What's wrong with the FJR Windshield system

[Fred W]

I was looking at some pictures in another thread and thinking about how frustrating the whole power windshield system on the FJR has been for so many people, including me. I think the problems are pretty much the same on both generations of the bike and can be summarized as follows:

In the lowered position everything is ducky with just about any piece of plastic you might have screwed on. It's only when you try and get some additional wind protection, like at this time of the year, that the infamous buffeting begins.

Observing how the mechanism works reveals what I believe is causing all the problems. The driven part of the windshield is the lower bracket, which remains fairly close to the front surface of the faring as it drives up and down. The upper bracket is merely a strut with 2 pivot points on each end. This results in the top of the windshield tipping forward (away from the rider) as the shield is raised.

Compare the two 2008 images below, shamelessly stolen from FJRTom in another thread. In the lowered position the shield closely parallels the leading surface of the front faring nose. But then see how far forward the top of the shield tilts as the shield is raised? The windshield becoming closer to vertical is undoubtedly what causes all the turbulent air, which results in your head getting knocked all around.

The only partial solutions I have seen to date are the skyway spacers and Rifle spacers, both of which get applied to the bottom bracket. Spacing the bottom bracket out does result in the top of the shield being less vertical at the top, but not a lot. And the shield still changes angle dramatically from top to bottom. It's just starting at a bit bigger tilt to begin with.

So, thinking about the great work being done on the mirror extensions thread, how could we redesign the upper bracket so that it allows the shield to move up but not tilt forward so much, if at all?

What I'm envisioning would be ideal is some sort of sliding affair so the shield stays at the "perfect angle", and just slides up and down in some sort of tracks.

An alternate idea would be to move the bottom pivot point of the upper strut lower (and possibly also use shorter struts) so that as the shield was raised it would still initially tilt forward some, but then would go "over center" and start to tilt back toward the rider again up at the top where all the bad buffeting occurs. I'm thinking this might be the easier path to retrofit to the existing design.

I suppose that before a design or prototype of any sort of changes to the brackets, it might make sense to see if my premise is correct, i.e. that when the shield is tipped back to the shallower attack angle that it's at when lowered now, that it works well when raised. Should figure out some way to disconnect it from the upper brackets and hold it temporarily at the shallower angle while in the raised position without damaging the windshield or the bike.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[twowheelnut]

NEPRT in 5, 4, 3, 2....

For every rider the effect from the shield position/type/brand/modification will be different. What's good for me is bad for you is okay for Joe, etc. Keep kicking if you want, but this horse is dead. Jus' sayin'.

But, if you really wanna have something to do this winter, you could base your modification on this 'solution' to complaints about the V-Strom shield. I have a set on mine and would be happy to send you some piccies.

 

[Fred W]

NEPRT in 5, 4, 3, 2....

For every rider the effect from the shield position/type/brand/modification will be different. What's good for me is bad for you is okay for Joe, etc. Keep kicking if you want, but this horse is dead. Jus' sayin'.

So you're saying you're 100% happy with the angle of your windshield then?

I know the various shields thing has been beaten to death, but I can't recall anyone ever trying to change the mechanism before so as not to have the varying angles.

We could always test it on a conveyor belt...

 

[Rondo777]

NEPRT in 5, 4, 3, 2....

For every rider the effect from the shield position/type/brand/modification will be different. What's good for me is bad for you is okay for Joe, etc. Keep kicking if you want, but this horse is dead. Jus' sayin'.

But, if you really wanna have something to do this winter, you could base your modification on this 'solution' to complaints about the V-Strom shield. I have a set on mine and would be happy to send you some piccies.

Are you using these on your FJR along with the mechanical moving thingy? If so, can you post pics, Id like to see how it all integrates.

 

[twowheelnut]

So you're saying you're 100% happy with the angle of your windshield then?
I know the various shields thing has been beaten to death, but I can't recall anyone ever trying to change the mechanism before so as not to have the varying angles.

We could always test it on a conveyor belt...

