How would Yamaha do it?

[Bustanut joker]

Great post RadioHowie.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh man that's killer!! The guys gotta be drunk or sumpin :russian: :dntknw:

:good:

:jester:

 

[RadioHowie]

Great post RadioHowie.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh man that's killer!! The guys gotta be drunk or sumpin :russian: :dntknw:

:good:

:jester:

Is this the first time we've agreed on sumpin'?

 

[Spook]

Just go find a good used 03. they are lighter than the rest and are quicker. The rest is up to the rider. My bike is much faster and handles better after I lost 100 lbs. :clapping:

I guess I will have to see I have lost about 40 pounds in the last 5 months

 

[Fred W]

Just go find a good used 03. they are lighter than the rest and are quicker. The rest is up to the rider. My bike is much faster and handles better after I lost 100 lbs. :clapping:

I guess I will have to see I have lost about 40 pounds in the last 5 months

I think I found them for you...

 

[Bustanut joker]

Is this the first time we've agreed on sumpin'?

Hey, **** happens... Dorkboy..

:****:

:jester:

 

[Further]

OK, my quick 2 cents.

I don't think it's unreasonable to reduce the FJR weight by 80 lbs or so. BMW did it when they brought out the 1200 GS and RT, and they're shafts. The RT is 570 lbs. wet. (OK, so they blow out their final drives... that's beside the point ... they did that before the weight reduction too). Yes they're a little more expensive, but that's mostly about lots of "star wars" electronics; the BMW name; and the Euro situation.

I'm really surprised more manufacturers don't explore belt drives. Most of the advantages of shaft and none of the drawbacks. If it'll work on that new Rotax engine Buell tork-monster, it'll work on anything.

And Yamaha did us a real disservice with the FJR bags. Those suckers are WAY too heavy. They didn't need that double-wall construction. The only purpose for it is to hide the various latching and fastening hardware. It was all about aesthetics. My old KRS bags held 25% more, were nearly half the weight, and didn't look any larger on the bike. That's crazy.

The weight. The clutch. And the bags, are the only complaints I have about the FJR. Otherwise it's nearly perfect to my mind.

 

[PA1195]

If things keep going on the way they are in our current Worldwide economic crisis, the FJR series may end up weighing nothing.

Reason: Yamaha JA has cut production days in February and March, and managerial remuneration due to declining demand World-wide. Any major re-investment in design may not be recoverable (https://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/global/news/2009/02/12/finance.html). Yamaha USA is also likely on a financial budget for the model, partly due to declines in sales and the switch issue.

So, we may have to be satisfied with what's available despite the weight increase many have noted. The dual exhaust system is heavy as anyone who has replaced them.

FWIW, my local Dealer can't get Yamaha to release my '09 ordered in Sept '08, and due soon. Something to do with the ignition recall tying up production and availability (maybe).

The plan is to call Yamaha USA monday and find what's causing the Corporate constipation.

In the meantime, dream on folks but enjoy what you currently have for a while longer would be my guess.

Gary in Fairbanks

 

[zorkler]

Theres a reason yamaha made the bike 640 lbs . That is just the right weight for a 4 time best in its class sport tourer .

This is my first shaft drive bike and i love it . No more adjusting , buying , spraying, checking . The fjr is too top heavy i have said this before move 1 1/2 gallons into the frame which will make the bike 12 lb lighter .

 

[DrEvil777]

Great never-ending thread...

I spent 2 hours on the gsxr 1000 this morning, then 3 hours on the FJR in the afternoon. The rough life living here in SoCal!

Different tools for different jobs.

Could the FJR be lighter, of course. Buy an FZ-1 and put some bags on it. That's what I had prior to the FJR and it was great but you want the weight on long trips for stability.

My only request with the Gen 3 is that it comes in blue!

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

<snip>...but you want the weight on long trips for stability.

Well, there are (by my count) about five others on this thread who agree with you on this.

I don't understand how more weight is good (is the most weight, then -- the best?) -- maybe one of you could explain it?

But then it would do a dis-service to this "Great never-ending thread..."

What would be the need (then) for a 'Southbeach Diet'...? :blink:

 

[RadioHowie]

Sounds like a lighter weighing FJR is a stoopid idea. Not stable on long trips.

Time to buy a Boss Hoss, put bags on it and fill the bags full of pig iron.

 

[s_boy]

take a goldwing (928 lbs dry) subtract 36% of it's weight and you have an fjr. take an fjr (593 lbs dry) subtract 34% of it's weight and you have an R1 (390lbs dry).

proportioned for the mission and price point - i think the fjr is about as good as it gets. based on the above math the fjr is closer to the R1's weight than it is to the wing by a 2% margin - yet has come very close to the tourability and amenities of the "wang".

however moving to lower the mass, convert to belt drive, and 4/2/1 carbon exhaust would be resonable for the fjr developers with minimal cost adds (if any?).

chains and chain sprockets are not an option for an ST - they simply suck in a long distance bike.

 

[RadioHowie]

chains and chain sprockets are not an option for an ST - they simply suck in a long distance bike.

Yeah, I guess all those XX Blackbird IBR pilots don't have a clue, huh?

 

[s_boy]

i won't slam an XX - or their IBR pilots if that's what your after?

however - because of the XX drive system - i personally wouldn't IBR (or LD tour) on one with the same level of comittment as i would a belt or shaft.

 

[v65]

take a goldwing (928 lbs dry) subtract 36% of it's weight and you have an fjr. take an fjr (593 lbs dry) subtract 34% of it's weight and you have an R1 (390lbs dry).

********.

You guys do know that the FJR has an adjustable windscreen, comfortable ergos, and a nice pillion perch, right? How the heck does that compare with an R1 or an FZ1 with a piece of plywood for a seat? How the does a GoldWing compare to an FJR? Your assumption seems to be that the only way to reduce the weight is through some kind of serious redesign. That is not at all what Howie is asking about or for.

Howie is simply asking if the technology is there to reduce the weight 100lbs without transforming the bike into something else like an FZ1, which seems to be the most popular choice of posters reinterpreting his question.

So it would appear that your answer would be no it cannot be done. Fine, do you have anything positive to contribute along the lines of some previously mentioned ideas:

1) New casting technologies.

2) The redesigned ski-do snowmobile post, which was one of the best on point posts in this thread.

3) One sided exhausts.

4) Belt drive.

 

[s_boy]

******** back at ya...

we're making the same point... ? and my "initial" post above was in that vein: i.e.,given all the fjr has to offer the supper sport touring pilot above and beyond what an R1/FZ1 offers - and the fact that the newest fjr already maintains weight 2% closer to the newest R1 than is does to the newest wing - i see that as a pretty damn good indicator that weight control already exist.

so yes - in order to reduce weight any further and maintain mission effectiness at current price point - i think yamaha would be most effective looking at the exhaust and belt drive options first.

 

[v65]

******** back at ya...
we're making the same point... ?

You will find your life is much better if you agree with me. Flowers bloom a little brighter, birds chirp a little sweeter, even poo smells better. :lol:

 

[s_boy]

******** back at ya...
we're making the same point... ?

You will find your life is much better if you agree with me. Flowers bloom a little brighter, birds chirp a little sweeter, even poo smells better. :lol:

ahhh... i see we have much in common :drinks: