When Yamaha displayed the Crossplane Triple concept at INTERMOT last year, it made it clear that a three cylinder bike was headed for production. That bike was revealed in private to a group of journalists here in Southern California last week (you can see me sitting on the bike at the bottom of this article). It will be known as the FZ-09 when it hits dealers in the U.S. late this year (the same bike is called the MT-09 in Europe).
The FZ-09 is a small, light and powerful 847cc three-cylinder with a remarkably low U.S. MSRP of $7,990 ($1,400 cheaper than the less powerful Triumph Street Triple, for instance).
The new FZ-09 engine features even, 120 degree firing intervals, together with unique, unequal length intake funnels. It has four-valve heads and fuel injection, as well as a relatively short stroke (78 mm bore and 59.1 mm stroke) with an 11.5-1 compression ratio. The transmission is a six-speed.
Ride-by-wire throttle and Yamaha D-Mode, which allows switching between three throttle-control maps for different performance characteristics, is also included. A counter-rotating balance shaft keeps things smooth.
U.S. Yamaha representatives would not give us a peak horsepower figure, but Yamaha Europe is quoting 115 bhp at 10,000 rpm. We were given a peak torque figure of 65 foot/pounds, which should arrive at 8,500 rpm.
When we sat on the FZ-09, it felt very small and light (see pictures below – for scale, I am 5’11” tall with a 32′ inseam). Claimed wet weight (with 3.7 gallons of fuel) is 414 pounds, meaning that the claimed dry weight would be in the neighborhood of 390 pounds, or less! On paper, this is an awful lot of torquey engine in a lightweight package.
Speaking of torque, as the table below indicates, Yamaha’s technical specifications indicate the FZ-09 will have 30% more peak torque than the Triumph Street Triple, for instance, while the Yamaha weighs just a few pounds more than the Triumph. Having just stepped off the Street Triple, the FZ-09 should be mighty quick at real world speeds and rpm levels.
Both the fork and shock are adjustable for preload and rebound. The riding position is very upright (very much like a supermoto or dirt bike). I had just tested the Triumph Street Triple, which is a very narrow motorcycle at the footpegs and the knees. The new FZ-09 felt narrower, in part due to deep scallops in the fuel tank.
Yamaha’s FZ8 is being discontinued. Comparing the old 800cc inline four with the new FZ-09, the FZ-09 is less expensive, 53 pounds lighter (with wheels that are nearly a pound lighter) and more powerful. Progress, indeed.
The United States press launch for the FZ-09 will be held in approximately three months. We expect to be there, and we can’t wait. Here are the specs published for the identical bike in Europe, the MT-09, as well as additional photos. You can also visit Yamaha’s web site.
|
Engine |
|
|
Engine type |
liquid-cooled |
|
Displacement |
847 cm³ |
|
Bore x stroke |
78.0 mm x 59.1 mm |
|
Compression ratio |
11.5 : 1 |
|
Maximum power |
84.6 kW (115PS) @ 10,000 rpm |
|
Maximum Torque |
87.5 Nm (8.9 kg-m) @ 8,500 rpm |
|
Lubrication system |
Wet sump |
|
Carburettor |
Fuel Injection |
|
Clutch Type |
Wet |
|
Ignition system |
TCI |
|
Starter system |
Electric |
|
Transmission system |
Constant Mesh |
|
Final transmission |
Chain |
|
Chassis |
|
|
Frame |
Diamond |
|
Front suspension system |
Telescopic forks |
|
Front travel |
137 mm |
|
Caster Angle |
25º |
|
Trail |
103 mm |
|
Rear suspension system |
Swingarm |
|
Rear Travel |
130 mm |
|
Front brake |
Hydraulic dual disc, Ø 298 mm |
|
Rear brake |
Hydraulic single disc, Ø 245 mm |
|
Front tyre |
120/70ZR17M/C (58W) (Tubeless) |
|
Rear tyre |
180/55ZR17M/C (73W) (Tubeless) |
|
Dimensions |
|
|
Overall length |
2,075 mm |
|
Overall width |
815 mm |
|
Overall height |
1,135 mm |
|
Seat height |
815 mm |
|
Wheel base |
1,440 mm |
|
Minimum ground clearance |
135 mm |
|
Wet weight (including full oil and fuel tank) |
188 kg / ABS 191 kg |
|
Fuel tank capacity |
14 L |
|
Oil tank capacity |
3.4 L |
Easily flat footed with a 32″ inseam.
as has been mentioned; I think this could be the perfect motor to build a lightweight SPORT-tour bike (emphasis on the sporty handling not the sporty riding position). BMW has the F800 GT/(ST) but that’s about it for Light-Street-SPORT-tour.
I think there must be a lot of aging sport bike riders who want a light, nimble powerful “sportbike” but with an “All-Day-Comfortable-Sit-up Riding Position”, some decent wind protection and adjustable suspension. These are riders who just can’t accept 650-750 so called Sport Tourers.
49 yrs old
31 yrs riding
2008 GSX R750 (track days and short hops)
2003 SV 1000N for everything else
I like this bike, but as equiped, it doesn’t take me where I want to go. Right now leaning to a KTM SM-T for the next logical bike.
I agree. I very much like my 94 VFR750 which I will always keep, but I have been waiting for something like this with a least half fairing and more modern technology for a while. The BMW F800 GT is pretty close but I trust Yamaha a little more for reliability and I like the triple. Do like the KTM SM-T though I hear it is not the greatest for two up. I ride a friend’s KTM SM sometimes, fantastic suspension. Maybe the 1200 KTM Adventure, a lot of bike (power, $$$) but still in the 500 lbs. range.
61 years old
20 years riding
94 VFR
06 Ninja
06 Yam WR250F
I want this machine in a Small FJR or the Super Tenere.
Lighter and lots of power wins for me
Nice job Yamaha. That’s a lot of bike for the money, especially if they’re manufacturing this bike in Japan. The only real negatives for me are some of the styling cues. The cheesy air scoops in particular and the instrument panel to name another. On the other hand, I dig the exhaust that is nicely tucked up and out of the way with only the stubby can mostly visible (like Honda did with Hawk GT way back when). Hopefully this level of performance at this price will draw more people to the naked style bikes.
AGE: 39
Rank: Seasoned Rider
My current rides:
1998 Honda Valkyrie custom (since 2011)
2007 Kawasaki ZX14 custom (since 2012)
2002 Honda VTX1800S (since 2009)
1995 Harley Heritage (since 2013)
1976 Honda GL1000 (awhile, stock)
1977 Honda GL1000 (awhile, heavily modified)
Honda CB450R (my own creation, awhile)
1973 CB350T (several years in the making, but a driver)
2005 Harley XL (owned some time)
Polini Carena 910 (most fun with 2 wheels, not street)
And more, but I regularly drive these and I enjoy all types.
Was a MC dealer in previous life…
63 yrs. old
52 years riding
2005 Yamaha FJR 1300
1996 Ducati 900SS SP
Forgot to mention…
Yamaha and Ducati since 2006
47 years old
40 years on bikes but only 17 on the road
1 bike owned currently – MotoGuzzi Breva750 2004 model, had it from new.
Yamaha gets a bit thumbs up from me too, though I won’t be swapping the Breva for one. I bet its a hoot to ride!!!
42 years old
Been riding for 32 years
2000 Suzuki DR 650 modded for adventure touring
I really dig this bike. Would I buy one? Probably not. Not because it has a small tank. Or because it missed the mark on some styling cues. And not because it’s a naked. I won’t buy one because it’s just not for me.
I think that what most who post here haven’t realized or accepted yet is that they are not an accurate representation of the majority of consumers in the market for a new motorcycle. A very small percentage of the riding population are as knowledgeable or passionate about this consumer good with two wheels sitting in their garage. For most it’s a toy, something to take out on a nice day during the summer months and head to the lake or the coffee shop on. They’ll ride very few miles a year, their average trip will be well under 40 miles and they likely won’t compare four to five different models before they buy. They’ll walk into a dealership, say they’re thinking about getting a bike and put their money/credit down on the first bike that looks decent in their eyes and fits in line with their budget.
If you’re posting here you’re likely a “core enthusiast” and represent a VERY small percentage of motorcyclists. We like to think the industry revolves around us but I’m here to tell you that’s a very incorrect assumption. There’s nothing wrong with that, we’ll all still end up with several motorcycles that float our boat and continue to enjoy riding. What MOST call a hobby we know to be a lifestyle.
Bottom line, we don’t know better than the manufacturers. And although they all put a foot wrong now and then, in the end they manage to keep their doors open because above all they run a business and are profitable. If you actually knew what went into the creation, launch, marketing and retail of a single motorcycle model you’d likely do what I do; post rarely and enjoy the many options available on the market today.
This looks to be about my perfect street bike. Lightweight, lots of torque and comfortable riding position. Too bad I just bought a Super Tenere. But the Tenere is a great jack of all trades.
Age 29
Years Riding 13
Current Ride 04 Superhawk
That bike is hideous. That gas tank is pathetic. It’s not a Honda.
All of that and if I can scrape the cash together next year without selling my Superchicken, I’ll probably buy one. You can’t beat that price. I just hope its got decent suspenders.
I like this new Yamaha. Been looking for something lite and powerful with a “standard” style ridding position. Great price for this day and age.
47yrs old. Been ridding for 35-36 of them years.
First street bike- ’75 Honda 550 Four.
2nd- ’77 Yamaha RD400 Daytona Special (in white & red)
3rd- ’85 Yamaha RZ350LC (in Kenny Rogers yellow & black)
4th- ’87 Kawasaki Ninja 750R (the green & white one)
5h- ’85 Honda V65 Sabre in mint condition. Standard style no fairing.
Had three super close calls with blind automobile drivers on Central Blvd in ABQ, NM a couple of summers ago. The last one changed lanes right on top of me and took me to the curb. Took the joy out of ridding and was then ridding “scared” so I traded my cherry V65 for a boat.
Bikeless for the past two years and am once again looking and am impressed with the new Yamaha triple. Also been looking at Honda’s new CB1100 but this Yamaha is stealing that bike’s show in my mind.
Lots of folks don’t realize that Yamaha has made main stream triples before back in the late 70’s with their XS750 and XS850. Had a ridding buddy with the XS750 and that machine would flatout walk away from my little 550Four back when I was a freshman in High School. Changed that all around in the twisties on the RD400 and he quite ridding with me… lol.
Seriously thinking about plopping down a deposit at one of our Yamaha dealerships for a September gift to myself. The black one… I like it. Light weight, powerful, modern, different and $8K… way to go Yamaha!!! (just might have to powdercoat the wheels and some other bits and pieces Yamaha yellow)
Kenny Rogers yellow & black? I bet you wish there was an edit button.
55 years old
45 years riding
03 ZRX 1200
99 Honda Super Hawk 996
1975 Kawasaki H2 750
thumbs up on the Yamaha
How about a quick survey? Your age, years riding, and bikes you now own that you can sit on, start, and ride today, and how long you’ve had them. No projects.
I’ll start; 61 years old, been riding 47 years, have been building and restoring bikes for the last 40 years.
1984 Vespa PX125e, own for 12 years
2007 Suzuki DR650 set up for adv. touring (oversize gas tank, bags, etc. Bought new in 2007
2009 Harley Road king, bought new
1978 Triumph T140 I finished last year. Owned it for a couple years earlier.
I give this bike a general thumbs up also. It shore sparked some controversy.
How about a quick survey? Nothing big, your age, years been riding, and whats in the motorcycle garage right now. I talking bikes you can sit on, start up, and ride away today. Not the project you’ve had too long.
42
25
Monster S2R1000
Bandit 1250S
I give this bike a general Thumbs-up.
41
25
1998 Honda Superhawk 996
57 years old.
47 years riding.
2006 Harley 883L (I ride Sportsters because they have almost no maintenance except for oil change)
I like this new Yamaha.
Age: 53 y.o.
