How would Yamaha do it?

[RadioHowie]

Referencing THIS forum post, concerning suggested improvements on a Gen III, many responders bring up the point of reducing the weight of a possible future iteration of our favorite ST mount.

We've all had our own wish-lists for improving future Generations, including more color choices, six gears, integrated cruise, bigger motors, etc., but it go me to pondering about a general thought that runs through the forum -- put the Feej on a diet.

But it made me think about the overall design and execution of the bike and it made me wonder...IS there any way Yamaha could cut 100 pounds from the FJR without compromising its "mission"?

Considering the mass and power of the engine/transmission assembly, could the frame be seriously lightened without compromising safety and/or longevity?

Could the tupperware be made lighter? Smaller/lighter wheels? Smaller bags? Decreased fuel capacity for lighter tank? Or plastic tank?

Could Yamaha REALLY sacrifice 100 pounds of "content" without seriously affecting (diminishing) the entire package?

Maybe moviing the weight from high to low, as in a relocated battery, fuel/oil-in-frame a'la Buell...

Is the "make it lighter" a pie in the sky pipe dream, short of building EVERYTHING out of magnesium, or is it feasible.

Oh, yeah, if it is, how would YOU do it???

 

[DeweyIsgod]

..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 $$$$$).

 

[RadioHowie]

Granted, a LOT of us fat *******s could stand to lose 50 pounds, but to keep everything in perspective, the ONLY common denominator is the FJR itself.

C'mon, you techies (where's Jestal?) how could the FJR lose a hundred pounds...still be safe and reliable...and NOT cost $20K+?

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

 

[Ignacio]

Nose structure pieces from aluminum instead of steel.

Mass centralize the exhaust by shortening up and going composite....possibly one.

Put the ABS hardware on a diet.

 

[OGRE]

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

DUH! :yahoo: I don't think I could stop myself

 

[Dudewado]

They could lighten the frame and engine cases by going to the new vacuume casting process a lot of mfg. are using now, they produce less porosity, allowing thinner walls and no loss of strength.

Ducati used this process on the 1198 this year, saving 6.5 lbs on the engine cases.

The most common way is incremental losses by paring down the weight of every conceivable part by a gram here and

a couple of grams there.

I wonder what effect this would have on reliability? I've seen the way some of us load an FJR!

Would thinner discs would be more prone to warping, lighter wheels more prone to cracking etc.?

Using more titanium, carbon fiber, or magnesium would push the price of admission higher; I, for one, am not ready for

a $20,000 FJR.

I think they could lose a few pounds, but I'm not sure how much for what cost.

 

[bikesniffer]

My take on this issue is:

Will a rider ever be satisfied what he's got in the garage? It seems to be human nature to never be completely happy with the product we purchase/possess at least after while of ownership. Buy a new car with more amenities/HP than your previous one...after a while you get used to the new car and your initial excitement goes away or is at least reduced to an insignificant level.

We always want the latest, newest and better product even if the one we own is still functional and of very good quality. This goes for cameras, stereo equipment, cars and yes I think motorcycles as well.

However I am not advocating to stop R&D but sometimes a longer product cycle just makes sense and a awful lot of products today are of inferior quality/longevity than say 20 yrs ago...

just another perspective

Alfred

 

[Bluegrass FJR]

If I'm not mistaken, the FJR is still the best-selling sport touring bike in the country. Yamaha's obviously on to a combination that works for a lot of folks.

It would most likely require some rather costly materials to lighten the FJR up and still have it strong enough to accomplish the mission of a sport touring bike: carbon fiber, titanium, etc... No one wants to give up the ability to haul a lot of stuff, good wind and weather protection, a big torquy engine, and so on...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose a $14K, 650# bike over a $20K, 560# bike.

 

[radman]

Dump the shaft drive-major savings there. Front fairing support stay mag or alum rather than steel. Replace steel throughout with exotics. But no, there's no way to lighten a shaftie without ridding it of one of it's major design desirables. Or expensive beyond saleability. You can have it light, cheap, or rideable. Pick 2.

 

[odot]

Who wants to have cake and eat it too?

 

[RenoJohn]

Dump the shaft drive-major savings there. ......... But no, there's no way to lighten a shaftie without ridding it of one of it's major design desirables. Or expensive beyond saleability. You can have it light, cheap, or rideable. Pick 2.

Yep, I've always wondered what the bike would be like without the weight and HP loss of the shaft. I for one would eagerly sign up for a chain drive -and smile over the weight and HP advantage over current spec's. While I'm sure you can find ways to save a pound or two ...doing away with the shaft would give weight and HP gains.

