2013 FJR - Product announced!

[phroenips]

from the article >> "That means a genuine 260 mile range from the 5.5 gallon (25 litre) tank, which is impressive considering the power".

Had the author bothered reading the owners manual, he would have learned that the Gen III has a 6.6 gal capacity, as do the Gen I and Gen II bikes. Makes me wonder about the credibility of his review.

UK gallon != US gallon

 

[TouringRider]

from the article >> "That means a genuine 260 mile range from the 5.5 gallon (25 litre) tank, which is impressive considering the power".

Had the author bothered reading the owners manual, he would have learned that the Gen III has a 6.6 gal capacity, as do the Gen I and Gen II bikes. Makes me wonder about the credibility of his review.

UK gallon != US gallon

Convert 25 Liters

To Imperial gallons = 5.5

To US gallons = 6.6

https://gallonstoliters.com/index.php?q=6.6&from=us&to=lit&result=25.00350534

 

[jeremyr62]

I thought Kevin Ash's review was pretty good. He is definitely one of the better bike journo's over this side of the Atlantic. I'm in the market for one of these to replace my 04 and the review gave me useful decision making info. Just because he points out the bike's limitations doesn't make it a bad review IMO. It is a 10 year old design and the chassis/suspension does show it's age now and again. I still like it but I bet the new Trophy probably does handle better. Looks like **** but handles better.

 

[mikerider]

Reading the review, this paragraph:

"You might not want to do it two-up though. The space is adequate if rider and passenger aren't too large and comfort on the back is good too, but Yamaha recommends you either have the panniers, which are a reasonable but not over-generous capacity, or you have a top box, but not both, as it could exceed the design weight limit of the rear subframe. That seems like quite an oversight these days."

I'm looking at the Gen III. Do other GEN have any problem with the subframe with 2-up + paniers + top box?

Thanks.

 

[mikerider]

The review on "ashonbikes" has been posted.

https://www.ashonbike...300-2013-review

I felt that the RR contained a lot of personal bias BS and blather. meh.

I've read this review several times. There are two takeaway points to me. First, the steering, while "better than it used to be" (I did not know there was a deficiency) still requires one "...to put pressure on the inside handlebar to keep the bike on its line in a corner, which after a long distance on twisty roads gets tiring." Though I am a simpleton, I thought pressing on the bar to lean was inherent in executing turns. And I am used to being (pleasantly) tired after riding long distance or on twisty rides. I guess I don't understand.

... snip...

I guess what the author meant was that while we always need to put pressure on the bar to initiate a turn, but when it's turning, we should be able to release the pressure and the bike would tracking the turn neutrally. It sounds like he needed to keep the pressure on the bar even while during the turn?

 

[Constant Mesh]

From the translated review:

"A 130 km / h, the four-cylinder purrs only 4 000 r / min, far from the red zone at 9 000 r / min."

130 KPH = 80.7 MPH

If the speedo calibration is not overly optimistic the overall gear ratio has been changed.

On my '04 the speedo displays ~71 MPH at 4K RPM. On the '06 and later the speedo probably displays 73 or 74 MPH at 4K.

Jumping up to 80 or 81 MPH at 4K is a pretty big change.

Surely they can get the calibration of the digital speedo spot-on -- just displaying numbers, no mechanism involved.

 

[Fred W]

Reading the review, this paragraph:

"You might not want to do it two-up though. The space is adequate if rider and passenger aren't too large and comfort on the back is good too, but Yamaha recommends you either have the panniers, which are a reasonable but not over-generous capacity, or you have a top box, but not both, as it could exceed the design weight limit of the rear subframe. That seems like quite an oversight these days."

I'm looking at the Gen III. Do other GEN have any problem with the subframe with 2-up + paniers + top box?

Thanks.

That is the same BS that Yamaha has been saying since day one. They claim that you shouldn't use a top box and saddle bags simultaneously, which is total nonsense. It has nothing to do with subframe weakness. They aren't even on the same subframe. I think the author just made that part of it up. The statement is more of a CYA legal statement than anything based on capacities.

The review on "ashonbikes" has been posted.

https://www.ashonbike...300-2013-review

I felt that the RR contained a lot of personal bias BS and blather. meh.

I've read this review several times. There are two takeaway points to me. First, the steering, while "better than it used to be" (I did not know there was a deficiency) still requires one "...to put pressure on the inside handlebar to keep the bike on its line in a corner, which after a long distance on twisty roads gets tiring." Though I am a simpleton, I thought pressing on the bar to lean was inherent in executing turns. And I am used to being (pleasantly) tired after riding long distance or on twisty rides. I guess I don't understand.

... snip...

I guess what the author meant was that while we always need to put pressure on the bar to initiate a turn, but when it's turning, we should be able to release the pressure and the bike would tracking the turn neutrally. It sounds like he needed to keep the pressure on the bar even while during the turn?

Exactly. But having "neutral steering" is a function of many (adjustable) things that a short test ride can't determine. Tire pressure and choice, and suspension setup can make a bike either fall into a turn or understeer like a mack truck, or in between (neutral). In other words, it is more about bike setup than the bike's design. If the reviewer was an experienced rider, as is inferred, you would think that he would have known this.

Here's two more glaring mistakes:

The intake system has been revamped with new throttle bodies, intake funnels and air cleaner, and at the other end of the process is a reshaped exhaust system which is lighter and more efficient - it comes with two instead of four catalysers. The engine's old steel cylinder liners are gone, replaced by hard coated aluminium and lower friction piston rings are fitted, with the result that power is up 3bhp to 144bhp.

What FJR ever had 4 cats? Most I've ever seen is two.

And the FJR never had steel cylinder liners. They have always been ceramic coated alloy.

 

[RaYzerman19]

Reading the review, this paragraph:

"You might not want to do it two-up though. The space is adequate if rider and passenger aren't too large and comfort on the back is good too, but Yamaha recommends you either have the panniers, which are a reasonable but not over-generous capacity, or you have a top box, but not both, as it could exceed the design weight limit of the rear subframe. That seems like quite an oversight these days."

I'm looking at the Gen III. Do other GEN have any problem with the subframe with 2-up + paniers + top box?

Thanks.

Back in the day of Gen 1 reviews when I was looking for an ST bike, you heard about the "not enough room for two-up", so Mamma Yamma lengthened the bike 1 1/2", solved the heat problem and in 2006 gave us the superior Gen II. Many here ride Gen 1's two-up and I haven't heard too many complaints......

You'll find most manufacturers recommend light loads in panniers/top boxes... most suspensions are undersprung and if we strictly followed the total vehicle weight guidelines, we'd never be two-up or have more than 20 lbs. of luggage.

 

[gixxerjasen]

I dream of days that I get tired of holding my bike into turns. If only. :lol:

 

[MCRIDER007]

In the last 5 years I have been a lot more interested in suspension than engine performance, probably because the engines have more performance than I can use on public highways, and I liked Ash's comments about the new suspension but lets have a reality check. The frame and front forks are the same as a GEN II, does anyone who has the GP Suspension, Traxxion, or Racetech fork modifications think the 2013 model is going to have as good of handling as what they currently have? Ditto for the rear shock, is the new OEM shock going to be as good as the Wilbers, Penske, or Ohlins shocks we have installed? Granted, these aftermarket improvements can probably be transferred to the 2013 model but the end result is going to be the same as what we currently have. If Yamaha had put an inverted fork on the 2013 model then we would be expecting a real handling improvement.

 

[CopB8]

I thought Kevin Ash's review was pretty good. He is definitely one of the better bike journo's over this side of the Atlantic. I'm in the market for one of these to replace my 04 and the review gave me useful decision making info. Just because he points out the bike's limitations doesn't make it a bad review IMO. It is a 10 year old design and the chassis/suspension does show it's age now and again. I still like it but I bet the new Trophy probably does handle better. Looks like **** but handles better.

I agree.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my '04 and haven't found a compelling reason to trade it in the last 9 years, but, there's no doubt it has a slight tendency to 'flop' into a corner. Meaning, the bike will feel like it wants to turn a little more than necessary into the corner and you have to apply a slight pressure to the inside bar to stay on line. I notice this each time I've been off the bike a while and riding my Speed Triple, which is completely neutral, and then get back on the FJR. I understand they're different bikes with different purposes and that the tendency is minor and insignificant, but it is there. No biggie and it would have zero bearing on whether I purchased a '13 or not.

As far as horsepower, I think the bike was exceptional for 2004 and is still adequate for 2013. We've traveled a lot 2 up (I'm 240, my SO 125) with bags, top-case, and more and never felt to bike was working too hard. We would have to shift down 1 or 2 gears to rocket past something slow in a very short time but once above 5K I was never disappointed.

