New Star Venture

[camos]

I should have said ... it "appears to have" engine/crash guards ...

It does and as FF said the plastic should help to keep the crash guards looking good in a tip over. There also appear to be sliders sticking out on the top corners of the fairing. Hard to say but perhaps they are big enough to protect the side scoops while sliding down the road. Perhaps the floor boards will help to protect the plastic as well.

[SilvrT]

It does and as FF said the plastic should help to keep the crash guards looking good in a tip over. There also appear to be sliders sticking out on the top corners of the fairing. Hard to say but perhaps they are big enough to protect the side scoops while sliding down the road. Perhaps the floor boards will help to protect the plastic as well.

 

Of all the input that Yamaha received from owners to "give them what they asked for", one of the main things that was at the forefront was that no Venture owners were ever involved in a "tip-over" so the need for exposed crash guards just wasn't needed and that is why they hid them behind plastic shrouds......... not to mention requiring a place to attach highway pegs which the need for those has been eliminated by the larger floorboards..

[Sylvester]

I love all the hoopla over the new Stratoliner, er Venture, but I am one of the senior VR members who remember that water cooled equals comfort. Have had Ultra Classics in my days and other air cooled bikes, but when I bought my 02 RSMV I found Heaven and and enjoy it still.

 

[Karaboo]

Yamaha says the engine oil tank is integrated into the subframe. Maybe that is the reason for the bars around the front? I am sure I would not drop a $25,000 bike, but someone else could!

[saddlebum]

Ok so yesterday I was in the Dealer and had a chat with my buddy there. According to him the reason they did not use the V4 was because they wanted to go to 1800+ CC. Building a new 1800+ V4 with shaft drive would have resulted in an extremely heavy bike and they wanted to try to keep the weight down as much as possible.

[Freebird]

Well to me, that sounds like a really dumb reason. They went with a V-Twin because they had one that was 100cc bigger than their current V4? I call BS on his explanation. Sorry.

[snyper316]

That just goes to prove how stupid the people are at the dealerships sounds about like the dealership up in Joplin the one that kept telling me I wasn't sinking my carbs right

 

Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk

[camos]

Well to me, that sounds like a really dumb reason. They went with a V-Twin because they had one that was 100cc bigger than their current V4? I call BS on his explanation. Sorry.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I bet rather than reworking the Stratoliner V-Twin, if they had reworked the VMax engine they could have gotten more horsepower and better gas mileage out of the 1700 cc's. Chasing more displacement is just pathetic marketing hype.

 

Look what Ford can do:

"The 1L Ford Ecoboost makes 123 HP and 148 lb-ft of torque, and 90% of that torque you get from 1350 - 5375 RPM."

 

Downright embarrassing for Yamaha.

[camos]

That just goes to prove how stupid the people are at the dealerships sounds about like the dealership up in Joplin the one that kept telling me I wasn't sinking my carbs right

 

Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk

Sniper, if they are trying to get you to sink your carbs, don't listen to a word they tell you. Take it from me that you will very definitely want to want to synchronize your carbs rather than dropping them into a bucket of... Seafoam?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I try to be stronger but sometimes I just can't.

[snyper316]

Sniper, if they are trying to get you to sink your carbs, don't listen to a word they tell you. Take it from me that you will very definitely want to want to synchronize your carbs rather than dropping them into a bucket of... Seafoam?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I try to be stronger but sometimes I just can't.

Will you see here when you're using Google the voice search Google to text or however you want to say it sometimes it just likes to throw the kitchen sink in there say

 

Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk

[cowpuc]

Well to me, that sounds like a really dumb reason. They went with a V-Twin because they had one that was 100cc bigger than their current V4? I call BS on his explanation. Sorry.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I bet rather than reworking the Stratoliner V-Twin, if they had reworked the VMax engine they could have gotten more horsepower and better gas mileage out of the 1700 cc's. Chasing more displacement is just pathetic marketing hype.

 

Look what Ford can do:

"The 1L Ford Ecoboost makes 123 HP and 148 lb-ft of torque, and 90% of that torque you get from 1350 - 5375 RPM."

 

Downright embarrassing for Yamaha.

 

Yep,, a good honest intelligent rep for Yamaha probably would have answered the question in some way like this - short version from the mind of Puc:

 

Pulling out two shop manuals - one for the 1900cc V-twin and the other for the 1700cc V-4 he would have opened the books and shown the vast difference between the modern day wonders of a highly technical V-4 high dollar state of the art performance engine and that of an updated version of technology invented back in the early 1900's. The amount of money it would take to produce the state of the art engine compared to the money spent for producing that lowly air cooled V-Twin would then be over layed by the statistical prediction of just how many of these bikes would probably be sold in the next 5 years (bean counters like to look at ROI or Return On Investment figures before production to determine profitability) and - in the end,, in business,, THAT is how decisions are probably made about things like which motor they decided to use in these new bikes..

Shame though because as Cammy points out - introducing the touring world to twin turbo fun coupled with that mighty and worthy 1700cc Vmax motor ina detuned state would have (IMHO) literally changed the touring world for EVER!!!

[Condor]

Well to me, that sounds like a really dumb reason. They went with a V-Twin because they had one that was 100cc bigger than their current V4? I call BS on his explanation. Sorry.

 

Yep... Gimme a 1700 FI V4 any day over a V-Twin... Weight??.. Horse Pucky!! They did it because it was cheaper to build, could call it a Venture, and raise the retail..

 

[sldunker]

Paired alternators. Was reading through all the specs and this caught my eye. I assume it is just 2 stators. So if your riding in November in the northern US and all your heated acc are turned on and one of the stators dies will the extra load kill the other stator also? It may not kill it instantly but I wonder how long it would last with that kind of load on it.

[camos]

The amount of money it would take to produce the state of the art engine compared to the money spent for producing that lowly air cooled V-Twin would then be over layed by the statistical prediction of just how many of these bikes would probably be sold in the next 5 years (bean counters like to look at ROI or Return On Investment figures before production to determine profitability) and - in the end,, in business,, THAT is how decisions are probably made about things like which motor they decided to use in these new bikes..

Re-working the strat v-twin probably would not have cost much less than doing not much to the v4. My take on things is that Yamaha was going after the cruiser market. Probably because they think it is a bigger market. Still, a 900 lb cruiser might be a bit off putting.

 

Paired alternators. Was reading through all the specs and this caught my eye. I assume it is just 2 stators. So if your riding in November in the northern US and all your heated acc are turned on and one of the stators dies will the extra load kill the other stator also? It may not kill it instantly but I wonder how long it would last with that kind of load on it.

So are you ever better off riding in November with only a single stator? Two is always better than one.

[cowpuc]

Re-working the strat v-twin probably would not have cost much less than doing not much to the v4.

Yeppers,, I am sure your right on target Cammy..

 

IMHO, ya gotta also entertain the actual costs of production between the two motors though = fact is, that push road motor has gotta be wayyyy cheaper to build.. Probably would have had to have sold 10x as many v-4's as v-twins in the end to recoup just added production costs between the two and that v-twin cut of the sales pie is sooo much bigger overall - Mom Yam probably saw it as a no brainer when it came to estimated profitability..

[steamer]

Look at the bottom of the saddlebags. I would think that the black pieces that are there are to protect the bags in a tip over, nothing is going to protect the bike in a crash.

 

I was wondering the same thing, so I checked it out in person and it appears to be just plastic trim. I tried to ask a rep but they were so busy I didn't get the chance.

[steamer]

Ok so yesterday I was in the Dealer and had a chat with my buddy there. According to him the reason they did not use the V4 was because they wanted to go to 1800+ CC. Building a new 1800+ V4 with shaft drive would have resulted in an extremely heavy bike and they wanted to try to keep the weight down as much as possible.

 

The reps at Americade said pretty much the same thing, a big v4 would be to top heavy. Yamaha was going for handling, so they keep the center of gravity low to give the bike great handling. Time and test rides will tell. I have to say when I set on it and pulled it up off the kick stand it felt rather lite and manageable under me. A lot better then the 2nd gen. I have a 30" inseam and my legs were bent and flat footed. Much better then the 2nd gen.

[steamer]

The pictures do not do this bike justice, it is much nicer in person. The camera adds 100lbs. It really does look better up close and personal. The trunk is "HUGH" you could hide a body in it. Lots of storage space, the saddle bags are good size and some storage in the upper and lower fairings. for those who are wondering, it does have a heel toe shifter.

[pbjman]

Disclaimer: I'm not a candidate to buy any new $24K-26K motorcycle, but I was rooting for the V4 anyway in case I get one someday. It is a great looking motorcycle and I would be thrilled to try one out. Looking forward to reviews, and the first member on here to have one, and my first on-the road sighting!

[RSTDdog]

The use of aV4 engine, in and of itself would not have made it a top heavy bike IMO. Top heavy would be a function of the packaging. However they would have needed to design an all new frame, use a frame mounted fuel tank (think ST 1100, Original first gen) and a lot of other design elements and packaging to use the V4 and keep the CG low. They just weren't going to spend that kind of R&D money. If all they did was modify the RSV frame to accept the VMAX V4 and added new fairings to that they would have certainly ended up with another top heavy motorcycle that would get negative comments and not be suitable for shorter riders. V4 has twice the parts of a V twin + all the cooling components, and probably takes longer to assemble, so all that will make it more money. Air Cooled twin is less maintenance than a liquid V4, hard to argue with that.

 

Most of the hard work in terms of frame, engine, swing arm, was already done with the Stratoliner. All they needed was to reinforce the frame and add mount points once they sorted out the fairing design. Just the 27 inch seat height of the new VentureStrat will bring in customers that couldn't straddle the RSV and adds confidence to taller but aging riders. The decision was purely economics IMO and nothing more. Trying to swing and hit the largest target segment they can with one bike. Over all they did a real nice job in my opinion. I am not a 25K dollar bike buyer, just can't justify it in my situation. If the magazine comparison tests of production bikes show they got the balance right, the power is there and that they have done a better job of managing the V-twin heat than the competition, that will be key to sales and moving buyers over.

 

The large fairing ducts may leave them them option to use that space for radiators if upgrading to a liquid cooled V-twin is needed in the future. I wonder if this new venture will go unchanged for the next 14 years like the RSV?

[sldunker]

Re-working the strat v-twin probably would not have cost much less than doing not much to the v4. My take on things is that Yamaha was going after the cruiser market. Probably because they think it is a bigger market. Still, a 900 lb cruiser might be a bit off putting.

 

So are you ever better off riding in November with only a single stator? Two is always better than one.

 

Not what I mean. If one stator goes bad are we going to have replace both stators. Kinda like headlights on a car. One burns out, then a short time later the other burns out. I am thinking that these stators are going to be expensive unless aftermarket ones are available. Unless the two stators are sold as one unit(paired). Bet that is expensive.

[RandyR]

The large fairing ducts may leave them them option to use that space for radiators if upgrading to a liquid cooled V-twin is needed in the future. I wonder if this new venture will go unchanged for the next 14 years like the RSV?

 

I keep reading that new emissions control regulations will require MC manuf to go to water cooled for the larger engines in the near future.

[pbjman]

So I was just looking around for the web for new Star Venture first impressions and ran across a thread on roadstarclinic from a few years ago.

They were talking about how great a Venture could be if Yamaha would drop the 1900 into one, and they don't like a V4 in a motorcycle, etc.

 

http://roadstarclinic.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,187/func,view/catid,49/id,825799/

[CaseyJ955]

So I was just looking around for the web for new Star Venture first impressions and ran across a thread on roadstarclinic from a few years ago.

They were talking about how great a Venture could be if Yamaha would drop the 1900 into one, and they don't like a V4 in a motorcycle, etc.

 

http://roadstarclinic.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,187/func,view/catid,49/id,825799/

 

As much as I dont believe air cooled engines have any place in modern motorcycling any more than carbs and points, I do like the diversity of those that do. It would seem that if someone wants a bike that looks like a Venture with an air cooled twin they have almost limitless choices. I guess I'll have to ride a 1900 and see what the love affair is all about, with all that torque it might be sweet in a bobbed bike. It just seems like we're asking a lot of it to move a half ton criuser down the highway 2up.

 

Heres one just for fun. 8 valve, twin cyl cruiser, liquid cooled, 747lb wet weight, 56mpg US, only 1699cc, 98hp@5200rmp and 115.4tq@2950rpm bone stock? Sounds like a fun engine?

it's a Triumph Thunderbird Storm and has a parallel twin rather than a V. Pretty decent HP and still respectable tq for a smaller twin. We've been batting around Vtwin vs V4, liquid vs air. I figured it deserves honorable mention given it's smaller size and formidable performance. Besides whats more retro than a parallel twin?

[Red1]

Q -

Besides whats more retro than a parallel twin?

A - A horizontally opposed twin. This is about as "retro" old tech (maybe no tech) as you can get in a "new" bike!

 

 

Nyet with the Ural bashing!