Years of riding street bikes: 34
2012 Honda CBR1000RR
2012 Suzuki V-Strom 650
2010 Suzuki Gladius
Norm
my question had to do with street bikes — i thought Yamaha made a 1000cc sport bike called an R1 sorry if i got that wrong —
815mm seat height? You sure this isn’t a “pocket-rocket”? 🙂
Sweet! With a price of only $7990 the prices of used motorcycles just plunged. Why buy used when one of the nicest rides ever is only $7990?
I didn’t consider the Honda 996 Superhawk because of the small tank and limited range. That was the deal breaker for me and probably will be for a lot of riders when it comes to choosing this bike. It’s not that hard to add a little more fuel so we don’t have to go on reserve @ 80 miles when ridden aggressively. Maybe next time YAMAHA will include a few actual motorcycle riders when designing a bike.
re: “I didn’t consider the Honda 996 Superhawk because of the small tank and limited range.”
re: “add a little more fuel so we don’t have to go on reserve @ 80 miles when ridden aggressively.”
(cough)CARBURETED…!!!(/cough)
I haven’t seen any evidence that f/I has improved fuel economy on sport bikes. I have a Super hawk and get 40mpg, mid 30’s if riding a little harder. That gives me 110-130 miles before reserve, at which point I’m ready for a break.
And the RC51 wasn’t any better for range and it was (cough)Fuel Injected…!!!(/cough)
guy… RC51…? really…? when trying to make a point about fuel economy, why would you reference a homologation special, purposely built for racing…? why not cite the fuel mileage of an R7…? or hell, a desmosedici…? LOL
in 1999, you think HRC boffins figured “fuel economy” a strategy for beating ducati at world superbikes…?! or was it, how do we make 180 HORSEPOWER…!?
“why would you reference a homologation special, purposely built for racing…?”
Because it was available to the general public for no more than an the price of the other liter bikes? Because you could get one from any Honda dealer in the country? because they were available for several years? Because they are dropping in price like any other bike of similar year? You act like the “RC” initials really meant something like they did in the past. Not like it’s a HD VR1000, now THAT was a homologation special (50 built). And the RC51 didn’t make anywhere near 180hp in street trim…
re: “I haven’t seen any evidence that f/I has improved fuel economy on sport bikes.”
just means you haven’t seen it, that’s not to be interpreted as it doesn’t exist. I owned one of those too, also a ZX9 C1. same deal with the kawi. despite a tank roughly the size and shape of a pack elephant, I was always the one to trigger the fuel stop. not so with any of me FI kit. but whatever, everybody needed gas anyway. it’s not like the fuel companies purposely accounted for the limited range of motorbikes when they chose distances between their filling stations…? breaking news, they don’t give a rat’s about us or our motorbikes.
it’s not MAD MAX WORLD, but why play a guessing game on a petrol station that may or may not be there…? even on familiar routes with KNOWN stops, one week it could be open…? but the next week you could coast there on E, only to find the ground tanks had been dug up…? YIIKKEESS…! (i’ve sat through this movie)
Q: now who’s fault is that…? is it mine…? or is it the manufacturers…?
A: it was MY dumbass fault. there were 2 other stations 10 and 15 miles back that i CHOSE not to stop at. that’s not a manufacturer’s defect…? that’s a defect in THE “NUT” CONNECTING THE SEAT TO THE HANDLEBARS…!!!
Sure but that vintage of bike made 144hp with a 100cc defecit to the 1000cc bikes and it had a 5 gallon tank. Has F.I. made a meaningful mileage improvement to that particular line of sport bikes? I have not seen, nor can I find any evidence that it has.
Sportrider’s charts show a modest increase in mileage, with a slight decrease in hp for the series:
http://www.sportrider.com/weights_measurements/146_motorcycle_weights_measurements/kawasaki.html
80? That’s a bit pessimistic don’t you think? Even if the bike only gets 35 mpg ridden hard and the low fuel light comes on at 3 gallons used that’s 105 miles. You’d still have at least another .5 gallon before dry and that would get you another 17 miles or so. Id say this bike will go 120 miles minimum between fill ups.
People said the same thing about me, back when I was dating. Turned out okay, though.
Do you think this motor will be used in the R1 @ 1000cc’s or would they need to build a new one ?
re: “Do you think this motor will be used in the R1 @ 1000cc’s or would they need to build a new one ?”
not unless ‘renzo or ross thinks it can beat Honda’s RC213 (which it can’t). from your question, I assume you’re not a consumer of grandprix racing…? no worries, you don’t have to be and the vast majority of motorcyclists aren’t.
The R1 already has a 1000cc motor.?.
The bore of the FZ-09 is identical to the current R1 engine. Think of it as 3/4 of an R1 block with added stroke. The replacement for the current R1 may well be a triple, but it would displace more than 1000cc. Final displacement (if it is a triple) would be based on the rules governing displacement for triples in WSB in effect at the time (somewhere between the displacement allowed for twins and fours).
I should add that this engine could not be used as the basis for a triple Superbike. It would not allow a competitive bore/stroke ratio.
(holy smokes I was just commenting on the r1 bore size below, what are the odds, LOL)
I would just like to add the replacement for the current R1 will NEVER be a triple. never not ever.
I wouldn’t be so sure, but the engine bore would have to be much bigger than the FZ-09 block will permit. The engine would have to be an entirely new design.
Why not go triple. I4’s are cookies cutters. Aprilia was smart with their V4. It is distinct. Horsepower has reached a ceiling. Now Yamaha can build a unique triple with unique power delivery.
Does anyone else think the forks appear to be a tad on the spindly side? I know the bike is light and all, but the more I look at them, the more I’m reminded of the time I took a peek up Olive Oyl’s dress. Also, any idea of suspension adjustability fore and aft?
Dirck
Thank you for posting that link — i never read your report – but it is everything i feel about my Zrx — it’s a shame they stopped bringing them here– a great motorcycle at a great price —
If Yamaha steps up to a 1200 triple – i would give it a try
Love this bike but Yamaha made the triple/small tank mistake before, on the snow.
My 2008 Nytro RTX with its 28L tank was great if you were trolling around at sedentary speeds on a groomed trail, not what it was made for. At that kind of operation it still came up short on range with 38L competitors two stroke model tanks.
If you used the machine for what it was made for the fuel consumption increased significantly and the range suffered terribly once the 1000 cc 135hp triple woke up. Aftermarket tanks sprung up to solve the issue at ~$400 each, a little easier on the snow than the road.
That said, it was very good and installing grins on my face and I’m sure this would too.
re: “Love this bike but Yamaha made the triple/small tank mistake before, on the snow.”
omg, did you just bring a SLED into this conversation…?
re: “a little easier on the snow than the road.”
MORE than a little easier finding gas on the road than on the snow.
The red version looks a bit better for the US, but the grey/graphite version is far far better for Europe! How can anyone in their right mind think that mixing a grey colored body with gold colored fork stanchions, and then for some ungodly reason slapping on a pair of freaking “blue” colored rims is a good idea? It looks absolutely horrendous! Gold forks on a bike not otherwise color matched is as ugly as sin to begin with, but mixing that up with grey and blue is beyond all sense of visual appeal, quite the contrary, it’s plain revolting! Beyond that the “micro” gas tank is a huge mistake, no center-stand, and not even offering the “option” of ABS in the states is unforgivable.
The graphite and blue rims combination was done on the 2007 Aprilia Tuono. At the time, I didn’t think it looked too bad at all. The only common problem I’m hearing is the small tank which is the bummer.
No centerstand lugs is a minor bummer.
And we have 300 posts!
re: “And we have 300 posts!”
Honda, don’t try this at home.
Not sure about the blue wheels on the black model. But I like it! 414 lbs sweet. Yamaha now get to work on a light weight 6 spd 650/700cc dual sport motorcycle!
Had a black Tuono with blue wheels, you would be surprised how they start to look good.
Likes: motor, weight, quality components, PRICE!
Needs: half faired version, fuel capacity
Dislike: narrow pillion seat, fake vmax intakes, blue wheels(who wants to clean those), digital display looks very dated.
Looks: 8/10 in IMO.
Overall looks like a winner. The performance categories are all checked(for the price) few nags here and there that would be solved if they made a half faired version with bigger tank and seat for people like me. I don’t need off road capability but that’s the trend oh well.
HotDog got it right, the more I look, the more I love that frame… But I still say the tail looks like it came off a Buell (And it’s too thin). Still, this is the most interest I’ve had in a bike since the first Triumph 675, or maybe the new Ninja 300. I think all are cool bikes that will go on to do very well in the showroom in their respective areas.
I should amend my statement to point out that the various flavors of 675 HAVE done very well (and for good reason).
Dirck and readers,
Please forgive my multiple posts. I rode my friend’s Ducati Hypermotard 1100 with modifications, pipe, ECU, suspension, etc. It was the most inspiring street bike I’ve ridden, CA Highway 17 through the Santa Cruz mountains, fit me like a glove, perfect except for the limited range, roll on power and handling to die for.
It just hit me that this Yamaha is darn close to the 1100’s performance if not better, for about $3k less than the Ducati when it last sold a few years ago. Wow!
Sorry, one more thing. If/when Yamaha installs this motor in an appropriate dual sport/adventure package, every other maker can start over because Yamaha will make them instantly obsolete. The only exception would be persons attracted to BMW’s aura, dealer quality/atmosphere, after sale support, and long term parts availability, which still generally defines the state of the art (IMO).
So after coping the Sptreet Triple they should copy thr Tiger 800?
Yamaha made a DOHC 750/850 triple starting in 1977. They didn’t have to copy Triumph. More like Triumph copied Yamaha when they re-emerged in the modern era mid-nineties. Yamaha is drawing on their own history, and their reputation for innovation and new ideas. Good job Yamaha! I think I’ll buy one.
We both know Yamaha would not have made another triple without Triumph making them popular.
touché.
Popular by what measure? Triumph is hardly a mainstream brand and we’re talking about a US market that’s managed to sell under 500k units the past 3-4 years.
What this bike really represents is the filling of the void in the sportbike market that was left when 600cc supersports went from value oriented sportbikes to premium models.
Popular in that if you ask 100 motorcycle guys who makes a triple 90 will say Triumph.
If anything this move will buoy Triuph. You’d be surprised at how many riders don’t know anything about their engine beyond it’s displacement. I met a guy with a MV Agusta F4 who didn’t even know that. No chicken strips on this tires.
Not sure that the Yamaha triple in an adventure package would make the Triumph 800XC “instantly obsolete”…..
I’m sure, with the big “if” being whether or not the as yet non-existent Yamaha DS undercut the Triumph XC800 price with the same vigor as this naked Yamaha undercuts the Street Triple (looks like Yamaha owns the performance per dollar ratio vs. all comers including Triumph).
This opinion worth exactly what it cost anyone reading it.
Obviously some naked bike owners read this blog. I’m highly sympathize with their reaction to this new Yamaha.
BTW, where I earlier mentioned Honda CB900 I of course meant the 919 (realized this on my mountain bike ride when I passed one parked).
From images and description this may be the most interesting and desirable street bike I’ve seen. I don’t know what to critique. Even the price seems amazingly reasonable. Yamaha looks to have hit the proverbial “bulls eye.”
With all due respect to owners and lovers of so-called “naked” liquid cooled models by Ducati and Triumph both: looks wise this Yamaha just blows them out of the water. I’ve read and studied the performance of the above described Ducatis and Triumphs, test ridden them, and studied them up close and personal. Frankly, I can’t get past how ugly they are regardless how well they perform. The plumbing is beyond awful. IMO the professional reviewers obviously overlook this glaring defect in their reports because it’s the pink elephant in the room. They look hideously awful from most angles.
Conversely, this new Yamaha is looks wise the polar opposite. I don’t know how they did it, but they did, and I congratulate them on it.
The closest naked I can remember looks wise is Honda’s long gone CB900. But Honda chose to endow that bike with, by comparison, totally useless suspension components, a mistake Yamaha chose to avoid, to their great and eternal credit.
I too love the good-looking Kawasaki ZRX1200 ELR replica. But I still rate this Yamaha looks wise a few clear steps above the ZRX. Performance wise I’ll more than gladly trade away the ZRX low mid torque for this Yamaha’s 75 to 100# weight savings and world class (by comparison) brakes/suspension. It’s not even close.