I'm going to wait to see the Trophy when it comes out but so far it looks to have a face only a mother can love. I also can't believe it'll perform as well as the FJ.

Also, I'm very hesitant to move away from Yamaha quality. Touch wood, but my bike has been bullet proof since the day I bought it and that's what I've come to expect. A month ago I had a real lust for the new Ducati Multistrada but after doing a bunch of reading it's now dead to me.

One thing for sure, considering that the FJR has only moderately been upgraded in the last 12 to 13 years and it's still competitive against today's newest bikes, shows you how far ahead of it's competition it was in the early 2000's!

 

[wheatonFJR]

I dream of days that I get tired of holding my bike into turns. If only. :lol:

Exactly! :lol:

 

[Fred W]

From the translated review:

"A 130 km / h, the four-cylinder purrs only 4 000 r / min, far from the red zone at 9 000 r / min."

130 KPH = 80.7 MPH

If the speedo calibration is not overly optimistic the overall gear ratio has been changed.

On my '04 the speedo displays ~71 MPH at 4K RPM. On the '06 and later the speedo probably displays 73 or 74 MPH at 4K.

Jumping up to 80 or 81 MPH at 4K is a pretty big change.

Surely they can get the calibration of the digital speedo spot-on -- just displaying numbers, no mechanism involved.

Good catch. Something has definitely changed to have 80 mph at 4k rpm. I entered the known 1st and second gen gear ratios into an online gearing calculator and found the following:

At 80 mph a 1st gen is turning 4367 rpm.

The only difference between a 1st gen and second gen gearing is in the final drive (2.696 vs 2.773 on 1st gen), so a second gen would be turning 4246 rpm.

If the only change on the 2013 is being made in the gear box, to get the quoted 4000 rpm at 80mph would mean that the 5th gear would need to have been changed from a 0.929 overdrive ratio up to around a 0.875. That is a very significant difference.

As for the speedo accuracy, I'm sure that they will still (intentionally) have the speedo read out high. They could make the analog ones read exactly right too, if they wanted to, but they don't, to allow for possible variation in tire circumference (by brand) down the road. They never want to have a situation where the speedo reads out lower than actual. That would be grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[TouringRider]

Reading the review, this paragraph:

"You might not want to do it two-up though. The space is adequate if rider and passenger aren't too large and comfort on the back is good too, but Yamaha recommends you either have the panniers, which are a reasonable but not over-generous capacity, or you have a top box, but not both, as it could exceed the design weight limit of the rear subframe. That seems like quite an oversight these days."

I'm looking at the Gen III. Do other GEN have any problem with the subframe with 2-up + paniers + top box?

Thanks.

I don’t know about the sub frame but that's what they say in the instruction for my 2012.

 

[wfooshee]

They have always said that, and we have always ignored it.

While you're in there looking for instructions, find the shift points the manual lists, ie. shift to 2nd at x mph, 3rd at y mph. You follow those, too, don't you? :lol:

And Fred, how is not the same subframe? The rear subframe is that triangle that starts at the frame right behind the engine. That subframe carries both seats, the side cases, mufflers, top case, ECU, rear lights, and *gasp* whatever you keep under the seats.

 

[MCRIDER007]

Good catch. Something has definitely changed to have 80 mph at 4k rpm. I entered the known 1st and second gen gear ratios into an online gearing calculator and found the following:

At 80 mph a 1st gen is turning 4367 rpm.

The only difference between a 1st gen and second gen gearing is in the final drive (2.696 vs 2.773 on 1st gen), so a second gen would be turning 4246 rpm.

If the only change on the 2013 is being made in the gear box, to get the quoted 4000 rpm at 80mph would mean that the 5th gear would need to have been changed from a 0.929 overdrive ratio up to around a 0.875. That is a very significant difference.

You are making an assumption that the tach and speedometer are consistent between generations. We did some comparisons between an 05 and 06 and there was a 400 rpm difference at an indicated 70 mph, too much for a 2.7 percent change, therefore one or both of the tachs were inaccurate. On my 08, 4,000 rpms is an indicated 78 mph but only 73 mph on the GPS. If the 2013 model is indicating 80 mph at 4,000 rpms my guess is that they made the same change as before, one tooth in the middle gear, and the actual speed is about 75 mph.

