Few Gen III observations, comments, and questions

[gixxerjasen]

2. The linked brakes are a huge improvement over the Gen I bike. However, I wish the front brake was linked the the rear brake, and not just the other way around. If I could get just a touch of rear brake when I'm hard on the front brake, then with the exception of emergency situations, I'd never have to move my right foot. Lazy I know, but admitting it is the first step. BTW - it is my understanding that the ST1300 ABS is linked both ways.

Geez, that IS lazy. Next thing you know you'll be whining about what a pain it is to use that clutch lever and could Yamaha do something about it like giving you some buttons to push or something.

13. When the cruise control is set, and I lean the bike over a decent amount, it might be my imagination, but I could have sworn that the bike speed lowered. The cruise did not de-activate. Am I bonkers?

What's the diameter of the side of your tires vs the middle?

Can't remember if it was Keith Code or Lee Parks that talks about this in their book.

 

[HotRodZilla]

Wlfman, you're right. You're both saying the same thing, just in different ways. Simply put, the front lever has no effect on the rear brake. The rear lever has some effect on the front brake, but only if the pressure threshold is met or exceeded.

 

[CA G-Man]

13. When the cruise control is set, and I lean the bike over a decent amount, it might be my imagination, but I could have sworn that the bike speed lowered. The cruise did not de-activate. Am I bonkers?

What's the diameter of the side of your tires vs the middle?

Can't remember if it was Keith Code or Lee Parks that talks about this in their book.

An interesting observation, Jasen; if I understand what you're getting at, the full explanation would be something like this:

All things being equal, when a tire is leaned over and running on a smaller-diameter ring of rubber it would require the tire/wheel to rotate more times to cover the same distance relative to the same tire upright running on the larger centre portion of the tire - resulting in a slight increase in the measured speed, all things being equal (not the actual speed, but the speed indicated on the speedometer). When using CC, what's being maintained is measured speed, not actual speed. So to maintain the same wheel rotation rate (measured speed) the bike has to slow down (actual speed) when leaned over.

Put another way, the CC maintains the set wheel rotation rate, which it converts to a speed for display. When leaned over, those wheels are running a shorter distance for each rotation, which is a another way of saying "slowing down" but the CC system remains unaware.

Other than rambling off-topic is there anything wrong about what I've set out here?

 

[gixxerjasen]

That's pretty much it. Although the book section was discussing more about engine RPM prior to and once leaned over, it all applies the same. Unless Mama Yamaha put in some fancy techno wizardry for lean angle sensing to adjust the CC (not impossible) then it'll likely try to correct when you lean onto the smaller circumference.

The books are buried in a box somewhere in my garage. We are moving in a few weeks and if I unpack anything my wife will kill me.

 

[MojoGuzzi]

Great observations.

I gotta say, I continue to love my '14ES. Passed 20K recently, having picked it up in Feb '14.

 

[gixxerjasen]

Found it, for more reading on the subject...

Lee Parks, Total Control, Chapter 9: Throttle Control.

 

[DeSudet]

re #13: I've noticed mine will almost stumble in the lean. Most noticeably, it's happened when I'm going into a high-speed right-hander that's also banked in such a way that it dips down. I always attributed it to the downhill slope increasing the speed just a smidge, causing the CC to back off the throttle to maintain measured speed. Then I noticed it making a hard 3-lane change (completely empty freeway, just warming the edges of the tires after 20 miles straight up). Felt like it stumbled as I leaned her over, but recovered pretty quickly.

The whole tire diameter thing makes sense, although I think CA G-man had it backwards. The smaller diameter would make the wheels spin faster for the same distance and CC would compensate by cutting throttle.

Either way, it shouldn't be a real issue unless you're using the CC in the twisties, and why would anyone do that?

 

[escapefjrtist]

<snip> I feel a little ABS action in the front lever just as the bike is inching to a normal stop. It happens all the time, so I'm pretty certain it is some normal function. This is my first ABS motorcycle. Is this normal?

Pretty normal behavior for the FJR, although it's not ABS action. Many have attributed it to the floating rotors and movement under very light lever pressure. As an experiment the next time it happens, grab a bit more lever and I bet the shutter will go away.

--G

 

[Fred W]

I think you guys are thinking a bit backwards about the tire circumference when leaned over thing. Yes, the circumference is smaller at a lean, and that means that you will cover slightly less distance per wheel rotation, but the cruise control doesn't know that you are leaned over and neither does the speedometer (which really only measures the rear wheel rotation speed). So the wheel speed will be maintained by the CC, your actual speed will be slightly less when leaned over (for example, as measured by a GPS), but the indicated speed will remain constant, with an increased error as if you were running a smaller diameter tire.

Is it significant? Yeah, I think it is.