Gotta love the original Monster 900 that started this all twenty years ago. At least that’s what I think of when someone mentions “Monster.”
Honestly, I’d credit the now twenty five year old Honda Hawk GT before the Ducati Monster 900.
The Honda was more of a middle weight standard (like GS500E) than a liter-class, stripped sport bike. The Hawk and GB500 were my favorite bikes I was dreaming about when I was in high school though.
caught my eye!
however, the small tank limits the range (compared to the 2012 f800r) and i wonder if there is room for a center stand (given that it’s a chain drive).
not ready for my prime time, but intriguing,
ferenc
What with the location of the exhaust system including the catalytic converter, not to mention the conspicuous absence of any threaded holes showing anywhere down there, I don’t foresee Yamaha offering an option for a centerstand. Perhaps the aftermarket will come up with something, but with the size and shape of that exhaust system they’re going to have their work cut out for them. I would imagine that any centerstand application would be dependent on ditching the stock exhaust for a slimmed-down version minus the converter.
as i recll, centerstand was the issue with the 2012 stripler (but not with the 2011?).
i just came back from a 3600 mile ride in the southwest, and the f800r did great.
sure missed not having a shaftie, but the centerstand was hugely useful in the daily chain maintenance, andespecially on the chain sag adjustment.
enjoy,
ferenc
I sold my 1200GS and 1050ST two years ago to buy a Multistrada 1200. Happy as Larry – there’s nothing out yet that vaguely tempts me to put my bum on anything else. 150hp, mega torque, sweet handling and under 200kgs puts a smile on your dial every time you ride it!
Very nice! At that price, I may have to trade in my ’05 FZ-6 when this comes out …
Those first two years of the FZ-6 are really the next best thing to this bike. Too bad they got such mediocre reviews when all the testers insisted on short shifting them. This bike will satisfy all those motor-lugging, shifter-avoiding, rpm-fearing riders out there that didn’t understand the sensational, nearly equal power that was in the original FZ-6.
Dirck
i would still think the Zrx would have a better street engine ( for two up around town type of power)– even if torque is the same — i would think the Yamaha would come in higher.
Anyone who has had a Zrx 1200 at 6000 RPM’s knows how hard they pull
And yes you can’t compare an 800 to a 1200 —
That said a 600 Ninja will beat my Zrx in out right speed–i had two of them
As i got older 55 — i’m much happier with the low end of the Zrx — i wish they would make them again with the 14 motor
I won’t argue with you. http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2001/03/26march01kawasaki2001zxr1200r/
re: “And yes you can’t compare an 800 to a 1200”
laws of physics begs to differ.
Maybe enough underseat storage for a pack of gum and sunglasses.
Yup, I like it!
Completely useless with a 14L tank
+1
I dunno. If it really gets 48 mpg then you could easily go 153 miles and still have close to a half gallon of fuel left. That’s enough to get me from my home to Barber Motorsports park and that’s about as far as I like to ride before a leg stretch. A 17L big tank version with a real pillion seat would be nice though.
re: ” A 17L big tank version with a real pillion seat would be nice though.”
they’ll look to sell you that in the “junior tenere”. with an increase in price naturally. this here’s the austerity model.
Guy,
And what if it doesn’t get 48 MPG in the real world? What if it gets 48 MPG at 65 MPH and you get the 30 mile per hour head wind I got on part of my last long ride? Out in the west gas stations are far apart, once you get out of the city.
A few years ago I got a chance to go to the World Superbike races in Salt Lake City. The route that I wanted to take had a stretch well over 160 miles without a single gas station in central Nevada. Do you really want to run out of gas a few miles short of people, water, gas and shelter? The is a long walk in 105 degree heat.
Or how about not having to waste my limited free time sitting in gas station very few days or every day if I had a long commute?
I’ve had bikes ranging from a 2.2 gallon tank (Honda SL350) to over 9 gallon tank (R100GS-PD). There is a sweet spot in the 5 to 6.5 gallon area that just works, freedom without excessive bulk. It is shame that a lot of bikes, no just this Yamaha, are gelded by small tanks.
Goose
You can save another 10 pounds by eliminating that ugly cat. converter! What other colors is YAMAHA going to offer it in?
Looks like just black and red for the US and Canada. Europe and the UK get four choices including a sweet purple, an orange, matt finish grey and blue.
I think the “Controlled Flow” casting process of the frame and swingarm is beautiful! This looks like a great all round bike for just about everyone. Yes, it doesn’t have a bladder busting fuel tank but I don’t think it was designed as cross country missile. Our Leader should’ve had a pie eating grin on his face, when he had his picture taken on it.
I too love the frame & swinger, it looks designed instead of fabricated. Best looking part of the bike IMO (and I like the bike!)
Look at all that empty space beneath the seat. Easily enough for two additional gallons of fuel. Pity that it wasn’t used. That way it might have decent range. As it is, fuel capacity is awfully little.
Not a good idea to put a fuel tank on top of the cat con. Pinto anyone?
He said under the seat, not under the swing arm. Not as close as most fuel tanks are to the much hotter headers tubes when they exit the head.
Goose
There are lots of bikes with underseat fuel reservoirs. It is a fairly simple engineering exercise. That way you preserve the bike’s slimness but increase its utility. I love the way the exhaust is tucked in and low, allowing plenty of room for saddlebags. I’m sure the engine will be stellar. This bike could be made into a superb sports tourer. But not with that tiny fuel cell.
re: “It is a fairly simple engineering exercise.”
or is it…?
Why, yes … yes it is. Underseat fuel cells in mass produced bikes happened in the mid-70s …. with early four-cylinder GLs. I know because I owned several.
re: “Why, yes … yes it is.”
no gary, you totally missed the reference to my post below submitted a few minutes before yours.
re: “Look at all that empty space beneath the seat.”
from a perspective of engineering and design, I do see gary’s point. was looking at an FZ8 yesterday and naturally the much wider engine and frame of the i4 has a much wider tank sitting atop it all. so if you’re chopping off a cylinder and narrowing the chassis to create a triple…? logic dictates, the only way to have fuel capacity remain constant is to spread it’s volume lengthwise.
these are yam boffins, so I have no doubt this version exists as a catia or solidworks file on a harddrive somewhere. but then they still had to factor for the battery, and then along came the UK mandate for ABS. aargh, where are we going to put this modulator…? but wait there’s more…!!!
once the marketing department weighed in about how they wanted to crow about how light the thing was in the eventual press releases, it’s real easy to see how restoring fuel capacity (since it adds weight/occupies space) wasn’t going to get a look in edgewise. also, by not including it now, it gives them something to do in the future and give the “illusion” that they are improving/updating the bike. for reference, the outgoing FZ8 specs out at 4.5gal and 467lbs wet.
And yet the Street Triple sports a 4.6 gallon tank despite having ABS, a narrow triple engine, a similar frame design and exhaust system, and very low weight.
I’m not sure why Yamaha didn’t grace this thing with greater fuel capacity (increasing the tank size by 4/5ths of a gallon would only add roughly six highly welcome pounds to the overall wet weight) but yes, they easily could have.
re: “I’m not sure why Yamaha didn’t grace this thing with greater fuel capacity”
I just explained why. weight. the bike is already 14lbs heavier than the trumpet they’re gunning for. and this with almost a gallon less.
re: “increasing the tank size by 4/5ths of a gallon would only add roughly six highly welcome pounds”
welcome…? who you kiddin’, the complaints would then shift to crying about how much it weighed. all this talk of tank size, centerstands… curious why is everybody hellbent on “tourifying” a motorcycle that has CLEARLY been designed to be a cheap, fun, backroad carver…? if interstate is what you’re looking for…? then by-golly does Yamaha have a bike for you. see entry for the 630lb FJR.
Adding six pounds of precious fuel to a 414 wet-weight bike would not inspire any real hue and cry of poutrage among the pitchfork-wielding villagers. It would still be a very light bike and well within shouting distance of the wet weight of the pricier/significantly smaller displacement Trumpet.
We’re only talking six pounds here, not fifty-six, and it’s not as if Yamaha would be slapping a six-pound bag of steaming afterbirth on the triple clamp. It’s just fuel. People like fuel.
Not so much “tourifying” as making it more practical. Many of us, including yours truly, have favorite roads that are several hours away. I’d love to take a good-handling sports tourer to the high Sierras. I prefer some gas capacity for such a trip. But that’s just me … nothing if not pragmatic.
ps: if you notice, dirk even posted some Yamaha supplied action photos showing you in no uncertain terms the pure “sporting intent” Yamaha has for this model. I fear the next complaint will be about it not being fitted with proper set of knobbies.
That pure sporting intent provides even greater incentive for a larger fuel tank. The harder I ride, the poorer my gas mileage. Many of my favorite sportriding locales are more than 100 miles from start to finish without a gas station in sight, which can easily polish off a 3.7 gallon tank.
ABS?
So as not to clutter the forum, I’ll answer my own question. No mention of an ABS option at Yamaha’s website.
It states a 3kg weight increase for abs in the spec section.
Europe and UK have the ABS option but I don’t see any mention of it for the US or Canada.
This bike seems to have generated a lot of interest, I guess I’m not the only one looking for a versatile, midsize bike.
Dirk, where does it stand in the all time number of posts list?
Goose
I noticed that too. It may be a one day record number of replies. Positive or negative it’s sure perked up a lot of interest.
Not entirely sure, but might be the most ever.
@ Hefner – Why is there no place on the public roads for the S1000RR? Are you suggesting a horsepower limit for bikes? And Corvettes and Camaros too? Are you in the US?
I have a Hayabusa, I’ll assume you have something safer like an Enfield Bullet?
Yes, I am in the US.
Comparing a car to a bike is a little flawed. If I spin my tires in a car, the repercussions tend to be far less than if I do it on my bike. Likewise if I lock the front brake on my bike, the outcome is likely to be much worse than a similar action in a car. The point is, bikes are inherently less stable than a car, so these factors become much more significant, so I believe greater care needs to be taken when building motorcycles that so easily surpass the abilities of those who buy them.
Tiered HP Limits == a good idea
Handing the keys of a liter-bike to an 18 year old male full of hormones and aggression is something akin to handing a loaded gun to someone suffering severe depression. They are going to hurt themselves. An experienced rider with tens of thousands of miles and track experience? Okay, it’s a different story. The middle ground is filled with lots of grey.
And don’t get me wrong, I totally get the thrill of big engines, but the S1000RR was built to do one thing: Win World Championships. It is an inappropriate tool for the street.
And you sir assume wrong. I am a 20-year riding Veteran with thousands of miles spent racing in the Canyons of SoCal, with the road-rash and suspended licenses to prove it, who put my money where my mouth was and took it to the track where I raced primarily 600’s (with a few outings on an R1 superbike that scared the bejeezus out of me) and earned my CCS Expert license in the middle of my second season. And before you ask who I am, I’m nobody you need to know. I flamed out in season 3 with dwindling cash supply affecting my fear of crashing, and therefore my riding. My weapon of choice is my trusty CBR600F4 with a Penske triple clicker, Traxxion front end, GPR damper, 520 (-1/-1) gearing, Erion Comp Exhaust/Jet Kit (love carbs!) and custom rearsets I designed and machined myself. My only concessions to style are a smoked windscreen (because I don’t need to go into a full tuck on the street and the smoke matches all the other black on the bike), and a fender eliminator kit because the stock stuff was just too dorky. I even run full size stock turn signals for visibility. It’s a wicked streetbike, with all day comfort!
So… What’s your ratio of go versus sho?
The biggest reason I bought my S1000RR is, get this, safety? Safety? Yes. safety.
Last summer I had two bikes, Multistrada 1200S Touring (my main commuter, love it, still have it) and a Triumph Street Triple R. The trip never really talked to me (ready for hate mail from Triumph fan boys) and I was thinking of another bike.
I happened to stop by the BMW dealer, and Nate Kern was there talking about the S1000RR. He wasn’t talking speed, HP, handling, etc., he was talking about the rider aids. THAT is what convinced this 50yr old ex-sportbiker to get back on a nice ride.
Experience? Riding since 1985, stopped counting total miles years ago at 300k. Gotta be 400k+ by now.
