Venture Review

[rumboogy]

I just got through reading the reviews in Motorcycle Cruiser magazine and wondered what some of the actual "Venture Riders" say about some of the criticisms in the article.

 

This is not necessarily one of my favorite mags...I feel they always give the Harleys and Hondas a "bye" on their models, but it seems they are particularly harsh on the Venture this time.

 

I am still interested in getting the Venture, my decision will be in the next 30 days, however I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little disheartened by the article.

 

Here is a link to the reviews:

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadtests/0912_crup_harley_davidson_electra_glide_kawasaki_vulcan_star_royal_star_victory_vision/index.html

 

Thanks,

 

Wally

[Condor]

I just got through reading the reviews in Motorcycle Cruiser magazine and wondered what some of the actual "Venture Riders" say about some of the criticisms in the article.

 

This is not necessarily one of my favorite mags...I feel they always give the Harleys and Hondas a "bye" on their models, but it seems they are particularly harsh on the Venture this time.

 

I am still interested in getting the Venture, my decision will be in the next 30 days, however I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little disheartened by the article.

 

Here is a link to the reviews:

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadtests/0912_crup_harley_davidson_electra_glide_kawasaki_vulcan_star_royal_star_victory_vision/index.html

 

Thanks,

 

Wally

 

I didn't have time to read the entire article, but from what I read it didn't seem all that heavy handed when it came to the Venture. A standard critique mostly. I did concintrate on the Verture sections, but did notice a few remarks about the other bikes as well. I think the biggest problem is the fact that Yamaha hasn't 'tweeked' the bike since it's inception. That said, it still holds it's own against newer modified bikes. That's got to be a big plus for the design.

[Kregerdoodle]

I don`t put much weight on what the mags say, as they are mostly sponcered by Hardly. I f you are unsure of what bike to purchase, take each brand for a test ride...2-up, 1 - up..... not just around the block, but put a few miles on them..then there is the maint. and the operating costs per mile...What about warranty???? hhmmmmm known problems??? weigh every thing out, as it appears you are doing your home work. I think the best bang for the buck is the Venture, but its your your $$$ and you need to make that choice.. Good luck and Happy trails in what ever you decide on..

 

K

[midnightventure]

They were talking about the lack of weather protection. As long as it isn't raining so hard that I have to slow down a lot it actually works pretty good. On cold mornings I am warmer once I am on the highway than at slower speeds around town. It handles well in sweepers but what they say about mid corner bumps like you see in a lot of 15 mph corners is true.

Edited November 29, 2009 by midnightventure

[Wanderer]

I think of all the testers this quote says it best:

 

"The Venture didn't have much going for it. With carbs, shaft drive, and no power down low, I was surprised to find out that it was made by the fine folks at Yamaha... er Star, their bikes tend to be spot-on."

 

I however, purchased the bike best suited for me and that was the Venture. Every one has their opinion, that's mine, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Wanderer]

Also, I think it would be fair and should be mandatory that any reviewer list his personal stable. It's obvious to me that most of these guys are not tourers as, it would seem, most of us on this site are.

To me, what you do with your bike, is a big determining factor in what bike you own and are comfortable with.

[KeithR]

Hey Wally

 

Here's some reading for you......

 

Keith

 

www.motorsports-network.com/YAMAHA/99mc/ventride.htm

 

www.motorcycledaily.com/21january03yamaha03royalstarventure.html

 

www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadtests/touring_cruisers_comparison/index.html

 

www.motorbyte.com/mmm/pages/reviews/review4_99.htm

 

[RandyR]

I just read the complete article, and don't think there were too many surprises.

 

I am a Tour Deluxe rider though, not a Venture owner.

 

a few comments on the article.

 

The biggest negative ding the Venture got (in my mind) was the front end handling. I note that the Venture was the only bike with a 150 width front tire, all the rest were 130 width front tires. Replacing the stock Bridgestones would have much improved that situation.

 

The writer commented that the V4 was really solid and the only bike with a 5 year warranty and ought to get 50,000 miles before a major overhaul... Everyone here gets a good laugh because we all know these engines will get 150,000 or more. The V-twin guys just aren't used to that kind of reliability, I think.

 

The Venture had the highest compression at 10:1 but was the only bike spec'd to use regular grade gasoline. We did have the lowest gas mileage, but only slightly. But burning regular vs high test, the fuel cost per mile works out about the same.

 

The electonics and gauges got dinged. Easy fix, throw away the cassette deck and stick in a set of gauges and a tach in its place as Ponch has done.