Just eye-balling my new PR2 rear tire it appears there is roughly a 1 1/4" difference in radius between the largest circumference and the side of the tire profile where you might expect to run when leaned over fully. The total sidewall height of the rear tire is 180mm x 55% profile = 99mm = 3.9". So the diameter of the tire (2 * 3.9) + 17 = 24.8" is reduced by 2 * 1.25 = 2.5" when leaned over. That 2.5" difference in diameter represents a 10% reduction in diameter (and therefore circumference) so the bike's speed will actually slow by around 10%

 

[Bill Lumberg]

I felt a pronounced ABS-like feel in the front lever several times. I knew that a) it was not ABS but some other phenomenon, or B) I had a problem with my ABS. Wrote it off as a non-issue. This is the first time that I realized I wasn't alone.

<snip> I feel a little ABS action in the front lever just as the bike is inching to a normal stop. It happens all the time, so I'm pretty certain it is some normal function. This is my first ABS motorcycle. Is this normal?

Pretty normal behavior for the FJR, although it's not ABS action. Many have attributed it to the floating rotors and movement under very light lever pressure. As an experiment the next time it happens, grab a bit more lever and I bet the shutter will go away.

--G

 

[hppants]

Well I guess I'm not bonkers - at least not in this particular realm. I ran the math - seems to make sense now.

I won't make it a habit of using the cruise control in the twisties - or even the "curvies", but I guess I'm still playing with and getting to know my new-to-me toy.

I will say that de-activating the cruise control (by any means) took some getting use to. The engine braking on the bike makes it far more pronounced than any cage I've experienced. Sometimes I don't necessarily want to stop, but just de-activate the cruise. What seems to work best for me is to either tap the rear brake or turn off the cruise switch while AT THE SAME TIME offering just a smidge of throttle - perhaps just enough to keep the injectors on.

Pressing forward....

14. I really (REALLY) like the plastic guard/protector thingie in front of the radiator on the Gen III. Cleaning/flushing is much easier and more effective, and the evaporative cooling fins are much better protected this way. Even in the hottest part of our brutal summer day, when I'm running at speed, the temp reads between 165 and 170. It's hard for me to compare this to my Gen I, as the gage was not as descript. But there can be no doubt that it FEELS a lot cooler.

15. The return spring on the throttle for the Gen III is far less stiff than the Gen I. I know that there are conventional-type cables on the throttle that go to some kind of POT device, which translates to the "throttle by wire" phenomenon. I'm not exactly sure where the return spring comes into play.

 

[Allen_C]

Regarding deactivating the cc, my preferred method is slightly pulling in the clutch lever while twisting the throttle slightly to match the throttle position with the speed. Getting this perfected takes a bit of time but the advantages are: you hands are already on the gross so no position change is required, you don't trap the brake which well cause the brake light to illuminate, and no/less jerkiness from engine breaking.

Just an option...

 

[CA G-Man]

The whole tire diameter thing makes sense, although I think CA G-man had it backwards. The smaller diameter would make the wheels spin faster for the same distance and CC would compensate by cutting throttle.

I think you guys are thinking a bit backwards about the tire circumference when leaned over thing. Yes, the circumference is smaller at a lean, and that means that you will cover slightly less distance per wheel rotation, but the cruise control doesn't know that you are leaned over and neither does the speedometer (which really only measures the rear wheel rotation speed). So the wheel speed will be maintained by the CC, your actual speed will be slightly less when leaned over (for example, as measured by a GPS), but the indicated speed will remain constant, with an increased error as if you were running a smaller diameter tire.

Isn't this what I said?:

"So to maintain the same wheel rotation rate (measured speed) the bike has to slow down (actual speed) when leaned over."

Perhaps I could have made it clearer by saying "the bike doesn't compensate for the smaller diameter when leaned over, with the result that the bike slows down." Anyhow, I think we're all saying the same thing.

 

[Cav47]

Regarding deactivating the cc, my preferred method is slightly pulling in the clutch lever while twisting the throttle slightly to match the throttle position with the speed. Getting this perfected takes a bit of time but the advantages are: you hands are already on the gross so no position change is required, you don't trap the brake which well cause the brake light to illuminate, and no/less jerkiness from engine breaking.
Just an option...

On our ride to, during, and from Arkansas, Allen was doing this and I finally had to ask him about his brake light not engaging sometimes when coming off a cruising speed to just coast. I too figured that there would be some "tap or flash" of a brake light but since it was a clutch activated cancel of the cruise, there was not a light flash at all. He used it seamlessly sometimes with no perceptible slow in speed also just to kick the cruise off too. Very effective when he did it.