BTW, Hef, I owned a 600F2 and then 600F4. That whole series of GOOF bikes were fantastic motorcycles.
when someone claims to have a “game changer”, I expect a game changer…this is just following the sales of other similar bikes.
Although the bike is quite interesting…I agree that the Yamaha press release engaged in a bit of hyperbole in using this term.
What characteristics in a motorcycle would constitute it as a “game changer” anyway?
I think the game changing element is the (relative) price point. I do not remember seeing this level of equipment a this relative price point. The intangible game changing quality, of course, could be the riding experience…
at least not since the SV650
This has shaped/cast swing and frame, 115hp, ride-by-wire, upside down fork, what should be excellent brakes (i they’re the same as what FZ-1 and 8 have). The SV650 does not approach this bike’s spec. It had damper rod fork, 65-ish hp, box-section swing arm, mediocre brakes.
It’s a fair comparison but relative to the economies that the two bikes were released into this Yamaha is pretty remarkable.
+1 what Dave says about the SV. It was definitely a great bike, and a game changer in it’s own right. But it had crap brakes, and crap (initially) nonadjustable suspension. As for the engine, the SV’s was sweet. 65 wasn’t much, but it wasn’t too hard to get more, and the bike was light.
This Yam is selling for almost the same price as the SV a decade later, with much higher spec running gear, and with an engine that instead of being described as sweet, may turn out to be a monster.
Game changer.
The 1969 CB750 was a piece of ####. It also changed the game. The SV is now 15 years old. Cut it some slack.
I like it…but I really was expecting something Different. Everyone has a naked upright bike, an “adventure” bike, etc..
Would love some new thinking in the industry
oops, you’ve accidentally clicked on the Yamaha FZ9 thread. you’re looking for the thread on the fully faired CTX twist-n-go.
I actually lol’ed, so kudos Norm!
Everyone says they want new-think, then they poo-poo on things like the NCX/CTX. I agree that some new ground needs to be broken, but that doesn’t mean we need to get rid of tried and true! You can have my fully faired sportbike when you pry it from my cold dead hands…
I wrote this yesterday: “There will be a triple cylinder bike in my garage in the near future. I look forward to a shoot-out of the Street Triple and the FZ-09″…but after thinking about this bike a bit (which I find myself doing a lot in the last 24 hours) I’m really starting to dig it. Yamaha really is going for the throat of the Street Triple. Just look at the photo’s of the bikes side-by-side and you do see that Yamaha isn’t trying to create a market, but steal one. The extra power, low price and damn-near weight make this a very compelling alternative to the Street Triple. I really can’t wait to see the comparisons of the two bikes on the road. If Yamaha has gotten the details correct (which they usually do) this might be the greatest street bargain since the original SV650.
re: “I really can’t wait to see the comparisons of the two bikes on the road”
honestly what’s to see…? even if pricing were identical, the engine with 175 more cc’s and nearly identical weight is ALWAYS going to win out.
Not if the chassis sucks..
re: “Not if the chassis sucks.”
focus. this isn’t Hyosung. response for the sake of response doesn’t apply in the context of the company that brought motorcycling the “deltabox”.
Theres more to it than engine though surely? Otherwise how would the Street Triple be top of the pile ahead of 750s, 800s etc
re: “Theres more to it than engine though surely?”
nope. not when you’re comparing apples to apples. which is what this will be. I started to point that out, but I figured it’d be obvious. come 3 months, this won’t be an agusta MV arriving to market with FI badly in need of sorting.
This would blow away my ’93 Monster 900, hands down. More so the later 900 Monsters. How about them apples?
OK, Yamaha, starting with the basic platform you’re introducing with the FZ-09, I’m envisioning the following offshoots:
Tenere 847 adventure tourer
Fazer 847 half-faired street sport bike
FJR 847 fully-faired sport tourer
Keep me posted.
I would love to see a R-09 added to that list as well.
Could go head to head with the triumph and the GSXR-750 and also the new MV Agusta.
What a showdown that would be!
This bike in a sport touring platform would also be incredible (FJR-09).
So many possibilities with this bike.
Yamaha, you have a home run here. DON’T NEGLECT IT!
+1million, put it in a sportbike!!!
Exactly. I would like to have one of each of those. Best of all worlds, would be great bikes and I believe they would sell very well.
Don’t forget the friggin’ unicycle. And the trike. And the Zamboni.
But you can actually get one of those now if you want.
re: “Don’t forget the friggin’ unicycle. And the trike. And the Zamboni.”
lol… classic.
I believe you could accomplish all that with the same bike. Adjust suspension, change tires, add bags and windshield, bolt on a beak…
Bolt on a beak???? Thats for the birds man!
Dear Yamaha. THANK YOU!!! Your timing is exceptional. The tables have finally turned as European brands have become totally uninspiring and bikes like this, and the CB1100, are springing forth from Japan. Please keep the momentum.
really, uninspiring?? the new Hypermotard?, the Panigale?, the new batch of KTMs out and soon to be out?
i mean i think this Yamaha is great, im really liking it, but come on man!
I love this bike (or, at least, the stats, at this point). But, I wanted to give a big Thanks! to Dirck for adding useful photos showing a “rider” with foot-on-peg, foot-on-floor, and reach to the handlebar, in addition to the “glamour” shots. Many/most publications seem to ignore these basic perspectives. Now, back to the bike lust…
+1
Finally, a new bike design that I don’t instantly hate, or have to justify liking!
If I had to criticize, (and I must…) I would say that the tail section just looks a little too thin, and a little too wide. The design could have certainly taken a little deeper seat, which could have provided some functional storage, and to my eyes at least, would have resulted in a slightly more balanced look. And is it just me, or does the seat look like it came off a Buell?
Anyhow, I’m liking the design, power, and the fact that for what seems to be a somewhat budget bike, the fact that they included adjustable suspension! Sure comp damping would have been nice, but it’s certainly far better than the much more commonplace “rear preload only” most budget bikes get.
I wonder what the fuel economy numbers will look like…
I’m betting it gets at least 50mpg. Yamaha would not have put such a small tank on it otherwise.
Jake,
I hope you are right. This is so close to what I’ve been looking for but at 40 MPG it just doesn’t work for me. At 50 MPG (real word, ridden semi-aggressively) I could work with a 3.7 gallon tank.
Fingers crossed,
Goose
re: “I’ve been looking for but at 40 MPG it just doesn’t work for me”
it’ll work just fine for ya goose. throw caution to the wind already. call up your local dealer with a credit card on Monday, and leave ’em a deposit. and if they’re not open…? call ’em Tuesday. 🙂
well, what do you want to bet?
the stripler does not get 50mpg (whereas the naked f800r gets 50+) 🙂
ferenc
re: “I wonder what the fuel economy numbers will look like”
re: “I’m betting it gets at least 50mpg.”
the outgoing FZ8 is spec’d at 39mpg, so i’m betting 39 mpg +/-3. sure one less cylinder, but it’s still 50cc more displacement. the tenere for example has 2 less cylinders, but it’s 400cc more and still get’s basically the same 40mpg. personally, I don’t give a rat’s about the fuel mileage on a motorbike (but that’s just me). but here’s why, the btu’s contained in a gallon of gas are the btu’s contained in a gallon of gas.
there are so many other factors that have far GREATER influence on fuel economy of a motorbike. ie. aerodynamics, big American vs. a tiny Japanese, are you a throttle jockey? etc. unlike car world, the mass of the rider/driver here is a MUCH greater percentage of overall combined vehicle weight. the fuel gauge of a Honda accord (that already weighs 3500lbs) doesn’t see the difference between a petite 105lb female driver…? and the 250lb construction worker who’s never met a beer he didn’t like.
so, given the state of 21st century technology, the only way to get any appreciable increase in range out of a motorbike worth wasting the precious minutes of one’s life worrying about is to A. significantly REDUCE the size of the engine, B. carry significantly MORE fuel on board (see entry for the tank on a GS adventure), or C. DON’T burn gasoline at all, ie. change to a more energy dense liquid fuel like say diesel.
again, the energy contained in a gallon of gas is still the same energy that was in it when it was first discovered. what we have simply witnessed over that past 50 years is technology advancing to the point that ICE automobiles now get roughly the SAME economy that motorbikes have always enjoyed. 40 miles from a gallon of gas on average seems to be “nature’s plateau”. one either accepts this number…? or chooses to cheat death riding a 250 something on the 880…? come hell or high water though, free lunch is not getting served.
Honda’s NC’s and CTX’s get as good or better mpg than their CB 250, so no higher MPG is not always about smaller displacement. And if autos can now get 40 mpg, how in the world can bikes which weigh so much less not get more. It’s called progress. Surely bike makers can wring out more mpg from their bikes, and if they can do so without too much of a dent in performance, then this sort of progress will change the biking world, as Yamaha has claimed.
We all have to wait to see, but most likely this bike will get 50 mpg or just a shade under in slightly relaxed, real world riding. Those 3 ECU maps might have something with do it, with one of them designed to maximize fuel economy.
Yamaha knows gas prices will increase and on this new and important model of theirs, they would not have missed the boat and ignored the mpg issue, which will become and more of a selling point to buyers.
When Yamaha promoted this bike as a world changer, I’m sure it also had class leading mpg in mind as well as class leading value and performance. Hooligan and sport bikes being socially responsible with fuel economy, that’s a new thing. Otherwise, their promotion is way overblown. I doubt if Yamaha would be so flagrant with a model which they see as so important to their future prospects.
This could go 50mpg if the rider tip-toed everywhere. I hear of plenty of guys going better than 60mpg on SV650’s. Something tells me that most of this bike’s owners will have a hard time not playing with it’s engine and seeing something closer to 40mpg.
There are plenty of highway capable 250cc scooters that go 60-70mpg but nobody is talking about those here. We must face it, this bike is not meant for marathon riding. Maybe the next model using this engine will be..
re: “Honda’s NC’s and CTX’s get as good or better mpg than their CB 250, so no higher MPG is not always about smaller displacement.”
breaking news, 670cc’s across only 2 cylinders IS small displacement. anyone who thinks SV’s had a serious case of the “slows”…? don’t know from slow until they’ve ridden one of those.
re: “how in the world can bikes which weigh so much less not get more.”
did you not read a word I said…?
re: “Surely bike makers can wring out more mpg from their bikes, and if they can do so without too much of a dent in performance”
sorry sir, the “free buffet” is closed. please try back tomorrow. we reopen at 10am.
re: “most likely this bike will get 50 mpg or just a shade under in slightly relaxed, real world riding. Those 3 ECU maps might have something with do it, with one of them designed to maximize fuel economy.”
full naked bike, ZERO wind protection, aerodynamic c/d of a washing machine, snarling triple begging one to feed it the berries…? you’re living in a dream world neo…!!! (morpheus voice)
re: “they would not have missed the boat and ignored the mpg issue”
not only have they deliberately missed the boat, they were waving at it as they flew overhead in a JET PLANE, which is what riding this triple is intended to be like.
“did you not read a word I said…?”
You mean about how a 100lb big butt can adversely affect mpg but not a 4.000lb car, or how displacement is what matters for bikes but is irrelevant when it comes to 3.5 liter car engine, or how 670cc’s is small displacement but not 850cc’s, which is only 200cc’s more?
Yea, I read all that, and I sort of get what you are trying to say, but even you have to admit your claims are sort of lacking in internal consistency…well, maybe not you.
In 2013, Triumph improved the mpg of the Street Triple by 30% with simple, minor engine changes. It now gets 43MPG compared to 33MPG before. Tell me again how bike manufacturers have hit the wall and can’t squeeze more efficiency out of their engines?
re: “In 2013, Triumph improved the mpg of the Street Triple by 30% with simple, minor engine changes. It now gets 43MPG compared to 33MPG before.”
33mpg on a 675 is *shameful*. Improving it to where it should’ve been in the first isn’t applause worthy.
