How would Yamaha do it?

[v65]

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.

Right on! I'm going to put some 25lbs plates in the rear just as soon as the snow clears, that ought to make it real comfortable!

 

[jride]

I don't think the FJR is overly heavy I think you will find that all the st's in the same class are about the same.

So not likely you can even get 50lbs off unless you use a lot of titanium. $$$

but for me the lbs are not a big concern, Options like factory cruise would be. GPS might be nice but not a big concern either. 6th gear might be nice it may reduce the vibes. I really don't think it needs more hp. or higher top end after all its not a race bike.

for my money a heavy bike rides better when its windy and here in kansas its nearly always windy.

I would however pay 20k for the bike that had all the right stuff. The bmw would be on my short list if i were sure the final drive and oil leak problems were solved. The Fjr is on my short list already.

Now if the economy doesn't do me in.

 

[Bulldog9]

I think the entire idea is dumb............ (cutting 100lbs off the FJR)

I wouldnt want it to get any heavier, but I think the FJR IS the best balanced Sport TOURER out there. I was looking seriously at the Sprint ST before I bought an FJR, and the reasons I diddnt get the Sprint??? Chain Drive, 100 lbs lighter, not as good at 2+ Touring. I've been out with guys and watched cross-winds blow other bikes around, but the FJR is solid as a rock. I think the weight brings this, and is essential to stability and long distance comfort. Though I dont think the FJR is too heavy, looking at the spec sheet, it has put on a few pounds over the years, suprised me. So maybe loosing 30 lbs would be realistic & healthy?

Yamaha on the Next Gen of the FJR could trim things a bit, and could trim up the fairings & add some real pockets or innovative storage, maybe reengineer the Frame to make it more compact, revise/refine the engine/trans and controls, add some of the new geewhiz gizmos, but the formula is right just the way it is. Definately should NOT increase weight over the 08.... but make it much lighter (under 550 lbs) and you ruin the unique balance and poise of this fine machine. My vote is more power, better feedback, more refinement to eliminate NVH, better controls and suspenders, and a close ration 6 speed trans. That can all be done WITHOUT increasing weight and even possibly cutting a few pounds.

What Yamaha Needs to do is ADD a bike to the garage, say a FZ-1 based Sport Tourer? Wouldnt be hard, just need to rework the pillion/rear subframe, and set up a good fairing up front, and the FZ-1 would be good to go for Sportier Touring, say a Sprint/ VFR Killer. That is what the original poster is looking for. Sorry, thats just NOT what the FJR is. JMHO

Geeze, with tall this talk about weight, I'm glad to say my favorite ride is perfect just the way she is (you peeking in on this honey???)

 

[Fred W]

Sorry, but I disagree about your semantics. To my way of thinking, what you are describing is a TOURING bike. TOURING bikes need to have shaft drive, huge fairings and windshields, comfortable 2-up capability, electronic gizmos, etc., etc. The FJR, New Concours, ST1300 and K1300GT could be classified as "Super Sport Touring" with an emphasis on Touring. Many of us add stuff to accentuate the touring capability. But a true "Sport Touring" bike is more of a primarily 1-up machine, closer to a sport bike than a Gold Wing, with some sort of luggage grafted to it to enable touring and ergo adjustments to allow longer distance days than a true sport rig. In my mind, the Sprint and Interceptor models are the definition of the class.

However, I agree that it would be very cool if Yamaha would make one of these. It might be a slimmed down FJR or a modified up FZ1. What could possibly push them into (or away from) it would be if Honda actually does come out with the liter size Interceptor as oft promised. If that bike sells a lot, then Yamaha might consider following suit. But that has to be a very tiny market segment to chase.

 

[FastJoyRide]

50 pounds of weight loss for a snowmobile is way more significant than 50 pounds for an ST motorcycle confined to asphalt by its geometry and wheels (when was the last time you had to lift your FJR out of a snowdrift? - that's an every-ride experience riding a mountain sled in deep powder)

So what? - BRP (Ski-Doo's manufacturer) put all of their engineers into a brainstorming session and said "we want to lose 25 pounds off the weight of our sleds, but you aren't allowed to do that by redesigning to make it more fragile, and you can't use unobtanium materials because we're selling into a very price-sensitive and competitive retail market". They challenged themselves to rethink every part of the sled and with a few ounces here and there from vitually every one of their parts and assemblies, they actually produced a redesign which was both stronger and reduced the weight of their new Rev XP series sleds by 50 pounds! MSRP increases were within the range of their competition - who were 1 or 2 model years slow reacting, and none of whom have achieved comparable weight losses even to today.