 

[russperry]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Fred W" data-cid="1245292" data-time="1436872661"><p>

I think you guys are thinking a bit backwards about the tire circumference when leaned over thing. Yes, the circumference is smaller at a lean, and that means that you will cover slightly less distance per wheel rotation, but the cruise control doesn't know that you are leaned over and neither does the speedometer (which really only measures the rear wheel rotation speed). So the wheel speed will be maintained by the CC, your actual speed will be slightly less when leaned over (for example, as measured by a GPS), but the <em class='bbc'>indicated </em>speed will remain constant, with an increased error as if you were running a smaller diameter tire.<br />

<br />

Is it significant? Yeah, I think it is.<br />

<br />

Just eye-balling my new PR2 rear tire it appears there is roughly a 1 1/4" difference in radius between the largest circumference and the side of the tire profile where you might expect to run when leaned over fully. The total sidewall height of the rear tire is 180mm x 55% profile = 99mm = 3.9". So the diameter of the tire (2 * 3.9) + 17 = 24.8" is reduced by 2 * 1.25 = 2.5" when leaned over. That 2.5" difference in diameter represents a 10% reduction in diameter (and therefore circumference) so the bike's speed will actually slow by around 10%</p></blockquote>

 

[russperry]

Interesting math but I'll bet your seat of the pants speedo is gonna give you different feedback.

Case 1 - straight upright doing 80mph - cruising the slab no problem

Case 2 - full lean, on the tire edge, grinding foot pegs. Speedo says 80, real over the ground is only 72, you think you're Mark Marquez!

 

[Fred W]

CA Gman - we probably were saying the same thing. I thought you meant the wheel would speed up to compensate.

I don't see myself using cruise control at full lean anytime soon. But if someone does, please post the video!

As for disengaging the cruise, you can also turn the throttle grip backwards (past closed) to knock it out of cruise mode. It does tend to a bit herky jerky that way though.

On my company car there is a paddle switch on the wheel that you can tap to disengage, or later re-enage the cruise control that is very convenient and doesn't flash the brake lights. Too bad the FJR doesn't have such a feature. Maybe someone could come up with a hack into the "throttle past closed switch" wire to install a "disengage" button?

edit - I just pulled out the wiring diagram. There are a series of normally closed second contacts in switches that provide continuity of 12V power from the "Cruise Control Fuse" through the clutch switch, front brake switch, rear brake switch and throttle grip disengage switch to the ECU. Momentarily breaking that continuity anywhere along the way would disengage the CC. This would be an easy hack.

But maybe not needed if the clutch switch disengages the CC before any clutch slipping? I'll have to play with that option first before messing around adding stuff.

 

[Dances With Deer]

Since the 2015 ES is my first FJR, I can't really compare it to the previous models. However. since 2004, I've made the yearly pilgrimage to Sturgis for test rides, so I've been test riding the various iterations of the FJR since then. Up until I rode the 2014, there was always some little niggle that kept me from pulling the trigger. As far as I can tell, the Gen III is pretty close to perfect (for me). I've got about 2500 miles on the new FJR, and so far I'm loving it.

First of all, the electronic suspension is amazing. When I was taking her over to Rapid City for the 600 mile service, the rough South Dakota interstate was making my back a little sore (just like it always has on every bike I've owned), and I was in the "just deal with it mode" when I suddenly remembered the ES. So I cycled through the menu and put it on "Soft 0," and dang, that sucker got as comfy and floaty as Grandma's Buick! After the service when I was barnstorming the Black Hill switchbacks of the Needles Highway on my way back to Gillette, I firmed up the suspension and it felt as solid as a beach volleyball player's butt cheek. Unbelievable.

The cruise is a mile eating miracle on the long stretches of Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Colorado where I sometimes need to drone out the miles. The engine is AMAZING (especially the torque). I love rolling on some throttle (without shifting down) to vaporize long strings of semis, cars, and meandering parade riders. On my last ride down to Laramie, there was a train of Halliburton trucks chugging along at 45-55 mph on a road with very few places to pass, and when I hit a short passing place, I rolled on the throttle and was running an indicated 124 mph when I passed the last truck (with lots of road to spare). I also love love love the big gas tank. This is the first bike I've owned that will go from Gillette to Laramie (250 miles) without a gas stop. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know why I waited so long.

What a lovely motorcycle. My only disappointment (so far) is that it doesn't have self cancelling turn signals; with all of the gee whizbang tech of cruise, two engine modes, electronic suspension, etc, I would have thought that throwing on some SCTS would have been a piece of cake. Heck, brothers, my BMW R1100S had SCTS back in 2002. But if that's my biggest complaint, I'm good. I even like the stock windscreen and generally run it in the lowest position (although I'm currently pondering the Cee Bailey's Sport Shield). Again, what a nice competent motorcycle.

 

[hppants]

DWD - most excellent comments. I'm glad you like your bike as much as I do mine. I'm looking forward to testing my bike out on some of the wild wild west roads in September. Do consider the C/B Sport shield. I'm 6-0" and 34" inseam. The difference at any speed about 30 mph is astounding - still plenty of buffeting without blocking the wind entirely in the lower positions, and plenty of rain and high speed wind protection in the high position. Mounting is rock solid - at speeds of 100 mph the shield does not move. And the tinted shield really looks good on the bike.

 

[radiummadman]

getting a little anal retentive aren't we