Windshields (plural), yes. Stock screen in down position with visor down for the hot season and V-Stream in the almost all the way up position with visor up for the cool season. Now, if I change helmets between my back-up RF1000 and Multitec, the positions change somewhat.

Are you using these on your FJR along with the mechanical moving thingy? If so, can you post pics, Id like to see how it all integrates.

Nope, on the Strom.

 

[Ignacio]

I can't recall anyone ever trying to change the mechanism before so as not to have the varying angles.

We have had a few people over time think a "prototype" needs to be developed for this or that....but never have it done. (i.e. turbo charging, increased compression, reversed shifting, etc.)....so we're pretty jaded even when somebody includes pictures.

You're right...nobody has done it. I don't think it's computed with anybody's internal research-trial-error-cost-benefit ratio yet. If you're serious....I would strongly suggest you open your nose up and take a longgggg, hard look at the actuator mechanism and decide if you think you could safely design and build...or have built a modification.

Being a person that has had the nose off three times for extended farkling I've taken a longish look at the actuator. I got scared looking at a bunch of loctited bolts and beefy sub-assembly and images of my windshield coming off and slicing my carotid artery just wouldn't go away. It wasn't worth it to me.

But, more power to you man. Have fun.

 

[Fred W]

I can't recall anyone ever trying to change the mechanism before so as not to have the varying angles.

We have had a few people over time think a "prototype" needs to be developed for this or that....but never have it done. (i.e. turbo charging, increased compression, reversed shifting, etc.)....so we're pretty jaded even when somebody includes pictures.

You're right...nobody has done it. I don't think it's computed with anybody's internal research-trial-error-cost-benefit ratio yet. If you're serious....I would strongly suggest you open your nose up and take a longgggg, hard look at the actuator mechanism and decide if you think you could safely design and build...or have built a modification.

Being a person that has had the nose off three times for extended farkling I've taken a longish look at the actuator. I got scared looking at a bunch of loctited bolts and beefy sub-assembly and images of my windshield coming off and slicing my carotid artery just wouldn't go away. It wasn't worth it to me.

But, more power to you man. Have fun.

Hehe... Well, visions of sliced arteries aren't that encouraging. But I do have a long winter on my hands where this machine won't be doing much more than collecting dust, so what the harm.

I've had things opened up a bunch of times (A-D panels) but never pulled the whole nose cone off before. I may go for it. The beauty is that you could work on this kind of thing all winter without doing a lot of riding (which is pretty much impossible for me now)

BUT it sure would be nice to know if it was worth attempting in the first place with some kind of feasibility test.

 

[madmike2]

Fred,

I installed spacers under mine to decrease the angle of the windshield in the up position. A very long time ago, someone shortened the "upper" arms and leaving the motor-driven arms alone. OMG, I found the article...here's a link!

If that seems feasable, I wonder if "curved" or "u-shaped" upper arms might keep the windshield closer to parallel with the nosepiece? Then the 'shield might raise more up and down on that plane rather than tipping more vertical.

I'm jist tryin' tuh hep!

 

[markjenn]

For all we know, the changing angle may actually help. So I don't think you can just look at the system and design a better one just by intuition.

My $0.02 is that the stock system is a pretty darn good compromise between the conflicting constaints of trying to create as large a still air pocket as you can, but also avoiding excessive buffeting over the range of adjustment. Most folks who fit aftermarket shields are just tipping the compromise more towards their liking by giving up what they don't care so much about and adding what they do care about.

I'm not saying you can't do better, particularly for your particulate riding style, physique, etc., but I don't think you can design a better system just by looking at it and saying, "Here is the problem and this wil fix it." What I think you really need to improve the overall compromise is a wind tunnel, either computationally or physically.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't be an interesting design exercise though.

