How would Yamaha do it?

[SPORT]

Sounds like everything mentioned here can be found on other bikes. Lighter ST~Triumph Sprint, Dacati ST. SSW (Single Sided Swingarm)~Triumph ST. 4 into 1 exhaust~Concours 1400, Triumph ST (3 into 1 actually).

Most of the concerns could be taken care if you'd all buy a Triumph ST . They really are a good bike ( had an 02 for 25,000 miles). But the FJR is built the way it is to address shortcomings of all the other ST's; ie, more weight means more cross wind resistance, larger bike for more creature comforts, and so forth. The FJR is for me (160lbs soaking wet) the perfect blend. Don't change a thing...except maybe the color. I for one would like to see more color choices!

 

[RadioHowie]

Thanks to those keeping on-topic....you know who you are.

The rest of you personal weight-loss advocates and "buy another bike" weenies... :****:

This is simply an excercise in thought...single sided swingarms, chain drive, aluminum structural elements instead of steel, V-twin or V-4 propulsion. All great ideas and concepts. My favorites so far include chain drive, single sided swingarm and single exhaust. Fluids in the frame and better mass centralization w/battery relocation are also food for thought. How much DOES that windshield mechanism weigh? Good call from SkooterG, president of my fan club.

I can't help but wonder what a 550 pound FJR "package" wrapped around an RC51 drivetrain would feel like.

The original thrust of this post wasn't to turn an FJR into a Ducati 1098, but to trim some of the pork off the beast, without compromising the package.

 

[lnewlf]

Sounds like everything mentioned here can be found on other bikes. Lighter ST~Triumph Sprint, Dacati ST. SSW (Single Sided Swingarm)~Triumph ST. 4 into 1 exhaust~Concours 1400, Triumph ST (3 into 1 actually).
Most of the concerns could be taken care if you'd all buy a Triumph ST . They really are a good bike ( had an 02 for 25,000 miles). But the FJR is built the way it is to address shortcomings of all the other ST's; ie, more weight means more cross wind resistance, larger bike for more creature comforts, and so forth. The FJR is for me (160lbs soaking wet) the perfect blend. Don't change a thing...except maybe the color. I for one would like to see more color choices!

Well put-as Phil said in his post , if you want something different buy it,it's already there.Before I got my FJR, I rode my friends Triumph ST for 400 miles around the Finger Lakes area of NY and it was a great bike but I wanted something bigger for more stability and more wind protection and no more chain maintenance.

 

[Tom]

I too am in the camp that trying to shave 100 lbs from the current design would be a tall order. Honestly, design engineers aren't totally removed from reality in that they probably looked at the competition and how those bikes were being used (abused?) and decided to up the factor of safety. Ever seen a Kawasaki Concours towing a trailer, two-up? So has the Yamaha engineers. And let's face it - many of us overload our bikes (according to the manual). So my point is that IMHO the current platform is beefed-up to preclude systemic failures.

I do agree that it's crazy that there can be +40 pound delta from a 2004 ABS to a 2007 ABS. I work for an aircraft company and naturally we're always concerned about weight with ANY design. However, it's hard to fathom that the lead engineer on the FJR project wouldn't stipulate that any design improvement should result in 0 weight gain. Is that unrealistic? Possibly. But it creates a mind-set that if you put weight in, you better be looking for some place to take weight out.

After many years of sport touring on a ZX9R, I love the convenience of a shaft and honestly, it was top factor in me buying the FJR. Sorry - but I don't want to go back to a chain on a ST bike. But, yeah....tossing it would be a significant weight reduction. After that, I think you're chasing ounces, not pounds. I guess Yamaha could do a stem-to-stern weight reduction program like H*nda did with their sport bikes. But to do a complete finite element analysis would cost quite a bit of R&D money and there just isn't the sale volume numbers to recoup that investment. Of course, they could pass the costs along to us, however every week I see someone on this board asking "where's the cheapest place to buy an FJR". My point is that price seems to be a sensitive subject for us and I think Yamaha knows that. BMW could care less.

No....I think that if you wanted to get 100 pounds (or more) out of the bike, you're probably talking a completely different platform. One with a V-twin or V4 motor that is essentially the frame with subframe, headstock, etc. "hanging off" the motor. It would be a fun design exercise, but the cost might be more than us cheap *******s here are willing to swallow.

