Yamaha Starbike Forum banner

Cruiser type bikes future?

10K views 52 replies 19 participants last post by  patrickdk 
#1 ·
There is a lot of talk about Yamaha almost eliminating it's line of cruisers but what about the other manufacturers? Yamaha is probably making this decision for economic reasons. Are the other manufacturers also feeling the same economic hurt? If I was head of a large bike manufacturer, one way to save money would be to reduce the number of models that I manufactured, but that is not what seems to be happening because each dealership that I visit has many different sport, off-road, sport-touring and scooter models. BTW, I like scooters. Here in Quebec, you only have to be 14 years old to legally ride a 50cc (or smaller) scooter. The driver's test is easy to pass. There are hundreds of scooters all over the place except on auto-routes. I don't live in a large city but I guess that scooters are much more popular in large cities. My granddaughter is 14 and she told me that if she had the choice, she would choose a 2 stroke scooter because they are faster. Each school yard has a parking area full of scooters.
 
#2 ·
I'm not familiar with bike sales in Canada. However, here in Maine cruiser sales have tanked. I have talked to two Harley dealerships and they all have laid off about half their workforce. The same can be said for Yamaha and Honda. The only bright spot seems to be Indian. They're moving quite well to include the $25,000 and up machines. They all blame millenials who (according to them) spend all their time behind computer screens. They're sales seem to be in "adventure" type motorcyles.

However, there is a bright spot - ATV and 2/4 seater off road machines. They are moving fast to include the winter months. The same can be said for snowmobiles for those areas that have consistent snow.

For me, it's the big cruisers for 7 months of the year and my Argo the rest of the time.
 
#3 ·
I have been seeing more and more of these dual-sport cross-over bikes. Kinda reminds me of the old enduros that were a trail bike but with street lighting and street legal. Seems like many of them have metal square saddle bags. Not sure why these are so popular but riders are motocross geared up and everything. Nothing negative here, just what I'm seeing more of around here. Some with way out of state plates so these must be comfy on trips.
 
#4 ·
Your describing something like the Yamaha “Tenere”. That’s what Long Haul Paul rode over 300,000 miles on. It’s apparently comfortable enough for long hauls on Highway, but will handle off-road trails just as easily. I can understand the draw of an “all around” bike. Being able to go the distance to get to a National Forest somewhere and then being able to ride the trails once you get there. Not my cup of tea, but makes perfect sense.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Scooters have their own appeal. I would love to have a new Honda Supercub. The only problem is MSRP is $3500 (US). I just paid $2500 for my 2000 Royal Star last year... I know its not fair to compare a 19 year old used motorcycle to a new scooter, but bang for the buck I bought the Royal Star. I will easily be able to put another 80k miles on the Royal Star odo... I doubt I could get that much use out of the SuperCub.

Ive said before there needs to be some updated MC cruiser bike movies. Its not enough to just do something for its own merit, there needs to be a narrative and a connection.

When I went backpacking in my late teens and 20s, I had read all of Colin Fletcher's books on his backpacking adventures, walking from Mexico to Oregon the entire length of California, hiking the entire length of the Grand Canyon (the first person to do it in one trip). My brother and I had read all of the of the Lord of the Rings books, and when hiking in the wilderness we frequently talked about the books and hobbits and elves...

There needs to be a connection to something bigger than yourself, otherwise while you are out there riding your motorcycle.... where are you going and what do you expect to see and experience?
 
#11 ·
Ive said before there needs to be some updated MC cruiser bike movies. Its not enough to just do something for its own merit, there needs to be a narrative and a connection.
This is a little off the thread but reading KCW's words made me think of my favorite MC movie: The Worlds Fastest Indian

Probably everyone's seen it but if not, it's well worth checking out. Great for a rainy or snowed in winter day.

Trailer for anyone who may have not seen it:
 
#9 · (Edited)
I myself am strongly considering a triumph tiger 1200 for my next bike. Awesome torque curve, 140 hp, 7” suspension travel, active suspension, traction control, 34” seat height, supposedly smooth as silk inline triple. Great ergos for the tall, and I am 6,7”. You can do anything with it. ...and I am a solo rider, so...the pillion is for a bag.
 