 

[Fred W]

And Fred, how is not the same subframe? The rear subframe is that triangle that starts at the frame right behind the engine. That subframe carries both seats, the side cases, mufflers, top case, ECU, rear lights, and *gasp* whatever you keep under the seats.

Oh, that subframe? Ha ha!! Well yes, we wouldn't want to overload that with a top box. But what about all the 300 lb riders and passengers on the seat. That's on that same damn subframe!!

You are making an assumption that the tach and speedometer are consistent between generations. We did some comparisons between an 05 and 06 and there was a 400 rpm difference at an indicated 70 mph, too much for a 2.7 percent change, therefore one or both of the tachs were inaccurate. On my 08, 4,000 rpms is an indicated 78 mph but only 73 mph on the GPS. If the 2013 model is indicating 80 mph at 4,000 rpms my guess is that they made the same change as before, one tooth in the middle gear, and the actual speed is about 75 mph.

True, my numbers would all be the actuals, not taking any error of the instruments into account.

On my '05 4000 rpm on the tach is very close to an indicated 70 mph, which is actually a few mph less than that by GPS. So at a true 70 mph the tach shows something higher than 4k. The gearing calculator says it should be turning only 3821 rpm at an actual 70 mph, so my tach is definitely reading high. Maybe the new one is more accurate? Or even reading too low?

That would surely be cheaper than actually re-gearing the transmission and would probably have the same net effect on sales.

 

[bramfrank]

Gen-II added one cog to the drivetrain, dropping all RPMs by whatever the percentage was, but supposedly about 500 rpm at 70 mph. The 2013 reportedly changes the fifth gear ratio to drop only that gear's engine RPMs for 'touring' without impacting on the performance available in gears 1-4.

As to lengthening the swingarm for the Gen-II, I recall that this reportedly was to make it easier to keep the front wheel on the ground (or, more to the point, harder to wheelie the machine), rather than to make more room for passengers.

My issues with Kevin's review stem from the fact that somehow his beloved Triumph (which isn't yet available) trumps everything and even though it has less power than the FJR he claimed it has more, handles better and such. His basic information was unverified (the ceramic plated cylinders, for example) and somehow, according to him the machine has no room. I called it biased. I continue to believe that it was, not that I'm running out to buy a new machine because ot has a pretty digital dash.

Using the top box together with the side cases? The book has always said it, supposedly because the combination affects handling, but the reality is that when I'm touring I have the side cases on and I have a bag strapped to the back seat - if the top box is bad, my bag is too. Feel free to use both together. Note, though that according to the book 7 pounts is all you can stick in the bags.

 

[carlson_mn]

Good catch. Something has definitely changed to have 80 mph at 4k rpm. I entered the known 1st and second gen gear ratios into an online gearing calculator and found the following:

At 80 mph a 1st gen is turning 4367 rpm.

The only difference between a 1st gen and second gen gearing is in the final drive (2.696 vs 2.773 on 1st gen), so a second gen would be turning 4246 rpm.

If the only change on the 2013 is being made in the gear box, to get the quoted 4000 rpm at 80mph would mean that the 5th gear would need to have been changed from a 0.929 overdrive ratio up to around a 0.875. That is a very significant difference.

You are making an assumption that the tach and speedometer are consistent between generations. We did some comparisons between an 05 and 06 and there was a 400 rpm difference at an indicated 70 mph, too much for a 2.7 percent change, therefore one or both of the tachs were inaccurate. On my 08, 4,000 rpms is an indicated 78 mph but only 73 mph on the GPS. If the 2013 model is indicating 80 mph at 4,000 rpms my guess is that they made the same change as before, one tooth in the middle gear, and the actual speed is about 75 mph.

The speedo on my 08 reads 1-2mph faster than my 04 compared to the same GPS. Either way the gearing change they made from 05-06 seems to be about perfect. Smooth, good power, good mpg.

Oh and Fred Yamaha put 4 cats in the Gen 2s. The extra two are in the start of the mufflers. It's been talked about with some pics of the honeycomb cats too. That's why the gen2 mufflers are 2lbs heavier each.

 

[CopB8]

Quick question for those who have had both GEN 1 and GEN 2's. Could you feel a noticible difference in the gearing of those bikes? Did cruising in 5th at 80 feel noticible more relaxed on the GEN 2 than on the GEN 1?