 

The only semi-fix for the top heavyness is to lower things, and that may not suit riders who like to scrape their floorboards in the twisties. But the Venture got a + for biggest top trunk, so ya gets what ya pay for I guess...?

 

Despite the brakes on the Venture being called old-fashioned, I didn't hear them say that they wouldn't stop the bike ok. ABS brings a whole new set of maintenance issues in my experience, so again, ya gets what ya pay for, but I understand the attractiveness of improved braking in the rain.

 

Old fashioned carburators vs FI. yep. But simpler maintenance too and fewer things controlled by a computer.

[V7Goose]

Wally, thanx for posting the link to the review - I rarely read any bike magazines except Motorcycle Consumer News, but I do like to read evaluation reports on the various touring bikes. I have only just started reading the article, but I thought I'd post some of my thoughts right up front, since it sounds like you are trying to decide on a bike.

 

First, I am quite surprised at their comments about limited or mediocre weather coverage, especially the simplistic quote "(if it rained, you'd get pretty wet)." I guess the "if" means they never got to really experience it. I have, and my first-hand experience with the venture for over 95,000 miles is totally different. To put the following comments in context, I'm 6'5", 240 lbs, and I have cut 1.5" off the top of my stock windshield (I find looking through a motorcycle windshield extraordinarily dangerous in many conditions and, therefore, unwise).

 

In my personal experience, the weather coverage of the venture is certainly not "so-so", if anything, it is too good. I ride all year long - used to ride to work every single day, no matter what the weather, and I tour extensively. I have ridden this bike many thousands of miles in rain, and I just do NOT get wet on it unless I let the speed fall below 60 MPH, no matter how hard it is raining. For that reason, when riding on the freeway, I almost never stop and put on my rain gear. I have been in some real frog stranglers, and even when the water and spray is so bad that 60 becomes questionable for me (which is not too often), the only part that gets appreciably wet before I slow down is my gloves. Of course, at slower speeds, the rain just falls in behind the windshield and drenches everything, but physics says that will happen on ANY bike without a roof!

 

The reason I said the weather coverage on this bike is too good becomes apparent in the hot weather. There is a total dead spot for air between the windshield and the riders back. That is great when the temps are below 40, as I feel more coolness on my back than on my chest, arms or legs, but can be miserable in the summer if you haven't vented the windshield or removed of the fork wind deflectors.

 

The bike is very heavy - right up there with the HD and the Wing at over 900 lbs., and it absolutely takes some grunt to lift it off the side stand, especially when fully loaded for touring. This is primarily because this bike has one of the best side stands made, which allows the bike to lean over farther and be extremely stable with less chance of sinking though hot asphalt (completely opposite from the Wing with that dinky little stand it has, but at least they get a center stand).

 

That heaviness is sometimes felt badly in slow speed handling, but that is not necessary. The stock tires that Yamahaha puts on this bike are a disgrace, ESPECIALLY the disgusting Brickstones that most of them seem to have (some come with Dunlop D404s). A little research on this site about tires will get you all the information you need, so I won't say anything more about it here except to say that with decent tires, this bike does not feel heavy at all when riding at any speed.

 

Their comment about "no power down low" that someone else noted seems particularly stupid and pointless to me. This bike has tons of power. It is true that the short stroke multi-cylinder engine design generates its horsepower at a higher RPM that a long-stroke twin, but so what? That is like comparing the old Ford 350 small-block to their 360 large-block engine, they were similar in displacement, but VERY different in how you drove them with a manual transmission. And of course, the transmission and rear axle ratio had to be properly matched to the particular engine and intended use of the vehicle. That wasn't bad, just part of the design. And the same holds true for the Venture. The only thing bad about the power this engine makes is if you are too stupid to stop lugging the engine by trying to ride it in a way which is incompatible with the design.

 

And despite the quote about no power down low, I did see this comment in the article which if find very accurate: "Power comes on higher in the rev range, and when it's time to roll-on, there's enough poop to make downshifting an option. Aggressive riders appreciated the Venture's midrange, and it tackled big hills more easily than the Kawasaki or Harley."

 

Say what you want about carburetors vs. fuel injection - the only thing I'll say here is that these carbs work just fine, so what is there to complain about?

