Gen III Handling - Opinions

[OldButNotDead]

This is a question directed at Gen III riders who have had Gen I or Gen II FJR's previously.
Just to set the stage, my 06 had HyperPro springs first, then Traxion AK20's and a Penske shock. Been away from FJR's for maybe six years. My last bike was an R1200GS which handled like a dream. I am a twisty rider. I run from WV to N.Ga.

IIRC, my 06 handled extremely well for a 650+ lb bike. Right now my 14 A model handles OK but I'll swear my 06 handled significantly better. It is totally stock including BT023's. Any comments?

BTW, I love the bike. I would still choose it over the 06, except Cobalt Blue is the absolute best color FJR ever made. LOL.

[bungie4]

My 04 had the Cogent/Ohlins suspension upgrade. It handled great.

My 13 doesn't handle to the same standard as my 04 but it's close. They firmed up the suspension considerably for the Gen III's. So much so that I have no plans to upgrade the suspension until this one is worn out. Even then, I'll likely save the cash of the high end suspenders and just replace with fresh stock pieces.

All that being said, the OEM tires are generally shit. Wait until you put some better rubber on the bike to pass judgement.

[cowcop]

I have found that my '14 handles very well in the twisties, but as Bungie stated, the stock tires are not like my PR2's I was used to on my '09. You may need, as I certainly do, more time on the new ride to learn the habits of the beast.
I do say that the throttle roll on is much better on the '14 when compared to my '09 with the PCV...in either setting...

[OldButNotDead]

I totally agree that tires are the first place to start with handling issues. cowcop, I'm sure you are right about more time in the saddle. My GS made me lazy. If I screwed up my line, no problem, just point it where you need to be. FJR's aren't forgiving and demand that you do what is right. Also agree on the throttle response. On my 06 I did all the throttle stuff. Now I just use touring until I hit the tight stuff and put it into sport. Probably the thing I'm having the most problem with is being in the right gear at the right time. That will come.

[Mattthehoople]

Wish I had a firmer suspension setup. Will be upgrading to Traxx as soon as I can.

On a parallel thought pattern, fuel choice is a big contributor on my machine, in terms of handling. I run an ethanol-free fuel when available. Sometimes when doing long distances, you have to take whats available.

But I get the ethanol out as soon as I'm back to normal areas. Racetrac has E-0, 87 octane that runs really good. I mix it with some 91 E-0 that I use for lawn mowers.

The ethanol free fuel evens out throttle control such that powering out of a corner is steady, without the burping coming off-throttle.
I realize its not politically correct, but ethanol is the worst thing for me.

[OldButNotDead]

Matt,
Who says Zero E is not PC. Not sure if I'm being conned but I believe even the oil companies say ethanol is BS (because they actually can make more money off Zero E) I get it when I can, but I can't be sure what it doing to mileage. It seems like I get better mileage but at the edge of a "blend zone". Where I live is the blend for the coastal plain. Where I ride is up on or across the Blue Ridge. I always get better mileage on the Blue Ridge. If you go Traxx, talk to Lee he used to ride an FJR and is a great guy.

[ts3doug]

You may be getting better mileage due to the AF change at elevation. Ethanol can kiss my ass.

[Mattthehoople]

I'm glad guys, that I'm not the only guy who cheats using the better fuel.

[OldButNotDead]

You may be getting better mileage due to the AF change at elevation. Ethanol can kiss my ass.

I thought that too, but I will fill the tank near my house, be up in the Blue Ridge in 35 to 40 miles. That first tank always gets less than the second which I usually fill when I'm on fumes, but up in NC or TN. What even makes it more crazy is that when I am at altitude I'm usually in the twisties and crankin' the wick pretty hard. It's not the bike either, because my last three bikes all did the same thing.

[silverhound]

I have a '14ES and my prior was an '08 with bone stock suspension. I feel a distinct and noticeable improvement in the suspension with the '14 but agree that the tires are crap compared to the PR3s on my '08. Have not played a lot yet with the suspension settings but in pushing it through the twisties the tires just don't seem as sticky and they hum/whine like crazy on certain road surfaces. Can't wait to wear the rubber down a little more so I can justify changing the tires to PR3s or 4s.

[OldButNotDead]

Right now my plan is to wait until I replace my BT023's. Then replace with Angel GT's or PR2/3/4 (whatever is available at a decent price). A couple friends have Angels, get good mileage and like the way they handle. Since I know how they ride, that gives the Angel an edge.

If the tires improve the handling, end of story. If not, I'm looking at a Hyper Pro Street Box or Wilbers 640. Why those two emulsion shocks? On my 06 I replaced my fork and shock springs with Hyper Pro springs. Big improvement. Later I replaced the Hyper Pro springs with a Penske 8983 and AK20's. Yes, there was "some" improvement but not even close to night and day. The emulsion shocks mentioned can be rebuilt and should do the job because I'm not doing track days with the FJR. Make sense?

[raYzerman]

Ethanol sucks, nuff said.

Aftermarket suspensions are likely to be superior every time. Limitations of the rear shock are Hard/Soft, and won't have the adjustability range of an aftermarket, nor separate compression and rebound damping. The front forks are likely OK for most unless you're a real lightweight or heavyweight. Spring rate is 1.0, which many used as an upgrade on previous Gens.

