Yamaha Starbike Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This guy really seems to know his Ventures and what they are capable of.
My wife and I spent a whole weekend riding the new SVTC and the thought of the bike requiring more shifting because of its "narrow power band" never occurred to me. I suppose that if I spent as much time wearing out motorcycles as this person claims to have (I have now subscribed to his channel and have been watching his endless touring videos over Thanksgiving), I may find the need to shift a lot a problem too but, frankly, I never even thought about it!:grin:

Here is the caption from part one of his comparison video's and then a link to each of the 2 video's. I found them interesting and thought maybe you guys would too:

"""Published on Aug 17, 2017
According to Motorcyclistonline and other Yamaha endorsed articles and as shown in this copy/paste from early testing found in this article (https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/20...) states: ""If you’re wondering why Yamaha didn’t equip this muscle cruiser with a retuned version of its fearsome VMAX V-four—like Ventures of yore—the answer is broad low-end torque. This 1,854cc (113 cubic-inches, in ‘Murican) pushrod V-twin produces claimed peak torque of 126 lb.-ft. at just 2500 rpm—compared to 123 lb.-ft. at 6500 rpm from the V-four—so the V-twin is intended to deliver superior performance with LESS SHIFTING"". In this video series comparison, I debunk this claim by clearly showing the short rpm ranges and mph attainable in those ranges between each model. My finding shows that, unlike what we are being told, the V-4 Venture definitely had a much wider power band resulting in much less shifting necessary to accomplish the tasks of touring on a touring bike. In short order, because of its very short rpm range of operation - the V-Twin SVTC/Eluder models actually require MORE transmission usage, NOT LESS, than the long winded V-4's of yesteryear. What was Yamaha thinking!!! As shown in the video, I saw 30 mph in 1st gear before bouncing it off the rev limiter (rather quickly) and 45 in second and she was bouncing off the rev limiter. I have been riding 1st Gen Ventures since 87, have owned V-Max's and ride an R1 so I (subscribe and see my other vids on you tube) am use to a real wide/broad power band that results in wayyy LESS shifting than remotely possible by this new machine.. These new V-Twin air cooled scoots have an extremely NARROW power delivery band requiring the rider to short shift to avoid hitting having the engine choose your shift points by using the rev limiter.. Riders of this bike are definitely gonna be required to get used to shifting MORE, not LESS, than they would of had Yamaha chosen to stick with the V-4. Be sure to check out my followup video/Part 2 of this found here to discover the HUGE difference between the two engines performances.""


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,352 Posts
very interesting

since I got my 2000 Royal Star V4 in September, it has taken me a while to explore the power band of the engine compared to my VS650

at first I was lugging the hell out of the V4 1300 engine, but once I got my confidence up I easily rev it up to twice the speed in each gear compared to how I ride the 650, when I want to accelerate quickly.

Even still, Im peaking (shifting up) out of 3rd gear on the V4 at about 50..55, and Im sure Im no where near the rev limiter.

I will have to look up the mph band for each gear (its in the service manual). Since I dont have a tach on the Royal Star, Im not going to depend on the rev limiter to keep me from blowing the engine.

Bottom line is: the royal star V4 takes off a bit sluggish from a stop in 1st, but once it hits about 10mph it winds out to 30 nice, 2nd gear to 40, 3rd to 55mph all in a matter of second. The VS650 is ready to hit 5th gear at 55mph.

I know its not fair to compare a 650 engine to a 1300, but the real difference in the power bands is 4 cylinder vs 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,951 Posts
This guy really seems to know his Ventures and what they are capable of.
My wife and I spent a whole weekend riding the new SVTC and the thought of the bike requiring more shifting because of its "narrow power band" never occurred to me. I suppose that if I spent as much time wearing out motorcycles as this person claims to have (I have now subscribed to his channel and have been watching his endless touring videos over Thanksgiving), I may find the need to shift a lot a problem too but, frankly, I never even thought about it!/forums/images/StarbikeForums_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png

Here is the caption from part one of his comparison video's and then a link to each of the 2 video's. I found them interesting and thought maybe you guys would too:

"""Published on Aug 17, 2017
According to Motorcyclistonline and other Yamaha endorsed articles and as shown in this copy/paste from early testing found in this article (https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/20...) states: ""If you’re wondering why Yamaha didn’t equip this muscle cruiser with a retuned version of its fearsome VMAX V-four—like Ventures of yore—the answer is broad low-end torque. This 1,854cc (113 cubic-inches, in ‘Murican) pushrod V-twin produces claimed peak torque of 126 lb.-ft. at just 2500 rpm—compared to 123 lb.-ft. at 6500 rpm from the V-four—so the V-twin is intended to deliver superior performance with LESS SHIFTING"". In this video series comparison, I debunk this claim by clearly showing the short rpm ranges and mph attainable in those ranges between each model. My finding shows that, unlike what we are being told, the V-4 Venture definitely had a much wider power band resulting in much less shifting necessary to accomplish the tasks of touring on a touring bike. In short order, because of its very short rpm range of operation - the V-Twin SVTC/Eluder models actually require MORE transmission usage, NOT LESS, than the long winded V-4's of yesteryear. What was Yamaha thinking!!! As shown in the video, I saw 30 mph in 1st gear before bouncing it off the rev limiter (rather quickly) and 45 in second and she was bouncing off the rev limiter. I have been riding 1st Gen Ventures since 87, have owned V-Max's and ride an R1 so I (subscribe and see my other vids on you tube) am use to a real wide/broad power band that results in wayyy LESS shifting than remotely possible by this new machine.. These new V-Twin air cooled scoots have an extremely NARROW power delivery band requiring the rider to short shift to avoid hitting having the engine choose your shift points by using the rev limiter.. Riders of this bike are definitely gonna be required to get used to shifting MORE, not LESS, than they would of had Yamaha chosen to stick with the V-4. Be sure to check out my followup video/Part 2 of this found here to discover the HUGE difference between the two engines performances.""


The problem is that it’s “cowpuc”. He’s made all sorts of claims about what this bike does or doesn't “have” I’ve shot down a number of them AND much of what he said was from “assumption” NOT based on ownership. All he had was a short demo ride and was shifting the bike ALL WRONG to avail it of it’s power band. He completely had ZERO idea how to access or utilize functions but had no problem complaining about something he was ignorant of.
He might know 1st Gen Ventures, but he DOES NOT know the 3rd Gen.
To put it frankly, he’s nothing more than sour grapes because he didn’t get a V4 in the new Venture.
The 1st Gen is more of a “Sport Touring” with MUCH LESS storage capacity and much less room and comfort for the long haul. If he wants a Sport Touring bike, Honda made one. Yamaha went true Grand Touring. It’s got more than enough power for two up, loaded & pulling a trailer Touring.
This is the same individual who complained about pricing of the SVTC. If you’ve seen the condition of his 1st Gen then the issue of “affordability” comes into clear focus.
I’d strongly advise against hanging a lot of weight on the advice of a “Demo rider” vs an actual OWNER.

Yamaha could NOT have given a V4 in this bike without some real problems. It would’ve increased the overall weight & being top heavy would’ve severely affected handling. Also, the V4 is a top down intake which limits gas tank space (less mileage range). The cost of the 1700cc V4 would also have added about $3-4K overall. Then because of size/weight you have to limit available storage area. NONE of these are factors he’s considered in his naysaying, whining & pining for a big V4 Model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The problem is that it’s “cowpuc”. He’s made all sorts of claims about what this bike does or doesn't “have” I’ve shot down a number of them AND much of what he said was from “assumption” NOT based on ownership. All he had was a short demo ride and was shifting the bike ALL WRONG to avail it of it’s power band. He completely had ZERO idea how to access or utilize functions but had no problem complaining about something he was ignorant of.
He might know 1st Gen Ventures, but he DOES NOT know the 3rd Gen.
To put it frankly, he’s nothing more than sour grapes because he didn’t get a V4 in the new Venture.
The 1st Gen is more of a “Sport Touring” with MUCH LESS storage capacity and much less room and comfort for the long haul. If he wants a Sport Touring bike, Honda made one. Yamaha went true Grand Touring. It’s got more than enough power for two up, loaded & pulling a trailer Touring.
This is the same individual who complained about pricing of the SVTC. If you’ve seen the condition of his 1st Gen then the issue of “affordability” comes into clear focus.
I’d strongly advise against hanging a lot of weight on the advice of a “Demo rider” vs an actual OWNER.