Diesel has exactly the same energy density as gasoline. Diesel’s efficiency comes from its high compression ratios, constant full “throttle” (diesels don’t have an air throttle, maintaining high cylinder pressures), variable fuel rates based on power requirements, and narrow – focused power band.
re: “Diesel has exactly the same energy density as gasoline.”
no it doesn’t.
re: “Diesel’s efficiency comes from its high compression ratios, constant full “throttle” (diesels don’t have an air throttle”
sayeth todd to the owner of a p-pump’d 12v with compound turbos.
I myself miss a flater seat like this bike has. It seems like most of the new bikes lock you into one positon. I like to move around. In fact it definitely seems like they ended up coming closer to a supermoto with this design almost like the new Hypermotard which also looks like a smokin bike except for being alot more expensive. I hope the suspension and mpg numbers hold up well.
Is this Speed Triple copy supposed to be what’s going to change sport bikes? I like the look of it, but it’s already been done by Triumph.
Yamaha beat Triumph to the punch, selling an inline triple in the late ’70s.
Oops! I just remembered the Triumph Trident.
The xs750/850 sold for a decade in respectable numbers. The 69 trident was a T U R D and sold virtually nothing. Matter of fact, Yamaha should have kept marketing the xs850 instead of the maxim 750, which was ugly and ran shiiit due to lean tuned cv carbs. AND ANOTHER THING…..
You missed the point. This Yamaha game changer is a Street, Speed Triple copy. It certainly looks like one. I think the Yamaha faiyhful would eat a T U R D, if served with a tuning fork.
Al T, your comments come off like someone who owns and loves their street triple, and just realized it’s no longer the cool “it” bike, but is desperately trying to convince everyone else that it still is. You also sound like someone who has a deep hatred for Yamaha, or at least those that like the brand. Reminds me of the Android/iOS nerd wars to be honest. Maybe I’m wrong about this, it’s just my impression… But why can’t you just appreciate it for what it is? After all, Imitation is the biggest form of flattery (and Triumph should feel flattered for their recent triples).
I don’t own a speed triple or street triple, but I see what is there. Had you read my original post you would know that I like it. I can appreciate the bike for what it is, but it’s not the game changer Yamaha touted. Ive been riding for 47 years, impressing you or anyone else must be your deal.
Fair enough, your original post doesn’t really come off all that snippy, and you do say you like it. In my opinion this bike is no more a copy of a street triple than the Ducati hyper-motard is a copy of a KTM Super Duke. They both use twins and have an upright riding position.
ya see I was following too closely behind this horse trailer and…..
From a design perspective I wouldn’t consider this a copy. Certainly the engine format is similar (do Triumph use the same 120 deg. firing order?) but to call it a copy simply because it has 3-cylinders is being a little unfair IMO.
I also applaud the engine size. A 675 is nice, don’t get me wrong, I like 600-fours, and the 675 is like a tourqey version of that, but it is still high-strung none the less. On the other side, I personally find the liter-bike madness irresponsible. Flame me if you want, but there is no place for the BMW S1000RR on public roads, period. Sure the speed triple doesn’t put 180HP to the ground, but it is still more powerful than 90% of riders buying one should have. I won’t go so far as to say that it shouldn’t be allowed on public roads, as I don’t consider it in the same category as the S1000RR in that regard, but Triumph has definitely left a gap in their lineup, and Yamaha just took it (Arguably MV is already a player
Sorry, Hef, but I love my S1000RR, the 1st sport bike I’ve owned in years. Great fun and pretty damned comfortable for a full on sport bike. Just because the loud handle “goes to eleven” doesn’t mean you have to be doing that all the time, or even rarely, to enjoy the bike.
I am glad you like it (I lust for one myself as a track toy), but even more happy to hear that you understand that it doesn’t always have to go to eleven!! (I’m being sincere here)
See my retort further up the page.
Question: Comfortable compared to what? an R6? Not actually trying to be (too) snarky, just trying to gauge the context.
My typical day ride is 250-350mi of mostly twisties, with a stop every hour or so. I am 50, and previously had been riding sport tourers the last 10 years or so. Previous to that, I rode a whole list of mostly Honda sportbikes, but it was in the mid 90’s thru mid 2000’s.
From the side views you can’t tell if it’s 3 or 4 cyl, I was referring to the styling.
re: “but it is still high-strung none the less.”
don’t poo poo that just yet. that’s where the magic is. the higher revving nature of the smaller displacement is what brings out the character. it’s not like triumph is new to making triples, yet the larger displacements never struck gold like the D675. the bore/stroke ratio of this new 850 has it in between a gsxr1k and a zed-10, and it’s 78mil pistons are identical to what’s used in their own R1 (and the RSV4) if that tells you anything. 🙂
re: “I like the look of it, but it’s already been done by Triumph.”
Not for this price (relative to the market) they haven’t.
… and Indian did a inline 4 way before Honda. competition is a good thing!
Henderson did an inline four long before Indian.
You get what you pay for.
re: “You get what you pay for.”
Not always true in motorcycling, at least in terms of what the physical bike is. Often you pay for is exchange rate or labor rate. Sometimes it’s brand exclusivity. We pay for those things but many don’t want them, they just want the best motorcycle for the money.
And all that is matter of opinion. I’ve never owned a bike that saved me money.
Buying goods against varying currency/exchange rates are real market forces. Paying a premium for an Italian product that is inferior to a Japanese product for a higher price is paying for branding (and a more difficult exchange rate). These things are real and they are what you pay for, not matters of opinion.
“Paying a premium for an Italian product that is inferior to a Japanese product” again, matter of opinion.
re: “I’ve never owned a bike that saved me money.”
best comment in the history of motorcycling. my hat’s off to you sir.
Honestly, it looks like the best new Yamaha street bike in years. I never expect much from Japanese motorcycle aesthetics, they’re generally too safe, or outright tone-deaf (hello Suzuki Gladius!). This is clean-looking, has good components, an exciting powerplant and a killer MSRP. For the usually-conservative Japanese bike makers, this is a win in my eyes.
I have no doubt she’s great in bed, but you might want to bring a bag.
Excellent.
Power Delivery of the yamaha triple is going to be great. Can’t Wait to pick one up.
Sliming this engine down to a parallel twin would blow Honda 500’s off the road, a true 564cc with the weight reduction could compete /w the 600’s really well, with that compression ratio. Prior to the small displacement race, the whole industry seemed very stagnant and hasn’t accommodated a new generation of motorcyclists, this yamaha would be a great upgrade into a new all round bike. I agree /w Tom R. a sport touring version would be fantastic.
+1 on the 564cc(600)Twin version. It could easily make around 70hp. Give it a 270 degree firing order and a sub 400 pound wet weight and they’d have an instant middle weight hit that I’d buy.
I like this. Personally I’m a cruiser fan. I was excited when the bolt came out, but I do love the triple engine as its a good middle ground between the v twin torque that I like and the holligan fun t be had on an i4. that said I’m still hopeful that in time this bike and its soon to come offshoots will be the forerunners for yamaha to eventually bring out an updated version of their old XS triples. the lazy bugger in me likes the hassle free maintenance of shaft and belt drives. But I would definitely ride the hell out of this bike until then
re: “then go read what everyone has to say about your plastic encrusted, overweight, underpowered efforts to woo “new” riders.”
honestly, I don’t/can’t fault Honda for attempting to increase the fold. that’s the good. unfortunately the bad is, while they play “mad scientist” engaging in all manner of experiments, the dealer network are the ones who get “taken for a ride” (pun intended).
10yrs ago…? sure, you could get away with that. the 2013 market however is almost unrecognizable. building the new NSX in Marysville and business jets in Greensboro doesn’t have dikk to do with a franchisee keeping the doors open in Phoenix. if you want to experiment…? great, do it on your time. meanwhile, there are contractual business agreements to uphold.
The proof will be in the sales. If this Yamaha pushes most all the right buttons for prospective buyers then the proof will be in sales. Now’s the time to put up or shut up. Rather than casting stones in one direction and bursting with accolades in another, I think it’s past time that people start buying.
Case in point, it would seem from the many posters here that KTM has it mostly right and yet I don’t seem to see a proportionally greater number of them running around. Time will tell Norm. My guess is it doesn’t cost Honda much (comparatively) to bring the CTX to market but I’m sure they feel there’s enough there to make it worth their efforts.
re: “I’m sure they feel there’s enough there to make it worth their efforts.”
no doubt. they’ve just missed the critical step of inquiring with those burdened with the task of SELLING them. for sure, a lotta bachelor degrees and masters degrees at Honda corporate, but apparently not a single salesman or business owner…? currently, new motor vehicles (not yet anyway) aren’t purchased like books and mp3’s off amazon.
This Yamaha is incredible for it’s performance/dollar ratio and I think has the potential to kill 600cc sportbike sales all by itself but this is a small market and it’s all been done before. Continuing to do it will not necessarily grow the motorcycle market.
We should applaud Honda for what they’re doing. They trying to bring in new riders with reasonably priced, less intimidating motorcycles like the ones that made them the biggest motorcycle maker in the 70’s and 80’s. If what they’re doing works it will raise all boats and we’ll get back to a place where everyone is making bikes like this Yamaha for the “real” motorcycling enthusiasts out there.
re: “I think it’s past time that people start buying.”
hear…! hear…!
Everyone knows the big dog in motorcycling is Honda and this will not change for the foreseeable future. Come back in 10 years, and we will see how much a Honda dealership is worth compared to a Yamaha’s or any other Big 4 brand. Honda is so big and so confident in its abilities that does not feel as constrained by market forces as the others are and so it feels free to concern itself with other things than the mundane task of maximizing bike sales or business profits.
Honda knows it can do anything it wants anytime it wants – the Honda dealership owners more than anyone else ought to be aware of this. So the Honda dealership networks as whole are probably safe. Times might be tough now, but surely, Honda will make sure to release enough attractive products to keep them afloat while it is off with its more long term, esoteric concerns.
How about a 850cc Tenere, now we are talking Adventure…!
It’s just OK. The MV Brutale 800 costs more, but also delivers more style and performance. The Japanese have yet to design a bike that looks truly integrated.
I very much prefer this look to MV’s in most cases. MV’s are full of unneeded elements. Too many facets, too busy.
“cost more” ?? massive understatemen, nearly twice as much. Also I agree with Dave, the MV is gaudy. Yam looks cleaner. In fact the more I look at the new fz-09 the more I like it.
According to Cycle World the MV is $11,999 vs. $7,999 for the FZ-09. 50% more is a lot, but it’s hardly “nearly twice as much.”
Dirck
my comment about being a 1200 to replace my Zrx has nothing to do about weather my bike could hang with this one–i’m sure the zrx has a lot more low low and mid range –
I love my Zrx – and two up it never breaks a sweat -i love torque – and a Zrx has about 80
I love this Yamaha being a triple – i still have an H2
i would like to see Yamaha make a small version of this bike to go head to head with the Kawasaki 300
and like i said a 1200 triple — i’m buying that
I fell in love with the ZRX when I tested it years ago. Very different bikes, but I understand about that big effortless wave of torque from big displacement. This new Yamaha is a different beast, but it should have impressive torque characteristics for its engine size.
re: “it should have impressive torque characteristics for its engine size.”
power/weight or in this case torque/weight. the zed’s a biggun.
ZRX 80/544 = .14
FZ9 60/414 = .14
well blimey, by the power vested in me, i declare the yam a match for the kaw…! :-O
note, this even after subtracting out (-5) for drivetrain losses regarding the FZ, assuming the number given is at the crank.
power to weight – what a concept
Good sentiment, but bikes don’t ride themselves – add a two hundred pound guy to each and re-calculate, the ZRex still has at least a 10% advantage (does ft*lbs./lb” reduce to “foots”?) Plus, it isn’t the torque peak, but the “area under the curve” that counts with torque when it comes to “rideability”, and if I remember correctly, the Kawi’s curve is as flat as my seventh grade girlfriend (before you retort, I was in seventh grade, too). I really like the Yammie, but you’ve gotta give credit where credit is due, the Z-Rex was known to be a torquey barstard – beats me why Kaw never updated it with some version of the big Ninja’s powerplant.