[OldButNotDead]

Razor,
Yep, agree with what you said. I talked to Ted Porter who runs the BeemerShop and imports Wilbers, HyperPro, Yacugar and others. Very enlightening on how the shocks are constructed and where the original designs come from. Apparently the current bunch of shocks are from a basic design out of the Netherlands and WP. I've come to the conclusion that the shock is where I will concentrate my efforts and the particular shock I'm looking at is a Yacugar F-RS remote reservoir, high and low compression, rebound, remote adjuster for about $1100. BUT, I'm not pulling the trigger until I try the FeeJer with a new pair of shoes.
Rod

[Bounce]

Even on my Gen1 I tend to get better MPG at higher elevations. Less available O2 means less fuel in the mix. Right? EFI will mix the shit up right instead of just dumping fuel down the pipe like carbs. Right?

[OldButNotDead]

Even on my Gen1 I tend to get better MPG at higher elevations. Less available O2 means less fuel in the mix. Right? EFI will mix the shit up right instead of just dumping fuel down the pipe like carbs. Right?

http://www.ehow.com/about_6744997_effec ... leage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is another explanation.
This is another mystery of fuel mileage.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At one time I thought cold weather should give better mileage because the air was more dense, wrong.
I live at about 600 ft AMSL. I ride mostly at between 1500 to 3000 ft AMSL, but many times to about 5500 ft. It is usually anywhere from 5 to 10 degrees cooler up there too. Science or no, I get 4-5 mpg better mileage when I ride high. (not that kind of high). Another factor in this area is most of the gas distributed near my home is blended for the coastal plain. The gas in the mountains where I ride is blended for the mountains.
With absolutely no if's, ands, buts, politics or whatever I use non-ethanol whenever I can get it because I get better mileage wherever I ride.

[silverback]

Even on my Gen1 I tend to get better MPG at higher elevations. Less available O2 means less fuel in the mix. Right? EFI will mix the shit up right instead of just dumping fuel down the pipe like carbs. Right?

Not necessarily. IIRC there was a high alt recall on my 2007. So, it all depends on how the PCM is calibrated.

The truth is, for mileage, you can straight burn gasoline at nearly 22:1. It burns HOT. This causes lots of reactions with the nitrogen in the atmosphere and creates NOx, which are thought to drive acid rain. Ergo, when the EPA used some weirs ass French engine from the middle of last century to check the stoicometery of gasoline, they said 14:7 is best. Sure, for 1975 tech, it is. Then came Honda with their Civic, that used a lean burn system that would run at about 30:1-50:1 while using augmented ignition to get it to burn. These little things would hit 50 mpg all day long in 1978. But, the big oil com...er EPA decided they were bad for the economic...er environment and ruled that we run 14:7, which is neither best power or best economy.

So, there is reliable tech to burn 100:1 at cruise, but EPA says no. We can also run 12:1 and get much more power, but the EPA says no. So, we do the best with what we have.

The truth is that you get best mileage by using the least amount of fuel at the load required. That isn't possible...legally.

[OldButNotDead]

Silverback,
I had a lot of conversations with the guy who initiated the 07 recall. IIRC it wasn't even a true recall, more like if you were having problems take it in and they would put in a new ECU. Again, IIRC there were two barometric sensors in the 06 ECU unit and they switched to one in the 07, something like that, but if you ran at certain conditions something like hesitation or stalling occurred. LIke I said IIRC, but it wasn't a mixture kind of problem although it might have been a contributor.

Although I agree with your assessment of the EPA, I think we all agree that the biggest factor affecting MPG is your right wrist. (Happy Thanksgiving)

[OldButNotDead]

In riding around the neighborhood and on roads where for whatever reason I was running less than lets say 35mph (that's a guess), I find the front wants to dive into the turn. Without getting into too much of a discussion of counter steering, there is a point where counter steering doesn't work. That is you turn the front tire in the direction of the turn, like a tricycle. IMO this occurs at pretty slow speeds, maybe like the less than 35mph above. Anyhow, lets say I'm doing a U turn or just a right angle turn at an intersection, I feel the front try to fall into the turn. I have adjusted the steering head. On my 06 I replaced the ball bearings with tapered roller bearings. When I did so I seated the bearing by feel rather than the method outlined in the manual (which I used when i adjusted the steering head). I'm wondering if the bearings are a bit loose as specified or (major switch of gears) it's just the front tire. Comments?

[tominca]

Bearing races not properly seated will move, and can cause considerable slop and loose steering. Easiest way to check is to elevate the front and pull on the wheel to see if you feel any clicking or looseness. If you feel a clunk in the front end that is a pretty solid sign of loose bearings. An even better option is to pull the top bolt and triple tree and check the torque.

[OldButNotDead]

Did that. Used to be a lot of new FJR's did not have properly torqued bearings. It's an easy check/adjust so I did that. They are solid. Playing with the torque value can make the steering tighter or loose. When I replaced the ball bearings with tapered rollers I had to play with the torque to get it right. After doing that and talking to a bearing engineer at Timken, I pretty much concluded that all I accomplished was eating some winter garage time waiting for spring to arrive. The more I think about it the more I'd bet on front tire profile.
Thanks for the reply.