Yamaha could NOT have given a V4 in this bike without some real problems. It would’ve increased the overall weight & being top heavy would’ve severely affected handling. Also, the V4 is a top down intake which limits gas tank space (less mileage range). The cost of the 1700cc V4 would also have added about $3-4K overall. Then because of size/weight you have to limit available storage area. NONE of these are factors he’s considered in his naysaying, whining & pining for a big V4 Model.
I TOTALLY get and can clearly see where your coming from Sir! My wife and I have been sitting around watching his video's on and off here all day and, while some are definitely humorous and it appears the two of them may have covered a few miles on the Ventureres (photochopping has become an art form so, like you ChiefGunner - I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight on betting his ride stories hold merit, especially on a bike like that :surprise: - they are funny though :grin:)! His bike is a total compromised mess of a thing:surprise:. The term, "Sanford and Son Special" comes to our mind :grin:.. The first video here should explain to any other viewers what Chief is talking about :grin:. TAKE A LOOK, WHAT A DISASTER!
I have to say though, as far as my original post here, the comparison video's between the two bikes with his explanation of the point he is trying to make accompanied by the information in the copy/paste from his YouTube posting does make some sense. At least it was actual and factually based with video proof instead of just an opinion. Of course, that is, again, totally dependent on whether or not things were altered even in those videos..
Here is another video of his that I was just watching that shows the internals of the engine. My mechanical background with motors and especially things as advanced as this new Star Yamaha V-Twin is extremely limited but this video seems pretty straight forward and, looking at the replies he recieved below the video and the comments, it appears to be fairly accepted. Have any of you folks been inside of one of these monster torquer 113's enough to know that he really is even talking about the SVTC motor in the last two video's like he proclaims?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,951 Posts
The problem is that it’s “cowpuc”. He’s made all sorts of claims about what this bike does or doesn't “have” I’ve shot down a number of them AND much of what he said was from “assumption” NOT based on ownership. All he had was a short demo ride and was shifting the bike ALL WRONG to avail it of it’s power band. He completely had ZERO idea how to access or utilize functions but had no problem complaining about something he was ignorant of.
He might know 1st Gen Ventures, but he DOES NOT know the 3rd Gen.
To put it frankly, he’s nothing more than sour grapes because he didn’t get a V4 in the new Venture.
The 1st Gen is more of a “Sport Touring” with MUCH LESS storage capacity and much less room and comfort for the long haul. If he wants a Sport Touring bike, Honda made one. Yamaha went true Grand Touring. It’s got more than enough power for two up, loaded & pulling a trailer Touring.
This is the same individual who complained about pricing of the SVTC. If you’ve seen the condition of his 1st Gen then the issue of “affordability” comes into clear focus.
I’d strongly advise against hanging a lot of weight on the advice of a “Demo rider” vs an actual OWNER.

Yamaha could NOT have given a V4 in this bike without some real problems. It would’ve increased the overall weight & being top heavy would’ve severely affected handling. Also, the V4 is a top down intake which limits gas tank space (less mileage range). The cost of the 1700cc V4 would also have added about $3-4K overall. Then because of size/weight you have to limit available storage area. NONE of these are factors he’s considered in his naysaying, whining & pining for a big V4 Model.
I TOTALLY get and can clearly see where your coming from Sir! My wife and I have been sitting around watching his video's on and off here all day and, while some are definitely humorous and it appears the two of them may have covered a few miles on the Ventureres (photochopping has become an art form so, like you ChiefGunner - I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight on betting his ride stories hold merit, especially on a bike like that /forums/images/StarbikeForums_2015/smilies/tango_face_surprise.png - they are funny though /forums/images/StarbikeForums_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png)! His bike is a total compromised mess of a thing/forums/images/StarbikeForums_2015/smilies/tango_face_surprise.png. The term, "Sanford and Son Special" comes to our mind /forums/images/StarbikeForums_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png.. The first video here should explain to any other viewers what Chief is talking about /forums/images/StarbikeForums_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png. TAKE A LOOK, WHAT A DISASTER!
I have to say though, as far as my original post here, the comparison video's between the two bikes with his explanation of the point he is trying to make accompanied by the information in the copy/paste from his YouTube posting does make some sense. At least it was actual and factually based with video proof instead of just an opinion. Of course, that is, again, totally dependent on whether or not things were altered even in those videos..
Here is another video of his that I was just watching that shows the internals of the engine. My mechanical background with motors and especially things as advanced as this new Star Yamaha V-Twin is extremely limited but this video seems pretty straight forward and, looking at the replies he recieved below the video and the comments, it appears to be fairly accepted. Have any of you folks been inside of one of these monster torquer 113's enough to know that he really is even talking about the SVTC motor in the last two video's like he proclaims?
“Sanford & Son Special”.. OMG DUDE! 🤣🤣🤣 ROFLMBO!
The fact is he’s constantly working on that thing trying to keep it alive.
Now concerning his “ride stories”, I know he’s racked up a LOT of mileage on that 83. Supposedly he’s had numerous other bikes and owned a motorcycle shop or dealership (according to him). Not saying he doesn’t know bikes. His description of the 1854cc motor is fairly accurate. He’s wrong about single valve springs. Each lifter is acting upon the force of TWO springs which is why the flat tappet lifter requires an oil high in ZDDP & esthers. With 2 springs you’re approaching the force normally encounters with high performance engines which is typically why they use a roller cam setup.
He ends up calling the FWD/REVERSE dedicated motor a “starter” which it’s not.
I can’t address any “video editing” as you stated as I have no proof AND I choose to believe he has more integrity than that.
I’ve only seen the 3 videos you linked and have not seen any others. I have NO DOUBT there are probably a lot more as he seems to be a “Hollywood” wannabe.
I will look and see if I can find the “comparison” video you’re speaking of.
Although I think it’s hard to do any real comparison if all you’ve done is a demo ride. That’s like trying to critically analyze a soufflé by licking the fork they used to beat the raw eggs. Just doesn’t work IMHO.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top