But, many will never give up the no-maintenance of a shaft so I don't see this option ever happening.

 

[wheatonFJR]

A major addition of weight occured with the FJR with the addition of the ABS equipment. I don't think 100 lbs is realistic...but just try to get back to the original weight of the 2002/2003 class non-abs weight. I hate weight creep...on me or the FJR.

Would you trade weight for ABS systems? Some/many would say heck no.

Would you trade weight for shaft system? Some/many would say heck no.

Would you trade weight for significant price increase due to more expensive/lighter components? Some/many would say heck no.

 

[ShinyPartsUp]

Dump the shaft drive-major savings there. ......... But no, there's no way to lighten a shaftie without ridding it of one of it's major design desirables. Or expensive beyond saleability. You can have it light, cheap, or rideable. Pick 2.

Yep, I've always wondered what the bike would be like without the weight and HP loss of the shaft. I for one would eagerly sign up for a chain drive -and smile over the weight and HP advantage over current spec's. While I'm sure you can find ways to save a pound or two ...doing away with the shaft would give weight and HP gains.

But, many will never give up the no-maintenance of a shaft so I don't see this option ever happening.

Chains are messy and a pain, though an automatic oiler would ease the pain. A belt drive might be a good compromise, but not sure one would be able to handle the HP to the rear wheel. Others would know, I'm sure.

 

[J-DADDY]

Interesting post!

I don't believe 100 lbs is even realistic. More like 50 ~ 60 lbs.

As stated in a prior post - dump the drive shaft. Win win! This would accomplish a twofold objective: substantial weight saving

and increase available engine power/torque through a more efficient drive system...maybe a belt. This would also produce a slicker shifting unit. Except for lightening where feasible, leave the engine alone - will make enough power

utilizing the belt drive. Leave the transmission as a five speed, perhaps upping the ratio some taking advantage of the lighter weight and increased available engine power.

Lighter wheels, non porous vacuum aluminum castings, replace steel bits with aluminum or titanium.

Titianium exhaust.

Expensive? Probably. Under $20,000? Maybe not. Sound exiting? You bet!!

JC

 

[FJR@DTS]

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

+1 Umm, for people like me who have added some weight with each "model year" it would be far easier to drop 50lbs from the rider. This would probably result in a performance increase for both me and my FJR. I wonder how many of us fall into this category? Further, I wonder how many of us are dedicated to riding enough to make a serious life style change in diet to improve the on road experience? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the engineering changes as well, it's just that it seems like the possibilities for change from the seat up (for me) are far greater than from the seat down. Of course, if you ride 2 up, you will have a hard time convincing the SO to drop some weight to improve your ride <_<

 

[odot]

Interesting....."eat less, more riding".....whodda thunk?

 

[Steel]

Count me among the few who wouldn't change a thing. I'm very pleased with mine just the way it is (the Feej, not the waist line).

 

[RadioHowie]

Very interesting observations. My favorite is dumping the shaft.

Anyone got a Feej tore down for service to weigh the shaft and pumpkin assembly?

I'm curious what the shaft system weighs, for a quantitative comparison with a chain drive system.

Speaking only for myself, while not having to maintain a chain system on the FJR has been a convenience, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker.

When I bought my '04 in '05, I wasn't thinking "I'm buying a shaft drive bike that happens to be a Yamaha."

My thinking was "I'm buying an FJR and oh, look! It has a shaft drive."

I think Warchild's documentation about running a chain oiler on his XX and driving to the moon and back is great advertisment for an efficient, light weight, and (relatively) low maintenance alternative to shaft.

Iggy's comments about the tupperware support structure also has merit.

Again, the "Rider loses 50 pounds" comments aren't really germane to the thread, since we're talking about how the FJR can go on a diet, not the rider.

 

[SkooterG]

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

HELL NO!

Nose structure pieces from aluminum instead of steel.

I'll bet you a dollar that those pieces ARE aluminum. They are waaaay to light to be steel. Seriously.

Not a bad thread from a Florida ********. But as one poster above said, 100 lbs is completely unreasonable. The FJR IS light compared to the C-10 and C-14, as well as the ST1300 - bikes in it's class.

50 lbs. is a much more realistic target - and still not one easy to obtain. And I don't want an expensive FJR with reduced capabilities from it's current configuration.

I require shaft drive, but here's my contribution: Get rid of the adjustable windshield. The bracketry, and especially the motor would get you a few pounds towards that 50.