| Author | Message | ||
     Jaimec |
Froggy mentioned this on Facebook when he saw some of my photos from the presentation; the new Star Venture kinda/sorta looks like an 1125R that grew up and developed luggage. Mostly due to the exposed V-Twin engine, aggressive looking fairing with four headlights and SCOOPS: https://www.yamahamotorsports.com/transcontinental -touring/models/star-venture | ||
| 86129squids |
I scanned the MC daily piece a few days ago- that actually looks like a pretty nice rig! I also noticed the "pods", LOL... http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2017/06/yamaha-unve ils-star-venture-luxury-tourer-with-videos/ If they load that thing with farkles and it performs well, it'll sell, BUT- they're trying to price it like a FHLTCUI... dunno about that. I've always liked Yamaha's engineering over the years... I'd be curious to see one in person. And- check THIS bad boy out! WANT!!!  http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2017/06/hardcore-ya maha-t7-production-bike-expected-this-fall/ | ||
| Adrenaline_junkie |
Holy crap! I want to SuperMoto that T7. Please, please, please bring it to the US. | ||
| Tootal |
I really like the big touring rig but 34 mpg is stupid. No need for that big of an engine. That's why I don't like Gold Wings, they're around 32 mpg. If the bike can't get over 40 mpg then it's not my cup of tea. My big Road Glide gets over 40 and has over 100 ft/lbs of torque. Until somebody can beat that I'll save my money. | ||
| Jaimec |
My K1200LT on 10% ethanol gets roughly 46 mpg. When I can find PURE gasoline, I can usually get 50+ mpg. And that's on an engine with 208,000 miles on it. It also has a 6.6 gallon tank like the Star Venture but can obviously go a LOT farther on a tank of fuel. The K1600GTL has a 7 gallon tank, but doesn't get anywhere near the mileage my older bike gets. One of the many reasons I'll probably NEVER get rid of that LT. HOWEVER, IF the Star Venture can run on REGULAR (87 Octane) fuel that MIGHT make up for it. So tired of always having to look (and PAY) for 91 octane or higher. PS: Sorry, but I think that T7 is HIDEOUS. (Message edited by jaimec on June 15, 2017) | ||
| Tootal |
That K1200Lt was an amazing touring rig. My friend had one and he consistently got better mileage than his dad and I on Harley's. I wish manufacturers would use the technology that Erik did with opening one intake sooner than the other to invoke a swirled mixture. The EBR's mileage to HP ratio was awesome. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Ok, that's one sweet bagger | ||
| Hughlysses |
^ For $25k, it ought to be. | ||
| Zac4mac |
To me it looks like a mating of a Victory Vision and a Camaro. not pretty | ||
| Ratbuell |
I'll be sure to give a ride report when we get one at work  | ||
| Jaimec |
Somehow I'm thinking it also won't QUITE carve up the twisties like my K1200LT either, but I'll reserve judgment till I actually ride one. I was pleasantly surprised at how aggressively I could push the Victory Vision without dragging anything so maybe this bike will surprise me too. | ||
| Etennuly |
Greg, that progressive throttle opening is the way the twin carbs on my '86 Honda XL 250 work on a single cylinder. Not exactly new tech. But with stock gearing it will run up to 85 mph, but cruises better about 65 mph. It does 48-50 mpg. That is on factory style knobbies. Probably ride better on some street tires.  | ||
| Ourdee |
T7 is what I need. | ||
| Tootal |
I had a 1982 Yamaha 750 Maxim. It had YICS, yamaha induction control system. It swirled the mixture and it would get 60 mpg. It disappoints me that they don't use these types of technology to improve mileage. As you said, it's old technology so why not use it! During WWll they learned more about engines than any other time in history. Many of the things they learned didn't have the technology or metallurgy to make them work. My favorite one was they learned there were no more advantages to more spark plugs after 17 of them! So when somebody says dual plugging is a waste of time you'll know that 17 is even better! | ||
| Greg_e |
Speaking of technology in motor design, why don't all cast intakes come with dimples cast into them. Most are lost foam/wax cast so how hard can it be? When it's causing me to jet down 4 or more sizes for the same exhaust mixture, I know something is going on, and it wasn't a loss of power. I know port injection removes some of this need, but the ports would still benefit from dimples after the fuel is introduced. Valves as well. (Message edited by greg_e on June 16, 2017) |