Tom

 

[RadioHowie]

Sounds like everything mentioned here can be found on other bikes. Lighter ST~Triumph Sprint, Dacati ST. SSW (Single Sided Swingarm)~Triumph ST. 4 into 1 exhaust~Concours 1400, Triumph ST (3 into 1 actually).
Most of the concerns could be taken care if you'd all buy a Triumph ST . They really are a good bike ( had an 02 for 25,000 miles). But the FJR is built the way it is to address shortcomings of all the other ST's; ie, more weight means more cross wind resistance, larger bike for more creature comforts, and so forth. The FJR is for me (160lbs soaking wet) the perfect blend. Don't change a thing...except maybe the color. I for one would like to see more color choices!

Well put-as Phil said in his post , if you want something different buy it,it's already there.Before I got my FJR, I rode my friends Triumph ST for 400 miles around the Finger Lakes area of NY and it was a great bike but I wanted something bigger for more stability and more wind protection and no more chain maintenance.

Lord in heaven, but you are obtuse! Would the FJR benefit from a weight-loss program? Sure it would. If this was a discussion about a Triumph Sprint or Ducati ST, we'd be talking about what a piss-poor dealer network we suffered with, not about the bikes being overweight.

This thread has nothing to do with buying another brand...it's about blue-sky dreams of how to make the FJR lighter. Is that too hard to comprehend?

 

[Ford68xl]

You could dump the shaft without moving to chain. As said before, a belt is more than strong enough for the power an FJR puts out. Boss Hoss puts their 502/502 power to the ground via a belt without failures, so 147 HP should be no problem at all. I have had chains, shafts and belts and the belt has performed as good as a shaft every time.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Light weight provides dividends all over -- all the time. Leave the 'benefits' of "Road Holding Weight" for Buicks.

Two examples come to mind:

• Honda CRX Hi-Fuel car from a couple decades ago. All the shafts in the engine were hollow; crankshaft, camshaft/s, etc. -- still plenty strong and way lighter. Yamaha could go to a "Hollow-Shaft" FJR for the lighter Gen III.
• English Engineer, Colin Chapman, made Lotus Cars high performance winners by always adhering to light weight/lighter weight principles. There's the old Lotus story of Chapman taking parts off until it didn't work anymore -- and then just replacing that last part.

I'd like to see Yamaha make a "Super-Light" model FJR in the future along with the "Fat" model (with some shared parts). Maybe they'd sell even more (total) FJRs?

 

[v65]

You could dump the shaft without moving to chain. As said before, a belt is more than strong enough for the power an FJR puts out. Boss Hoss puts their 502/502 power to the ground via a belt without failures, so 147 HP should be no problem at all. I have had chains, shafts and belts and the belt has performed as good as a shaft every time.

The HD guys sure like em, but the big hp bikes have some pretty wide belts. How wide a belt are we talking about for the mighty Feej?

 

[fjrboomer]

I am definitely no engineer so I obviously have questionable qualifications to address a technical question like the one in this thread. I have had bikes with belts and shaft drive and the belts held up well and were almost maintenance free. Therefore I think that would be a good starting point for weight loss for the FJR.

I would really like to see the center of gravity lowered as some others have mentioned. I am not in a position to offer the solution to that problem. I do not mind the weight as much as its location on the bike. If it were moved down it would improve handling both in the curves and in low speed operation.

Do not get me wrong, I love this bike and it is the best one I have ever had. It is an 07 so it is one of the hefty ones.

 

[gr8eyes]

No wider than the shaft.

 

[Bustanut joker]

Significant weight loss Via Titanium and or Carbon Fiber exhaust parts, Thinner cast engine covers, Hollow fasteners/bolts, Hydro formed frame;VRod..Thinner plastic parts,Magnesium wheels... Elimination of owner added Farkles....

Ahhh, the list is endless.. but not my wallet.

:jester:

 

[Fred W]

I am definitely no engineer so I obviously have questionable qualifications to address a technical question like the one in this thread. I have had bikes with belts and shaft drive and the belts held up well and were almost maintenance free. Therefore I think that would be a good starting point for weight loss for the FJR.
I would really like to see the center of gravity lowered as some others have mentioned. I am not in a position to offer the solution to that problem. I do not mind the weight as much as its location on the bike. If it were moved down it would improve handling both in the curves and in low speed operation.

I disagree. Weight is weight and it's always bad. Getting the weight bias lower is good, it will improve (primarily low speed maneuverability), but not as good as reducing it.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

I would really like to see the center of gravity lowered as some others have mentioned. If it were moved down it would improve handling both in the curves and in low speed operation.

Non sequitur:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_not_follow

You, personally, may like the weight to feel lower -- lots do -- but, that may or may not have any effect on "Handling" (good or bad).