I agree, a1200 with a modest price hike is what I’d spend money on. If they do, I want torque to be the focus not horsepower. We can already triple most posted speed limits. I want a road bike. I already have a high strung ride which will soon be getting the track time it deserves. Also, yamaha, when you build it give 150 miles on a tank, a windscreen option, and a luggage option. Something fun around town that can be dressed for a trip. All this said keep, style consistant with this model. I am in the market for a 2015, that’s what I want to buy.
Lets not worry about the tail. Its begging to be cut off.
This is a very interesting bike at a nice price. Great motor. Suspension might not suck like on cheap bikes. Not much in the way of cockpit.
I await Kevin Cameron’s explanation of the unequal intake runners.
Looking forward extremely to some review rides here.
Is it made in Japan?
It might be time to short the MV Augusta stock you’re holding.
Wow, what a price!!! There is absolutely no reason to complain about that price. But if we take off the covers, will there be tank flanges? If so, then what about tank flanges? Deal-breaker?
re: “Wow, what a price!!! There is absolutely no reason to complain about that price.”
and yet there will be billionaire cheapskates complaining about the price. they have no idea how good they’ve got it over the europeans (even without this price). cheap fuel, cheap bikes, no VAT, no restricted kit, and no tiered licensing. yankee doodles… living the dream.
This bike is an aftermarket windshield away from perfect.
I’d rather a half faired version from the factory…but Yes, to sped a day on it some wind protection would be great!
Impressive spec sheet with affordable price! But ugly headlight, tail section too high, small gas tank, and no center stand? I like V-max style air induct on both sides. Seat height at 32″? Narrow profile should help reaching the ground better. The whole package is attractive. I can see my 900cc will be in the market very soon to get space for this one!
Hellooooooooo…..Honda….Anybody home?
Yamaha has it right on. Should be a very versatile engine to power several different kinds of bikes in several different sizes.
Er.. CB1000r?
Again, the previous Hondas shown are not meant to appeal to the same crowd as this. Glad you like what Yamaha has wrought but I doubt you or most others here are noobs. Now, let’s take this bike, or anything remotely similar and put a new rider on it! Can you imagine what may happen?
re: “Again, the previous Hondas shown are not meant to appeal to the same crowd as this.”
correct, Yamaha builds bikes for the sighted, not the blind.
re: “Now let’s take this bike, or anything remotely similar and put a new rider on it! Can you imagine what may happen?”
i reckon prolly the same thing that happens when trust fund babies go out and buy a busa II (cash) because his “friend” told him, naw dude… you don’t wanna buy a 600… you’ll just get tired of it.
ps: having said that last part, the seat section does look an awful like it was meant to have one of those “stunter for life” foot bars installed on it.
I like the way Yamaha is thinking here. Honda, not so much. The new Yam looks like might make a great replacement for my CBR250R for commuting. Also looks like it might do double duty for spirited rides in the twisties, allowing me to convert my CBR1000RR over to track only. At $8,000 it’s definitely worth considering.
Love it. Would even buy it new at this price. I even like the styling nod to the V-max
It looks like a Speed Triple.
It has more styling cues from the old Yammie Fazer.
…which was a beautiful bike – the thing still looks cool today
Nice!
I’m surprised at the number of comments. The Truimph Daytona 955i (A
Great Bike!) convinced me that Triples are Cool. This new Yamaha will certainly get a good look.
This looks very good and I’m excited to see what other bike grow from this engine. The possibilities are almost endless. I’m sure they will sell as many as they can make. Sorry Honda, I think your days or leading the Japanese powersports companies has past.
YAMAHA IS THE NEW HONDA.
re: “Sorry Honda, I think your days or leading the Japanese powersports companies has past.
YAMAHA IS THE NEW HONDA.”
took the words right outta my mouth. Honda better thank god they have thai production and the 500’s and 250’s to crow about.
Actually, Kawasaki is the new Honda, and for the last two years. But I must admit, this Yamaha is a h*ll of a lot better than that goofy looking Bolt.
re: “Actually, Kawasaki is the new Honda”
gimmee a call when k-heavy gives the motorcycling masses the gift of a completely novel engine config like Honda did in the 20th century with the CB750 K0, then furusawa/Yamaha did in the 21st century with the grandprix M1 and the production R1. don’t get me wrong, at the core I bleed green, but these are hall of fame contributions… stuff for the history books. not everyone’s going to make it in.
What I meant by the new Honda, is that Kawasaki has been number one sales wise over Honda the last couple of years. Honda has for quite some time been the biggest manufacturer with the most sales overall. No more. NONE of the Japanese manufacturers however have taken the bigger leap and are pretty much stagnant in new designs versus the Europeans and even some others. Japan is only now starting to wake up a little, but they have a ways to go.
re: “What I meant by the new Honda, is that Kawasaki has been number one sales wise over Honda the last couple of years.”
i’ll buy that for a dollar. if not for kawi, we wouldn’t know from a CBR250.
Can you provide supporting evidence for your claim that Kawasaki’s sales numbers are higher than Honda’s? That contradicts this article:
http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/news/honda-q2-motorcycle-sales-12/
Honda is creating new markets, Yamaha is exploiting an existing one.
Let’s give credit where credit is due-Triumph did all the heavy lifting establishing the market potential of triples, and specifically the viability of a slim, torquey middleweight with upright ergos (aka the Street Triple).
The Street Triple has been Triumph’s best-selling model for the last few years and Yamaha (wisely) took notice and produced a competitor with more power and a lower price.
So kudos to Yamaha, I think the FZ-09 looks like a fantastic new bike, but lets not get carried away-right now Honda is on a roll and it is doing more than any other manufacturer to bring new customers into motorcycling.
To be historically correct, Yamaha developed and sold a triple in the late ’70s, but Triumph marketing definitely made the right moves in launching their version.
The Yamaha triples (XS750/XS850, 1976 through 1981) were not big sellers (nor was the Triumph Trident that preceded them, for that matter).
Triumph realized in the Nineties that it had an opportunity to differentiate itself from the Japanese competition and strengthen its brand identity by committing to Triples, and it has enjoyed considerable sales success because of that long-running commitment.
Actually, Triumph built a lot of four cylinder bikes in the past, remember the Trophy 1200 and Daytona 600? All they should get credit for is noticing the triples sold and the fours didn’t.
I think the concept of a Middle-Weight “Street-Fighter” was what was meant more thant the # of cylinders.
Fabulous. All the right specs. Reminds me of a Buell Lightning. Gotta be well balanced. I am amazed at the price point. Seems $500 – $1000 too low.
Either that or bikes before were simply priced too high. My guess is the later. The Japanese sold their bikes for more in the past because they could. Now that they can’t, they are selling them for less. It’s just that simple. I’m sure they are still making a profit from it. Heck, they could probably cut another thousand or two off the price, and they would still be in the black, if they so desired.
I suppose this is not Dirck Edge motorcycle.
No more new naked bikes for me (sob). The giant catalytic converter is just too ugly to stand and the heat it puts out will probably be unbearable in the desert in summer. I’m tired of skirting the law and putting up with the added expense of changing out the muffler on every bike I buy. Back to cars (convertables).
Well, it looks like my ’05 FZ6 will go on Craigs List about the end of August. That should give me time to decide on the black or the red. They realy need a faster blue, after all, that IS the Yamaha color. It looks like it has “the Blob” Mark II. What is it with Yamaha and their fondness for illegiable instrument clusters? I shift by the seat of my pants (butt-o-meter) and Go as fast as traffic allows but traditionally motorcycles have instruments. Why add the weight and money for something that cannot be used?
I agree, the instruments on this one really suck!
Looks great!! Looks fun!!
Hey, I like it, though the side profile is not my favorite. I was interested in the previous FZ8, but I think I’d buy the coming version. I like the charcoal/electric blue color scheme. It needs a wind screen, but the price is fantastic. Way to go, Yamaha! I bet Honda’s wishing it priced the new CB1000 now at $8K rather than $10K. I was hoping Kawasaki would import the Europe-only Z750, but I like the new FZ8 more now.
Before the cb1000 came to the US it was doubtful that we’d get it at all because it was made by Honda Italy (dollar weak against the euro). Not sure how they even got it to $10k. If Yamaha is making money @$8k and made in Japan then everyone else has big problems.
re: “If Yamaha is making money @$8k”
and that’s one BIG “if”. i’d like to think that they are…? but YAM ain’t BMW and this is no S1000 stickering at $15,500 (ie. twice the price). admittedly, i’m baffled at how they’re doing it. (occam’s razor) the answer may very well be that they AREN’T doing it…? once the bikes are allocated, the dealers will be the ones to tell the tale.
Far better looking than that albatross of a Honda you showed last. But I just can’t stand the styling coming out of Japan these days. I don’t want a transformer. I want a motorcycle that looks like a motorcycle. Cartoons are for kids.
I see a dual-sport version coming soon.
+1
+2
Something V-Stromish or Versysish, but with more torque… nice.
It looks interesting on the spec sheet, but why does it have to be so freaking ugly? That frame is awful, and the whole thing looks like each part was designed by a different person, with a totally different design concept.
Aside from their sport bikes, the Japanese tend not spend as much time with styling as other manufacturers. With that said, this bike does look pretty good in black. The bike is styled better than a typical $8,000 bike from Yamaha. Clearly, Yamaha wants this bike to be a sales success with a low probability of failure, so they put a bit more effort into it than they usually do.
To me, the more I look at it, the more I like it. It looks totally purposeful, rather than “styled” (except for the instrument panel).
The real test is seeing it in person, I guess. To me it doesn’t look purposeful, because it lacks the unity of form and function. There are all kinds of shapes that look pasted on and that don’t have a good reason for why they look the way they do. Can’t debate taste, though…
In order to please the members of this board, all Yamaha has to do is add a better seat, better headlight, bags, rack, different suspension, adventure version, 1200 version, different colors, lower the price and…….tank seams.
Poor Yamaha. They should just close their doors and shutter the factory. How they stayed in business all these years and sold all their porducts is a complete mystery.
Best comment in this thread!
Nobody would dream of riding such a bike without an “Oscillation Overthruster”
LOL!!! Michael_H hit it perfectly. I can’t believe all the things people find to complain about.
Well, to be sure, just about every new bike these days could use a better seat that doesn’t slope to the front and is actually designed with human anatomy rather than just styling in mind. Other than that I think it’s fine for what it is, but I do look forward to hopefully seeing some other models spun off this basic platform – surely Yamaha didn’t design this entirely new engine for just one model.
I like it so far… Can’t wait to see one in person… Sounds like it should be a fun bike..
Maybe Fazer 700 and this bike?
It will be interesting to have this and TDM850!
Excellent chance that I will purchase this bike to replace my 796. Looking ahead, should Yamaha decide to build aTenere based on this light torquey powerplant, I would like to submit my request to be placed at the top of the customer list. High quality and shaft driven please!
It’s a Yamonster! I guess that’s what all the “brutal beast” in the ad speak was, a monster competitor. Nice looking bike. With those ergos and all that torque, these will spend a lot of time on the back wheel! Looks like fun. Almost a cool $1K cheaper than an FZ8 too.
Wonder what else they’re gonna put that “CP3” motor into?
This looks like a great naked “Do-Everything-Bike”. My definition of that is: Track days, Canyon Blasting and light duty touring with some soft bags.
It might be a great replacement for my 2003 SV1000 N as it has almost the same HP, less torque – but less weight (especially after dropping that boat anchor of an exhaust).
My only problem is I’ve moved away from a “One-Bike-Solution” – NOT A Problem Really…But I added an 08 GSX R750 for Track Days and short hops in the Canyons…so the SV is sadly going to be replaced (at some point) with something more comfortable for longer rides. Thanks to the fine community of riders here at MCD; I think I have settled for the time being on lusting after a white KTM SM-T. It will take some time to acquire the perfect used copy with low miles that has been a garage queen for some unlucky motorcyclist
All in all, I think Yamaha has a winner on its hands as the middle weight class seems to be heating up.
I could easily see them making several bikes off of this motor;
a Half-Faired Street Focused Light-Duty Touring Bike with optional/removable hard bags (I know this one is a stretch)
a Tiger 800 Competitor
a Sport Version with fairings – but not a race replica
a long wheel-based cruiser with forward controls and forward blob of bodywork with a shorty fairing and an automatic transmission (Sarcastic Jab at the ridiculous Honda).
