY, this kind of mathematical cheating is applied equally to all machines, so comparisons are easy. However, I have yet to meet anyone who's gotten within 6% of those numbers. Most people can't break into the 10's, and very few have really good 60' times.

152.6 is probably realistic, but was that with or without bags? I turned 137 with the bags last weekend on the GPS and there was more to be had. Running out of racetrack was the only limit.

0-100 numbers require equipment few of us have, and much of that equipment is sensitive to wheelies, so the numbers can be questionable.

I guess your real question was: "Do these numbers look correct?"

Yes, they look correct for the part of the planet where they were derived.

Haha...

If you bring up speed on this forum you get scolded...just like your Dad would respond.

MadMike is my man though...he's just givin you a hard time.

khrome · Aug 4, 2007

Here are the 05 numbers Clicky but is the gen II faster?

khrome

Silent · Aug 4, 2007

I've heard real world 1/4's to be low 11's.

Mines faster than I am

2WheelTiger · Aug 4, 2007

khrome said:
Here are the 05 numbers Clicky but is the gen II faster?
khrome

That page is also a perfect example of why it's not wise to use slick-mag numbers to compare performance. If you look at the numbers for the 04 to 07 R1's below the FJR, you'll discover something pretty interesting. It seems the times for the 06 R1 are lower than any other (by a significant amount) and the 06 R1 LE is the slowest R1 ever built. I'm gonna toss that mathematical turd out of the equation just because.

A good general rule for 1/4 mile drags is that top speed is a good indicator of total horsepower. That speed is fairly independent of your launch effectiveness and can be used as a good baseline for tuning.

So, one would be able to see that the 04 to 07 R1's all make nearly identical horsepower (including that freakishly quick 06). The amazingly low ET was obviously the result of an amazing launch. It strikes me that the rest of the numbers would only diverge because of technique, measurement, or software issues. The changes to the 04 to 06 models weren't that significant, so the fact that we're seeing ups and downs in the chronological progression makes me think we had "human" problems in the other tests.

On the other hand, these numbers really freak me out when I look back at my recent track day. I dealt with two late model R1's on the front straight! WTF? They should have had 20 mph on me before we got to the bend in the asphalt, yet neither one did. Why buy an R1 if you're never gonna ride it? Is it a posing and penis thing? :huh:

madmike2 · Aug 4, 2007

Andre said:
MadMike,Yes, a 1/4 mile time of 10.68 will impress the heck out of most sportbikers. Very very few literbikers ever get into the 9s because they're inexperienced. Very very few of them think a shaftie can wheelie or haul azz.

Yes, I'm aware. I've picked on the 600 owners, all dressed in their replica leathers and shiny helmets whilst riding my "full-dress" XS1100. The bike is older than they are and they have no idea the difference torque means in the real world. It is rather fun to listen to their "friends" razz them after "Pops" on the antique bagger with a Windjammer fairing dusts them....twice! :lol:

Andre said:
I don't see any real problem with giving them cause to respect S/T bikes and guys who could be their 'gramps'. If they respect us, they might listen to us. In the log run we might save one from himself.

I wish they'd listen. Mostly they seem to wonder HOW it happened. Once the conversation turns to technique (controlled entry speed & braking, roll-on throttle control, powering out of a corner and using the bike's torque/HP/speed to stand it up, etc.) their eyes usually glaze over. Too many of them believe what they've read in brochures/magazines or what the salesman has told them rather than actually taking a class or...heavens-to-murgatroid...practice what they MIGHT or should have read in a book on cornering technique.

There are those who are genuinely talented and able and do ride briskly and under control. I fear that many are just lucky. But that's just this old man's intellectually dysfuntional opinion. YMMV

152.6 is probably realistic, but was that with or without bags? I turned 137 with the bags last weekend on the GPS and there was more to be had.

I've heard of a GPS speed of 156 with bags...er..uhm...on a closed, private road, of course. Though it was reported that the last couple of MPH took a bit of time as it was at the top of the RPM limit.