Did BRP do this because their sleds were porky and their sales were slipping? No - they did this from the perspective of the #1 market share leader of the day, who already had the lightest sleds of any manufacturer (the original Rev series)

I'm no engineer, but I think there's an easy 50 pounds available to be lost cost-effectively in the FJR assemblies (many good thoughts on at least some of the "where?" in earlier posts).

The issue is does MamaYama have the desire to tackle this kind of engineering challenge when the FJR is already the segment leader? and in a recesssion? And recognizing that there probably isn't a lot of price insensitivity (i.e., $20K FJR's will not sell as many units as $14K FJR's)?

Great thread BTW!

(and for the sledheads, MamaYama's bias in the snow is to make their sleds hell-for-strong, durable and reliable. They are rarely/never the lightest in any segment - largely because they are using 4 stroke motors which are inherently heavier than 2 strokes. But BRP with the 2009 model year launched their first serious efforts at the 4 stroke segment using Rotax designs not too disimilar to Aprilia and Buell motors - and those sleds are lighter than the comparable Yamaha models...)

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

'jride': ...for my money a heavy bike rides better when its windy

'Bulldog9': I've been out with guys and watched cross-winds blow other bikes around, but the FJR is solid as a rock. I think the weight brings this, and is essential to stability and long distance comfort.

Apparently (for some?), the FJR's 'Southbeach Diet' is gonna be a hard-sell....?

It appears that heavier is still good in other places besides boat anchors....? :huh:

 

[Tom]

Just an observation....

I'd be willing to bet that much of this same conversation went on in that room filled with Yamaha design engineers, product planners, project managers, manufacturing engineers, etc. when the FJR was being conceived.

And at the risk of a possible tangent.....here's a rhetorical question: At what point does a sport bike become a sport-touring bike?

I ask this because in some ways it's relevant to the design exercise of pairing the current platform's weight down. At some point, the design is no longer a sport-touring bike, but a sport bike with luggage. Or is it??

Honestly....mental design exercises like this are tough for me because as a manufacturing engineer, I'm overly sensitive to cost factors and re-couping costs. However, as I said before, dumping the shaft drive would eliminate a lot of weight. And not just from the shaft and pumpkin being gone as there's some added beef to the engine cases and inside the transmission that would go away too. And I agree that a belt would be more than ample to handle the hp & torque.

Tom

 

[Rolavine]

I went to a cycle dealer yesterday to try on helmets and saw a SV650, and it looked like a toy, just one size bigger than the 1/18 scale FJR I gave my nephew for Christmas.

 

[RadioHowie]

Just an observation....
I'd be willing to bet that much of this same conversation went on in that room filled with Yamaha design engineers, product planners, project managers, manufacturing engineers, etc. when the FJR was being conceived.

I bet not as much as you think. I bet the conversation went more like this:

Boss: "Hey guys, what's the fastest and cheapest way we can get back into the Sport Touring marketing segment?"

Chief Designer: "I know, boss....we dust off all our 10 year old FJ1200 tooling, add some saddlebags and slap a radiator on so the EPA strangled motor doesn't explode in traffic!"

And at the risk of a possible tangent.....here's a rhetorical question: At what point does a sport bike become a sport-touring bike?
I ask this because in some ways it's relevant to the design exercise of pairing the current platform's weight down. At some point, the design is no longer a sport-touring bike, but a sport bike with luggage. Or is it??

Well, in MY mind, that's what a sport-touring bike is...a sport bike with luggage and friendlier ergos.

Honestly....mental design exercises like this are tough for me because as a manufacturing engineer, I'm overly sensitive to cost factors and re-couping costs. However, as I said before, dumping the shaft drive would eliminate a lot of weight. And not just from the shaft and pumpkin being gone as there's some added beef to the engine cases and inside the transmission that would go away too. And I agree that a belt would be more than ample to handle the hp & torque.
Tom

Yeah, I get what yer saying, but at least you didn't resort to some tired, old "Buy another bike" lameass argument. I'm surprised no one has suggested dumping the Uni-shock, using all that space under the seat for battery and/or fuel, and putting on dual shocks. I know for a fact that the dual Ohlins on my ZRex weigh less than the single-shock Showa unit and attendant linkage used on the ZX11D the Rex was based on.

This will give you an idea of how DAMN much space a UniShock takes up:

Yep...that's a gallon of milk AND battery with room to spare.