On some bikes, raising the center of mass actually made it do its thing better.... (counterintuitive...)

"Handling" itself is a somewhat nebulous term -- different from one rider to the next. Some liken it to the definition of ****ography -- "I know it when I see (feel) it."

In racing: good handling bikes often win races -- great riders can often overcome some poor 'handling'.

 

[SPORT]

Lord in heaven, but you are obtuse! Would the FJR benefit from a weight-loss program? Sure it would. If this was a discussion about a Triumph Sprint or Ducati ST, we'd be talking about what a piss-poor dealer network we suffered with, not about the bikes being overweight.
This thread has nothing to do with buying another brand...it's about blue-sky dreams of how to make the FJR lighter. Is that too hard to comprehend?

Now your asking me to comprehend? That's a pretty tall order

Well, if it's a topic of weight reduction, then the SSW is not the way to go; as it would not loose weight but gain it, due to the requirement of more mass in less space to maintain the same rigidity.

Ha...Not Friday just yet! :clapping:

 

[RadioHowie]

Lord in heaven, but you are obtuse! Would the FJR benefit from a weight-loss program? Sure it would. If this was a discussion about a Triumph Sprint or Ducati ST, we'd be talking about what a piss-poor dealer network we suffered with, not about the bikes being overweight.
This thread has nothing to do with buying another brand...it's about blue-sky dreams of how to make the FJR lighter. Is that too hard to comprehend?

Now your asking me to comprehend? That's a pretty tall order

Well, if it's a topic of weight reduction, then the SSW is not the way to go; as it would not loose weight but gain it, due to the requirement of more mass in less space to maintain the same rigidity.

Ha...Not Friday just yet! :clapping:

Look again...I was quoting lnewlf (your post got caught in the crossfire, 'cuz he quoted you). But you proved my point about comprehension.

BTW, can I assume SSW stands for single-sided-swingarm? More mass is NOT necessary to maintain the same rigidity. Semi-exotic materials such as magnesium or carbon fibre prove that on a daily basis. And I'd be surprised if the SSW such as one on a BMW K bike weighed as much as the Feej's. Just a wild-assed guess. Anyone know?

 

[jride]

(And for extra credit -- Would you pay $20k for a 550lb FJR with 180hp under the plastic?)

YESSSS IF it cruise, electronic adjustable suspension, heated grips, and great handling in the twistees :yahoo:

 

[Bustanut joker]

[And I'd be surprised if the SSW such as one on a BMW K bike weighed as much as the Feej's. Just a wild-assed guess. Anyone know?

obtuse?? What the Hell? I need to get a dictionary ta post here now? :blink: Dink.

A far as the swingarm.. I suppose I'll have to research that one too! Bet it's lighter otherwise why do it?

I know it helps speed things up in the pits when the race is on but It has to be a weight issue also :huh: .

Best call my ol' buddy the team owner and get his input...

:jester:

aka, Cyberstalker of little renown

 

[v65]

Well, if it's a topic of weight reduction, then the SSW is not the way to go; as it would not loose weight but gain it, due to the requirement of more mass in less space to maintain the same rigidity.

I seem to remember reading somewhere about some bike with a SSW to reduce mass. How's that for a reference?

 

[TILAM]

So are we all forgetting what we wanted this bike for. It seems most of us like to ride long distances, often two up, with lots of stuff.

We are also guilty of adding weight ourselves with radar detectors, cruise control, top boxes, bigger windshields, aux lights and so on and so on and so on. You want Yamaha to shave pounds so you can put them back on?

You want fast and light? Buy an R1. You want comfort, and long term reliabilty? Buy an FJR.

Hey, how many of you can say you have ever seen an R1 with 100,000 miles that's never had a major overhaul. That's the FJR's strong suit and that's why you bought it.

 

[SPORT]

So are we all forgetting what we wanted this bike for. It seems most of us like to ride long distances, often two up, with lots of stuff. We are also guilty of adding weight ourselves with radar detectors, cruise control, top boxes, bigger windshields, aux lights and so on and so on and so on. You want Yamaha to shave pounds so you can put them back on?

You want fast and light? Buy an R1. You want comfort, and long term reliabilty? Buy an FJR.

Hey, how many of you can say you have ever seen an R1 with 100,000 miles that's never had a major overhaul. That's the FJR's strong suit and that's why you bought it.

Tilam,

Since my comprehension is so low, I will defer to your words of wisdom.

Thank you ol wise one.

Peace