 

And finally (for this post), I'll say that this is the ONLY current touring bike on which I feel comfortable. I am sure this is related to my height - where some folks complain the stock seat is too high, I actually find it too low - but with the floor boards and long bars, the seating position for me is near perfect without modification. Bottom line for me is that this is a fantastic bike, and nothing else currently available can even come close to it for value, comfort, beauty and functionality combined. Ride Safe,

Goose

Edited November 29, 2009 by V7Goose

[Eddie Fulmer]

Thanks for those nice links Keith.

[Dave77459]

I subscribe to the magazine. [ame=http://www.venturerider.org/forum/showthread.php?t=42097]I was published in it this issue![/ame] I find it more fair than a lot of magazines, and see plenty of "Harley Bashing". The writers seem like straight shooters, but they all seem to come from a sportbike background.

 

I read this article... a month ago? As I recall it, the winning bike by a big margin was the Victory Vision. Everyone hated the looks, but liked the ride.

 

IMO, since the writers come from a sportbike background, they place a LOT of emphasis on how bikes carve twisties. That impacted their views of the handling, the suspension, and the low down torque. I haven't really ridden a large v-twin, but from reviews it seems that they shine best low down.

 

They rode these bikes farther than they usually do... these are touring bikes! But the riders change bikes every gas stop. I don't know if that is sufficient to judge a bike's long-distance comfort. I don't think they used a passenger; that wasn't discussed as I recall.

 

One thing I noticed, is that every manufacturer sent out a substantially upgraded bike. Except Yamaha. I don't know if there is an upgrade that Yammy could have sent. But as you walk around bike and look at features to compare, I would imagine the "orphan" status of the bike would be recognized. That would influence their perception, I am sure.

 

This is Motorcycle Cruiser, and they wrote towards that market. They tested touring bikes, then thought about how cruiser riders would view them. You know, the guys who think a 100 mile day is plenty. You get a lot of starts from red-lights and beer joints, and you would notice low-end torque. There's a reason twins are popular in that segment.

 

As an aside, they didn't complete the review of the Goldwing, because they totaled it before the testing was over. But it was "in the mix" with the Vision to win the competition.

 

Dave

[V7Goose]

The comment about the Venture feeling vague in the twisties and hating mid-corner bumps is only partially accurate. As with so many other things, this is an issue with someone riding a stock machine the way it comes off the floor compared to a rider that knows the bike and has set it up properly.

 

One potential issue is that it is extremely common for the steering head bearings to need tightening on a new Venture. In fact, I'd bet that the vast majority should have the steering bearings adjusted before 5,000 miles. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this was an issue with their test bike.

 

Another possible issue is the air in the front forks. It is critical that this bike have EXACTLY EVEN PRESSURE in both forks - Yamahaha did the bike and us a disservice by not having a balance line on it. And since the fork volume is so small, and the proper pressure setting so low, it is totally impossible to get them set evenly without a proper pump/gauge with a zero-loss chuck. Of course, I also have no way of knowing if this was an issue with their test bike, but it is still something else to consider when reading their comments.

 

But by far the biggest issue that will affect the handling is the tires. If their test bike had stock Brickstone tires, it would be impossible for them to think the bike handled really well under ANY circumstances. In fact, an experienced rider with many machines to compare would only find the Venture with stock Brickstone tires barely adequate under the best of conditions! Edit: I note from the picture that their test bike had the Dunlop D404 front tire, not the Brickstone.

 

 

I will absolutely agree that this bike is sensitive to mid-corner bumps, but that can be completely solved with a combination of good tires (I'm partial to either the Avon Venoms or Dunlop E3s) AND the correct tire pressure (in conjunction with correct shock pressures for the load). As an example, I have found that both of my Ventures have been extremely stable with Avon Venom tires and about 46 lbs in the rear tire (max on that tire is 50). But with anything over 48 lbs or under 42 lbs in the rear tire, you get a feel like the frame is flexing on bumps in long sweepers, and this is especially noticeable when the bike is heavily loaded. But with the tires at the proper pressure, this issue is completely resolved.

 

Well, that about sums up my comments on their review. There was only one of the riders that was even moderately tall, so I can't expect them to be impressed with some of the same things I am. I didn't think they were all that harsh on the bike, but a little real-world experience with it, some discussion with some of us that actually know this bike and a better understanding of touring issues would probably have changed some opinions.

Goose

Edited November 29, 2009 by V7Goose

[Tom]

I noticed the SIZE of the riders also...30 inch inseam 5ft 7inches.so on..makes a big difference . Goose is right in on the head bearings also..AND Tires do not necessarily need to go to a 130 front just put on Elite3s or Avon in STOCK sizes and that made night and day differance to me.