- Mark

 

[JohnTC40]

I agree with TWN that this is very much an individual issue. I've not had my '06 for very long, but I've been very happy with the overal weather protetion. It was a bit noisy with the stock shield and my HJC modular, but I added a Laminar Lip (I've used them before) and that dropped the noise level significantly. I've experienced no buffeting with this bike or an '03 I used for a while. Of course, all this proves is that for my body dimensions and riding style, the general ergos are more or less perfect, while that wouldn't be the case for everyone. That said, if you could somehow re-engineer the windshield mechanism to provide more flexibility in position, angle, etc., that might prove to be useful to a number of riders. If you could then productize it, you might have something. As is usually the case, there's always room at the top. Go for it.

 

[Knifemaker]

I don't think you can change the angle of the windscreen (while in uppper possition) without sacrificing height. When you add spacers to the bottom, you are effectively reducing the overall height of the screen.

The problem here is utilizing the adjustability feature of the windscreen in the first place. If you were to put on a much much taller screen you could maintain a shallower angle of attack by simply not raising the shield as much ( as as you would with a shorter screen..and still end up with the same overall height.)

If you tilt the screen back more as it raises , you lose height and likely will expose more of the bottom of the shield to oncomming air. (which may help buffeting but defeat the use of the screeen "cutting the wind" when it is cold outside)

I would guess that if you could envison a windscreen that "telescopes" instead of just raising up more verticaly, you'd be limited only by how far it could move back without contacting the riders body or head.

It would almost make more sence to have the seat raise or lower instead...

So to me the answer is not to try redesigning the raising/lowering system but to work past it...Install a very very tall screen for cold weather or two up riding (and simply not raise it all the way)...and , have a shorter windscreen for hot days.

KM

 

[SockMonkey]

I don't think you can change the angle of the windscreen (while in uppper possition) without sacrificing height. When you add spacers to the bottom, you are effectively reducing the overall height of the screen. The problem here is utilizing the adjustability feature of the windscreen in the first place. If you were to put on a much much taller screen you could maintain a shallower angle of attack by simply not raising the shield as much ( as as you would with a shorter screen..and still end up with the same overall height.)

If you tilt the screen back more as it raises , you lose height and likely will expose more of the bottom of the shield to oncomming air. (which may help buffeting but defeat the use of the screeen "cutting the wind" when it is cold outside)

I would guess that if you could envison a windscreen that "telescopes" instead of just raising up more verticaly, you'd be limited only by how far it could move back without contacting the riders body or head.

It would almost make more sence to have the seat raise or lower instead...

So to me the answer is not to try redesigning the raising/lowering system but to work past it...Install a very very tall screen for cold weather or two up riding (and simply not raise it all the way)...and , have a shorter windscreen for hot days.

KM

You've actually just stumbled upon the method for Fred_W to test his theory. Purchase the Cee Bailey Standard Contour windshield with +6" height (because that's about the amount of travel the retracting shield system on the FJR offers currently), install it, leave it in the down position and go for a ride. If it works, you'll know you're on to something.

 

[browndog]

You've actually just stumbled upon the method for Fred_W to test his theory. Purchase the Cee Bailey Standard Contour windshield with +6" height (because that's about the amount of travel the retracting shield system on the FJR offers currently), install it, leave it in the down position and go for a ride. If it works, you'll know you're on to something.

Nice thoughts S/M, makes a lot of sense.... :yahoo:

 

[jestal]

Fred, your comments and supposition closely reflect the results I have seen with my windshild setup

I added spacers, similar to the "tuning blocks" under the bottom mount to move the bottom edge of the windshield forward and, thus, tipping it backwards slightly.

Interestingly, I shortened my upper arms in a similar fashion to the article referenced.....hmmm.....great minds think alike..... This further lays the windshield down at a flatter angle.

I use a CalSci tall windshield that I have cut about 2 inches off of (in increments of 0.5 inches). The CalSci has the holes in the bottom of the windshield.

Net result is that the windshield in the full down position is much flatter in angle of attack. With the flatter angle and the taller sheild it move the upper edge of the windshield to just about chin level so I get some air flow but the flow is much smoother due to the flatter angle.

I only have to move it upward a few inches to get excellent "full" coverage when desired. It is nowhere near fully up and still ends up at a much flatter angle even when the upper edge is even with the top edge of my helmet.