Yawn. Bit of a let down after the hype. And fugly too
You said that two minutes ago. Broaden your vocabulary.
Only allowed one public yawn per bike.
Wow, I’m pretty excited, and it takes a lot to pump me up these days. I give it an 8.5. My bef with the bike is that Yamaha totally blew the seat/tail design. Looks VERY boring. Hopefully theres a factory solo seat option that spices it up a bit. But still, great performance bargain for guys who appreciate tq on a streetbike. Should be a nice little 1st and 2nd gear wheelie machine, provided it’s not electronically neutered. I guess we’ll find out!
It looks interesting to me though I’d like to see an iteration with better fuel capacity and wind protection for touring purposes. No ABS is not a deal breaker for me but I would probably get it if it was available.
ABS is optional, but adds about extra 3 kg.
Very nice looking bike.
I seem to recall Erik Buell defending the under the bike exhaust on the basis of mass centralization and that eventually it would catch on. Guess so.
Honda Hawk GT had that back in 1988.
I like the exhaust, also like centerstands.
1987 SRX 600 had under bike exhaust.
1907 indian had under slung exhaust. norm G. for the win…!!!
I like pretty much everything about it except for the tail. The tail light/ turn signals/ license plate just hang out there in space. this bike is begging for a real rear fender, or at least a hugger.
Also, unless I missed the part about it being a two-stroke, wouldn’t even firing intervals be at 240 degrees? Yes, the crankshaft throws are at 120 degrees, but the crank has to rotate twice for each power stroke. Unless it’s a big bang engine, but that isn’t even firing.
In summary, it looks good and the stated numbers sound good as well. Yamaha may have a winner here.
re: “Also, unless I missed the part about it being a two-stroke, wouldn’t even firing intervals be at 240 degrees?”
yes, think of it as a multiple of 120. granted, while a piston has to cycle through 720 to do it’s job, the crank still dictates (come hell or high water) each piston will “lag” only 120 degrees out of phase from the one that preceded it. unless of course some monkey business occurs with the crank…? of which there seems to be conflicting information.
yam’s site throws out the “crossplane” moniker in the context of the FZ9, but then also says “even” firing intervals. but I see this as the same misnomer that occurred with R1. the specific 120 degree “chestnut” dirk provides (that yam conspicuously doesn’t mention) seems to support their even statement. and i’m sure dirk didn’t just throw that out there on his own, that info was given to him by blue shirts at the dealer meeting.
ps: not sure i’ll still be on board if this is anything other than a traditional triple. i’3’s were not a broken format in need of fixing.
Hey Norm, (if you see this) do you know if this scoot will have the same type of exhaust song as the Triumph triples? I want the “outboard motor from hell” sound ; – )
Sweet! Kind of retro to the Fazer 700. Great job Yamaha!
I like. I’d like to see a half-faired version, too. Unfortunately that under-engine exhaust carbuncle will probably eliminate any chance of a centerstand, something I still consider essential for any bike that will get ridden a considerable amount. I hope there is at least provisions for swingarm stand spools (but I can’t quite make any out). I liked the FZ8, too, when I test rode one, although I couldn’t quite manage to get it to wheelie on power alone on the test ride.
Like everything about it except the smallish tank. I’m good with the styling. Would expect this to outsell the Honda 10:1. Maybe it will and they will snap out of it.
Not a deal breaker, but an extra gallon would make it right on the money. I understand “hooligan” but since it appears the ergos are otherwise there for an all purpose ride, could see slapping a small shield and some soft bags on and hitting the road in sport tour mode. that little tank hurts it there.
Agree on preferring more fuel capacity but early reports of good fuel consumption ( if true ) may indicate reasonble touring range. Hope.
Finally the real SV replacement in a genuine package, and the price is fantastic! I was wondering if North American would get one, they revealed it yesterday for the world as MT-09.
re: “Finally the real SV replacement”
uh-oh, somebody’s talking reckless… STONE HIM…!!!
There may be some truth to it being a perfect Next Bike for all the SV-N riders who are ready for a little more power and torque. The questions remains is the handling; will it fall effortlessly into corners, accept line changes mid corner and handle with aplomb?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call a motorcycle.
Kind of sorry to see the FZ-8 go, but this does look like an improvement at a great price. Throw a small fairing and some bags on that thing and it’s the perfect commuter/sport tourer. At a price not much more (or less depending on model) than a single cylinder dual sport. Nice!
This bike is absolutely a winner. No bullshit single sided swing arms, no high exhausts, low COG on the engine / transmission, low relative overall weight – excellent !
An additional 2 – 3litres of fuel capacity and a small headlight-surround only fairing would be also useful but this bike looks light, versatile and capable.
Finally!
grandaddy approves. they will sell sheetloads of these.
Great hooligan bike. Wheelie mongers will love this.
Would like to see a sport touring machine based on this concept. Tune for midrange power, add appropriate bodywork and panniers, ABS, belt drive, a proper seat, 5-gallon tank, and dials for the speedo and tach. Do that for $11,900 and they’ll have me in the showroom on the day it shows up.
Honda.. Are you paying attention?
Read the overall positive responses on this bike, and then go read what everyone has to say about your plastic encrusted, overweight, underpowered efforts to woo “new” riders.
Of course the proof is in the pudding.. We will have to see how sale numbers stack up. They make what sells I guess, I hope everyone who claims to plan on buying this follows through. Otherwise the entire motorcycle market will be relegated to 50hp 600lb auto trans anime bikes..
Yea I like it, Good move for Yamaha..
Well overall I like it, for $8K, it would seem you get a lot of bike for the money. I would like braided brake lines and those parts bin directionals, have got to go. Yamaha may make more money on accessories and upgrades.
It is so typical with most reviews to leave out all the players; for one the Bonneville does not belong in this comparison.
How does it compare with:
Aprila; Shiver
MV Agusta; Brutale 675 and 800
Hyosung; GT650
Suzuki; SV650 (Gladius)
Ducati; Streetfighter 848
At any rate, if you are looking for a new bike in this class do your homework, it is becoming a buyers market, with more and more choices.
This is not a review, and those are the bikes Yamaha chose to compare (it is a copy of a slide from Yamaha’s presentation). The MVs and Ducati are not in the same time zone when it comes to price (the FZ-09 is $7,990).
There will be a triple cylinder bike in my garage in the near future. I look forward to a shoot-out of the Street Triple and the FZ-08.
Very nice! The triple is always a great engine in a bike. Love the howl at WFO, and shame on Kawasaki for not resurecting their heritage. However, not a bike I’d ever buy. Teeny weeny little fuel tank. Good for Dirck for putting the bike in scale, but I’m 5″ taller with a 4″ longer inseam. Teeny weeny little bike. Please put the triple in an adventure bike setting, but with street wheels … kinda Tiger 800 meets Versys 1000 (Canada and Europe only). Speaking of wheels, hate the blue wheels with the black bodywork.
Kawasaki has no heritage with 4-stroke triples…only 2-stroke triples. They need to work on a direct-injected 2-stroke that will pass EPA…then make it in a triple.
It’s going to be a fun bike to ride. Not too impressive to look at, but the price/performance ratio is looking good.
Attractive bike, attractive price, comfortable ergos, Yamaha quality…this will be a very popular bike. I’m anxious to see one in the flesh.
I want one…..
I wonder why it was compared with a triumph street triple. Wouldn’t putting it up against a tiger 800 have been more honest?
…and I will not buy anything with less than a five gallon gas tank. I don’t just use my bike for the twisty canyons on week ends. I actually ride to work.
No. It compares directly with a speed triple. Where do you see an adventure touring bike here? It absolutely positively beyond the shadow of any doubt, compares to a speed triple.
The comparison was about the torque, not the height of the shocks or diameter of the wheels. So, I think it would have been honest to compare the 850 to the triumph 800.
Tiger 800 has little in common with this bike except the motor.
Glad you actually ride your bike. The rest of us posers just look at websites and buy bikes to take to coffee shops.
How do you get wind protection? The Kawasaki Ninja 1000 is more like it, for me, but I prefer the triple.
Woot!
Gimme.
Actually, I do not want to sound provocative and I know this is in vogue, but I am little disappointed. I expected something in line with MT-01, in around 1200cc and V configuration; that would be feed for me. Moto-Morini Corsaro is of that kind I like, albeit with engine in 3cylinder row.
Pretty bikes and high compression ratios…. yeah, but do you have gas for them? anything in more than 11:1 is in question IMHO.
On NA continent the highest octane gas commonly available is 93 (no wonder when 1/3 of population is driving trucks). I wonder, is this sufficient for long term use while obtaining longevity expected? In EU is more common gas with rating of 103 and even 108 octane. Rule of thumb used to be octane rating/comp. ratio about 10/1.
Where have you been for the last 10 years? That rule of thumb might apply to hot rodding but not the highly refined modern computer aided computational fluid dynamic combustion designed and CPU FI controlled engines. This might be an issue in parts of Mexico where you can’t get premium, then you have to take it easier till you get to a Premex with premium.
So, if I understand it right the 91/93 octane gas for bike with 11/1 plus compression is just fine. Well…. how is it then that even with my 900 Bandit (10.8:1 ratio) and FI, I feel difference in smoothness of run and quality of output even between 89 and 91octanes?
Is it not just a techno hype you are telling me read out from magazines? Let’s be clear – propaganda of sort in under every stone. Unless you have your own experience in that trade (engine analysis) you cannot say for certain (or speak Japanese at least).
Compression ratios are higher in more modern engines. a 2 valve Harley could not possibly run much more than 11/1 but some engines like the BMW k1300s have as high as 13/1. a lot of factors go into this. Like watercooled, 4valve per cyl. (more valve area)for bleed off(overlap on cam timing) knock sensors, some engines have vvt. timing retarders. etc. all these eng. run better with premium but will run on lower octanes with no problem. They just wont put out the same power.
The EU octane numbers you cite are Research octanes. They are taken at lower rpms and less load than Motor octane numbers. A typical NA 93 octane gas might have a RON of 100 and a MON of 86. Average the two numbers and you get a R+M/2 of 93 octane which is what is reported on NA gas pumps. The EU numbers are not directly comparable.
FZ6 has higher compression ratio but takes regular gas. So CR’s not the only variable….
Japanese designers must be desperate for women.
This is one ugly motorcycle.
Hope it comes to Canada.
Less is ….well… just LESS . Maybe some folks do want …less.
Shame about the size. Come on, some of us magpies have real gripes too. Look at Dirck sitting on it – at 7″ taller, I’m gonna look like an ape humping a football! The trend I see is alarming, and it started with that damn RSV4. Keep designing good bikes, oh ye motorcycle engineers, just don’t forget the world is getting taller every generation…
Okay besides the tallness rant this really is a great bike and we need more innovation and forward thinking along these lines. Light weight, real world power, modern electronics, lower cost, and built for larger riders? Hey, 4-out-of-5 ain’t bad!
In all seriousness I love my ’08 Speed Triple – I think everyone should enjoy the noise and fun of a well designed three.
I am greatly embarrassed that the tank does not say Kawasaki on it. How could big K NOT build a triple?
Well done Yamaha! Looks like this decade will be the Decade of the Triple. Great to see so much action in the middleweight street genre, after the open sportbike saturation of the noughties.
From one of the photos it appears to have no linkage on the rear suspension… I’m pulling for this bike (initial price, cost of parts, reliability) but I wonder if the Street Triple will outhandle it…
Depends on who’s riding which bike.
Please give it a half-fairing and lose the awful instrument. WHY have bike makers failed to notice that all-digital gauges came and went in cars what, 25 years ago???
I dunno about came and went. we have full glass cockpits now…? but to ask for anything more out of bike with this price point seems a bit ridiculous.
Most actual instrument panels in cars have reverted to analog gauges. I can live with digital speedo but not bar-graph tach.
Looks like Yamaha may have nailed it with this one. It is a really simple recipe; lightweight, powerful, good looking, and affordable.
Awesome job Yamaha. I hope it catches on. I’d like to see them make a mini tenere out of that motor too.