2WheelTiger · Aug 4, 2007

Occasionally I get a newbie to listen, but you have to get them away from their peers. I always take the last one who's paying attention. He's the one with potential. He's also generally the shy one who will react properly to input.

Ooops.... sorry, that's my M.O. as a Catholic Priest. My bad.....

DB43725 · Aug 6, 2007

DrQ,

The local harley shop here had the Dyno Drag trailor stop by and set up Sat, so I rode on over on my FJR,, on the slite chance i might know som,eeone,, lol ,,, Anyway the first one to try it was a V-Rod and he got a big roar from the crowd making 106 real wheel horsepower,and a 11.6 // 1/4 mile time,,, So i just couldnt stand it I had to put the FJR on their,,, Having never done this before ,,had no idea what to expect,, but i done it anyway,, first pass I got hung in 3rd gear,, But then it all came back ,, it went 10.29 and 10.22 both at 126 miles per hour and the rear wheeel HP was 133. Didnt know if that was good or bad ,,but it was kinda fun,,LOL

Great simulator,,, I guess what in pressed me the most was how hard that wheel is to turn on the launch...

O and by the way had the harley boys scrachen their heads somewhat ,,lol

Rockbyter · Aug 6, 2007

DrQ said:
Do these numbers look correct? Does anyone know if the AE differs from the grip clutch?
Motorcycle Consumer News Stats, unkn. year....

FJR

0-60 2.97 sec

0-100 6.84

1/4 10.68

Top 152.6

60-0 117.8'

637 lbs.

Ooooohhhh mine is so much faster than that. 0-60 in, well button was too slow, 0-100 too busy trying to get the 0-60. 1/4 as before. Top had to hit the brakes due to looking at the watch for the 0-60. 637lbs, you not seen my beer belly?

Orient_Express · Aug 6, 2007

DrQ said:
Do these numbers look correct? Does anyone know if the AE differs from the grip clutch?
Motorcycle Consumer News Stats, unkn. year....

FJR

0-60 2.97 sec

0-100 6.84

1/4 10.68

Top 152.6

60-0 117.8'

637 lbs.

Sheeeeuuuuttt...

My old Tiger can beat that... :yahoo:

I know one thing - the FJR is faster that I have the nerve to try...

airboss · Aug 6, 2007

All I know is that a hard roll on the throttle in fifth gear at 60 will get you to 80 in a heartbeat, and I got the award to prove it. :blink:

FJRMGM · Aug 7, 2007

Doesn't matter - the Galaxy Blue '05's were and are the fastest.

JimLor · Aug 7, 2007

Andre - you mention "corrected figures" as mathematical cheating. I see corrected times as just the opposite. Corrected figures, at least theoretically, let you compare a bike that ran a xx sec qtr mile in 40 degree weather in Denver with the same another bike that ran a xx qtr mile in 95 degree weather in Miami. You can run the same bike in those conditions and you'll get a significant difference. When you "correct" the time, you are at least trying to "correct" the time as if the bike/car ran under like conditions. Example, the bike will run better with the more dense 40 degree temp than in the 95 degree temp. So, there are figures to correct both times to a "standard" temp - I don't know what that is, but I suspect it's 70 F or thereabouts.

Bottom line, correcting the times is an attempt to provide a standard to compare 1/4 mile times. A good idea, if done correctly and consistently, in my opinion. That's what I think.

C&C · Aug 7, 2007

Darn fast and real quick.

They all (colors) do about a buck fifty (and some change). And I also believe all (colors) can crack 3 seconds to 60 mph.

How quick is your FJR?

Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:

Active member

Shtirrenuppenmeister

Active member

Chief Executive Carnivore

Chief Executive Carnivore

Well-known member

0 Posts Per Day

Well-known member

Who said FJR&#39;s don&#39;t do dirt?

Chief Executive Carnivore

Shtirrenuppenmeister

Chief Executive Carnivore

Member

Active member

Fire Base Ripcord Association

Well-known member

FJRMGM

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!

Who said FJR's don't do dirt?