yanktar
Over the hill--and going faster!
Somewhere, sometime, along the line, I heard someone describe a typical criticism in a scholarly journal of a new book, as consisting entirely of castigating the author for not writing the book HE NEVER INTENDED TO WRITE!
Likewise, we hear people again and again criticising bike makers for not building the bike they never intended to build. The FJR is such a bike. No, it's not an R1. It's not supposed to be. Some mags have even mistakenly said that the FJR has an R1-derived motor. (the FZ1 has that R1 derived 20 valve engine) Again, a mistake. I don't expect an FJR to perform like an R1, nor do I expect an R1 to perform like an FJR.
But what I DO expect is a well-thought out compromise between super-slabber GoldWing/Ventures and compact performance bikes.
So the FJR weighs nearly 200 lbs more than an R1. It ALSO weighs 250 lbs LESS than a Venture! Stock the R1 makes about 25 hp more. Stock, the 'Wing makes less HP--and my old Venture Royale made 25-30hp LESS.
Yeah, the R1 will run the 1/4 mile a second faster than the FJR--and the 'Wing will be 2 to 3 seconds slower.
You can ride all day on a 'Wing. Unless you have an iron butt, no nerves in your butt AND incredible endurance, after 30 minutes on an R1 you'll be thinking about a rest stop. You'll go 2-3 hours on the FJR before then.
The FJR is EXACTLY what it intends to be. It is EXACTLY what we owners want it to be. Sure, we play with upgrades--"Farkles". So? We upgrade what we personally would like better--sometimes just for bling-bling. (I'm not sure the Spiegler rotors and Carbone pads are doing a better job--but they sure look good!)
Which would you rather have to go 500 miles on in a cold, bitter rain: 'Wing, FJR or R1? (all those picking the R1 step forward for your free lobotomy) The 'Wing of course--followed by the FJR.
Which would you rather have to run The Tail of The Dragon at Deal's Gap? R1, FJR or 'Wing? (Here we lobotomize 'Wing pickers...) The R1, of course, followed by the FJR.
So which would you want for ALL types of conditions? FJR, 'Wing or R1? Duh.......
The SERIOUS criticisms can be:
Cornering clearance and only so-so canyon carving handling.
Seat angle--like too many bikes it may push you forward.
Engine heat.
Ticking (OK, that's a recall item not a design item).
Imbecilic fuse block location.
Inadequate alternator output.
Throttle return spring tension.
These same mag guys who DROOL over a V-Max never bother to do a side-by-side comparison to THAT bike and the FJR beats it on:
Weight
H/P
Torque
Fuel Capacity
Ride
Handling
Comfort
Braking
1/4 Mile (using the recent figures).
It's all about getting ink and getting readers. Doesn't matter if it's logical or true, as long as people buy the mag, advertisers pay, and there's no grounds for a law-suit.
Likewise, we hear people again and again criticising bike makers for not building the bike they never intended to build. The FJR is such a bike. No, it's not an R1. It's not supposed to be. Some mags have even mistakenly said that the FJR has an R1-derived motor. (the FZ1 has that R1 derived 20 valve engine) Again, a mistake. I don't expect an FJR to perform like an R1, nor do I expect an R1 to perform like an FJR.
But what I DO expect is a well-thought out compromise between super-slabber GoldWing/Ventures and compact performance bikes.
So the FJR weighs nearly 200 lbs more than an R1. It ALSO weighs 250 lbs LESS than a Venture! Stock the R1 makes about 25 hp more. Stock, the 'Wing makes less HP--and my old Venture Royale made 25-30hp LESS.
Yeah, the R1 will run the 1/4 mile a second faster than the FJR--and the 'Wing will be 2 to 3 seconds slower.
You can ride all day on a 'Wing. Unless you have an iron butt, no nerves in your butt AND incredible endurance, after 30 minutes on an R1 you'll be thinking about a rest stop. You'll go 2-3 hours on the FJR before then.
The FJR is EXACTLY what it intends to be. It is EXACTLY what we owners want it to be. Sure, we play with upgrades--"Farkles". So? We upgrade what we personally would like better--sometimes just for bling-bling. (I'm not sure the Spiegler rotors and Carbone pads are doing a better job--but they sure look good!)
Which would you rather have to go 500 miles on in a cold, bitter rain: 'Wing, FJR or R1? (all those picking the R1 step forward for your free lobotomy) The 'Wing of course--followed by the FJR.
Which would you rather have to run The Tail of The Dragon at Deal's Gap? R1, FJR or 'Wing? (Here we lobotomize 'Wing pickers...) The R1, of course, followed by the FJR.
So which would you want for ALL types of conditions? FJR, 'Wing or R1? Duh.......
The SERIOUS criticisms can be:
Cornering clearance and only so-so canyon carving handling.
Seat angle--like too many bikes it may push you forward.
Engine heat.
Ticking (OK, that's a recall item not a design item).
Imbecilic fuse block location.
Inadequate alternator output.
Throttle return spring tension.
These same mag guys who DROOL over a V-Max never bother to do a side-by-side comparison to THAT bike and the FJR beats it on:
Weight
H/P
Torque
Fuel Capacity
Ride
Handling
Comfort
Braking
1/4 Mile (using the recent figures).
It's all about getting ink and getting readers. Doesn't matter if it's logical or true, as long as people buy the mag, advertisers pay, and there's no grounds for a law-suit.