#10 ·
I have to admit that I am a dying breed. I am happy with 650 ccs. My bike can do 60 mph all day and my feet touch the ground (flat foot). The bike is heavy but light enough to push and duck walk reasonably well. It has leather bags and the passenger seat serves to hold large items like a tent, sleeping bag and a travel bag if needed. Driving over 500 miles in a day....I doubt it....I'm not a person who takes long trips. Hard cornering and high speed......that's for the accident prone. 900 lb bikes with huge motors and lots of noise....not my cup of tea. I can't understand why someone who does not race bikes would want to buy a bike that goes over 200 mph and why they are even sold.
 
#12 ·
there is a documentary on the battle between Glenn Curtiss and the Wright brothers over early aviation

it would be interesting to see something similar on Glenn's motorcycle exploits. He held the record as the fastest human for several decades, after riding a motorcycle with a 40HP V8 engine over 136mph in the early 1900s

it had one gear, and no brakes

 
  • Like
Reactions: bevo1981 and Boots
#14 · (Edited)
to be fair to to the BMW engineers, they are mechanically extremely reliable.

the thing that put them on the bottom of the consumer reports reliability list (below Harley) is all the gadgets and crap they put on the bikes. They were the first with ABS and single pedal dual brakes, GPS, fuel injection, electronic ignition... they were always pushing the new technology before anyone else had it, and as a result all that new extra stuff was prone to failure. And they dont make a base model, stripped down, naked anything motorcycle.

Their reliability goes all the way back to WW2. BMW was making boxer engine motorcycles with shaft drive, and a side car with a driven wheel that was unstoppable by mud or snow. The USA was making jeeps.

I would consider the New Venture a touring bike, no matter what the engine configuration is. Any bike with a full fairing is designed for riding the interstates at 85mph. I dont consider that "cruising". That is hauling long distance with the trucks and buses. Yamaha has always listed their Venture bikes as touring bikes, separate from the cruisers.

in the general sense cruising is travelling with no real destination or purpose, for the purpose of enjoying the experience and travel, not to get from one place to another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boots
#15 · (Edited by Moderator)
Cruisers are merely a genre of bikes and there are bar-hoppers as well as long distance riders who like the ergos of a cruiser. Fact is that the Sport touring genre has been popular for the decades that I've been riding for one fact... it works. There isn't a single style of motorcycle that works for all people. I've known riders who've done long rides on choppers (cruiser laid back ergos), sport bikes, sport tourers, baggers, UJMs... but to think that there's only one genre of motorcycle capable of touring on, is like saying that there's only one body style, age, physical condition or gender capable of logging long miles.

An old fart like me has toured on cruisers, dressers and cafe/sport touring bikes... they each have their pros and cons but all got me to where I want to go and I enjoyed the ride. So from experience I couldn't damn one genre of bike over another.
 
#16 ·
The cruiser style of bike is just not selling anymore. Went to talk to the dealer late last year about trading in my 950T. He said he didn't want it. Had two brand new 950's from last year that didn't sell and sure didn't want to add a used one to the inventory. Also had a Raider that I recently tried to trade in. Was given ridiculously low values from a few dealers and another dealer said he didn't want it at all. So what would I think? Should I buy another cruiser? Not going to get a decent resale value unless I sell private and I really don't want anyone coming around the house checking out my bikes. Maybe I should buy what they're selling like the FJR since resale value might be a lot better. What are my other options? For Yamaha just the top of the line Eluder or Venture, nothing else available in a cruiser. Have to go to Suzuki for a C90T or C50T. And that's likely where I would go since Honda has done the same as Yamaha. Get a lot of bike for 13 grand with the C90T. I think it's only a matter of time before Suzuki drops their cruisers too though. Sad times.
 
#17 ·
trade in value? Do you like to buy motorcycles, ride them for a few years, then get something else? If that is the case there is nothing wrong with that.

I have owned maybe 25 cars and 4 motorcycles in my life, and can say when I bought them the question of how much I could sell them for has never crossed my mind. I have kept nearly all my vehicles till it was time to tow or 'limp' them to the scrap yard.

From a buyers perspective, if you like riding cruiser bikes, this is the best buyers market ever.
 