[rumboogy]

EXCELLENT and informative replies guys. I do appreciate the information and the help. I still have work to do...but know what to look for when I go and do my test ride.

 

I'll keep reading this forum...valuable information, that's for sure.

 

Wally

[Tom]

EXCELLENT and informative replies guys. I do appreciate the information and the help. I still have work to do...but know what to look for when I go and do my test ride.

 

I'll keep reading this forum...valuable information, that's for sure.

 

Wally

WHEN you test ride it eemember HIGH RPMS or no power. You rev it you will be impressed,watch the speedo as you will feel you are not moving that fast

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Great article in my opinion.

 

The Venture is a throw-back, retro, non-mainstream, non-Harley bike that fits into a certain 'niche' of riders and riding.

 

If your not prepared to accept that, then it may be seen as a no-show in the comparison with more modern, and more expensive, machinery.

 

The Venture is a good fit for men with decent body mass and size...short, smaller sized men need not apply. Hey thats not a 'diss', I'm just sayin this bike was not designed for smaller riders who feel at home on a 600cc sportbike.

 

When you talk about all the mods you can make to the Venture to make it 'better', your missing the point of the article. They are testing the bikes 'as supplied'...in stock form. Other than adjusting the air pressures in the shocks, these guys are not going to tinker with the bikes much. And thats as it should be. Other wise we'd have to enhance and modify every bike...to keep it 'fair'...and where do you stop?

 

I thought that the Venture gave a good showing...its just that these guys have a certain set of expectations on a 2 week ride. I'd like to see those guys paying out the bucks to keep the HD going after 40,000 miles themselves on a long term test. And the first time they ride 2 up, heavily loaded, pulling a trailer, in the summer heat, up a 9 mile, 13% grade, with the Venture, vs the air-cooled HD or Vic, they will change their tune. Or having a drive belt break and leave you helpless.

 

Other than the new Kawasaki Voyager, I have actually ridden all those bikes in the test: The GoldWing, the Electraglide ( I own one) The Victory Vision, and of course the Venture.

 

If you want to read something more favorable to the Venture, and more 'real world' as I see it, then check this out:

 

http://www.ridermagazine.com/output.cfm?id=2226349

 

I prefer the Venture even WITH all of its supposed 'shortcomings'...but as i said in the beginning, its NOT for everyone...and thats as it should be.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2009 by tx2sturgis

[Midrsv]

OK, I'll add a couple of comments. I tour and I commute to work on my bike. We generally take a 4,000 mile trip each year and several weekend trips. I've ridden Wings and Ultra Classics and both are good bikes they just don't work for me. I'm not tall and I can't get comfortable on a Wing. The peg position kills my knees. It's got a great engine and handling though.

 

The Ultra Classic is great for slow speed handling and pretty comfortable. However, I find it too cramped and feel like I'm setting on the handle bar. If you plan on touring with a passenger they will be dissapointed with the passenger comfort. It is really cramped. Also, I don't find the Ultra good for high speed riding, 75+ mph. Heat, the Ultra is terrible for commuting in city traffic. You get cooked sitting on the air cooled engine.

 

I rode a Venture for 45,000 miles and totaled it. That gave me the opportunity to look at other bikes when replacing it. I looked primarily at Wings, Ultra Classics and the K1200LT. In my opinion when you buy a bike you have to make compromises and you just have to pick what is important to you and your riding style. For me I wanted water cooling and forward controls and that brought me back to the Venture. After 38,000 miles on my "new" Venture I haven't regretted it at all. And a bonus for me is that my wife thinks the passenger comfort is the best on the Venture. Sure, I would like more power, lighter weight, better slow speed handling, etc. But to get those I would probably have to give up on other features that I like. I'll stick with the Venture for now.

 

Dennis

 

P.S. On a 600 mile day my riding buddies on Wings and Ultra's are ready to stop long before I am.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Midrsv

[Midrsv]

One more thing I forgot to mention was the price. While the Venture's MSRP is right up there with the others it can be bought heavily discounted. I paid $13,800 out the door for a new '07. Try doing that with any of the others.

 

Dennis

[Kirby]

IMHO, not a very truthful review. (1)They should have found another GW. (2) Sounds like they were all crotchrocket riders. My 2009 has never gotten below 37 mpg fully loaded riding 2 up. Yesterday got 42.8 mpg running 70 for about 175 miles(1 up on stop and go backroads). (3) Sound system isn't drowned out by speed. There's a volume control on the left side of the module that you shouldn't ever have to turn beyond 20(but it will go much higher)Everyone can hear me coming for miles and I've got aftermarket pipes!(4) I haven't had any problem with the handling in the twisties(Been through the Devil's Triangle and the Tail of the Dragon on more than one ocassion, 2 up dragging floorboards (on this tall bike).

There's more here than I have time to elaborate on. What I have to say isn't going to change a thing on the review, but having put more than 1000 miles on one in less than 24 hours(in the rain, of which was about 800 miles), you get to know a lot more than a little casual riding will reveal!

 

Bottom line, I think this eleven year old bike can hold it's own against all the new guys!

[RandyR]

I wouldn't call our V4 engine out moded. I would say that the V twins engine is more outmoded. But I'm one of those in the minority who doesn't equate bigger with better or more modern.

 

It really wouldn't take much in the way of improvements to keep this basic engine and package around for a 3rd gen venture.

[footsie]

The Venture is a bike you must learn, I do not believe anyone could ride a RSV a couple hundred miles and learn it true atrabutes. For me the Venture is comfortable and handles very well.

I have a white 2004 RSV, short wide windshield, barron's handlebar blocks, drivers backrest. Avon cobra radial on frount, kumho radial on rear. I run 0 air pressure in the shocks.

I am 6'1" and 240lbs. The points I like about the Venture.

 

1. Comfort, I am very comfortable in mine, seating position is perfect.

2. Handling I love the way the RSV handles, took the right tires to achieve this.

3. I average 39 to 41 MPH, will do better at lower speeds.

4. I perfer a 4 cylinder engine, love the sound.

5. It is a bike that I love to ride, just to be ridding, with nowhere to go.

I ride mine everyday.

This is my thrid RSV, I intend to put well over 150,000 miles on this, and as far as I am concerned, the only tweeking Yamaha needs to do to the Venture, is fuel injection and xm radio built in and leave the rest of it alone.

 

 

Gregg

[rumboogy]

OK sounds like tires are VERY important...I have read some preferences on the tires, but is there a consensus of what the best tire is...

 

Thanks.

 

Wally

[hig4s]

Like tester Bartels said, everything wrong on the Venture can be easily fixed, the only thing really wrong is the price they want for a bike that has not changed in 11 years.

 

Handling, like was said, is because of the rotten stock tires Yamaha chooses to use. Go with better tires and handling improves, if still not svelt enough for you, go with a narrower front. I love my narrow Avon front.

 

Weather protection, add the side vents (which cures the lower ventilation problem also) and a Clearview shield, I've ridden in heavy rain and been surprised I wasn't soaked.

 

Price, like was said, you can find still new, or low mileage with warranty bike for much less than Yamaha is asking. For that matter I paid less than MSRP for my 07 in 07..

 

Low end power, it is a 4 cylinder, it won't have the low end of a twin, but it will have much more top end for it's size than a twin. Personally I'm not a big fan of twins or air cooled engines.

 

Gas mileage because of carbs. For me carbs are cheaper and easier to work on. FI would be nice, but I don't really care. My Jeep gets 17 mpg, 34mpg at freeway speeds and 39 at 50mph cruising I find just dandy.

 

And dis'ing shaft drive. I'm not fond of belt drives, if mis-adjusted they will self destruct. Of course they thought the best tourer was the Wing, which, if I'm not mistaken, is SHAFT DRIVE!!!!

 

And add the extended warranty from the dealer on any of the other bikes and see how much you will be paying.

 

Bottom line for anyone buying a touring machine should be how comfortable is the basic set up for you, everything else can be changed.

Edited November 30, 2009 by hig4s

[Sailor]

I found my Venture to be a bit of a handful at first (30 inch inseam) but I soon got used to it and don't even notice it now. I have ridden through some real downpours and found the protection to be very good. I came off the equivalent of a V Max so I like the power and high revs. I do not like the lack of instrumentation. As soon as I got the Avons on it the handling improved. I would like a bit more of a rumble in the exhaust but that is minor. I find it very comfortable to ride. To my mind I think these reviewers were expecting the same characteristics as a big v-twin and were disappointed when they got something else.

[Mariner Fan]

Seems to me they didn't bash the Venture too bad. Trouble is that the testers were a bunch of short guys and this bike fit's the taller guys better. That is why I bought mine. I don't want to spend long hours on a bike that has me all cramped up.