Much smoother air flow. Still plenty of air flow when desired if fully down and good coverage when up about 1/3 of the travel.

The CalSci holes really help with reducing backpressure and turbulence behind the fairing as I can noticeably tell the difference when I cover them over with cardboard and tape for a test ride. The holes prevent hot air from being sucked up from the engine due to excessive backpressure in hot weather and the air space becomes pretty neutral when the shield is 1/3 of the way up for more complete protection.

From my experience I would agree that the angle of the windshield is very critical to getting it tuned to your liking. Just as important as the particular sheild you change to.

From an aesthetics standpoint I like the look even better then the stock windscreen as the new angle created by the spacers and shortened upper arms moves the angle of the windshield parallel to the plane of the cowl rather than leaving it at a different angle when fully retracted.

I think Yamaha could have done a little better with the tuning of the windscreen but, even though it isn't perfect, it is easy to modify to get pretty close rather than re-inventing the wheel.

 

[madmike2]

Ahhhh, Jestal, you have answered my unasked question. I've been looking at the upper arms for some time now. Hmmmm, another project!?!? Thanks a lot!

One question. Do you get any water through the windshield holes? I have my GPS on a stemstand and would hate for water to pour through the holes and soak my electrics (incl. my radar detector).

 

[Fred W]

Yes, thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. This is the kind of dialog I was hoping for, especially to MM2 for the link to the article (very helpful) and to Jestal with the first hand experience on modification of his upper arms.

As to the current set-up being adequate, sure for short people it most likely is. But for me at 6'2" w/32" inseam (long in torso) I have tried the following shields both with and without tuning block spacer and none allows me to run with the shield up and no head buffeting. Stock, V-stream (barn door), Rifle Sport and CalSci XtraTall. Just to be clear, I have no problems at all in the summer because I just crank the stock shield down and get my head and torso into some clean, cooling air.

I do understand that a change in angle will result in a decrease of height. That was true with just the tuning block alone, so clearly that will also happen further with any top arm mod. This will mean that a taller windshield would be required to get the same vertical coverage at the shallower angle.

Looking at the article, it looks like the location of the bolt holes chosen was a compromise so as not to cause interference with the remainder of the bracket. In other words, maybe you could go even shorter if one were willing to trim the ends off the brackets. I will have to investigate getting a pair of those brackets and see how dear they are. I also like the thought of redesigning the arms to be L shaped. That may be needed to get the action desired without fouling on the front faring.

Keep the ideas coming...

 

[Fred W]

You've actually just stumbled upon the method for Fred_W to test his theory. Purchase the Cee Bailey Standard Contour windshield with +6" height (because that's about the amount of travel the retracting shield system on the FJR offers currently), install it, leave it in the down position and go for a ride. If it works, you'll know you're on to something.

That's a good idea. That would simulate what the coverage would be like with a stock shield raised fully, but remaining in the same angle as with fully down. But,. ideally I'd want o be able to simulate the coverage that one would get with the +6" shield under the same conditions (raised fully but at shallow angle).

 

[gr8eyes]

Its been my observation over the past 5 years that people over 6'1" have had trouble with buffeting even with +4 screens of any kind. I think there is merit in reducing the angle when all the way up.

I remember back in 04 I drilled the holes in the upper mouinting bracket about 15mm back and it helped some. I had a Cee Bailey's +4 and still had some buffeting. I wish I had gotten the +6. That would have fixed it for me. I had forgotten about changing the holes in the upper arm till MM2 reminded me through his article.

I now have a Cal Sci +4 on my 07 and wish I had gotten the +6, but I may try drilling new holes in the upper arm on the 07 and see how it does.

I'm 6-2 and a half BTW.

If you do figure out a simple solution to laying the shield back let us know.

Glenn

 

[RoadGlide]

simple solution: Find the right shield (aftermarket) for your height and leave the damn thing in one position. Summer or winter mine remains in the same position for smooth airflow. I've tried 4 different sheilds now and have settled on the V-Stream raised about 2 inches. I'm 5'11" 193 lbs.