#18 ·
I’m pretty much the same way. I’ve only owned 3 bikes BUT I’ve kept and rode each for almost 10 years. Wasn’t worried about resale but rather riding it until the tires fall off. I will say my 1st bike... an 85 Honda Shadow was awesome! I rode that thing for 7 years and put OVER 100,000 miles on it and STILL sold it for 1/3 the price I paid for it. Honda also really backed their product too. The Shadow is a “cruiser” from my understanding. I was in the military at the time down on the base and was admiring an 89 Venture Royale when the owner walked up. We talked for a bit and then he asked if I want to take it for a short ride around the base! I was like “are you serious?!” To make a long story short... the power, comfort, ride, handling, features...OMG! I knew I had been bitten by the “Touring Bug” and had my sights now set on getting one. Had to wait a couple years but I moved up to a 91 Yamaha Venture Royale. All I can say is “what a bike!” That power plant V4 was incredible to say the least.
This new SVTC is a different beast, but even with all the speculation about sales and resale value, I bought it to ride the crap out of it, NOT to sell it in a few years.
 
#19 ·
I'm not concerned about resale as I usually put too many miles on my bikes to make them have a decent resale value. I generally just drive them til they drop too. This time in my case I was left a Yamaha Raider in my friend's will. The will stated I could buy the bike for $5,000 and he had paid $8,500 for it just 7 months ago. I thought it was a good deal until I started checking around and found out the value was anywhere from $3,800 to $5,000 max wholesale so there was no point in me buying it unless I wanted to sell it myself or keep it. Didn't want to do either so I ended up selling it on behalf of the estate and giving them the proceeds. I did sell my bike in the meantime for 1/2 of what I had paid for it in 2013. That was a fair price as it had a lot of miles on it so I think I did well.

On the other side I bought a 2013 Road Star with 26,700 miles and got a tremendous deal on it. So everything is relevant, you may not get much for a trade in or on resale but you will get an excellent price buying a used cruiser.

I don't know very many people that put the miles on their bikes like I do and some of you guys on here. The point I was trying to make was that if you just ride 3,000 miles a year and trade in every 5 years you may want to consider buying a sport tourer for a higher resale value.
 
#20 ·
If you want resale value then buy a Harley. There seems to be a lot of people willing to pay too much for a used Harley.
I don't care about resale value and prefer to ride my bikes, so I ride metric's.
 
#21 ·
^ HD use to hold their value well

but in the last several years not so much. HD saturated their own market and now their sales are dropping off, they cant sell new bikes
and there is a flood of used ones on the market.

People may be listing them for sale at high prices, but no one is buying them.
 
#22 ·
It's too bad the cruiser style is fading from the general preferences. I love my bike but I'll admit I've been lusting over a new Venture but I can't spare that amount of money. And, doing a search for Ventures in my area comes up with a pretty long list of '18's. That surprised me.
 

Attachments

#25 · (Edited)
Yes there are quite a few “Deluxe” models out there but they are not SVTC’s. Most people realize the the $2k extra for an SVTC was well worth the cost given the extra amenities. Also, some people thought they get the Deluxe model and ADD the extras later BUT they found out that the ADDED items were only covered by a 1yr warranty and NOT the 5yrs if it was ON the bike at the time of purchase.
It’s very much like that with Goldwings as well. I know because I shopped for one before this. You can find plenty of “Stage 1” or Base I Models, but the higher you go “Stage2- ABS” “Stage3-NAV” the harder they are to find. It seems when it comes to ful dress, people choose to “Go Big or Go Home”.
The difference between the SVTC & the Deluxe are: NAV system, rear speakers, fog lights, CB Radio AND Dual Audio which enables rider and passenger to listen to their OWN stuff at their own volume levels. I gotta tell you, for touring this makes a BIG difference. It also enables you to be on 2 separate private phone calls at the same time.
Most people see the bike and assume it’s an SVTC, but there’s a big difference between the two.
 
#26 ·
Thanks for the details Chief. I'm learning every day...
 
#27 ·
Well....I looked at what an R6 looked like and looked at the specs. The one spec that I hated right off the bat was the 33 1/2 inch seat height. I hate those bikes that make someone look like a dog fXXXXing a football. How can you see any nice scenery when you are hunched over a gas tank?
 
#33 ·
Try one and find out? Because my head was up over the windscreen and I sit higher up overall. I could see right over cars in front of me. I could see just as much, if not more scenery than I can on my 1100. The differences between a bike like that and a cruiser is similar to riding a mountain bike vs riding one of those old cruiser bicycles with a banana seat.