 

[Cdogman]

Hey, Umm Howie..

Would dual shocks not dfeat the idea of a single sided swingarm??

 

[Phugedaboudet]

..IS there any way Yamaha could cut 100 pounds from the FJR without compromising its "mission"?

I think the most effective weight reduction on my machine would be 50lbs from the rider and 50lbs from the bike.

Carbon fiber structural parts would save a fair amount of weight (of course they are expensive $$$$$).

I just read in MCN that 7 rider pounds lost=1 RWHP. Anyone else heard that?

 

[RadioHowie]

Hey, Umm Howie..
Would dual shocks not defeat the idea of a single sided swingarm??

Remember, this is just an excercise. Might be an interesting tradeoff.

SSS saves weight over a standard design, but dumping the UniShock gets the battery out of the fairing (what WERE they thinking?) AND opens up space for fuel or oil. Just think...put an oil tank in there, dump the oilpan on the motor and go to a dry sump, drop the engine in the frame several inches and use the newfound space for gas-in-frame below a fake tank that's now available for electronics/storage. Hmmmm???

Oh...dual shocks on the single sided arm???

 

[SkooterG]

Well Howie, you finally found something yer good at.............

Mental Masturbation.

 

[Capt. Bob]

Well Howie, you finally found something yer good at.............
Mental Masturbation.

Wonder if it stimulates hair growth on the noggin' like it does on the palm. :wackosmiley:

 

[wfooshee]

This thread has been a fun read, but you have to remember that it's a BIG bike. Comparing to the Triumph ST doesn't carry any weight (pun intended) because they're just so different size-wise.

Dual shocks might get your chassis space, but what do you do with the sidecases? And what do you gain from the space in the fairing besides moving the weight? Space for farkles, more weight!!!

I wonder how big a hole could you bore through the centerline of the axles (and driveshaft) and still have a safe, usable part?

Different exhaust materials? I know they have to have catalysts, but there's still a lot of weight in there. Maybe pricey, though.

Dry sump might lower the engine, but it would probably increase the oil capacity, for a slight gain in fluid weight, not to mention a separate tank (even if built into the frame) plumbing, probably another pump.

Go back to the '03 rotors? A few ounces there!

 

[RadioHowie]

Well Howie, you finally found something yer good at.............
Mental Masturbation.

Obviously, I'm also good at annoying you with my mere existence.

Where the hell did I put that "Ignore" button.....

 

[v65]

Honestly....mental design exercises like this are tough for me because as a manufacturing engineer,

Awesome. So Ducati has used a new casting process on their engine cases and lost 7lbs. To which other cast pieces can this technology be applied? If it could be used on the frame, swingarm, and wheels that's a lot of weight.

 

[Fred W]

..IS there any way Yamaha could cut 100 pounds from the FJR without compromising its "mission"?

I think the most effective weight reduction on my machine would be 50lbs from the rider and 50lbs from the bike.

Carbon fiber structural parts would save a fair amount of weight (of course they are expensive $$$$$).

I just read in MCN that 7 rider pounds lost=1 RWHP. Anyone else heard that?

Well, actually, it would depend entirely on the power to weight ratio of the bike and rider in question. So, clearly, not all would be equal to seven.

And for what it's worth, the "seven" (or whatever it comes out to) pounds would be equally effective being lost from the rider or the bike. So next time you stop in and eat a burger at Mickey D's, better lose the tire pump.

PS - Onanism of the gray matter is better than letting it atrophy from disuse. Use it or lose it!

 

[SkooterG]

Obviously, I'm also good at annoying you with my mere existence.
Where the hell did I put that "Ignore" button.....

Not at all. With the 'nutster gone, you're one of the few left that I can insult on a regular basis with both barrels. Or so I thought. That Florida sunshine fry your sense of humor? You starting to get all ***serious*** on me?

If that's the case.............

:****:

 

[Bustanut joker]

Obviously, I'm also good at annoying you with my mere existence.
Where the hell did I put that "Ignore" button.....

Not at all. With the 'nutster gone, you're one of the few left that I can insult on a regular basis with both barrels. Or so I thought. That Florida sunshine fry your sense of humor? You starting to get all ***serious*** on me?

If that's the case.............

:****:

I wouldn't worry too much Cap'n Crunch...

The Carnies are a'pullin up stakes this time of year. Poor fuker has to say goodbye to his Harem for the next ten months :bye2:

He'll be ok in a few days.

:jester: