Has Yamaha Gone Too Far with Electronic Suspension?

[Twigg]

I now post in both forums that still like me, so I am copying this here to give everyone an equal opportunity to abuse me, or simply add their own views:


This is a genuine question. Not looking to start a fight, but informed commentary would be helpful.

Outwith the racing world, where all bets are off, Yamaha has built a well-deserved reputation for building solid, reliable motorcycles with proven technology, at a reasonable price.

The original FJR was, and is, a world-beater. It is competent in every area, without being spectacular in any. As a result, it was a spectacular package and riders across the world went all-in for it. The only nod to technology was the AE, clutchless version, which has proven reliable and is well liked.

On the original models there is three-way adjustment on the front suspension, and two-way on the rear. Add another dimension if you play around with fork oil. The system is not the best, but for most it is very good indeed. Suspension specialists can improve on it considerably, at a price.

There are a few areas the bike lets itself down:

The seat is crap, always was. That's not uncommon, but it has never been fixed.

The luggage is very high quality, but very poorly designed and too small for a bike sold as a tourer, and the optional top case is laughably expensive.

The weather protection is modest, at best. The ST1300, now long in the tooth, is better, and the R1200RT beats both, hands down.

Yamaha were late to the party with Cruise Control, weird as they were fitting an excellent system to their tourers in the 80s.

Ergonomic adjustments are limited (actually, on the '05 they were zero). One size does not fit all, and on a "continent crosser", Yamaha should have done better.

By and large, while some of those issues have been addressed, the obvious changes to make the platform more adjustable have been ignored.

We still have to pay $500 to $800 to get a decent seat. We do now have CC. The pegs and bars still have zero or limited adjustment. They do not offer longer cables and/or brake and clutch lines for those who make 3rd Party changes. The fairing is still barely adequate in poor weather.

Yet the development in the suspension, which was never the worst aspect of the bike, seems to continue unchecked, adding a computer, $400 stepper motors and refinements that have, at best, a marginal effect on most folks riding.

The addition of a slipper clutch is one thing I can wholly applaud, I want one on mine and my left hand and wrist will thank me I never saw the need for a 6th gear, but some do. Personally I think that just means more gear changes, good on a sports bike, not needed on the FJR, but others take a different view.

So what do you think?

This is just my view. I'm not against development, it's healthy and needed, but is MamaYama going in the right direction with the FJR, or are its basic benefits in danger of being compromised?

[wheatonFJR]

While I wholeheartedly disagree with some of your theses, I was initially with you on the ES. However, I see the convenience of it from people who have used it. Whether it is worth it will be determined by rebuilding expenses, yet TBD.

People have more choices until they don't...which I understand the case to be in 2017.

[Twigg]

I'm not saying that Yamaha shouldn't offer ES, but simply that other important areas on a Sports/Tourer have been largely ignored, while complex upgrades of dubious necessity are added.

[kieefjr]

I now post in both forums that still like me, so I am copying this here to give everyone an equal opportunity to abuse me, or simply add their own views:

I'll bite.

There are a few areas the bike lets itself down:

The seat is crap, always was. That's not uncommon, but it has never been fixed.
Very few bikes that I have been on has had a comfortable seat, BMW's R90s is the only one I didn't improve on in some way other than a sheepskin. I believe the manufactures are not in the seat business and welcome the aftermarket in this field.

The luggage is very high quality, but very poorly designed and too small for a bike sold as a tourer, and the optional top case is laughably expensive.
Agree, too heavy, too much wasted space but I think the best bags that were made were Krausers and I didn't mind strapping them with a tie-down strap to keep from loosing one. Tail Boxes?, I dislike them anyway.

The weather protection is modest, at best. The ST1300, now long in the tooth, is better, and the R1200RT beats both, hands down.
I'm very happy with the weather protection, no complaints and I've been on RT's as well. I also think the bike you should compare the FJR to would be the RS, not the RT

Yamaha were late to the party with Cruise Control, weird as they were fitting an excellent system to their tourers in the 80s. And who wasn't? Honda's first year model F6B came with no cruise, cost cutting is the reason for no cruise. No complaint here either.

Ergonomic adjustments are limited (actually, on the '05 they were zero). One size does not fit all, and on a "continent crosser", Yamaha should have done better.
I think Yamaha made good minor changes through the years to keep costs down and they could care less about keeping up with BMW or anyone else.

By and large, while some of those issues have been addressed, the obvious changes to make the platform more adjustable have been ignored.
Are you wanting adjustable foot pegs now?

We still have to pay $500 to $800 to get a decent seat. We do now have CC. The pegs and bars still have zero or limited adjustment. They do not offer longer cables and/or brake and clutch lines for those who make 3rd Party changes. The fairing is still barely adequate in poor weather.
So? Moot points IMO, I love aftermarket stuff. If you want a bigger fairing get an RT or a GW.

Yet the development in the suspension, which was never the worst aspect of the bike, seems to continue unchecked, adding a computer, $400 stepper motors and refinements that have, at best, a marginal effect on most folks riding.
Personally I don't care for ES,but it seems most manufactures are getting into ES, no excitement here from me.

The addition of a slipper clutch is one thing I can wholly applaud, I want one on mine and my left hand and wrist will thank me I never saw the need for a 6th gear, but some do. Personally I think that just means more gear changes, good on a sports bike, not needed on the FJR, but others take a different view.
$300 upgrade to any FJR for a slippy clutch, something I might do myself. 6th gear?, never saw the need either but if you have a Gen1 the RMSportmax rear drive is welcomed addition, on the GenIII, not much change.

So what do you think?
I'm very happy with Yamaha and their FJR, I'll almost say its the perfect bike for me. Would I change a few things, sure but almost everything I own has "my" touch added to it.

I'll bet if Yamaha wanted all these upgrades you mention on seats, ergo adjustments, larger shield or fairing and optional cable/hose lengths you would still have customers that would ask for more and the prices would be out of reach for many more.

I think they've done a fine job despite keeping black's, silvers and grays in the paint room, I look forward to future model upgrades.

This is just my view. I'm not against development, it's healthy and needed, but is MamaYama going in the right direction with the FJR, or are its basic benefits in danger of being compromised?

I like what they've done and hope they keep this platform for many years, it fits a niche that Honda is losing out on. A good direction to pursue would be a weight reduction program for the FJR and maybe a whole new bike/engine for a future GW, RT throne taker.

[OldButNotDead]

If you look at the electronic suspension the Aprilla Caponard or Ducati Multistata, you get something way beyond adjusting the bike for a pillon sitter. IMO, unless your electronic suspension is dynamically adjustable it is more marketing than performance oriented. It's not "bad" but not sure if it is really "better" either. On the A model, good news is the shock is better through putting on a stiffer spring. Bad news is that it is harder to put a good cartridge system on the front -- Gen II forks were better. Bottom line is don't challenge a Gen I or II in the twisties with your ES. Just my 2 pence worth. I personally don't need 6 gears. I'd probably start looking for 7 if I had 6. Slipper clutch? Why?

[Twigg]

Slipper clutch? Why?

Two reasons .... It removes engine braking, which at lower speeds can be a very worthwhile feature as you can downshift at your own convenience

It takes roughly half the hand strength to operate the clutch. This is a BFD if you ride a long time.

[Hppants]

I think Mama Yamaha recognizes that most people that buy the FJR aren't buying their first bike. Having written that, I also think that keeping the bike profitable without raising the price out of their market has to be VERY high on their list.

I think the fairing does a good job, and the improvement from Gen I to III is substantial, especially on a high traffic, high speed slab. However, I think the stock windscreen is truly horrible and out of the 100 or so FJR riders I know, NONE of them rides with the stock screen (except Redfish Hunter at the 2016 SFO, but that wasn't by his choice). Offering the FJR with a better windscreen - even one the same size but with a little reverse flip, would not drive the cost up any.

I have no excuse for the stock seat, other than perhaps they are throwing a dart at the best compromise for a wide variety of seats to sit on the seat (pun intended). If so, the "seat engineer" should be fired because nobody, and I mean NOBODY likes the stock seat.

The ST1300 luggage is better made IMO, and the Connie luggage seems larger, but the FJR's look better and are good enough for whatever I will need.

OTOH - the stock rear rack is pitiful and it's load capacity is ridiculous. The Givi rear rack is cool, but it looks like an aftermarket rack. And again, the top box from Yamaha is stupid expensive.

Of course, any 600 pound, 145 HP motorcycle is going to EAT tires. I suppose I can't fault Yamaha for that.

My only other complaint for the FJR is that the black paint they put on the wheels is woefully inadequate. It is way too easy to scratch (practically unavoidable when removing the front wheel).

Now - in spite of all this, I wouldn't want anything else, especially now that I've got it farkled like I want it. Noteworthy is the fact that I had to spend about $1,500.00 to get the bike like I want it. Some of that I would have spent with ANY bike. Not sure where the break-even point lies there.

The FJR will haul me and all of my crap in comfort across the country. Then when I get there, I can unload her and go play a little in the twisties. It's dead nuts reliable - I mean for all practical purposes, it just doesn't break. I can do most (if not all) of the preventative maintenance myself without any special tools. It holds enough fuel for proper touring.

As for the ES, can't really say. I've never had a need to adjust my suspension, except to put the shock on "hi load" or "low Load" depending on the circumstances. But 3 years out, it certainly seems to be reliable as I haven't heard about one failure yet. One could easily spend that $1,000 on an aftermarket suspension. I guess it just depends on what your preferences are.

Additional electronic controls are growing leaps and bounds in the motorcycle industry, and the trend is surely to continue. That much we can be sure.

[wheatonFJR]

Stock screen here. Always. Never saw the need on any of my FJRs.

Outlier in SC.

[Allen_C]

I disagree with most of this. Claiming the AE was a good upgrade because it was clutchless shows the OP's limited experience or knowledge with different FJRs. Regardless, as a prior owner of an AE, A and now ES, I can tell you from personal experience that the stock seat is not good for me for rides longer than a couple hours, the auto electronic clutch is nice but not needed unless you have issues with your left hand or wrist, the ES is very useful for riders who mix 1up and 2up riding and/or travel a mixture of road types, the slipper clutch reduces engine braking which means I'd have to use my brakes, the adaptive cornering lights are nice but I haven't heard anyone say they actually help, 6 speeds are not needed...

All of these features appeal to some but not to others. MamaYama is in the business of building and selling bikes that riders will buy. The ST had many great features but Honda abandoned it and its loyal riders. Kawi still has not added cruise to the Connie. I think Yamaha has done a great job evolving the FJR the past 14 years. It is not perfect and anyone can find something to nit pick on it. I'm ok with that.

Disclaimer: the above is just IMHO.

[Twigg]

Well I didn't claim the AE was a good upgrade. It wasn't an upgrade it was an optional model, and I said it was reliable, and well liked by many.

I'm happy you agree about the slipper clutch ... very useful indeed for those with a need for it, and as the brakes are uniformly awesome, and much more controllable than engine-braking, then it's a win all round.

You also agree about the 6-speed box being unnecessary, so apart from the ES it's hard to see quite what you are disagreeing with.

[Allen_C]

@Twigg, please understand I'm not bashing you, just disagreeing. It seems the premise of your post was that Yamaha has been focusing on the wrong things. This is what I do not agree with, along with some if the examples you provided such as late with a cruise, not very adjustable, poorly designed luggage (although I agree the optional top box is way too expensive but other options are great)...

No worries! We bought one because it was the best for our needs at that time.MamaYama must be doing something right!

[Twigg]

If I thought you were "bashing", I wouldn't have responded

It's a fact that they were late with the cruise. My Venture Royale had electronic cruise control and it was an '86 ... remember, this is a bike sold as a sports/tourer. It's not an FJ-09 or R1.

On that basis, Yamaha are open to some criticism for failing to address ergonomics. Our bikes are built to spend long periods aboard, so it is surprising that there are so few concessions to adjusting riding positions. Even in 2016, your hands and feet are horribly exposed to water and wind, something the right fairing tweaks could fix.

I was a bit tongue-in-cheek about the slipper clutch, but actually it is an enormous benefit once its features are better understood. The ability to slip it into the right gear entering a corner without massive braking from the engine, and the reduced pull on the lever from the engine assist are big steps forward but it takes a small adjustment to riding style. If you are considering a clutch rebuild on an earlier model, it's not even an expensive upgrade.

We all giggle about seats, but this stuff is basic engineering.

Don't get me wrong. If I were buying a new bike, I would buy an FJR. As a complete package it's pretty much unbeatable for what I want it to do. That does not mean I am blind to its short-comings, and a little concerned that spending the R&D budget on 6th gears and ES is a side-alley the motorcycle doesn't need to go down, at least until the genuine concerns are met.

[OldButNotDead]

I agree with Allen_C. On the slipper clutch, I'm not all that sure it was designed to reduce engine braking. I wouldn't mind having it on other bikes I've owned because what I thought it was good for was stopping your rear from jumping side ways when you were downshifting through a hot corner.

[Twigg]

I agree with Allen_C. On the slipper clutch, I'm not all that sure it was designed to reduce engine braking. I wouldn't mind having it on other bikes I've owned because what I thought it was good for was stopping your rear from jumping side ways when you were downshifting through a hot corner.

Reducing engine braking is exactly what it was designed to do. That was its primary function.

It was developed for race bikes. They found that the engine braking was impeding their speed into corners, and that they could lap faster if they used only their brakes. They all have a slipper clutch now because a bike not having one is disadvantaged.

[wheatonFJR]

I like my non slipper clutch. I use engine braking a lot. Maybe that's why my lap times are so slow.

[Geezer]

I like my non slipper clutch. I use engine braking a lot. Maybe that's why my lap times are so slow.

+1 I like engine braking. I use it a lot more than friction braking. I have never ridden a bike with a slipper clutch. I thought it's purpose was to slip under very high RPM downshifts to act a sort of a buffer to relieve stress on the engine during the transition to engine braking and prevent the tire from slipping, but would not interfere with normal compression braking.

[Twigg]

I like my non slipper clutch. I use engine braking a lot. Maybe that's why my lap times are so slow.

I'm not disagreeing with folk, like me, who have spent 45 years riding a bike with a sequential gearbox, and a standard clutch. They are what they are, and we love 'em.

New technology is not everyone's favorite thing, but there are some disadvantages to a standard clutch. To begin with, unless you hold the clutch in, you have to change down when the engine is ready. That's okay most of the time, but it's an artificial restriction created by what we have always been used to.

For example, the best gear to be in when you enter a corner, is the one you want on the exit. The problem is that if you select it too soon, you get too much engine braking and a potentially difficult situation to handle if the road is slick. So we end up changing gear mid-corner, or being in too high a gear on the exit. Also, you can't do clutchless down-shifts unless you let the engine wind down to very low revs first. Even then there may be some grinding unless you are very good.

Likewise, when you come down to a stop, the last thing you do is select 1st gear ready to move off again ... You go through a gradual down-shift pattern as the bike slows, using both the engine to brake, and the brakes. We do this because that is how the bike works, not necessarily because it is the best thing to do. It's just how it has always been.

The slipper clutch has some real advantages in a number of areas. If you are wanting the fastest way around a track, or mountain pass, it has the edge. If you want to quickly shift all the way down in regular riding, it can do that without fear of locking the rear even in the wet. You brakes are better for controlled braking than the engine. It's just a different way of doing it is all.

Finally, the engine assist means that the pull required to operate the clutch is roughly half that of the standard clutch. That is a big deal for those riding a long way, or riding in traffic. There isn't really a downside.

These changes might not be what you want, but for those who do it's a cost-effective upgrade especially if you are rebuilding the clutch anyway. The regular cost to rebuild is around $150 or so. All the parts for the new clutch run around $300.

I criticize Yamaha when I think they go off at a tangent that has few real-world benefits, but on this one I think they got it absolutely right. Also, if you don't want a slipper clutch, you can fit the standard parts to a 2016 and I'm sure there would be a ready market for the bits you stripped off.

[Mr Bill]

I'm a bad rider and just when I get used to dumping the slipper clutch on my ktm I'll hop on my FJR and leave rubber all over the road because I forgot how to blip the throttle.

[silverback]

I think a guy could find d a reputable local upholstery shop and have them rework an eBay seat to fit yer bum better. Some of the oldest options are ridiculously expensive. I had my old XS11 seat reworked by a local guy and it's not a butt massage, but it's damn comfortable. Price? $150, which included new covering and double stitched seams. So, that may be an option for the FJR over the $800 offerings I have seen.

The suspension conundrum is something that could always be better. Even the best stuff will be superseded soon enough. Just pour money in...

Six gears would be ok if we had an extra 50 ponies to use it on the tip end. Although we'd probably start having compressibility effects like the P-38 and P-47. Just saying. I never felt the need for another great on the FJR. The XS11 definitely had that feel and often we would swap the final drive for an XS850 FD to up the gears.

Cruise control was a long time coming, but to be honest, when they went to a fly by wire throttle, the cruise was an extra switch or two and some code in the ECM. So, it wasn't a complete system which would have been required on the old cable throttle bikes.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[kieefjr]

The only downside for me with the slippery clutch would be the engine braking, it's so easy now to knock off a few mph's when the radar detector goes off I would probably be threatening my riding privilege.

So much easier to twist rather than grab and stomp.