Here's another comparison of the two style of bikes: When at speed on the highway on the R6, the wind on my chest actually kind of lifted me and took the weight off my forearms and made it quite comfortable. If it got cold, I could crouch down and tuck behind the screen. When there were train tracks or other big bumps in the road, I could lift my butt and let me legs absorb the shock. In comparison to the Vstar, at speed, I'm either looking through the Windshield, or if I've taken it off, I'm hanging on tighter because the wind feels like it's going to blow me off the back of the bike. I cringe when I see train tracks or other sharp bumps in the road on the 1100 because it's difficult to get my butt off the seat quickly and I know that shock is going right up my spine.

I have a 32" inseam so the seat height is no issue. I could definitely maneuver that bike in and out of traffic and a parking spots far easier than I can the Vstar1100. The weight difference alone made that possible.

Last comparison, and this is a big one... the R6 could take corners better than I had the nerve or desire to ever reach. I had no worries about dragging parts. With the 1100, the bike is the limitation. It scrapes pegs far before my nerve from leaning over gives out. I don't like that it's something I have to consider when I'm approaching a turn.

I'm not arguing that cruiser's are no good. I like the 1100. It looks cool. It feels cool to ride. It puts a smile on my face in a different way. I do enjoy cruising and it makes me want to try longer distances because I can take some camping gear with me easier. I'm just giving a view as to possibly why cruiser bikes are dying out. It's because they don't appear to do anything better than some other style of bike can do. Touring bikes, Adventure Bikes and even sport bikes out perform them in almost every way. Yes, many here might disagree, but most of the riders here are biased because they rider cruiser's and that's all they've ever ridden and comments like "I hate those bikes that make someone look like a dog fXXXXing a football. " are typical because they just haven't tried the other side. I have.

With that said, I'm going to ride this 1100 until it rides no more because I have it already and i do enjoy riding it regardless of what I just said. I just won't likely be buying another cruiser when the time comes.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Its clear that some of us took a path from hiking, backpacking, riding dirt and enduro bikes, and cycling to riding a cruiser bike

and others have taken a path from a Coup DeVille, Palm Beach motor home, Barcaloungers, 72" LCD TV and hot tubs, to touring bikes

all you have to do is look at the bike: the first group is riding naked cruisers with no windshield on country roads
the second group is on the interstate going 85mph, talking to the truckers on their CB, while Garmin is telling them "in 2 miles take the next left"...

There is nothing wrong with either: Freedom Baby!
 
#35 · (Edited)
When there were train tracks or other big bumps in the road, I could lift my butt and let me legs absorb the shock. ...
last summer I took a 200 mile round trip on my 650. On the way home I was not feeling well, maybe getting the stomach flu.

Every bump I hit for the last 50 miles it felt like someone punched me in the stomach. Like you said, on a UJM or sport bike I could have partially stood on the pegs, on my VS650 all I could do is tighten my stomach muscles when I saw the bump coming... Some of them I could not see coming.

that was the longest 50 miles ever on a MC for me.

I will say that putting a drivers backrest on a cruiser bike makes the ride much more enjoyable and less stressful. With a solid backrest you never have to worry about sliding off the back of the motorbike. And even just a little bit of something against your lower back allows all those muscles to relax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanadianMohawk
#36 ·
I have been looking at driver's backrests this winter. I want an adjustable one. I want one for the reasons you state. So i can relax some muscles. And I can raise my butt on the 1100 if i see it coming early enough, but it takes a lot of arm strength because my legs aren't right under me.
 
#37 ·
You all have to admit that engine size and speed are more important factors than they were 40 or 50 years ago. For some reason, the public has been swallowing the manufacturers advertising on how bigger, stronger and faster is better and then adding to the price of the machine. It costs almost exactly the same to make a large engine as it does to make a small engine. Larger cylinders, crankcases, etc etc are not more intricate or difficult to make, so why the extra cost? I remember snowmobiles with 250 cc engines, bikes with less than 650 cc, outboard engines under 25 h.p. I had an old snowmobile from the 70's with 250 cc and it is still going strong. OK...almost no suspension and no electric start but it's the only snowmobile at the camp that starts when it's -40 and it's often -40 when you are north of the 50th parallel. These days, all I hear are things like torque, speed, acceleration, bikes under 700 cc being beginner bikes. Cars these days have to have turbos. My V-Star has no problem getting to 75 mph. At least I don't think so because I haven't passed the 70 mph barrier yet. I get 53 miles per gallon on my bike. It's a big bike....same size as a Harley Road King yet I can put my feet flat on the ground and I can manoeuver my bike in my narrow driveway that is situated on a steep hill. The drive way is even slanted so the rain will not accumulate on it. I can't see myself manhandling the same size bike that weighs 300 lbs more. If I won a free 800 lb bike with a huge engine, I would sell it immediately because it would be of no use to me. What the manufacturers and many young people say, I just don't believe them. They have been brainwashed.
 
#38 ·
I wasn't riding bikes 40 or 50 years ago. I was only 10. :)

But yea, I do see them pushing the bigger engines and it sort of makes me scratch my head. Only sort of. Speed can be addictive. Extra power can be addictive. The power to get yourself out of trouble and quickly is considered a safety factor for some. Whether or not a bigger engine is needed to get the extra power or speed, who knows. I'm not an engineer and don't know much about how motors make their power. But I do know that if people want it, then they will build it. And people seem to want it. And building it takes more engineering. And that's where much of the cost comes from likely. It's not just the cost to make them. They have to pay for all that R&D.

I've always found it odd that sport bikes in general make way more power than comparable sized cruisers. My old R6, which was 600cc, had 3.5 times more power than the 1100cc Vstar. What's up with that? :) That R6 is no beginner bike. In fact, even some of you cruisers jumping on a bike like that need to be careful. Is it because it's an inline 4 vs a vTwin? Are Vtwins inherently weaker? If that's so, why is a Ducati 999 just as fast as an R1? The one thing that seems clear to me with regards to these questions is that larger engines are not required to get the power, better engineering is. And thus, higher costs to pay the engineers.

Btw, just because a bike can hit a high top speed, doesn't mean you have to ride it like that. It's exhilarating just getting to the speed limit as fast as you can. Try one some day and you might get hooked. At the least, you might see what all the fuss about more power and speed is about...or not.

I'm also not convinced it's all brainwashing. I ridden a bike with more power and it was awesome. I've driven cars with more power than are needed on the road and they are awesome. Nobody told me to believe they were awesome, I came to that conclusion myself after riding/driving them. I think this 1100 is awesome too, for different reasons. And while it feels fast enough, I also wish it didn't feel like it was topped out when I'm at 65mph. I know it's not based on reading stuff on here, but It feels to me like it needs just one more overdrive gear to settle 'er down. I don't actually feel like i want more power or speed on a bike like this though. It feels right just like it is other than the gearing thing which is also subjective since it clearly works fine as it is.
 
#39 · (Edited)
I've always found it odd that sport bikes in general make way more power than comparable sized cruisers. My old R6, which was 600cc, had 3.5 times more power than the 1100cc Vstar. What's up with that? :) That R6 is no beginner bike. In fact, even some of you cruisers jumping on a bike like that need to be careful. Is it because it's an inline 4 vs a vTwin? Are Vtwins inherently weaker? If that's so, why is a Ducati 999 just as fast as an R1? The one thing that seems clear to me with regards to these questions is that larger engines are not required to get the power, better engineering is. And thus, higher costs to pay the engineers.
Here is a good explanation to your question about V-twins vs sportbike engines (see the link below). In general, typical short-stroke sportbike engine produces more power at much higher rpms comparing to long-stroke V-Twin, but it relates to the area below the power/rpm graph. If you watch the video you will understand that within V-twin rpm range sportbike engine produces less power.

https://youtu.be/xDBV0QvQ5Ys?t=309

And here is another link to read if you're interested. That's about how torque and power are calculated.

https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/internal-combustion-engines/performance/power-vs-torque/
 
#40 · (Edited)
Thanks for the link and the brief explanation. I'll have to watch it later. But a quick glance says they are both Harley's? Does it state what the engine sizes are or just the configuration?

I am aware that typical Sport Bikes make their power at higher RPM's. My around town cruising rpm range was about 6500 rpm's... I'd shift at 9 to 10,000, sometimes 11,500 if I was on it hard and the shift indicator would flash at me. It red lined at 16,500 rpms. But that doesn't really explain how a 600cc inline 4 can make 104hp while an 1100cc cruiser with a Vtwin can only make 38hp (?) at best. Or for a closer comapare the Ducati's 999cc 90 degree Vtwin which can make 145hp.

If it's the short throw vs long throw thing, then why aren't manufacturer's putting these engines into cruiser's rather than stuffing gigantic 1800cc engines in them. I guess becaues it would feel weird having a cruiser rev that high?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nurtaeff
#42 · (Edited)
Well, cruiser motors are built for torque that's why they require larger displacement (torque = pressure * piston area * crankshaft offset) and longer stroke required to introduce more energy to the flywheel which mass/inertia helps to return that energy back during the compression stroke and all that makes the engine smoother, therefore you have larger piston and longer stroke = larger displacement. Also, typical cruiser engine has lower compression ratio than sportbike engine, lower pressure requires bigger piston to generate equal force. Lower compression ratio helps to generate higher torque at lower rpms because compression stroke requires less energy from the flywheel and flywheel can transfer more energy to the transmission.

Thus cruiser engine purpose is to generate as much torque as possible at lower rpms which means smoother running engine i.e. "cruising" motor.

Sportbike engine's purpose is to generate as much power as possible as well as being as light as possible. And that's achieved by lighter cylinder-piston group including crankshaft and flywheel that's why you have to really keep the engine spinning in order to maintain the amount of energy going to the crankshaft/flywheel.

Engine configuration does not really matter, you can make sportbike type V-twin engine (Buell, or L-twin Ducati) and you can make inline engine to be a cruiser type. It's just a matter of displacement/compression ratio and weight requirements.

Smaller size sportbike engine produces more power simply because higher compression ratio and much higher rpms. But in order to stay in that power band you have to keep the revs high.

I think we need KCW to chime in.
 
#41 ·
There are a couple things that stacked up over the last 50 years that put cruiser bikes where they are today.

One is the national speed limit being set to 55mph in the 1970s, and kept there for decades.

You can ride a naked 250 on the interstate at 55 to 60mph. Below 60 you dont really need a windshield unless you are riding into a strong headwind. The amount of force is not objectionable. If you wanted to ride two up and carry bags, a bigger engine would be more suited.

When the speed limit went back up to 65/70 you could ride at 75 to 80 without being too worried about getting a ticket. You really need a fairing or windshield at those speeds. Putting one on a 250 to 650 is a noticeable load on the engine.

The other factor that leads to bigger engines is if you have a larger motor, at cruising speeds it is not being loaded up anywhere near its limit. A 1200 or larger engine can run all day at 75mph, and have a useful life over 100k miles before you have to replace rings or bearings. That is because its turning slower than a 650 would be. A 250 would be spinning at 5000 rpm at 75mph, and would wear out in 30k miles.

There is another benefit to a heavier bike, the comfort of the suspension is dependent on the weight of the parts in contact with the pavement (tires, wheels, brakes, forks/swingarm) compared to the weight that is suspended on the springs and shocks. The heavier that mass ratio, the more the wheels can track bumps and changes in the road while the bike an passengers are not hardly moving up and down. It makes a big difference in the level of fatigue you experience on a longer road trip.

That covers most of it. Riding a motorcycle is one of those things you have to do to understand. I cant explain to a person who does not ride, that riding a naked cruiser bike down a secondary empty road is a sensation close to being able to fly. All I can see is the mirrors and the headlight bucket, and the road in front of me. The difference between riding my 1300 royal star and my VS650 is the same: you have to ride them both to experience the difference.

All the issues of the bike being heavy only apply when riding slow or duck walking the bike in a driveway or parking lot. On the road the two bikes countersteer just fine, because of the rake of the fork and the mass of the spinning tires and wheels. At 70mph you put pressure on one grip and the bike leans over precisely into a curve. You get on the brakes and the bike stops fast enough to startle you.

My 650 is relegated to commuting at 45mph and getting 59mpg. My 1300 Royal Star rolls out of the garage when I want to go on a longer ride, not necessarily faster, just longer distances and more hours on the seat.
 
#43 ·
regarding HP, the V4 1300cc engine in the base model Royal Star is 74HP.
In the venture version of the same bike, fairing and bags, they put bigger carbs and upped the HP to 97, with the same engine.

The same engine is also in the Yamaha Vmax, displacement increased to 1700cc, and its cam tuned with even bigger carbs and produces 200HP.

The more HP you pull from any given size motor, the shorter its expected life in miles on the odo.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top