Not bad. Not bad at all… The price is surprising considering how much motorcycle it looks like you are getting. Has me looking forward to the 675cc R6 and 1100cc R1.
It might not be perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Upright riding position, low price, very little plastic and a great motor. Now all we need is a smaller version.
“…a smaller version” — Why? 414 pounds, wet; 56.5″ wheel base; $7990. Maybe you’d be better-off with a Honda CB500F?
Nah …Honda is beating their chest because they can compete with a 300 Ninja with a 500.
The way Kawasaki is beating their chest because they can compete with a Honda CBR250R with a 300 Ninja? One-upmanship has been in vogue for years.
Yes smaller – like a 500CC 65HP with 350 pound curb weight. That’s “smaller” than the CB500F.
That curb weight figure is very hard to hit at a reasonable price/spec.I really don’t know how Yamaha had managed the price they’re showing for this.
KTM is bringing their 350 to the US and may have a hard time competing with THIS bike unless they gouge their own profit to drive down the price.
Maybe what I need is a Grom.
This doesn’t ‘change the sport motorcycle world’ but it is pretty damn cool. Imagine what Bimota could do with such an impressively inexpensive starting engine and tranny.
Super Versys. Had my Versys since 08, haven’t found anything to replace it with, maybe this is it? Would have to be damn good. the V is still one of the best bikes out there, over 50k miles on mine.
I’m wondering if this bike is more singular in function than the Versys. I feel the same way about mine. It’s an amazing bike. Time will tell if the new Yamaha has that kind of versatility, or if it’s strictly for sport.
Hey, Machog, I was on the same wavelength! Curious to see where else this new mill finds applications in Yamaha’s product line.
Wonder how it will compare with MV’s Brutale 800. Also, is that a true aluminum frame, or a steel tube frame with a plastic cover designed to look like aluminum and hide the steel tubing?
The info I read stated that is a die-cast aluminium frame—-the Euro version frame is silver, which I prefer–and apparently they get the purple one and we don’t. The black one looks pretty good though
Looks ugly, but it sounds like the recipe for fun (light weight and power), and the price is right.
Not bad. Only thing missing is an option for a half fairing bolted in place of the faux-ducts above the radiator, and the headlight.
It may not look like a cafe racer or anything, but I applaud any affordable real street bike that isn’t trying too hard to be something it isn’t (not trying to be a race replica, nor a pseudo-offroader), and a triple is a nice mix between a Twin and an I4.
okay, now I know where I’ve seen that pointed seat section before. vaguely reminiscent of buell’s XB9 lightning.
Come on NormG. The Bell had a tail that was shorter and thicker. Stubbier? But I can see the resemblance…
If I recall correctly, that (almost) same taillight assy narrowly survived its intro on the 06′ R6 but only because it was new and was on a somewhat revolutionary design. That Yamaha is still sticking the same looking assy on bikes is a tribute to the fact that their stylists and designers didn’t come back after recess bell. The cost cutting it took to achieve this bike comes in the form of the parts bin. No redesign… little designer input, little development cost.
Still, if it were on a Triumph Tiger 800-like platform with some higher end suspension available, I’m down. Until then, or the release of the new KTM Adv 1190, my philopoty ol’ VStrom thou will have to do.
With 135 Hp/liter makes you wonder about what a 500CC version would be like – roughly 350-360 pounds curb weight with 65 HP @ $6K?
I also wonder about an “adventure styled” version with larger tank, fairings, and more reasonable footpeg position.
Now this is a fine direction to head in with new models. Affordable, exciting, likely nimble, fast, comfortable. Nothing at all like the disgraceful offspring of a scooter that was raped by a sportster….ahem..ctx
Then step up to the bar and place your order!
Needs a proper double headlight. Not hooligan enough.
How much you wanna bet people will do a a triumph triple style headlight conversion?
Holy Sh@# !!!!!!!! $7990???? I’m looking at my next bike……
whaddaya mean, it’s a nekkid. no wonky fairing, no extra tail area, no DCT, no TC, no giant clocks. that’s pretty clean innit…? uh oh… no ABS. when does this mandate kick in again…?
As the ex owner of a S4R Monster and the current owner of a Sprint RS 955i this looks like triple sound, S4R mid and high range power, 955i bottom end, S4R weight, and Yamaha practicality rolled up. If it’s more comfy than the S4R I like it.
Seriously, I think Yamaha has a contender here – Ducati lightness, Tuono power, hopefully Yamaha ease of ownership, and lots of dealers. 5″+ Suspension travel for real world backroads. And the price, under all of the 650’s and just 1K more than a NC700X? Kind of the Multistrada I wished Ducati would make.
Somebody mentioned the pillion, yes, once again styling trumps that practical consideration. I feel for you. My MTS1000DS Multistrada wasn’t so good at that either though brilliant in most other ways.
Nicely done, Yamaha!
This bike is exactly the right direction. Light, simple, comfortable riding position and uncluttered styling with a great power to weight ratio. Somebody got the message that this bike answers.
it’s getting a Versys owner to take a 2nd look, so Yamaha is doing something right…
i stand corrected. but wait 120 degrees…? that ain’t crossplane, it’s just a standard triple…? no matter, it stands in stark contrast to Honda’s new cruiser. see, packaging is everything. this thing looks GOOOOD. maybe when yam was talking about shocking the world, they were talking about price…? is that a real aluminum frame i see…? and Suzuki couldn’t do that for the SV…? other than the wheels, this things looks totally fabbed in japan. buy now before the price goes up.
How would you crossplane a triple? With a dummy crank lobe? Cross plane can only truly be with pistons 180 out from each other.
What makes this triple different then others is the ignition timing which is 240º close to that of a v-twin.
Sure it’s a crossplane. That just refers to the shape of the crank, not the firing order – it just happens that an even firing order on an I3 requires a crossplane crank. Now the Laverda Jota 1000 is a triple with a flatplane crank and an uneven firing order (it has a 0-180-360 arrangement), it sounds magnificent, but I believe is somewhat vibey…
One of the key design goals in Yamaha’s crossplane philosophy is to spread the rotational inertial momentum of the reciprocating mass more evenly through the cycle, rather than having all the pistons going up and down in phase. When the current R1 was first released, Yamaha published some cool videos describing the various torque inputs within an individual engine cycle and the differences therein between a standard I4 screamer config and the Yamaha crossplane. Worth chasing down if you are interested in techsplanation.
If it were a 1200 – i would be trading my 03 Zrx 1200
I doubt your bike could hang with this one ……either in a straight line ( it would be close) or in the twisties (probably no contest_), but you still have a very cool bike.
Next powertrain for the Super Tenere?
curious, is there something wrong with the engine that’s in the tenere now…?
The current Tenere is a tank.. this could be the basis for a much lighter one.
Call me pleasantly surprised. I actually like what I see. Never thought I’d say that about one of these new insect style nakeds.
Weight seems okay, if what Yamaha quotes id true, that is. 5.5″ rear wheels sound just right. Passenger seat seems narrow, but I’ll probably buy a cowl anyway since I ride alone. Rear subframe looks a bit agricultural beside the cast aluminium main frame. Plumbing on the left side also looks a tad messy, though nowhere near the ‘intestines hanging’ look we see on liquid cooled naked Ducatis, thankfully. Exhaust looks quite handsome for a stock unit.
Unless I missed something, your article doesn’t state whether it’s a 5 or 6 speeder. I’m assuming 6 gears? Also, any word on where this is built/assembled? Wonder how they got the price that low. Hopefully they didn’t cut too many corners.
Doesn’t quite change the face of motorcycling (liked Yamaha claims), but I think I’ll pt myself down for a test-ride when this comes to my country.
Six speed. I understand it is made in Japan.
That thing looks great, and the specs (including the price) are excellent. As long as the suspension is halfway sorted, man, it should be an absolute terror in the medium-fast twisties. It should also make for a perfect around-town ride.
And hey, no stupid-looking headlights or acres of ugly, superfluous plastic! It’s just a…motorcycle! A simple, honest, light, affordable, capable and FUN motorcycle!
Who knew?
I think it’s a winner! But, as a former Street Triple R owner, and huge Yamaha fan, I’m probably an easy sell.
I had a demo ride on a 2013 FZ8, and was looking to pull the trigger on that. Now, I’ve got some thinking to do…..
414 pounds with a full tank of gas, 115 bhp and 65 ft/lbs of torque (at only 8500 rpm) for only $7999!!!
And yet the magpies still find things to complain about…amazing.
No motorcycle is perfect so of course there’ll be annoyances and niggles. Even though this is my kind of bike, and I’ll very likely buy one, the tank shape and headlight seem to be out of balance with the rest of it, so I won’t be queueing up at a dealer for one. The numbers are great, the styling is a bit off for me.
There are some bikes that look ugly until you ride them……and then you don’t care so much what they look like.
You must have known my ex-wife.
I think it is a good move for Yamaha. We need more bikes that will be out the door with tax, title, and plates for less than 10K. Should be a fun bike and with a wind screen option would work for short trips. I have had 5 street bikes in the last 10 years and this type of a bike is very fun and would work for a lot of guys, lets hope they sell a bunch!
Great, another nice bike with pillion pegs so high my wife can’t ride with me – as if the extra-thin seats of today weren’t enough. I wish I had the resouces for creating an aftermarket passenger footpeg company. Even if it’s a bike intended for commuting this is a real deal braker for some people – how can I persuade her I need another bike if she can’t ride with me??? 🙂
Agreed. FWIW, I’ve made up pillion brackets in the past on several bikes to rectify the hopelessly short peg situation.
I think it looks fine. But a 14 litre tank seems like a non-starter for me, unless it gets phenomenal gas mileage. I’ll wait for the Tenere version with 6 gallon capacity ….
Thanks for saving me writing a post. It looks like what I’ve been wanting for a long time, I’ll even put up with 1930 era chain drive, then I got to the 3.7 gallon tank. Do the making these decisions actually ride motorcycles? My favorite ride requires at least 160 miles on a tank. Without that you range have to make a 40 mile detour over really boring roads to get fuel.
So close but not workable for me. I can fix a poorly set up fork or shock, I can replace a bad seat or handlebar bend but I can’t fix a too small tank.
What do fuel tanks keep getting smaller? Fuel milage isn’t improving, outside of the NC700.
Goose
We have one word for you. RotopaX.
I carry spare fuel on my bike with a small gas tank now. My point is that I shouldn’t have to. Adding a gallon of fuel to the tank would add a few ounces to the bike’s weight and pennies to its cost. Why are the idiots in marketing losing sales by building bike that people who actually RIDE can’t use? Not everybody lives and rides in a densely populated area with gas stations every 10 miles.
I feel really strongly about this because this bike is exactly what I’ve been asking for, around 800CC, less than four cylinders, light, it looks like it will handle well and generally my kind of bike. With the 3.7 gallon tank, if I buy it I get to build another mount to safely carry spare fuel. I’m kind of tired of that.
Goose
I am impressed by the price. It is a nice looking bike, but I feel sorry for the passenger, the seat looks so thin.
Guys, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is going on with the motorcycle market? Whatever happened to a simple, clean, uncluttered nekkid bike? That think would turn a funeral up an alley, for Pete’s sake.
“Whatever happened to a simple, clean, uncluttered nekkid bike? ”
water cooling and electronic fuel-injection happened. A few decades ago, it turns out.
Don’t forget about Cat converters. But Yamaha has done a pretty impressive job of packaging here, I’m thinking “Multistrada for the masses”. Seriously, if the Tuning Fork’s target was to out SV the original 650 Suzook, they may have done it. The small tank is designed around the bike’s purpose, which is unbridled hooliganism, you don’t want it breaking your nose when the front end decides to claw the air as you’re doing your best Clayton Moore impersonation. I hope the sound is good and snorty, I had a ’77 XS750 with a Kerker back in the Olden Times, and it had a very unique sound, somewhere between a twin and an inline four (I wonder why?). Good on ya, Yamaha. Maybe a thicker seat would give me the legroom I crave and the comfort my aged bum demands. I’m going to have to try this one on for size, I’ll be looking forward to MD’s review.
that’s a good point on the weight of the gas tank, I hadn’t thought of that